ΤΣ τ ‘4 sf So ai
rf ΣΡ Ai
44 τὰν ΠΩ " ΠΗ “
ΠΡ A
Ath hopes arin pana
ph he Lig ret ΠΝ
iF ue ee Gp πὶ
Hea pA he GE An i ἤ ἡ i
‘THC AL AT stags ‘ich Ve Pol fol fale af ΡΠ 46 4 se
“τ TA IATA
hy if ἘΠ
fy " ΠΗ iy
[
ie lele
rhe eat!
VAR Ory
"ly
rat
{ & fi
eid μῃ πριρῖξι
oie IPod ad ft fe
τ ΠΗ ἜΣΤΩ
ἢ
7
ἜΡΙΝ
7
ἫΝ ᾿ - a
ἡ < ?
"ὦ Υ
3st ;
ED Sey γι
ΩΣ
x ny
* st
oJ .
» ᾿
Ὁ]
Σ
ΕΝ
3
Lae
52
‘
a meh a
See Ar Ls ᾿
xt ΄
“ty
ΠΣ
- Sr
¢
; Ἂν
Ἣν ὋΣ
᾿ Ἂς Ρ
ἐᾷ
7. 2
ae
4 v . --
js : > ae oh. Stes .
δ... oad Gre tea »
εἰ
Sia ῳ
“eae ane
> - Leet -
as
ani: θὲ
ἘΣ ὦ, ᾿
[1
ἜΝ. 5
ΟΣ i
ἐν
%
pinntintte ethan tr tle i ν. οὗ,
o. ἘΣ ἢ
‘>
we
>
4
-
A
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
COMPRISING ITS
ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.
EDITED
ΑΜ SMITH, 1:1.
We 3h 5 eo Hos
EDITOR OF THE DICTIONARIES OF “GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES,” “BIOGRAPHY AND MYTHOLOGY,”
AND “GEOGRAPHY.”
Jerusalem
sespaescebaevere
IN THREE VOLUMES.—Vot. III. 3
RVICES
SEEN BY
PRESERVATION
SE
RED-SEA—ZUZIMS. ee
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET ;
WALTON AND MABERLY, UPPER GOWER STREET.
1863.
The right of Translation is reserved.
DIRECTIONS TO BINDER.
MSS., to be placed between pages 1710 and 1711.
Plate I., Specimen of Uncial
MSS., to be placed between pages
Plate II., Specimens of British and Irish
1712 and 1713.
LONDON + PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET
AND CHARING CROSS. ;
INITIALS.
ES AS
His.
He,
AS:
Web. B:
J: W. B.
ΠΕΡ:
R. W. B.
ne EB,
ie. I:
oe Ch
ἘΡΟ ΟΣ
(τ He LC.
J; 1:16: 1}.
πὸ OF OW RATERS:
DDD OOOO
NAMES.
Very Rev. Henry Atrorp, D.D.,
Dean of Canterbury.
Rev. Henry Battery, B.D.,
Warden of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury ; late Fellow
of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Rev. Horatius Bonar, D.D.,
Kelso, N. B.; Author of ‘The Land of Promise.’
[The geographical articles, signed H. B., are written by Dr. Bonar: those on other subjects,
signed H. B., are written by Mr. Bailey.]
Rev. ALFreD Barry, B.D.,
Principal of Cheltenham College; late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
Rev. Wituiam LatHam Bevan, M.A.,
Vicar of Hay, Brecknockshire.
Rev. JosepH ΝΥ ΑΒ Buaxestey, B.D.,
Canon of Canterbury ; Vicar of Ware; late Fellow and Tutor
of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Rev. Tuomas Epwarp Brown, M.A.,
Vice-Principal of King William’s College, Isle of Man ; late
Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.
Ven. Ropert Wrii1aAmM Browne, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Bath; Canon of Wells; Rector of Weston-
super-Mare ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Bath
. and Wells, Chaplain to Her Majesty’s Forces.
Rev. Epwarp Haroip Browneg, B.D.,
Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Exeter.
tev. Witr1AmM THomas Butrock, M.A.,
Assistant Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Rev. Samuen Crark, M.A.,
Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury, Herefordshire.
Rev. F. C. Coox, M.A.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen; one of Her Majesty’s
Inspectors of Schools; Preacher to the Hon. Society of
Lincoln’s Inn; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of
Lincoln.
Right Rev. Grorce Epwarp Lyncu Corron, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India.
Rev. Joun Lizwetyn Daviss, M.A.,
Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone ; late Fellow of 'Frimity
College, Cambridge.
iv
INITIALS.
ἘΠ
G. E. D.
ii. H—s.
εὐ...
LIST OF WRITERS.
NAMES.
Emanvet Devutscu, M.R.A.S.,
British Museum.
Rev. G. E. Day, D.D.,
Lane Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Rev. Wim11am Drake, M.A.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen; Hon. Canon of Worcester ;
Rural Dean ; Vicar of Holy Trinity, Coventry
Rev. Epwarp Parorssten Epprvr, M.A., _
Prebendary of Salisbury; Principal of the Theological
College, Salisbury.
Right Rev. Cuartes James Exricorr, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
Rev. Freperick δ πα Farrar, M.A.,
Assistant Master of Harrow School ; late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
James Frrcusson, F.R.S., F.R.A.S.,
Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects,
Epwarp 8. Frounxss, M.A.,
late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford
Right Rev. Wiu11am Frrzcrrap, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Killaloe.
Rev. Francis Garpen, M.A.,
Subdean of Her Majesty’s Chapels Royal.
Rev. πα Gorcn, LL.D.,
late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London.
GEORGE GROVE,
Crystal Palace, Sydenham.
Rev. H. B. Hacker, D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Literature, Newton, Massachusetts.
Rey. Ennest Hawerns, B.D.,
Prebendary of St. Paul’s; Secretary of the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Rev. Henry Hayman, B.D.,
Head Master of the Grammar School, Cheltenham; late
Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford.
Ven. Lord Arruur C. Hervey, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Sudbury, and Rector of Ickworth.
Rev. Jamis Avaustus Hussry, D.C.L.,
Head Master of Merchant Taylors’ School; Preacher to the
Hon. Society of Gray’s Inn; Prebendary of St. Paul’s ;
jampton Lecturer for 1860.
Josern D. Hooxer, M.D., F.R.S.,
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
INITIALS,
Jide ΕΠ.
West.
ee. Ηἰ
ΘΝ.
ν᾿. ΝΜ.
Oppert.
H.R. Ὁ:
a SO.
doin. Ὁ.
fog LA ee
EES Wi. Ψ,
ἘΠῚ ΕΠ BP.
Τὴ σον,
LIST OF WRITERS. v
NAMES.
Rev. Jamus Joun Hornpy, M.A.,
Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford ; Principal of Bishop
Cosin’s Hall; Tutor in the University of Durham.
Rev. Witt1am Hoveuton, M.A., F.L.S.,
Rector of Preston on the Weald Moors, Salop.
Rev. Joun Savt Howson, D.D.,
Principal of the Collegiate institution, Liverpool ; Hulsean
Lecturer for 1863.
Rev. Evear Huxrtasts, M.A.,
Subdean of Wells.
Rev. Wixur1am Basin Jonss, M.A.,
Prebendary of York and of St. David’s; late Fellow and
Tutor of University College, Oxford; Mxamining
Chaplain to the Archbishop of York.
Austen Henry Layarp, D.C.L., M.P.
Rev. Stantey Leatues, M.A., M.R.S.L.,
Hebrew Lecturer in King’s College, London.
Rev. JosepH Barser Licutroor, M.A.,
Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge; Fellow. of
Trinity College, Cambridge; Examining Chaplain to
the Bishop of London.
Rev. Ὁ W. Marss,
Professor of Hebrew in University College, London.
Rev. Frepertcx Meyricr, M.A.,
One of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools; late Fellow
and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford.
Professor Opprrt, of Paris.
Rev. Epwarp Repman Orcer, M.A.,
Fellow and Tutor of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury.
Ven. Tomas Jounson Ormerop, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Suffolk; late Fellow of Brasenose College,
Oxford. :
Rev. Joun JAMES STEWART PERowne, B.D.,
Vice-Principal of St. David’s College, Lampeter ; Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich.
Rev. Tuomas T'nsomason PErowne, B.D.,
Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge ;
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich.
Rev. Henry Wricut ΡΗπ τ, M.A.,
Rector of Staunton-on-Wye, Herefordshire; Rural Dean;
late Student of Christ Church, Oxford.
Rev. Epwarp Hayzs Piumprre, M.A.,
Professor of Divinity in King’s College, London ; Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
Epwarp Stranury Poour, M.R.A.S.,
South Kensington Museum.
vi
INITIALS.
ΠΩ a
“Files δῷ oat
Bia.
A ARAS.
Ο Τ᾿. 5.
ἘΠ:
ΠῚ:
LIST OF WRITERS.
NAMES.
RecGinatp Stuart Poo.e,
British Museum.
Rev. J. L. Porter, M.A.,
Author of ‘ Handbook of Syria and Palestine,’ and “ Five
Years in Damascus.’
Rev. Cuartes Prrromarp, M.A., F.R.S.,
Hon. Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society ; late
Fellow of St. John’s Colles ve, Cambridge.
Rev. Grorce Rawiinson, M.A.,
Camden Professor of Ancient History, Oxford; Bampton
Lecturer for 1859.
Rev. Henry Joun Rost, B.D.,
Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire.
Rev. Wiui1am Setwyry, D.D.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen; Lady Margaret’s Pro-
fessor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Ely.
tev. AntHuR Penruyn Sranuxy, D.D., .
Regius Professor of Hieeidsanteeal History, and Canon of
Christ Church, Oxford; Deputy Clerk of the Closet;
Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales:
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London.
Rev. Catvin Εἰ. Stowe, D.D.,
Professor of Sacred Literature, Andover, Massachusetts.
tev. J. P. Toompson, D.D.,
New York.
Most Rev. Witi1am THomson, D.D.,
Lord Archbishop of York.
S. P. Tarcenums, LL:D.,
Author of ‘An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek
New Testament.’
Rev. H. B. Tristram, M.A., F.L.S.,
Master of Greatham Hospital.
Rev. JosepH Francis Turupp, M.A.,
Vicar of Barrington; late Fellow of Trinity College, Camb.
Hon. Epwarp T. B. Twisieton, M.A.,
Late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
Rev. Epmunp ΝΈΝΑΒΙΕΒ, M.A.,
Bonchurch, Isle of Wight.
Rev. Brooxe Foss Wrstcort, M.A.,
Assistant Master of Harrow School; late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
Rev. CuristopHer Worpsworra, D.D.,
Canon of Westminster.
σα Apis Wricur, M.A.,
Librarian of T rinity College, { Cambridge ; Hebrew Examiner
in the University of London.
DICTIONARY
OF
“
BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.
RED SEA
RED SEA. The sea known. to us as the Red
Sea was by the Israelites called “ the sea” (D7,
Brey τ DA Gly ΤΟ Pl, DASE ware) als 408. 10. 10.
Josh. xxiv. 6, 7; and many other passages) ; and
specially “the sea of sfiph” (FID"DY, Ex. x. 19;
xiii, 18; xv. 4, 225 xxiii. 31; Num. xiv. 255 xxi.
4; xxxiii. 10, 11; Deut. i. 40; xi. 45 Josh. ii. 10;
iv. 23; xxiv. 6; Judg. xi. 16; 1 K. ix. 26; Neh.
ix. 9; Ps. cvi. 7, 9, 22; exxxvi. 13,15; Jer. xlix,
21). Itis also perhaps written NBD (ZwdB, LXX.)
in Num. xxi. 14, rendered “ Red Sea” in A. V.;
and in like manner, in Deut. i. 1, ΠῚ, without
D’. The LXX. always render it ἡ ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα
(except in Judg. xi. 16, where ΠῚ, =i, is pre-
served). So too in N. T. (Acts vii. 36 ; Heb. xi. 29);
and this name is found in 1 Mace. iv. 9. By the
classical geographers this appellation, like its Latin
equivalent Mare Rubrum or M. Erythraeum, was
extended to all the seas washing the shores of the
Arabian peninsula, and even the Indian Ocean: the
Red Sea itself, or Arabian Gulf, was 6 ᾿Αράβιος
κόλπος, or ᾿Αραβικὸς κ΄.» or Sinus Arabicus, and
its eastern branch, or the Gulf of the ’Akabeh,
Aidavirns, ᾿Ἑλὰνίτης, ᾿Ἐλανιτικὸς, κόλπος, Sinus
Aelanites, or 5. Aelaniticus. The Gulf of Suez
was specially the Herodpolite Gulf, “HpwomoAirns
κόλπος, Sinus Herodpolites, or S. Herodpoliticus.
Among the peoples of the Kast, the Red Sea has for
many centuries lost its old names: it is now called
generally by the Arabs, as it was in mediaeval times,
Bahr El-Kulzum, ‘ the sea of El-Kulzum,’ after the
ancient Clysma, ‘‘ the sea-beach,” the site of which
is near, or at, the modern Suez.* In the Kur-an,
part of its old name is preserved, the rare Arabic
word yamm being used in the account of the passage
RED SEA
of the Red Sea (see also foot note to p. 1012, infra,
and El-Beydéwee’s Comment. on the Kur-an, vii.
132, p. 341; and xx. 81, p. 602).>
ay
Of the names of this sea (1.) DY (Syr. Lo» and
oy
JAsqv — the latter generally “a lake ;” Hierog.
=
YUMA; Copt. JORR; Arabic,
“the sea,” or any sea, It is also applied to the
Nile (exactly as the Arabic bahr is so applied) in
Nah. iii. 8, “‘ Art thou better than populous No,
that was situate among the rivers (yedrim), [that
had] the waters round about it, whose rampart
[was] the sea (ydm), and her wall was from the
sea (yam) 24
(2.) FADD; in the Coptic version, hyo gg
~
Naya pl. The meaning of sph, and the reason
of its being applied to this sea, have given rise to
much learned controversy. Gesenius renders it rush,
reed, sea-weed. It is mentioned in the O. T. almost
always in connexion with the sea of the Exodus.
It also occurs in the narrative of the exposure of
Moses in the aN), (ycor) ; for he was laid in siph,
on the brink of the yedr (Ex. ii. 3), where (in the
stiph) he was found by Pharaoh’s daughter (5) ; and
in the ‘* burden of Egypt ” (Is. xix.), with the dry-
ing up of the waters of Eeypt: “ And the waters
shall fail from the sea (ydi), and the river (nahdar}
shall be wasted and dried up. And they shall turn
the rivers (ndhdr, constr. pl.) far away ; [and] the
brooks (yedr) of defence (or of Egypt ?) shall be
emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags (suph)
shall wither. The paper reeds ὁ by the brooks (yedr),
by the mouth of the brooks (yedr), and everything
),¢ signifies
a Or, as some Arab authors say, the sea is so named
from the drowning of Pharaoh’s host; Kulzum being a
--U-
derivative of .
9, With this signification: or, accord-
ing to others, from its being hemmed in by mountains,
from the same root (Kl-Makreezee’s Khitat, descr. of the
Sea of El-Iculzum).
b Its general name is “ the Sea of El-Kulzum ;” but in
different parts it is also called after the nearest coast, as
“the sea of the Hijiz,” &c, (Ydkoot, in the Moajam).
© Yamm signifies a bahr of which the bottom is not |
reached. Bahr applies to a ‘‘ sea” or a “ great river.”
VOL. Il, *
ἃ Gesenius adds Is. xix. 5, quoted below; but it is not
easy to see why this should be the Nile (except from pre-
conceived notions), instead of the ancient extension of the
Red Sea. He allows the “tongue of the Egyptian sea
| (yam)” in Is. xi. 15, where the river [Nile] is na@har.
ὁ Heb. MNT, rendered by the LXX. ἄχι, ἄχει, the
Greek being derived from INS, an Egyptian word de-
noting “ marsh-grass, reeds, bulrushes, and any verdure
growing in a marsh.” Gesenius renders my, pl. nip,
“a naked or bare place, 7. 6. destitute of trees ....; here
| used of the grassy places on the banks of the Nile:” but
8) Ah
1010 RED SEA RED SEA
sown by the brooks (yeér) shall wither, be driven in depth of the waters of the inundation remained |
away, and be no {more}. ‘he fishers also shall | (Wilkinson’s Ancient Eguptians, iii. 61, 149, citing ‘
mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks | Pliny, xiii, 11, Strab. xvii. 550) 5 and that this is
(yeér) shal! lament, and they that spread nets upon | agreeable to the position of the ancient head of the
the waters shall languish. Moreover they that work | gulf, with its canals and channels for irrigation
in fine flax, and they that weave net works (white | (yedrim?), connecting it with the Nile and with
linen?) shall be confounded. And they shall be} Lake Mareotis; and we may suppose that in this»
broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices | and other similar districts, the papyrus was culti
[and] ponds for fish” (xix. 5-10). Stiph only occurs | vated in the yeérim: the marshes of Egypt are
in one place besides those already referred to: in | now in the north of the Delta and are salt lands.—
Jon. ii. 5 it is written, “ The waters compassed me | As a fluvial rush, βάρη would be found in marsh-
about, [even] to the soul; the depth closed me | lands as well as streams, and in brackish water as
round about, the weeds (stiph) were wrapped about | well as in sweet. It is worthy of note that a low
my head.’’ With this single exception, which shows | marshy place near the ancient head of the gulf is to
that this product was also found in the Mediter- | this day called Ghuweybet el-Boos, “the bed of
ranean, siiph is Egyptian, either in the Red Sea, or | reeds,” and another place near Suez has the same
in the yedr, and this yeér in Ex. ii. was in the land | name; traces perhaps of the great fields of reeds.
of Goshen. What yedr signifies here, in Is. xix.,| rushes, and papyrus, which flourished here of old.
and generally, we shall examine presently. But] See also Pi-HAHTROTH, ‘the place where sedge
first of siiph. grows” (?). Fresnel (Dissertation sur le schart
The signification of 5}{D, stp, must be gathered | des E'gyptiens et le. souf des Hebreux, Journ,
from the foregoing passages. In Arabic, the word, | Asiat. 45 série, xi. pp. 274," 6.) enumerates some
with this signification (which commonly is ‘ wool”), | of the reeds found in Egypt. There is no sound
is found only in one passage in a rare lexicon (the | reason for identifying any one of these with séph.
Mohkam Ms.). The author says, ‘ Soof-el-bahr | Fresnel, in this curious paper, endeavours to prove
(the soof of the sea) is like the wool of sheep. | that the Coptic “ shari” (in the yam shari) was the
And the Arabs have a proverb: ‘I will come to thee | Arundo Aegyptiaca of Desfontaines (in modern
when the sea ceases to wet the soof,’” i.e. never. | Arabic boos /arisee, or Persian cane): but there
The FAD of the DY, it seems quite certain, is a sea- appear to be no special grounds for selecting this
weed resembling wool. Such sea-weed is thrown up | Variety for identification with the fluvial shavi ;
abundantly on the shores of the Red ὅρα. Fiirst and we ad entirely dissent from his suggestion
says, 8. 0. FD, “ Ab Aethiopibus herba quaedam | that the shari of the Red Sea was the same, and
supho appellabatur, quae in profundo maris rubri | Pt Sea-weed: apart from the evidence which aoe
crescit, quae rubra est, rubrumque colorem continet, Eeayens his ἐπε πτσασες, they cena themselves Ss
pannis tingendis inservientem, teste Hieronymo de inconclusive. Sir Gardner Wilkinson s catalogue ot
qualitate mans rubri” (p. 47, &e.). Diodorus (iii. reeds, &c., is fuller than Fresnel s, and he suggests
c. 19), Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, p. 770), and Aga- the Cyperus Dives or fastigiatus (Arabic, Dees) to
tharchides (ed. Miiller, p. 136-7), speak of the weed be the sari oe ne ie πα γε ἦν ens
of the Arabian Gulf. Ehrenberg (in Winer) enu- | δῦ Sens sari, circa Nilum nascens, duorum fere
merates Fucus latifolius on the shores of this sea, | CUbitorum altitudine, pollicari crassitudine, coma
and at Suez Fucus crispus, F. trinodis, F. turbinatus, | ῬΆΡΥΥΪ, simileque manditur modo” (N. H. xiii. 23;
F. papillosus, F. diaphanus, &c., and the specially | 8° also Theophr. iv. 9).
red weed Trichodesmium erythraeum. The Coptic| . The occurrence of βρη in the yedr (Ex. ii., Isa.
version renders stph by shari (see above), supposed xix.) in the land of Goshen (Ex. ii.), brings us to a
to be the hieroglyphic ‘ SHER” (sea ?). If this be consideration of the meaning of the latter, which in
the same as the sari of Pliny (see next paragraph), other respects is closely connected with the subject
we must conclude that shari, like δῶρ, was both of this article.
marine and fluvial. The passage in Jonah proves it (3.) IN (Hier :
to be a marine product ; aa that it was ΠΣ in the 2 Hees ae ote GORE ΕἸΕΡ Os
Ned Sea, the numerous passages in which that sea τὰ -ΡῸ; τὰ ΡΟ, Memphitic dialect, fepo,
is called the sea of s&h leave no doubt. Sahidic), signifies “a river.’ It seems to apply to
But ΠῚ may have been also applied to any sub- | “a great river,” or the like, and also to “¢ an arm of
stance resembling wool, produced by a fluvial rush, | the sea;” and perhaps to “a sea” absolutely; like the
such as the papyrus, and hence by a synecdoche to | Atabic bahr. Ges. says it is almost exclusively used
aaa of the Nile; but the passages in which it occurs do
Bee. Sa alae pees not necessarily bear out this conclusion. By far the
prev Helf.. Golias cilities sca x Z eh the greater Seabee refer to the sojourn in Reg pt these
ὦ O-| are Gen. xli. 1, 2,3, 17, 18, Pharaoh’s dream > Hixens
authority of Ibn-Maaroof (after explaining Gry 22, the exposure of the male children ; Ex. ii. 3, 5,
==) [188 eee Moses; Ex. vii. 15 seqq., and xvii.
by « sera Πρ πα ὃν ἐς: “ ,| 2, Moses before Pharaoh and the plague of blood -
oe es pn Sr ySSsb3 [the | rr ey vill 5,7, the plague of Pact Pha ext
cotton of the papyrus] gossipium papyri, quod /anae | most important instance is the prophecy of Isaiah,
simile ex thyrso colligitur, et permixtum calci efficit | already quoted in full. Then, that of Amos (viii.
temacissimum caementi genus.” This is curious ; | 8, comp. ix. 5), where the land shall rise up wholly
ee ᾿ may also be observed that the papyrus, which as a flood (yedr) ; and shall be cast out and drowned
Ἢ ας ed more than one kind of cyperus, grew ‘n| as [by] the flood (yeér) of Egypt. The great pro-
16 marshes, and in lands on which about two feet phecy of Ezekiel against Pharaoh and against all
this Is unsatisfactory. Boothroyd says, “ Our translators, | est nomen appellativum olerum et herbarum virentium.’
after others, supposed this word to signify the papyrus; | Hence we may render, ‘The marchy [sic] medows [sic] at
but without any just authority. Kimchi explains, ‘Aroth | the mouth of the river,” &e.
|
RED SEA
Egypt, where Pharaoh is “ the great dragon that
lieth in the midst of his rivers (VN)), which hath
said, My river (IND) i is mine own, and I have made
[it] for myself” (xxix. 3), uses the pl. throughout,
with the above exception and verse 9, ‘ because he
hath said, The river (AN?) [is] mine, and I have
made it ;”’ it cannot be supposed that Pharaoh would
have said of the Nile that he had made it, and the
passage seems to refer to a great canal. As Ezekiel
was contemporary with Pharaoh Necho, may he
not here have referred to the re-excavation of the
canal of the Red Sea by that Pharaoh? That canal
may have at least received the name of the canal of
Pharaoh, just as the same canal when re-excavated
for the last time was “the canal of the Prince
of the Faithful,’ and continued to be so called.—
Yeér occurs elsewhere only in Jer. xlvi. 7, 8,
in the prophecy against Necho; in Isa. xxiii. 10,
where its application is doubtful; and in Dan. xii.
5, 6, where it is held to be the Euphrates, but may
be the great canal of Babylon. The pl. yedrim,
seems to be often used interchangeably with yeor
(as in Ez, xxix., and Nah. iii. 8); it is used for
“rivers,” or “channels of water ;’ and, while it is
not restricted to Egypt, especially of those of the
Nile.
From a comparison of all the passages. in which
it occurs there appears to be no conclusive rea-
son for,supposing that yedr applies generally, if
ever, to the Nile. In the passages relating to the
exposure of Moses it appears to apply to the ancient
extension of the Red Sea towards Tanis (Zoan,
Avaris), or to the ancient canal (see below) through
which the water of the Nile passed to the ‘ tongue
of the Egyptian sea.” The water was potable (Ex.
vii. 18), but so is that of the Lake of the Feiyoom to
its own fishermen, though generally very brackish:
and the canal must have received water from the
Nile during every inundation, and then must
have been sweet. During the height of the inun-
dation, the sweet water would flow into the Red
Sea. The passage of the canal was regulated by
sluices, which excluded the waters of the Red Sea
and sweetened by the water of the canal the salt
lakes. Strabo (xvii. 1, §25) says that they were
thus rendered sweet, and in his time contained good
fish and abounded with water fowl: the position of
these lakes is more conveniently discussed in an-
other part of this article, on the ancient geography
of the head of the gulf. It must not be forgotten
that the Pharaoh of Moses was of a dynasty residing
at Tanis, and that the extension ot the Red Sea,
“the tongue of the Egyptian Sea,’ stretched in
ancient times into the borders of the land of Goshen,
about 50 miles north of its present head, and half-
way towards Tanis. There is abundant proof of
the former cultivation of this country, which must
have been effected by the canal from the Nile just
RED SEA 1011
mentioned, and by numerous canals and channels
for irrigation, the yedrim, so often mentioned with
the yeor. There appears to be no difficulty in
Isa. xix. 6 (comp. xi. 15), for, if the Red Sea be-
came closed at Suez or thereabout, the siph lett
on the beaches of the yeér must have dried up and
rotted. The ancient beaches in the tract here
spoken of, which demonstrate successive elevations,
are well known.
(4.) ἡ ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα. The origin of this ap-
pellation has been the source of more speculation
even than the obscure stiph ; for it lies more within
the range of general scholarship. The theories ad-
vanced to account for it have been often puerile, and
generally unworthy of acceptance. Their authors
may be divided into two schools. ‘The first have
ascribed it to some natural phenomenon; such as
the singularly red appearance of the mountains of
the western coast, looking as if they were sprinkled
with Havannah or Brazil snuff, or brick-dust (Bruce),
or of which the redness was reflected in the waters
of the sea (Gosselin, ii. 78-84) ; the red colour of the
water sometimes caused by the presence of zoophytes
(Salt; Ehrenberg) ; the red coral of the sea; the red
sea-weed ; and the red storks that have been seen
in great numbers, ἕο. Reland (De Mare Rubro,
Diss. Miscell. i. pp- 59-117) argues that the epithet
red was applied to this and the neighbouring seas on
account of their tropical heat; as indeed was said
by Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, xvi. 4, 20), that the
sea was called red because of the reflexion of the sun.
The second have endeavoured to find an etymological
derivation. Of these the earliest (European) writers
proposed a derivation from Edom, ‘‘red,” by the
Greeks translated literally. Among them were N.
Fuller (Miscell. Sacr. iv. c. 20); before him, Sca-
liger, in his notes to Festus; voce Aegyptinos, ed.
1574; and still earlier Genebrard, Comment. ad Ps.
106 ; Bochart.(Phaleg, iv. c. 34) adopted this theory
(see Reland, Diss. Miscell. i. 85, ed. 1706). The
Greeks and Romans tell us that the sea received its
name from a great king, Erythras, who reigned in
the adjacent country (Strab. xvi. p. 4, §20; Pliny,
N. ἢ. vi. cap. 23, 828 ; Agatharch. i. §5; Philostr.
iii. 15, and others): the stories that have come
down to us appear to be distortions of the tradition
that Himyer was the name of apparently the chief
family of Arabia Felix, the great South-Arabian
kingdom, whence the Himyerites, and Homeritae.
Himyer appears to be derived from the Arabic
“ahmar,” red (Himyer was so called because of the
red colour of his clothing, Ln-Nuweyree in Caussin,
i. 54): “aafar” also signifies “yved,’ and is the
root of the names of several places in the penin-
sula so called on account of their redness (see
Marasid, p. 263, &c.); this may point to Ophir:
φοίνιξ is ved, and the Phoenicians came from the
Krythraean Sea (Herod. vii. 89). We can scarcely
doubt, on these etymological grounds! the con-
5 The Mohammadan account of the exposure of Moses
is curious. Moses, we read, was laid in the yamm (which
is explained to be the Nile, though that river is not else-
where so called), and the ark was carried by the current
along a canal or small river (nahr), to a lake, at the further
end of which was Pharaoh’s pavilion (El-Beydiwee’s (
ment. on the Kur-dan, XX. 39, p.595, and Ez- ἐπ ς ἐπῆε να πα 8
‘Comment., entitled the Keshshdf). While we place no
dependance on Mohammadan relations of Biblical events,
there may be here a glimmer of truth.
h Reland (Diss. Miscell. i. 87, &c.) is pleasantly severe
on the story of king Erythras; but, with all his rare learn-
ing, he was ignorant of Arab history, which is here of the
i
utmost value, and of the various proofs of a connexion
between this Erythras and Himyer, and the Phoenicians,
in language, race, and religion. Besides, Reland had a
theory of his own to support.
i If we concede the derivation, it cannot be held that
the Greeks mistranslated the name of Himyer. (See
Reland, Diss. Miscell. i. 101.) It is worthy of mention
that the Arabs often call themselves ‘the red men,” as
distinguished from the black or negro, and the yellow or
Turanian, races: though they call themselves “ the black,”
as distinguished from the more northern races, whom they
term “the red;” as this epithet is used by them, when
thus applied, as meaning both “red” and “ white."
Fo ay
1012 RED SEA
nexion between the Phoenicians and the Himyerites,
or that in this is the true origin of the appellation
of the Red Sea.
the question is considered, the evidence is much
strengthened. The South-Arabian kingdom was a
Joktanite (or Shemite) nation mixed with a Cushite.
This admixture of races produced two results (as
in the somewhat similar cases of Egypt, Assyria,
&e.): a genius for massive architecture, and rare
seafaring ability. The Southern Arabians carried
on all the commerce of Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia,
with India, until shortly before our own era. It is
unnecessary to insist on this Phoenician gharacter-
istic, nor on that which made Solomon call for the
assistance of Hiram to build the Temple of Jeru-
salem. The Philistine, and early Cretan and Carian,
colonists may have been connected with the South-
Arabian race. If the Assyrian school would trace
the Phoenicians to a Chaldaean or an Assyrian
origin, it might be replied that the Cushites, whence
came Nimrod, passed along the south coast of
Arabia, and that Berosus (in Cory, 2nd ed. p. 60)
tells of an early Arab domination of Chaldaea, before
the Assyrian dynasty, a story also preserved by the
Arabian historians (El-Mes’oodee, Golden Meadows,
MS.).—The Red Sea, therefore, was most probably
the Sea of the Red men. It adds a link to the
curious chain of emigration of the Phoenicians from
the Yemen to Syria, Tyre, and Sidon, the shores
and islands of the Mediterranean, especially the
African coasts of that sea, and to Spain and the
far-distant northerly ports of their commerce; as
distant, and across oceans as terrible, as those reached
by their Himyerite brethren in the Indian and
Chinese Seas,
Ancient Limits —The most important change in
the Red Sea has been the drying up of its northern
extremity, ‘the tongue of the Egyptian Sea.”
The land about the head of the gulf has risen, and
that near the Mediterranean become depressed.
The head of the gulf has consequently retired
gradually since the Christian eya. Thus the pro-
phecy of Isaiah has been fulfilled: ‘And the
Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the
Egyptian sea” (xi. 15); ‘the waters shall fail
from the sea” (xix. 5): the tongue of the Red
Sea has dried up for a distance of at least 50 miles
from its ancient head, and a cultivated and well-
peopled province has been changed into a desolate
wilderness. An ancient canal conveyed the waters
of the Nile to the Red Sea flowing through the
Wadi-t-Tumeylat, and irrigating with its system of
water-channels a large extent of country; it also
provided a means for conveying all the commerce
of the Red Sea, once so important, by water to the
Nile, avoiding the risks of the desert-journey, and
securing water-carriage from the Red Sea to the
Mediterranean. The drying up of the head of the
gulf appears to have been one of the chief causes of
the neglect and ruin of this canal.
The country, for the distance above indicated, is
now a desert of gravelly sand, with wide patches
about the old sea-bottom, of rank marsh land, now
called the “ Bitter Lakes” (not those of Strabo).
At the northern extremity of this salt waste, is a
small lake sometimes called the lake of Herodpolis
(the city after which the gulf of Suez was called
the Heroépolite Gulf): the lake is now Birket et-
But when the ethnological side of
RED SEA
Timsah, “the lake of the Crocodile,” and is sup-
sed to mark the ancient head of the gulf. The
canal that connected this with the Nile was of
Pharaonic origin.* It was anciently known as the
« Fossa Regum,” and the “ canal of Hero.” Pliny,
Diodorus, and Strabo, state that (up to their time)
it reached only to the bitter springs (which appear
to be not the present bitter lakes, but lakes west
of Herodpolis), the extension being abandoned on
account οἵ the supposed greater height of the waters
of the Red Sea. According to Herod. (ii. cap. 158)
it left the Nile (the Tanitic branch, now the canal
of El-Mo’izz) at Bubastis (Pi-beseth), apd a canal
exists at this day in this neighbourhood, which
appears to be the ancient channel. The canal was
four days’ voyage in length, and sufficiently broad
for two triremes to row abreast (Herod. ii. 158 ;
or 100 cubits, Strab. xvii. 1, §26; and 100 feet,
Pliny, vi. cap. 29, 899). The time at which the
canal was extended, after the drying up of the
head of the gulf, to the present head is uncertain,
but it must have been late, and probably since the
Mohammadan conquest. Traces of the ancient
channel throughout its entire length to the vicinity
of Bubastis, exist at intervals in the present day
(Déser. de ? Egypte, E. M. xi. 37-381, and v. 135-
158, 8vo. ed.).—The Amnis Trajanus (Τραϊανὸς
ποτ. pt. iv. 5, 854), now the canal of Cairo, was
probably of Pharaonic origin ; it was at any rate re-
paired by the emperor Adrian; and it joined the
ancient canal of the Red Sea between Bubastis and
Herodpolis. At the Arab conquest of Egypt, this
was found to be closed, and was reopened by ’Amr
by command of “Omar, after whom it was called
the “ canal of the Prince of the Faithful.” Country-
boats sailed down it (and passed into the Red Sea to
Yembo’—see Shems-ed Deen in Déscr. de U E'gypte,
8vo. ed., xi. 359), and the water of the Nile ran
into the sea at El-Kulzum; but the former com-
merce of Egypt was not in any degree restored ;
the canal was opened with the intention of securing
supplies of grain from Egypt in case of famine
in Arabia; a feeble intercourse with the newly-
important holy cities of Arabia, to provide for the
wants of the pilgrims, was its principal use. In
A.H. 105, El-Mansoor ordered it to be filled up (the
Khitat, Descr. of the Canals), in order to cut off
supplies to the Shiya’ee heretics in El-Medeeneh.
Now it does not flow many miles beyond Cairo,
but its channel is easily traceable.
The land north of the ancient head of the gulf is
a plain of heavy sand, merging into marsh-land
near the Mediterranean coast, and extending to Pa-
lestine. We learn from E]-Makreezee that a tradi-
tion existed of this plain having been formerly well
cultivated with saffron, safllower, and sugar-cane,
and peopled throughout, from the frontier-town of
El-Areesh to El-’Abbaseh in Wadi-t-Tumeylat
(see Exopus, THE, Map; The Khitat, s. v. Jifar;
comp. Marasid, ib.), Doubtless the drying up of
the gulf with its canal in the south, and the de-
pression of the land in the north, have converted
this once (if we may believe the tradition, though
we cannot extend this fertility as far as El-’Areesh,
notoriously-fertile tract into a proverbially sandy
and parched desert. This region, including Wadi-t-
Tumeylat, was probably the frontier land occupied
in part by the Israelites, and open to the incursions
* Commenced by Sesdstris (Aristot. Meleor. i. 145 Strab.
i. and xvil.; Plin. Hist. Nat. vi. 29; Herod. ti. 158; Diod.
i 33) ot by Necho IL., most probably the former; continued
by Darius Hystaspis, and by Ptol. Philadelphus. See
Enecyce. Brit. art. ‘Egypt.
RED SEA
of the wild tribes of the Arabian desert; and the |
yeor, as we have given good reason for believing, in
this application, was apparently the ancient head of
the gulf or the canal of the Red Sea, with its yedrim
or water-channels, on which Goshen and much of
the plain north of it depended for their fertility.
Physical Description—In extreme length, the
Red Sea stretches from the Straits of Bab el-
Mendeb (or rather Ras Bab el-Mendeb) in lat.
12° 40’ N., to the modern head of the Gulf of |
Suez, lat. 30' N. Its greatest width may be stated
roughly at about 200 geographical miles; this is
about lat. 16° 30', but the navigable channel is
here really narrower than in some other portions,
groups of islands and rocks stretching out into the
sea, between 30 and 40 miles from the Arabian
coast, and 50 miles from the African coast. From
shore to shore, its narrowest part is at Ras Bends,
lat. 24°, on the African coast, to Ras Bereedee
opposite, a little north of Yembo’, the port of El-
Medeeneh ; and thence northwards to Ras Mo-
hammad (7. ¢, exclusive of the Gulfs of Suez and
the ’Akabeh), the sea maintains about the same
average width of 100 geographical miles. South-
wards from Ras Bends, it opens out in a broad
reach ; contracts again to nearly the above narrow-
ness at Jeddah (correctly Juddah), Jat. 21° 30’,
the port of Mekkeh ; and opens to its extreme width
south of the last named port.
At Ras Mohammad, the Red Sea is split by the |
granitic peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs: the
westernmost, or Gulf of Suez, is now about 130
geographical miles in length, with an average width
of about 18, though it contracts to less than 10
miles: the easternmost, or Gulf of El-’Akabeh, is
only about 90 miles long, from the Straits of
Tirdn, to the “Akabeh [Earn], and of propor-
tionate narrowness. The navigation of the Red
Sea and Gulf of Suez, near the shores, is very
difficult from the abundance of shoals, coral-reefs,
yocks, and small islands, which render the channel
intricate, and cause strong currents often of un-
known force and direction; but in mid-channel,
exclusive of the Gulf of Suez, there is generally a
width of 100 miles clear, except the Daedalus reef
(Wellsted, ii. 300).—The bottom in deep sound-
ings is in most places sand and stones, from Suez as
far as Juddah ; and thence to the straits it is com-
monly mud. The deepest sounding in the excellent
Admiralty chart is 1054 fathoms, in lat. 22° 30'.
Journeying southwards from Suez, on our left is
the peninsula of Sinai [Sryar]: on the right, is the
desert coast of Egypt, of limestone formation like
the greater part of the Nile valley in Egypt, the
cliffs on the sea-margin stretching landwards in a
great .rocky plateau, while more inland a chain of
volcanic mountains (beginning about lat. 28° 4!
and running south) rear their lofty peaks at in-
tervals above the limestone, generally about 15
miles distant.
Gharib, 6000 ft. high ; and as the Straits of Jubal
are passed, the peaks of the primitive range attain a
height of about 4500 to 6900 ft., until the “ Elba”’
group rises in a huge mass about lat. 22°. Further
inland is the Gebel-ed-Dukhkhan, the ‘ porphyry
mountain” of Ptolemy (iv. 5, §27 ; M. Claudianus,
see Miiller, Geogr. Min. Atlas vii.), 6000 ft. high,
about 27 miles from the coast, where the porphyry
quarries formerly supplied Rome, and where are
some remains of the time of Trajan (Wilkinson’s
Modern Egypt and Thebes, ii# 383); and besides
these, along this desert southwards are “ quarries of
Of the most important is Gebel |
RED SEA 1013
various granites, serpentines, Breccia Verde, slates,
and micaceous, talcose, and other schists ” (id. 382).
Gebel-ez-Zeyt, ‘the mountain of oil,” close to the
sea, abounds in petroleum (id. 385). This coast
is especially interesting in a Biblical point of view,
for here were some of the earliest monasteries of
the Eastern Church, and in those secluded and
barren mountains lived very early Christian hermits.
The convent of St. Anthony (of the Thebais),
“Deyr Mar Antooniyoos,” and that of St. Paul,
“ Deyr Mar Bolus,” are of great renown, and were
once important. ‘They are now, like all Eastern
monasteries, decayed; but that of St. Anthony
gives, from its monks, the Patriarch of the Coptie
church, formerly chosen from the Nitrian monas-
teries (id. 381).—South of the “ Elba” chain, the
country gradually sinks to a plain, until it rises to
the highland of Geeddn, lat. 15°, and thence to
the straits extends a chain of low mountains. The
greater part of the African coast of the Red Sea is
sterile, sandy, and thinly peopled; first beyond
Suez by Bedawees chiefly of the Ma’dzee tribe.
South of the Kuseyr road, are the ’Abab’deh ; and
beyond, the Bishdrees, the southern branch of
which are called by Arab writers Beja, whose cus-
toms, language, and ethnology, demand a careful
investigation, which would undoubtedly be repaid
by curious results (see E1-Makreezee’s Khitat, Descr.
of the Beja, and Deser. of the Pesert of Eydhab ;
Quatremére’s Lssays on these subjects, in his Jé-
motres Hist. et Géogr. sur l Egypte, ii. pp.134, 162;
and The Genesis of the Earth and of Man, 2nd
ed. p. 109) ; and then, coast-tribes of Abyssinia.
The Gulf of El- Akabeh (7. ὁ. ‘ of the Mountain-
road’) is the termination of the long valley of the
Ghor or ’Arabah that runs northwards to the Dead
Sea. It is itself a narrow valley ; the sides are lofty
and precipitous mountains, of entire barrenness ; the
bottom is a river-like sea, running nearly straight for
its whole length of about 90 miles. The northerly
winds rush down this gorge with uncommon fury,
and render its navigation extremely perilous, causing
at the same time strong counter currents; while
_ most of the few anchorages are open to the southerly
gales. It ‘*has the appearance of a narrow deep
ravine, extending nearly a hundred miles in a straight
direction, and the circumjacent hills rise in some
places two thousand feet perpendicularly from the
shore” (Wellsted, ii. 108). The western shore is
the peninsula of Srnart. The Arabian chain of
mountains, the continuation of the southern spurs
of the Lebanon, skirt the eastern coast, and rise to
about 3500 ft., while Gebel Teybet-’Alee near the
Straits is 6090 ft. There is no pasturage, and little
fertility, except near the “Akabeh, where are date-
groves and other plantations, &c. In earlier days,
this last-named place was (it is said) famous for its
fertility. The Island of Graia, Jezeeret Fara’oon,
once fortified and held by the Crusaders, is near its
northern extremity, on the Sinaitic side. The sea,
from its dangers, and sterile shores, is entirely des-
titute of boats.
The Arabian coast outside the Gulf of the ’Akabeh
is skirted by the range of Arabian mountains, which
in some few places approach the sea, but generally
leave a belt of coast country, called Tihameh, or
the Ghor, like the Sheelah of Palestine. This tract
is generally a sandy parched plain, thinly inhabited ;
these characteristics being especially strong in the
north. (Niebuhr, Descr. 305; Wellsted.) The
mountains of the Hej:iz consist of ridges running pa-
rallel towards the interior, and increasing in height as
1014 RED SEA
they recede (Wellsted, ii. 242). Burckhardt remarks
that the descent on the eastern side of these moun-
tains, like the Lebanon and the whole Syrian range
east of the Dead Sea, is much less than that on the
western; and that the peaks seen from the east, or
land side, appear mere hills (Arabia, 521 seq.). In
clear weather they are visible at a distance of 40 to
70 miles ‘Wellsted, ii. 242). The distant ranges
have a rugged pointed outline, and are granitic ; at
Wejh, with horizontal veins of quartz ; nearer the
sea many of the hills are fossiliferous limestone,
while the beach hills “ consist of light-coloured
sandstone, fronted by and containing large quan-
tities of shells and masses of coral”? (Wellsted, ii.
243). Coral also ‘enters largely into the compo-
sition of some of the most elevated hills.” The
more remarkable mountains are Jebel ’Eyn-Unna (or
*Eynuwunna, Mardsid, s.v. ’Eyn, ἤὌννη of Ptol.),
6090 ft. high near the Straits; alittle further south,
and close to Mo’eyleh, are mountains rising from
6330 to 7700 ft., of which Wellsted says, ‘‘ The
coast . . . is low, gradually ascending with a mode-
rate elevation to the distance of six or seven miles,
when it rises abruptly to hills of great height, those
near Mowflahh terminating in sharp and singularly-
shaped peaks .. . Mr. Irwin [1777] . . . has styled
them Bullock’s Hors. To me the whole group
seemed to bear a great resemblance to representations
which I have seen of enormous icebergs” (ii. 176 ;
see also the Admiralty Chart, and Miiller’s Geogr.
Min.). A little north of Yembo’ is a remarkable
group, the pyramidal mountains of Agatharchides ;
and beyond, about 25 miles distant rises J. Radwa.
Further south, J. Subh is remarkable for its
magnitude and elevation, which is greater than
any other between Yembo’ and Jiddah ; and still
further, but about 80 miles distant from the coast,
J. Ras el-Kura rises behind the Holy city, Mekkeh.
It is of this mountain that Burckhardt writes so
enthusiastically—how rarely is he enthusiastic
contrasting its verdure and cool breezes with the
sandy waste of Tihimeh (Arabia, 65 seqq.). The
chain continues the whole length of the sea, termi-
nating in the highlands of the Yemen. The Arabian
mountains are generally fertile, agreeably different
from the parched plains below, and their own bare
granite peaks above. ‘The highlands and mountain
summits of the Yemen, “ Arabia the Happy,” the
Jebel as distinguished from the plain, are preci-
pitous, lofty, and fertile (Niebuhr, Deser. 161) ;
with many towns and villages in their valleys and
on their sides.—The coast-line itself, or Tihameh,
‘north of Yembo’, is of moderate elevation, varying
from 50 to 100 feet, with no beach. To the
southward [to Juddah] it is more sandy and less
elevated: the inlets and harbours of the former
tract may be styled coves; in the. latter they are
lagoons” ( Wellsted, ii. 244).—The coral of the Red
Sea is remarkably abundant, and beautifully co-
loured and variegated. It is often red, but the more
common kind is white; and of hewn blocks of this,
many of the Arabian towns are built.
The earliest navigation of the Red Sea (passing
by the pre-historical Phoenicians) is mentioned by
Herodotus. Sesostris (Rameses II.) was the first
who, passing the Arabian Gulf in a fleet of long
vessels, reduced under his authority the inhabitants
of the coast bordering the Erythraean Sea; pro-
ceeding still further, he came to a sea which,
from the great number of its shoals, was not navi-
gable; and after another war against [Ethiopia he
set up a stela on the promontory of Dira, near
,
RED SEA
| the straits of the Arabian Gulf. Three centuries
later, Solomon’s navy was built ‘‘ in Eziongeber
which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea
(Yam Sfiph), in the land of Edom ” (1 K, ix. 26).
In the description of the Gulf of El-’Akabeh,
it will be seen that this narrow sea is almost
without any safe anchorage, except at the island
of Graia near the ’Akabeh, and about 50 miles
southward, the harbour of Edh-Dhahab. ΤΌ is
possible that the sea has retired here as at Suez,
and that Eziongeber is now dry land. [See Ez1on-
GEBER; ELATH.| Solomon’s navy was evidently
constructed by Phoenician workmen. of Hiram, for
he “sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that
had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of
Solomon.’? This was the navy that sailed to Ophir.
We may conclude that it was necessary to transport
wood as well as men to build and man these ships
on the shores of the Gulf of the ’Akabeh, which
from their natural formation cannot be supposed to
have much altered, and which were besides part of
the wilderness of the wandering ; and the Edomites
were pastoral Arabs, unlike the seafaring Himyerites.
Jehoshaphat also ‘‘made ships of Tharshish to go
to Ophir for gold: but they went not, for the ships
were broken at Eziongeber” (1 K. xxii. 48). The
scene of this wreck has been supposed to be Edh-
Dhahab, where is a reef of rocks like a “ giant’s
backbone” (=Eziongeber) (Wellsted, ii. 153), and
this may strengthen an identification with that
place. These ships of Jehoshaphat were manned by
‘his servants,’ who: from their ignorance of the sea
may have caused the wreck. Pharaoh-Necho con-
structed a number of ships in the Arabian gulf,
and the remains of his works existed in the time of
Herodotus (ii. 159), who also tells us that these
ships were manned by Phoenician sailors.
The fashion of the ancient ships of the Red Sea,
or of the Phoenician ships of Solomon, is unknown.
From Pliny we learn that the ships were of papyrus
and like the boats of the Nile; and this statement
was no doubt in some measure correct. But the
coasting cratt must have been very different from
those employed in the Indian trade. More precise
and curious is El-Makreezee’s description, written
in the first half of the 15th century, of the ships
that sailed from Eydhab on the Egyptian coast to
Juddah: ‘¢ Their ¢ jelebehs’ (P. Lobo, ap. Quatre-
mére, Mémoires, ii. 164, calls them ‘ gelyes’),
which carry the pilgrims on the coast, have not a
nail used in them, but their planks are sewed to-
gether with fibre, which is taken from the cocoa-
nut-tree, and they caulk them with the fibres of
the wood of the date-palm; then they ‘ pay’ them
with butter, or the oil of the palma Christi, or with
the fat of the kirsh (squalus carcharias; Ferskal,
Desecr. Animatium, p. viii, No.19).... The sails
of these jelebehs are of mats made of the dom-
palm” (the Ahitat, “ Desert of Eydhab’’). One of
the sea-going ships of the Arabs is shown in the
view of El-Basrah, from a sketch by Colonel Chesney,
(from Lane’s ‘1001 Nights’). The crews of the
latter, when not exceptionally Phoenicians, as were
Solomon’s and Pharaoh Necho’s, were without
doubt generally Arabians, rather than Egyptians
—those Himyerite Arabs whose ships carried all
the wealth of the East either to the Red Sea or
the Persian Gulf. The people of "Oman, the
south-east province of Arabia, were among the fore-
most of these navigators (El-Mes’oodee’s Golden
Meadows, MS., and* Phe Accounts of Two Moham-
medan Travellers of the Ninth Century). It was
RED SEA
701
Hi-bBasrah.
customary, to avoid probably the dangers and
delays of the narrow seas, for the ships engaged in
the Indian trade to trans-ship their cargoes at the
straits of Bab el-Mendeb to Egyptian and other
vessels of the Red Sea (Agath. §103, p. 190; anon.
Peripl. §26, p. 277, ed. Miiller), The fleets appear
to have sailed about the autumnal equinox, and
returned in December or the middle of January
(Pliny, WV. H. vi. cap. xxiii. §26; comp. Peripl.
passim). St. Jerome says that the navigation was
extremely tedious. At the present day, the voyages
are periodical, and guided by the seasons; but
the old skill of the seamen has nearly departed,
and they are extremely timid, and rarely venture
far from the coast. i
The Red Sea, as it possessed for many centuries
the most important sea-trade of the East, contained
ports of celebrity. Of these, Elath and Eziongeber
alone appear to be mentioned in the Bible. The
Herodpolite Gulf is of the chief interest: it was
near to Goshen ; it was the scene of the passage of
the Red Sea; and it was the ‘“ tongue of the Egyp-
tian Sea.” It was also the seat of the Egyptian
trade in this sea and to the Indian Ocean. Herodpolis
is doubtless the same as Hero, and its site has been
probably identified with the modern Aboo-Kesheyd,
at the head of the old gulf. By the consent of the
classics, it stood on or near the head of the gulf,
and was 68 miles (according to the Jtinerary of
Antoninus) from Clysma, by the Arabs called El-
Kulzum, near the modern Suez, which is close to
the present head. Suez is a poor town, and has
only an unsafe anchorage, with very shoal water.
On the shore of the Herodpolite gulf was also
Arsinoé founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus: its site
has not been settled. Berenice, founded by the
same, on the southern fiontier of Egypt, rose to |
importance under the Ptolemies and the Romans ;
it is now of no note. On the western coast was
also the anchorage of Myos Hermos, a little north
of the modern town El]-Kuseyr, which now forms |
the point of communication with the old route to
Coptos.
are Mu’eyleh, Yembo’ (the port of El-Medeeneh),
Juddah (the port of Mekkeh), and Mukha, by
On the Arabian coast the principal ports |
Ϊ
i
From a Drawing by Colonel Chesney,
us commonly written Mocha, The Red Sea in
most parts affords anchorage for country-vessels
well acquainted with its intricacies, and able to
creep along the coast among the reefs and islands
that girt the shore. Numerous creeks on the
Arabian shore (called “ shuroom,” sing. “* sharm,”)
indent the land. Of these the anchorage called Esh-
Sharm, at the southern extremity of the peninsula
of Sinai, is much frequented.
The commerce of the Red Sea was, in very
ancient times, unquestionably great. The earliest
records tell of the ships of the Egyptians, the Phoe-
nicians, and the Arabs. Although the ports of the
Persian gulf received a part of the Indian traffic
[DEDAN], and the Himyerite maritime cities in the
south of Arabia supplied the kingdom of SHEBa,
the trade with Egypt was, we must believe, the
most important of the ancient world. That all
this traffic found its way to the head of the
Herodpolite gulf seems proved by the absence of
any important Pharaonic remains further south on
the Egyptian coast. But the shoaling of the head
of the gulf rendered the navigation, always dan-
gerous, more difficult; it destroyed the former
anchorages, and made it necessary to carry mer-
chandise across the desert to the Nile. This change
appears to have been one of the main causes of the
decay of the commerce of Egypt. We have seen
that the long-voyaging ships shifted their cargoes
to Red Sea craft at the straits; and Ptolemy Phila-
delphus, after founding Arsinoé aud endeavouring
to re-open the old canal of the Red Sea, abandoned
the upper route and established the southern road
from his new city Berenice on the frontier of Egypt
and Nubia to Coptos on the Nile. Strabo tells us
that this was done to avoid the dangers encountered
in navigating the sea (xvii. 1, §45). Though the
stream of commerce was diverted, sufficient seems
to have remained to keep in existence the former
ports, though they have long since utterly dis-
appeared. Under the Ptolemies and the Romans
the commerce of the Red Sea varied greatly, in-
fluenced by the decaying state of Eeypt and the
route to Palmyra (until the fall of the latter), But
even its best state at this time cannot have beer
1016 RED SEA, PASSAGE OF
such as to make us believe that the 120 ships
sailing from Myos Hormos, mentioned by Strabo
(ii. v. §12), was other than an annual convoy.
The wars of Heraclius and Khosroes affected the
trade of Egypt as they influenced that of the
Persian gulf. Egypt had fallen low at the time of
the Arab occupation, and yet it is curious to note
that Alexandria even then retained the shadow of its
former glory. Since the time of Mohammad the Red
Sea trade has been insignificant. [E. S. P.]
RED SEA, PASSAGE OF. The passage of
the Red Sea was the crisis of the Exodus. It was
the miracle by which the Israelites left Egypt and
were delivered from the oppressor. Probabiy on
this account St. Paul takes it as a type of Christian
baptism. All the particulars relating to this event,
and especially those which show its miraculous cha-
racter, require careful examination. The points that
arise are the place of the passage, the narrative, and
the importance of the event in Biblical history.
1. 10 is usual to suppose that the most northern
place at which the Red Sea could have been crossed
is the present head of the Gulf of Suez. This sup-
position depends upon the erroneous idea that in
the time of Moses the gulf did not extend further to
the northward than at present. An examination of
the country north of Suez has shown, however, that
the sea has receded many miles, and there can be
no doubt that this change has taken place within
the historical period, doubtless in fulfilment of the
prophecy of Isaiah (xi. 15, xix. 5; comp. Zech.
x. 11). The old bed is indicated by the Birket-et-
Timsah, or ** Lake of the Crocodile,” and the more
southern Bitter Lakes, the northernmost part of the
former probably corresponding to the head of the gulf
at the time of the Exodus. In previous centuries it
is probable, that the gulf did not extend further north,
but that it was deeper in its northernmost part.
It is necessary to endeavour to ascertain the
route of the Israelites before we can attempt to
discover where they crossed the sea. The point
from which they started was Rameses, a place cer-
tainly in the Land of Goshen, which we identify
with the Wadi-t-Tumeylat. [RAMESES; GOSHEN. |
After the mention that the people journeyed from
Rameses to Succoth, and before that of their de-
parture from Succoth, a passage occurs which
appears to show the first direction of the journey,
and not a change in the route. This’ we may rea-
sonably infer from its tenour, and from its being
followed by the statement that Joseph’s bones were
taken by Moses with him, which must refer to the |
commencement of the journey. ‘ And it came to
pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God
led them not [by] the way of the land of the Phi-
listines, although that [was] near; for God said,
Lest peradventure the people repent when they see
war, and they return to Egypt: but God caused
the people to turn [by] the way of the wilderness
of the Red Sea” (Ex. xiii. 17,18). It will be seen
by reference to the map already given [vol. i. p.
598] that, from the W fdi-t-Tumeylit, whether
from its eastern end or from any other part, the
route to Palestine by way of Gaza through the
Philistine territory is near at hand. In the Roman
time the route to Gaza from Memphis and Heliopolis
passed the western end of the Wadi-t-Tumeylit, as
may be seen by the /tinerary of Antoninus (Par-
* In order to favour the opinion that the Israelites took
the route by the Wiidi-t-Teeh, this name, Gebel-et-Takah
(to which it is difficult to assign a probable meaning), has
RED SEA, PASSAGE OF
they, Zur Erdkunde d. Alt. Aegyptens, map vi.),
and the chief modern route from Cairo to Syria
passes along the Wadi-t-Tumeylaét and leads to
Gaza (Wilkinson, Handbook, new ed. p. 209).
At the end of the second day’s journey the
camping-place was at Etham “in the edge of the
wilderness” (Ex. xiii. 20; Num. xxxiii. 6). Here
the Wadi-t-Tumeylat was probably left, as it is
cultivable and terminates in the desert. After leay-
ing this place the direction seems to have changed.
The first passage relating to the journey, after the
mention of the encamping at Etham, is this, stating
a command given to Moses: “ Speak unto the
children of Israel, that they turn [or ‘ return 7]
and encamp. [or ‘that they encamp again,’
37°) 33] before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol
πἰτὶ mors
and the sea, over against Baal-zephon” (Ex. xiv. 2).
This explanation is added: “ And Pharaoh will say
of the children of Israel, They [are] entangled in
the land, the wilderness hath shut them in” (3).
The rendering of the A. V., “that they turn and
encamp,’” seems to us the most probable of those
we have given: “return” is the closer translation,
but appears to be difficult to reconcile with the
narrative of the route ; for the more likely inference
is that the direction was changed, not that the
people returned: the third rendering does not ap-
pear probable, as it does not explain the entangle-
ment: The geography of the country does not
assist us in conjecturing the direction of the last
part of the journey. If we knew that the highest
part of the gulf at the time of the Exodus extended
to the west, it would be probable that, if the
Israelites turned, they took a northerly direction,
as then the sea would oppose an obstacle to their
further progress. If, however, they left the Wadi-t-
Tumeylat at Etham ‘in the edge of the wilderness,”
they could not have turned far to the northward,
unless they had previously turned somewhat to the
south. It must be borne in mind that Pharaoch’s
object was to cut off the retreat of the Israelites :
he therefore probably encamped between them and
the head of the sea.
At the end of the third day’s march, for each
camping-place seems to mark the close of a day’s
journey, the Israelites encamped by the sea. The
place of this last encampment, and that of the
passage, on the supposition that our views as to the
most probable route are correct, would be not very
far from the Persepolitan monument. [See map,
|vol. i. p. 598.] The monument is about thirty
/miles to the northward of the present head of the
Gulf of Suez, and not far south of the position
where we suppose the head of the gulf to have
| been at the time of the Exodus. It is here neces-
| sary to mention the arguments for and against the
/common opinion that the Israelites passed near the
| present head of the gulf. Local tradition is in
its favour, but it must be remembered that local
| tradition in Egypt and the neighbouring countries,
judging from the evidence of history, is of very
little value. The Muslims suppose Memphis to
have been the city at which the Pharaoh of the
Exodus resided before that event occurred. From
opposite Memphis a broad valley leads to the Red
Sea. It is in part called the Wadi-t-Teeh, or
“Valley of the Wandering.” From it the traveller
_reaches the sea beneath the lofty Gebel-et-Takah,*
| Mountain of Deliverance ;” though, to have this signi-
| fication, it should rather be Gebel-el-'Atakah, the other
RED SEA, PASSAGE OF
which rises on the north and shuts off all escape in
that direction, excepting by a narrow way along
the sea-shore, which Pharaoh might have occupied.
The sea here is broad and deep, as the narrative
is generally held to imply. All the local features
seem suited for a great event; but it may well
be asked whether there is any reason to expect
that suitableness that human nature seeks for and
modern imagination takes for granted, since it
would have been useless for the objects for which
the miracle appears to have been intended. The
desert-way from Memphis is equally poetical, but
how is it possible to recognise in it a route which
seems to have had two days’ journey of cultivation,
the wilderness being reached only at the end of the
second day’s march? The supposition that the Israel-
ites took an upper route, now that of the Mekkeh
caravan, along the desert to the north of the ele-
vated tract between Cairo and Suez, must be men-
tioned, although it is less probable than that just
noticed, and offers the same difficulties. It is, how-
ever, possible to suppose that the: Israelites crossed
the sea near Suez without holding to the traditional
idea that they attained it by the Wadi-t-Teeh. If
they went through the Wadi-t-Tumeylat they might
have turned southward from its eastern end, and so
yeached the neighbourhood of Suez; but this would
make the third day’s journey more than thirty miles
at the least, which, if we bear in. mind the com-
position of the Israelite caravan, seems quite in-
credible. We therefore think that the only opinion
warranted by the narrative is that already stated,
which supposes the passage of the sea to have taken
place near the northernmost part of its ancient ex-
tension. The conjecture that the Israelites advanced
to the north, then crossed a shallow part of the Me-
diterranean, where Pharaoh and his army were lost
-in the quicksands, and afterwards turned south-
wards towards Sinai, is so repugnant to the Scripture
narrative as to amount to a denial of the occurrence
of the event, and indeed is scarcely worth men-
tioning. '
The last camping-place was before Pi-hahiroth.
It appears that Migdol was behind Pi-hahiroth, and,
on the other hand, Baal-zephon and the sea. These
neighbouring places have not been identified, and
the name of Pi-hahixoth (if, as we believe, rightly
supposed to designae a reedy tract, and to be still
preserved in the Arabic name Ghuweybet el-boos,
“«the bed of reeds’’), is now found in the neighbour-
hood of the two supposed sites of the passage, and
therefore cannot be said to be identified, besides
that we must not expect a natural locality still to
retain its name. It must be remembered that the
name Pi-hahiroth, since it describes a natural
locality, probably does not indicate a town or other
inhabited place named after such a locality, and
this seems almost certain from the circumstance
that it is unlikely that there would have been more
than two inhabited places, even if they were only
forts, in this region. The other names do not de-
scribe natural localities. The nearness of Pi-hahi-
yoth to the sea is therefore the only sure indica-
tion of its position, and, if we are right in our
supposition as to the place of the passage, our
uncertainty as to the exact, extent of the sea at
RED SEA, PASSAGE OF 1017
the time is an additional difficulty. [ExXopus, THE ;
PI-HAHIROTH. |
From Pi-hahiroth the Israelites crossed the sea.
The only points bearing on geography in the ac-
count of this event are that the sea was divided by
an east wind, whence we may reasonably inter that
it was crossed from west to east, and that the whole
Egyptian army perished, which shows that it rust
have been some miles broad. Pharaoh took at least
six hundred chariots, which, three abreast, would
have occupied about half a mile, and the rest of the
army cannot be supposed to have taken up less than
several times that space. Even if in a broad forma-
tion some miles would have been required.¢ Jt is
more difficult to calculate the space taken up by
the Israelite multitude, but probably it was even
greater. On the whole we may reasonably suppose
about twelve miles as the smallest breadth of the sea.
2. A careful examination of the narrative of the
passage of the Red Sea is necessary to a right under-
standing of the event. When the Israelites had
departed, Pharaoh repented that he had let them
go. It might be conjectured, from one part of the
narrative (Ex. xiv. 1-4), that he determined to pur-
sue them when he knew that they had encamped
vefore Pi-hahiroth, did not what follows this imply
that he set out soon after they had gone, and also
indicate that the place in question refers to the
pursuit through the sea, not to that from the city
whence he started (5-10). This city was most
probably Zoan, and could scarcely have been much
nearer to Pi-hahiroth, and the distance is therefore
too great to have been twice traversed, first by
those who told Pharaoh, then by Pharaoh’s army,
within a few hours. The strength of Pharaoh’s
army is not further specified than by the statement
that “he took six hundred chosen chariots, and [or
‘even’] all the chariots of Egypt, and captains
over every one of them” (7). he war-chariots
of the Egyptians held each but two men, an archer
and a charioteer. The former must be intended by
the word ovo, rendered in the A. V. “ cap-
tains.” Throughout the narrative the chariots and
horsemen of Pharaoh are mentioned, and “ the horse
and his rider,’ xv. 21, are spoken of in Miriam's
song, but we can scarcely hence infer that there was
in Pharaoh’s army a body of horsemen as well as of
men in chariots, as in ancient Egyptian the chariot-
force is always called HTAR or HETRA, “the
horse,” and these expressions may therefore be
respectively pleonastic and poetical. There is no
evidence in the records of the ancient Egyptians
that they used cavalry, and, therefore, had the
Biblical narrative expressly mentioned a force of
this kind, it might have been thought to support
the theory that the Pharach of the Exodus was a
Shepherd-king. With this army, which, even if a
small one, was mighty in comparison to the Israelite
multitude, encumbered with women, children, and
cattle, Pharaoh overtook the people “ encamping by
the sea” (9). When the Israelites saw the oppressor’s
army they were terrified and murmured against
Moses. ‘ Because [there were] no graves in Egypt,
hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? ?
(11). Along the bare mountains that skirt the
form deviating from general usage. Et-'ldkah and’Atdkah
in the mouth of an Arab are widely different.
b The LXX. has “ south,’ instead of “east.” The
Heb. DTP, lit. “in front,” may, however, indicate the
whole distance between the two extreme points of sunrise,
those of the two solstices, and hence it is not limited to
absolute east, agreeably with the use of the Arabs in every
case like the narrative under consideration.
ec It has been calculated, that if Napoleon I. had ad-
vanced by one road into Belgium, in the Waterloo cam-
paign, his column would have been sixty miles in lengtn.
1018 RED SEA, PASSAGE OF . RED SEA, PASSAGE OF
valley of Upper Egypt are abundant sepulchral| doubt that Pharaoh himself, the great offender,
grottoes, of which the entrances are conspicuously | was at last made an example, and perished with
seen from the river and the fields it waters: in the| his army, did it not seem to be distinctly stated
sandy slopes at the foot of the mountains are pits| in Psalm exxxvi. that he was included in the same
without number and many built tombs, all of} destruction (15). “The sea cast up the dead Egyp- ©
ancient times. No doubt the plain of Lower Egypt, | tians, whose bodies the Israelites saw upon the
to which Memphis, with part of its far-extending | shore.
necropolis, belonged politically though not geogra- In a later passage some particulars are mentioned
phically, was throughout as well provided with which are not distinctly stated in the narrative
places of sepulture. The Israelites recalled these| in Exodus. The place is indeed a poetical one, but
cities of the dead, and looked with Egyptian horror | its meaning is clear, and we learn from it that at
at the prospect that their carcases should be left on| the time of the passage of the sea there was a storm
the face of the wilderness. Better, they said, to| of rain with thunder and lightning, perhaps accom-
have continued to serve the Egyptians than thus to| panied by an earthquake (Ps. Ixxvii. 15-20). To
perish (12). Then Moses encouraged them, bidding | this St. Paul may allude where he says that the
them see how God would save them, and telling! fathers “ were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud
them that they should behold their enemies no} and in the sea’? (1 Cor. x. 2); for the idea of
more. There are few cases in the Bible in which| baptism seems to involve either immersion or sprink-
those for whom a miracle is wrought are com-| ling, and the latter could have here occurred: the
manded merely to stand by and see it. Generally | reference is evidently to the pillar of the cloud:
the Divine support is promised to those who use| it would, however, be impious to attempt an expla-
their utmost exertions. It seems from the narra-| nation of what ‘is manitestly miraculous. These
tive that Moses did not know at this time how the| additional particulars may illustrate the troubling
people would be saved, and spoke only from a heart | of the Egyptians, for their chariots may have been
full of faith, for we read, “‘ And THE LorD said | thus overthrown.
unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak! Here, at the end of their long oppression, deli-
unto the children of Israel, that they go forward: | vered finally from the Egyptians, the Israelites
but lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine} glorified God. In what words they sang his praise
hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children| we know from the Song of Moses, which, in its
of Israel shall go on dry [ground] through the} vigorous brevity, represents the events of that me-
midst of the sea” (15,16). That night the two | morable night, scarcely of less moment than the
armies, the fugitives and the pursuers, were en-| night of the Passover (Ex. xv. 1-18: yer. 19 is
camped near together. Between them was the} probably a kind of comment, not part of the song).
pillar of the cloud, darkness to the Egyptians and a} Moses seems to have sung this song with the men,
light to the Israelites. The monuments of Egypt} Miriam with the women also singing and dancing,
portray an encampment of an army of Rameses II.,| or perhaps there were two choruses (20, 21). Such
during a campaign in Syria; it is well-planned and | a picture does not recur in the history of the nation.
carefully guarded: the rude modern Arab encamp-| Neither the triumphal Song of Deborah, nor the -
meuts bring before us that of Israel on this me-| rejoicing when the Temple was recovered from the
morable night. Perhaps in the camp of Israel the | Syrians, celebrated so great a deliverance, or was
sounds of the hostile camp might be heard on the | joined in by the whole people. In leaving Goshen,
one hand, and on the other, the roaring of the sea. | Israel became a nation; after crossing the sea, it
But the pillar was a barrier and a sign of deliver-| was free. There is evidently great significance, as
ance. The time was now come for the great deci- | we have suggested, in St. Paul’s use of this miracle
sive miracle of the Exodus. ‘ And Moses stretched | as a type of baptism ; for, to make the analogy com-
out his hand over the sea: and the Lorp caused | plete, it must have been the beginning of a new
the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that | period of the life of the Israelites. :
night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters 3. The importance of this event in Biblical his-
were divided. And the children of Israel went} tory is shown by the manner in which it is spoken
through the midst of the sea upon the dry [ground]: | of in the books of the O. T. written in later times,
and the waters [were] a wall unto them on their | In them it is the chief fact.of Jewish history. Net
right hand, and on their left” (21, 22, comp. 29). | the call of Abraham, not {6 rule of Joseph, not the
The narrative distinctly states that a path was made | first passover, not the conquest of Canaan, are re-
through the sea, and that the waters were a wall ferred to in such a manner as this great deliverance.
on either hand, The term “ wall” does not appear In the Book of Job it is mentioned with the acts of
to oblige us to suppose, as many have done, that creation (xxvi. 10-13). In the Psalms it is related
the sea stood up like a cliff on either side, but as foremost among the deeds that God had wrought
should rather be considered to mean a barrier, as| for his people. The prophet Isaiah recalls it as the
the former idea implies a seemingly-needless addi-| creat manifestation of God’s interference for Israel
tion to the miracle, while the latter seems to be not | and an encouragement for the descendants of age
discordant with the language of the narrative. It who witnessed that great sight. There are events
was during the night that the Israelites crossed, | so striking that they are remembered in the life of
and the Egyptians followed, In the morning watch, | a nation, and that like great heights increasing dist-
ar last ὑπ or fourth of the night, or the period | ance only gives them more majesty. So no doubt
before sunrise, Pharaoh's army was in full pursuit) was this remembered long after those were dead
riper κα ΠΣ terete ......
pee es Syptians soug arviors of Pharaoh dead upon the shore.
(25-25). Then was Moses commanded again to It may be inquired how it is that there seers to
stretch out his hand, and the sea returned to its| have been no record or tradition of this miracle
sven andoverwhela the Fayptiany af whom among the Egyptians. ΤῊΣ quai iaveles that
ained < )-28), The statement of the time in Egyptian history to which this event
is #0 explicit that there could be no reasonable) should be assigned. The date of the Exodus ac-
'
REED
cording to different chronologers varies more than
three hundred years; the dates of the Egyptian
dynasties ruling during this period of three hundred
years vary full one hundred. The period to which
the Exodus may be assigned therefore virtually cor-
responds to four hundred years of Egyptian history.
If the lowest date of the beginning of the xviiith
dynasty be taken and the highest date of the Exodus,
both which we consider the most probable of those
which have been conjectured in the two cases, the
Israelites must have left Egypt in a period of which
monuments or other records are almost wanting.
Of the xviiith and subsequent dynasties we have as
yet no continuous history, and rarely records of
events which occurred in a succession of years.
We know much of many reigns, and of some we
can be almost sure that they could not correspond
to that of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. We can
in no case expect a distinct Egyptian monumental
record of so great a calamity, for the monuments
only record success; but it might be related in a
papyrus. There would doubtless have long re-
mained a popular tradition of the Exodus, but if
the king who perished was one of the Shepherd
strangers, this tradition would probably have been
local, and perhaps indistinct.4
Endeavyours have been made to explain away the
miraculous character of the passage of the Red Sea.
It has been argued that Moses might have carried
the Israelites over by a ford, and that an unusual
tide might have overwhelmed the Egyptians. But
no real diminution of the wonder is thus effected.
How was it that the sea admitted the passing of the
Israelites, and drowned Pharaoh and his army ?
How was it that it was shallow at the right time,
and deep at the right time? This attempted ex-
planation would never have been put forward were
it not that the fact of the passage is so well attested
that it would be uncritical to doubt it were it
recorded on mere human authority. Since the fact
is undeniable an attempt is made to explain it away.
Thus the school that pretends to the severest criticism
is compelled to deviate from its usual course ; and
when we see that in this case it must do so, we may
well doubt its soundness in other cases, which, being
differently stated, are more easily attacked. [R.S.P.]
REED. Under this name we propose noticing
the following Hebrew words: agimdn, gome, ’aroth,
and kaneh.
1. Agmdn (NOIN: κρίκος, ἄνθραξ, μικρός.
τέλος : circulus, fervens, refrenans) occurs Job
xl: 26 (A. V. xli. 2), ‘*Canst thou put agmdn”
(A. V. ‘‘hook”) into the nose of the crocodile ?
Again, in xl. 12 (A. V. xii. 20), “out of his
nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething-pot or
agmon” (A, V. “caldron”). In Is. ix. 14, it is
said Jehovah “ will cut off from Israel head and tail,
branch and agmén” (A.V. “ rush”). The agmén
is mentioned also as an Egyptian plant, in a sentence
similar to the last, in Is. xix. 15 ; while from lviii. 5
we learn that the agmén had a pendulous panicle.
There can be no doubt that the agmon denotes some
aquatic reed-like plant, whether of the Nat. order
REED 1019
Cyperaceae or that of Gramineae. The term is
allied closely to the Hebrew adgam (DAS), which,
fy a=,
like the corresponding Arabic ajam ( δ), denotes
a marshy pool or reed-bed.* (See Jer. li. 32, for
this latter signification.) There is some doubt as to
the specific identity of the agmdén, some believing
that the word denotes ‘“‘a rush” as well as a
*yeed.”” See Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot. p. 184) and
Winer (Realwérterb. ii. 484). Celsius has argued
in favour of the Arundo phragmitis (Hierob. i.
465); weare inclined to adopt his opinion. That the
agmon denotes some specific plant is probable both
from the passages where it occurs, as well as from
the fact that kaneh (713?) is the generic term for
reeds in general. The Arwndo phragmitis (now
the Phragmitis communis), if it does not occur in
Palestine and Egypt, is represented by a very closely
allied species, viz. the A. isiaca of Delisle. The
drooping panicle of this plant will answer well to
the ““ bowing down the head” of which Isaiah
speaks; but, as there are other kinds of reed-like
plants to which this character also belongs, it is
impossible to do more than give a probable conjec-
ture. The expression “Canst thou put an agmén”
into the crocodile’s nose? has been variously ex-
plained. The most probable interpretation is that
which supposes allusion is made to the mode οἱ
passing a reed or a rush through the gills of fish in
order to carry them home; but see the Commen-
taries and Notes of Rosenmiiller, Schultens, Lee,
Cary, Mason Good, &. The agmén of Job xli. 20
seems to be derived from an Arabic root signifying to
“be burning :” hence the fervens of the Vulz.—The
Phragmitis belongs to the Nat. order Graminaceae.
2. Géme, (N13 : πάπειρος, βίβλινος, ἕλος:
scirpeus, scirpus, papyrus, juncus), translated
“rush” and “ bulrush” by the A. V., without
doubt denotes the celebrated paper-reed of the
ancients (Papyrus antiquorum), a plant of the
Sedge family, Cyperaceae, which formerly was
common in some parts of Egypt. The Hebrew
word is found four times in the Bible. Moses was
hid in a vessel made of the papyrus (Ex. ii. 3).
Transit boats were made out of the same material
by the Ethiopians (Is. xviii. 2); the paper-reed is
mentioned together with Adneh, the usual generic
term for a “‘reed,” in Is, xxxv. 7, and in Job viii.
11, where it is asked, ‘* Can the papyrus plant grow
without mire?” The modern Arabic name of this
- ῳ ΄-
plant is δογαϊὶ (Sys): According to Bruce
the modern Abyssinians use boats made of the
papyrus reed; Ludolf (ist. Aethiop. i. 8) speaks
of the Tzamic lake being navigated ‘‘ monoxylis
lintribus ex typha praecrassa confertis,’ a kind
of sailing, he says, which is attended with con-
siderable danger to the navigators. Wilkinson
(Ane. Aegypt. ii. 96, ed. 1854) says that the right
of growing and selling the papyrus plants belonged
to the government, who made a profit by its mono-
4d While this article is going through the press, M.
Chabas has published a curious paper, in which he con-
jectures that certain labourers employed by the Pharaohs }
of the xixth and xxth dynasties in the quarries and
elsewhere are the Hebrews. Their name reads APERIU
or APERUI, which might correspond to ‘“ Hebrews”
DAY, but his finding them still in Egypt under
A
Rameses IV., about B.c. 1200, certainly after the latest
date of the Exodus, is a fatal objection to an identification
with the Israelites.
S-s
ἐπ
a
“Densi frutices, arundinetum, palus.”
| (Freytag.)
1020 REED
poly, and thinks other species of the Cyperaceae
must be understood as affording all the various
articles, such as baskets, canoes, sails, sandals, &c.,
which have been said to have been made from the
real papyrus. Considering that Egypt abounds in
Cyperaceae, many kinds of which might have
served for forming canoes, &«., it is improbable
that the papyrus alone should have been used for
such a purpose ; but that the true papyrus was used
for boats there can be no doubt, if the testimony of
Theophrastus (Hist. Pl. iv. 8, 84), Pliny (H. N.
xiii. 11), Plutarch and other ancient writers, is to
be believed.
Papyrus antiquoruii,
From the soft cellular portion of the stem the
ancient material called papyrus was made.,
“‘Papyri,’ says Sir G. Wilkinson, ‘‘are of the
most remote Pharaonic periods. The mode of
making them was as follows: the interior of the
stalks of the plant, after the rind had been removed,
was cut into thin slices in the direction of their
length, and these being laid on a flat board in
succession, similar slices were placed over them
at right angles, and their surfaces being cemented
together by ἃ sort of glue, and subjected to a
proper degree of pressure and well dried, the
papyrus was completed ; the length of the slices
depended of course on the breadth of the intended
sheet, that of the sheet on the number of
slices placed in succession beside each other, so
that though the breadth was limited the papyrus
might be extended to an indefinite length.”
[Wrrrinc.] The papyrus reed is not now found
in Egypt; it grows, however, in Syria. Dr. Hooker
saw it on the banks of Lake Tiberias, a few miles
as
north of the town: it appears to have existed
REED
there since the days of Theophrastus and Pliny,
who give a very accurate description of this in-
teresting plant. Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. iv.
8, $4) says, ‘The papyrus grows also in Syria
around the lake in which the sweet-scented reed is
found, from which Antigonus used to make cordage
for his ships.’ (See also Pliny, We ἫΣ sav, 15)
This plant has been found also in a small stream
two miles N. of Jaffa. Dr. Hooker believes it is
common in some parts of Syria: it does not occur
anywhere else in Asia ; it was seen by Lady Callcott
on the banks of the Anapus, near Syracuse, and Sir
Joseph Banks possessed paper rade of papyrus from
the Lake of Thrasymene (Script. Herb. p. 379).
The Hebrew name of this plant is derived from a
root which means “to absorb,” compare Lucan
(Phars. iv. 136).b The lower part of the papyrus
reed was used as food by the ancient Egyptians ;
«“ those who wish to eat the byblus dressed in the
most delicate way, stew it in a hot pan and then eat
it” (Herod. ii. 92; see also Theophr. Hist. Plant.
iv. 9). The statement of Theophrastus with regard
to the sweetness and flavour of the sap has been
confirmed by some writers; the Chevalier Land-
olina made papyrus from the pith of the plant,
which, says Heeren (Histor. Res. Afric. Nat. ii.
350, note), “ is rather clearer than the Egyptian Ge
but other writers say the stem is neither juicy nor
agreeable. The papyrus plant (Papyrus απέϊ-
quorum) has an angular stem from 3 to 6 feet,
high, though occasionally it grows to the height of
14 feet ; it has no leaves; the flowers are in very
small spikelets, which grow on the thread-like
flowering branchlets which form a bushy crown to
each stem; it is found in stagnant pools as well as
in running streams, in which latter case, according
to Bruce, one of its angles is always opposed to the
current of the stream.
3. "Ardth αν: τὸ ἄχι τὸ χλώρον way") is
translated paper-reed” in Is. xix. 7, the only,
passage where the pl. noun occurs ; there is not the
slightest authority for this rendering of the Ide We
nor is it at all probable, as Celsius ( Hierob. ii. 230)
has remarked, that the prophet who speaks of the
paper-reed under the name gome in the preceding
chapter (xviii. 2), should in this one mention the
same plant under a totally different name. “ Aroth,”
says Kimchi, “ is the name to designate pot-herbs
and green plants.” The LXX. translate it by
“all the green herbage” (comp. TIN, Gen. xli. 2,
and see FLAG). The word is derived from ’ardh,
“ to be bare,” or “destitute of trees ;” it probably
denotes the open grassy land on the banks of
the Nile; and seems to be allied to the Arabic ’ara
Sy "
(sly), locus apertus, spatiosus. Michaelis (Suppl.
No. 1973), Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Jes. xix. 7),
Gesenius (Thes. s. v.), Maurer (Comment. 5. v.),
and Simonis (Lea. Heb. s. v.), ave all in favour of
this or a similar explanation. Vitringa (Comment. —
in Isaiam) was of opinion that the Hebrew term
denoted the papyrus, and he has been followed by
J. G. Unger, who has published a dissertation on this
subject (De NAY, hoc est de Papyro frutice, von
der Papier-Staule ad 15. xix. 7; Lips. 1731, 4to.).
4. Kaneh (3p: κάλαμος, καλαμίσκος, καλά-
μινοβ, πῆχος, ἀγκών, ζυγός, πυθμήν : culmus,
» “Conseritur bibula Memphitis eymba papyro.”
© It is difficult to see how the Vulg. understood the
term,
REED
REED 1021
calamus, arundo, fistula, statera), the generic name | see Ex. xxx. 23, or by kdneh hattéb (aipn MP),
of a reed of any kind ; it occurs in numerous pas-| Jo. yi, 20; which the A. V. renders ‘sweet. cane,”
sages of the Ὁ. T., and sometimes denotes the 2
“stalk” of wheat (Gen. xli. 5, 22), or the
“branches” of the candlestick (Ex. xxv. and
xxxvii.); in Job xxxi. 22, haneh denotes the bone
% ἡ
4rando dunax.
of the arm between the elbow and the shoulder
(os humeri); it was also the name of a measure of
‘length equal to six cubits (Ez. xli. 8, xl. 5). The
word is variously rendered in the A. V. by ““ stalk,”
ranch,” “ bone,” “calamus,”’ “reed.” In the
N. T. κάλαμος may signify the “ stalk” of plants
(Mark xv. 36; Matt. xxvii. 48, that of the hyssop,
but this is doubtful), or “ἃ reed”? (Matt. xi. 7,
x) 205 uke: vil. 245 Mark xv. 19)5 or a
_ “measuring rod” (Rey. xi. 1, xxi. 15, 16); or a
“pen” (3 John 13). Strand (Flor. Palaest. 28-30)
gives the following names of the reed plants of}.
Palestine :—Saccharum officinale, Cyperus papyrus
(Papyrus antiquorum), C. rotundus, and C. escu-
lentus, and Arundo scriptoria; but no doubt the
species are numerous. See Bové (Voyage en
Palest., Annal. des Scienc. Nat. 1834, p. 165)
“ς Dans les deserts qui environnent ces montagnes j’ai
trouvé plusieurs Saccharum, Milium arundinaceum
et plusieurs Cyperacé.” The Arundo donax, the
A. Aecgyptiaca (?) of Bove (Ibid. p. 72) is com-
mon on the banks of the Nile, and may perhaps be
“the staff of the bruised reed”? to which Senna-
cherib compared the power of Egypt ‘2 K. xviii.
21; Ez. xxix. 6, 7). Seealso Is. xlii. 3. The thick
stem of this reed may have been used as walking-
staves by the ancient orientals; perhaps the mea-
suring-reed was this plant; at present the diy
culms of this huge grass are in much demand for
fishing-rods, &c.
Some kind of fragrant reed is denoted by the
word kénéh (Is. xliii. 24; Ez. xxvii. 19; Cant. iv.
14), or more fully by rénéh bosem (OWA AIP),
and ‘ calamus.” Whatever may be the substance
denoted, it is certain that it was one of foreign
importation, “from a far country” (Jer. vi. 20).
Some writers (see Sprengel, Com. in Dioscor. i.
xvii.) have sought to identify the kdneh bosem with
the Acorus calamus, the ‘‘ sweet sedge,” to which
they refer the κάλαμος ἀρωματικός of Dioscorides
(i. 17), the κάλαμος εὐώδης of Theophrastus
(Hist. Plant. iv. 8 §4), which, according to this
last named writer and Pliny (NV. #H. xii. 22),
formerly grew about a lake ‘‘ between Libanus and
another mountain of no note ;” Strabo identifies this
with the Lake of Gennesaret (Geog. xvi. c. 759,
ed. Kramer). Burckhardt was unable to discover
any sweet-scented reed or rush near the lake, though
he saw many tall reeds there. ‘ High reeds grow
along the shore, but I found none of the aromatic
reeds and rushes mentioned by Strabo”? (Syria, p.
319); but whatever may be the “ fragrant reed”’
intended, it is certain that it did not grow in Syria,
otherwise we cannot suppose it should be spoken of
as a valuable product from a far country. Dr. Royle
refers the κάλαμος ἀρωματικός of Dioscorides to a
species of Andropogon, which he calls A. calamus
aromaticus, a plant of remarkable fragrance, and a
native of Central India, where it is used to mix with
ointments on account of the delicacy of its odour
(see Kitto’s Cycl. Art. “ Kaneh bosem ;” and a fig.
of this plant in Royle’s Zilustrations of Himalayan
Botany, p. 425, t. 97). It is possible this may be
the “reed of fragrance Ὁ’ but it is hardly likely
that Dioscorides, who, under the term ooivos"
gives a description of the Andropoyon Schoenanthus,
should speak of a closely allied species under a
totally different name, Still there is no necessity
to refer the Kénéh bésem or hattéb to the κάλαμος
ἀρωματικός of Dioscorides ; it may be represented by
Dr. Royle’s plant or by the Andropogon Schoenanthus,
[W. H.]
the lemon grass of India and Arabia.
Andropogon schacnantics,
1022 REELAIAH
REELAI’AH (yt: Ῥεελίας : Rahelaia).
One of the childyen of the province who went up
with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 2). In Neh. vii. 7 he is
called RAAMIAH, and in 1 Esd. v. 8 REESAIAS.
REE'LIUS (‘PeeAfas). This name occupies the
place of Bicvat in Ezr. ii. 2 (1 Esd. v. 8). The
list in the Vulgate is so corrupt that it is difficult
to trace either.
REESAI'AS (Ῥησαίας : Elimeus). The same
as REELAIAHW or RAAMIAH (1 Esd. v. 8).
REFINER (578; 57812). The refiner’s art
was essential to the working of the precious metals.
Jt consisted in the separation of the dross from the
pure ore, which was effected by reducing the metal
to a fluid state by the application of heat, and by
the aid of solvents, such as alkali® (Is. i. 25) or
lead (Jer. vi. 29), which, amalgamating with the
dross, permitted the extraction of the unadulterated
metal. The term usually applied to refining had
reference to the process of melting: occasionally,
however, the effect of the process is described by a
term borrowed from the filtering of wine. The
instruments required by the refiner were a crucible
or furnace? and a bellows or blow-pipe.e The
workman sat at his work (Mal. iii. 3, “He shall
sit as a refiner”’), as represented in the cut of an
Egyptian refiuer already given (see vol. i. 750):
he was thus better enabled to watch the process,
and let the metal run off at the proper moment.
{ Mines; ii. 368 5.] The notices of refining are
chiefly of a figurative character, and describe moral
purification as the result of chastisement (Is. i. 25 ;
Zech. xiii. 9; Mal. iii. 2,3). The failure of the means
to effect the result is graphically depicted in Jer.
vi. 29: “The bellows glow with the fire (become
quite hot from exposure to the heat): the lead
(used as a solvent) is expended :f the refiner melts
in vain, for the refuse will not be separated.” The
refiner appears, from the passage whence this is
quoted, to have combined with his proper business
that of assaying metals: “I have set thee for an
assayer”’ 8 (Ib. ver. 27). [WepleeBs))
REFUGE, CITIES OF. [Ciries or ΒΕ-
PUGE. }
RE'GEM (037: ‘Payéu; Alex. Ῥεγέμ: Re-
gom). A son of Jahdai, whose name unaccountably
appears in a list of the descendants of Caleb by his
concubine Ephah (1 Chr. ii. 47). Rashi considers
Jahdai as the son of Ephah, but there appear no
grounds for this assumption.
RE'GEM-MEL'ECH (31) DI: ᾿Αρβεσεὲρ
ὁ βασιλεύς : Alex. ᾿Αρβεσεσὲρ 6 β.: Rogommelech).
The names of Sherezer and Regem-melech occur in
an obscure passage of Zechariah (vii. 2). They
were sent on behalf of some of the captivity to
make inquiries at the Temple concerning fasting.
In the A. V. the subject of the verse appears to be
the captive Jews in Babylon, and Bethel, or ‘ the
house of God,” is regarded as the accusative after
REHABIAH
the verb of motion. The LXX. take “ the king”
as the nominative to the verb “ sent,” considering
the last part of the name Regem-melech as an ap-
pellative and not as a proper name. Again, in the
Vulgate, Sherezer, Regem-melech, and their men,
are the persons who sent to the house of God. The
Peshito-Syriac has a curious version of the passage :
“© And he sent to Bethel, to Sharezer and Rabmag ;
and the king sent and his men to pray for him
before the Lord :” Sharezer and Rabmag being asso-
ciated in Jer. xxxix. 3, 13. On referring to Zech.
vii. 5, the expression ‘‘ the people of the land”
seems to indicate that those who sent to the Temple
were not the captive Jews in Babylon, but those
who had returned to their own country ; and this
being the case it is probable that in ver. 2 “ Bethel ”
is to be taken as the subject, ‘* and Bethel, 7. e. the
inhabitants of Bethel, sent.”
The Hexaplar-Syriac, following the Peshito, has
“‘Rabmag.’’ What reading the LXX. had before
them it is difficult to conjecture. From its con-
nexion with Sherezer, the name Regem-melech (lit.
‘ king’s friend,” comp. 1 Chr, xxvii. 33), was pro-
bably an Assyrian title of office. ise ΕἾ
REGION-ROUND-ABOUT, THE (7 πε-
ptxwpos). This term had perhaps originally a more
precise and independent meaning than it appears to
a reader of the Authorized Version to possess.
In the Old Test. it is used by the LXX. as the
equivalent of the singular Hebrew word hac-Ciccar
(93311, literally «the round”), a word the topo-
graphical application of which is not clear, but
which seems in its earliest occurrences to denote
the circle or oasis of cultivation in which stood
Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the five “ cities
of the Ciccar”’ (Gen. xiii. 10, 11, 12, xix. 17, 25,
28, 29; Deut. xxxiv. 3). Elsewhere it has a wider
meaning, though still attached to the Jordan (2 Sam.
xviii. 28; 1K. vii. 46; 2 Chr. iv. 17;. Neh. iii. 22,
xii. 28). It is in this less restricted sense that
περίχωρος occurs in the New Test. In Matt. iii. 5
and Luke iii. 3 it denotes the populous and flourish-
ing region which contained the towns of Jericho and
its dependencies, in the Jordan valley, enclosed in the
amphitheatre of the hills of Quarantana (see Map,
vol. ii. p. 664), adensely populated region, and im-
portant enough to be reckoned as a distinct section
of Palestine—“ Jerusalem, Judaea, and all the ar-
rondissement Ὁ of Jordan” (Matt. iii. 5, also Luke
vii. 17). It is also applied to the district of Gen-
nesaret, a region which presents certain similarities
to that of Jericho, being enclosed in the amphi-
theatre of the hills of Hattin and bounded in front
by the water of the lake, as the other was by the
Jordan, and also resembling it in being very thickly
populated (Matt. xiv. 35; Mark vi. 55; Luke vi.
37, vii. 17). [G.]
REHABIAH (79317 in 1 Chr. xxiii. ; else-
where WAM: Ῥαβιά ; Alex. Ῥααβιά in 1 Chr.
xxiii. ; “PaaBias 1 Chr. xxiv., ‘PaBias; Alex. Ῥαα-
βίας 1 Chr. xxvi.: Rohobia, Rahabia in 1 Chr.
5 “a3 7 A.V. “purely,” but more properly ‘as with
alkali,”
b
ANY. © pp.
ot i
“WD. The term ΠΝ. occurs twice only (Prov.
xvil. 3, xxvii. 21; A. V. “fining-pot”’). The expression
in Ps. xii. 6, rendered in the A, V. “ furnace of earth,” is
of doubtful signification, but certainly cannot signify that.
The passage may be rendered, “as silver, melted in a work-
shop, flowing down to the earth.” ὃ
° mB). £ Keri, OF Wt).
ξ 3. The A. V. adopts an incorrect punctuation,
JNA, and renders it “a tower.”
» Thus Jerome—* regiones in ciyeuitw per quas medius
Jordanes fluit.”
eS SS Eee ee
REHOB
xxvi.). The only son of Eliezer, the son of Moses,
and the father of Isshiah, or Jeshaiah (1 Chr. xxiii.
17, xxiv. 21, xxvi. 25). His descendants were
numerous.
RE'HOB (3577: Ῥαάβ : Rohob). 1. The
father of Hadadezer king of Zobah, whom David
smote at the Euphrates (2 Sam. viii. 3, 12).
Josephus (Ant. vii. 5, §1) calls him ᾿Αράος, and
the Old Latin Version Arachus, and Blayney (on
Zech. ix. 1) thinks this was his real name, and that
he was called Rehob, or “" charioteer,” from the num-
ber of chariots in his possession. The name appears
to be peculiarly Syiian, for we find a district of
Syria called Rehob, or Beth-Rehob (2 Sam. x. 6, 8).
2. (‘PoéB.) A Levite, or family of Levites, who
sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 11).
Were aon]
RE'HOB (ΠῚ). The name of more than one
place in the extreme north of the Holy Land.
1. (‘PadB; Alex. Ῥοωβ : Rohob.)* The northern
limit of the exploration of the spies (Num. xiii. 21).
It is specified as being “ as men come unto Hamath,”
or, as the phrase is elsewhere rendered, ‘‘ at the
entrance of Hamath,” 7. ὁ. at the commencement of
the territory of that name, by which in the early
books of the Bible the great valley of Lebanon, the
Likwah of the Prophets, and the Bzka’a of the
modem Arabs, seems to be roughly designated.
This, and the consideration of the improbability that
the spies went farther than the upper end of the
Jordan valley (Rob. B. R. iii. 371), seems to fix
the position of Rehob as not far from Tell el-Kady
and Banias. This is confirmed by the statement
of Judg. xviii. 28, that Laish or Dan ( Zell el-Kady)
was “in the valley that is by Beth-rehob.” No
trace of the name of Rehob or Beth-rehob has yet
been met with in this direction. Dr. Robinson pro-
poses to identify it with Minin, an ancient fortress
in the mountains N.W. of the plain of Huleh, the
upper district of the Jordan valley. But this,
though plausible, has no certain basis.
To those who are anxious to extend the boun-
daries of the Holy Land on the north and east it
may be satisfactory to know that a place called
Euhaibeh exists in the plain of Jerud, about 25 miles
N.E. of Damascus, and 12 N. of the northernmost
of the three lakes (see the Maps of Van de Velde and
Porter).
There is no reason to doubt that this Rehob or
Beth-rehob was identical with the place mentioned
under both names in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8, in connexion
with Maacah, which was also in the upper district
of the Huleh,
Inasmuch, however, as Beth-rehob is distinctly
stated to have been “ far from Zidon” (Judg. xviii.
28), it must be a distinct place from
2. (Ῥαάβ: Alex. “PowB: Rohob), one of the
towns allotted to Asher (Josh. xix. 28), and which
from the list appears to have been in close proximity
to Zidon. It is naméd between Ebron, or Abdon,
and Hammon. The towns of Asher lay in a region
which has been but imperfectly examined, and no
one has yet succeeded in discovering the position of
either of these three.
3. (‘Paat; Alex. Ῥαωβ : Rohob, Rochob.) Asher
contained another Rehob (Josh. xix. 30); but the
situation of this, like the former, remains at present
REHOBOAM 1023
unknown. One of the two, it is difficult to say
which,_was allotted to the Gershonite Levites (Josh.
xxl. 31; 1 Chr. vi. 75), and of one its Canaanite
inhabitants retained possession (Judg. i. 31). The
mention of Aphik in this latter passage may imply
that the Rehob referred to was that of Josh. xix. 50,
This, Eusebius and Jerome ( Onomasticon, “ Roob”’)
confuse with the Rehob of the spies, and place four
Roman miles from Scythopolis. The place they
refer to still survives as Rehab, 34 miles S. of
Beisan, but their identification of a town in that
position with one in the territory of Asher is obvi-
ously inaccurate. LG. ]
REHOBO’AM (QYIM, “enlarger of the
people ”—see Ex. xxxiy. 24, and compare the naine
Εὐρύδημος : ‘PoBodu: Roboam), son of Solomon,
by the Ammonite princess Naamah (1 K. xiv. 21,
31), and his successor (1 K. xi. 43). From the
earliest period of Jewish history we perceive symp-
toms that the confederation of the tribes was but
imperfectly cemented. The powerful Ephraim could
never brook a position of inferiority. Throughout
the Book of Judges (viii. 1, xii. 1) the Ephraimites
show a spirit of resentful jealousy when any enter-
prise is undertaken without their concurrence and
active participation. From them had sprung
Joshua, and afterwards (by his place of birth)
Samuel might be considered theirs, and though the
tribe of Benjamin gave to Israel its first king, yet
it was allied by hereditary ties to the house of
Joseph, and by geographical position to the terri-
tory of Ephraim, so that up to David's accession
the leadership was practically in the hands of the
latter tribe. But Judah always threatened to be a
formidable rival. During the earlier history, partly
from the physical structure and situation of its
territory (Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. p. 162), which secluded
it from Palestine just as Palestine by its geogra-
phical character was secluded from the world, it had
stood very much aloof trom the nation [0 ΑΗ],
and even after Saul’s death, apparently without
waiting to consult their brethren, “‘ the men of
Judah came and anointed David king over the house
of Judah’? (2 Sam. ii. 4), while the other tribes
adhered to Saul’s family, thereby anticipating the
final disruption which was afterwards to rend the
nation permanently into two kingdoms. But after
seven years of disaster a reconciliation was forced
upon the contending parties; David was acknow-
ledged as king of Israel, and soon after, by fixing
his court at Jerusalem and bringing the tabernacle
there, he transferred from Ephraim the greatness
which had attached to Shechem as the ancient
capital, and to Shiloh as the seat of the national
worship. In spite of this he seems to have enjoyed
great personal popularity among the Ephraimites,
and to have treated many of them with special
favour (1 Chr. xii. 30, xxvii. 10, 14), yet this
roused the jealousy of Judah, and probably led to
the revolt of Absalom, [ABSALOM.] Even after
that perilous crisis was past, the old rivalry broke
out afresh, and almost led to another insurrection
(2Sam. xx. 1, &c.). Compare Ps. Ixxviii. 60, 67, &c.
in illustration of these remarks. Solomon’s reign,
from its severe taxes and other oppressions, aggra-
vated the discontent, and latterly, from its irre-
ligious character, alienated the prophets and pro-
voked the displeasure of God. When Solomon’s
@ Targum Pseudojon. niyo, ἵ.6. πλατεῖαι, streets;
and Samaritan Vers. ἡ 2. |
b Here the name is written in the fuller form of
3m.
1024 REHOBOAM
strong hand was withdrawn the crisis came. Reho-
boam selected Shechem as the place of his coronation,
probably as an act of concession to the Ephraimites,
and perhaps in deference to the suggestions of those
old and wise counsellors of his father, whose advice
he afterwards unhappily rejected. From the pre-
sent Hebrew text of 1 K. xii. the exact details of
the transactions at Shechem are involved in a little
uncertainty. The general facts indeed are clear.
The people demanded a remission of the severe bur-
dens imposed by Solomon, and Rehoboam promised
them an answer in three days, during which time
he consulted first his father’s counsellors, and then
the young men “that were grown up with him,
and which stood before him,” whose answer shows
how greatly during Solomon’s later years the cha-
racter of the Jewish court had degenerated. Reject-
ing the advice of the elders to conciliate the people
at the beginning of his reign, and so make them
“his servants for ever,” he returned as his reply,
in the true spirit of an Eastern despot, the frantic
bravado of his contemporaries: ‘‘ My little finger
shall be thicker than my father’s loins. . . . I will
add to your yoke; my father hath chastised you
with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions”
(ἢ δ. scourges furnished with sharp points 8). There-
upon arose the formidable song of insurrection, heard
once before when the tribes quarrelled after David’s
return from the war with Absalom :—-
What portion have we in David?
What inheritance in Jesse's son?
To your tents, O Israel !
Now see to thy own house, O David!
Rehoboam sent Adoram or Adoniram, who had been
chief receiver of the tribute during the reigns of his
father and his grandfather (1 K. iv. 6; 2 Sam. xx.
24), to reduce the rebels to reason, but he was
stoned to death by them; whereupon the king and
his attendants fled in hot haste to Jerusalem. So
far all is plain, but there is a doubt as to the part
which Jeroboam took in these transactions. Ac-
cording to 1 K. xii. 3 he was summoned by the
Ephraimites from Egypt (to which country he had
fled from the anger of Solomon) to be their spokes-
man at Rehoboam’s coronation, and actually made
the speech in which a remission of burdens was
requested. But, in apparent contradiction to this,
we read in ver. 20 of the same chapter that after
the success of the insurrection and Rehoboam’s
flight, “when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was
come again, they sent and called him unto the con-
gregation and made him king.” But there is rea-
son to think that ver. 3 has been interpolated. It
is not found in the LXX., which makes no mention
of Jeroboam in this chapter till ver. 20, substi-
tuting in ver. 3 for “ Jeroboam and all the congre-
gation of Israel came and spoke unto Rehoboam” the
words, καὶ ἐλάλησεν ὃ Aads πρὺς τὸν βασιλέα
Ῥοβοάμ. So too Jeroboam’s name is omitted by
the LXX. in ver. 12. Moreover we find in the
LXX. a long supplement to this 12th chapter, evi-
dently ancient, and at least in parts authentic, con-
taining fuller details of Jeroboam’s biography than
the Hebrew. [JeRonoam.] In this we read that
after Solomon’s death he returned to his native
place, Sarira in Ephraim, which he fortified, and
lived there quietly, watching the turn of events,
till the long-expected rebellion broke out, when the
* So iu Latin, scorpio, according to Isidore (Origg. v.27),
is “ virga nodosa et aculeata quia arcuato vulnere in corpus
infligitur”’ (Facciolati, s, v.).
REHOBOAM
Ephraimites heard (doubtless through his own
agency) that he had returned, and invited him to
Shechem to assume the crown. From the same
supplementary narrative of the LXX. it would
appear that more than a year must have elapsed
between Solomon’s death and Rehoboam’s visit to
Shechem, for, on receiving the news of the former
event, Jeroboam requested from the king of Egypt
leave to return to his native country. This the
king tried to prevent by giving him his sister-in-law
in marriage: but on the birth of his child Abijah,
Jeroboam renewed his request, which was then
granted. It is probable that during this year the
discontent of the N. tribes was making itself more
and more manifest, and that this led to Rehoboam’s
visit and intended inauguration.
On Rehoboam’s return to Jerusalem he assembled
an army of 180,000 men from the two faithful
tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the latter transferred
from the side of Joseph te that of Judah in con-
sequence of the position of David’s capital within
its borders), in the hope of reconquering Israel.
The expedition, however, was forbidden by the pro-
phet Shemaiah, who assured them that the separa-
tion of the kingdoms was in accordance with God’s
will (1 K. xii. 24): still during Rehoboam’s life-
time peaceful relations between Israel and Judah
were never restored (2 Chr, xii. 15; 1 K. xiv. 30).
Rehoboam now occupied himself in strengthening
the territories which remained to him, by building
a number of fortresses of which the names are
given in 2 Chr. xi. 6-10, forming a girdle of
“fenced cities” round Jerusalem. The pure wor-
ship of God was maintained in Judah, and the
Levites and many pious Israelites from the North,
vexed at the calf-idolatry introduced by Jeroboam
at Dan and Bethel, in imitation of the Egyptian
worship of Mnevis, came and settled in the southern
kingdom and added to its power. But Rehoboam
did not check the introduction of heathen abomina-
tions into his capital: the lascivious worship of
Ashtoreth was allowed to exist by the side of the
true religion (an inheritance of evil doubtless left
by Solomon), “images” (of Baal and his fellow
divinities) were set up, and the worst immoralities
were tolerated (1 K. xiv. 22-24). These evils were
punished and put down by the terrible calamity of
an Egyptian invasion. Shortly before this time a
change in the ruling house had occurred in Egypt.
The 21st dynasty, of Tanites, whose last king,
Pisham or Psusennes, had been a close ally of Solo-
mon (1 K, iii. 1, vii. 8, ix. 16, x. 28, 29), was
succeeded by the 22nd, of Bubastites, whose first
sovereign, Shishak (Sheshonk, Sesonchis, Σουσακίμ),
connected himself, as we have seen, with Jeroboam.
That he was incited by him to attack Judah is
very probable: at all events in the 5th year of
Rehoboam’s reign the country was invaded by a
host of Egyptians and other African nations, num-
bering 1200 chariots, 60,000 cavalry, and a vast
miscellaneous multitude of infantry. ‘The line of
fortresses which protected Jerusalem to the W. and
S. was forced, Jerusalem itself was taken, and
Rehoboam had to purchase an ignominious peace
by delivering up all the treasures with which Solo-
mon had adorned the temple and palace, including
his golden shields, 200 of the larger, and 300 of the
smaller size (1 K. x. 16, 17), which were carried
before him when he visited the temple in state.
We are told that after the Egyptians had retired,
his vain and foolish successor comforted himself by
substituting shields of brass, which were solemnly
REHOBOTH
borne before him in procession by the body-guard,
as if nothing had been changed since his father’s
time (Ewald, Geschichte des V. I. iii. 348, 464).
Shishak’s success is commemorated by sculptures
discovered by Champollion on the outside of the
great temple at Karnak, where among a long list
of captured towns and provinces occurs the name
Melchi Judah (kingdom of Judah). It is said that
the features of the captives in these sculptures are
unmistakeably Jewish (Rawlinson, Herodotus, ii.
576, and Bampton Lectures, p. 126; Bunsen,
Egypt, iii. 242). After this great humiliation the
moral condition of Judah seems to have improved
(2 Chr. xii. 12), and the rest of Rehoboam’s life to
have been unmarked by any events of importance.
He died B.c. 958, after a reign of 17 years, having
ascended the throne B.c. 975 at the age of 41
(1 K. xiv. 21; 2 Chr. xii. 13). In the addition to
the LXX. already mentioned (inserted after 1 K.
xii. 24) we read that he was 16 years old at his
accession, a misstatement probably founded on a
wrong interpretation of 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where he is
called “ young” (1. 6. new to his work, inexpe-
rienced) and “ tender-hearted” (83 .η5, wanting
in resolution and spirit). He had 18 wives, 60
concubines, 28 sons, and 60 daughters. The wisest
thing recorded of him in Scripture is that he
refused to waste away his sons’ energies in the
wretched existence of an Eastern zenana, in which
we may infer, from his helplessness at the age of
41, that he had himself been educated, but dis-
persed them in command of the new fortresses
which he had built about the country. Of his
wives, Mahalath, Abihail, and Maachah were all
of the royal house of Jesse: Maachah he loved best
of all, and to her son Abijah he bequeathed his
kingdom. The text of the LXX. followed in this
article is Tischendorf’s edition of the Vatican MS.,
Leipsic, 1850. [G. E. L. C.]
REHOBOTH (nj; Samar. nym:
evpuxwpia; Veneto-Gk. af Πλατεῖαι : Latitudo).
The third of the series of wells dug by Isaac (Gen.
xxvi. 22). He celebrates his triumph and bestows
its name on the well in a fragment of poetry of the
same nature as those in which Jacob’s wives give
names to his successive children :—‘‘ He called the
name of it Rehoboth (‘ room,’) and said,
* Because now Jehovah hath-made-room for us
And we shall increase in the land,’””
Isaac had left the valley of Gerar and its turbulent
inhabitants before he dug the well which he thus
commemorated (ver. 22). From it he, in time,
“went up” to Beersheba (ver. 23), an expression
which is always used of motion towards the Land of
promise. The position of Gerar has not been defi-
nitely ascertained, but it seems to have lain a few
miles to the S. of Gaza and nearly due E. of Beer-
sheba. In this direction, theretore, if anywhere,
the wells Sitnah, Esek, and Rehoboth, should be
searched for. A Wady Ruhaibch, containing the
ruins of a town of the same name, with a large
well,» is crossed by the road from Ahan en-Nukhi
to Hebron, by which Palestine is entered on the
South. It lies about 20 miles S.W. of Bir es-Seba,
REHOBOTH, THE CITY. 1025
and more than that distance S. of the most probable
situation of Gerar. It therefore seems unsafe with-
out further proof to identify it with Rehoboth, as
Rowlands (in Williams’ Holy City, i. 465), Stewart
(Tent and Khan, 202), and Van de Velde® (Me-
motr, 343) have done. At the same time, as is
admitted by Dr. Robinson, the existence of' so large
a place here without any apparent mention is mys-
terious. All that can be said in favour of the
identity of Ruhaibeh with Rehoboth is said by Dr.
Bonar (Desert of Sinai, 316), and not without con-
siderable force.
The ancient Jewish tradition confined the events
of this part of Isaac’s life to a much narrower circle.
The wells of the patriarchs were shown near Ash-
kelon in the time of Origen, Antoninus Martyr,
and Eusebius (Reland, Pal. 589); the Samaritan
Version identifies Gerar with Ashkelon; Josephus
(Ant. i. 12, §1) calls it ‘ Gerar of Palestine,” i. ὁ.
of Philistia. [G.]
RE'HOBOTH, THE CITY (Wy Nain, i.e.
Rechoboth Ir; Samar. NIM; Sam. Vers.* JOD:
‘PowBe βπόλις ; Alex. ‘PowBws : plateae civitatis).
One of the four cities built by Asshur, or by
Nimrod in Asshur, according as this difficult pas-
sage is translated. The four were Nineveh ; Reho-
both-Ir; Calah; and Resen, between Nineveh and
Calah (Gen. x. 11). Nothing certain is known of
its position. The name of Rahabeh is still attached
to two places in the region of the ancient Meso-
potamia. They lie, the one on the western and the
other on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, a few
miles below the confluence of the Khabir. Both
are said to contain extensive ancient remains. That
on the eastern bank bears the affix of malik or
royal, and this Bunsen (Bibelwerk) and Kalisch
(Genesis, 261) propose as the representative of
tehoboth. Its distance from Malah-Sherghat and
Nimrid (nearly 200 miles) is perhaps an obstacle
to this identification. Sir H. Rawlinson (Athen-
aeum, April 15, 1854) suggests Selemiyah in the
immediate neighbourhood of Kalah, “ where there
are still extensive ruins of the Assyrian period,”
but no subsequent discoveries appear to have con-
firmed this suggestion. The Samaritan Version
(see above) reads Sutcan for Rehoboth; and it is
remarkable that the name Sutcan should be found
in connexion with Calah in an inscription on the
breast of a statue of the god Nebo which Sir H.
Rawlinson disinterred at Nimrid (Athenaeum, as
above). The Sutcan of the Samaritan Version is
commonly supposed to denote the Sittacene of the
Greek geographers (Winer, Realwb. “ Rechoboth
Ir”). But Sittacene was a district, and not a city
as Rehoboth-Ir necessarily was, and, further, being
in southern Assyria, would seem to be too distant
from the other cities of Nimrod.
St. Jerome, both in the Vulgate and in his
Quaestiones ad Genesim (probably from Jewish
sources), considers Rehoboth-Ir as referring to
Nineveh, and as meaning the “streets of the city.”
The reading of the Targums of Jonathan, Jerusalem,
and Rabbi Joseph, on Gen, and 1 Chron., viz.,
Platiah, Platiitha, are probably only transcrip-
tions of the Greek word πλατεῖαι, which, as found
in the well known ancient city Plataea, is the exact
b Dr. Robinson could not find the well. Dr. Stewart
found it “‘regularly built, 12 feet in circumference,” but
“completely filled up.’”’ Mr. Rowlands describes it as
“an ancient well of living and good water.’”” Who shall
decide on testimony so curiously contradictory ?
VOL, II.
¢ Τὴ his Travels Van de Velde inclines to place it, or at,
any rate one of Isaac’s wells, at Bir Isek, about six miles
| S.W. of Beit Jibrin (Syr. and Pal. ii. 146).
a The Arabic translation of this version (Kuehnen)
adheres to the Hebrew text, having Rahabeh el-Medineh.
2
U
vo
1026 REHOBOTH BY THE RIVER
equivalent of Rehoboth. Kaplan, the Jewish geo-
grapher (Hrets Kedumim), identifies Rahabeh-malik
With Rehoboth-by-the-river, in which he is possibly
correct, but considers it as distinct from Rehoboth-
Ir, which he believes to have disappeared. [G.]
RE'HOBOTH BY THE RIVER (mam)
N30: ‘Pow8se—in Chr. ῬῬωβωθ---ἢ παρὰ πο-
τὰμόν ; Alex. Ῥοωβωθ in each: de fluvio Rohoboth 5
Rohoboth quae juxta amnem sita est). The city of a
certain Saul or Shaul, one of the early kings of the
Edomites (Gen. xxxvi. 37; 1 Chr. i. 48). The
affix, “ the river,” fixes the situation of Rehoboth
as on the Euphrates, emphatically “the river”
to the inhabitants of Western Asia. [RIVER.]
The name still remains attached to two spots on
the Euphrates; the one, simply Rahabeh, on the
right bank, eight miles below the junction of the
Khabar, and about three’ miles west of the river
(Chesney, Huphr., i. 119, ii. 610, and map iv.),
the other four or five miles further down on the
left bank. The latter is said to be called Rahabeh-
malik, i.e. “ royal ” (Kalisch, Kaplan),* and is on
this ground identified by the Jewish commentators
with the city of Saul; but whether this is accurate,
and whether that city, or either of the two sites
just named, is also identical with Rehoboth-Ir, the
city of Nimrod, is not yet known.
There is no reason to suppose that the limits of
Edom ever extended to the Euphrates, and there-
fore the occurrence of the name in the lists of
kings of Edom, would seern to be a trace of an
Assyrian incursion of the same nature as that of
Chedorlaomer and Amraphel. πο [Gel
RE'HUM (DIM: Ῥεούμ ; Alex. Ἰερεούμ :
Rehum). 1. One of the “ children of the province”
who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr.
ii. 2), In Neh. vii. 7 he is called ΝΈΗΟΜ, and in
1 Esd. v. 8 Rormus.
2. (Reum.) “ Rehum the chancellor,” with
Shimshai the scribe and others, wrote to Artaxerxes
to prevail upon him to stop the rebuilding of the
walls and temple of Jerusalem (zr. iv. 8, 9, 17,
23). He was perhaps a kind of lieutetfant-governor
of the province under the king of Persia, holding
apparently the same office as Tatnai, who is de-
scribed in Ezy. vy. 6 as taking part in a similar
transaction, and is there called “ the governor on
this side the river.” ‘The Chaldee title, ny->y3,
b& él-téém, lit. “lord of decree,” is left untranslated
in the LXX. Βαλτάμ, and the Vulgate Beelteem ;
and the rendering *‘ chancellor ” in the A. V. appears
to have been derived from Kimchi and others, who
explain it, in consequence of its connexion with
* sevibe,” by the Hebrew word which is usually
rendered “recorder.” This appears to have been
the view taken by the author of 1 Esd. ii. 25, 6
γράφων τὰ προσπίπτοντα, and by Josephus (Ant.
xi. 2, 81), 6 πάντα τὰ πραττόμενα γράφων. ‘The
former of these seems to be a gloss, for the Chaldee
title is also represented by Βεελτέθμος.
3. ιῬαούμ: Rehum.) A Levite of the family of
Bani, who assisted in rebuilding the walls of Jeru-
salem (Neh. iii. 17).
4. (Ῥεούμ.) One of the chief of the people, who
signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25).
REMALIAH
5. (Om. in Vat. MS.: Rheum.) A priestly
family, or the head of a priestly house, who went
up with Zerubbabel (Neh, xii. 8). [W. A. W.]
RET Οὐ: Ῥησεί:" Rei). A person mentioned
(in 1 K. i. 8 only) as having, in company with
Zadok, Benaiah, Nathan, Shimei, and the men of
David’s guard, remained firm to David’s cause when
Adonijah rebelled, He is not mentioned again, nor
do we obtain any clue to his identity. Various
conjectures have been made. Jerome (Quaest. Hebr.
ad loc.) states that he is the same with ‘“ Hiram
the Zairite,” ὦ ὁ. Iva the Jairite, a priest or prince
about the person of David. Ewald (Gesch, iii. 266
note), dwelling on the eccurrence of Shimei in the
same list with Rei, suggests that the two are
David’s only surviving brothers, Rei being identical
with RApDDAT. This is ingenious, but there is
nothing to support it, while there is the great
objection torit that the names are in the original
extremely dissimilar, Rei containing the Ain, a letter
which is rarely exchanged for any other, but appa-
rently never for Daleth (Gesen. Thes. 976, 7). [ἃ.]
REINS, ἡ ὁ. kidneys, from the Latin renes.
1. The word is used to translate the Hebrew noo,
except in the Pentateuch and in Is, xxxiv. 6, where
“kidneys” is employed. In the ancient system
of physiology the kidneys were believed to be the
seat of desire and longing, which accounts for their
often being coupled with the heart (Ps. vii. 9,
xxvi. 23 Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10, &e.).
2. It is once used (Is. xi. 5) as the equivalent of
ὮΝΝ 2ΓΠ, elsewhere translated “ loins.” [G.]
REK'EM (Op: ‘Purdy, Ῥοβόκ ; Alex. Ῥοκόμ:
Recem). 1. One of the five kings or chieftains of
Midian slain by the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 8; Josh.
xiii. 21) at the time that Balaam fell.
2. (‘Pexdu; Alex. ‘Poxdu.) One of the four
sons of Hebron, and father of Shammai (1 Chr. ii.
43, 44). In the last verse the LXX. have “ Jor-
koam” for “Rekem.” In this genealogy it is ex-
tremely difficult to separate the names of persons
from those of places—Ziph, Mareshah, Tappuah,
Hebron, are all names of places, as well as Maon
and Beth-zur. In Josh. xviii. 27 Rekem appears as
a town of Benjamin, and perhaps this genealocy
may be intended to indicate that it was founded by
a colony from Hebron.
REK'EM (O77: perhaps Καφὰν καὶ Νακὰν ;
Alex. ‘Pexeu: Recem). One of the towns of the
allotment of Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 27). [Ὁ occurs
between Mozau (ham-Motsa) and ΡΈΕΙ. No
one, not even Schwarz, has attempted to identify
it with any existing site. But may there not be
a trace of the name in Ain Aarim, the well-known
spring west of Jerusalem? It is within a very
short distance of Motsah, provided Aulonieh be
Motsah, as the writer has already suggested. [G.]
REMALI’AH (1799199: ‘PoweAlas in Kings
and Isaiah, Ῥομελία in Chr.: Romelia). The father
of Pekah, captain of Pekahiah king of Israel, who
slew his master and usurped his throne (2 K. xv.
Does νι. dy O52 Chrauxxyiire Ὁ» is τ ἢ
viil. 6).
" The existence of the second rests but on slender
foundation. Lt is shown in the map in Layard’s Nineveh
and Babylon, and is mentioned by the two Jewish |
authorities named above: but it does not appear in the
work of Col. Chesney,
» Reading Y for τ).
REMETH
REM'ETH (199: Ῥεμμάς ; Alex. Ῥαμμαθ:
Rameth). One of the towns of Issachar (Josh. xix.
21), occurring in the list next to En-gannim, the
modern Jenin. It is probably (though not cer-
tainly) a distinct place from the RamMoTH of 1 Chr.
vi. 73. A place bearing the name of Rameh is
found on the west of the track from Samaria to
Jenin, about 6 miles N. of the former and 9 S.W.
of the latter (Porter, Handb. 348a; Van de Velde,
Map). Its situation, on an isolated rocky ¢e// in
the middle of a green plain buried in the hills, is
quite in accordance with its name, which is pro-
bably a mere variation of Ramah, “ height.” But
it appears to be too far south to be within the terri-
tory of Issachar, which, as far as the scanty indica-
tions of the record can be made out, can hardly
have extended below the southern border of the
plain of Esdraelon.
For Schwarz’s conjecture that Rameh is Ra-
MATHAIM-ZOPHIM, see that article (p. 999). [G.]
REM'MON (197, ἡ. ὁ. Rimmon: Ἔρεμμών :*
Alex. Ῥεμμωθ: Remmon). A town in the allotment
of Simeon, one of a group of four (Josh. xix. 7).
It is the same place which is elsewhere accurately
given in the A. V. as RiMMON; the inaccuracy both
in this case and that of REMMON-METHOAR having
no doubt arisen from our translators inadvertently
following the Vulgate, which again followed the
LXX. [G.]
REM'MON-METH'OAR (ANN f1199, 7. ¢.
Rimmon ham-methdar: ‘Peuuwvad Μαθαραο(ᾶ ;
Alex. Ῥεμμωναμ μαθαριμ : Remmon, Amthar). A
place which formed one of the landmarks of the
eastern boundary of the territory of Zebulun (Josh.
xix. 13 only). It oecurs between Eth-Katsin and
Neah. Methoar does not really form a part of the
name; but is the Pual of INF, to stretch, and
should be translated accordingly (as in the margin
of the A. V.)—‘‘ R. which reaches to Neah.” This
is the judgment of Gesenius, Tes. 1292a, Rodiger,
70. 1491a; First, Handwb. ii. 512a, and Bunsen,
as well as of the ancient Jewish commentator
Rashi, who quotes as his authority the Targum
of Jonathan, the text of which has however been
subsequently altered, since in its present state it
agrees with the A. V. in not translating the word.
The latter course is taken by the LXX. and Vul-
gate as above, and by the Peshito, Junius and Tre-
mellius, and Luther. The A. V. has here further
erroneously followed the Vulgate in giving the first
part of the name as Remmon instead of Rimmon.
This Rimmon does not appear to have been known
to Eusebius and Jerome, but it is mentioned by the
early traveller Parchi, who says that itis calied Ruma-
neh, and stands an hour south of Sepphoris (Zunz’s
Benjamin, ii. 433). If for south we read north, this
is in close agreement with the statements of Dr. Robin-
son (δ. 10. iii. 110), and Mr, Van de Velde (Map ;
Memoir, 344), who place Rummaneh on the 8.
border of the Plain of Buttauf, 3 miles N.N.E. of
Seffurieh. It is difficult, however, to see how this
can have been on the eastern boundary of Zebulun.
Rimmon is not improbably identical with the
Leyitical city, which in Josh. xxi. 35 appears in
the form of Dimnah, and again, im the: parallel lists
of Chronicles (1 Chr. vi. 77) as Rimmono (A. V.
Rion, p. 10430). [G.]
* The LXX. here combine the Ain and Rimmon of the
A. Υ. into one name, and make up the four cities of this
group by inserting a Θαλχά, of which there is no trace in
REMPHAN 1027
REM'PHAN (‘Peugdav, ‘Pepav: Remphan,
Acts vii. 43): and CHIUN (}i"5: Ῥαιφάν,
‘Poupa, Compl. Am. v. 26) have been supposed to
be names of an idol worshipped by the Israelites in
the wilderness, but seem to be the names of two
idols. The second occurs in Amos, in the Heb. ;
the first, in a quotation of that passage in St. Ste-
phen’s address, in the Acts: the LXX. of Amos has,
however, the same name as in the Acts, though not
written in exactly the same manner. Much diffi-
culty has been occasioned by this corresponding
occurrence of two names so wholly different in
sound, The most reasonable opinion seemed to
be that Chiun was a Hebrew or Semitic name,
and Remphan an Egyptian equivalent substituted
by the LXX. The former, rendered Saturn in
the Syr., was compared with the Arab. and Pers.
Oe
onr= «the planet Saturn,’-and, aecording to
Kircher, the latter was found in Coptic with the
same signification ; but perhaps he had no authority
for this excepting the supposed meaning of the
Hebrew Chiun. Egyptology has, however, shown
that this is not the true explanation. Among the
foreign divinities worshipped in Egypt, two, the
god RENPU, perhaps pronounced REMPU, and the
goddess KEN, occur together. Before endeavouring
to explain the passages in which Chiun and Rem-
phan are mentioned, it will be desirable to speak,
on the evidence of the monuments, of the foreign
gods worshipped in Egypt, particularly RENPU and
KEN, and of the idolatry of the Israelites while in
that country.
Besides those divinities represented on the monu-
ments of Eoypt which have Egyptian forms or
names, or both, others have foreigu forms or names,
or both. Of the latter, some appear to have been
introduced at a very remote age. This is certainly
the case with the principal divinity of Memphis,
Ptah, the Egyptian Hephaestus. The name Ptah
is from a Semitic root, for it signifies ‘* open,” and
in Heb. we find the root nn, and its cognates,
“he or it opened,” whereas there is no word related
to it in Coptic. The figure of this divinity is that
of a deformed pigmy, or perhaps unborn child, and
is unlike the usual representations of divinities on
the monuments. In this case there can be no doubt
that the introduction took place at an extremely
early date, as the name of Ptah occurs in very old
tombs in the necropolis of Memphis, and is found
throughout the religious records. It is also to be
noticed that this name is not traceable in the
mythology of neighbouring nations, unless indeed
it corresponds to that of the Πάταικοι or Παταϊκοί,
whose images, according to Herodotus, were the
figure-heads of Phoenician ships (iii. 37). The
foreign divinities that seem to be of later introduction
are not found throughout the religious records, but
only in single tablets, or are otherwise very rarely
mentioned, and two out of their four names are
immediately recognized to be non-Egyptian. They
are RENPU, and the goddesses KEN, ANTA, and
ASTARTA. The first and second of these have
foreign forms ; the third and fourth have Egyptian
forms: there would therefore seem to be an especially
foreign character about the former two.
the Hebrew, but which is possibly the Tochen of 1 Chr.
iv. 32—in the LXX. of that passage, Θοκκᾶ.
3 U 2
1028 REMPHAN
RENPU, pronounced REMPU (?),® is represented
as an Asiatic, with the full beard and apparently
the general type of face given on the monuments
to most nations east of Egypt, and to the REBU
or Libyans. This type is evidently that of the
Shemites. His hair is bound with a fillet, which is
ornamented in front with the head of an antelope.
KEN is represented perfectly naked, holding in both
hands corn, and standing upon a lion. In the last
particular the figure of a goddess at Maltheiyyeh in
Assyria may be compared (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 212).
From this occurrence of a similar representation,
from her being naked and carrying corn, and from
her being worshipped with KHEM, we may sup-
pose that KEN corresponded to the Syrian goddess,
at least when the latter had the character of Venus,
She is also called KETESH, which is the name in
hieroglyphies of the great Hittite town on the
Orontes.. ‘This in the present case is probably a
title, NTP: it can scarcely be the name of a town
where she was worshipped, applied to her as per-
sonifying it.
ANATA appears to be Anaitis, and her foreign
character seems almost certain from her being
jointly worshipped with RENPU and KEN.
ASTARTA is of course the Ashtoreth of Canaan.
On a tablet in the British Museum the principal
subject is a group representing KEN, having KHEM
on one side and RENPU on the other: beneath is
an adoration of ANATA. On the half of another
tablet KEN and KHEM occur, and a dedication to
RENPU and KETESH.
We have no clue to the exact time of the intro-
duction of these divinities into Egypt, nor, except
in one case, to any particular places of their wor-
ship. Their names oceur as early as the period of
the xviiith and xixth dynasties, and it is therefore
not improbable that they were introduced by the
Shepherds. ASTARTA is mentioned in a tablet
of Amenoph II., opposite Memphis, which leads to
the conjecture that she was the foreion Venus there
worshipped, in the quarter of the Phoenicians of
Tyre, according to Herodotus (ii. 112). It is ob-
servable that the Shepherds worshipped SUTEKH,
corresponding to SETH, and also called BAR, that
is, Baal, and that, under king APEPEE, he was the
sole god of the foreigners. SUTEKH was probably
a foreign god, and was certainly identified with
Baal. ‘The idea that the Shepherds introduced the
foreign gods is therefore partly confirmed. As to
RENPU and KEN we can only offer a conjecture,
They occur together, and KEN is a form of the
Syrian goddess, and also bears some relation to the
Egyptian god of productiveness, KHEM. Their
similarity to Baal and Ashtoreth seems strong, and
perhaps it is not unreasonable to suppose that they
were the divinities of some tribe trom the east,
not of Phoenicians or Canaanites, settled in Keypt
during the Shepherd-period. ‘The naked goddess
KEN would suggest such worship as that of the
Babylonian Mylitta, but the thoroughly Shemite
appearance of RENPU is yather in favour of an
* In illustration of this probable pronunciation, we
may cite the occurrence in hieroglyphics of RENPA or
KANP, “ youth, young, to renew 3’ and, in Coptic, of
the supposed cognate P2LZTU, POST, S.
PARTITE, “a year;” so MENNUFR, Memphis,
PHCIIBE, PREIRGT, ao MREMBE,
IPCC, S MREMRYE, BLAKE, men.
dus, and UN-NUFR, "Opus.
REMPHAN
Arab source. Although we have not discovered a
Semitic origin of either name, the absence of the
names in the mythologies of Canaan and the neizh-
bouring countries, as far as they are known to us,
inclines us to look to Arabia, of which the early
mythology is extremely obscure.
The Israelites in Egypt, after Joseph’s rule, ap-
pear to have fallen into a general, but doubtless not
universal, practice of idolatry. This is only twice
distinctly stated and once alluded to (Josh, xxiv.
14; Ezek. xx. 7, 8, xiii. 3), but the indications
are perfectly clear. The mention of CHIUN or
REMPHAN as worshipped in the desert shows that
this idolatry was, in part at least, that of foreigners,
and no doubt of those settled in Lower Egypt. The
golden calf, at first sight, would appear to be an
image of Apis of Memphis, or Mnevis of Heliopolis,
or some other sacred bull of Ezypt; but it must be
remembered that we read in the Apocrypha of ‘the
heifer Baal” (Tob. i. 5), so that it was possibly a
Phoenician or Canaanite idol. The best parallel to
this idolatry is that of the Phoenician colonies in
Europe, as seen in the idols discovered in tombs at
Camirus in Rhodes by M. Salzmann, and those found
in tombs in the island of Sardinia (of both of which
there are specimens in the British Museum), and
those represented on the coins of Melita and the
island of Ebusus.
We can now endeavour to explain the passages
in which Chiun and Remphan occur. The Maso-
retic text of Amos v. 26 reads thus:—* But ye
bare the tent [or ‘tabernacle’ of your king and
Chiun your images, the star of your gods [or
“your god’ ], which ye made for yourselves.” In
the LXX. we find remarkable differences: it reads:
Καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Moddx, καὶ τὸ
ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν Ῥαιφὰν, τοὺς τύπους
αὐτῶν ovs ἐποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς. ‘The Vule. agrees
with the Masoretic text in the order of the clauses,
though omitting Chiun or Remphan. ‘‘ Et portastis
tabernaculum Moloch vestro, et imaginem idolorum.
vestrorum, sidus dei vestri, quae fecistis vobis.”
The passage is cited in the Acts almost in the words
of the LXX.:—“ Yea, ye took up the tabernacle
of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan,
figures which ye made to worship them” (Kat
ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολὺχ, καὶ Td ἄστρον
τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν Ῥεμφὰν, τοὺς τύπους οὺς ἐποιή-
σατε προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς). A slight change in the
Hebrew would enable us to read Moloch (Malecam
or Milcom) instead of “ your king.” Beyond this
it is extremely difficult to explain the differences,
The substitution of Remphan for Chiun cannot be
accounted for by verbal criticism. The Hebrew does
not seem as distinct in meaning as the LXX., and if
we may conjecturally emend it from the latter, the
last clause would be, “your images which ye made
for yourselves :” and if we further transpose Chiun
to the place of “ your god Remphan,” in the LXX.,
ors N35 AN would correspond to 2212 AN
j'3 ὈΠῸΝ , but how can we account for such a
transposition as would thus be supposed, which, be
it remembered, is less likely in the Hebrew than in
a translation of a difficult passage? If we compare
the Masoretie text and the supposed original, we
perceive that in the former DDSN 3 corre-
sponds in position to p> nbs 35)5, and it does
not seem an unwarrantable conjecture that =)
having been by mistake written in the place of
3513 by some copyist, σον was also trans-
.
REMPHAN
It appears to be more reasonable to read
“images which ye made,” than “gods which ye
made,” as the former word occurs. Supposing these
emendations to be probable, we may now examine
the meaning of the passage.
The tent or tabernacle of Moloch is supposed by
Gesenius to have been an actual tent, and he com-
pares the σκηνὴ ἱερά of the Carthaginians (Diod.
Sic. xx. 65; Lex. s.v. TDD). But there is
some difficulty in the idea that the Israelites carried
about so large an object for the purpose of idolatry,
and it seems more likely that it was a small model
of a larger tent or shrine. The reading Moloch
appears preferable to ‘‘ your king ;” but the men-
tion of the idol of the Ammonites as worshipped in
the desert stands quite alone. It is perhaps worthy
of note that there is reason for supposing that
Moloch was a name of the planet Saturn, and that
this planet was evidently supposed by the ancient
translators to be intended by Chiun and Remphan.
The correspondence of Remphan or Raiphan to
Chiun is extremely remarkable, and can, we think,
only be accounted for by the supposition that the
LXX. translator or translators of the prophet had
Keyptian knowledge, and being thus acquainted with
the ancient joint worship of Ken and Renpu, sub-
stituted the latter for the former, as they may have
been unwilling to repeat the name of a foreign
Venus. The star of Remphan, if indeed the passage
is to be read so as to connect these words, would
be especially appropriate if Remphan were a pla-
netary god; but the evidence for this, especially as
partly founded upon an Arab. or Pers. word like
Chiun, is not sufficiently strong to enable us to lay
any stress upon the agreement. In hieroglyphics
the sign for a star is one of the two composing
the word SEB, “to adore,” and is undoubtedly
there used in a symbolical as well as a phonetic
sense, indicating that the ancient Egyptian religion
was partly derived from a system of star-worship ;
and there are representations on the monuments of
mythical creatures or men adoring stars (Ancient
Egyptians, pl. 30 A.). We have, however, no
positive indication of any figure of a star being used
as an idolatrous obiect of worship. From the
mauner in which it is mentioned we may conjecture
that the star of Remphan was of the same character
as the tabernacle of Moloch, an object connected
with false worship rather than an image of a false
god. According to the LXX. reading of the last
clause it might be thought that these objects were
actually images of Moloch and Remphan ; but it
must be remembered that we cannot suppose an
image to have had the form of a tent, and that the
version of the passage in the Acts, as well as the
Masoretic text, if in the latter case we may change
the order of the words, give a clear sense. As to
the meaning of the last clause, it need only be
remarked that it does not oblige us to infer that
the:Israelites made the images of the false gods,
though they may have done so, as in the case of the
golden calf: it may mean no more than that they
adopted these gods.
It is to be observed that the whole passage does
not indicate that distinct Egyptian idolatry was
practised by the Israelites. It is very remarkable
that the only false gods mentioned as worshipped
by them in the desert should be probably Moloch,
and Chiun, and Remphan, of which the latter two
were foreign divinities worshipped in Egypt. From
this we may reasonably infer, that while the Israelites
posed.
REPHAIM, THE VALLEY OF 1029
sojourned in Egypt there was also a great, stranger-
population in the Lower Country, and therefore that
it is probable that then the Shepherds still occupied
the land. [Β. 5. Pa]
REPH'AEL (OND): ‘Papana: Raphaél). Son
of Shemaiah, the παι πη of Obed-edom, and one
of the gate- keepers of the tabernacle, “ able men for
strength for the service” (1 Chr. xxvi. 7).
RE'PHAH (MDI: Ῥαφή: Rapha). A son of
Ephraim, and ancestor of Joshua the son of Nun
(1 Chr. vii. 25).
REPHAI'AH (ME: Ῥαφάλ ; Alex. Ῥαφαία:
Raphaia). 1. The sons of Rephaiah ¢ appear among
the descendants of Zerubbabel in 1 Chr. iii. 21.
In the Peshito-Syriac he is made the son of Jesaiah.
2. (‘Papaia). One of the chieftains of the tribe
of Simeon in the reign of Hezekiah, who headed the
expedition of five hundred men against the Ama-
lekites of Mount Seir, and drove them out (1 Chr.
iv. 42).
3. One of the sons of Tola, the son of Issachar,
“heads of their father’s house’ (1 Chr. vii. 2).
4. Son of Binea, and descendant of Sau! and Jo-
nathan (1 Chr. ix. 43). In 1 Chr. viii. 37 he is
called RAPHA,
5. The son of Hur, and ruler of a portion of Je-
rusalem (Neh. ΠῚ. 9). He assisted in rebuilding the
city wall under Nehemiah.
REPH'AIM. [Grants, vol. 1, 6875.]
REPH'AIM, THE VALLEY OF (pay
ΝΒ:
γάντων; κ. Ῥαφαείμ ; in Isaiah pena στερεά),
2 Sam. v. 18, 22, xxiii. 13; ee a Του χ᾽ Gis
Ist) χν!. 9. ΠΣ in Nosh 8, Bie xvii. 16,
where it is translated in the ἮΝ IVA the valley of
the giants” (yj Ῥαφαείν and "Ewer Ῥαφαείν).
A spot which was the scene of some of David’s
most remarkable adventures. He twice encoun-
tered the Philistines there, and inflicted a destruc-
tion on them and on their idols so signal that it
gave the place a new name, and impressed itself on
the popular mind of Israel with such distinctness
that the Prophet Isaiah could employ it, centuries
after, as a symbol of a tremendous impending judg-
ment of God—nothing less than the desolation and
destruction of the whole earth (Is. xxviii. 21, 22).
[PERAZIM, MOUNT. ]
It was probably during the former of these two
contests that the incident of the water of Beth-
lehem (2 Sam. xxiii. 13, &c.) occurred. The
“hold” ® (ver. 14) in which David found himself,
seems (though it is not clear) to have been the
cave of Adullam, the scene of the commencement
of his freebooting life; but, wherever situated, we
need not doubt that it was the same fastness as
that mentioned in 2 Sam. v. 17, since, in both
cases, the same word aye, with the def.
article), and that not a usual one, is employed.
The story shows very'clearly the predatory nature
of these incursions of the Philistines, It was in
‘harvest time” (ver. 13). They had come to
carry off the ripe crops, for which the valley was
proverbial (Is. xvii. 5), just as at Pas-dammim
(1 Chr. xi. 13) we find them in the parcel of
ἢ κοιλὰς τῶν Τιτάνων, and τῶν ΓῚ-
“down to the hold” in A. V.
might have been added with
8. There is no warrant for
Had it been by, “down”
safety.
1030 REPHAIM, THE VALLEY OF
ground full of barley, at Lehi in the field of len-
tiles (2 Sam, xxiii. 11), or at Keilah in the thresh-
ing-floors (1 Sam. xxiii. 1). Their animals» were
scattered among the ripe corn receiving the:r load of
plunder. ‘The " garrison,” or the officer © in charge
of the expedition, was on the watch in the village of
Bethlehem.
This narrative seems to imply that the valley
of Rephaim was near Bethlehem ; but unfortu-
nately neither this nor the notice in Josh. xv. 8
and xviii. 16, in connexion with the boundary line
between Judah and Benjamin, gives any clue to
its situation, still less does its connexion with the
groves of mulberry trees or Baca (2 5am. v. 23),
itself unknown. Josephus (Ant. vii. 12, $4) men-
tions it as ‘* the valley which extends (from Jeru-
salem) to the city of Bethlehem.”
Since the latter part of the 16th cent.4 the name
has been attached to the upland plain which stretches
south of Jerusalem, and is crossed by the road to
3ethlehem—the οἱ Lih’ah of the modern Arabs
(Tobler, Jerusalem, &c., ii. 401). 3ut this,
though appropriate enough as regards its proximity
to Bethlehem, does not answer at all to the meaning
of the Hebrew word Limek, which appears always
to designate an inclosed valley, never an open up-
land plain like that in question, the level ot which
is as high, or nearly as high, as that of Mount Zion
itself. [VALLEY.] Eusebius (Onomasticon, ‘Pa-
φαείν and Ἐμεκραφαείμ) calls it the valley of the
Philistines (κοιλὰς ἀλλοφύλωνῚ, and places it ‘on
the north of Jerusalem,” in the tribe of Benjamin.
A position N. W. of the city is adopted by
First (Handwb. ii. 383b), apparently on the
ground of the terms οἵ Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. 16,
which certainly do Jeave it doubtful whether the
valley is on the north of the boundary or the
boundary on the north of the valley; and Tobler,
in his last investigations (3tte Wanderung, 202),
conclusively adopts the Wady Dér Jasin (W.
Makhrior, in Van de Velde’s map), one of the side
valleys ot the great Wady Beit Hanina, as the
valley of Rephaim. ‘This position is open to the
obvious objection of too great distance trom both
Bethlehem and the cave of Adullam (according to
any position assignable to the latter) to meet the
requirements of 2 Sam, xxiii. 13.
The valley appears to derive its name from the
ancient nation of the Rephaim. It may be a trace
of an early settlement of theirs, possibly after they
were driven from their original seats east of the
Jordan by Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 5), and before
they again migrated northward to the more secure
wooded districts in which we find them at the date
of the partition of the country among the tribes
(Josh. xvii. 15; A. V. “giants”). In this case it
is a parallel to the “mount of the Amalekites” in
the centre of Palestine, and to the towns bearing
the name of the Zemaraim, the Avim, the Ophnites,
&e., which occur so frequently in Benjamin. [/vol.
i. p. 188 note. }
Syriac version of the rare word ΠΡ (2 Sam. xxiii.
13), rendered in our version “ troop.” ae
© Netsib. The meaning is uncertain (see vol, if. 353 note),
4 According to Tobler (Topograplie, &c., ii. 404), Coto-
wycus is the first who records this identification,
“ On the other hand it is somewhat singular that the
modern name for this upland plain, Bika’'ah, should be
the same with that of the great enclosed valley of Leba-
non, which differs from it as widely as it can differ from
REPHIDIM
REPH'IDIM (ὈΞῪ: Ῥαφιδὶν). Ex. xvii. 1,
8; xix. 2. The name means “ rests’ or “stays ;”
the place lies in the march of the Israelites trom
Egypt to Sinai. The “ wilderness of Sin” was
succeeded by Kephidim according to these passages,
but in Num. xxxiii. 12, 13, Dophkah and Alush
are mentioned as occurring between the people’s
exit trom that wilderness and their entry into
the latter locality. There is nothing known of
these two places which will enable us to fix the
site of Rephidim. [ALUsH; DopHKAH.] Lepsius’
view is that Mount Serbdl is the true Horeb, and
that Rephidim is Wady Feiran, the well known
valley, richer in water and vegetation than any
other in the peninsula (Lepsius’ Zour from Thebes
to Sinai, 1845, pp. 21, 37). This would account
for the expectation of finding water here, which,
however, from some unexplained cause failed. In
Ex. xvii. 6, “ the rock in Horeb”’ is named as the
source of the water miraculously supplied. On the
other hand, the language used Ex. xix. 1, 2, seems
precise, as regards the point that the journey from
Rephidim to Sinai was a distinct stage. The time
trom the wilderness of Sin, reached on the fifteenth
day of the second month of the Exodus (Ex. xvi. 1),
to the wilderness of Sinai, reached on the first day
of the third month (xix. 1), is from fourteen to sixteen
days. This, if we follow Num. xxxiii. 12-15, has
to be distributed between the four march-stations
Sin, Dophkah, Alush, and Rephidim, and their cor-
responding stages of journey, which would allow two
days’ repose to every day's march, as there are four
marches, and 4x 2+4=12, leaving two days over
from the fourteen. The first grand object being
the arrival at Sinai, the intervening distance may
probably have been despatched with all possible
speed, considering the weakness of the host by reason
of women, ἅς. The name Horeb is by Kobinson
taken to mean an extended range or region, some
part of which was near to Rephidim, which he
places at Wudy esh Sheikh, running trom N.E. to
S.W., on the W. side of Gebel Fureia, opposite the
northern face of the modern Horeb. [Sinar.| It
joins the Wady Feiran. The exact spot of Robin-
son’s Rephidim is a defile in the esh Sheikh visited
and described by Burckhardt (Syria, &c., 488) as
at about tive hours’ distance from where it issues
from the plain Lr Raheh, narrowing between abrupt
cliffs of blackened granite to about 40 feet in width.
Here is also the traditional “ Seat of Moses” (Robin-
son, i. 121). The opinion of Stanley (8, and P.
40-42), on the contrary, with Ritter (xiv. 740, 741),
places Rephidim in Wady Feiran, where the traces
of building and cultivation still attest the import- ,
ance of this valley to all occupants of the desert. It
narrows in one spot to 100 yards, showing high
mountains and thick woods, with gardens and date-
groves.. Here stood a Christian church, city and
episcopal residence, under the name of Paran, before
the foundation of the convent of Mount St. Ca-
therine by Justinian. It is the finest valley in the
the signification of Hmek, There is no connexion be-
| tween Bilc'ah and Baca: they are essentially distinct.
a On this Lepsius remarks. that Robinson would have
certainly recognised the true position of Rephidim (ἡ. e.
at Wady Feiran), had he not passed by Wady Feiran
with its brook, garden, and ruins—the most interesting
spot in the peninsula—in order to see Sarbat el Chadenv
(ibid. p. 22). And Stanley admits the objection of bringing
the Israelites through the most striking scenery in the de-
sert, that of Fetran, without any event of importance to
mark it.
RESEN
whole peninsula (Burckhardt, Arab. 602; see also
Robinson, i. 117,118). Its fertility and richness ac-
count, as Stanley thinks, for the Amalekites’ struggle
to retain possession against those whom they viewed
as intrusive aggressors. This view seems to meet
the largest amount of possible conditions for a site
of Sinai. Lepsius too (see above) dwells on the fact
that it was of no use for Moses to occupy any other
part of the wilderness, if he could not deprive the
Amalekites of the only spot (Feiran) which was inha-
bited. Stanley (41) thinks the word describing the
ground, rendered the “hill” in Ex. xvii. 9, 10, and
said adequately to describe that on which the church
of Paran stood, affords an argument in favour of the
Feiran identity. [H. H.]
RES'EN (0: Δασέμ, Δασή : Resen) is men-
tioned only in Gen, x. 12, where it is said to have
been one of the cities built by Asshur, after he
went out of the land of Shinar, and to have lain
“ between Nineveh and Calah.” Many writers have
been inclined to identify it with the Rhesina or
Rhesaena of the Byzantine authors (Amm. Mare.
xxiii. 5; Procop. Bell. Pers. ii. 19; Steph. Byz.
sub voce Ῥέσινα), and of Ptolemy (Geograph. v.
18), which was near the true source of the western
Khabour, and which is most probably the modern
Ras-el-ain. (See Winer’s Realwérterbuch, sub voce
“Resen.”) There are no grounds, however, for
this identification, except the similarity of name
(which similarity is perhaps fallacious, since the
LXX. evidently read }D7 for }D7), while it is a
fatal objection to the theory that Resaena or Resina
was not in Assyria at all, but in Western Mesopo-
tamia, 200 miles to the west of both the cities
between which it is said to have lain. A far more
probable conjecture was that of Bochart (Geograph.
Sacr. iv. 23), who found Resen in the Larissa of
Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4, §7), which is most cer-
tainly the modern Nimrud. Resen, or Dasen—
whichever may be the true form of the word—must
assuredly have been in this neighbourhood. As,
however, the Nimrud ruins seem really to repre-
sent CALAH, while those opposite Mosul are the
remains of Nineveh, we must look for Resen in the
tract lying between these two sites. Assyrian re-
mains of some considerable extent are found in this
situation, near the modern village of Selamiyeh,
and it is perhaps the most probable conjecture that
these represent the Resen of Genesis. No doubt
it may be said that a “great city,’ such as Resen
is declared to have been (Gen. x. 12), could scarcely
have intervened between two other large cities
which are not twenty miles apart ; and the ruins at
Selamiyeh, it must be admitted, are not very ex-
tensive. But perhaps we ought to understand the
phrase “ἃ great city” relatively—7. 6. great, as
cities went in early times, or great, considering its
proximity to two other larger towns.
If this explanation seem unsatisfactory, we might
perhaps conjecture that originally Asshur (/tileh-
Sherghat) was called Calah, and Mimrud Resen ;
but that, when the seat of empire was removed
northwards from the tormer place to the latter, the
name Calah was transferred to the new capital.
a Redslob (Die <Alttestamentl. Namen, 86) maintains
that Reubel is the original form of the name, which was
corrupted into Reuben, as Bethel into Beitin, and Jezreel
into Serin. He treats it as signifying the “ flock of Bel,”
a deity whose worship greatly flourished in the neigh-
bouring country of Moab, and who under the name of
Nebo had a famous sanctuary in the very territory of
REUBEN 1031
Instances of such transfers of name are not untire-
quent.
The later Jews appear to have identified Resen
with the Aveh-Sherghat ruins. At least the Tar-
gums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem explain Resen
by Tel-Assar θη or soxdn), “the mound of
Asshur.”” ᾿ [6. R.]
RESH'EPH (ΒΡ): Σαράφ; Alex. Ῥασέφ:
Reseph). A son of Ephraim and brother of Rephah
(1 Chr. vii. 25).
RE'U (499: Ῥαγαῦ in Gen., ‘Paydy in Chr.:
Rew). Son of Peleg, in the line of Abraham’s an-
cestors (Gen. xi. 18, 19, 20, 21; 1 Chr. i. 25). He
lived two hundred and thirty-nine years according
to the genealogy in Genesis. Bunsen (DBibelwerk)
says Reu is Roha, the Arabic name for Edessa, an
assertion which, borrowed from Knobel, is utterly
destitute of foundation, as will be seen at once on
comparing the Hebrew and Arabic words. <A closer
resemblance might be found between Reu and Rha-
gae, a large town of Media, especially if the Greek
equivalents of the two names be taken.
REU'BEN (j35N87: Ῥουβῆν and Ῥουβήν ;
Joseph. Ῥούβηλος : Pesh. Syr. Rabi/, and so also
in Arab. vers. of Joshua: Ruben), Jacob's first-
born child (Gen. xxix. 32), the son of Leah, appa-
rently not born till an unusual interval had elapsed
after the marriage (31; Joseph. Ané. i. 19, §8).
This is perhaps denoted by the name itself, whether
we adopt the obvious signification of its present
form—reu ben, i. e. “ behold ye, a son!” (Gesen.
Thes. 1247b)—or (2) the explanation given in the
text, which seems to imply that the original form
was 3 “NT, rau béonyi, “ Jehovah hath seen
my affliction,’ or (3) that of Josephus, who uni-
formly presents it as Roubel, and explains it
(Ant. i. 19, 88) as the “ pity of God” —€reoy τοῦ
Θεοῦ, as if from ND NNT (First, Παπαιοῦ. ii.
344a).* The notices of the patriarch Reuben in the
Book of Genesis and the early Jewish traditional
literature are unusually frequent, and on the whole
give a favourable view of his disposition. To him,
and him alone, the preservation of Joseph’s life ap-
pears to have been due. His anguish at the disap-
pearance of his brother, and the frustration of his
kindly artifice for delivering him (Gen. xxxvil. 22),
his recollection of the minute details of the painful
scene many years afterwards (xlii. 22), his offer to
take the sole responsibility of the safety of the bro-
ther who had succeeded to Joseph’s place in the
family (xlii. 37), all testify to a warm and (for
those rough times) a kindly nature. Of the re-
pulsive crime which mars his history, and which
turned the blessing of his dying father into a curse
—his adulterous connexion with Bilhah—we know
from the Scriptures only the fact (Gen. xxxv. 22).
In the post-biblical traditions it is treated either as
not having actually occurred (as in the Targum
Pseudojonathan), or else as the result of a sudden
temptation acting on a hot and vigorous nature (as
in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs)—a
Reuben. In this case it would be a parallel to the title,
“people of Chemosh,’’? which is bestowed on Moab. The
alteration of the obnoxious syllable in Reubel would, on
this theory, find a parallel in the Meribbaal and Eshbaal
of Saul’s family, who became Mephibosheth and Ish-
bosheth.
1032 REUBEN
REUBEN
parallel, in some of its circumstances, to the intrigue | through the march to Canaan, the ancient calling
of David with Bathsheba. Some severe temptation
there must surely have been to impel Reuben to
an act which, regarded in its social rather than in
its moral aspect, would be peculiarly abhorrent to
a patriarchal society, and which is specially and
repeatedly reprobated in the law of Moses. The
Rabbinical version of the occurrence (as given in
Turg. Pseudojon.) is very characteristic, and well
illustrates the difference between the spirit of early
and of late Jewish history. ‘‘ Reuben went and
disordered the couch of Bilhah, his father’s concu-
bine, which was placed right opposite the couch of
Leah, and it was counted unto him as if he had
lain with her. And when Israel heard it it dis-
pleased him, and he said ‘Lo! an unworthy per-
son shall proceed from me, as Ishmael did from
Abraham and Esau from my father.’ And the
Holy Spirit answered him and said ‘ All are
righteous, and there is not one unworthy among
them.’” Reuben’s anxiety to save Joseph is repre-
sented as arising from a desire to conciliate Jacob,
and his absence while Joseph was sold from his
sitting alone on the mountains in penitent fasting.
These traits, slight as they are, are those of an
ardent, impetuous, unbalanced, but not ungenerous
nature; not crafty and cruel, as were Simeon and
Levi, but rather, to use the metaphor of the dying
patriarch, boiling» up like a vessel of water over the
rapid wood-fire of the nomad tent, and as quickly
subsiding into apathy when the fuel was with-
drawn.
At the time of the migration into Egypt
Reuben’s sons were four (Gen. xlvi. 9 ; 1 Chr. v. 3).
From them sprang the chief families of the tribe
(Num. xxvi. 5-11). One of these families—that of
Pallu—became notorious as producing Eliab, whose
sons or descendants, Dathan and Abiram, perished
with their kinsman On in the divine retribution for
their conspiracy against Moses (Num. xvi. 1, xxvi.
8-11). The census at Mount Sinai (Num. i. 20,
21, ii. 11) shows that at the Exodus the numbers
of the tribe were 46,500 men above twenty years
of age, and fit for active warlike services In point
of numerical strength, Reuben was then sixth on
the list, Gad, with 45,650 men, being next below.
On the borders of Canaan, after the plague which
punished the idolatry of Baalpeor, the numbers
had fallen slightly, and were 43,730; Gad was
40,500; and the position of the two in the list is
lower than before, Ephraim and Simeon being the
only two smaller tribes (Num. xxvi. 7, &c.).
During the journey through the wilderness the
position of Reuben was on the south side of the
Tabernacle, The “camp” which went under his
name was formed of his own tribe, that of Simeon 4
(Leah’s second son), and Gad (son of Zilpah, Leah’s
slave). The standard of the camp was a deere
with the inscription, ‘Hear, oh Israel! the Lord
thy God is one Lord!” and its place in the
march was second (Targum Pseudojon. Num, ii.
10-16),
The Reubenites, like their relatives and neigh-
bours on the journey, the Gadites, had maintained
» Such appears to be a more accurate rendering of the
word which in the A. V. is rendered “ unstable” (Gesen,
Pent, Sam. p. 33).
© According te the ancient tradition preserved by De-
tmetrius (in Euseb, Praep, Hv. ix. 21), Reuben was 45 years
old at the time of the migration.
4 Reuben and Simeon are named together by Jacob in
Gen, xlvili. 5; and there is perhaps a trace of the con-
of their forefathers. The patriarchs were “feeding
their flocks” at Shechem when Joseph was sold
into Egypt. It was as men whose “trade had
‘been about cattle from their youth” that they
were presented to Pharaoh (Gen. xlvi. 32, 34), and
in the land of Goshen they settled ‘‘ with their
flocks and herds and all that they had” (xlvi. 32,
xlvii. 1). Their cattle accompanied them in their
flight from Egypt (Ex. xii. 38), not a hoof was
lett behind; and there are frequent allusions to
them on the journey (Ex. xxxiv. 3; Num. xi. 22;
Deut. viii. 13, &c.), But it would appear that
the tribes who were destined to settle in the con-
fined territory between the Mediterranean and the
Jordan had, during the journey through the wil-
derness, fortunately relinquished that taste for the
possession of cattle which they could not have
maintained after their settlement at a distance from
the wide pastures of the wilderness. Thus the cattle
had come into the hands of Reuben, Gad, and the
half of Manasseh (Num, xxxii. 1),+and it followed
naturally that when the nation arrived on the open
downs east of the Jordan, the three tribes just
named should prefer a request to their leader to be
allowed to remain in a place so perfectly suited to
their requirements. The part selected by Reuben
had at that date the special name of “ the Mishor,”
with reference possibly to its evenness (Stanley,
S. § P. App. 80). Under its modern name of
the Belka it is still esteemed beyond all others by
the Arab sheepmasters. It is well watered, covered
with smooth short turf, and losing itself gradually
in those illimitable wastes which have always been
and always will be the favourite resort of pastoral
nomad tribes. The country east of Jordan does not
appear to have been included in the original land
promised to Abraham. That which the spies exa-
mined was comprised, on the east and west, between
the ‘‘ coast of Jordan ” and “the sea.” But for the
pusillanimity of the greater number of the tribes it
would have been entered from the south (Num.
xiii. 30), and in that case the east of Jordan might
never have been peopled by Israel at all.
Accordingly, when the Reubenites and their
fellows approach Moses with their request, his
main objection is that by what they propose they
will discourage the hearts of the childyen of Israel
from going over Jordan into the land which
Jehovah had given them (Num. xxxii. 7). It is
only on their undertaking to fulfil their part in
the conquest of the western country, the land of
Canaan proper, and thus satisfying him that their
proposal was grounded in no selfish desire to escape
a full share of the difficulties of the conquest, that
Moses will consent to their proposal.
The “ blessing”’ of Reuben by the departing Law-
giver is a passage which has severely exercised
translators and commentators. Strictly translated
as they stand in the received Hebrew text, the
words are as follow: £—
“ Let Reuben live and not die,
And let his men be a number” (7. 6. few).
As to the first line there appears to be no doubt,
nexion in the interchange of the names in Jud. viii. 1
(Vulg.) and ix. 2.
© It is said that this was originally an ox, but changed
by Moses, lest it should recal the sin of the golden calf.
f A few versions have been bold enough to render the
Hebrew as it stands. Thus the Vulgate, Luther, De Wette,
and Bunsen,
REUBEN
but the second line has been interpreted in two
exactly opposite ways. 1. By the LXX.:—
Πα And let his meng be many in number.”
This has the disadvantage that TED! is never
z:mployed elsewhere for a large number, but always
for a small one (e.g. 1 Chr. xvi. 19; Job xvi. 22;
se) Se CIR MDA same als)
2. That of our own Auth. Version :—
“ And let not his men be few.”
Here the negative of the first line is presumed to
convey its force to the second, though not there
expressed. This is countenanced by the ancient
Syriac Version (Peshito) and the translations of
Junius and Tremellius, and Schott and Winzer. It
also has the important support of Gesenius ( Thes.
968 a, and Pent. Sam. p. 44).
3. A third and very ingenious interpretation is
that adopted by the Veneto-Greek Version, and also
by Michaelis (Bibel fiir Ungelehrten, Text), which
assumes that the vowel-points of the word Ὁ) 2,
Ts
“‘ his men,” are altered to ))N1), “ his dead ”—
“ And let his dead be few "-
as if in allusion to some recent mortality in the
REUBEN 1033
in accordance with the unalterable habits of Bedouin
tribes both before and since. It was an act iden-
tical with that in which Laban and Jacob engaged
at parting, with that which is constantly performed
by the Bedouins of the present day. But by the
Israelites west of Jordan, who were fast relinquish-
ing their nomad habits and feelings for those of more
settled permanent life, this act was completely mis-
understood, and was construed into an attempt to
set up a rival altar to that of the Sacred Tent.
The incompatibility of the idea to the mind of the
Western Israelites, is shown by the fact, that not-
withstanding the disclaimer of the 24 tribes, and
notwithstanding that disclaimer having proved sa-
tisfactory even to Phinehas, the author of Joshua
xxii. retains the name mizbéach for the pile, a word
which involves the idea of sacrifice—7. ¢. of slaugh-
ter (see Gesenius, Ties. 402)—instead of applying
to it the term gal, as is done in the case (Gen.
χχχὶ. 46) of the precisely similar ‘ heap of witness.’
—Another Reubenite erection, which for Jong kept
up the memory of the presence of the tribe on the
west of Jordan, was the stone of Bohan ben-Reuben
which formed a landmark on the boundary between
Judah and Benjamin. (Josh. xv..6.) This was a
single stone (ben), not a pile, and it appears to
tribe, such as that in Simeon after the plague of | have stood somewhere on the road from Bethany
Baal-Peor.
These interpretations, unless the last should prove
to be the original reading, originate in the fact that
the words in their naked sense convey a curse and
nota blessing. Fortunately, though differing widely
in detail, they agree in general meaning.» The bene-
diction of the great leader goes out over the tribe
which was about to separate itself from its brethren,
in a fervent aspiration for its welfare through all the
risks of that remote and trying situation.
Both iu this and the earlier blessing of Jacob,
Reuben retains his place at the head of the family,
and it must not be overlooked that the tribe, together
with the two who associated themselves with it,
actually received its inheritance before either Judah
or Ephraim, to whom the birthright which Reuben
had forfeited was transferred (1 Chr. ν. 1).
From this time it seems as if a bar, not only the
material one of distance, and of the intervening
river and mountain-wall, but also of difference in
feeling and habits, gradually grew up more sub-
stantially between the Eastern and Western tribes.
The first act of the former after the completion of
the conquest, and after they had taken part in the
solemn ceremonial in the Valley between Ebal and
Gerizim, shows how wide a gap already existed
between their ideas and those of the Western tribes.
The pile of stones which they erected on the
western bank of the Jordan to mark their boun-
dary—to testify to after ages that though separated
by the rushing river from their brethren and the
country in which Jehovah had fixed the place
where He would be worshipped, they had still a
right to return to it for His worship—was erected
to Jericho, not far from the ruined khan so well
known to travellers.
No judge, no prophet, no hero of the tribe of Reu-
ben is handed down to us. In the dire extremity
of their brethren in the north under Deborah and
Barak, they contented themselves with debating the
news amongst the streams* of the Mishor; the distant
distress of his brethren could not move Reuben, he
lingered among his sheepfolds and preferred the
shepherd’s pipe! and the bleating of the flocks, to
the clamour of the trumpet and the turmoil of
battle. His individuality fades more rapidly than
Gad’s. The eleven valiant Gadites who swam the
Jordan at its highest to join the son of Jesse in his
trouble (1 Chr. xii. 8-15), Barzillai, Elijah the Gi-
leadite, the siege of Ramoth-Gilead with its pic-
turesque incidents, all give a substantial reality to
the tribe and country of Gad. But no person, no
incident, is recorded, to place Reuben before us in
any distincter form than as a member of the com-
munity (if community it can be called) of “the
Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Ma-
nasseh”’ (1 Chr. xii. 37). The very towns of his
inheritance—Heshbon, Aroer, Kirjathaim, Dibon,
Baal-meon, Sibmah, Jazer,—are familiar to us as
Moabite, and not. as Israelite towns, The city-life
so characteristic of Moabite civilisation had no hold
on the Reubenites. They are most in their element
when engaged in continual broils with the children
of the desert, the Bedouin tribes of Hagar, Jetur,
Nephish, Nodab; driving off their myriads of
cattle, asses, camels; dwelling ὧν their tents, as
if to the manner born (1 Chr. vy. 10), gradually
spreading over the vast wilderness which extends
g The Alex. LXX. adds the name of Simeon (“ and let
Symeon be many in number”): but this, though approved
of by Michaelis (in the notes to the passage in his Bibel
fiir Ungelehrten), on the ground that there is no reason
for omitting Simeon, is not supported by any Codex or
any other Version.
h In the Revised Translation of the Holy Scriptures by
the Rey. C. Wellbeloved and others (London, 1857) the
passage is rendered—
“ May Reuben live and not die,
Though his men be few.”
An excellent evasion of the difficulty, provided it be
admissible as a translation.
i The “altar ” is actually called Ed, or “ witness” (Josh.
xxii. 34) by the Bedouin Reubenites, just as the pile of
Jacob and Laban was called Gal-ed, the heap of witness.
k The word used uere, peleg, seems to refer to artificial
streams or ditches for irrigation. [RIvER.]
1 This is Ewald’s rendering (Dichter des A. B. 1. 130),
adopted by Bunsen, of the passage rendered in the A. Y.
“ bleating of the flocks.”
1034 REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
from Jordan to the Euphrates (v. 9), and every
day receding further and further frum any com-
munity of feeling or of interest with the Western
tribes.
Thus remote from the central seat of the national
government and of the national religion, it is not
to be wondered at that Reuben relinquished the
faith of Jehovah. “They went a whoring after
the gods of the people of the land whom God de-
stroyed before them,” and the last historical notice
which we possess of them, while it records this
fact, records also as its natural consequence that the
Reubenites and Gadites, and the half+tribe of Ma-
nasseh were carried off by Pul and Tiglath-Pileser,
and placed in the districts on and about the river
Khabir in the upper part of Mesopotamia—* in
Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and the river Gozan”’
(1 Chr. v. 26). [ἡ
REU'EL (yaa: “αγουήλ : Rahuel, Raquel).
The name of several persons mentioned in the Bible.
1. One of the sons of Esau, by his wife Bashe-
math sister of Ishmael. His sons were four—
Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah, “ dukes”
of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 4, 10, 18, 17; 1 Chr. 1. 95,
37).
2. One of the names of Moses’ father-in-law
(Ex. ii. 18); the same which, through adherence
to the LXX. form, is given in another passage of
the A. ἡ, RaGureL. Moses’ father-in-law was ἃ
Midianite, but the Midianites are in a well-known
passage (Gen. xxxvii. 28) called also Ishmaelites,
and if this may be taken strictly, it is not impossible
that the name of Reuel may bea token of his con-
nexion with the Ishmaelite tribe of that name. There
is, however, nothing to confirm this suggestion.
3. Father of Eliasaph, the leader of the tribe of
Gad, at the time of the census at Sinai (Num. ii.
14). In the parallel passages the name is given
DEUEL, which is retained in this instance also by
the Vulgate (Duel).
4. A Benjamite whose name occurs in the gene-
alogy of a certain Elah, one of the chiefs of the
tribe at the date of the settlement of Jerusalem
(1 Chr. ix. 8). [G.]
RE'UMAH (M9187: Ῥεύμα; Alex. Ῥεήρα:
Roma). The concubine of Nahor, Abraham’s brother
(Gen. xxii. 24).
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (Amoxa-
λυψις ᾿Ιωάννου : Apocalypsis Beati Joannis Apo-
stoli). The following subjects in connexion with
this book seem to have the chief claim for a place
in this article :—
A. CANONICAL AUTHORITY AND AUTHORSHIP.
B. Time AND PLACE OF WRITING. f
C. LANGUAGE.
Ὁ, CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE.
EK. Hisrory or INTERPRETATION.
A. CANONICAL AUTHORITY AND AUTHORSHIP.
—The question as to the canonical authority of the
Revelation resolves itself into a question of author-
ship. If it can be proved that a book, claiming so
distinctly as this does the authority of divine in-
spiration, was actually written by St. John, then
no doubt will be entertained as to its title to a place
in the Canon of Scripture.
Was, then, St. John the Apostle and Evangelist
the writer of the Revelation? This question was
first mooted by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius,
MH. £. vii, 25). The doubt which he modestly
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
suggested has been confidently preclaimed in mo-
dern times by Luther ( Vorrede auf die Offenbarung,
1522 and 1534), and widely diffused through his
influence. Liicke (Linleitung, 802), the most
learned and diligent of modern critics of the Reve-
lation, agrees with a majority of the eminent scho-
lars of Germany in denying that St. John was the
author.
But the general belief of the mass of Christians
in all ages has been in favour of St. John’s author-
ship. ‘The evidence adduced in support of that
belief consists of (1) the assertions ot the author,
and (2) historical tradition.
(1) The author’s description of himself in the 1st
and 22nd chapters is certainly equivalent to an as-
sertion that he is the Apostle. (a) He names himself
simply John, without prefix or addition—a name
which at that period, and in Asia, must have been
taken by every Christian as the designation in the
first instance of the great Apostle who dwelt at
Ephesus. Doubtless there were other Johns among
the Christians at that time, but only arrogance or an
intention to deceive could account for the assumption
of this simple style by any other writer. He is also
described as (>) a servant of Christ, (0) one who had
borne testimony as an eye-witness of the word of
God and of the testimony of Christ—terms which
were surely designed to identify him with the
writer of the verses John xix. 35, i. 14, and 1 John
i. 2. He is (α) in Patmos for the word of God
and the testimony of Jesus Christ: it may be easy
to suppose that other Christians of the same name
were banished thither, but the Apostle is the only
John who is distinctly named in early history as
an exile at Patmos. He is also (6) a fellow-sufferer
with those whom he addresses, and (77) the autho-
rised channel of the most direct and important
communication that was ever made to the seven
churches of Asia, of which churches John the
Apostle was at that time the spiritual governor
and teacher. Lastly (g) the writer was a fellow-
servant of angels and a brother of prophets—titles
which are far more suitable to one of the chief
Apostles, and far more likely to have been assigned
to him than to any other man of less distinction.
All these marks are found united together in the
Apostle John, and in him alone of all historical
persons. We must go out of the region of fact into
the region of conjecture to find such another person.
A candid reader of the Revelation, if previously
acquainted with St. John’s other writings and life,
must inevitably conclude that the writer intended
tu be identified with St. John. Jt is strange to see
so able a eritic as Liicke (Hinleitung, 514) meeting
this conclusion with the conjecture that some Asiatic
disciple aud namesake of the Apostle may have
written the book in the course of some missionary
labours or some time of sacred retirement in Pat-
mos. Equally unavailing against this conclusion is
the objection brought by Kwald, Credner, and others,
from the fact that a promise of the future blessed-
ness of the Apostles is implied in xviii. 20 and xxi.
14 ; as if it were inconsistent with the true modesty
and humility of an Apostle to record—as Daniel
of old did in much plainer terms (Dan. xii. 13)—
a divine promise of salvation to himself personally.
Rather those passages may be taken as instances of
the writer quietly accepting as his just due such
honourable mention as belongs to all the Apostolic
company. Unless we are prepared to give up the
veracity and divine origin of the whole book, and
to treat the writer’s account of himself as a mere
é REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
fiction of a poet trying to cover his own insignifi-
cance with an honoured name, we must accept that
description as a plain statement of fact, equally
credible with the rest of the book, and in harmony
with the simple, honest, truthful character which
is stamped on the face of the whole narrative.
Besides this direct assertion of St. John’s author-
ship, there is also an implication of it running
through the book. Generally, the instinct of single-
minded, patient, faithful students has led them to
discern a connexion between the Revelation and
St. John, and to recognise not merely the same
Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holy
Scripture, but also the same peculiarly-formed
human instrument employed both in producing
this book and the fourth Gospel, and in speaking
the characteristic words and performing the cha-
racteristic actions recorded of St. John. This evi-
dence is set forth at great lenoth, and with much
force and eloquence, by J. P. Lange, in his Essay
on the Connexion between the Individuality of the
Apostle John and that of the Apocalypse, 1838
(Vermischte Schriften, ii. 173-231). After inves-
tigating the peculiar features of the Apostle’s cha-
racter and position, and (in reply to Lticke) the
personal traits shown by the writer of the Revela-
tion, he concludes that the book is a mysterious
but genuine effusion of prophecy under the New
Testament, imbued with the spirit of the Gospel,
the product of a spiritual gift so peculiar, so great
and noble that it can be ascribed to the Apostle
John alone. The Revelation requires for its writer
St. John, just as his peculiar genius requires for
its utterance a revelation.
(2) To come to the historical testimonies in
favour of St. John’s authorship :—these are singu-
larly distinct and numerous, and there is very
little to weigh against them. (a) Justin Martyr,
cire. 150 A.D., says:—*‘ A man among us whose
name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a
revelation which was made to him, prophesied that
the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand
years in Jerusalem ” ( Tryph. §81, p. 179, ed. Ben.).
(ὁ) The author of the Muratorian F ragment, cire.
170 A.D., speaks of St. John as the writer of the
Apocalypse, and describes him as a predecessor of
St. Paul, ἡ. 6. as Credner and Liicke candidly inter-
pret it, his predecessor in the office of Apostle.
(c) Melito of Sardis, circ. 170 a.p., wrote a treatise
on the Revelation of John. Eusebius (H. £. iv.
26) mentions this among the books of Melito which
had come to his knowledge; and, as he carefully
records objections against the Apostle’s authorship,
it may be fairly presumed, notwithstanding the
doubts of Klenker and Liicke (p. 514), that Huse-
bius found no doubt as to St. John’s authorship in
the book of this ancient Asiatic bishop. (d@) Theo-
philus, bishop of Antioch, circ. 180, in a contro-
versy with Hermogenes, quotes passages out of the
Revelation of John (Euseb. H. λ΄. iv. 24). (ὁ) Ire-
naeus, circ. 195, apparently never having heard a
suggestion of any other author than the Apostle,
often quotes the Revelation as the work of John,
In iv. 20, §11, he describes John the writer of the
Revelation as the same who was leaning on Jesus’
bosom at supper, and asked Him who should betray
Him. The testimony of Irenaeus as to the author-
ship of Revelation is perhaps more important than
that of any other writer: it mounts up into the
preceding generation, and is virtually that of a con-
temporary of the Apostle. For in v. 30, §1, where
he vindicates the true reading (666) of the number
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 1035
of the Beast, he cites in support of it not only the
old correct copies of the book, but also the oral
testimony of the very persons who themselves had
seen St. John face to face. It is obvious that
Irenaeus’ reference for information on such a point
to those contemporaries of St. John implies his
undoubting heliet that they, in common with him-
self, viewed St. John as the writer of the book.
Liicke (p. 574) suggests that this view was possibly
groundless because it was entertained betore the
learned fathers of Alexandria had set the example
of historical criticism ; but his suggestion scarcely
weakens the force of the fact that such was the
belief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion
when we remember that the critical discernment
of the Alexandrians, to whom he refers, led them to
coincide with Irenaeus in his view. (f) Apollonius
(cire. 200) of Ephesus (?), in controversy with the
Montanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of the
Revelation of John, and narrated a miracle wrought
by John at Ephesus (Kuseb. H. Κ΄. v.18). (g) Cle-
ment of Alexandria (cire. 200,) quotes the book as
the Revelation of John (Stromata, vi. 13, p. 667
and as the work of an Apostle (Paed, ii. 12, p. um
(h) Tertullian (A.D. 207), in at least one place, quotes
by name “the Apostle John in the Apocalypse”
(Adv. Marcion. iii. 14). (1) Hippolytus (cire. 230)
is said, in the inscription on his statue at Rome, to
have composed an apology for the Apocalypse and
Gospel of St. John the Apostle. He quotes it as
the work of St. John (De Antichristo, §36, p. 756,
ed. Migne). (7) Origen (cire. 233), in his Com-
mentary on St. John, quoted by Eusebius (H. 8.
vi. 25), says of the Apostle, “he wrote also the
Revelation.” The testimonies of later writers, in
the third and fourth centuries, in favour of St.
John’s authorship of the Revelation, are equally
distinct and far more numerous. They may be
seen quoted at length in Liicke, pp. 628-638, or in
Dean Alford’s Prolegomena (N. 1’, vol. iv. pt. ii.).
It may suffice here to say that they include the
names of Victorinus, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus,
Epiphanius, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory,
Didymus, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome.
All the foregoing writers, testifying that the
book came from an Apostle, believed that it was a
part of Holy Scripture. But many whose extant
works cannot be quoted for testimony to the au-
thorship of the book refer to it as possessing
canonical authority. Thus (a) Papias, who is de-
scribed by Irenaeus as a hearer of St. John and
friend of Polycarp, is cited, together with other
writers, by Andreas of Cappadocia, in his Com-
mentary on the Revelation, as a guarantee to later
ages of the divine inspiration of the book (Routh,
Relig. Sacr.i.15; Cramer’s Catena, Oxford, 1840,
p- 176). The value of this testimony has not been
impaired by the controversy to which it has given
rise, in which Liicke, Bleek, Hengstenberg, and
Rettig have taken different parts. (6) Im the
Epistle from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne,
A.D. 177, inserted in Eusebius, H. 1. v. 1-3, severai
passages (6. g. i. 5, xiv. 4, xxii. 11) are quoted or
referred to in the same way as passages of books
whose canonical authority is unquestioned. (¢) Cy-
prian (pp. 10, 12, 14, 19, ed. Fell) repeatedly
quotes it as a part of canonical Scripture. Chry-
sostom makes no distinct allusion to it in any
extant writing; but we are informed by Suidas
that, he received it as canonical. Although omitted
(perhaps as not adapted for public reading in
church) from the list of canonical books in the
’
1036 REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
Council of Laodicea, it was admitted into the list
of the Third Council of Carthage, 4.p. 397.
Such is the evidence in favour of St. John’s author-
ship and of the canonical authority of this book. The
following facts must be weighed on the other side.
Marcion, who regarded ali the Apostles except
St. Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the
Apocalypse and all other books of the N. T. which
were not written by St. Paul. The Alogi, an
obscure sect, circa 180 A.D., in their zeal against
Montanism, denied the existence of spiritual gifts
in the Church, and rejected the Revelation, saying
it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthus
(Epiphanius, Adv. Huer. li.), The Roman pres-
byter Caius (circa 196 A.D.), who also wrote
against Montanism, is quoted by Eusebius (H. 2.
iil. 28) as ascribing certain Revelations to Cerin-
thus: but it is doubted (see Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii.
138) whether the Revelation of St. John is the
book to which Caius refers. But the testimony
which is considered the most important of’ ali in
ancient times against the Revelation is contained
in a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, circa
240 a.D., the most influential and perhaps the
ablest bishop in that age. The passage taken from
a book On the Promises, written in reply to Nepos,
a learned Judaising Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius
(1. Β. vii. 25). The principal points in it are
these :—Dionysius testifies that some writers before
him altegether repudiated the Revelation as a
forgery ot Cerinthus; many brethren, however,
prized it very highly, and Dionysius would not
venture to reject it, but received it in faith as
containing things too deep and too sublime for his
understanding. [In his Epistle to Hermammon
(Euseb. H. E. vii. 10) he quotes it as he would
quote Holy Scripture.] He accepts as true what
is stated in the book itself, that it was written by
John, but he argues that the way in which that
name is mentioned, and the general character of
the language, are unlike what we should expect
trom John the Evangelist and Apostle; that there
were many Johns in that age. He would not say
that John Mark was the writer, since it is not
known that he was in Asia. He supposes it must
be the work of some John who lived in Asia; and
he observes there are said to be two tombs in
Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John.
He then points out at length the superiority of the
style of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John
to the style of the Apocalypse, and says, in conclu-
sion, that, whatever he may think of the language,
he does not deny that the writer of the Apocalypse
actually saw what he describes, and was endowed
with the divine gifts of knowledge and prophecy.
To this extent, and no farther, Dionysius is a wit-
ness against St. John’s authorship. It is obvious
that he felt keenly the difficulty arising from the
use made of the contents of this book by certain
unsound Christians under his jurisdiction; that he
was acquainted with" the doubt as to its canonical
authority which some of his predecessors enter-
tained as an inference from the nature of its con-
tents; that he deliberately rejected their doubt and
accepted the contents of the book as given by the
inspiration of God; that, although he did not
understand how St. John could write in the style
in which the Revelation is written, he yet knew
of no authority for attributing it, as he desired to
attribute it, to some other of the numerous persons
who bere the name of John. A weightier difficulty
arises from the fact that the Revelation is one of
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
the books which are absent from the ancient
Peshito version ; and the only trustworthy evidence
in favour of its reception by the ancient Syrian
Church is a single quotation which is adduced
from the Syriac works (ii. 332 6) of Ephrem
Syrus. Eusebius is remarkably sparing in his
quotations from the ‘‘ Revelation of John,” and the
uncertainty of his opinion about it is best shown
by his statement in H. 1. iii. 39, that “it is likely
that the Revelation was seen by the second John
(the Ephesian presbyter), if anyone is unwilling to
believe that it was seen by the Apostle.” Jerome
states (Zp. ad Dardanun, &c.) that the Greek
Churches felt, with respect to the Revelation, a
similar doubt to that of the Latins respecting the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Neither he nor his equally
influential contemporary Augustine shared such”
doubts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Theodore
of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret abstained from making
use of the book, sharing, it is possible, the doubts to
which Jerome refers. But they have not gone so
far as to express a distinct opinion against it. The
silence of these writers is the latest evidence of any
importance that has been adduced against the over-
whelming weight of the testimony in favour of the
canonical authority and authorship of this book.
B. ΤΙΜῈ AND PLACE OF WRITING.—The date
of the Revelation is given by the great majority of
critics as A.D. 95-97. The weighty testimony of
Irenaeus is almost sufficient to prevent any other
conclusion. He says (Adv. Hauer. v. 30, 88):
“It (7. ὁ. the Revelation) was seen no very long
time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the
close of Domitian’s reign.” Kusebius also records
as a tradition which he does not question, that in the
persecution under Domitian, John the Apostle and
Evangelist, being yet alive, was banished to the
island Patmos for his testimony of the divine word.
Allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen
point in the same direction. There is no mention
in any writer of the first three centuries of any
other time or place. Epiphanius (li. 12), obviously
by mistake, says that John prophesied in the reign
of Claudius. ‘Two or three cbscure and later autho-
rities say that John was banished under Nero.
Unsupported by any historical evidence, some
commentators have put forth the conjecture that
the Revelation was written as early as the time of
Nero. This is simply their inference from the style
and contents of the book. But it is difficult to see
why St. John’s old age rendered it, as they allege,
impossible for him to write his inspired message
with force and vigour, or why his residence in
Ephesus must have removed the Hebraistic pecu-
liarities of his Greek. It is difficult to see in the
passages i. 7, ii. 9, ili. 9, vi. 12, 16, xi. 1, any-
thing which would Jead necessarily to the conclu-
sion that Jerusalem was in a prosperous condition,
and that the predictions of its fall had not been
fulfilled when those verses were written. A more
weighty argument in favour of an early date might
be urged from a modern interpretation of xvii, 10,
if that interpretation could be established. Galba
is alleged to be the sixth king, the one that “is.”
In Nero these interpreters see the Beast that was
wounded (xiii. 3), the Beast that was and is not,
the eighth king (xvii. 11). For some time after
Nero's death the Roman populace believed that he
was not dead, but had fled into the East, whence
he would return and regain his throne: and these
interpreters venture to suggest that the writer of
the Revelation shared and meant to express the
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
absurd popular delusion. Even the able and learned
Reuss (Théol. Chrét. i. 443), by way of supporting
this interpretation, advances his untenable claim to
the first discovery of the name of Nero Caesar in
the number of the beast, 666. The inconsistency
of this interpret&tion with prophetic analogy, with
the context of Revelation, and with the fact that
the book is of divine origin, is pointed out by
Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on
ch. xiii., and by Elliott, Horae Apoc. iv. 547.
It has been inferred from 1. 2, 9,10, that the
Revelation was written in Ephesus, immediately
after the Apostle’s return from Patmos. But the
text is scarcely sufficient to support this conclusion.
The style in which the messages to the seven Churches
are delivered rather suggests the notion that the
book was written in Patmos.
C. LANGUAGE.—The doubt first suggested by
Harenberg, whether the Revelation was written in
Ayvamaic, has met with little or no reception. The
silence of all ancient writers as to any Aramaic
original is alone a sufficient answer to the sugges-
tion. Liicke (Hinlcit. 441) has also collected in-
ternal evidence to show that the original is the
Greek of a Jewish Christian.
Liicke has also (pp. 448-464) examined in minute
detail, after the preceding labours of Donker-Cur-
tius, Vogel, Winer, Ewald, Kolthoff, and Hitzig,
the peculiarities of language which obviously dis-
tinguish the Revelation from every other book of
the New Testament. And in subsequent sections
(pp. 680-747) he urges with great force the dif-
ference between the Revelation on one side and the
fourth Gospel and first Epistle on the other, in
respect of their style and composition and the
mental character and attainments of the writer of
each. Hengstenberg, in a dissertation appended to
his Commentary, maintains that they are by one
writer. That the anomalies and peculiarities of
the Revelation have been greatly exaggerated by
some critics, is sufficiently shown by Hitzig’s
plausible and ingenious, though unsuccessful, at-
tempt to prove the identity of style and diction in
the Revelation and the Gospel of St. Mark. It may
be admitted that the Revelation has many sur-
prising grammatical peculiarities. But much of
this is accounted for by the fact that it was pro-
bably written down, as it was seen, “in the Spirit,”
whilst the ideas, in all their noyelty and vastness,
filled the Apostle’s mind,,and rendered him less
capable of attending to forms of speech. His
Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were com-
posed equally under divine influence, but an in-
fluence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much
care, after long deliberation, after frequent recol-
lection and recital of the facts, and deep pondering
of the doctrinal truths which they involve.
D. ContENTS.—The first three verses contain
the title of the book, the description of the writer,
and the blessing pronounced on the readers, which
possibly, like the last two verses of the fourth
Gospel, may be an addition by the hand of inspired
survivors of the writer. John begins (i. 4) with a
salutation of the seven Churches of Asia. This,
coming before the announcement that he was in
the Spirit, looks like a dedication not merely of the
first vision, but of all the book, to these Churches.
In the next five verses (i. 5-9) he touches the key-
®note of the whole following book, the great funda-
mental ideas on which all our notions of the go-
vernment of the world and the Church are built ;
the Person οἵ Christ, the redemption wrought by
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 1037
Him, His second coming to judge mankind, the
painful hopeful discipline of Christians in the midst
of this present world: thoughts which may well be
supposed to have been uppermost in the mind of
the persecuted and exiled Apostle even before the
Divine Inspiration came on him.
a, The first vision (i. 7-iii. 22) shows the Son
of Man with His injunction, or Epistles to the seven
Churches. While the Apostle is pondering those
great truths and the critical condition of his Church
which he had left, a Divine Person resembling
those seen by Ezekiel and Daniel, and identified by
name and by description as Jesus, appears to John,
and with the discriminating authority of a Lord
and Judge reviews the state of those Churches,
pronounces his decision upon their several cha-
racters, and takes occasion from them to speak to
all Christians who may deserve similar encourage-
ment or similar condemnation. Each of these sen-
tences, spoken by the.Son of Man, is described as
said by the Spirit. Hitherto the Apostle has been
speaking primarily though not exclusively to some
of his own contemporaries concerning the present
events and circumstances. Henceforth he ceases to
address them particularly. His words are for the
ear of the universal Church in all ages, and show the
significance of things which are present in hope or
fear, in sorrow or in joy, to Christians everywhere.
ὁ. (iv. 1-viii. 1.) In the next vision, Patmos
and the Divine Person whom he saw are gone.
Only the trumpet voice is heard again calling him
to a change of place. He is in the highest court of
heaven, and sees God sitting on His throne. The
seven-sealed book or roll is produced, and the slain
Lamb, the Redeemer, receives it amid the sound of
universal adoration. As the seals are opened in
order, the Apostle sees (1) a conqueror on a white
horse, (2) a red horse betokening war, (3) the
black horse of famine, (4) the pale horse of death,
(5) the eager souls of martyrs under the altar,
(6) an earthquake with universal commotion and
terror. After this there is a pause, the course of
avenging angels is checked while 144,000, the chil-
dren of Israel, servants of God, are sealed, and an
innumerable multitude of the redeemed of all nations
are seen worshipping God. Next (7) the seventh
seal is opened, and half an hom’s silence in heaven
ensues.
ὁ. Then (viii.2-xi. 19) seven angels appear with
trumpets, the prayers of saints are offered up, the
earth is struck with fire from the altar, and the
seven trumpets are sounded. (1) The earth, and
(2) the sea and (3) the springs of water and (4)
the heavenly bodies are successively smitten, (5) a
plague of locusts afilicts the men who are not
sealed (the first woe), (6) the third part of men
are slain (the second woe), but the rest are im-
penitent. Then there is a pause: a mighty angel
with a book appears and cries out, seven thunders
sound, but their words are not recorded, the ap-
proaching completion of the mystery of God is
announced, the angel bids the Apostle eat the book,
and measure the temple with its worshippers and
the outer court given up to the Gentiles; the two
witnesses of God, their martyrdom, resurrection, as-
cension, are foretold. The approach of the third woe
is announced and (7) the seventh trumpet is sounded,
the reign of Christ is proclaimed, God has taken His
great power, the time has come for judgment and
for the destruction of the destroyers of the earth.
The three preceding visions are distinct from one
another. Each of the last two, like the longer
1038 REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
one which follows, has the appearance of a distinct
prophecy, reaching from the prophet’s time to the
end of the world. The second half of the Revela-
tion (xii.-xxii.) comprises a series of visions which
aie connected by various links. It may be de-
scribed generally as a prophecy of the assaults of
the devil and his agents(= the dragon, the ten-
horned beast, the two-horned beast or false prophet,
and the harlot) upon the Church, and their final
destruction. It appears to begin with a reference
to events anterior, not only to those which are
predicted in the preceding chapter, but also to
the time in which it was written. It seems hard to
interpret the birth of the child as a prediction, and
not as a retrospective allusion.
d. A woman (xii.) clothed with the sun is seen
in heaven, and a great red dragon with seven
crowned heads stands waiting to devour her off-
spring; her child is caught up unto God, and the
mothers flees into the wilderness for 1260 days.
The persecution of the woman and her seed on
earth by the dragon, is described as the consequence
of a war in heaven in which the dragon was over-
come and cast out upon the earth.
St. John (xiii.) standing on the seashore sees a
beast with seven heads, one wounded, with ten
crowned horns, rising from the water, the represen-
tative of thedragon. All the world wonder at and
worship him, and he attacks the saints and prevails.
He is followed by another two-horned beast rising
out of the earth, who compels men to wear the
mark of the beast, whose number is 666.
St. John (xiv.) sees the Lamb with 144,000
standing on Mount Zion learning the song of praise
of the heavenly host. Three angels fly forth call-
ing men to worship God, proclaiming the fall of
Babylon, denouncing the worshippers of the beast.
A blessing is pronounced on the faithful dead, and
the judgment of the world is described under the
image of a harvest reaped by angels.
St. John (xv., xvi.) sees in heaven the saints
who had overcome the beast, singing the song of
Moses and the Lamb. Then seven angels come out
of the heavenly temple having seven vials of wrath
which they pour out upon the earth, sea, rivers,
. sun, the seat of the beast, Euphrates, and the air,
atter which there is a great earthquake and a hail-
storm.
One (xvii., xviii.) of the last seven angels carries
St. John into the wilderness and shows him a har-
jot, Babylon, sitting on a scarlet beast with seven
heads and ten horns. She is explained to be that
great city, sitting upon seven mountains, reigning
over the kings of the earth. Afterwards St. John
sees a vision of the destruction of Babylon, portrayed
a> the burning of a great city amid the lamentations
of worldly men and the rejoicing of saints.
Afterwards (xix.) the worshippers in heaven are
heard celebrating Babylon’s fall and the approaching
marriage-supper of the Lamb. The Word of God is
seen going forth to war at the head of the heavenly
armies; the beast and his false prophet are taken
and cast into the burning lake, and their worship-
pers are slain.
An angel (xx.-xxii. 5) binds the,dragon, 7. 6. the
devil, for 1000 years, whilst the martyred saints
who had not worshipped the beast reign with Christ.
Then the devil is unloosed, gathers a host against
the camp of the saints, but is overcome by fire
from heaven, and is cast into the burning lake with
the beast and false prophet. St. John then witnesses
the process of the final judgment, and sees and de- |
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
scribes the new heaven and the new earth, and the
new Jerusalem, with its people and their way of life.
In the last sixteen verses (xxii. 6-21) the augel
solemnly asseverates the truthfulness and import-
ance of the foregoing sayings, pronounces a blessing
on those who keep them exactly, gives warning
of His speedy coming to judgment, and of the
nearness of the time when these prophecies shall be
fulfilled.
E. INTERPRETATION.—A short account of the
different directions in which attempts have been
made to interpret the Revelation, is all that can be
given in this place. The special blessing promised
to the reader of this book (i. 3), the assistance to
common Christian experience afforded by its pre-
cepts and by some ofits visions, the striking imagery
of others, the tempting field which it supplies for
intellectual exercise, will always attract students to
this book and secure for it the labours of many
commentators. Ebrard reckons that not less than
eighty systematic commentaries are worthy of note,
and states that the less valuable writings on this
inexhaustible subject are unnumbered, it not innu-
merable. Fanaticism, theological hatred, and vain
curiosity, may have largely influenced their compo-
sition ; but any one who will compare the necessa-
rily inadequate, and sometimes erroneous, exposition
of early times with a good modern commentary
will see that the pious ingenuity of so many cen-
turies has not been exerted quite in vain.
The interval between the Apostolic age and that
of Constantine has been called the Chiliastic period
of Apocalyptic interpretation. The visions of St.
John were chiefly regarded as representations of
general Christian truths, scarcely yet embodied in
actual facts, for the most part to be exemplified or
fulfilled in the reion of Antichrist, the coming of
Christ, the millennium, and the day of judgment.
The fresh hopes of the early Christians, and the
severe persecution they endured, taught them to
live in those future events with intense satisfaction:
and comfort. They did not entertain the thought
of building up a definite consecutive chronological
scheme even of those symbols which some moderns
regard as then already fulfilled; although from the
beginning a connexion between Rome and Antichrist
was universally allowed, and parts of the Revelation
were regarded as the filling-up of the great outline
sketched by Daniel and St. Paul.
The only extant systematic interpretations in this
period, are the interpolated Commentary on the
Revelation by the martyr Victorinus, cire. 270 A.D.
(Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima, iii. 414, and Migne’s
Patrologia Latina, v. 318; the two editions should
be compared), and the disputed Treatise on Antichrist
by Hippolytus (Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, x. 726).
But the, prevalent views of that age are to be ga-
thered also from a passage in Justin Martyr ( Zrypho,
80, 81), from the later books, especially the fitth, of
Irenaeus, and from various scattered passages in Ter-
tullian, Origen, and Methodius. The general antici-
pation of the last days of the world in Lactantius,
vii, 14-25, has littledirect reference to the Revelation.
Immediately after the triumph of Constantine,
the Christians, emancipated from oppression and
persecution, and dominant and prosperous in their
turn, began to lose their vivid expectation of our
Lord’s speedy Advent, and their spiritual conception
of His kingdom, and to look upon the temporal ®
supremacy of Christianity as a fulfilment of the
promised reign of Christ on earth. The Roman
empire become Christian was regarded no longer as
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
the object of prophetic denunciation, but as the
scene of a millennial development. This view, how-
ever, was soon met by the figurative interpretation
of the millennium as the reign of Christ in the hearts
of all true believers. As the barbarous and here-
tical invaders of the falling empire appeared, they
were regarded by the suffering Christians as fulfil-
ling the woes denounced in the Revelation, The be-
ginning of a regular chronological interpretation is
seen in Berengaud (assigned by some critics to the
9th century), who treated the Revelation as a his-
tory of the Church from the beginning of the world
to its end. And the original Commentary of the
Abbot Joachim is remarkable, not only for a farther
development of that method of interpretation, but
tor the scarcely disguised identification of Babylon
with Papal Rome, and of the second Beast or Anti-
christ with some Universal Pontiff.
The chief commentaries belonging to this period
are that which is ascribed to Tichonius, circ, 390 A.D.,
printed in the works of St. Augustine; Primasius,
of Adrumetum in Africa, A.D. 550, in Migne’s Pa-
trologia Latina, \xviii. p. 1406; Andreas of Crete,
cire. 650 A.p., Arethas of Cappadocia and Oecu-
menius of Thessaly in the 10th century, whose
commentaries were published together in Cramer’s
Catena, Oxon., 1840; the Haplanatio Apoc. in
the works of Bede, A.D. 735; the Exrpositio of
Berengaud, printed in the works of Ambrose; the
Commentary of Haymo,, A.D. 853, first published
at Cologne in 1531; a short Treatise on the Seals
by Anselm, bishop of Havilberg, A.D. 1145, printed
in D’Achéry’s Spicilegium, i. 161; the Expositio
of Abbot Joachim of Calabria, A.D. 1200, printed
at Venice in 1527.
In the dawn of the Reformation, the views to
which the reputation of Abbot Joachim gave cur-
rency, were taken up by the harbingers of the im-
pending change, as by Wicliffe and others ; and they
became the foundation of that great historical school
of interpretation, which up to this time seems the
most popular of all. It is impossible to construct
an exact classification of modern interpreters of the
Revelation. They are generally placed in three
great divisions.
a. The Historical or- Continuous expositors, in
whose opinion the Revelation is a progressive his-
tory of the fortunes of the Church from the first
century to the end of time. The chief supporters
of this most interesting interpretation are Mede,
Sir I. Newton, Vitringa, Bengel, Woodhouse, Faber,
E. B. Elliott, Wordsworth, Hengstenberg, Ebrard,
and others. The recent commentary of Dean Alford
belongs mainly to this school.
b. The Praeterist expositors, who are of opinion
that the Revelation has been almost, or altogether,
fulfilled in the time which has passed since it was
written; that it refers principally to the triumph
of Christianity over Judaism and Paganism, sig-
nalised in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome.
The most eminent exponnders of this view are Al-
casar, Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet, Wet-
stein, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Liicke, De
Wette, Diisterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and Maurice. This
is the favourite interpretation with the critics of
Germany, one of whom goes so far as to state that
the writer of the Revelation promised the fultilment
of his visions within the space of three years and a
half from the time in which lie wrote.
c. The Futurist expositors, whose views show a
strong reaction against some extravagancies ot the
two preceding schools. They believe that the whole
REZEPH 1039
book, excepting perhaps the first three chapters,
refers principally, if not exclusively, to events which
are yet to come. This view, which is asserted to
be merely a revival of the primitive interpretation,
has been advocated in recent times by Dr. J. H.
Todd, Dr. S. R. Maitland, B. Newton, C. Maitland,
I. Williams, De Burgh, and others,
Each of these three schemes is open to objection.
Against the Futurist it is argued, that it is not
consistent with the repeated declarations of a speedy
fulfilment at the beginning and end of the book
itself (see ch. i. 3, xxii. 6,7, 12, 20). Christians, to
whom it was originally addressed, would have derived
no special comfort from it, had its fulfilment been al-
together deferred for so many centuries. The rigidly
literal interpretation of Babylon, the Jewish tribes,
and other symbols which generally forms a part of
Futurist schemes, presents peculiar difficulties.
Against the Praeterist expositors it is urged, that
prophecies fulfilled ought to be rendered so perspi-
cuous to the general sense of the Church as to supply
an argument against infidelity ; that the destruction
of Jerusalem, having occurred twenty-five years pre-
viously, could not occupy a large space in a prophecy ;
that the supposed predictions of the downfalls of
Jerusalem and of Nero appear from the context to
refer to one event, but are by this scheme separated,
and, moreover, placed in a wrong order; that the
measuring of the temple and the altar, and the
death of the two witnesses (ch. xi.), cannot be
explained consistently with the context.
Against the Historical scheme it is urged, that
its advocates differ very widely among themselves ;
that they assume without any authority that the
1260 days are so many years; that several of its
applications—e. g. of the symbol of the ten-horned
beast to the Popes, and the sixth seal to the con-
version of Constantine—are inconsistent with the
context; that attempts by some of this school to
predict future events by the help of Revelation have
ended in repeated failures.
Tn conclusion, it may be stated that two methods
have been proposed by which the student of the
Revelation may escape the incongruities and fallacies
of the different interpretations, whilst he may derive
edification from whatever truth they contain. It
has been suggested that the book may be regarded
as a prophetic poem, dealing in general and inexact
descriptions, much of which may be set down as
poetic imagery, mere embellishment. But such
a view would be difficult to reconcile with the
belief that the book is an inspired prophecy. A
better suggestion is made, or rather is revived, by
Dr, Arnold in his Sermons On the Interpretation of
Prophecy: that we should bear in mind that pre-
dictions have a lower historical sense, as well as a
higher spiritual sense; that there may be one or
more than one typical, imperfect, historical fulfil-
ment “of a prophecy, in each of which the higher
spiritual fulfilment is shadowed forth more or less
distinetly. Mr. Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae,
iv. 622, argues against this principle ; but perhaps
not successfully. The recognition of it would pave
the way for the acceptance in a modified sense of
many of the interpretations of the Historical school,
and would not exclude the most valuable portions
of the other schemes. [Wise ea
REZ'EPH (F871: ἡ Ῥαφείς, and Ῥαφέθ:"
8. The Alex. MS. exhibits the same forms of the name
as the Vat.: but by a curious coincidence interchanged,
viz. Ῥαφεθ in 2 Kings, Ῥαφεις in Isaiah.
1040 REZIA RHEGIUM
astrous battle in which the power of Hadadezer
was broken, for we are told that David at the same
time defeated the army of Damascene Syrians who
came to the relief of Hadadezer, and put garrisons
in Damascus. From his position at Damascus he
harassed the kingdom of Solomon during his whole
reign. With regard to the statement of Nicolaus
in the 4th book of his History, quoted by Josephus
(Ant. vii. 5, §2), there is less difficulty, as there
seems to be no reason for attributing to it any
historical authority. He says that the name of
the king of Damascus, whom David defeated, was
Hadad, and that his descendants and successors took
the same name for ten generations. If this be true,
Rezon was a usurper, but the origin of the story
is probably the confused account of the LAX, In-
the Vatican MS. of the LXX. the account of Rezon
is inserted in ver. 14 in close connexion with Hadad,
and on this Josephus appears to have founded his
story that Hadad, on leaving Egypt, endeavoured
without success to excite Idumea to revolt, and
then went to Syria, where he joined himself with
Rezon, called by Josephus Raazarus, who at the
head of a band of robbers was plundering the
country (Ant. viii. 7, 86). It was Hadad and not
Rezon, according to the account in Josephus, who
established himself king of that part of Syria, and
made inroads upon the Israelites. In 1 K. xv. 18,
Benhadad, king of Damascus in the reign of Asa,
is described as the grandson of Hezion, and from
the resemblance between the names Rezon and He-
zion, when written in Hebrew characters, it has
been suggested that the latter is a corrupt reading
for the former, For this suggestion, however, there
does not appear to be sufficient ground, though it
was adopted both by Sir John Marsham (Chron.
Can. p. 346) and Sir Isaac Newton (Chronol. p.
221). Bunsen (Bibelwerk, i. p. cclxxi.) makes
Hezion contemporary with Rehoboam, and probably
a grandson of Rezon. The name is Aramaic, and
Ewald compares it with Rezin. [W. A. W.]
RHE'GIUM (Ῥήγιον : Rhegium). The men-
tion of this Italian town (which was situated on the
Bruttian coast, just at the southern entrance of the
straits of Messina) occurs quite incidentally (Acts
xxviii. 13) in the account of St. Paul’s voyage from
Syracuse to Puteoli, after the shipwreck at Malta.
But, for two reasons, it is worthy of careful atten-
tion. By a curious coincidence the figures on its
coins are the very ““ twin-brothers”’ which gave
the name to St. Paul’s ship. See (attached to the
article CASTOR AND POLLUX) the coin of Bruttii,
which doubtless represents the forms that were
painted or sculptured on the vessel. And, again,
the notice of the intermediate position of Rhegium,
the waiting there for a southerly wind to carry the
ship through the straits, the run to Puteoli with
such a wind within the twenty four hours, are all
points of geographical accuracy which help us to
realise the narrative. As to the history of the
place, it was originally a Greek colony: it was
miserably destroyed by Dionysius of Syracuse:
from Augustus it received advantages which com-
bined with its geographical position in making it
important throughout the duration of the Roman
i empire : it was prominently associated, in the middle
destruction which David would inflict, prudently | ages, with the varied fortunes of the Greek emperors,
escaped with some followers ; or whether he gathered | the Saracens, and the Romans: and still the modern
his band of the remnant of those who survived the | Reggio is a town of 10,000 inhabitants. Its distance
slaughter, does not appear. The latter is more | across the straits from Messina is only about six
probable. The settlement of Rezon at Damascus | miles, and it is well seen from the telegraph station
could not have been till some time after the dis- | above that Sicilian town. >of S. H.]
Reseph). One of the places which Sennacherib men-
tions, in his taunting message to Hezekiah, as having
been destroyed by his predecessor (2 K. xix. 12;
Is. xxxvii. 12). He couples it with Haran and
other well-known Mesopotamian spots. The name
is still a common one, Yakit’s Lexicon quoting
nine towns so called. Interpreters, however, are
at variance between the principal two of these.
The one is a day’s march west of the Euphrates,
on the road from Racca to Hiims (Gesenius, Keil,
Thenius, Michaelis, Suppl.); the other, again, is
east of the Euphrates, near Bagdad (Hitzig). The
former is mentioned by Ptolemy (vy. 15) under the
name of Ῥησάφα, and appears, in the present im-
perfect state of our Mesopotamian knowledge, to be
the more feasible of the two. [G.]
REZ'TA (NYS): Ῥασιά : Resia). An Asherite,
of the sons of Ulla (1 Chr. vii. 39).
REZIN (ἡ: Ῥασίν, Ῥαασσών: asin).
1. Δ king of Damascus, contemporary with Pekah
in Israel, and with Jotham and Ahaz in Judaea. The
policy of Rezin seems to have been to ally himself
closely with the kingdom of Israel, and, thus strength-
ened, to carry on constant war against the kings of
Judah. He attacked Jotham during the latter part
of his reign (2 K. xv. 37); but his chief war was
with Ahaz, whose territories he invaded, in com-
pany with Pekah, soon after Ahaz had mounted
the throne (about B.c. 741). The combined army
laid siege to Jerusalem, where Ahaz was, but
“could not prevail against it” (Is. vii. 1; 2 K.
xvi. 5). Rezin, however, “recovered Elath to
Syria” (2 K. xvi. 6); that is, he conquered and
held possession of the celebrated town of that name
at the head of the Gulf of Akabah, which com-
manded one of the most important lines of trade in
the East. Soon after this he was attacked by Tig-
lath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, to whom Ahaz in
his distress had made application ; his armies were
defeated by the Assyrian hosts; his city besieged
and taken; his people carried away captive into
Susiana (? Krr); and he himself slain (2 K. xvi. 9;
compare Tiglath-Pileser’s own inscriptions, where
the defeat of Rezin and the destruction of Damascus
are distinctly mentioned). This treatment was pro-
bably owing to his being regarded as a rebel; since
Damascus had been taken and laid under tribute by
the Assyrians some time previously (Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, i. 467). [G. R.]
2,. One of the families of the Nethinim (Ezr. ii.
48; Neh. vii. 50). It fumishes another example
of the oceurrence of non-Israelite names amongst
them, which is already noticed under Mrnunim
{313 note; and see SiseRA]. In 1 Esd. the name
appears as Daisan, in which the change from R to D
seems to imply that 1 Esdras at one time expted in
Syriac or some other Semitic language. [G.]
REZ'ON (7: Ἐσρώμ : Alex. Ῥαζών : Razon).
The son of Eliadah, a Syrian, who when David de-
feated Hadadezer king of Zobah, put himself at the
head of a band of freebooters and set up a petty
kingdom at Damascus (1 K. xi. 23). Whether he
was an officer of Hadadezer, who, foreseeing the
RHESA
RHE'SA (‘Pyod: Res), son of Zorobabel in
the genealogy of Christ (Luke iii. 27). Lord A.
Hervey has ingeniously conjectured that Rhesa is
no person, but merely the title Rosh, 1. 6. “ Prince,”
originally attached to the name of Zerubbabel, and
gradually introduced as an independent name into
the genealory. He thus removes an important
obstacle to the reconciliation of the pedigrees in
Matthew and Luke (Hervey’s Genealogies, &c., 111,
114, 356-60). [GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST,
675a; ZERUBBABEL. | [G.]
RHO'DA (‘P45n; Rhode), lit. Rose, the name
of a maid who announced Peter’s arrival at the door
of Mary’s house after his miraculous release from
prison (Acts xii. 13).
RHODES (Ῥόδος; Rhodus). The history of
this island is so illustrious, that it is interesting to
see it connected, even in a small degree, with the life
of St. Paul. He touched there on his return-voyage
to Syria from the third missionary journey (Acts
xxi. 1). It does not appear that he Janded from
the ship. The day before he had been at Cos, an
island to the N.W.; and from Rhodes he proceeded
eastwards to PATARA in Lycia, It seems, from all
the circumstances of the narrative, that the wind
was blowing from the N.W., as it very often does
in that part of the Levant. Rhodes is immediately
opposite the high Carian and Lycian headlands at
the S.W. extremity of the peninsula of Asia Minor.
Its position has had much to do with its history.
The outline of that history is as follows. Its real
eminence began (about 400 B.c.) with the founding
of that city at the N.E. extremity of the island,
which still continues to be the capital. Though the
Dorian race was originally and firmly established
here, yet Rhodes was very frequently dependent on
others, between the Peloponnesian war and the time
of Alexander’s campaign. After Alexander’s death
it entered on a glorious period, its material prosperity
being largely developed, and its institutions deserving
and obtaining general esteem. As we approach the
time of the consolidation of the Roman power in
the Levant, we have a notice of Jewish residents in
Rhodes (1 Mace. xv. 23). The Romans, after the
defeat of Antiochus, assigned, during some time, to
Rhodes certain districts on the mainland [Carta,
Lycta]; and when these were withdrawn, upon
more mature provincial arrangements being made,
the island still enjoyed (from Augustus to Vespasian)
a considerable amount of independence.*, It is in
this interval that St. Paul was there. Its Byzantine
history is again eminent. Under Constantine it was
the metropolis of the ‘ Province of the Islands.” It
was the last place where the Christians of the East
held out against the advancing Saracens; and sub-
sequently it was once more famous as the home and
fortress of the Knights of St. John. The most
prominent remains of the city and harbour are
memorials of those knights. The best account of
Rhodes will be found in Ross, Reisen anf den
Griech. Inseln, iii. 70-113, and Reisen nach Kos,
Halikarnassos, Rhodos, &c., pp. 53-80. There is a
good view, as well as an accurate delineation of the
coast, in the English Admiralty Chart No. 1639.
Perhaps the best illustration we can adduce here is
RIBLAH 1041
one of the early coins of Rhodes, with the conven-
tional rose-flower, which bore the name of the island
on one side, and the head of Apollo, radiated like
the sun, on the other. It was a proverb that the
sun shone every day in Rhodes. {J.S. H.]
Coin of Rhodes.
RHO'DOCUS (όδοκος : Rhodocus). A Jew
who betrayed the plans of his countrymen to
Antiochus Eupator, His treason was discovered,
and he was placed in confinement (2 Mace. xiii.
21.) [B. F. W.]
RHODUS (Ῥόδος : Rhodus), 1 Mace, xv. 23.
[RHODEs. |
RIBA'T (2: Ῥιβά in Sam., Ῥεβιέ; Alex.
Ῥηβαί in Chr.: Ribai). The father of Ittai the
Benjamite of Gibeah, who was one of David’s mighty
men (2 Sam. xxiii. 29; 1 Chr. xi. 31).
RIB'LAH, 1. nbann, with the definite article :
ByAa? in both MSS.: Rebla). One of the landmarks
on the eastern boundary of the land of Israel, as
specified by Moses (Num. xxxiv. 11). Its position
is noted in this passage with much precision. It
was immediately between Shepham and the sea of
Cinnereth, and on the “east side of the spring.”
Unfortunately Shepham has not yet been identified,
and which of the great fountains of northern
Palestine is intended by “ the spring’’ is uncer-
tain. It seems hardly possible, without entirely
disarranging the specification of the boundary, that
the Riblah in question can be the same with the
‘¢ Riblah in the land of Hamath” which is men-
tioned at a much later period of the history.
For, according to this passage, a great distance
must necessarily have intervened between Riblah and
Hamath. This will be evident from a mere enume-
ration of the landmarks.
1. The north boundary: The Mediterranean,
Mount Hor, the entrance of Hamath, Zedad, Zi-
phron, Hazar-enan.
2. The eastern boundary commenced from Hazar-
enan, turning south: Shepham, Riblah, passing
east of the spring, to east side of Sea of Galilee.
Now it seems impossible that Riblah can be in
the land of Hamath,¢ seeing that four landmarks
occur between them. Add to this its apparent
proximity to the Sea of Galilee.
The early Jewish interpreters have felt the force
of this. Confused as is the catalogue of the boun-
dary in the Targum Pseudojonathan of Num, xxxiv.,
it is plain that the author of that version considers
“the spring” as the spring of Jordan at Banias,
and Riblah, therefore, as a place near it. With
this agrees Parchi the Jewish traveller in the 15th
and 14th centuries, who expressly discriminates
* Two incidents in the life of Herod the Great con-
nected with Rhodes, are well worthy of mention here.
When he went to Italy, about the close of the last Repub-
lican struggle, he found that the city had suffered much
from Cassius, and gave liberal sums to restore it (Joseph.
Ant. xiv. 14, $3). Here also, after the battle of Actium,
VOL, I.
he met Augustus and secured his favour (7b. xv. 6, 96).
Ὁ Originally it appears to have stood ᾿Αρβήλα : but the
’Ap has now attached itself to the preceding name—
Σεπφαμαρ. Can this be the ARBELA of 1 Macc. ix. 2?
¢ If Mr. Porter’s identifications of Zedad and Hatsar-
enan are adopted, the difficulty is increased tenfold.
ah Oe
1042 RIDDLE
between the two (see the extracts in Zunz’s Ben-
jamin, ii. 418), and in our own day J. D. Michaelis
(Bibel fiir Unjelehrten; Suppl. ad Lexica, No.
2313), and Bonftrerius, the learned editor of Euse-
bius’ Onomasticon. . ‘
No place bearing the name of Riblah has been
yet discovered in the neighbourhood of Banias.
2. Riblah in the land of Hamath (mb2, once
anda, i.e. Riblathah : 5 Δεβλαθᾷ in both MSS. :
Reblatha). A place on the great road between Pa-
lestine and Babylonia, at which the kings of Baby-
lonia were accustomed to remain while directing
the operations of their armies in Palestine and
Phoenicia. Here Nebuchadnezzar waited while the
sieges of Jerusalem and of Tyre were being con-
ducted by his lieutenants; hither were brought to
him the wretched king of Judaea and his sons, and
after a time a selection from all ranks and condi-
tions of the conquered city, who were put to death,
doubtless by the horrible death of impaling, which
the Assyrians practised, and the long lines of the
victims to which are still to be seen on their monu-
ments (Jer. xxxix. 5, 6, lii. 9, 10, 26, 27; 2 K.
xxv. 6, 20, 21). In like manner Pharaoh-Necho,
after his successful victory over the Babylonians at |
Carchemish, returned to Riblah and summoned Je- | Y 1 ) ἱ e
| meaning οὗ the word, many instances of it oceur in
| our Lord’s discourses.
hoahaz from Jerusalem before him (2 K. xxiii. 33).
This Riblah has no doubt been discovered, still
retaining its ancient name, on the right (east)
hank of the οἱ Asy (Orontes), upon the great road
which connects Baalbek and Hums, about 35
miles N.E. of the former and 20 miles S.W. of the
latter place. The advantages of its position for the
encampment of vast hosts, such as those of Egypt
and Babylon, are enumerated by Dr. Robinson, who
visited it in 1852 (Bib. Res, iii. 545). He de-
scribes it as “lying on the banks of a mountain
stream in the midst of a vast ἀπά. fertile plain
yielding the most abundant supplies of forage.
From this point the roads were. open by Aleppo
and the Euphrates to Nineveh, or by Palmyra to
Babylon . . . . by the end of Lebanon and the
coast to Palestine and Egypt, or through the Bukaa
and the Jordan valley to the centre of the Holy
Land.” It appears to have been first alluded to by
Buckingham in 1816.
kiblah is probably mentioned by Ezekiel (vi, 14),
though in the present Hebrew text and A. V. it
appears as Diblah or Diblath. The change from R
to D is in Hebrew a very easy one. Riblah suits
the sense of the passage very well, while on the
other hand Diblah is not known. [Distatu.] [G.]
RIDDLE (ADH: αἴνιγμα, πρόβλημα: pro-
hlema, propositio).
_ from an Arabic root meaning “ to bend οὔ; «to
The Hebrew word is derived |
twist,” and is used for artifice (Dan. viii. 23), a)
proverb (Prov. i. 6), a song (Ps. xlix. 4, Ixxviii. 2)
᾿
an oracle (Num. xii. 8), a parable (Kz. xvii. 2), and
in general any wise or intricate sentence (Ps. χοῖν.
4; Hab. ii. 6, &c.), as well as a riddle in our sense
of the word (Judg. xiv. 12-19). In these senses
we may compare the phrases στροφὴ λόγων,
στροφαὶ παραβολῶν (Wisd. viii. 8; Ecclus. xxxix.
2), and περιπλοκὴ λόγων (Eur. Phoen. 497;
RIDDLE
xii. 6). Augustine defines an enigma to be any
“obscura allegoria” (de Trin. xv. 9), and points
out, as an instance, the passage about the daughter
of the horse-leech in Proy. xxx. 15, which has
been elaborately explained by Bellermann in a mo-
| nograph on the subject (Aenigmata Hebraica, Erf.
1798). Many passages, although not definitely
propounded as riddles, may be regarded as such,
|e. 4. Prov. xxvi. 10, a verse in the rendering of
which every version differs from all others. The
riddles which the queen of Sheba came to ask of So-
lomon (1 K. x. 1, ἦλθε πειράσαι αὐτὸν ἐν αἰνίγ-
μασι; 2 Chr. ix. 1) were rather “ hard questions ἢ
referring to profound enquiries. Solomon is said,
however, to have been very fond of the riddle
proper, for Josephus quotes two profane historians
| (Menander of Ephesus, and Dius) to authenticate a
story that Solomon proposed numerous riddles to
Hiram, for the non-solution of which Hiram was
obliged to pay a large fine, until he summoned to
his assistance a Tyrian named Abdemon, who not
only solved the riddles, but propounded others
which Solomon was himself unable to answer, and
consequently in his turn incurred the penalty. The
word αἴνιγμα occurs only once in the N. T. (1 Cor.
xili. 12, “6 darkly,” ἐν αἰνίγματι, comp. Num. xii.
8; Wetstein, V. 7. ii. 158); but, in the wider
Thus Erasmus applies the
term to Matt. xii. 43-45. The object of such im-
plicated meanings is obvious, and is well explained
by St. Augustine: ‘‘ manifestis pascimur, obscuris
exercemur” (de Doct. Christ. ii. 6).
We know that all ancient nations, and especially
Orientals, have been fond of riddles (Rosenmiiller,
Morgenl. iii. 68). We find traces of the custom
among the Arabs (Koran, xxv. 35), and indeed
several Arabic books of riddles exist—as Ketab al
Algaz in 1469, and a book of riddles solved, called
Akd al themin. But these are rather emblems and
devices than what we call riddles, although they
are very ingenious. The Persians call them Algdz
and Maamma (D’Herbelot, s. υ. Algaz). They
were also known to the Ancient Egyptians (Ja-
blonski, Pantheon Aegypt. 48). They were espe-
cially used in banquets both by Greeks and Romans
(Miiller, Dor. ii. 392; Athen. x. 457; Pollus, vi.
107; A. Gell. xviii. 2; Dict. of Ant. p. 22), and
the kind of witticisms adopted may be seen in the
literary dinners described by Plato, Xenophon,
Athenaeus, Plutarch, and Macrobius. Some have
groundlessly supposed that the proverbs of Solo-
mon, Lemuel, and Agur, were propounded at feasts,
|like the parables spoken by our Lord on similar
occasions (Luke xiv. 7, &c.).
Riddles were generally proposed in verse, like the
celebrated riddle of Samson, which, however, was
properly (as Voss points out, /nstt. Oratt. iv. 11)
(no riddle at all, because the Philistines did not
possess the only clue on which the solution could
depend. For this reason Samson had carefully con-
_cealed the fact even from his parents (Judg. xiv. 14,
Gesen, 8, v.), and the Latin scirpus, which appears |
to have been similarly used (Aul. Gell. Noct, Att.
“ ‘The two great MSS, of the LXX.—Vatican (Mai) and
Alex.—present the name as follow :—
2 K. xxiii. 33, "ABAaa; Δεβλαα.
xKv. 6, lepdeBAabav; Δεβλαθα.
&c.). Other ancient riddles in verse are that of the
Sphinx, and that which is said to have caused the
death of Homer by his mortification at being unable
to solve it (Plutarch, Vit. Hom.).
Franc. Junius distinguishes between the greater
enigma, where the allegory or obscure intimation
2 K. xxv. 20, AeBAaba ; Δεβλαθα.
» 21, ‘PeBAaba 3 5
Jer. lii. 9, 10, 26, 27, Δεβλαθᾷ, in both.
RIDDLE
is continuous throughout the passage (as in Ez.
Xvii, 2, and in such poems as the Syrinx attributed
to Theocritus) ; and the /esser enigma or ὑπαίνιγμα,
where the difficulty is concentrated in the peculiar use
of some one word. It may be useful to refer to one
or two instances of the latter, since they are very
frequently to be found in the Bible, and especially
in the Prophets. Such is the play on the word
DIY (“a portion,” and “Shechem,” the town of
Ephraim) in Gen. xviii. 22; on ἽΝ (πα τό»,
“a fortified city,” and DYN, Mizrain, Egypt)
in Mic. vii, 12 ;. on IPW (Shakéd, “ an almond-
tree”), and Ip (shakad, ““ to hasten”), in Jer. i.
BA
11; on ΠῚ (Diimah, meaning “ Edom ”
i bd wae
“the land of death”), in Is. xxi. 11; on WWW."
Sheshach (meaning “ Babylon,” and perhaps
rogance ἢ), in Jer. xxv. 26, li. 41.
It only remains to notice the single instance
of a riddle ovcurring in the N. T., viz., “the number
of the beast. This belongs to a class of riddles
very common among Esyptian mystics, the Gnostics,
some of the Fathers, and the Jewish Cabbalists. The
latter called it Gematria (i.e. γεωμετρία) of which
instances may be found in Carpzoy (App. Crit. p.
542), Reland (Ant. Hebr. i. 25), and some of the
commentators on Rey. 16-18. Thus vn
T
(nachash), “serpent,” is made by the Jews one of
the names of the Messiah, because its numerical
value is equivalent to MWD; and the names
and
66 aye
Nill.
Shushan and Esther are connected together because
the numerical value of the letters composing them
is 661. Thus the Marcosians regarded the number
24 as sacred from its being the sum of numerical
values in the names of two quaternions of their
Aeons, and the Gnostics used the name «abraxas
as an amulet, because its letters amount nume-
rically to 365. Such idle fancies are not unfre-
quent, in some of the Fathers. We have already
mentioned (see Cross) the mystic ae by
Clem. Alexandrinus of the number 318 in Gen.
xiv. 14, and by Tertullian of the number 300 (re-
presented by the letter T or a cross) in Judg. vii.
6, and similar instances are supplied by the Testi-
monia of the Pseudo-Cyprian. The most exact
analogies, however, to the enigma on the name otf
the beast, are to be found in the so-called Sibylline
verses. We quote one which is exactly similar to
it, the answer being found in the name Ἰησοῦς
= 888, thus: I=10 +7 =8 + 6 = 200 +0 =70
+v=400+s5=200 = 888. It is as follows,
and is extremely curious :
ἥξει σαρκοφόρος Ovyntois-dporovpevos ἐν γῇ
τέσσερα φωνήεντα φέρει, τὰ δ᾽ ἄφωνα δύ᾽ αὐτῷ
δίσσων ἀστραγάλων (ῦ, ἀριθμὸν δ᾽ ὅλον ἐξονομήνω"
ὄκτω γὰρ μονάδας, ὃ ὅσσας δεκάδας ἐπὶ τούτοις,
ἤδ᾽ ἑκατοντάδας ὄκτω ἀπιστοτέροις ἀνθρώποις
οὔνομα δηλώσει.
With examples like this before us, it would be
absurd to doubt that St. John (not greatly removed
in time from the Christian forgers of the Sibylline
verses) intended some name as an answer to the
number 666. The true answer must be settled by
the Apocalyptic commentators. Most of the Fathers
4 Tn this passage it is generally thought that Sheshach
is put for Babel, by the principle of alphabetical inversion
known as the athbash. It will be seen that the passages
above quoted are chiefly instances of paronomasia. On
RIMMON 1043
supposed, even as far back as Irenaeus, the name
Λάτεινος to be indicated, A list of the other ve; Ὺ
numerous solutions, proposed in different ages, may
be foynd in Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticae, from
which we have quoted several of these instances
(Hor. Apoe. iii. 222-234), [F. W. F.]
RIM’MON (iD7: Ῥεμμών : Remmon). Rim-
mon, a Benjamite of Beeroth, was the father of
Rechab and Baanah, the murderers of Ishbosheth
(ἃ patiriven 2s 509):
RIM’MON (37: Ῥεμμάν : Remmon). A
deity, worshipped by the Syrians of Damascus,
where there was a temple or house of Rimmon
(εν νυν! 18). Traces of the name of this god
appear also in the proper names Hadad-rimmon
and Tabrimmon, but its signification is doubtful.
Serarius, quoted by Selden ‘(De dis Syris, ii. 10),
refers it to the Heb. rimmon, a pomegranate, a
fruit sacred to Venus, who is thus the deity wor-
shipped under this title (compare Pomona, from
pomum). Ursinus (Arboretum Bibl. cap. 32, 7)
explains Rimmon as the pomegranate, the emblem
of the fertilizing principle of nature, the personified
natura naturans, a symbol of frequent occurrence
in the old religions (Bahr, Symbolik, ii. 122). lf
this be the true origin of the name, it presents us
with a relic of the ancient tree-worship of the East,
which we know to have prevailed in Palestine.
But Selden rejects this derivation, and proposes
instead that Rimmon is frem the root Ὁ), rim,
“to be high,” and signifies ‘‘ most HERD: ” like
the Phoenician Zlioun, and Heb. Troy. Hesy-
ὕψιστος θεός. Clericus,
and Gesenius were of the
chius gives ‘Pandas, ὁ
Vitringa, Rosenmiiller,
same opinion.
Movers (Phoen. i. 196, &c.) regards Rimmon as
the abbreviated form of Hadad-Rimmon (as Peor
for Baal-Peor), Hadad being the sun-god of the
Syrians. Combining this with the pomegranate,
which was his symbol, Hadad-Rimmon would then
be the sun-god of the late summer, who ripens the
pomegranate and other fruits, and, after infusing
into them his productive power, dies, and is mourned
with the ‘‘ mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley
ot Megiddon” (Zech. xii. 11).
_ Between these different opinions there is no pos-
sibility of deciding. The name occurs but once,
and there is no evidence on the point. But the
conjecture of Selden. which is approved by Gesenius,
has the greater show of probability. [W. A. W.]
RIM'MON Qa, i.e. Rimm6n6: 7 Ῥεμμών:
Remmono). A city of Zebulun belonging to the
Merarite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 77). There is great
discrepancy hetween the list in which it eceurs and
the parallel catalogue of Josh. xxi. The former
contains two names in place of the four of the latter,
and neither of them the same. But it is not im-
possible that DimNAH (Josh. xxi. 35) may have
been originally Rimmon, as the D and R in Hebrew
are notoriously easy to confound. At any rate there
is no reason for supposing that Rimmono is not
identical with Rimmon of Zebulnn (Josh. xix. 13),
in the A.V. REMMON-METHOAR. The redundant
letter was probably transferred, in copying, from the ἡ
succeeding word—at an early date, since all the MSS.
the profound use of this figure by the prophets and other
writers see Ewald, Die Propheten εἰ. Alt. Bund, i. 435
Steinthal, Urspr. ἃ. Sprache, p. 23.
3K 2
1044 RIMMON
appear to exhibit it, as does also the Targum of
Joseph. [G.]
RIM'MON (ἡ): Ἐρωμώθ; Alex. Peupor ;
Ῥεμμών : Remmon). A town in the southeth por-
tion of Judah (Josh. xv. 52), allotted to Simeon
(Josh, xix. 7; 1 Chr. iv. 32: in the former of
these tivo passages it is inaccurately given in the
A. V.as Remmon). In each of the above lists the
name succeeds that of AIN, also one of the cities of
Judah and Simeon. In the catalogue of the places
reoccupied by the Jews after the return from
Babylon (Neh. xi. 29) the two are joined (1199 JY :
LXX. omits: ef in Remmon), and appear in the
A. V. as En-Rimmon. There is nothing to support
this single departure of the Hebrew text from its
practice in the other lists except the fact that the
Vatican LXX. (if the edition of Mai may be trusted)
has joined the names in each of the lists of Joshua,
from which it may be inferred that at the time of
the LXX. translation the Hebrew text there also
showed them joined. On the other hand there does
not appear to be any sign of such a thing in the
present Hebrew MSS.
No trace of Rimmon has been yet discovered in
the south of Palestine. True, it is mentioned in the
Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome; but they
locate it at 15 miles north of Jerusalem, obviously
confounding it with the Rock Rimmon. That it
was in the south would be plain, even though the
lists above cited were not extant, from Zech. xiv.
10, where it is stated to be “" south of Jerusalem,”
and where it and Geba (the northern frontier of
the southern kingdom) are named as the limits of
the change which is to take place in the aspect and
formation of the country. In this case Jerome, both
in the Vulgate and in his Commentary (in Zech.
xiv. 9 seqq.), joins the two names, and understands
them to denote a hill north of Jerusalem, appa-
rently well known (doubtless the ancient GIBEAH),
marked by a pomegranate tree—‘ collis Rimmon
(hoe enim Gabaa sonat, ubi arbor malagrapati est)
usque ad australem plagam Jerusalem.” [G. |
RIM'MON PA‘REZ (P95 Ἰ9: Ῥεμμὼν Φα-
pés). The name of a march-station in the wilder-
ness (Num. xxxiii. 19, 20). Rimmon is a common
name of locality. The latter word is the same as that
found in the plural form in Baal-Perazim, “ Baal
of the breaches.” Perhaps some local configuration,
such asa “cleft,” might account for its being added.
It stands between Rithmah and Libnah. No place
now known has been identified with it, [H. H.]
RIM'MON, THE ROCK (ins yop:
ἣ πέτρα τοῦ Ῥεμμών ; Joseph. πέτρα Ῥοα: petra
cujus vocabulum est Remmon; petra Remmon).
A cliff (such seems rather the force of the Hebrew
word se/c) or inaccessible natural fastness, in which
the six hundred Benjamites who escaped the slaugh-
ter of Gibeah took refuge. and maintained them-
selves for four months until released by the act of
the general body of the tribes (Judg. xx, 45, 47,
xxi, 13).
It is described as in the ‘* wilderness” (midbar),
that is, the wild uncultivated (though not unpro-
duetive) country which lies on the east of the
central highlands of Benjamin, on which Gibeah was
situated — between them and the Jordan Valley.
“In two out of its four occurrences, the article is
omitted both in the Hebrew and LXX,
RINNAH
Here the name is still found attached to a village
perched on the summit of a conical chalky hill,
visible in all directions, and commanding the whole
country (Rob. B. &. i, 440).
The hill is steep and naked, the white limestone
everywhere protruding, and the houses clinging to
its sides and forming as it were huge steps. Ona
the south side it rises to a height of several hundred
feet from the great ravine of the Wady Mutyah ;
while on the west side it is almost equally isolated
by across valley of great depth (Porter, Handbh.
217; Mr. Finn, in Van de Velde, Memoir, 345).
In position it is (as the crow flies) 3 miles east of
Bethel, and 7 N.E. of Gibeah (Tuleil el-Ful).
Thus in every particular of name, character, and
situation it agrees with the requirements of the Rock
Rimmon. It was known in the days of Eusebius
and Jerome, who mention it (Onomasticon, ‘* Rem-
mon” )—though confounding it with Rimmon in
Simeon—as 15 Roman miles northwards from
Jerusalem. [G.]
RING (νυ : δακτύλιος : annulus), The
ring was regarded as an indispensable article of a
Hebrew’s attire, inasmuch as it contained his signet,
and even owed its name to this circumstance, the
term tabbaath being derived from a root signifying
“to impress a seal.” It was hence the symbol of
authority, and as such was presented by Pharaoh
to Joseph (Gen. xli. 42), by Ahasuerus to Haman
(sth. iii. 10), by Antiochus to Philip (1 Mace. vi.
15), and by the father to the prodigal son in the
parable (Luke xv. 22). It was treasured accordingly,
and became a proverbial expression for a most valued
object (Jer, xxii. 24; Hagg. ii. 23; Ecclus. xlix. 11).
Such rings were worn not only by men, but by
women (Is. iii. 21; Mishn. Sabb. 6, §3), and are
enumerated among the articles presented by men
and women for the service of the tabernacle (Ex.
xxxv. 22). The signet-ring was worn on the right
hand (Jer. 7. c.). We may conclude, from Ex.
xxviii. 11, that the rings contained a stone engraven
with a device, or with the owner’s name. Numerous
specimens of Egyptian rings have been discovered,
most of them made of gold, very massive, and con-
taining either a scarabaeus or an engraved stone
(Wilkinson, ii, 357). The number of rings worn
Egyptian Rings.
by the Egyptians was truly remarkable. The same
profusion was exhibited also by the Greeks and Ro-
mans, particularly by men (Dict. of Ant. “ Rings”’).
It appears also to have prevailed among the Jews
of the Apostolic age; for in Jam. ii. 2, a rich man
is described as χρυσοδακτύλιος, meaning not simply
‘with a gold ring,” as in the A. V., but ‘ golden-
ringed”’ (like the χρυσόχειρ, ““ golden-handed ”’ of
Lucian, Timon, 20), implying equally well the pre-
sence of several gold rings. For the term galil,
rendered “ring” in Cant. vy. 14, see ORNAMENTS.
[Woe Bi
RIN'NAH (739 : 7Avad; Alex. Ῥαννών :
Rinna). One of the sons of Shimon in an obscure
and fragmentary genealogy of the descendants of
Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20). In the LXX. and Vulgate
RIPHATH
he is made ‘‘ the son of Hanan,”
thus translated.
RIPHATH (M5: Ῥιφάθ; Alex. Ῥιφαε in
Chr.: Ziphath), the second son of Gomer, and the
brother of Ashkenaz and Togarmah (Gen. Kei ch)
The Hebrew text in 1 Chr. i. 6 gives the form
Diphath,* but this arises out of a clerical error
similar to that which gives the forms Rodanim and
Hadad for Dodanim and Hadar ({ Chr. i. 7, 50;
Gen, xxxvi. 39). The name Riphath occurs only
in the genealogical table, and hence there is little
to guide us to the locality which it indicates. The
name itself has been variously identified. with that
of the Rhipaean mountains (Knobel), the river
Rhebas in Bithynia (Bochart), the Rhibii, a people
living eastward of the Caspian Sea (Schulthess),
and the Ripheans, the ancient name of the Paphla-
gonians (Joseph. Ant. i. 6, §1). This last view
is certainly favoured by the contiguity of Ash-
kenaz and Togarmah. The weight of opinion is,
however, in favour of the Rhipaean mountains,
which Knobel ( Vélkert. p. 44) identities etymo-
logically and geographically with the Carpathian
range in the N.E, of Dacia. The attempt of that
writer to identify Riphath with the Celts or Gauls,
is evidently based on the assumption that so im-
portant a race ought to be mentioned in the table,
and that there is no other name to apply to them ;
but we have no evidence that the Gauls were for
any lengthened period settled in the neighbourhood
of the Carpathian range. The Rhipaean mountains
themselves existed more in the imagination of the
Greeks than in reality, and if the received etymo-
logy of that name (from ῥιπαί, ““ blasts”) be correct,
the coincidence in sound with Riphath is merely
accidental, and no connexion can be held to exist
between the names. The later geographers, Pto-
lemy (iii. 5, §15, 19) and others, placed the Rhi-
paean range where no range really exists, viz., about
the elevated ground that ‘separates the basins of the
Euxine and Baltic seas. ΕΞ 1.8}
RIS'SAH (1D): Ῥεσσά: Ressa). The name,
identical with the word which signifies ‘* a worm,”
is that of a march-station in the wilderness (Num.
xxxill. 21, 22). It lies, as there given, between
Libnah and Kehelathah, and has been considered
(Wines, s. v.) identical with Rasa in the Peuting.
Itiner., 32 Roman miles from Ailah (Elah), and
203 miles south of Jerusalem, distinct, however,
from the Ῥῆσσα of Josephus (Ant. xiv. 15, ἘΣ
No site has been identified with Rissah. [H. H
RITH MAH (M97: Ῥαθαμᾶ: Rethina). The
name of a march-station in the wilderness (Num.
xxxiil. 18, 19). It stands there next to Hazeroth
[Hazerorn], and probably lay in a N.E. direction
from that spot, but no place now known has been
identified with it. The name is probably connected
5.-
Ben-hanan being
with on, Arab.
per,’ ” but more correctly “broom.” It carries the
affirmative %, common in names of locality, and
found especially among many in the catalogue of
Num. xxxiii. ΒΗ H.]
RIVER. In the sense in which we employ the
3); commonly rendered “ juni-
RIVER 1045
word, viz. for a perennial stream of considerable
size, a river is a much rarer object in the East
than in the West. ‘The majority of the inhabitants
of Palestine at the present day have probably never
seen one. With the exception of the Jordan and
the Litany, the streams of the Holy Land are either
entirely dried up in the summer months, and con-
verted into hot lanes of glaring stones, or else re«
duced to very small streamlets deeply sunk in a
narrow bed, and concealed from view by a dense
growth of shrubs.
The cause of this is twofold: on the one hand
the hilly nature of the country —a central mass
of highland descending on each side to a lower
level, and on the other the extreme heat of the
climate during the summer. ‘There is little doubt
that in ancient times the country was more wooded
than it now is, and that, in consequence, the evapo-
ration was less, and the streams more frequent: yet
this cannot have made any very material difference
in the permanence of the water in the thousands
of valleys which divide the hills of Palestine.
For the various aspects of the streams of the
country which such conditions inevitably produced,
the ancient Hebrews had very .exact terms, which
they employed habitually with much precision.
1. For the perennial river, Nahar (193). Possibly
used of the Jordan in Ps. Ixvi. 6, Ixxiv. 15; of the
great Mesopotamian and Egyptian = ers generally
in Gen. ii. 10; Ex. vii. 19; 2 K. xvii. 6; Ez. iii. 15,
&e. But a the eens aa ἌΠΕ Nahar,
“the river,” it signifies invariably the Euphrates
(Gen. xxxi. 21; Ex. xxiii. 31; Num. xxiv. 6;
2 Sam. x. 16, &. &e.). With a few exceptions
(Josh. i. 4, xxiv. 2, 14, 15; Is. lix. 19; Ez. xxxi.
15), nahar is uniformly rendered “ river” in our
version, and accurately, since it is never applied to
the fleeting fugitive torrents of Palestine.
2. The term for these is nachal (dna), for which
our. translators have used promiscuously, and some-
times almost alternately, “valley,” ‘‘ brook,” and
“yiver.” Thus the “ brook”? and the ‘valley ”
of Eshcol (Num. xiii. 23 and xxxii. 9); the “ val-
ley,” the “ brook,” and the “river” Zered (Num.
xxi, 12; Deut. 11. 13; Am. vi. 14); the “brook”
and the “ river” of Jabbok (Gen. xxxii. 23; Deut.
ii. 37), of Arnon (Num. xxi. 14; Deut. 11, 24), of
Kishon (Judg. iv. 7; 1 K. xviii. 40). Compare
also Deut. iii. 16, &c.>
Neither of these words expresses the thing in-
tended; but the term “ brook” is peculiarly un-
happy, since the pastoral idea which it conveys is
quite at variance with the general character of
the wadys of Palestine. Many of these are deep
abrupt chasms or rents in the solid rock of the
hills, and have a savage, gloomy aspect, far removed
from that of an English brook. For example, the
Arnon forces its way through a ravine several hun-
dred feet deep and about two miles wide across the
top. The Wady Zerka, probably the Jabbok, which
Jacob was so anxious to interpose between his family
and Esau, is equally unlike the quiet “‘ meadowy
brook” with which we are familiar, And those
which are not so abrupt and savage are in their width,
their irregularity, their forlorn arid look when the
torrent has subsided, utterly unlike ‘“ brooks.” Un-
a TD". This reading is preferred by Bochart (Phaleg,
iii. 10), and is connected by him with the names of the
town Tobata and the mountain Tibium in the N. of Asia
Minor.
b Jerome, in his ‘Quaestiones in Genesim, xxvi. 19,
draws the following curious distinction between a valley
and a torrent: “ Ht hic pro valle torrens scripius est,
nunquam enim in valle invenitur puteus aquae vivae,”’
1046 RIVER OF EGYPT
fortunately our language does not contain any single
word which has both the meanings of the Hebrew
nachal and its Ayabie equivalent wady, which can
be used at once for a dry valley and for the stream
which occasionally flows through it. Ainsworth,
in his Annotations (on Num, xiii. 23), says that
‘“<pourne” has both meanings; but “‘ bourne” is now
obsolete in English, though still in use in Scotland,
where, owing to the mountainous nature of the
country, the “‘burns”’ partake of the nature of the
wadys of Palestine in the irregularity of their flow.
Mr. Burton (Geog. Journ. xxiv. 209) adopts the
Italian fiumara. Others have proposed the Indian
term nullah.—The double application of the Hebrew
nachal is evident in 1 K. xvii. 3, where Elijah is
commanded to hide himself in (not by) the nachal
Cherith and to drink of the nachal.
3. Yeor (TAN), a word of Egyptian origin
(see Gesen, Tes. 558), applied to the Nile only,
and, in the plural, to the canals by which the Nile
water was distributed throughout Egypt, or to
streams having a connexion with that country. It
is the word employed for the Nile in Genesis and
Exodus, and is rendered by our translators “ the
river,” except in the following passages, Jer. xlvi.
7,8; Am. viii. 8, ix. 5, where they substitute “a
flood ””—much to the detriment of the prophet’s
metaphor. [See NILE, vol. ii. p. 539 0.]
4. Yubal (ba), from a root signifying tumult
or fulness, occurs only six times, in four of which
it is rendered ‘‘ river,” viz. Jer. xvii. 8; Dan. viii.
2, 3, 6.
5. Peleg (δ), from an uncertain root, probably
connected with the idea of the division of the land
for irrigation, is translated “river” in Ps. i. 3,
Ixy. 9; Is. xxx. 25; Job xx. 17. Elsewhere it is
rendered “stream” (Ps. xlvi. 4), and in Judg. ν.
15, 16, “ divisions,” where the allusion is probably
to the artificial streams with which the pastoral
and agricultural country of Reuben was irrigated
(Ewald, Dichter, i. 129; Gesen. Thes. 11036).
6, Aphik (P'DN). This appears to be used with-
out any clearly distinctive meaning. It is probably
from a root signifying strength or force, and may
signify any rush or body of water. It is translated
“ yiver” in a few passages :—Cant. v. 12; Ez. vi.
3, xxxi. 12, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 13, xxxv. 8, xxxvi. 4,
6; Joel i. 20, iii. 18. Jn Ps. exxvi. 4 the allusion
is to temporary streams in the dry regions of the
“south.” [G.]
RIVER OF EGYPT. ‘Two Hebrew terms
are thus rendered in the A. V,
1. DIS WI: ποταμὸς Αἰγύπτου : fluvius
Aegypti (Gen. xv. 18), “the river of Egypt,’
that is, the Nile, and here—as the western border
of the Promised Land, of which the eastern border
was Euphrates—the Pelusiac or easternmost branch,
My SEES IY bm: χειμάρρους Αἰγύπτου, φάραγξ
Αἰγύπτου, ποταμὸς Αἰγύπτου, Ῥινοκόρουρα. pl.:
torrens Acgypti, rivus Aegypti (Num. xxxiv. 5;
Josh. xv. 4,47; 1K. viii. 65 ; 2 K. xxiv. 7; Is. xxvii.
12, in the last passage translated “ the stream of
Egypt”). It is the common opinion that this
second term designates a desert stream on the
border of Egypt, still occasionally flowing in the
valley called Wadi-l-’Areesh. The centre of the
valley is occupied by the bed of this torrent, which
ouly fows after rains, as is usual in the desert valleys.
RIVER OF EGYPT
The correctness or this opinion can only be decided
by an examination of the passages in which the
term occurs, for the ancient translations do not aid
us. When they were made there must have been
great uncertainty on the subject, In the LXX.
the term is translated by two literal meanings, or
perhaps three, but it is doubtful whether bm) can
be rendered ‘‘ river,” and is once represented by
Rhinocorura (or Rhinocolura), the name of a town
on the coast, near the Wadi-l-’ Areesh, to which the
modern El-’Areesh has succeeded.
This stream is first mentioned as the point where
the southern border of the Promised Land touched
the Mediterranean, which formed its western border
(Num. xxxiv. 3-6). Next it is spoken of as in the
same position with reference to the prescribed bor-
ders of the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 4), and as
beyond Gaza and its territory, the westernmost of the
Philistine cities (47). In the later history we find
Solomon’s kingdom extending “from the entering
in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt” (1 K. viii.
65), and Egypt limited in the same manner where
the loss of the eastern provinces is mentioned:
“ And the king of Egypt came not again any more
out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken
from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates
all that pertained to the king of Egypt” (2 K.
xxiv. 7). In Isaiah it seems to be spoken of as
forming one boundary of the Israelite territory,
Euphrates being the other, “from the channel of
the river unto the stream of Egypt” (xxvii. 12),
appearing to correspond to the limits promised to
Abraham.
In certain parallel passages the Nile is distinctly
specified instead of “the Nachal of Egypt.” In
the promise to Abraham, the Nile, “ the river of
Egypt,” is mentioned with Euphrates as bound-
ing the land in which he then was, and which was
promised to his posterity (Gen. xv. 18). Still more
unmistakeably is Shihor, which is always the Nile,
spoken of as a border of the land, in Joshua’s de-
scription of the territory yet to be conquered :
«This [is] the land that yet remaineth: ail the
regions of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, from the
Sihor, which [is] betore Egypt, even unto the bor-
ders of Ekron northward, [which] is counted to the
Canaanite ” (Josh. xiii. 2, 3).
It must be observed that the distinctive character
of the name, ‘‘ Nachal of Egypt,” as has been well
suggested to us, almost forbids our supposing an
insignificant stream to be intended; although such
a stream might be of importance from position as
forming the boundary,
If we infer that the Nachal of Egypt is the Nile,
we have to consider the geographical consequences,
and to cémpare the name with known names of the
Nile. Of the branches of the Nile, the easternmost,
or Pelusiac, would necessarily be the one intended. ἡ
On looking at the map it seems incredible that the
Philistine territory should ever have extended so far :
the Wadi-l-’Areesh is distant from Gaza, the most
western of the Philistine towns ; but Pelusium, at
the mouth and most eastern part of the Pelusiac
branch, is very remote. It must, however, be
remembered, that the tract from Gaza to Pelu-
sium is a desert that could never have been culti-
vated, or indeed inhabited by a settled population,
and was probably only held in the period to which
we yefer by marauding Arab tribes, which may
well have been tributary to the Philistines, for
they must have been tributary to them or to the
RIVER OF EGYPT
Egyptians, on account of their isolated position
and the sterility of the country, though no doubt
maintaining a half-independence.* All doubt on
this point seems to be set at rest by a passage, in a
hieroglyphic inscription of Sethee I., head of the
xixth dynasty, B.c, cir. 1340, on the north wall
of the great temple of El-Karnak, which mentions
“the foreigners of the SHASU from the fort of
TARU to the land of KANANA ” (SHASU SHA’A
EM SHTEM EN TARU ER PA-KAN’ANA,
srugsch, Geogr. Inschr. i. p. 261, ‘No. 1265, pl.
xlvii.). The identification of “ the fort of TARU”
with any place mentioned by the Greek and Latin
geographers has not yet been satisfactorily accom-
plished. It appears, from the bas-relief, represent-
ing the return of Sethee I. to Egypt from an eastern
expedition, near the inscription just mentioned,
to have been between a Leontopolis and a branch of
the Nile, or perhaps canal, on the west side of
which it was situate, commanding a bridge (Ibid.
No. 1266, pl. xlviii.). The Leontopolis is either
the capital of the Leontopolite Nome, or a town in
the Heliopolite Nome mentioned by Josephus (Ant.
xiii. 3, §1). In the former case the stream would
probably be the Tanitic branch, or perhaps the Pe-
lusiac ; in the latter, perhaps the Canal of the Red
Sea. We prefer the first Leontopolis, but no iden-
tification is necessary to prove that the SHASU at
this time extended from Canaan to the east of the
Delta (see on the whole subject Geogr. Inschr. i.
pp- 260-266, iii. pp. 20, 21).
Egypt, therefore, in its most flourishing period,
evidently extended no further than the east of the
Delta, its eastern boundary being probably the Pe-
lusiac branch, the territory of the SHASU, an Arab
nation or tribe, lying between Egypt and Canaan. It
might be supposed that at this time the SHASU had
made an inroad into Egypt, but it must be remem-
bered that in the latter period of the kings of Judah,
and during the classical period, Pelusium was the
key of Egypt on this side. The Philistines, in the
time of their greatest power, which appears to have
been contemporary with the period of the Judges,
may well be supposed to have reduced the Arabs of
this neutral territory to the condition of tributaries,
as doubtless was also done by the Pharaohs.
It must be remembered that the specification of
a certain boundary does not necessarily prove that
the actual lands of a state extended so far; the
limit of its sway is sometimes rather to be under-
stood. Solomon ruled as tributaries all the king-
doms between the Euphrates and the land of the
Philistines and the border of Egypt, when the Land
of Promise appears to have been fully occupied
RIVER OF EGYPT 1047
(1 Κ. iv. 21, comp. 24). When, therefore, it is
specified that the Philistine territory as far as the
Nachal-Mizraim remained to be taken, it need scarcely
be inferved that the territory to be inhabited by the
Israelites was to extend so far, and this stream’s
being an actual boundary of a tribe may be explained
on the same principle.
If, with the generality of critics, we think that
the Nachal-Mizraim is the WAdi-l-’Areesh, we must
conclude that the name Shihor is also applied to the
latter, although elsewhere designating the Nile,» for
we have seen that Nachal-Mizraim and Shihor are
used interchangeably to designate a stream on the
border of the Promised Land. This difficulty seems to
overthrow the common opinion. It must, however,
be remembered that in Joshua xiii. 3, Shihor has the
article, as though actually or originally an appella-
tive, the former seeming to be the more obvious
inference from the’ context. [SHinor or Eaypr ;
SIHOR. |
The word Nachal may be cited on either side.
Certainly in Hebrew it is rather used for a torrent
or stream than for a river; but the name Nachal-
Mizraim may come from a lost dialect, and the
΄σ
parallel Arabic word wadee, Sag, though ordi-
narily used for valleys and their winter-torrents,
as in the case of the Wadi-l-’Areesh itself, has been
employed by the Arabs in Spain for true rivers, the
Guadalquivir, &. It may, however, be suggested,
that in Nachal-Mizraim we have the ancient form
of the Neel-Misr of the Arabs, and that Nachal was
adopted from its similarity of sound to the original
of Νεῖλος. It may, indeed, be objected that Νεῖλος
is held to be of Ivanian origin. ‘The answer to this
is, that we find Javan, we wil] not say the Ionians,
called by the very name, HANEN, used in the
Rosetta Stone for “ Greek”? (SHAEE EN HANEN,
ΤΟΙ͂Σ TE EAAHNIKOIS TPAMMAGZIN), in the
lists of countries and nations, or tribes, conquered
by, or subject to, the Pharaohs, as early as the
reign of Amenoph III., B.c. cir. 1400.¢ An Iranian
and even a Greek connexion with Egypt as early as
the time of the Exodus, is theretore not to be
treated as an impossibility. It is, however, re-
markable, that the word Νεῖλος does not occur in
the Homeric poems, as though it were not of
Sanskrit origin, but derived from the Egyptians or
Phoenicians.
Brugsch compares the Egyptian MUAW EN
KEM “ Water of Egypt,” mentioned in the phrase
““Fyom the water of Egypt as far as NEHEREEN
[Mesopotamia] inclusive,” but there is no internal
ἃ Herodotus, whose account is rather obscure, says that
from Phoenicia to the borders of the city Cadytis (probably
Gaza) the country belonged to the Palaestine Syrians ;
from Cadytis to Jenysus, to the Arabian king; then to the
Syrians again, as far as Lake Serbonis, near Mount Casius.
At Lake Serbonis, Egypt began. The eastern extremity
of Lake Serbonis is somewhat to the westward of Rhino-
colura, and Mount Casius is more than halfway from the
latter to Pelusium. As Herodotus afterwards states more
precisely that from Jenysus to “ Lake Serbonis and Mount
Casius’’ was three days’ journey through a desert without
water, he evidently makes Mount Casius mark the western
boundary of the Syrians; for although the position, of
Jenysus is uncertain, the whole distance from Gaza (and
if Cadytis be not Gaza, we cannot extend the Arabian ter-
ritory further east) does not greatly exceed three days’
journey (iii 5. See Rawlinson’s edit., ii. 398-400). If we
adopt Capt. Spratt’s identifications of Pelusium and Mount
Casius, we must place them much nearer together, and
the latter far to the west of the usual supposed place
(Sry, town). But in this case Herodotus would intend
the western extremity of Lake Serbonis, which seems
unlikely.
b There is a Shihor-libnath in the north of Palestine,
mentioned in Joshua (xix, 26), and supposed to correspond
to the Belus, if its name signify “the river of glass.” But
we have no ground for giving Shihor the signification
“iver ;” and when the connexion of the Egyptians, and
doubtless of the Phoenician and other colonisis of north-
eastern Egypt, with the manufacture of glass is remem-
bered, it seems more likely that Shibor-libnath was named
from the Nile.
¢ We agree with Lepsius in this identification (Ueber
der Namen der Ionier awf den Aeg. Denkemélern, Konig.
Akad. Berlin). His views have, however, been com-
bated by Bunsen (Zgypt's Place, iii. 603-606), Brugsch
(Geogr. Inschr. ii. p. 19, pl. xiii. no. 2), and De Rouge
(Tombeau α᾽ Ahmes, p. 43).
1048 RIZPAH
evidence in favour of his conjectural identification
with the stream of Wadi-l- Areesh (Geog. Inschr.
i. 54, 55, pl. vii. no. 303). ERS Sabell
RIZ'PAH (BY): Ῥεσφᾶ and Ῥέσφα: Jo-
seph. Ῥαισφα: Respha), concubine to king Saul,
and mother of his two sons Armoni and Mephi-
bosheth. Like many others of the prominent female
characters of the Old estament—Ruth, Rahab,
Jezebel, &c.—Rizpah would seem to have been a |
foreigner, a Hivite, descended from one of the
ancient worthies of that nation, Ajah or Aiah,® son
of Zibeon, whose name and fame are preserved in
the Ishmaelite record of Gen. xxxvi. If this be the
case, Saul was commencing a practice, which seems
with subsequent kings to have grown almost into a
rule, of choosing non-Israelite women for their in- |
ferior wivés. David’s intrigue with Bathsheba, or
Bath-shua, the wife of a Hittite, and possibly
herself a Canaanitess,” is pevhaps not a case in
ROBBERY
whole of the ancient world (see Ps. Ixxix. 2; Hom.
Il. i. 4, 5, &e. &e.). But it is questionable whether
the ordinary conception of the scene is accurate.
The seven victims were not, as the A. V. implies,
“hung ;” they were crucified, The seven crosses
were planted in the rock on the top of the sacred.
hill of Gibeah ; the hill which, though not Saul’s
native place,¢ was through his long residence there
‘so identified with him as to retain his name to the
latest existence of the Jewish nation (1 Sam. xi. 4,
&e., and see Joseph. B. J. v. 2, 81). The whole
or part of this hill seems at the time of this occur-
rence to have been in some special manner 4 dedicated
to Jehovah, possibly the spot on which Ahiah the
priest had deposited the Ark when he took refuge in
Gibeah during the Philistine war (1 Sam. xiv. 18).
|The victims were sacrificed at the beginning of
| barley-harvest—the sacred and festal time of the
| Passover—and in the full blaze of the summer sun
hed hung till the fall of the periodical rain in
point; but Solomon, Rehoboam, and their SUC- | October. During the whole of that time Rizpah
cessors, seem to have had their harems filled with /yemained at the foot of the crosses on which the
foreign Momen. : ] bodies of her sons were exposed: the Mater dolorosa,
After the death of Saul and occupation of the jf the expression may be allowed, of the ancient
country west of the Jordan : by the Philistines, | dispensation. She had no tent to shelter her from
tizpah accompanied the other inmates of the royal ‘the scorching sun which beats on that open spot
family to their new residence at Mahanaim ; and it | 4) day, or from the drenching dews at night, but
4 Θ
is here that her name is first introduced to us as
the subject of an accusation levelled at Abner by
Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iii. 7), a piece of spite which
led first to Abner’s death through Joab’s treachery,
aud ultimately to the murder of Ishbosheth himself. |
The accusation, whether true or false—and from |
Abner’s vehement denial we should naturally con- |
clude that it was false—involved more than meets |
the ear of a modern and English reader, For amongst
the Israelites it was considered ‘as a step to the
throne to haye connexion with the widow or the
mistress of the deceased king.” (See Michaelis,
Laws of Moses, art. 54.) It therefore amounted
to an insinuation that Abner was about to make an
attempt on the throne.
We hear nothing more of Rizpah till the tragic
story which has made her one of the most familiar |
objects to young and old in the whole Bible (2 Sam.
xxi, 8-11). Every one can appreciate the love and |
endurance with which the mother watched over the
bodies of her two sons and her five relatives, to save
them from an indignity peculiarly painful to the
_she spread on the rocky floor the thick mourning
garment of black sackcloth 5 which as a widow she
wore, and crouching there she watched that neither
vulture nor jackal should molest the bodies. We
may surely be justified in applying to Rizpah the
words with which another act of womanly kindness
was commended, and may say, that ‘‘ wheresoever the
Bible shall go, there shall also this, that this woman
hath done, be told for a memorial of her’? [G. ]
ROAD. This word occurs but once in the
Authorised Version of the Bible, viz. in 1 Sam.
xxvii, 10, where it is used in the sense of ‘‘ raid”
or “inroad,” the Hebrew word (2.3) being else-
ΡΝ ΜΕ’
where (6. g. ver. 8, xxiii. 27, xxx. 1, 14, &.) ren-
dered “invade”? and “ invasion.”
A Road in the sense which we now attach to
the term is expressed in the A. V. by “ way ” and
Aa γαίῃ.
ROBBERY.£ Whether in the larger sense of
plunder, or the more limited sense of theft, sys-
ἃ The Syriac-Peshito and Arabic Versions, in 2 Sam.
iii, read Ana for Aiah—the name of another ancient
Hivite, the brother of Ajah, and equally the son of Zibeon.
But it is not fair to lay much stress on this, as it may be
only the error—easily made—of a careless transcriber 5 or
of one so familiar with the ancient names as to have con-
founded one with the other.
Ὁ Comp. Gen. xxxviii., where the “daughter of Shua,”
the Canaanitess, should really be Bath-shua.
e Saul was probably born at Zelah, where Kish’s se-
pulchre, and therefore his home, was situated. [Zeran.]
ν VHA, 2 Sam. xxi. 6. f pwn, has-Sak.
τὰ DNs ἁρπαγή, ἁρπάγματα; rapinae. Ὶ
2. PIB, from p25, “break ;” ἀδικία; dilaceratio.
. TY, from TW, “waste ;” ὄλεθρος 3 rapinae.
Dow 3 proeda; “prey,” “ spoil.”
[Boory.]
(2). ROBBER :—
1. ma, part. from m3, “rob;" προνομεύων ; vastans.
Ὧ, yn, part. of ΥΞ, “break ;”’ λοιμός ; latro;
Mic. ii, 13, ‘‘ breaker.’’
3
4
προνομή 5
3. DDN, Job xviii. 9; διψῶντες ; sitis. Targum, with
A. V., has “robbers ;’’ but it is most commonly rendered
as LXX., Job v. 5, sitientes.
4. τὴν; λῃστής ; latro: from TW, “waste.”
oe ποῦ; ἐχθρός ; deripiens; A. V. “spoiler.”
6. 333 3 κλέπτης; fur; A. V. “ thief.”
(3.) RoB:—
1. "2 3 διαρπάζω ; depopulor.
2. iF 5 ἀφαιρέω 3 violenter aufero.
3. Jy, “return,” “repeat ;” hence in Pi. surround,
circumvent (Ps. cxix. 61); περιπλακῆναι ; circumplecti ;
usually affirm, reiterate assertions (Ges. p. 997). ἡ
4. YAP, “cover,” “hide;” mrepvigw ; affigo (Ges.
p- 1190). ὃ
δ, ποῦ; διαρπάζω; diripio.
9. DDL (same as last); προνομεήω ; depraedor
fi 333 3 κλέπτω ; furor; A.V. “steal.”
ROBBERY
tematically organized, robbery has ever been one of
ROGELIM 1049
There seems no reason to suppose that the law
the principal employments of the nomad tribes of] underwent any alteration in Solomon’s time, as
the East. From the time of Ishmael to the present
day, the Bedouin has been a ‘‘ wild man,” and a
robber by trade, and to carry out his objects suc-
cessfully, so far from being esteemed disgraceful, is
regarded as in the highest degree creditable (Gen.
xvi. 12; Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 137, 157).
An instance of an enterprize of a truly Bedouin
character, but distinguished by the exceptional fea-
tures belonging to its principal actor, is seen in the
night-foray of David (1 Sam, xxvi. 6-12), with
which also we may fairly compare Hom. //. K.
204, &c. Predatory inroads on a large scale are
seen in the incursions of the Sabaeans and Chal-
daeans on the property of Job (Job i. 15, 17); the
revenge coupled with plunder of Simeon and Levi
(Gen. xxxiv. 28, 29); the reprisals of the Hebrews
upon the Midianites (Num, xxxi, 32-54), and the
frequent and often prolonged invasions of “¢ spoilers” |
upon the Israelites, together with their reprisals,
during the period of the Judges and Kings (Judg.
ii. 14, vi. 3,4; 1 Sam. xi., xv.; 2-Sam. viii., x. ;
2 K.v. 2; 1 Chr. v. 10, 18-22). Individual in-
stances, indicating an unsettled state of the country
during the same period, are seen in the “ lievs-in-
wait’ of the men of Shechem (Judg. ix. 25), and
the mountain retreats of David in the cave of Adul-
lam, the hill of Hachilah, and the wilderness of
Maon, and his abode in Ziklag, invaded and plun-
dered in like manner by the Amalekites (1 Sam.
xxii, 1, 2, xxiii. 19-25, xxvi.1, xxvii. 6-10, xxx. 1).
Similar disorder in the country, complained of
more than once by the prophets (Hos. iv. 2, vi.
9; Mic. ii. 8), continued more or less through
Maccabaean down to Roman times, favoured by
the corrupt administration of some of the Roman
governors, in accepting money in redemption of
punishment, produced those formidable bands of
robbers, so easily collected and with so much difhi-
culty subdued, who found shelter in the caves of
Palestine and Syria, and who infested the country
even in the time of our Lord, almost to the very
gates of Jerusalem (Luke x. 30; Acts v. 36, 37,
xxi. 38.) [JUDAS OF GALILEE; Caves.] In the
later history also of the country the robbers, or |
sicarii, together with their leader, John of Gischala,
played a conspicuous part (Joseph. B. J. iv. 2, §1;
3, δέ; 7, §2). υ
The Mosaic law on the subject of thefs is con-
tained in Ex. xxii., and consists of the following
enactments :—
1. He who stole and killed an ox or a sheep, was
to restore five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the
sheep.
2. If the stolen animal was found alive the thief
was to restore double.
3. If a man was found stealing in a dwelling
house at night, and was killed in the act, the homi-
cide was not held guilty of murder.
4. If the act was committed during daylight, the
thief might not be killed, but was bound to make
full restitution or be sold into slavery.
5. If money or goods deposited in a man’s house
were stolen therefrom, the thief, when detected, was
to pay double: but
6. If the thief could not be found, the master of
the house was to be examined before the judges.
7. If an animal given in charge to a man to
keep were stolen from him, 7. 6. through his negli- praises.
gence, he was to make restitution to the owner.
[OatH. ]
Michaelis supposes; the expression in Prov. vi. 30,
31 is, that a thief detected in stealing should restore
sevenfold, 7. 6. to the full amount, and for this pur-
pose, even give all the substance of his house, and
thus in case of failure be liable to servitude (Mi-
chaelis, Laws of Moses, §284). On the other hand,
see Bertheau on Prov. vi.; and Keil, Arch. Ποὺ».
§154,—Man-stealing was punishable with death
(Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7).—Invasion of right in
land was strictly forbidden (Deut. xxvii. 17; Is. v.
8; Mic. ii. 2).
The question of sacrilege does not properly ‘come
within the scope of the present article. [H. W. P.]
ROBOAM (‘PoBodu: Roboam), Kcclus. xlvii.
23; Matt.i. 7. [ΒΕΒΟΒΟΑΜ.]
ROE, ROEBUCK (29, tzébi (m.); M2,
tzébiyyah ([.): δορκάς, δόρκων, δορκάδιον : caprea,
damula). There seems to be little or no doubt
that the Heb. word, which occurs frequently in the
O. T., denotes some species of antelope, probably
the Gazella dorcas, a native of Egypt and North
Africa, or the 6. Arabica of Syria and Arabia,
which appears to be a variety only of the dorcas.
The gazelle was allowed as food (Deut. xii. 15,
22, &c.); it is mentioned as very fleet of foot
(2 Sam. ii. 18; 1 Chr. xii. 8); it was hunted (Is.
xiii. 14; Prov. vi. 5); it was celebrated for its
loveliness (Cant. ii. 9, 17, viii. 14). The gazelle
is found in Egypt, Barbary, and Syria. Stanley
(S. § P. p. 207) says that the signification of the
word Ajalon, the valley. “ of stags,” is still justified
by “the gazelles which the peasants hunt on its
mountain slopes.” Thomson (The Land and the
Book, p. 172) says that the mountains of Naphtali
“abound in gazelles to this day.”
Ni ~ ἢ
Aw
\ LS =
δὴ’
se ΣΙ
SS
Gazella Arabica.
The ariel gazelle (G. Arabica), which, if not a
different species, is at least a well marked variety
of the dorcas, is common in Syria, and is hunted
by the Arabs with a falcon and a greyhound; the
repeated attacks of the bird upon the head of the
animal so bewilder it that it falls an easy prey to
the greyhound, which is trained to watch the flight
of the falcon. Many of these antelopes are also
taken in pitfals into which they are driven by the
shouts of the hunters. The large full soft eye of
the gazelle has long been the theme of Oriental
[W. H.]
RO'GELIM cass "1: Ῥωγελλείμ, and so Alex.,
1050 ROHGAH
though once Ῥωγελειμ: Rogelim). The residence
of Barzillai the Gileadite (2 Sam. xvii. 27, sx. 31)
in the highlands east of the Jordan. It is men-
tioned on this occasion only. Nothing is said to
guide us to its situation, and no name at all
resembling it appears to have been hitherto dis-
covered on the spot.
If interpreted as Hebrew the name is derivable
from rege, the foot, and signifies the “ fullers” or
‘washers,’ who were in the habit (as they still
are in the East) of using their feet to tread the
cloth which they are cleansing. But this is ex-
tremely uncertain. ‘The same word occurs in the
name EN-ROGEL. [G.]
ROH'GAH (any), Cethib, nam, Keri:
‘Pooyd; Alex. Ovpaoya: Roaya). An Asherite,
of the sons of Shamer (1 Chr. vii. 34).
RO'IMUS (‘Potuos). Renum 1 (1 Esd. v. 8).
The name is not traceable in the Vulgate.
ROLL (aba ; kepaAls). A book in ancient
times consisted of a single long strip of paper or
parchment, which was usually kept rolled up on a
stick, and was unrolled when a person wished to
read it. Hence arose the term megillah, from
galal,* “to roll,” strictly answering to the Latin
volumen, whence comes our volume ; hence also the
expressions, “ to spread” and ‘roll together,’ » in-
stead of ““ἴο open” and ‘ to shut” a book. The
full expression for a book was “a roll of writing,”
or “a roll of a book” (Jer. xxxvi. 2; Ps. xl. 7;
Ez. ii. 9), but occasionally “ roll” stands by itself
(Zech. v. 1,2; Ezr. vi, 2). The κεφαλίς of the
LXX. originally referred to the ornamental knob
(the wnbilicus of the Latins) at the top of the stick
or cylinder round which the roll was wound. The
use of the term megillah implies, of course, the ex-
istence of a soft and pliant material: what this ma-
terial was in the Old Testament period, we are not
informed ; but as a knife was required for “its de-
struction (Jer. xxxvi. 23), we infer that it was
parchment. The roll was usually written on one
side only (Mishn. Hrub. 10, §3), and hence the
particular notice of one that was ‘‘ written within
and without” (Ez. ii. 10). The writing was ar-
ranged in columns, resembling a door in shape,
and hence deriving their Hebrew name, just as
“column,” from its resemblance to a columna or
pillar. It has been asserted that the term megillah
does not occur before the 7th cent, B.c., being first
used by Jeremiah (Hitzig, in Jer. xxxvi. 2); and
the conclusion has been drawn that the use of such
materials as parchment was not known until that
period (Ewald, Gesch. i. 71, note; Gesen. Thes.
p- 289). This is to assume, perhaps too confi-
dently, a late date for the composition of Ps. xl.,
and to ignore the collateral evidence arising out of
the expression “ roll together’? used by Is. xxxiv.
4, and also out of the probable reference to the
Pentateuch in Ps. xl. 7, “ the roll of the book,” a
copy of which was deposited by the side of the ark
(Deut. xxxi. 26). We may here add that the term
in Is. viii. 1, rendered in the A. V. “ roll,’ more
correctly means tablet. [W.L. B.]
iy
b In the Hebrew, a) (2 K. xix. 14) and Sb; (Is.
- baa
xxxiv. 4): in the Greek, ἀναπτύσσειν and πτύσσειν
(Luke iv. 17, 20).
ROMAN EMPIRE
ROMAM'TI-EZ’ER (MY SAD: Ῥωμετθι-
ep; Alex. Ῥωμεμθι-έζερ in 1 Chr. xxv. 4, but
Ῥωμεθ- μιέζερ in 1 Chr. xxv. 31: Romemthiezer).
One of the fourteen sons of Heman, and chief’ of the
24th division of the singers in the reign of David
(1 Chr. xxv. 4, 31).
ROMAN EMPIRE. ‘The history of the
Roman Empire, properly so called, extends over a
period of rather more than five hundred years, viz.
trom the battle of Actium, B.C. 31, when Augustus
became sole ruler of the Roman world, to the abdi-
cation of Augustulus, A.D. 476. ‘The Empire, how-
ever, in the sense of the dominion of Rome over a
large number of conquered nations, was in full force
and had reached wide limits some time before the
monarchy of Augustus was established. The notices
of Roman history which occur in the Bible are con-
fined to the last century and a half of the common-
wealth and the first century of the imperial
monarchy.
The first historic mention of Rome in the Bible
is in 1 Mace. i. 10. Though the date of the founda-
tion of Rome coincides nearly with the beginning
of the reign of Pekah in Israel, it was not till the
beginning of the 2nd century B.C. that the Khomans
had leisure to interfere in the affairs of the Hast.
When, however, the power of Carthage had been
effectually broken at Zama, B.C. 202, Roman arms
and intrigues soon made themselves felt throughout
Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. About the
year 161 B.c. Judas Maccabaeus heard of the Ro-
mans as the conquerors of Philip, Perseus, and
Antiochus (1 Mace. viii. 5, 6). “ It was told him
also how they destroyed and brought under their
dominion all other kingdoms and isles that at any
time resisted them, but with their friends and such
as relied upon them they kept amity ”’ (viii. 11, 12).
In order to strengthen himself against Demetrius
king of Syria he sent ambassadors to Rome (viii.
17), and concluded a defensive alliance with the
senate (viii. 22-32). This was renewed by Jona-
than (xii. 1) and by Simon (xv. 17; Joseph. Ant.
xii. 10, §6, xiii. 5, 88, 7, §3). Notices of the em-
bassy sent by Judas, of a tribute paid to Rome by
the Syrian king, and of further intercourse between
the Romans and the Jews, occur in 2 Mace. iv. 11,
viii, 10, 36, xi. 34. In the course of the narrative
mention is made of the Roman senate (τὸ BovAev-
τήριον, 1 Macc. xii. 3), of the consul Lucius
(ὁ ὕπατος, 1 Mace. xv. 15, 16), and the Roman con-
stitution is described in a somewhat distorted form
(1 Mace. viii. 14-16).
The history of the Maccabaean and Idumaean
dynasties forms no part of our present subject.
{MaccaBEES; Herop.] Here a brief summary
of the progress of Roman dominion in Judaea will
suffice.
In the year 65 B.C., when Syria was made a
Roman province by Pompey, the Jews were still
governed by one of the Asmonaean princes. Aristo-
bulus had lately driven his brother Hyreanus from
the chief priesthood, and was now in his turn at-
tacked by Aretas, king of Arabia Petiaea, the ally
of Hyrcanus. Pompey’s lieutenant, Δ. Aemilius
Scaurus, interfered in the contest B.c. 64, and the
5 mindy (A. V. “ leaves,” Jer. xxxvi. 23). Hitzig
maintains that the word means ‘‘leaves,” and that the
megillah in this case was a book like our own, consisting
of numerous pages,
ROMAN EMPIRE
next year Pompey himself marched an army into
Judaea and took Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant, xiv. 2,
3,4; B. J. i. 6, 7). From this time the Jews
were practically under the government of Rome.
Hyrcanus retained the high-priesthood and a titular
sovereignty, subject to the watchful control of his
minister Antipater, an active partisan of the Roman
interests. Finally, Antipater’s son, Herod the Great,
was made king by Antony’s interest, B.c, 40, and
confirmed in the kingdom by Augustus, B.C, 30
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, xv. 6). The Jews, however,
were all this time tributaries of Rome, and their
princes in reality were mere Roman procurators.
Julius Caesar is said to have exacted from them a
fourth part of their agricultural produce in addition
to the tithe paid to Hyrcanus (Ant. xiv. 10, §6).
Roman soldiers were quartered at Jerusalem in
Herod’s time to support him in his authority (Ant.
xv. 3, §7). Tribute was paid to Rome, and an oath
of allegiance to the emperor as well as to Herod
appears to have been taken by the people (Ant.
xvii. 2, 82). On the banishment of Archelaus,
A.D. 6, Judaea became a mere appendage of the
province of Syria, and was governed by a Roman
procurator, who resided at Caesarea. Galilee and
the adjoining districts were still left under the
government of Herod’s sons and other petty princes,
whose dominions and titles were changed from time
to time by successive emperors: for details see
HEROD.
Such were the relations of the Jewish people to
the Roman government at the time when the N. T.
history begins. An ingenious illustration of this
state of things has been drawn from the condition
of British India. The Governor General at Calcutta,
the subordinate governors at Madras and Bombay,
and the native princes, whose dominions have been
at one time enlarged, at another incorporated with
the British presidencies, find their respective coun-
terparts in the governor of Syria at Antioch, the
procurators of Judaea at Caesarea, and the mem-
bers of Herod’s family, whose dominions were alter-
nately enlarged and suppressed by the Roman em-
perors (Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paul,
i. 27). These and other characteristics of Roman
rule come before us constantly in the N. T. Thus
we hear of Caesar the sole king (John xix. 15)—
of Cyrenius, “ governor of Syria” (Luke ii. 2)—of
Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the ‘ governors,”
i. e. procurators, of Judaea—of the “ tetrarchs”
Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (Luke iii. 1)—of “ king
Agrippa” (Acts xxv. 13)—of Roman soldiers,
legions, centurions, publicans—of the tribute-money
(Matt. xxii, 19)—the taxing of “the whole world”
(Luke ii. 1)—Italian and Augustan cohorts (Acts
x. 1, xxvii. 1)—the appeal to Caesar (Acts xxv. 11).
Three of the Roman emperors are mentioned in the
N. T.—Augustus (Luke ii. 1), Tiberius (Luke iii.
1), and Claudius (Acts xi. 28, xviii. 2). Nero is
alluded to under various titles, as Augustus (Σε-
Barrés) and Caesar (Acts xxv. 10, 11, 21, 25;
Phil. iv. 22), as 6 κύριος, “ my lord” (Acts xxv.
26), and apparently in other passages (1 Pet. ii. 17 ;
Rom. xiii. 1). Several notices of the provincial
administration of the Romans and the condition of
provincial cities occur in the narrative of St. Paul’s
journeys (Acts xii. 7, xviii. 12, xvi. 12, 35, 38,
xix. 38).
In illustration of the sacred narrative it may be
well to give a general account, though necessarily
a short and imperfect one, of the position of the
emperor, the extent of the empire, and the ad-
ROMAN EMPIRE 1051
ministration of the provinces in the time of our
Lord and His Apostles. Fuller information will be
found under special articles.
I, When Augustus became sole ruler of the Ro-
man world he was in theory simply the first citizen
of the republic, entrusted with temporary powers
to settle the disorders of the state. Tacitus says
that he was neither king nor dictator, but “ prince”
(Tac. Ann. i. 9), a title implying no civil authority,
but simply the position of chief member of the
senate (princeps senatus). The old magistracies
were retained, but the various powers and prevoga-
tives of each were conferred upon Augustus, so that
while others commonly bore the chief official titles,
Augustus had the supreme control of every depart-
ment of the state. Above all he was the Emperor
(Imperator). This word, used originally to designate
any one entrusted with the imperium or full mili-
tary authority over a Roman army, acquired a new
significance when adopted as a permanent title by
Julius Caesar. By his use of it as a constant prefix
to his name in the city and in the camp he openly
asserted a paramount military authority over the
state. Augustus, by resuming it, plainly indicated,
in spite of much artful concealment, the real basis
‘on which his power rested, viz. the support of the
army (Merivale, Roman Empire, vol. iii.). In the
N. T. the emperor is commonly designated by the
family name “ Caesar,” or the dignified and almost
sacred title “ Augustus” (for its meaning, comp.
Ovid, Fasti, i. 609). Tiberius is called by impli-
cation ἡγεμὼν in Luke iii. 1, a title applied in the
N. T. to Cyrenius, Pilate, and others. Notwith-
standing the despotic character of the government,
the Romans seem to have shrunk from speaking of
their ruler under his military title (see Merivale,
Rom. Empire, iti. 452, and note) or any other
avowedly despotic appellation. The use of the word,
6 κύριος, dominus, “my lord,” in Acts xxv. 26,
marks the progress of Roman servility between
the time of Augustus and Nero, Augustus and
Tiberius refused this title. Caligula first bore it
(see Alford’s note in J. c.; Ovid, Fust. ii. 142).
The term βασιλεύς, “king,” in John xix. 15, 1 Pet.
ii. 17, cannot be closely pressed.
The Empire was nominally elective (Tac. Ann. xiii.
4); but practically it passed by adoption (see Galba’s
speech in Tac. Hist. i. 15), and till Nero’s time
a sort of hereditary right seemed to be recognised.
The dangers inherent in a military government were,
on the whole, successfully averted till the death
of Pertinax, A.D. 193 (Gibbon, ch. iii. p. 80), but
outbreaks of military violence were not wanting in
this earlier period (comp. Wenck’s note on Gibbon,
7. c.). The army was systematically bribed by do-
natives at the commencement of each reign, and the
mob of the capital continually fed and amused at the
expense of the provinces. We are reminded of the
insolence and avarice of the soldiers in Luke iii. 14.
The reigns of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian show
that an emperor might shed the noblest blood with
impunity, so long as he abstained from offending
the soldiery and the populace.
Il. Latent of the Empire.—Cicero’s description
of the Greek states and colonies as a “‘ fringe on the.
skirts of barbarism” (Cie. De Rep. ii. 4) has been
well applied to the Roman dominions before the
conquests of Pompey and Caesar (Merivale, Rom.
Empire, iv. 409). The Roman Empire was still
confined to a narrow strip encircling the Mediter-
ranean Sea. Pompey added Asia Minor and Syria.
Caesar added Gaul. The generals of Augustus over-
1052 ROMAN EMPIRE
yan the N.W. portion of Spain and the country
between the Alps and the Danube. ‘The boundaries
of the Empire were now, the Atlantic on the W.,
the Euphrates on the E., the deserts of Africa, the
cataracts of the Nile, and the Arabian deserts on
the 8., the British Channel, the Rhine, the Danube,
and the Black Sea on the N, The only subsequent
conquests of importance were those of Britain by
Claudius and of Dacia by Trajan. The only inde-
pendent powers of importance were the Parthians
on the E. and the Germans on the N.
The population of the Empire in the time of
Augustus has been calculated at 85,000,000 (Meri-
vale, Rom. Empire, iv. 442-450). Gibbon, speak-
ing of the time of Claudius, puts the population at
120,000,000 (Decline and Fall, ch. ii.). Count
Franz de Champagny adopts the same number for
the reion of Nero (Les Césars, ii. 428). All these
estimates are confessedly somewhat uncertain and
conjectural.
This large population was controlled in the time
of Tiberius by an army of 25 legions, exclusive of
the praetorian guards and other cohorts in the
capital. The soldiers who composed the legions may
be reckoned in round numbers at 170,000 men. If
we add to these an equal number of auxiliaries (Tac.
Ann. iv. 5) we have a total force of 340,000 men.
The praetorian guards may be reckoned at 10,006
(Dion Cass. lv. 24). The other cohorts would swell
the garrison at Rome to fifteen or sixteen thousand
men. For the number and stations of the legions
in the time of Tiberius, comp. Tac. Ann. iv. 5.
The navy may have contained about 21,000 men
(Les Césars, ii. 429 ; comp. Merivale, iii. 534). The
legion, as appears from what has been said, must
have been “ more like a brigade than a regiment,”
consisting as it did of more than 6000 infantry
with cavalry attached (Conybeare and Howson, ii.
285). For the ‘Italian and Augustan bands”
(Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1) see ARMY, vol. i. p. 114.
Ill. The Provinces.—The usual fate of a country
conquered by Rome was to become a subject pro-
vince, governed directly from Rome by officers sent
out for that purpose. Sometimes, however, as we
have seen, petty sovereigns were left in possession
of a nominal independence on the borders, or within
the natural limits, of the province. Such a system
was useful for rewarding an ally, for employing a
busy ruler, for gradually accustoming a stubborn
people to the yoke of dependence. There were
differences too in the political condition of cities
within the provinces. Some were free cities, 7. e.
were governed by their own magistrates, and were
exempted from occupation by a Roman garrison.
Such were Tarsus, Antioch in Syria, Athens, Ephe-
sus, Thessalonica. See the notices of the ‘ Poli-
tarchs”” and ““ Demos” at Thessalonica, Acts xvii.
5-8. The ‘town-clerk” and the assembly at
Ephesus, Acts xix. 35, 39 (C. and H. Life of St.
Paul, i. 357, ii. 79). Occasionally, but rarely, firee
cities were exempted from taxation. Other cities
were ‘* Colonies,” 7. 6. communities of Roman citi-
zens transplanted, like garrisons of the imperial
city, into a foreign land. Such was Philippi (Acts
xvi. 12). Such too were Corinth, Troas, the Pisi-
dian Antioch. The inhabitants were for the most
part Romans (Acts xvi. 21), and their magistrates
delighted in the Roman title of Praetor (στρα-
τηγό5), and in the attendance of lictors (ῥαβδουχοί),
Acts xvi. 35. (C. and H. i, 315.)
Augustus divided the provinces into two classes,
(1.) Imperial, (2.) Senatorial ; retaining in his own
ROMAN EMPIRE
hands, for obvious reasons, those provinces where
the presence of a large military force was neces-
sary, and committing the peaceful and unarmed
provinces to the Senate. The Imperial provinces
at first were—Gaul, Lusitania, Syria, Phoenicia,
Cilicia, Cyprus, and Aegypt. The Senatorial pro-
vinces were Africa. Numidia, Asia, Achaea and
Epirus, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Sicily, Crete and Cy-
rene, Bithynia and Pontus, Sardinia, Baetica (Dion
C. liii. 12). Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis were
subsequently given up by Augustus, who in turn
received Dalmatia from the Senate. Many other
changes were made afterwards. The N. T. writers
invariably designate the governors of Senatorial
provinces by the correct title of ἀνθύπατοι. pro-
consuls (Acts xiii. 7, xviii. 12, xix. 38). [Cyprus. ]
For the governor of an Imperial province, properly
styled “* Legatus Caesaris” (Πρεσβευτής), the word
“Hyeuay (Governor) is used in the N. T.
The provinces were heavily taxed for the benefit
of Rome and her citizens. ‘It was as if England
were to defray the expenses of her own administra-
tion by the proceeds of a tax levied on her Indian
empire ” (Liddell, Hist. of Rome, i. p.448). In old
times the Roman revenues were raised mainly from
three sources: (1.) The domain lands; (2.) A direct
tax (tributum) levied upon every citizen; (3.) From
customs, tolls, harbour duties, &c. The agrarian
law of Julius Caesar is said to have extinguished
the first source of revenue (Cic. ad Att. ii. xvi.;
Dureau de la Malle, ii. 430). Roman citizens had
ceased to pay direct taxes since the conquest of
Macedonia, B.c. 167 (Cic. de Off. ii. 22; Plut.
Aemil, Paul. 38), except in extraordinary emer-
gencies. The main part of the Roman revenue was
now drawn from the provinces by a direct tax
(κῆνσος, φόρος, Matt. xxii. 17, Luke xx. 22),
amounting probably to from 5 to 7 per cent, on
the estimated produce of the soil (Dureau de Ja Malle,
ii. p. 418). The indirect taxes too (τέλη, vecti-
galia, Matt. xvii. 25 ; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 449)
appear to have been very heavy (ibid. ii. 452,
448). Augustus on coming to the empire found
the regular sources of revenue impaired, while his
expenses must have been very great. To say no-
thing of the pay of the army, he is said to have
supported no less than 200,000 citizens in idleness
by the miserable system of public gratuities. Hence
the necessity of a careful valuation of the property
of the whole empire, which appears to have been
made more than once in his reign. [CeNnsus,] For
the historical difficulty about the taxing in Luke
ii. 1, see CYRENIUS. Augustus appears to have
raised both the direct and indirect taxes (Dureau
de Ja Malle, ii. 433, 448).
The provinces are said to have been better yo-
verned under the Empire than under the Common-
wealth, and those of the emperor better than those
of the Senate (Tac. Ann. i. 76, iv. 63 Dion, liii.
14). Two important changes were introduced under
the Empire. The governors received a fixed pay,
and the term of their command was prolonged
(Jos. Ant. xviii. 6, §5). But the old mode of
levying the taxes seems to have been continued.
The companies who farmed the taxes, consisting
generally of knights, paid a certain sum into the
Roman treasury, and proceeded to wring what
they could from the provincials, often with the
connivance and support of the provincial governor.
The work was done chiefly by underlings of the
lowest class (portitores). These are the publicans
of the N. T.
ROMAN EMPIRE
On the whole it seems doubtful whether the
wrongs of the provinces can have been materially
alleviated under the Imperial government. It is not
likely that such rulers as Caligula and Nero would
be scrupulous about the means ‘used for replenishing
their treasury. The stories related even of the
reign of Augustus show how slight were the checks
on the tyranny of provincial governors, See the story
of Licinus in Gaul (Dict. of Gr. § Rom. Biog. sub
voce), and that of the Dalmatian chief (Dion, lv.).
The sufferings of St. Paul, protected as he was to a
certain extent by his Roman citizenship, show plainly
how little a provincial had to hope from the justice
of a Roman governor.
It is impossible here to discuss the difficult ques-
tion relating to Roman provincial government raised
on John xviii. 31. It may be sufficient here to
state, that according to strict Roman law the Jews
would lose the power of life and death when their
country became a province, and there seems no
sufficient reason to depart from the literal interpre-
tation of the verse just cited. See Alford, in J. ὁ.
On the other side see Biscoe, On the Acts, p. 113.
The condition of the Roman Empire at the time
when Christianity appeared has often been dwelt
upon, as affording obvious illustrations of St. Paul’s
expression that the “fulness of time had come”
(Gal. iv. 4). The general peace within the limits
of the Empire, the formation of military roads, the
suppression of piracy, the march of the legions, the
voyages of the corn fleets, the general increase of
traffic, the spread of the Latin. language in the
West as Greek had already spread in the East, the
external unity of the Empire, offered facilities hi-
therto unknown for the spread of a world-wide
religion. The tendency too of a despotism like that
of the Roman Empire to reduce all its subjects to a
dead level, was a powerful instrument in breaking
down the pride of privileged races and national
religions, and familiarizing men with the truth that
“God hath made of one blood all nations on the
face of the earth” (Acts xvii. 24, 26). But still
more striking than this outward preparation for the
diffusion of the Gospel was the appearance of a deep
and wide-spread corruption which seemed to defy
any human remedy. It would be easy to accumu-
late proofs of the moral and political degradation of
the Romans under the Empire. It is needless to do
more than allude to the corruption, the cruelty, the
sensuality, the monstrous and unnatural wickedness
of the period as revealed in the heathen historians
and satirists. ‘* Viewed as a national or political his-
tory,” says the great historian of Rome, “ the history
of the Roman Empire is sad and discouraging in the
last degree. We see that things had come to a
point at which no earthly power could afford any
help ; we now have the development of dead powers
peu of that of a vital energy ” (Niebuhr, Lect.
vy. 194). Notwithstanding the outward appearance
of peace, unity, and reviving prosperity, the general
condition of the people must have been one of great
misery. To say nothing of the fact that probably
one-half of the population consisted of slaves, the
great inequality of wealth at a time when a whole
province could be owned by six landowners, the
absence of any middle class, the utter want of any
institutions for alleviating distress such as are found
in all Christian countries, the inhuman tone of
feeling and practice generally prevailing, forbid us
to think favourably of the happiness of the world
in the famous Augustan age. We must remember
that “there were no public hospitals, no institu-
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1053
tions for the relief of the infirm and poor, no societies
for the improvement of the condition of mankind
from motives of charity. Nothing was done to
promote the instruction of the lower classes, no-
thing to mitigate the miseries of domestic slavery.
Charity and “general philanthropy were so little
] regarded as duties, that it requires a very extensive
acquaintance with the literature of the times to
find any allusion to them” (Arnold’s Later Roman
Commonuvealth, ii. 398). lf we add to this that
there was probably not a single religion, except the
Jewish, which was felt by the more enlightened
part of its professors to be real, we may form some
notion of the world which Christianity had to
reform and purity. We venture to quote an elo-
quent description of its “slow, imperceptible, con-
tinuous aggression on the heathenism of the Roman
Empire.”
“‘ Christianity was gradually withdrawing some
of all orders, even slaves, out of the vices, the igno-
rance, the misery of that corrupted social system.
It was ever instilling feelings of humanity, yet un-
known or coldly commended by an impotent philo-
sophy, among men and women whose infant ears
had been habituated to the shrieks of dying gla-
diators ; it was giving dignity to minds prostrated
| by years, almost centuries, of decrading despotism ;
it was nurturing purity and modesty of manners in
an unspeakable state of depravation; it was en-
shrining the marriage-bed in a sanctity long almost
entirely lost, and rekindling to a steady warmth
the domestic affections ; it was substituting a simple,
calm, and rational faith for the worn-out supersti-
tions of heathenism ; gently establishing in the soul
of man the sense εἰ immortality, till it became a
natural and inextinguishable part of his moral
being” (Milman’s Latin Christianity, i. p. 24).
The chief prophetic notices of the Roman Empire
are found in the Book of Daniel, especially in ch.
xi. 30-40, and in ii. 40, vii. 7, 17-19, according to
the common interpretation of the ‘‘ fourth king-
dom ;” comp. 2 Esdr. xi. 1, but see DANIEL. Accord-
ing to some interpreters the Romans are intended in
Deut. xxvill. 49-57. For the mystical notices of
Rome in the Revelation comp. Rome. [J. J. H.]
ROMANS, THE EPISTLE TO THE.
1. The date of this Epistle is fixed with more ab-
solute certainty and within narrower limits, than
that of any other of St. Paul’s Epistles. The fol-
lowing considerations determine the time of writing.
First. Certain names in the salutations point to
Corinth, as the place from which the letter was
sent. (1.) Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchreae, one
of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the
Romans (xvi. 1, 2). (2.) Gaius, in whose house
St. Paul was lodged at the time (xvi. 23), is pro-
bably the person mentioned as one of the chief mem-
bers of the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. i. 14,
though the name was very common. (3.) Erastus,
here designated “ the treasurer of the city” (oiKo-
νόμος, xvi. 23, E. V. “ chamberlain”) is elsewhere
mentioned in connexion with Corinth (2 Tim. iv.
20; see also Acts xix. 22). Secondly. Having thus
determined the place of writing to be Corinth, we
have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded
in Acts xx. 3, during the winter and spring following
the Apostle’s long residence at Ephesus, as the occa=
sion on which the Epistle was written. For St. Paul,
when he wrote the letter, was on the point of carry-
ing the contributions of Macedonia and Achaia to
Jerusalem (xv. 25-27), and a comparison with Acts
xx. 22, xxiv. 17, and also 1 Cor. xvi. 4; 2 Cor. viii.
.
1054 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
1, 2, ix. 1 ff., shows that he was so engaged at this
period of his life. (See Paley’s Horae Paulinae, ch.
ii. 81) Moreover, in this Epistle he declares his
intention of visiting the Romans after he has been at
Jerusalem (xv. 23-25), and that such was his de-
sign at this particular time appears from a casual
notice in Acts xix. 21.
The Epistle then was written from Corinth during
St. Paul’s third missionary journey, on the occasion
of the second of the two visits recorded in the Acts.
On this occasion he remained three months in
Greece (Acts xx. 3). When he left, the sea was
already navigable, tor he was on the point of sailing
for Jerusalem when he was obliged to change his
plans. On the other hand, it cannot have been
late in the spring, because after passing through
Macedonia and visiting several places on the coast
of Asia Minor, he still hoped to reach Jerusalem by
Pentecost (xx. 16). It was therefore in the winter
or early spring of the year that the Epistle to the
Romans was written. According to the most pro-
bable system of chronology, adopted by Anger and
Wieseler, this would be the year B.c. 58.
2. The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in
chronological connexion with the Epistles to the
Galatians and Corinthians, which appear to have
been written within the twelve months preceding.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written
before St. Paul left Ephesus, the Second from Mace-
donia when he was on his way to Corinth, and
the Epistle to the Galatians most probably either
in Macedonia or after his arrival at Corinth, 7. ὁ.
after the Epistles to the Corinthians, though the
date of the Galatian Epistle is not absolutely certain.
[GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.] We shall have
to notice the relations existing between these contem-
poraneous Epistles hereafter. At present it will be
sufficient to say that they present a remarkable re-
semblance to each other in style and matter—a
much greater resemblance than can be traced to
any other of St. Paul’s Epistles. They are at once
the most intense and most varied in feeling and ex-
pression—if we may so say, the most Pauline of all
St. Paul’s Epistles. When Baur excepts these four
Epistles alone from his sweeping condemnation of
the genuineness of al] the letters bearing St. Paul’s
name (Paulus, der Apostel) this is a mere caricature
of sober criticism; but underlying this erroneous
exaggeration is the fact, that the Epistles of this
period— St. Paul’s third missionary journey—have
ἃ character and an intensity peculiarly their own,
corresponding to the circumstances of the Apostle’s
outward and inward life at the time when they were
written. For the special characteristics of this
group of Epistles, see a paper on the Epistle to the
Galatians in the Journal of Class. and Sacr. Phil.,
iii. p. 289.
3. The occasion which prompted this Epistle,
and the cireumstances attending its, writing, were
as follows, St. Paul had long purposed visiting
ome, and still retained this purpose, wishing also
to extend his journey to Spain (i. 9-13, xv. 22-29).
For the time however, he was prevented from car-
rying out his design, as he was bound for Jeru-
salem with the alms of the Gentile Christians, and
meanwhile. he addressed this letter to the Romans,
to supply the lack of his personal teaching. Phoebe,
a deaconess of the neighbouring Church of Cenchreae,
was on the point of starting for Rome (xvi. 1, 2),
and probably conveyed the letter. The body of the
Npistle was written at the Apostle’s dictation by
Tertius (xvi. 22); but perhaps we may infer from
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
the abruptness of the final doxology, that it was
added by the Apostle himself, more especially as we
gather from other Epistles that it was his practice
to conclude with a few striking words in his own
hand-writing, to vouch for the authorship of the
letter, and frequently also to impress some important
truth more strongly on his readers.
4, The Origin of the Roman Church is involved
in obscurity. If it had been founded by St. ‘Peter,
according to a later tradition, the absence of any
allusion to him both in this Epistle and in the
letters written by St. Paul from Rome would admit
of no explanation. It is equally clear that no
other Apostle was the Founder. In this very
Epistle, and in. close connexion with the mention
of his proposed visit to Rome, the Apostle declares
that it was his rule not to build on another man’s
foundation (xv. 20), and we cannot suppose that he
violated it in this instance. Again, he speaks of
the Romans as especially falling to his share as the
Apostle of the Gentiles (i. 13), with an evident re-
ference to the partition of the field of labour between
himself and St. Peter, mentioned in Gal. ii. 7-9.
Moreover, when he declares his wish to impart
some spiritual gift (χάρισμα) to them, “ that they
might be established” (i. 11), this implies that
they had not yet been visited by an Apostle, and
that St. Paul contemplated supplying the defect,
as was done by St. Peter and St. John in the ana-
logous case of the Churches founded by Philip in
Samaria (Acts viii. 14-17).
The statement in the Clementines (Hom. i. §6)
that the first tidings of the Gospel reached Rome
during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently a fiction
for the purposes of the romance. On the other
hand, it is clear that the foundation of this Church
dates very far back. St. Paul in this Epistle salutes
certain believers resident in Rome— Andronicus and
Junia (or Junianus ?)—adding that they were dis-
tinguished among the Apostles, and that they were
converted to Christ before himself (xvi. 7), for such
seems to be the meaning of the passage, rendered
somewhat ambiguous by the position of the relative
pronouns. It may be that some of those Romans,
“both Jews and proselytes,” present on the day ot
Pentecost (of ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι, ᾿Ιουδαῖοί τε
καὶ προσήλυτοι, Acts ii, 10), carried back the
earliest tidings of the new doctrine, or the Gospel
may have first reached the imperial city through
those who were scattered abroad to escape the perse-
cution which followed on the death of Stephen (Acts
viii. 4, xi. 19). At all events, a close and constant
communication was kept up between the Jewish
residents in Rome and their fellow-countrymen in
Palestine by the exigencies of commerce, in which they
became more and more engrossed, as their national
hopes declined, and by the custom of repairing vegu-
larly to their sacred festivals at Jerusalem. Again,
the imperial edicts alternately banishing and recall-
ing the Jews (compare ¢. 4. in the case of Claudius,
Joseph. Ant. xix. 5, §3, with Suet. Claud. 25) must
have kept up a constant ebb and flow of migration
between Rome and the East, and the case of Aquila
and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 2; see Paley, Hor. Paul. c.
ii. §2), probably represents a numerous class through
whose means the opinions and doctrines promulgated
in Palestine might reach the metropolis. At first
we may suppose that the Gospel was preached there
in a confused and imperfect form, scarcely more
than a phase of Judaism, as in the case of Apollos
at Corinth (Acts xviii. 25), or the disciples at
Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-3), As time advanced and
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
better instructed teachers arrived, the clouds would
gradually clear away, till at length the presence of
the great Apostle himself at Rome, dispersed the
mists of Judaism which still hung about the Roman
Church, Long after Christianity had taken up a
position of direct antagonism to Judaism in Rome,
heathen statesmen and writers still persisted in con-
founding the one with the other. (See Merivale,
Hist. of Rome, vi. p. 278, &c.)
5. A question next arises as to the composition
of the Roman Church, at the time when St. Paul
wrote. Did the Apostle address a Jewish or a
Gentile community, or, if the two elements were
combined, was one or other predaminant so as to
give a character to the whole Church? Lither
extreme has been vigorously maintained, Baur for
instance asserting that St. Paul was writing to
Jewish Christians, Olshausen arguing that the Ro-
man Church consisted almost solely of Gentiles.
We are naturally led to seek the truth in some in-
termediate position. Jowett finds a solution of the
difficulty in the supposition that the members of
the Roman Church, though Gentiles, had passed
through a phase of Jewish proselytism. This will
explain some of the phenomena of the Epistle, but
notall. It is more probable that St. Paul addressed
a mixed Church of Jews and Gentiles, the latter
perhaps being the more numerous.
There are certainly passages which imply the
presence of a large number of Jewish converts to
Christianity. The use of the second person in ad-
dressing the Jews (chaps. ii. and iii.) is clearly not
assumed merely for argumentative purposes, but
applies to a portion at least of those into whose
hands the letter would fall. The constant appeals
to the authority of “ the law” may in many cases
be accounted for by the Jewish education of the
Gentile believers (so Jowett, vol. ii. p. 22), but
sometimes they seem too direct and positive to
admit of this explanation (iii. 19, vii. 1). In the
7th chapter St. Paul appears to be addressing Jews,
as those who like himself had once been under
the dominion of the law, but had been delivered
from it in Christ (see especially verses 4 and 6).
And when in xi. 13, he says “I am speaking to
you—the Gentiles,’ this very limiting expression
“the Gentiles,” implies that the letter was addressed
to not a few to whom the term would not apply.
Again, if we analyse the list of names in the
16th chapter, and assume that this list approximately
represents the proportion of Jew and Gentile in the
Roman Church (an assumption at least not impro-
bable), we arrive at the same result. It is true
that Mary, or rather Mariam (xvi. 6), is the only
strictly Jewish name. But this fact is not worth
the stress apparently laid on it by Mr. Jowett (ii.
p. 27). For Aquila and Priscilla (ver. 3) were
Jews (Acts xviii. 2, 26), and the Church which met
in their house was probably of the same nation.
Andronicus and Junia (or Junias? ver. 7) are called
St. Paul’s kinsmen. The same term is applied to
Herodion (ver. 11). These persons then must have
been Jews, whether ‘kinsmen” is taken in the
wider or the more restricted sense. The name Apelles
(ver. 10), though a heathen name also, was niost
commonly borne by Jews, as appears from Horace,
Sat. I. v. 100. It the Aristobulus of ver. 10 was
one of the princes of the Herodian house, as seems
probable, we have also in *‘ the household of Aristo-
bulus” several Jewish converts. Altogether it ap-
pears that a very large fraction of the Christian be-
lievers mentioned in these salutations were Jews,
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1055
even supposing that the others, bearing Greek and
Latin names, of whom we know nothing, were
heathens.
Nor does the existence of a large Jewish element
in the Roman Church present any difficulty. The
captives carried to Rome by Pompeius formed the
nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropolis
[RomE]. Since that time they had largely in-
creased. During the reign of Augustus we hear of
above 8000 resident Jews attaching themselves to a
Jewish embassy which appealed to this emperor (Jo-
seph. Ant. xvii. 11, 81). The same emperor gave
them a quarter beyond the Tiber, and allowed them
the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Leg..ad
Caium, p. 568 M.). About. the time when St.
Paul wrote, Seneca, speaking of the influence of Ju-
daism, echoes the famous expression of Horace (Zp.
ii. 1, 156) respecting the Greeks—* victi victoribus
leges dederunt’’ (Seneca, in Augustin. de Civ. Dei,
vi. 11). And the bitter satire of Juvenal and in-
dignant complaints of Tacitus of the spread of the
infection through Roman society, are well known.
On the other hand, situated in the metropolis of
the great empire of heathendom, the Roman Church
must necessarily have been in great measure a
Gentile Church; and the language of the Epistle
bears out this supposition. It is professedly as the
Apostle of the Gentiles that St. Paul writes to the
Romans (i. 5). He hopes to have some fruit among
them, as he had among the other Gentiles (i. 13).
Later on in the Epistle he speaks of the Jews in the
third person, as if addressing Gentiles, “I could
wish that myself were accursed for my brethren,
my kinsmen after the flesh, who are Israelites, etc.”
(ix. 3,4), Andagain, “ my heart’s desire and prayer
to God for them is that they might be saved”’ (x. 1,
the right reading is ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, not ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἴσ-
pana as in the Received Text), Compare also xi. 23,
25, and especially xi. 30, “For as ye in times past did
not believe God’. . . so did these also (7. e. the Jews)
now not believe,” etc. In all these passages St.
Paul clearly addresses himself to Gentile readers.
These Gentile converts, however, were not for
the most part native Romans. Strange as the pa-
radox appears, nothing is more certain than that
the Church of Rome was at this time a Greek and
not a Latin Church. It is clearly established that
the early Latin versions of the New Testament were
made not for the use of Rome, but of the provinces,
especially Africa (Westcott, Canon, p. 269). All
the literature of the early Roman Chureh was
written in the Greek tongue. The names of the
bishops of Rome during the first two centuries are
with but few exceptions Greek. (See Milman, Latin
Christ. i. 27.) And in accordance with these facts
we find that a very large proportion of the names
in the salutations of this Epistle are Greek names ;
while of the exceptions, Priscilla, Aquila, and Junia
(or Junias), were certainly Jews ; and the same is
true of Rufus, if, as is not improbable, he 1s
the same mentioned Mark xv. 21. Julia was pro-
bably a dependent of the imperial household, and
derived her name accordingly. The only Roman
names remaining are Amplias (7. 6. Ampliatus) and
Urbanus, of whom nothing is known, but their
names are of late growth, and certainly do not point
to an old Roman stock. It was therefore from the
Greek population of Rome, pure or mixed, that the
Gentile portion of the Church was almost entirely
drawn. And this might be expected. The Greeks
formed a very considerable fraction of the whole
people of Rome. They were the most busy and
1056 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
adventurous, and also the most intelligent of the
middle and lower classes of society. The influence
which they were acquiring by their numbers and
versatility is a constant theme of reproach in the
Roman philosopher and satirist (Juv. iii. 60-80, vi.
184; Tac. de Orat. 29). They complain that the
national character is undermined, that the whole
city has become Greek. Speaking the language
of international intercourse, and brought by their
restless habits into contact with foreign religions,
the Greeks had larger opportunities than others of
acquainting themselves with the truths of the Gospel:
while at the same time holding more loosely to tra-
ditional beliefs, and with minds naturally .more
enquiring, they would be more ready to welcome
these truths when they came in their way. At all
events, for whatever reason, the Gentile converts at
Rome were Greeks, not Romans: and it was an un-
fortunate conjecture on the part of the transcriber
of the Syriac Peshito, that this letter was written
“im the Latin tongue,” (MN). Every line in
the Epistle bespeaks an original.
When we enquire into the probable rank and
station of the Roman believers, an analysis of the
names in the list of salutations again gives an ap-
proximate answer. These names belong for the
most part to the middle and lower grades of society.
Many of them are found in the columbaria of the
freedmen and slaves of the early Roman emperors.
(See Journal of Class. and Sacr. Phil. iv. p. 57.)
It would be too much to assume that they were
the same persons, but at alk events the identity of
names points to the same social rank. Among the
less wealthy merchants and tradesmen, among the
petty officers of the army, among the slaves and
freedmen of the imperial palace—whether Jews or
Greeks—the Gospel would first find a firm footing.
To this last class allusion is made in Phil. iy. 22,
‘*they that are of Caesar’s household.” From these
it would gradually work upwards and downwards ;
but we may be sure that in respect of rank the
Church of Rome was no exception to the general
rule, that ‘‘ not many wise, not many mighty, not
many noble” were called (1 Cor. i. 26).
It seems probable from what has been said above,
that the Roman Church at this time was composed
of Jews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions. This
fact finds expression in the account, whether true
or false, which represents St. Peter and St. Paul as
presiding at the same time over the Church at
Rome (Dionys. Cor. ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25; Iven. |
hii. 5). Possibly also the discrépancies in the lists
of the early bishops of Rome may find a solution
(Pearson, Minor Theol. Works, ii. 449; Bunsen,
Hippolytus, i. p. 44), in the joint Episcopate of
Lipus and Cletus, the one ruling over the Jewish, the |
j are full of personal applications.
other over the Gentile congregation of the metropolis.
If this conjecture be accepted, it is an important testi-
mony to the view here maintained, though we can-
not suppose that in St. Paul's time the two elements
of the Roman Church had distinct organizations.
6. The heterogeneous composition of this Church
explains the general character of the Epistle to the
Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should
expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a |
single form of error, but the coincidence of different
and opposing forms. The Gospel had here to contend
not specially with Judaism nor specially with heathen-
ism, but with both together, It was therefore the bu- |
siness of the Christian Teacher to reconcile the opposing
difficulties and to hold out a meeting point in the
Gospel. This is exactly what St. Paul does in the
| Gentile and Jewish world respectively.
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
Epistle to the Romans, and what from the cireum-
stances of the case he was well enabled to do. He
was addressing a large and varied community which
had not been founded by himself, and with which he
had had no direct intercourse. Again, it does not
appear that the letter was specially written to an-
swer any doubts or settle any controversies then
rife in the Roman Church. There were therefore
no disturbing influences, such as arise out of per-
sonal relations, or peculiar circurhstances, to derange
a general and systematic exposition of the nature
and working of the Gospel. At the same time the
vast importance of the metropolitan Church, which
could not have been overlooked even by an unin-
spired teacher, naturally pointed it out to the
Apostle, as the fittest body to whom to address
such an exposition. Thus the Epistle to the Βο-
mans is more of a treatise than of a letter. If we
remove the personal allusions in the opening verses,
and the salutations at the close, it seems not more
particularly addressed to the Church of Rome, than to
any other Church of Christendom. In this respect
it differs widely from the Epistles to the Corinthians
and Galatians, with which as being written about
tne same time it may most fairly be compared,
and which are full of personal and direct allusions.
In one instance alone we seem to trace a special re-
ference to the Church of the metropolis. The in-
junction of obedience to temporal rulers (xiii. 1)
would most fitly be addressed to a congregation
brought face to face with the imperial government,
and the more so, as Rome had recently been the
scene of frequent disturbances on the part of either
Jews or Christians arising out of a feverish and
restless anticipation of Messiah’s coming (Suet.
Claud. 25). Other apparent exceptions admit of a
different explanation.
7. This explanation is in fact to be sought in its
relation to the contemporancous Epistles. The
letter to the Romans closes the group of Epistles
written during the second missionary journey. This
group contains besides, as already mentioned, the
letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, written
probably within the few months preceding. At
Corinth, the capital of Achaia, and the stronghold of
heathendom, the Gospel would encounter its severest
struygle with Gentile vices and prejudices. In Ga-
latia, which either from natural sympathy or from
close contact seems to have been more exposed to
Jewish influence, than any other Church within St,
Paul’s sphere of labour, it had a sharp contest with
Judaism. In the Epistles to these two Churches
we study the attitude of the Gospel towards the
These
letters are direct and special. Thev are evoked by
present emergencies, are directed against actual evils,
The Epistle to
the Romans is the sammary of what he had written
before, the result of his dealing with the two anta-
gonistic forms of error, the gathering together of
the fragmentary teaching in the Corinthian and
Galatian letters. What is there immediate, irre-
gular, and of partial application, is here arranged
| and completed, and thrown into a general form.
Thus on the one hand his treatment of the Mosaic
law points to the difficulties he encountered in
| dealing with the Galatian Church, while on the
other his cautions against antinomian excesses (Rom.
vi. 15, &e.), and his precepts against giving offence
in the matter of meats and the observance of days
(Rom. xiv.), remind us of the errors which he had
to correct in his Corinthian converts. (Compare
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
1 Cor, vi. 12 ff, and 1 Cor. viii. 1 ἢ.) Those in-
junctions then which seem at first sight special,
appear not to be directed against any actual known
failings in the Roman Church, but to be suggested
by the possibility of those irregularities occurring in
Rome which he had already encountered elsewhere.
8. Viewing this Epistle then rather in the light
of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to
explain certain phenomena in the text. In the
received text a doxology stands at the close of the
Epistle (xvi. 25-27). The preponderance οἵ evi-
dence is in favour of this position, but there is
respectable authority for placing it at the end of
ch. xiv. In some texts again it is found in both
places, while others omit it entirely. How can we
account for this? It has been thought by some to
discredit the genuineness of the doxology itself: but
there is no sufficient ground for this view. The
arguments against its genuineness on the ground
of style, advanced by Reiche, are met and refuted
by Fritzsche (Rom. vol. i. p. xxxv.). Baur goes
still farther, and rejects the two last chapters ; but
such an inference falls without the range of sober
criticism. The phenomena of the MSS. seem best
explained by supposing that the letter was circu-
lated at an early date (whether during the Apostle’s
lifetime or not it is idle to inquire) in two forms,
both with and without the two last chapters. In
the shorter form it was divested as far as possible
of its epistolary character by abstracting the per-
sonal matter addressed especially to the Romans,
the dexology being retained at the close. A still
further attempt to strip this Epistle of any special
references is found in MS. G, which omits ἐν Ῥώμῃ
(i. 7), and τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ (i. 15), for it is to be
observed at the same time that this MS. omits the
doxology entirely, and leaves a space after ch. xiv.
This view is somewhat confirmed by the parallel case
of the opening of the Ephesian Epistle, in which
there is very high authority for omitting the words
ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, and which bears strong marks of having
been intended for a circular letter.
9. In describing the purport of this Epistle we
may start from St. Paul’s own words, which, stand-
ing at the beginning of the doctrinal portion, may
be taken as giving a summary of the contents:
«The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation
to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and
also to the Greek: for therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from faith to faith” (i. 16, 17).
Accordingly the Epistle has been described as com-
prising ‘‘ the religious philosophy of the world’s
history.” The world in its religious aspect is
divided into Jew and Gentile. The different posi-
tions of the two as regards their past and present
relation to God, and their future prospects, are ex-
plained. The atonement of Christ is the centre of
religious history. The doctrine of justification by
faith is the key which unlocks the hidden mysteries
of the divine dispensation.
The Epistle, from its general character, lends
itself more readily to an analysis than is often the
case with St. Paul’s Epistles. The body of the
letter consists of four portions, of which the first
and last relate to personal matters, the second is
argumentative and doctrinal, and the third prac-
tical and hortatory. The following is a table of its
contents :—
Salutation (i. 1-7). The Apostle at the outset
strikes the keynote of the Epistle in the expressions
“called as an apostle,” “ called as saints.” Divine
grace is everything, human merit nothing.
VOL, Il.
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 1057
I, Personal explanations. Purposed visit to Rome
(i. 8-15).
II. Doctrinal (i. 16-xi. 36).
The general proposition. The Gospel is the
salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. ‘his
salvation comes by faith (i. 16, 17).
The rest of this section is taken up in esta-
blishing this thesis, and drawing deductions
from it, or correcting misapprehensions.
(a) All alike were under condemnation before
the Gospel :
The heathen (i. 18-52).
The Jew (ii. 1-29).
Objections to this statement answered (iii.
1-8).
And the position itself established from
Scripture (iii. 9-20),
(b) A righteousness (justification) is revealed
under the Gospel, which being of faith, not
of law, is also universal (iii. 21-26).
And boasting is thereby excluded (iii. 27-31).
Of this justification by faith Abraham is an
example (iv. 1-25).
Thus then we are justified in Christ, in whom
alone we glory (vy. 1-11).
And this acceptance in Christ is as uni-
versal as was the condemnation in Adam
(v. 12-19).
(c) The moral consequences of our deliver-
ance.
The law was given to multiply sin (v. 20,
21). When we died to the law we died to
sin (vi. 1-14). The abolition of the law,
however, is not a signal for moral license
(vi. 15-23). On the contrary, as the law
has passed away, so must sin, for sin and
the law are correlative; at the same time
this is no disparagement of the law, but
rather a proof of human weakness (vii.
1-25). So henceforth in Christ we are free
from sin, we have the Spirit, and look for-
ward in hope, triumphing over our present
afflictions (viii. 1-39).
(d) The rejection of the Jews is a matter of
deep sorrow (ix. 1-5).
Yet we must remember—
(ΟἿ That the promise was not to the whole
people, but only to a select seed (ix. 6-13).
And the absolute purpose of God in so
ordaining is not to be canvassed by man
(ix. 14-19).
(Gii.) That the Jews did not seek justification
aright, and so missed it. This justifica-
tion was promised by fazth, and is offered
to all alike, the preaching to the Gentiles
τ being implied therein. The character and
results of the Gospel dispensation are fore-
shadowed in Scripture (x. 1-21).
(iii.) That the rejection of the Jews is not
final. This rejection has been the means
of gathering in the Gentiles, and through
the Gentiles they themselves will ulti-
mately be brought to Christ (xi. 1-36).
II]. Practical exhortations (xii. l-xv. 15).
(a) To holiness of life and to charity in gene-
ral, the duty of obedience to rulers being
inculeated by the way (xii. 1—xiii. 14).
(6) And more particularly against giving
offence to weaker brethren (xiv. I—xyv. 13).
5
1058 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
IV. Personal matters.
(a) The Apostle’s motive in writing the letter,
and his intention of visiting the Romans
(xv. 14-33).
(ὁ) Greetings (xvi. 1-23).
The letter ends with a benediction and doxolozy
(xvi. 24-27),
While this Epistle contains the fullest and most
systematic exposition of the Apostle’s teaching, it
is at the same time a very striking expression of his
character. Nowhere do his earnest and affectionate
nature, and his tact and delicacy in handling un-
welcome topics appear more strongly than when
he is dealing with the rejection of his fellow-coun-
trymen the Jews,
The reader may be referred especially to the
introductions of Olshausen, Tholuck, and Jowett,
for suggestive remarks relating to the scope and
purport of the Epistle to the Romans.
10. Internal evidence is so strongly in favour of
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans that
it has never been seriously questioned. Even the
sweeping criticism of Baur did not go beyond con-
demning the two last chapters as spurious. But
while the Epistle bears in itself the strongest
proofs of its Pauline authorship, the external testi-
mony in its favour is not inconsiderable.
The reference to Rom. ii. 4 in 2 Pet. iii. 15 is
indeed more than doubtful. In the Epistle of
St. James again (ii. 14), there is an allusion to
perversions of St. Paul’s language and doctrine
which has several points of contact with the Epistle
to the Romans, but this may perhaps be explained
by the oral rather than the written teaching of the
Apostle, as the dates seem to require. It is not
the practice of the Apostolic fathers to cite the
N. T. writers by name, but marked passages from
the Romans are found embedded in the Epistles of
Clement and Polycarp (Rom. i. 29-32 in Clem.
Cor. ἃ. xxxv., and Rom. xiv. 10, 12, in Polye.
Phil. c. vi.). It seems also to have been directly
cited by the elder quoted in Irenaeus (iv. 27, 2,
“ideo Paulum dixisse;” cf. Rom. xi. 21, 17), and
is alluded to by the writer of the Epistle to Diogne-
tus (c. ix., cf. Rom. iii. 21 foll., v. 20), and by
Justin Martyr (Dial. c. 23, cf. Rom. iv. OR elas
and in other passages). The title of Melito’s trea-
tise, On the Hearing of Fuith, seems to be an allu-
sion to this Epistle (see however Gal. iii. 2,3). It
has a place moreover in the Muratorian Canon and in
the Syriac and Old Latin Versions. Nor have we
the testimony of orthodox writers alone. The Epistle
was commonly quoted as an authority by the heretics
of the subapostolic age, by the Ophites (Hippol.
adv. Haer. p. 99, cf. Rom. i. 20-26), by Basilides
(ib. p. 238, cf. Rom. viii. 19, 22, and v. 13, 14),
by Valentinus (ἐν, p. 195, cf. Rom. viii, 11), by
the Valentinians Heracleon and Ptolemaeus (West-
cott, On the Canon, pp. 335, 340), and perhaps also
by Tatian (Orat. c. iv., cf. Rom. i. 20), besides.
being included in Marcion’s Canon. In the latter
part of the second century the evidence in its
tavour is still fuller. It is obviously alluded to in
the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons
(Buseb. H. Z. v. 1, cf. Rom. viii. 18), and by
Athenagoras (p. 13, ef. Rom. xii. 1; p. 37, cf. Rom.
i, 24) and Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol. p. 79,
ef. Rom. ii. 6 foll.; p. 126, ef. Rom. xiii. 7, 8); and
is quoted frequently and by name by Ivenaeus, Ter-
tullian, and Clement of “Alexandria (see Kirchhofer,
Quellen, p. 198, and esp. Westcott, On the Canon,
passim ).
ROME
11. The Commentaries on this Epistle are very
numerous, as might be expected from its import-
ance. Of the many patristic expositions only a few
are now extant. The work of Origen is preserved
entire only in a loose Latin translation of Rufinus
(Orig. ed. de la hue, iv, 458), but some fragments
of the original are found in the Philocalia, and move
in Cramer’s Catena. The commentary on St. Paul’s
Epistles printed among the works of St. Ambrose
(ed. Ben, ii. Appx. p. 21), and hence bearing the
name Ambrosiaster, is probably to be attributed to
Hilary the deacon. Besides these are the exposi-
tions of St. Paul’s Epistles by Chrysostom (ed.
Montf. ix. p. 425, edited separately by Field), by
Pelagius (printed among Jerome’s works, ed. Val-
larsi, xi. Pt. 3, p. 135), by Primasius (Magn. Bibl,
Vet. Patr. vi. Pt. 2, p. 30), and by Theodoret (ed.
Schulze, iii. p, 1). Augustine commenced a work,
but broke off at i. 4: it bears the name Jnchoata
Expositio Epistolae ad Rom. (ed. Ben. iii. p. 925).
Later he wrote Lxpositio quarundam Propositionum
Epistolae ad Rom., also extant (ed. Ben. iii, p. 903).
To these should be added the later Catena of Oecu-
menius (10th eent.) and the notes of Theophylact
(11th cent.), the former containing valuable extracts
from Photius. Portions of a commentary of Cyril
of Alexandria were published by Mai (Nov. Patr.
Bibl, iii. p. 1). The Catena edited by Cramer
(1844) comprises two collections of Variorum notes,
the one extending from i. 1 to ix. 1, the other from
vil. 7 to the end. Besides passages from extant
commentaries, they contain important extracts from
Apollinarius, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Severianus,
Gennadius, Photius, and others. There are also the
Greek Scholia, edited by Matthii, in his larce Greek
Test. (Riga, 1782), from Moscow MSS. The com-
mentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (Tholuck, Hind,
$6) exists in MS., but has never been printed.
Of later commentaries we can only mention a
few of the most important. The dogmatic value
of this Epistle naturally attracted the early re-
formers. Melancthon wrote several expositions of it
(Walch, Bibl. Theol. iv. 679). The Commentary
of Calvin on the Romans is considered the ablest
part of his able work. Among Roman Catholic
writers, the older works of Estius and Corn. a
Lapide deserve to be mentioned. Of foreign anno-
tators of a more recent date, besides the general
commentaries of Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, and
Meyer (3rd ed. 1859), which are highly valuable
aids to the study of this Epistle, we may single out
the special works of Riickert (2nd ed. 1839),
Reiche (1834), Fritzsche (1836-43), and Tholuck
(5th ed. 1856). An elaborate commentary has also
been published lately by Van Hengel. Among
English writers, besides the editions of the whole
of the New Testament by Alford (4th ed. 1861)
and Wordsworth (new ed. 1861), the most im-
portant annotations on the Epistle to the Romans
are those of Stuart (6th ed. 1857), Jowett (2nd
ed. 1859), and Vaughan (2nd ed. 1861). Further
information on the subject of the literature of the
Epistle to the Romans may be found in the intro-
ductions of Reiche and Tholuck. [J. B. Τῇ
ROME (Ῥώμη, Lthn. and Adj. Ῥωμαῖος, Ῥω-
μαικός in the phrase γράμματα Ῥωμαϊκά, Luke
xxiii. 38), the famous capital of the ancient world,
is situated on the Tiber at a distance of about 15
miles from its mouth. The “ seven hills” (Rev. xvii.
9) which formed the nucleus of the ancient city
stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the
river rises the far higher ridge of the Janiculum.
ROME
Here from very early times was a fortress with a
suburb beneath it extending to the river. Modern
Rome lies to the N. of the ancient city, covering
with its principal portion the plain to the N. of the
seven hills, once known as the Campus Martius,
and on the opposite bank extending over the low
ground beneath the Vatican to the N. of the ancient
Janiculum. A full account of the history and
topography of the city is given elsewhere (Dict.
of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. ii. 719). Here it will be
considered only in its relation to Bible history.
Rome is not mentioned in the Bible except in the
books οἵ Maccabees and in three books of the N. T.,
viz. the Acts, the Epistle to the Romans, and the
2nd Epistle to Timothy. For the notices of Rome
in the books of Maccabees see ROMAN EMPIRE.
The conquests of Pompey seem to have given rise
to the first settlement of Jews at Rome. ‘The
Jewish king Aristobulus and his son formed part
of Pompey’s triumph, and many Jewish captives
and emigrants were brought to Rome at that time.
A special district was assigned to them, not on the
site of the modern ‘‘ Ghetto,” between the Capitol
and the island of the Tiber, but across the Tiber
(Philo, Leg. ad Caium, p. 568, ed. Mangey).
Many of these Jews were made freedmen (Philo,
l.c.). Julius Caesar showed them some kindness
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, §8; Suet. Caesar, 84).
They were fayoured also by Augustus, and by
Tiberius during the latter part of his reign (Philo,
l.c.). At an earlier period apparently he banished
a great number of them to Sardinia (Joseph. Ant.
xviii. 9, 85: Suet. Zib. 36). Claudius “ com-
manded all Jews to depart from Rome” (Acts
xviii. 2), on account of tumults connected, possibly,
with the- preaching of Christianity at Rome (Suet.
Claud. 25, ‘ Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue
tumultuantes Roma expulit”’?). This banishment
cannot have been of long duration, for we find
Jews residing at Rome apparently in considerable
τ numbers at,the time of St. Paul’s visit (Acts xxviii.
17). It is chiefly in connexion with St. Paul’s
history that Rome comes before us in the Bible.
In illustration of that history it may be usefui to
give some account of Rome in the time of Nero, the
**Caesar” to whom St. Paul appealed, and in whose
reign he suffered martyrdom (Kus. H. £. ii. 25),
1. The city at that time must be imagined as a
large and irreguiar mass of buildings unprotected
by an outer wall. It had long outgrown the old
Servian wall (Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. iv. 13; ap.
Merivale, Rom. Hist. iv. 497); but the limits of
the suburbs cannot be exactly defined. Neither the
nature of the buildings nor the configuration of the
ground were such as to give a striking appearance
to the city viewed from without. “* Ancient, Rome
had neither cupola nor campanile” (Conybeare and
Howson, Life of St. Paul, ii. 371; Merivale, Rom.
Emp. iv. 512), and the hills, never lofty or im-
posing, would present, when covered. with the
buildings and streets of a huge city, a confused
appearance like the hills of modern London, to
which they have sometimes been compared. The
visit of St. Paul lies between two famous epochs
in the history of the city, viz. its restoration by
Augustus and its restoration by Nero (C. and H.
i. 13). The boast of Augustus is well known,
“ that he had found the city of brick and left it of
marble” (Suet. Aug. 28). For the improvements
effected by him, see Dict. of Gr. ard Rom. Geogr.
ii. 740, and Niebuhr’s Lectures on Rom. Hist.
ii. 177. Some parts of the city, especially the
ROME 1059
Forum and Campus Martius, must now have pre-
sented a magnificent appearance, but many of the
principal buildings which attract the attention of
modern travellers in ancient Rome were not yet
built. The stieets were generally narrow and
winding, flanked by densely crowded lodging-houses
(insulae) of enormous height. Augustus found it
necessary to limit their height to 70 feet (Strab.
v. 235). St. Paul’s first visit to Rome took place
before the Neronian conflagration, but even after
the restoration of the city, which followed upon
that event, many of the old evils continued (Tac.
Hist. iii. 71; Juv. Sat. iii. 193, 269). The popula-
tion of the city has been variously estimated : at half
a million (by Dureau de la Malle, i. 403 and Meri-
vale, Rom. Empire, iv. 525), at two millions and
upwards (Hoeck, Rémische Geschichte, 1. li. 131;
C. and H. Life of St. Paul, ii. 376; Dict. of Geogr.
ii. 746), even at eight millions (Lipsius, De Mag-
nitudine Rom., quoted in Dict. of Geoyr.). Pro-
bably Gibbon’s estimate of one million two hundred
thousand is nearest to the truth (Milman’s note on
Gibbon, ch. xxxi. vol. iii. p. 120), One half of the
population consisted, in all probability, of slaves.
The larger part of the remainder consisted of pauper
citizens supported in idleness by the miserable sys-
tem of public gratuities. There appears to have
been no middle class and no free industrial popu-
lation. Side by side with the wretched ciasses just
mentioned was the comparatively small body of the
wealthy nobility, of whose luxury and profligacy
we hear so much in the heathen writers of the time.
(See for calculations and proofs the works cited.)
Such was the population which St. Paul would
find at Rome at the time of his visit. We learn
from the Acts of the Apostles that he was detained
at Rome for “ two whole years,” “ dwelling in his
own hired house with a soldier that kept him”
(Acts xxviii. 16, 30), to whom apparently, accord-
ing to Roman custom (Senec. Hp. v.; Acts xii. 6,
quoted by Brotier, ad Tac. Ann. iii. 22), he was
bound with a chain (Acts xxviii. 20; Eph. vi. 20 ;
Phil. i. 13). Here he preached to all that came to
him, no man forbidding him (Acts xxviii. 30, 31).
It is generally believed that on his “ appeal to
Caesar’? he was acquitted, and, alter some time
spent in freedom, was a second time imprisoned at
Rome (for proofs, see C. and H. Life of St. Paul,
ch. xxvii., and Alford, Gr. Test. iii. ch. 7). Five
of his Epistles, viz. those to the Colossians, Ephe-
sians, Philippians, that to Philemon, and the 2nd
Epistle to Timothy, were, in all probability, written
from Rome, the latter shortly before his death
(2 Tim. iv. 6), the others during his first impri-
sonment. It is universally believed that he suffered
martyrdom at Rome.
ες The localities in and about Rome especially
connected with the life of St. Paul, are—(1.) The
Appian way, by which he approached Rome (Acts
xxviii. 15). (See Appir Forum, and Dict. of
Geogr. “Via Appia”) (2.) “The palace,” or
Caesar’s court” (τὸ πραιτώριον, Phil. i. 13).
This may mean either the great camp of the Prae-
torian guards which Tiberius established outside
the walls on the N.E. of the city (Tac. Ann. iv. 2;
Suet. ib. 37), or, as seems more probable, a bar-
rack attached to the Imperial residence on the Pa-
latine (Wieseler, as quoted by C, and H., Life of
St. Paul, ii. 423). There is no sufficient proof
that the word “ Praetorium” was ever used te
designate the emperor’s palace, though it is used
for the official residence of a Roman governor (Jehu
9. Υ 2
1060 ROME
xviii, 28; Acts xxiii. 35). The mention of “ Cae-
sar’s household” (Phil. iv. 22), confirms the notion
that St. Paul’s residence was in the immediate
neighbourhood of the emperor’s house on the Pa-
latine.
3. The connexion of other localities at Rome with
St. Paul’s name rests only on traditions of more or
less probability. We may mention especially—
(1.) The Mamertine prison or Tulli: anum, built by
Ancus Martius near the forum (Liv. i. 33), de-
scribed by Sallust (Cat. 55). It still cutis beneath
the church of S. ene dei Falegnami. Here
it is said that St. Peter and St. Paul were fellow-
prisoners for nine months. This is not the place
to discuss the question whether St. Peter was ever
at Rome. It may be sufficient to state, that though
there is no evidence of such a visit in the N. T.,
unless Babylon in 1 Pet, v. 13 is a mystical name
for Rome, yet early testimony (Dionysius, ap. Euseb.
ii. 25), and the universal belief of the early Church
seem sufficient to establish the fact of his having
suffered martyrdom there. [PETER; vol. ii. 805.]
The story, however, of the imprisonment in the Ma-
mertine prison seems inconsistent with 2 Tim., esp.
iv. 11. (2.) The chapel on the Ostian road which
marks the spot where the two Apostles are said to
have separated on their way to martyrdom. (5.) The
supposed scene of St. Paul’s martyrdom, viz. the
church of St. Paolo alle tre fontane on the Ostian
road, (See the notice of the Ostian road in Caius, ap.
Eus. H, E.ii.25.) To these may be added (4.) The
supposed scene of St. Peter’s martyrdom, viz., the
chureh of St. Pietro in Montorio, on the Janiculum.
(5.) The chapel ** Domine quo Vadis,’ on the Appian
road, the scene of the beautiful legend of our Lord’s
appearance to St. Peter as he was escaping from
martyrdom (Ambrose, Hp. 33). (6.) The places
where the bodies of the two Apostles, after having
been deposited first in the catacombs (κοιμητήρια)
(Eus. H. #. ii. 25), are supposed to have been
finally buried—that of St. Paul by the Ostian
yoad—that of St. Peter beneath the dome of the
famous Basilica which bears his name (see Caius,
ap. Kus, H. E. ii. 25). All these and many other
traditions will be found in the Annals of Baronius,
under the last year of Nero. ‘‘ Valueless as may
be the historical testimony of each of these tradi-
tions singly, yet collectively they are of some
importance as expressing the consciousness of the
third and fourth centuries, that there had been an
early contest, or at least contrast, between the two
Apostles, which in the end was completely recon-
ciled; and it is this feeling which gives a real
interest to the outward forms in which it is brought
before us, more or less indeed in all the south of
Europe, but especially in Rome itself” (parley
Sermons and Essays; p. 101).
4. We must add, as sites unquestionably Hae
with the Roman Christians οὐ the Apostolic age—
(1.) The gardens of Nero in the Vatican, not far
from the spot where St. Peter’s now stands. Here
Christians wrapped in the skins of beasts were torn
to pieces by dogs, or, clothed in inflammable robes,
were burnt to serve as torches during the midnight
games. Others were crucified (Tac. Ann. xv. 44).
(2.) The Catacombs. These subterranean galleries,
ROOM
commonly from 8 to 10 feet in height, and from 4
to 6 in width, and extending for miles, especially
in the neighbourhood of the old Appian and No-
mentan ways, were unquestionably used as places
of refuge, of worship, and of burial by the early
Christians. It is impossible here to enter upon
the difficult question of their origin, and their pos-
sible connexion with the deep sand-pits and subter-
ranean works at Rome mentioned by classical writers.
See the story of the murder of Asinius (Cic. pro
Cluent. 13), and the account of the concealment
offered to Nero before his death (Suet. Nero, 48).
A more complete account of the Catacombs than
any yet given, may be expected in the forthcoming
work of the Cavaliere G. B. de Rossi. Some very
interesting notices of this work, and descriptions of
the Roman catacombs are given in Burgon’s Letters
from Rome, p. 120-258. “ De Rossi finds his earliest
dated inscription A.D. 71. From that date to A.D.
300 there are not known to exist so many as thirty
Christian inscriptions bearing dates. Of undated
inscriptions, however, about 4000 are referable to
the period antecedent to the emperor Constantine ”
(Burgon, p. 148).
Nothing is known of the first founder of the
Christian Church at Rome. Christianity may, per-
haps, have been introduced into the city not long
after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the
day of Pentecost by the “ strangers of Rome,”
who were then at Jerusalem (Acts ii. 10). It is
clear that there were many Christians at Rome
before St. Paul visited the city (Rom. i. 8, 13, 15,
xv. 20). The names of twenty-four Christians at
Rome are given in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans. For the difficult question
whether the Roman Church consisted mainly of
Jews or Gentiles, see C. and H., Life of St. Paul,
ii. 157; Alford’s Proleg.; and especially Prof.
Jowett’s Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, Ga-
latians, and Thessalonians, ii. 7-26. The view
there adopted that they were a Gentile church
but Jewish converts, seems most in harmony with
such passages as ch. i. 5, 13, xi. 13, and with the
general tone of the Epistle.
Linus (who is mentioned, 2 Tim. iv. 21), and
Clement (Phil. iv. 3) are supposed to have suc-
ceeded St. Peter as bishops of Rome.
Rome seems to be described under the name of
Babylon in Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2,
21; and again, as the city of the seven hills (Rev.
xvii. 9, cf. xii. 3, xiii. 1), See too, for the interpre-
tation of the mystical number 666 in Rev. xiii. 18,
Alford’s note, l. c.
For a good account of Rome at the time of St.
Paul’s visit see Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St.
Paul, ch. xxiv., of which free use has been made for
the sketch of the city given in this article. [J. J. H.]
ROOF. [Hovse. ]
ROOM. This word is employed in the A, V.
of the New Testament as the equivalent of no less
than eight distinct Greek* terms. The only one
of these, however, which need be noticed here is
πρωτοκλισία (Matt. xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 39; Luke
xiv. 7, 8, xx. 46), which signifies, not a “room”
in the sense we commonly attach to it of a chamber,
8 1. ἀντὶ (Matt. ii. 22).
2. χωρεῖν (Mark ii. 2).
3. τόπος (Luke ii. 7, xiv. 225 1 Cor. xiv. 16).
4. ποῦ (Luke xii. 17, where the word 00m should be
printed in italics).
5. διάδοχος (ἰ. 6. a successor, Acts xxiv. 27).
6. πρωτοκλισία (chief, highest, uppermost room. See
above.)
7, avayacov (an upper room, Mark xiv. 15, Luke
xxii. 2).
8. τὸ ὑπερρῷον (the upper room, Acts ἱ, 13).
ROSE
but the highest place on the highest couch round
the dinner or supper-table—the ‘* uppermost seat,”
as it is more accurately rendered in Luke xi. 43.
[Mrats.] The word “seat”’ is, however, generally
appropriated by our translators to καθέδρα, which
seems to mean some kind of official chair. In Luke
xiv. 9, 10, they have rendered τόπος by both
“place”’ and “ room.”
The Uprer Room of the Last Supper is noticed
under its own head. [See House, Vol. I. p.
838.] Rea
ROSE cndyan, chabatstseleth: κρίνον, ἄνθος ;
Aq. κάλυξ: flos, lilium) oceurs twice only, viz.
in Cant. ii. 1, “51 am the 7050 of Sharon ,’’ and in
Is. xxxyv. 1, “ the desert shall rejoice and blossom
as the Rose.” There is much difference of opinion
as to what particular flower is here denoted. Tre-
mellius and Diodati, with some of the Rabbins,
believe the rose is intended, but there seems to be
no foundation for such a translation. Celsius
(Hierob. i. 488) has argued in favour of the Nar-
cissus (Polyanthus narcissus). This rendering is
supported by the Targum on Cant. ii. 1, where
Chabatstseleth is explained by narkos (DYP73). This
word, says Royle (Kitto’s Cyc. art. ‘* Chabazze-
leth’’), is ‘ the same as the Persian nargus, the
Arabic Ya>y, which throughout the East indi-
cates Narcissus Tuzetta, or the polyanthus nar-
cissus.” Gesenius (hes. s. v.) has no doubt that
the plant denoted is the “autumn crocus ” (Col-
chicum autumnale). It is well worthy of remark
that the Syriac translator of Is. xxxv. 1 explains
chabatstseleth by chamtsalyotho,* which is evidently
the same word, m and ὁ being interchanged. This
Syriac word, according to Michaelis (Suppl. p. 659),
Gesenius, and Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot. p. 142), de-
notes the Colchicum autumnale. The Hebrew word
points etymologically to some bulbous plant; it
appears to us more probable that the narcissus is in-
tended than the crocus, the former plant being long
celebrated for its fragrance, while the other has no
odorous qualities to recommend it. Again, as the
chabatstseleth is associated with the lily in Cant. /.c.,
it seems probable that Solomon is speaking of two
plants which blossomed about the same time. The
narcissus and the lily (Lilium candidum) would be
in blossom together in the early spring, while the
Colchicum is an autumn plant. Thomson (The
Land and the Book, pp. 112, 513) suggests the pos-
sibility of the Hebrew name being identical with the
Arabic Khubbaizy (ἄλλες or sj) “ the
mallow,” which plant he saw growing abun-
dantly on Sharon; but this view can hardly be
maintained: the Hebrew term is probably a quadvi-
literal noun, with the harsh aspirate prefixed, and
the prominent notion implied in it is betsel, “a
bulb,” and has therefore no connexion with the
above-named Arabic word. Chateaubriand (πε
néraire, li. p. 130) mentions the narcissus as grow-
ing in the plain of Sharon; and Strand (Flor.
Palacst. No. 177) names it as a plant of Palestine,
on the authority of Rauwolf and Hasselquist ; see
also Kitto’s Phys. Hist. of Palest. p. 216. Hiller
(Hierophyt. ii. 30) thinks the chabatstseleth denotes
some species of asphodel (Asphodelus); but the
ROSH 1061
fingerlike roots of this genus of plants do not well
accord with the “ bulb” root implied in the original
word.
Though the Rose is apparently not mentioned in
the Hebrew Bible, it is referred to in Ecclus. xxiv.
14, where it is said of Wisdom that she is exalted
“as a rose-plant (ὡς φυτὰ ῥόδου) in Jericho”
(comp. also ch. 1. 8; xxxix. 13; Wisd. ii. 8).
Roses are greatly prized in the East, more espe-
cially for the sake of the rose-water, which is in
much request (see Hasselquist, Zrav. p. 248). Dr.
Hooker observed the following wild roses in Syria:—
Rosa eglanteria (L.), R. sempervirens (L.), R.
Henkeliana, R. Phoenicia (Boiss.), R. seriacea,
R, angustifolia, and 1ὐ. Libanotica. Some of these
are deubtful species. &. centifolia and damascena
are cultivated everywhere. ‘The so-called ‘* Rose
ot Jericho” is no rose at all, but the Anastatica
fierochuntina, a cruciferous plant, not uncommon
on sandy soil in Palestine and Egypt. [W.H.]
ROSH (WN: Ῥώς: Ros). In the genealogy
of Gen. xlvi. 21, Rosh is reckoned among the sons
of Benjamin, but the name does not occur else-
where, and it is extremely probable that “ Ehi
and Rosh’’ is a corruption of “ Ahiram” (comp.
Num. xxvi. 38). See Burrington’s Genealogies,
16 eile
ROSH (WN: Ῥώς, Ez. xxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 1:
translated by the Vulg. capitis, and by the A. V.
“ chief,” as if WN, “ head”). The whole sentence
thus rendered by the A. V. “ Magog the chief prince
of Meshech and Tubal,” ought to run “ Magog the
prince of Rosh, Mesech, and Tubal;” the word
translated “ prince” being Ὁ), the term usually
employed for the head of a nomad tribe, as of
Abraham, in Gen, xxiii. 6, of the Arabians, Gen.
xvii. 20, and of the chiefs of the several Israelite
tribes, Num. vii. 11, xxxiv. 18, or in a general
sense, 1 K. xi. 34, Hz. xii. 10, xlv. 7, xlvi. 2.
The meaning is that Magog is the head οὔ the three
great Scythian tribes, of which ‘ Rosh” is thus the
first. Gesenius considers it beyond doubt that by
Rosh, or Ῥώς, is intended the tribe on the north of
the Taurus, so called from their neighbourhood te
the Rha, or Volga, and that in this name and tribe
we have the first trace of the Russ or Russtan
nation. Von Hammer identities this name with
Rass in the Koran (xxv. 40; 1. 12), “ the peoples
Aad, Thamud, and the Asshabir (or inhabitants) of
Rass or Ross.” He considers that Mohammed had
actually the passage of Ezekiel in view, and that
κε Asshabir”’ corresponds to Nasi, the ‘prince ἢ
of the A. V., and ἄρχοντα of the LXX. (Sur les
Origines Russes, Petersburg, 1825, p. 24-29). The
first certain mention of the Russians under this
name is in a Latin Chronicle under the year A.b.
839, quoted by Bayer (Origines Russicae, Com-
ment. Acad. Petropol. 1726, p. 409). From the
junction of Tiras with Meshech and Tubal in Gen.
x. 2, Von Hammer conjectures the identity of Tiras
and Rosh (p. 26).
The name probably occurs again under the
altered form of Rasses, in Judith ii, 23—this time
in the ancient Latin, and possibly also in the
Syriac versions, in connexion with Thiras or Thars.
But the passage is too corrupt to admit of any
certain deduction from it. [RASSEs. ]
This early Biblical notice of so great an empire
is doubly interesting from its being a solitary
instance. No other name of any modern nation
1062 ROSIN
occurs in the Scriptures, and the obliteration of it
by the A. V. is one of the many remarkable varia-
tions of our version from the meaning of the sacred
text of the Old Testament. For all further in-
formation see the above-quoted treatises of Von
Hammer and Bayer, [PARES 3
ROSIN. Properly “naphtha,” as it is both in
the LXX. and Vulg. (νάφθα, naphtha), as well as
the Peshito-Syriac. In the Song of the Three
Children (23), the servants of the king of Babylon
are said to have “ ceased not to make the oven hot
with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood.’ Pliny
(ii. 101) mentions naphtha as a product of Baby-
lonia, similar in appearance to liquid bitumen, and
having a remarkable affinity to fire. To this
natural product (known also as Persian naphtha,
petroleum, rock oil, Rangoon tar, Burmese naphtha,
&c.) reference is made in the passage in question.
Sir R. K. Porter thus describes the naphtha springs
at Kirkook in Lower Courdistan, mentioned by
Strabo (xvii. p. 738) :-—“ They are ten in number.
For a considerable distance from them we felt the
air sulphurous; but in drawing near it became
worse, and we were all instantly struck with ex-
cruciating headaches, he springs consist of several
pits or wells, seven or eight feet in diameter, and
ten or twelve deep. The whole number are within
the compass of five hundred yards. A flight of
steps has been cut into each pit for the purpose of
approaching the fluid, which rises and falls according
to the dryness or moisture of the weather. The
natives lave it out with ladles into bags made of
skins, which are carried on the backs of asses to
Kirkook, or to any other mart for its sale... ..
The Kirkook naphtha is principally consumed by
the markets in the south-west of Courdistan, while
the pits not far from Kufri supply Bagdad and its
environs, The Bagdad naphtha is black” ( Zrav.
ii. 440). It is described by Dioscorides (i. 101) as
the dregs of the Babylonian asphalt, and white in
colour. According to Plutarch (Alex. 35) Alex-
ander first saw it in the city of Ecbatana, where
the inhabitants exhibited its marvellous effects by
strewing it along the street which led to his head-
quarters and setting it on fire. He then tried an
experiment on a page who attended him, putting
him into a bath of naphtha and setting light to it
(Strabo, xvii. p. 743), which nearly resulted in the
boy’s death. Plutarch suggests that it was naphtha
in which Medea steeped the crown and robe which
she gave to the daughter of Creon ; and Suidas says
that the Greeks called it “* Medea’s oil,” but the
Medes “ naphtha.’ The Persian. name is ba
(naft). Posidonius (in Strabo) relates that in Baby-
lonia there were springs of black and white naphtha,
The former, says Strabo (xvii. p. 743), were of
liquid bitumen, which they burnt in lamps instead of
oil. The latter were of liquid sulphur. [W. A. W.]
RUBIES (03, peéniyyim ; DIB, péninim .
λίθοι, A. πολυτελεῖς : cunctae opes, cuncta pre-
tiosissima, gemmae, de ultimis finibus, ebor anti-
quum), the invariable rendering of the above-named
Hebrew words, concerning the meaning of which there
is much difference of opinion and great uncertainty.
RUFUS
“The price of wisdom is above peninim” (Job
xxviii. 18; see also Prov. iii. 15, viii. 11, xxxi, 10).
In Lam. iv. 7 it is said, “ΚΞ the Nazarites were purer
than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were
more ruddy in body than peninim.” A. Boote (Ani-
mad. Sac. iv. 3), on account of the ruddiness men-
tioned in the last passage, supposed ‘‘ coral” to be
intended, for which, however, there appears to be
another Hebrew word. [Corau.] J. D. Michaelis
(Suppl. p. 2023) is of the same opinion, and com-
Gee
pares the Hebrew n338 with the Arab. ue? τ 5,
branch.” Gesenius (Zhes. 5. v.) defends this argu-
ment. Bochart (/ieroz. iii. 601) contends that
the Hebrew term denotes pearls, and explains the
‘“‘ruddiness” alluded to above, by supposing that
the original word ( WITS) signifies merely “ bright
in colour,” or “colour of a reddish tinge.” This
opinion is supported by Rosenmiiller (Schol. in
Thren.), and others, but opposed by Maurer (Com-
ment.) and Gesenius. Certainly it would be no
compliment to the great people of the land to say
that their bodies were as red as coral or rubies,
unless we adopt Maurer’s explanation, who refers
the “ ruddiness”’ to the blood which flowed in their
veins. On the whole, considering that the Hebrew
word is always used in the plural, we are inclined
to adopt Bochart’s explanation, and understand
pearls to be intended. [PEARLS. ] [W. H.]
RUE (πήγανον : ruta) occurs only in Luke xi.
42: “ Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint
and rue and all manner of herbs.”” The rue here
spoken of is doubtless the common Ruta graveolens,
a shrubby. plant about 2 feet high, of strong me-
dicinal virtues. It is a native of the Mediterranean
coasts, and has been found by Hasselquist on Mount
Tabor. Dioscorides (iii. 45) describes two kinds
of πήγανον, viz. π. ὀρεινόν and π. κηπευτόν,
which denote the Ruta montana and RL. graveolens
respectively. Rue was in great repute amongst the
ancients, both as a condiment and as a medicine
(Pliny, W. H. xix. 8; Columell. 2. Rus. xii. 7,
§5 ; Dioscorides, 7. c.), The Talmud enumerates
rue amongst kitchen-herbs (Shebiith, ch. ix. §1),
and regards it as free of tithe, as being a plant not
cultivated in gardens. In our Lord’s time, how-
ever, rue was doubtless a garden-plant, and there-
fore titheable, as is evident from our Lord’s words,
‘* these things ought ye to have done.” The rue is
too well known to need description. ἘΠῚ
RU'FUS (Ῥοῦφος : Rufus) is mentioned in
Mark xv. 21, along with Alexander, as a son of
Simon the Cyrenean, whom the Jews compelled to
bear the cross of Jesus on the way to: Golgotha
(Luke xxiii. 20). As the Evangelist informs his
readers who Simon was by naming the sons, it is
evident that the latter were better known than the
father in the circle of Christians where Mark lived.
Again, in Rom, xvi. 13, the Apostle Paul salutes a
Rufus whom he designates as ‘ elect in the Lord”
(ἐκλεκτὸν ἐν Κυρίῳ), and whose mother he grace-
fully recognises as having earned a mother’s claim
upon himself by acts of kindness shown to him, It
is generally supposed that this Rufus was identical
ἃ The Chald. VI (Esth. i. 6), which the A. V. renders
“white,” and which seems to be identical with the Arab.
Ae) Sas
» durr, “ pearls;” αὶ
Xp durrah, “a pearl,” is by
some understood to mean ‘ mother of pearl,” or the kind
of alabaster called in German Perlenmutterstein. The
LXX. has πίννινος λίθος. See Gesenius, and Winer (Bibl,
Realw. i. 71).
RUHAMAH
with the one to whom Mark refers; and in that
case, as Mark wrote his gospel in all probability
at Rome, it was natural that he should deseribe
to his readers the father (who, since the mother
was at Rome while he apparently was not there,
may have died, or have come later to that city)
from his relationship to two well-known mem-
bers of the same community. It is some proof
at least of the early existence of this view that, in
the Actis Andreae et Petri, both Rufus and Alex-
ander appear as companions of Peter in Rome.
Assuming, then, that the same person is meant in
the two passages, we have before us an interesting
group of believers—a father (for we can hardly
doubt that Simon became a Christian, if he was not
already such, at the time of the crucifixion), a
mother, and two brothers, all in the same family.
Yet we are to bear in mind that Rufus was not an
uncommon name (Wetstein, Nov. Test., vol. i. p.
634) ; and possibly, therefore, Mark and Paul may
have had in view different individuals. [H. B. H.]
RUHA'MAH CTO) : ἠλεημένη:
diam consecuta). The margin of our version renders
it ‘having obtained merey” (Hos. ii. 1). The
name, if name it be, is like Lo-ruhamah, sym-
bolical, and as that was given to the daughter of
the prophet Hosea, to denote that God’s mercy was
turned away from Israel, so the name Ruhamah is
addressed to the daughters of the people to denote
that they were still the objects of His love and tender
compassion.
RUMAH (271: Ῥουμά; Alex. Ῥυμα; Joseph.
᾿Αβούμα: Ruma). Mentioned, once only (2 K. xxiii.
36), as the native place of a certain Pedaiah, the
father of Zebudah, a member of the harem of king
Josiah, and mother of Eliakim or Jehoiakim king of
Judah.
It has been conjectured to be the same place as
Arumah (Judg. ix.41), which was apparently near
Shechem. It is more probable that it is identical
with Dumah, one of the towns in the mountains |
of Judah, near Hebron (Josh. xv. 52), not far
‘distant from Libnah, the native town of another |
of Josiah’s wives. The Hebrew D and R are so
similar as often to be confounded together, and
Dumah must have, at any rate, been written Rumah
in the Hebrew text from which the LXX. trans-
lated, since they give it as Remna and Rouma.
Josephus mentions a Rumah in Galilee (B. J.
ili. 7, §21). [G.]
RUSH. [ReEeEp.]
RUST (βρῶσις, ids: aerugo) occurs as the
translation of two different Greek words in Matt.
vi. 19, 20, and in Jam. vy. 9. In the former pas-
sage the word βρῶσις, which is joined with σής,
“moth,” has by some been understood 1o denote
the larva of some moth injurious to corn, as the |
Tinea granella (see Stainton, Insecta Britan. iii.
30). The Hebrew vy (Is. 1. 9) is rendered
βρῶσις by Aquila ; comp. also Epist. Jerem. v. 12,
ἀπὸ ἰοῦ καὶ βρωμάτων, “from rust and moths”
(A. V. Bar. vi. 12). Scultetus (Exerc. Evang. ii.
35, Crit. Sac. vi.) believes that the words σὴς
καὶ βρῶσις are an hendiadys for σὴς βρώσκων.
~The word can scarcely be taken to signify “ rust,’
for which there is another term, ἰός, which is ΕΘΝ
by St. James to express rather the “ tarnish” which |
overspreads silver than ‘* rust,” by which name we
now understand “ oxide of iron,’ Βρῶσις is no
misericor=
RUTH 1063
doubt intended to have reference in a general sense
to any corrupting and destroying substance that
may attack treasures of any kind which have long
been suffered to remain undisturbed. The allusion
of St. James is to the corroding nature of ἰός on
metals. Scultetus correctly observes, “ aerugine
| deformantur quidem, sed non corrumpuntur num-
mi;” but though this is strictly speaking true, the
ancients, just as ourselves in common parlance,
spoke of the corroding nature of ‘“rust’’ (comp.
Hammond, Annotat. in Matt. vi. 19). [W.H.]
RUTH (N47: Ῥούθ : probably tor ΤΠ), “a
friend,” the feminine of Reu). A Moabitish woman,
the wife, first, of Mahlon, secondly of Boaz, and by
him mother of Obed, the ancestress of David and of
Christ, and one of ‘te four women (Thamar, Rahab,
and Uriah’s wife being the other three) who are
named by St. Matthew in the genealogy of Christ.
[RAHAB. | The incidents in Ruth’s life, as detailed
in the beautiful book that bears her name, may be
epitomised as follows. A severe famine in the land
of Judah, caused perhaps by the occupation of the
land by the Moabites under Eglon (as Ussher thinks
possible), induced Elimelech, a native of Bethlehem
Ephratah, to emigrate into the land of Moab, with
his wife Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and
Chilion, At the end of ten years Naomi, now left
a widow and childless, having heard that there was
plenty again in Judah, resolved to return to Beth-
lehem, and her daughter-in-law, Ruth, returned
with her. ‘Whither thou goest, I will go, and
where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall
be my people, and thy God my God: where thou
diest I will die, and there will I be buried: the
Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death
part thee and me ;”’ was the expression of the unal-
terable attachment of the young Moabitish widow
to the mother, to the land, and to the religion of her
lost husband. They arrived at Bethlehem just at
the beginning of barley harvest, and Ruth, going
out to glean for the support of her mother-in-law
; and herself, chanced to go into the field of Boaz, a
wealthy man, the near kinsman of her father-in-law
Elimelech, The story of her virtues and her kind-
ness and fidelity to her mother-in-law, and her pre-
ference for the land of her husband’s birth, had gone
before her ; and immediately upon learning who the
strange young woman was, Boaz treated her with
the utmost kindness and respect, and sent her home
laden with corn which she had gleaned. Encouraged
by this incident, Naomi instructed Ruth to claim
at the hand of Boaz that he should perform the part
of her husband’s near kinsman, by purchasing the
inheritance of Elimelech, and taking her to be his
wife. But there was a nearer kinsman than Boaz,
and it was necessary that he should have the option
of redeeming the inheritance for himself. He, how-
| ever, declined, fearing to mar his own inheritance.
Upon which, with all due solemnity, Boaz took
Ruth to bé his wife, amidst the blessings and con-
gratulations of their neighbours. As a singular
example of virtue and piety in a rude age and
among an idolatrous people ; as one of the first-truits
| of the Gentile harvest gathered into the Church ;
as the heroine of a story of exquisite beauty and
simplicity ; ; as illustrating in her history the work-
|ings of Divine Prov ‘dence, and the truth of as
* Some think it is for nan}, e tome ν᾽
6 Patrick suggests the famine in the days of Gideon
, (Judg. vi. 3, 4).
1064 RYE
saying that ‘‘the eyes of the Lord are over the
righteous ;” and for the many interesting revela-
tions of ancient domestic and social customs which
are associated with her story, Ruth has always
held a foremost place among the Scripture cha-
racters. St. Augustine has a’ curious speculation
on the relative blessedness of Ruth, twice married,
and by her second marriage becoming the ancestress
of Christ, and Anna remaining constant in her
widowhood (De bono Viduit.). Jerome observes
that we can measure the greatness of Ruth’s virtue
by the greatness of her reward—‘ Ex ejus semine
Christus oritur” (Zpist. xxii. ad Paulam). As the
great-grandmother of King David, Ruth must have
flourished in the latter part of Eli's judgeship, or
the beginning of that of Samuel. But there seem
to be no particular notes of time in the book, by
which her age can be more exactly defined. The
story was put into its present shape, svowedly, long
atter her lifetime: see Ruth i. 1, iv. 7,17. (Ber-
theau on Ruth, in the Lxeg. Handb.; Rosenmiill.
Proem. in Lib. Ruth; Parker’s De Wette; Ewaid,
Gesch. i. 205, iii. 760 sqq.) [ A.C. H.]
RYE (NIDSDS, cussemeth: (ed, ὄλυρα : far,
vicia) occurs in Ex, ix. 32; Is. xxviii. 25: in the
latter the margin reads “spelt.” In Ez. iv. 9 the
text has “ fitches ᾿᾿ and the margin ‘‘rie.” There
are many opinions as to the signification of Cus-
semeth; some authorities maintaining that fitches
are denoted, others oats, and others rye. Celsius
has shown that in all probability “spelt” is
intended (Hierob. ii. 98), and this opinion is
supported by the LXX. and the Vulg. in Ex. ix.
52, and by the Syriac versions, Rye is for the
most part a northern plant, and was probably
not cultivated in Egypt or Palestine in early
times, whereas spelt has been long cultivated in
the East, where it is held in high estimation. He-
rodotus (ii. 36) says the Egyptians “make bread
from spelt (ἀπὸ ὀλυρέωνῚ, which some call zea.” See
also Pliny (WV. H. xviii. 8) and Dioscorides (ii. 111),
who speaks of two kinds. The Cussemeth was cul-
tivated in Egypt; it was not injured by the hail-
storm of the seventh plague (Ex. J. c.), as it was
not grown up. This cereal was also sown in Pales-
tine (Is. /. c.), on the margins or ‘ headlands’ of
the fields (neay) ; it was used for mixing with
wheat, barley, &c., for making bread (Ez. J. ο.).
The Arabic, Chirsanat, * spelt,” is regarded by Ge-
senius as identical with the Hebrew word, m and n
being interchanged and r inserted.‘ Spelt” ( Tri-
ticun spelta) is grown in some parts of the south
of Germany ; it differs but slightly from our com-
mon wheat (7. vulgare). There are three kinds of
spelt, viz. 7. spelta, T. dicoccum (Rice wheat), and
T. monococcum. Wis δι]
5
SAB/AOTH, THE LORD OF (Κύριος oa-
Badd: Dominus Sabaoth). The name is found in
the English Bible only twice (Rom. ix. 29; James
ν. 4). It is probably more familtar throuch its
occurrence in the Sanctus of the Te Deuma—* Holy,
Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.” It is too often
® Can it be this phrase which determined the use of the
Te Denm as a thanksgiving for victories ἢ
» For the passages which follow, the writer is indebted
SABBATH
considered to be a synonym of, or to have some con-
nexion with Sabbath, and to express the idea of rest.
And this not only popularly, but in some of our
most classical writers. Thus Spenser, Fuery Queen,
canto vili, 2 :—
“ But thenceforth all shall rest eternally
With Him that is the God of Sabaoth hight :
O that pee Sabaoth God, grant me that Sabaoth’s
sight.
And Bacon, Advancement of Learning, ii. 24:—
*.. . sacred and inspired Divinity, the Sabaoth and
port of all men’s labours and peregrinations.” And
Johnson, in the 1st edition of whose Dictionary
(1755) Sabaoth and Sabbath are treated as the
same word. And Walter Scott, Zvanhoe, i. ch. 11
(ist ed.):—*a week, aye the space between two
Sabaoths.” But this connexion is quite fictitious.
The two words are not only entirely different, but
have nothing in common.
Sabaoth is the Greek form of the Hebrew word
tsebdoth, ‘armies,’ and occurs in the oft-repeated
formula which is translated in the Authorised Ver-
sion of the Old Test. by “ Lord of hosts,” ‘ Lord
God of hosts.” We are apt to take ‘ hosts” (pro-
bably in connexion with the modern expression the
“heavenly host”) as implying the angels— but
this is surely inaccurate. Tsebddth is in constant
use in the O. T. for the national army or force of
fichting-men,® and there can be no doubt that in
the mouth and the mind of an ancient Hebrew, Je-
hovah-tsebdéth was the leader and commander of
the armies of the nation, who ‘went forth with
them” (Ps. xliv. 9), and led them to certain vic-
tory over the worshippers of Baal, Chemosh, Mo-
lech, Ashtaroth, and other false gods. In later
times it lost this peculiar significance, and beeame
little if anything more than an alternative title for
God. ‘The name is not found in the Pentatench,
or the Books of Joshua, Judges, or Ruth. It is
frequent in the Books of Samuel, rarer in Kings,
is found twice only in the Chronicles, and not at
all in Ezekiel; but in the Psalms, in Isaiah, Jere-
miah, and the minor Prophets it is of constant
occurrence, and in fact is used almost to the
exclusion of every other title. [6]
SA'BAT (Σαφάγ ; Alex. Σαφάτ: Phasphat).
1. The sons of Sabat are enumerated among the
sons of Solomon’s servants who returned with Zoro-
babel (1 Esd. v. 34). There is no corresponding
name in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.
2. (SaBdr: Sabuth.) The month Separ (1
Mace. xvi. 14).
SABATE'AS (SaBaratos; Alex. SaBBaratas:
Sabbatheus). SHABBETHAI (1 Esd. ix. 48 ; comp.
Neh. viii. 7).
SAB'ATUS (Σάβαθος : Zabdis). Zapap (1
Esd. ix. 28; comp. Ezr. x. 27).
SAB'BAN (Σαβάννος : Bani).
(1 Esd. viii. 63 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 33),
SABBATH (nav, “a day of rest,” from
MAW, “to cease to do,” “ to rest ”\. This is the
obvious and undoubted etymology. The resem-
blance of the word to YW, “seven,” misled Lac-
tantius (Znst. iii. 14) and others; but it does not
seem more than accidental. Bahr (Symbolik, ii.
533-4) does not reject the derivation from NY,
ΒΙΝΧΟΙ 1
to the kindness of a friend.
ς ΤΊΝΩΝ. See 1 Sam. xii. 9, 1 K. 1,19, and passim in
3urgh’s Concordance, p. 1058.
SABBATH
but traces that to ay, somewhat needlessly and
fancifully, as it appears to us. Plutarch’s associa-
tion of the word with the Bacchanalian cry σαβοῖ
may of course be dismissed at once. We have also
(Ex. xvi. 23, and Ley. xxiii. 24) ΣΦ), of more
intense signification than NAY ; also FINAL? NAY,
“a Sabbath of Sabbaths” (Ex. xxxi. 15, and else-
where). The name Sabbath is thus applied to divers
great festivals, but principally and usually to the
seventh day of the week, the strict observance of
which is enforced not merely in the general Mosaic
code, but in the Decalogue itself.
The first Scriptural notice of the weekly Sabbath,
though it is not mentioned by name, is to be found in
Gen. ii. 3, at the close of the record of the six days’
creation. And hence it is frequently argued that the
institution is as old as mankind, and is consequently
of universal concern and obligation. We cannot,
however, approach this question till we have ex-
amined the account of its enforcement upon the
Israelites. It is in Ex, xvi. 23-29 that we find the
first incontrovertible institution of the day, as one
given to, and to be kept by, the children of Israel.
Shortly afterwards it was re-enacted in the Fourth
Commandment, which gave it a rank above that of
an ordinary law, making it one of the signs of the
Covenant. As such it remained together with the
Passover, the two forming the most solemn and
distinctive features of Hebrew religious life. Its
neglect or profanation ranked foremost among na-
tional sins; the renewed observance of it was sure
to accompany national reformation.
Before, then, dealing with the question whether
its original institution comprised mankind at large, or
merely stamped on Israel a very marked badge of
nationality, it will be well to trace somewhat of its
position dnd history among the chosen people.
Many of the Rabbis date its first institution from
the incident* recorded in Ex. xv. 25; and believe
that the ““ statute and ordinance” there mentioned
as being given by God to the children of Israel was
that of the Sabbath, together with the command-
ment to honour father and mother, their previous
law having consisted only of what are called the
““seven precepts of Noah.” This, however, seems to
want foundation of any sort, and the statute and
ordinance in question are, we think, sufficiently ex-
plained by the words of ver. 26, “ If thou wilt
diligently hearken,” &c. We are not on sure ground
till we come to the unmistakeable institution in
chap. xvi. in connexion with the gathering of manna.
The words in this latter are not in themselves
enough to indicate whether such institution was
altogether a novelty, or whether it referred to a
day the sanctity of which was already known to
those to whom it was given. There is plausibility
certainly in the opinion of Grotius, that the day
was already known, and in some measure observed
as holy, but that the rule of abstinence from work
was first given then, and shortly afterwards more
explicitly imposed in the Fourth Commandment.
There it is distinctly set forth, and extended to the
whole of an Israelite’s household, his son and his
daughter, his slaves, male and female, his ox and
his ass, and the stranger within his gates. It would
seem that by this last was understood the stranger
who while still uncircumcised yet worshipped the
true God; for the mere heathen stranger was
a Vide Patrick in loc., and Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent.
Ἧ1-|9.
Ὁ Vide Grotius in loc., who refers to Aben-ezra.
SABBATH 1065
not considered to be under the law of the Sabbath,
In the Fourth Commandment, too, the institution
is grounded on the revealed truth of the six days’
creation and the Divine rest on the seventh; but
in the version of it which we find in Deuteronomy
a further reason is added—‘ and remember that
thou wast a stranger in the land of Egypt, and
that the Lorp thy God brought thee forth with a
mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm ; therefore
the Lorp thy God commanded thee to keep the
Sabbath day” (Deut. v. 15).
Penalties and provisions in other parts of the
Law construed the abstinence from labour prescribed
in the commandment. It was forbidden to light a
fire, a man was stoned for gathering sticks, on the
Sabbath. At a later period we find the Prophet
Isaiah uttering solemn warnings against. profaning,
and promising large blessings on the due obsery-
ance of the day (Is. lviii. 13, 14). In Jeremiah’s
time there seems to have been an habitual viola-
tion of it, amounting to transacting on it such an
extent of business as involved the carrying bur-
dens about (Jer. xvii. 21-27). His denunciations
of this seem to have led the Pharisees in their
bondage to the letter to condemn the impotent man
for carrying his bed on the Sabbath in obedience to
Christ who had healed him (John v. 10). We
must not suppose that our Lord prescribed a real
violation of the Law; and it requires little thought
to distinguish between such a natural and almost
necessary act as that which He commanded, and
the carrying of burdens in connexion with business
which is denounced by Jeremiah. By Ezekiel
(xx. 12-24), a passage to which we must shortly
return, the protanation of the Sabbath is made fore-
most among the national sins of the Jews. From
Nehemiah x. 31, we learn that the people entered
into a covenant to renew the observance of the Law,
in which they pledged themselves neither to buy
nor sell victuals on the Sabbath. The practice was
then not infrequent, and Nehemiah tells us (xiii.
15-22) of the successful steps which he took for its
stoppage.
Henceforward there is no evidence of the Sabbath
being neglected by the Jews, except such as (1 Mace.
i. 11-15, 39-45) went into open apostasy. The
faithful remnant were so scrupulous concerning it,
as to forbear fighting in self-defence on that day
(1 Mace. ii. 36), and it was only the terrible conse-
quences that ensued which led Mattathias and his
friends to decree the lawfulness of self-defence on
the Sabbath (1 Mace. ii. 41).
When we come to the N. T. we find the most
marked stress laid on the Sabbath. In whatever
ways the Jew might err respecting it, he had
altogether ceased to neglect it. On the contrary,
wherever he went its observance became the most
visible badge of his nationality. The passages of
Latin literature, such as Ovid, Art. Amat. i. 415;
Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96-106, which indicate this, are
too well known to require citation. Our Lord’s
mode of observing the Sabbath was one of the main
features of His life, which His Pharisaic adver-
saries most eagerly watched and criticised. They
had by that time invented many of those fantastic
prohibitions whereby the letter of the command-
ment seemed to be honoured at the expense of its
whole spirit, dignity, and value; and our Lord,
coming to vindicate and fulfil the Law in its real
scope and intention, must needs come into collision
with these.
Before proceeding to any of the more curious
1066 SABBATH
questions connected with the Sabbath, such as that
of its alleged prae-Mosaic origin and observance, it |
will be well to consider and determine what were
its true idea and purpose in that Law of which
beyond doubt it formed a leading feature, and
among that people for whom, if for none else, we
know that it was designed. And we shall do this
with most advantage, as it seems to us, by pur- |
suing the inquiry in the following order :—
I. By considering, with a view to their elimina- |
tion, the Pharisaic and Rabbinical prohibitions.
These we have the highest authority for rejecting,
as inconsistent with the true scope of the Law.
II. By taking a survey of the general Sabbatical
periods of Hebrew time. The weekly Sabbath stood
in the relation of keynote to a scale of Sabbatical
observance, mounting to the Sabbatical year and
the year of Jubilee.¢
pect that these can in some degree interpret each
other.
Ill. By examining the actual enactments of
Scripture respecting the seventh day, and the mode
in which such observance was maintained by the
best Israelites.
I. Nearly every one is aware that the Pharisaic
and Rabbinical schools invented many prohibitions
respecting the Sabbath of which we find nothing in
the original institution. Of these some may have
been legitimate enforcements in detail of that insti-
tution, such as the Scribes and Pharisees “ sitting
in Moses’ seat” (Matt. xxiii. 2, 3) had a right to
impose. How a general law is to be carried out in
particular cases, must often be determined for
others by such as have authority to do so, To this
class may belong the limitation of a Sabbath-day’s |
journey, a limitation not absolutely at variance with
the fundamental canon that the Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath, although it |
may have proceeded from mistaking a temporary
enactment for a permanent one.
of these prohibitions were fantastic and arbitrary,
in the number of those “heavy burdens and griev-
ous to be borne” which the later expounders of the |
Law ‘‘laid on men’s shculders.’?? We have seen
that the impotent man’s carrying his bed was con-
sidered a violation of the Sabbath—a notion pro-
bably derived from Jeremiah’s warnings against
the commercial traffic carried on at the gates of |
Jerusalem in his day. The harmless act of the
disciples in the corn-field, and the beneficent healing
of the man in the synagogue with the withered
hand (Matt. xii. 1-13), were alike regarded as
breaches of the Law. Our Lord’s reply in the
former case will come before us under our third
head ; in the latter He appeals to the practice of the
objectors, who would any one of them raise his own
sheep out of the pit into which the animal had
fallen on the Sabbath-day. Fyrom this appeal, we
are forced to infer that such practice would have
been held lawful at the time and place in which He
spoke. It is remarkable, however, that we find it
prohibited in other traditions, the law laid down
being, that in this casea man might throw some need-
ful nourishment to the animal, but must not pull
him out till the next day. (See Heylin, Hist. of
Jabbath, i. 8, quoting Buxtorf.) This rule possibly
came into existence in consequence of our Lord’s
appeal, and with a view to warding off the necessary
¢ It is obvious from the whole scope of the chapter
that the words, “ Ye shall keep my sabbaths,”
axvi, 2, related to all these.
It is but reasonable to sus- |
Many, however, |
in Lev. |
In the ensuing threat of ' (ver. 1, 34, 35),
SABBATH
inference from it. Still more fantastic prohibitions
were issued. It was unlawful to catch a dea on
the Sabbath, except the insect were actually hurt-
ing his assailant, or to mount into a tree, lest a
branch or twig should be broken in the process.
The Samaritans were especially rigid in matters
like these; and Dositheus, who founded a sect
amongst them, went so far as to maintain the obli-
| gation of a man’s remaining throughout the Sabbath
in the posture wherein he chanced to be at its com-
mencement—a rule which most people would find
quite destructive of its character as a day of rest.
When minds were occupied with such micrology, as
this has been well called, there was obviously no limit
to the number of prohibitions which they might
devise, confusing, as they obviously did, abstinence
from action of every sort with rest from business
and labour.
That this perversion of the Sabbath had become
| very general in our Saviour’s time is apparent both
from the recorded objections to acts of His on that
day, and from His marked conduct on occasions to
which those objections were sure to be urged. There
is no reason, however, for thinking that the Pha-
|Yisees had arrived at a sentence against pleasure of
every sort on the sacred day, The duty of hospi-
tality was remembered. It was usual for the rich
to give a feast on that day ; and our Lord’s attend-
_ance at such a feast, and making it the occasion of
| putting forth His rules for the demeanour of cuests,
and for the right exercise of hospitality, show that
the gathering of friends ;and social enjoyment were
not deemed inconsistent with the true scope aud
| spirit of the Sabbath. It was thought right that
the meats, though cold, should be of the best and
choicest, nor might the Sabbath be chosen for a
fast. ;
Such are the inferences to which we are brought
| by our Lord’s words concerning, and works on, the
sacred day. We have already protested against
the notion which has been entertained that they
were breaches of the Sabbath intended as harbingers
of its abolition. Granting for argument’s sake that
/such abolition was in prospect, still our Lord,
“made under the Law,” would have violated no
part of it so long as it was Law. Nor can anything
be inferred on the other side from the Evangelist’s
|language (John v. 18). The phrase ‘He had
broken the Sabbath,’ obviously denotes not the
character of our Saviour’s act, but the Jewish esti-
mate of it. He had broken the Pharisaic rules re-
specting the Sabbath. Similarly His own phrase,
“the priests profane the Sabbath and are blame-
less,’ can only be understood to assert the lawfulness
of certain acts done for certain reasons on that day,
which, taken in themselves and without those rea-
| sons, would be profanations of it. There remains
only His appeal to the eating of the shewbread by
David and his companions, which was no doubt in
its matter a breach of the Law. It does not follow,
| however, that the act in justification of which it is
appealed to was such a breach, It is rather, we
think, an argument a fortiori, to the effect, that if
| even a positive law might give place on occasion,
much more might an arbitrary rule like that of the
Rabbis in the case in question.
Finally, the declaration that “the Son of Man
is Lord also of the Sabbath,’ must not be viewed
|
judgment in case of neglect or violation of the Law, the
Sabbatical year would seem tw be mainly referred to
SABBATH
as though our Lord held Himself free from the
Law respecting it. It is to be taken in connexion
with the preceding words, ** the Sabbath was made
for man,” &c., from which it is an inference, as is
shown by the adverb therefore; and the Son of
Man is plainly speaking of Himself as the Man, the
Representative and Exemplar of all mankind, and
teaching us that the human race is lord of the
Sabbath, the day being made for man, not man for
the day.
If, then, our Lord, coming to fulfil and rightly
interpret the Law, did thus protest against the Phari-
saical and Rabbinical rules respecting the Sabbath,
we are supplied by this protest with a large negative
view of that ordinance. The acts condemned by
the Pharisees were not violations of it. Mere action,
as such, was not a violation of it, and far less was a
work of healing and beneficence. To this we shall
have occasion by and bye to return. Meanwhile
we must try to vain a positive view of the insti-
tution, and proceed in furtherance of this to our
second head.
II. The Sabbath, as we have said, was the key-
note to a scale of Sabbatical observance—consisting
of itself, the seventh month, the seventh year, and
the year of Jubilee. As each seventh day was
sacred, so was each seventh month, and each seventh
year. Of the observances of the seventh month,
little needs be said. That month opened with the
Feast of Trumpets, and contained the Day of Atone-
ment and Feast of Tabernacles—the last named
being the most joyful of Hebrew festivals. It is
not apparent, nor likely, that the whole of the
month was to be characterised by cessation from
labour; but it certainly has a place in the Sab-
batical scale. Its great centre was the Feast of
Tabernacles or Ingathering, the year and the year’s
labour having then done their work and yielded
their issues. In this last respect its analogy to the
weekly Sabbath is obvious. Only at this part of
the Sabbatical cycle do we find any notice of humi-
liation. On the Day of Atonement the people were
to afflict their souls (Lev. xxiii. 27-29).
The rules for the Sabbatical year are very precise.
As labour was prohibited on the seventh day, so
the land was to rest every seventh year, And as
each torty-ninth year wound up seven of such weeks
of years, so it either was itself, or it ushered in,
what was called “ the year of Jubilee.”
In Exodus xxiii. 10, 11, we find the Sabbatical
year placed in close connexion with the Sabbath
day, and the words in which the former is pre-
scribed are analogous to those of the Fourth Com-
mandment: ‘Six years thou shalt sow thy land
and gather in the fruits thereof; but the seventh
year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the
poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave
the beasts of the field shall eat.’ This is imme-
diately followed by a renewed proclamation of the
law of the Sabbath, “Six days thou shalt do thy
work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that
thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy
handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed.” It
-is impossible to avoid perceiving that in these pas-
sages the two institutions are put on the same
ground, and are represented as quite homogeneous.
Their aim, as here exhibited, is eminently a benefi-
cent one. To give rights to classes that would other-
wise have been without such, to the- bondman
and bondmaid, nay, to the beast of the field, is
viewed here as their main end. “The stranger,”
too, is comprehended in the benefit. Many, we
SABBATH 1067
suspect, while reading the Fomth Commandment,
merely regard him as subjected, together with his
host and family, to a prohibition. But if we con-
sider how continually the stranger is referred to in
the enactments of the Law, and that with a view
to his protection, the instances being one-and-twenty
in number, we shall be led to regard his inclusion
in the Fourth Commandment rather as a benefit
conferred than a prohibition imposed on him.
The same beneficent aim is still more apparent
in the fuller legislation respecting the Sabbatical
year which we find in Ley. xxv. 2-7, “ When
ye come into the land which I give you, then
shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord.
Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years
thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the
fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be a
sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath unto the
Lord; thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune
thy vineyard. That which groweth of its own
accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither
gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is
a year of rest unto the land. And the sabbath
of the land shai! be meat for you; for thee, and
for thy slave, and for thy maid, and for thy
hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth
with thee, and for thy cattle, and for the beasts
that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof
be meat,” One great aim of both institutions,
the Sabbath-day and the Sabbatical year, clearly
was to debar the Hebrew from the thought of ab-
solute ownership of anything. His time was not
his own, as was shown him by each seventh day
being the Sabbath of the Lord his God; his land
was not his own but God’s (Lev. xxv. 23), as was
shown by the Sabbath of each seventh year, during
which it was to have rest, and all individual right
over it was to be suspended. It was also to be the
year of release from debt (Deut. xv.). We do not
read much of the way in which, or the extent
to which, the Hebrews observed the Sabbatical
year. The reference to it (2 Chr. xxxvi. 21)
leads us to conclude that it had been much
neglected previous to the Captivity, but it was
certainly not lost sight of atterwards, since Alex-
ander the Great absolved the Jews from paying
tribute on it, their religion debarring them from
acquiring the means of doing so. [SABBATICAL
YEAR. |
The year of Jubilee must be regarded as com-
pleting this Sabbatical Scale, whether we consider
it as really the forty-ninth year, the seventh of a
week of Sabbatical years or the fiftieth, a question
on which opinions are divided. [JuBILEE, YEAR
or.] The difficulty in the way of deciding for
the latter, that the land could hardly bear enough
spontaneously to suffice for two years, seems
disposed of by reference to Isaiah xxxvii. 30, Adopt-
ing, therefore, that opinion as the most probable,
we must consider each week of Sabbatical years to
have ended in a double Sabbatical period, to which,
moreover, increased emphasis was given by the pe-
culiar enactments respecting the second half of such
period, the year of Jubilee.
Those enactments have been already considered
in the article just referred to, and throw further
light on the beneficent character of the Sabbatical
Law.
111. We must consider the actual enactments of
Scripture respecting the seventh day. However
homogeneous the different Sabbatical periods may
be, the weekly Sabbath is, as we have said, the
1068 SABBATH
tonic or keynote. It alone is prescribed in the
Decalogue, and it alone has in any shape survived
the earthly commonwealth of Israel. We must
still postpone the question of its observance by
the patriarchs, and commence our inquiry with
the institution of it in the wildemess, in con-
nexion with the gathering of manna (Ex. xvi.
23). The prohibition to gather the manna on the
Sabbath is accompanied by one to bake or to seethe
on that day. The Fourth Commandment gives us
but the genefality, “all manner of work,” and,
seeing that action of one kind or another is a neces-
sary accompaniment of waking life, and cannot
therefore in itself be intended, as the later Jews
imagined, by the prohibition, we are left to seek
elsewhere for the particular application of the
general principle. That general principle in itself,
however, obviously embraces an abstinence from
worldly labour or occupation, and from the en-
forcing such on servants or dependents, or on the
stranger. By him, as we have said, is most pro-
bably meant the partial proselyte, who would not
have received much consideration from the Hebrews
had they been left to themselves, as we must infer
from the numerous laws enacted for his protection.
Had man been then regarded by him as made for
the Sabbath, not the Sabbath for man, that is, had
the prohibitions of the commandment been viewed
as the putting on of a yoke, not the conferring of a
privilege, one of the dominant race would probably
have felt no reluctance to placing such a stranger
under that yoke. The naming him therefore in the
commandment helps to interpret its whole principle,
and testifies to its having been a beneficent privilege
for all who came within it. It gave rights to the
slave, to the despised stranger, even to the ox and
the ass,
This beneficent character of the Fourth Com-
mandment is very apparent in the version of it
which we find in Deuteronomy: ‘‘ Keep the Sab-
bath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour and
do all thy work , but the seventh day is the Sab-
bath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
nor thy bondman, nor thy bondwoman, nor thine
ox, nor thiné ass, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates: that thy bondman and thy bond-
woman may rest as well as thou. And remember
that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence
through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out
arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the Sabbath-day ” (Deut. v. 12-15).
But although this be so, and though it be plain
that to come within the scope of the command-
_ ment was to possess a franchise, to share in a privi-
lege, yet does the original proclamation of it in
Exodus place it on a ground which, closely con-
nected no doubt with these others, is yet higher and
more comprehensive. ‘The Divine method of work-
ing and rest is there proposed to man as the model
after which he is to work and to rest. Time then
presents a perfect whole, is then well rounded and
entire, when it is shaped into a week, modelled on
the six days of creation and their following Sabbath.
Six days’ work and the seventh day’s rest conform
the life of man to the method of his Creator. In
distributing his life thus, man may look up to God
as his Archetype. We need not suppose that the
Hebrew, even in that early stage of spiritual educa-
tion, was limited by so gross a conception as that
SABBATH
of God working and then resting, as if needing rest.
The idea awakened by the record of creation and
by the Fourth Commandment is that of work that
has a consummation, perfect in itself and coming to
a perfect end; and man’s work is to be like this,
not aimless, indefinite, and incessant, but having an
issue on which he can repose, and see and rejoice in
its fruits. God’s rest consists in His seeing that
all which He has made is very good; and man’s
works are in their measure and degree very good
when a six days’ faithful labour has its issue in a
seventh of rest after God’s pattern. It is most
important to remember that the Fourth Command-
ment is not limited to a mere enactment respecting
one day, but prescribes the due distribution of a
week, and enforces the six days’ work as much as
the seventh day’s rest.
This higher ground of observance was felt to
invest the Sabbath with a theological character, and
rendered it the great witness for faith in a personal
and creating God. Hence its supremacy over all
the Law, being sometimes taken as the representa-
tive of it all (Neh. ix. 14). The Talmud says that
“the Sabbath is in importance equal to the whole
Law ;” that “he who desecrates the Sabbath openly
is like him who transgresses the whole Law;”
while Maimonides winds up his discussion of the
subject thus: “ He who breaks the Sabbath openly
is like the worshipper of the stars, and both are
like heathens in every respect.”
In all this, however, we have but an assertion
of the general principle of resting on the Sabbath,
and must seek elsewhere for information as to the
details wherewith that principle was to be brought
out. We have already seen that the work forbidden
is not to be confounded with action of every sort,
To make this confusion was the error of the later
Jews, and their prohibitions would go far to render
the Sabbath incompatible with waking life. The
terms in the commandment show plainly enough
the sort of work which is contemplated. They are
S3YN and mDNdD, the former denoting servile
work, and the latter business (see Gesenius sub. voc. 5
Michaelis, Laws of Moses, iv. 195). The Penta-
teuch presents us with but three applications of the
general principle. The lighting a fire in any house
on the Sabbath was strictly forbidden (Ex. xxxv. 3),
and a man was stoned for gathering sticks on that
day (Num. xv. 32-36). The former prohibition is
thought by the Jews to be of perpetual force; but
some at least of the Rabbis have held that it applies
only to lighting a fire for culinary purposes, not to
doing so in cold weather for the sake of warmth,
The latter case, that of the man gathering sticks,
was perhaps one of more /abour and business than
we are apt to imagine. The third application of
the general principle which we find in the Penta-
teuch was the prohibition to go out of the camp,
the command to every one to abide in his place
(Ex. xvi. 29) on the Sabbath-day. This is so ob-
viously connected with the gathering the manna,
that it seems most natura] to regard it as a mere
temporary enactment for the circumstances of the
people in the wilderness. It was, however, after-
wards considered by the Hebrews a permanent law,
and applied, in the absence of the camp, to the city
in which a man might reside. To this was ap-
pended the dictum that a space of two thousand ells
on every side of a city belonged to it, and to go
that distance beyond the walls was permitted as
κε ἃ Sabbath-day’s journey.”
The reference of Isaiah to the Sabbath gives us
SABBATH
no details. Those in Jeremiah and Nehemiah show
that carrying goods for sale, and buying such, were
equally profanations of the day.
There is no ground for supposing that to engage
the enemy on the Sabbath was considered unlawful
before the Captivity. On the contrary, there is
much force in the argument of Michaelis (Laws
of Moses, iv. 196) to show that it was not. His
reasons are as follows :—
1. The prohibited JAY, service, does not even
suggest the thought of war.
2. The enemies of the chosen people would have
continually selected the Sabbath as a day of attack, had
the latter been forbidden to defend themselves then.
3. We read of long-protracted sieges, that of
Rabbah (2 Sam. xi., xii.), and that of Jerusalem in
the reign of Zedekiah, which latter lasted a year
and a half, during which the enemy would cer~
tainly have taken advantage of any such abstinence
from warfare on the part of the chosen people.
At a subsequent period we know (1 Mace. ii.
34-38) that the scruple existed and was acted on
with most calamitous effects. Those effects led
(1 Mace. ii. 41) to determining that action in self-
defence was lawful on the Sabbath, initiatory attack
not. The reservation was, it must be thought,
nearly as great a misconception of the institution
as the overruled scruple. Certainly warfare has
nothing to do with the servile labour or the worldly
business contemplated in the Fourth Commandment,
and is, as regards religigus observance, a law to
itself. Yet the scruple, like many other scruples,
proved a convenience, and under the Roman Empire
the Jews procured exemption from military service
by means of it. It was not, however, without its
evils. In the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey (Joseph.
Ant. xiv. 4), as well as in the final one by Titus,
the Romans took advantage of it, and, abstaining
from attack, prosecuted on the Sabbath, without
molestation from the enemy, such works as enabled
them to renew the assault with increased resources.
So far therefore as we have yet gone, so far as
the negative side of Sabbatical observance is con-
cerned, it would seem that servile labour, whether
that of slaves or of hired servants, and all worldly
business on the part of masters, was suspended on
the Sabbath, and the day was a common right to
yest and be refreshed, possessed by all classes in
the Hebrew community. It was thus, as we
have urged, a beneficent institution.4: As a sign
between God and His chosen people, it was also
a monitor of faith, keeping up a constant wit-
ness, on the ground taken in Gen. ii. 3, and in
the Fourth Commandment, for the one living and
personal God whom they worshipped, and for the
truth, in opposition to all the cosmogonies of the
heathen, that everything was created by Him.
We must now quit the negative for the positive
side of the institution.
In the first place, we learn from the Pentateuch
that the morning and evening sacrifice were both
doubled on the Sabbath-day, and that the fresh
shew-bread was then baked, and substituted on the
Table for that of the previous week. And this
at once leads to the observation that the negative
rules, proscribing work, lighting of fires, &c., did
not apply to the rites of religion. It became a
dictum that there was no Sabbath in holy things.
To this our Saviour appeals when He says that the
SABBATH 1069
priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath and are
blameless.
Next, it is clear that individual offerings were
not breaches of the Sabbath; and from this doubt-
less came the feasts of the rich on that day, which
were sanctioned, as we have seen, by our Saviour’s
attendance on one such, It was, we may be pretty
sure, a feast on a sacrifice, and therefore a religious
act. All around the giver, the poor as well as
others, were admitted to it. Yet further, ‘* in cases
of illness, and in any, even the remotest, danger,”
the prohibitions of work were not held to apply.
The general principle was that ‘‘ the Sabbath is deli-
vered into your hand, not you into the hand of the
Sabbath” (comp. Mark ii. 27, 28).
We have no ground for supposing that anything
like the didactic institutions of the synagogue formed
part of the original observance of the Sabbath. Such
institutions do not come into being while the matter
to which they relate is itself only in process of
formation, Expounding the Law presumes the
completed existence of the Law, and the removal
of the living lawgiver. The assertion of the Tal-
mud that ‘ Moses ordained to the Israelites that
they should read the Law on the Sabbath-days, the
feasts, and the new moons,” in itself improbable, is ὁ
utterly unsupported by the Pentateuch. The rise
of such custom in after times is explicable enough.
[SynaGoGueE.] But from an early period, if not,
as is most probable, from the very institution,
occupation with holy themes was regarded as an
essential part of the observance of the Sabbath. It
would seem to have been an habitual practice to
repair to a prophet on that day, in order, it must
be presumed, to listen td his teaching (2 K. iv. 23).
Certain Psalms too, 6. g. the 92nd, were composed
for the Sabbath, and probably used in private as
well as in the Tabernacle. At a later period we
come upon precepts that on the Sabbath the mind
should be uplifted to high and holy themes—te
God, His character, His revelations of Himself, His
mighty works. Still the thoughts with which the
day was invested were ever thoughts, not of re-
striction, but of freedom and of joy. Such indeed
would seem, from Neh. viii. 9-12, to have been
essential to the notion of a holy day. We have
more than once pointed out that pleasure, as such,
was never considered by the Jews a breach of the
Sabbath; and their practice in this respect is often
animadverted on by the early Christian Fathers.
who taunt them with abstaining on that day only
from what is good and useful, but indulging in
dancing and. luxury. Some of the heathen, indeed,
such as Tacitus, imagined that the Sabbath was
kept by them as a fast, a mistake which might
have arisen from their abstinence from cookery on
that day, and perhaps, as Heylin conjectures, from
their postponement of their meals till the more
solemn services of religion had been performed.
But there can be no doubt that it was kept as a
feast, and the phrase luxus Sabbatarius, which we
find in Sidonius Apollinaris (i. 2), and which has
been thought a proverbial one, illustrates the mode
in which they celebrated it in the early centuries
of our era. The following is Augustine’s descrip-
tion of their practice :— Eece hodiernus dies Sab-
bati est: hunc in praesenti tempore otio quodam
corporaliter Janguido et fluxo et luxurioso celebrant
Judaei. Vacant enim ad nugas, et cum Deus prae-
ἃ In this light the Sabbath has found a champion in
one who would not, we suppose, have paid it much respect
in its theological character ; we mean no less a person than
M. Proudhon (De la Célébration du Dimamnche).
1070 SABBATH
ceperit Sabbatum, illi in his quae Deus prohibet| is the reference to it in Gen. ii. 2, 3.
exercent Sabbatum,. Vacatio nostra a malis operi-
bus, vacatio illorum a bonis operibus est. Melius
est enim arare quam saltare. Illi ab opere bono
vacant, ab opere nugatorio non vacant” (Aug.
Enarr. in Psalmos, Ps. xci.: see too Aug. De
decem Chordis, iii. 3; Chrysost. Homil. I., De
Lazaro; and other references given: by Bingham,
Hiecl. Ant. lib. xx. cap. ii.). And if we take what
alone is in the Law, we shall find nothing to be
counted absolutely obligatory but rest, cessation
from labour. Now, as we have more than once
had occasion to observe, rest, cessation from labour,
cannot in the waking moments mean avoidance of
all action. This, therefore, would be the question
respecting the scope and purpose of the Sabbath
which would always demand to be devoutly con-
sidered and intelligently answered—what is truly
yest, what is that cessation from labour which is
really Sabbatical? And it is plain that, in appli-
cation and in detail, the answer to this must almost
indefinitely vary wit men’s varying circumstances,
habits, education, and familiar associations.
We have seen, then, that, for whomsoever else the
provision was intended, the chosen race were in
possession of an ordinance, whereby neither a man’s
time nor his property could be considered absolutely
his own, the seventh of each week being holy to
God, and dedicated to rest after the pattern of God’s
rest, and giving equal rights to all. We have also
seen that this provision was the tonic to a chord of
Sabbatical observance, through which the same great
principles of God’s claim and society’s, on every
man’s time and every man’s property, were extended
and developed. Of the Sabbatical year, indeed, and
of the year of Jubilee, it may be questioned whether
they were ever persistently observed, the only indi-
cations that we possess of Hebrew practice respecting
them being the exemption from tribute during the
former accorded to the Jews by Alexander, to which
we have already referred, and one or two others,
all, however, after the Captivity. [SABBATICAL
YEAR; YEAR OF JUBILEE. |
But no doubt exists that the weekly Sabbath was
always partially, and in the Pharisaic and subsequent
times very strictly, however mistakenly, observed.
We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely as a
Mosaic ordinance. It remains to ask whether, first,
there be indications of its having been previously
known and observed ; and, secondly, whether it have
an universal scope and authority over all men.
The former of these questions is usually ap-
proached with a feeling of its being connected with
the latter, and perhaps therefore with a bias in
favour of the view which the questioner thinks will
support his opinion on the latter. It seems, how-
ever, to us, that we may dismiss any anxiety as to the
results we may arrive at concerning it. No doubt,
if we see strong reason for thinking that the Sabbath
had a prae-Mosaic existence, we see something in it
that has more than a Mosaic character and scope.
But it might have had such without having an uni-
versal authority, unless we are prepared to ascribe
that to the prohibition of eating blood or things
strangled. And again, it might have originated in
the Law of Moses, and yet possess an universally
human scope, and an authority over all men and
through all time. Whichever way, therefore, the
second of our questions is to be determined, we may
easily approach the first without anxiety.
The first and chief argument of those who
maintain that the Sabbath was known before Moses,
SABBATH
This is con-
sidered to represent it as co-aeval with man, being
instituted at the Creation, or at least, as Lightfoot
views the matter, immediately upon the Fall. This
latter opinion is so entirely without rational sround
of any kind that. we may dismiss it at once. But
the whole argument is very precarious. We have
no materials for ascertaining, or even conjecturing,
which was put forth first, the record of the Creation,
or the Fourth Commandment. If the latter, then
the reference to the Sabbath in the former is abund-
antly natural. Had, indeed, the Hebrew tongue the
variety of preterite tenses of the Greek, the words
in Genesis might require careful consideration in
that regard; but as the case is, no light can be had
from grammar ; and on the supposition of these being
written after the Fourth Commandment, their ab-
sence, or that of any equivalent to them, would be
really marvellous.
The next indication of a prae-Mosaic Sabbath has
been found in Gen. iv. 3, where we read that ‘ in
process of time it came to pass that Cain brought
of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.”
The words rendered 27) process of time mean literally
“at the end of days,”’ and it is contended that they
designate a fixed period of days, probably the end
of a week, the seventh or Sabbath-day. Again,
the division of time into weeks seems recognised
in Jacob’s courtship of Rachel (Gen. xxix. 27, 28).
Indeed the large recognition of that division from
the earliest time is considered a proof that it must
have had an origin above and independent of local
and accidental cireumstances, and been imposed on
man at the beginning from above, Its arbitrary
and factitious character is appealed to in further
confirmation of this. The sacredness of the seventh
day among the Egyptians, as recorded by Herodotus,
and the well-known words of Hesiod respecting it,
have long been cited among those who adopt this
view, though neither of them in reality gives it the
slightest support. Lastly, the opening of the Fourth
Commandment, the injunction to remember the
Sabbath-day, is appealed to as proof that that day
was already known.
It is easy to see that ali this is but a precarious
foundation on which to build. It is not clear that
the words in Gen, iv. 3 denote a fixed division of
time of any sort. Those in Gen. xxix, obviously do,
buat carry us no farther than proving that the week
was known and recognized by Jacob and Laban ;
though it must be admitted that, in the case of time
so divided, sacred rites would probably be celebrated
on a fixed and statedly recurring day. The argu-
ment from the prevalence of the weekly division of
time would require a greater approach to univer-
sality in such practice than the facts exhibit, to make
it a cogent one. That division was unknown to the
ancieut Greeks and Romans, being adopted by the
latter people from the Egyptians, as must be inferred
from the well-known passage of Dion Cassius (xxxvii.
18, 19), at a period in his own time comparatively
recent; while of the Egyptians themselves it is
thought improbable that they were acquainted with
such division in early times. The sacredness of the
seventh day mentioned by Hesiod, is obviously that
of the seventh day, not of the week, but of the
month. And even after the weekly division was
established, no trace can be found of anything re-
sembling the Hebrew Sabbath.
While the injunction in the Fourth Commandment
to remember the Sabbath-day may refer only to its
previous institution in connexion with the gathering
SABBATH
of manna, or may be but the natural precept to
keep in mind the rule about to be delivered—a phrase
natwral, and continually recurring in the intercourse
of life, as, for example, between parent and child—
on the other hand, the perplexity of the Israelites
respecting the double supply of manna on the sixth
day (Ex. xvi. 22) leads us to infer that the Sabbath
for which such extra supply was designed was not
then known to them. Moreover the language of
Ezekiel (xx.) seems to designate it as an ordinance
distinctively Hebrew and Mosaic.
Wecannot then, from the uncertain notices which
we possess, infer more than that the weekly division
of time was known to the Israelites and others before
the Law of Moses. [WxeEk.] ‘There is proba-
bility, though not more, in the opinion of Grotius,
that the seventh day was deemed sacred to reli-
gious observance; but that the Sabbatical observance
of it, the cessation from labour, was superinduced
on it in the wilderness.
But to come to our second question, it by no
means follows, that even if the Sabbath were no
older than Moses, its scope and obligation are limited
to Israel, and that itself belongs only to the obsolete
enactments of the Levitical Law. That law con-
tains two elements, the code of a particular nation,
and commandments of human and universal cha-
racter, For it must not be forgotten that the
Hebrew was called out from the world, not to live
on a narrower but a far wider footing than the
children of earth; that he was called out to be the
true man, bearing witness for the destiny, exhibiting
the aspect, and realizing the blessedness, of true
manhood. Hence, we can always see, if we have a
mind, the difference between such features of his
Law as are but lecal and temporary, and such as
are human and universal. To which class belongs
the Sabbath, viewed simply in itself, is a question
which will soon come before us, and one which
does not appear hard to settle. Meanwhile, we must
inquire into the case as exhibited by Scripture.
And here we are at once contronted with the
fact that the command to keep the Sabbath forms
part of the Decalogue. And that the Decalogue
had a rank and authority above the other enact-
ments of the Law, is plain to the most cursory
readers of the Old Testament, and is indicated by
its being written on the two Tables of the Cove-
nant, And though even the Decalogue is affected
by the New Testament, it is not soin the way
of repeal or obliteration. It is raised, trans-
figured, glorified there, but itself remains in its
authority and supremacy. Not to reter just now
to our Saviour’s teaching (Matt. xix. 17-19), of
which it might be alleged that it was delivered
when, and to the persons over whom, the Old Law
was in force—such passages as Rom. xiii. 8, 9, and
Eph. vi. 2, 3, seem decisive of this. In some way,
therefore, the Fourth Commandment has an au-
thority over, and is to be obeyed by, Christians,
though whether in the letter, or in some large
spiritual sense and scope, is a question which still
remains.
The phenomena respecting the Sabbath presented
by the New Testament are, Ist, the frequent re-
ference to it in the four Gospels; and 2ndly, the
silence of the Epistles, with the exception of one
place (Col. ii. 16, 17), where its repeal. would seem
to be asserted, and perhaps one other (Heb. iv. 9).
1st. The references to it in the four Gospels are,
it needs not be said, numerous enough. We have
already seen the high position which it took in the
SABBATH 1071
minds of the Rabbis, and the strange code of pro-
hibitions which they put forth in connexion with
it. The consequence of this was, that no part of
our Saviour’s teaching and practice would seem to
have been so eagerly and narrowly watched as that
which related to the Sabbath. He seems even to
have directed attention to this, thereby intimat-
ing surely that on the one hand the misapprehen-
sion, and on the other the true fulfilment of the
Sabbath were matters of deepest concern. We have
already seen the kind of prohibitions against which
both His teaching and practice were directed; and
His two pregnant declarations, “ The Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” and
“* My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” surely
exhibit to us the Law of the Sabbath as human and
universal. The former sets it forth as a privilege
and a blessing, and were we therefore to suppose it
absent trom the provisions of the covenant of grace,
we must suppose that covenant to have stinted man
of something that was made for him, something
that conduces to his well-being. The latter won-
derfully exalts the Sabbath by referring it, even as
do the record of Creation and the Fourth Command-
ment, to God as its archetype; and in showing us
that the repose of God does not exclude work—inas-
much as God opens His hand daily and filleth all
things living with plenteousness—shows us that
the rest of the Sabbath does not exclude action,
which would be but a death, but only that week-
day action which requires to be wound up in a rest
that shall be after the pattern of His, who though
He has rested from all the work that He hath
made, yet “ worketh hitherto,”
2ndly. The Epistles, it. must be admitted, with
the exception of one place, and perhaps another to
which we have already referred, are silent on the
subject of the Sabbath. No rules for its observ-
ance are ever given by the Apostles—its violation
is never denounced by them, Sabbath-breakers are
never included in any list of offenders. Col. ii. 16,
17, seems a far stronger argument for the abolition
of the Sabbath in the Christian dispensation than
is furnished by Heb. iv. 9 for its continuance ; and
while the first day of the week is more than once
referred to as one of religious observance, it is never
identified with the Sabbath, nor are any prohi-
bitions issued in connexion with the former, while
the omission of the Sabbath from the list of
“necessary things” to be observed by the Gentiles
(Acts xv. 29), shows that they were regarded by
the Apostles as free from obligation in this matter.
When we turn to the monuments which we
possess of the early Church, we’ find ourselves on
the whole carried in the same direction. The seventh
day of the week continued, indeed, to be observed,
being kept as a feast by the greater part of the
Church, and as atfast from an early period by that
of Rome, and one or two other Churches of the
West; but not as obligatory on Christians in the
same way as on Jews. The Council of Laodicea
prohibited all scruple about working on it; and
there was a very general admission among the
early Fathers that Christians did not Sabbatize in
the letter.
Again, the observance of the Lord’s Day as a
Sabbath would have been well nigh impossible to
the majority of Christians in the first ages. The
slave of the heathen master, and the child of the
heathen father, could neither of them haye the
control of his own conduct in such a matter ; while
the Christian in general would have been at once
1072 SABBATH
betrayed and dragged into notice if he was found
abstaining from labour of every kind, not on the
seventh but the first day of the week. And yet
it is clear that many were enabled without blame
to keep their Christianity long a secret; nor does
there seem to have been any obligation to divulge
it, until heathen interrogation or the order to
sacrifice dragged it into daylight.
When the early Fathers speak of the Lord’s Day,
they sometimes, perhaps, by comparing, connect
it with the Sabbath; but we have never found a
passage, previous to the conversion of Constantine,
prohibitory of any work or occupation on the
former, and any such, did it exist, would have
been in a great measure nugatory, for the reasons
just allesed. [Lorp’s Day.] After Constantine
things become different at once. His celebrated
edict prohibitory of judicial proceedings on the
Lord’s Day was probably dictated by a wish to
give the great Christian. festival as much honour
as was enjoyed by those of the heathen, rather
than by any reference to the Sabbath or the Fourth
Commandment; but it was followed by several
which extended the prohibition to many other occu-
pations, and to many forms of pleasure heid inno-
cent on ordinary days. When this became the case,
the Christian Church, which ever believed the
Decalogue, in some sense, to be of universal obliga-
tion, could not but feel that she was enabled to
keep the Fourth Commandment in its letter as well
as its spirit; that she had not lost the type even
in possessing the antitype; that the great law of
week-day work and seventh-day rest, a law so
generous and so ennobling to humanity at large,
was still in operation. .True, the name Sabbath
was always used to denote the seventh, as that
of the Lord’s Day to denote the first, day of the
week, which latter is nowhere habitually called
the Sabbath, so far as we are aware, except in
Scotland and by the English Puritans. But it
was surely impossible to observe both the Lord’s
Day, as was done by Christians after Constantine,
and to read the Fourth Commandment, without
connecting the two; and, seeing that such was to be
the practice of the developed Church, we can under-
stand how the silence of the N. T. Epistles, and
even the strong words of St. Paul (Col. ii. 16,
17), do not impair the human and universal scope
of the Fourth Commandment, exhibited so strongly
in the very nature of the Law, and in the teaching
respecting if of Him who came not to destroy the
Law, but to fulfil.
In the East, indeed, where the seventh day of
the week was long kept as a festival, that would,
present itself to men’s minds as the Sabbath, and
the first day of the week would appear rather in
its distinctively Christian character, and as of
Apostolical and ecclesiastical origin, than in con-
nexion with the Old Law. But in the West the
seventh day was kept for the most part as a fast,
and that for a reason merely Christian, viz. in
commemoration of our Lord’s lying in the sepulchre
throughout that day. Its observance therefore
would not obscure the aspect of the Lord’s Day as
that of hebdomadal rest and refreshment, and as
consequently the prolongation of the Sabbath in the
essential character of that benignant ordinance :
and, with some variation, therefore, of verbal state-
ment, a connexion between the Fourth Command-
ment and the first day of the week (together, as
should be remembered, with the other festivals of
the Church), came to be perceived and proclaimed.
| rest as still future and contingent.
SABBATH
Attention has recently been called, in connexion
with our subject, to a circumstance which is im-
portant, the adoption by the Roman world of
the Egyptian week almost contemporaneously
with the founding of the Christian Church. Dion
Cassius speaks of that adoption as recent, and
we are therefore warranted in conjecturing the
time of Hadrian as about that wherein it must have
established itself. Here, then, would seem a signal
Providential preparation for providing the people
of God with a literal Sabbatismus; for prolonging
in the Christian kingdom that great institution
which, whether or not historically older than the
Mosaic Law, is yet in its essential character adapted
to all mankind, a witness for a personal Creator
and Sustainer of the universe, and for His call to
men to model their work, their time, and their
lives, on His pattern. -
Were we prepared to embrace an exposition
which has been given of a remarkable passage
already referred to (Heb. iv. 8-10), we should
find it singularly illustrative of the view just
suggested. The argument of the passage is to
this effect, that the rest on which Joshua entered,
and into which he made Israel to enter, cannot be
the true and final rest, inasmuch as the Psalmist
long afterwards speaks of the entering into that
In ver. 9 we
have the words “there remaineth, therefore, a rest
for the people of God.” Now it is important that
throughout the passage the word for rest is κατά-
mavots, and that in the words just quoted it is
changed into σαββατισμός, which certainly means
the keeping of rest, the act of sabbatizing rather
than the objective rest itself. It has accordingly
been suggested that those words are not the author’s
conclusion—which is to be found in the form of
thesis in the declaration ‘‘ we which have believed
do enter into rest ’’—but a parenthesis to the effect
that “to the people of God,’ the Christian com-
munity, there remaineth, there is left, a Sabbat-
izing, the great change that has passed upon them
and the mighty elevation to which they have been
brought as on other matters, so as regards the
Rest of God revealed to them, still leaving scope
for and justifying the practice.¢ This exposition is
in keeping with the general scope of the Ep. to
the Hebrews ; and the passage thus viewed will
seem to some minds analogous to xiii. 10. It is
given by Owen, and is elaborated with great in-
genuity by Dr. Wardlaw in his Discourses on the
Sabbath. It will not be felt fatal to it that more
than 300 years should have passed before the
Church at large was in a situation to discover the
heritage that had been preserved to her, or to
enter on its enjoyment, when we consider how
development, in all matters of ritual and ordinance,
must needs be the law of any living body, and
much more of one which had to struggle from
its birth with the impeding forces of a heathen
empire, frequent persecution, and an unreclaimed
society. In such case was the early Church, and
therefore she might well have to wait for a Con-
stantine before she could fully open her eyes to
the fact that sabbatizing was still.left to her;
and her members might well be permitted not to
see the truth in any steady or consistent way
even then.
The objections, however, to this exposition are
e According to this exoosition the words of ver. 10,
“for he that hath entered, &c.’ are referred to Christ,
SABBATH
many and great, one being, that it has occurred
to so few among the great commentators who have
laboured on the Ep. to the Hebrews. Chrysostom
(mm loc.) denies that there is any reference to
hebdomadal sabbatizing. Nor have we found any
commentators, besides the two just named, who
admit that there is such, with the single exception
of Ebrard. Dean Alford notices the interpretation
only to condemn it, while Dr. Hessey gives an-
other, and that the usual explanation of the verse,
suggesting a sufficient reason tor the change of word
from κατάπαυσις to σαββατισμός. It would not
have been right, however, to have passed it over
in this article without notice, as it relates to a
passage of Scripture in which Sabbath and Sabba-
tical ideas are markedly brought forward.
It would be going beyond the scope of this
article to trace the history of opinion on the Sab-
bath in the Christian Church. Dr. Hessey, in his
Bampton Lectures, has sketched and distinguished
every variety of doctrine which has been or still is
maiutained on the subject.
The sentiments and practice of the Jews sub-
sequent to our Saviour’s time have been already
referred to. A curious account—taken from Bux-
torf, De Synag.—of their superstitions, scruples,
and prohibitions, will be found at the close of the
first part of Heylin’s Hist. of the Sabbath. Cal-
met, (art. ‘‘Sabbath ”), gives an interesting sketch
of their family practices at the beginning and end
of the day. And the estimate of the Sabbath,
its uses, and its blessings, which is formed by the
more spiritually minded Jews of the present day
may be inferred from some striking remarks or
Dr. Kalisch (Comm. on Exodus), p. 273, who
winds up with quoting a beautiful passage from
the late Mrs. Horatio Montefiore’s work, A Few
Words to the Jews.
Finally, M. Prondhon’s striking pamphlet, De
la Célébration du Dimanche considérée sous les
rapports de V Hygiéne publique, de la Morale, des
relations de Famille ct de Cité, Paris, 1850, may
be studied with great advantage. His remarks
(p. 67) on the advantages of the precise propor-
tion established, six days of work to one of rest,
and the inconvenience of any other that could be
arranged, are well worth attention.
The word Sabbath seems sometimes to denote a
week in the N. T. Hence, by the Hebrew usage of
reckoning time by cardinal numbers, ἐν τῇ μιᾷ τῶν
σαββατῶν, means on the first day of the week.
The Rabbis have the same phraseology, keeping,
however, the word Sabbath in the singular.
On the phrase of St. Luke, vi. 1, ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ
δευτεροπρώτῳ, see SABBATICAL YEAR.
This article should be read in connexion with that
on the Lorp’s Day.
Literature :—Critict Sacri, on Exod, ; Heylin’s
Hist. of the Sabbath; Selden, De Jure Natur.
et Gent.; Buxtorf, De Synag.; Barrow, xpos.
of the Decalogue; Paley, Moral and Political
Philosophy, v. 7; James, On the Sacraments and
Sabbath ; Whately’s Thoughts on the Sabbath;
Wardlaw, On the Sabbath; Maurice, On the Sab-
bath; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, arts. cxciv.—vi.,
elxviii.; Oehler, in Herzog’s Real-Encycl, “ Sab-
bath ;” Winer, Realwérterbuch, “Sabbath ;’ Biihr,
Symbolik des Mos. Cult. vol. iu. bk. iv. ch. 11, §2;
Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary on
O. T. in Exod. XX,; Proudhon, De la Célébration
du Dimanche ; and especially Dr. Hessey’s Sunday ;
the Bampton Lecture for 1860. [F. G.]
VOL, II.
SABBATH-DAY’S JOURNEY 1073
SABBATH-DAY’S JOURNEY (Σαββάτου
ὁδός, Acts i. 12). On occasion of a violation of
the commandment by certain of the people who
went to look for manna on the seventh day,
Moses enjoined every man to “abide in his
place,’ and forbade any man to “go out of his
place” on that day (Ex. xvi. 29). It seems
natural to look on this as a mere enactment
pro re nata, and haying no bearing on any state
of affairs subsequent to the journey through the
wilderness and the daily gathering of manna.
Whether the earlier Hebrews did or did not regard
it thus, it is not easy to say. Nevertheless, the
natural inference from 2 K. iv. 23 is against the
supposition of such a prohibition being known to
the spokesman, Elisha almost certainly living—as
may be seen from the whole narrative—much
more than a Sabbath Day’s Journey from Shunem.
Heylin infers from the incidents of David’s flight
from Saul, and Elijah’s from Jezebel, that neither
felt bound by such a limitation. Their situation,
however, being one of extremity, cannot be safely
argued from. In after times the precept in Ex.
xvi. was ‘undoubtedly viewed as a permanent law.
But as some departure from a man’s own placé
was unavoidable, it was thought necessary to de-
termine the allowable amount, which was fixed at
2000 paces, or about six furlongs, from the wall of
the city.
Though such an enactment may have proceeded
from an erroneous view of Ex. xvi. 29, it is by
no means so superstitious and unworthy on the
face of it as are most of the Rabbinical rules and
prohibitions respecting the Sabbath Day. In the
case of a general law, like that of the Sabbath,
some authority must settle the application in
details, and such an authority “the Scribes and
Pharisees sitting in Moses’ seat’? were entitled to
exercise. It is plain that the limits of the Sab-
bath Day’s Journey must have been a great check
on the profanation of the day in a country where
business was entirely agricultural or pastoral, and
must have secured to ‘‘the ox and the ass”? the
rest to which by the Law they were entitled.
Our Saviour seems to refer to this law in
warning the disciples to pray that their flight from
Jerusalem in the time of its judgment should not
be ‘on tne Sabbath Day” (Matt. xxiv. 20). The
Christians of Jerusalem would not, as in the case
of Gentiles, feel free from the restrictions on jour-
neying on that day; nor would their situation en-
able them to comply with the forms whereby such
journeying when necessary was sanctified ; nor would
assistance from those around:be procurable.
The permitted distance seems to have been
grounded on the space to be kept between the
Ark and the people (Josh. iii. 4) in the wilderness,
which tradition said was that between the Ark and
the tents. To repair to the Ark being, of course,
a duty on the Sabbath, the walking to it was no
violation of the day; and it thus was taken as the
measure of a lawful Sabbath Day’s Journey. We
find the same distance given as the cireumference
outside the walls of the Levitical cities to be
counted as their suburbs (Num. xxxv. 5). The
terminus a quo was thus not a man’s own house,
but the wall of the city where he dwelt, and thus
the amount of lawful Sabbath Day's journeying
must therefore have varied greatly ; the movements
of a Jew in one of the small cities of his own land
being restricted indeed when compared with those
of a Jew in Alexandria, Antioch or Rome.
ὃ Z
1074 SABBATHEUS
When a man was obliged to go farther than a
Sabbath Day’s Journey, on some good and allow-
able ground, it was incumbent on him on the
‘evening before to furnish himself with food enough
for two meals. He was to sit down and eat at the
appointed distance, to bury what he had left, and
utter a thanksgiving to God for the appointed
boundary. Next morning he was at liberty to
make this point his terminus a quo.
The Jewish scruple to go more than 2000 paces
from his city on the Sabbath is referred to by
Origen, περὶ ἀρχῶν, iv. 2; by Jerome, ad Alga-
siam, quaest. LO; and by Oecumenius—with some
apparent difference between them as to the measure-
ment. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and Hillel, as
the authorities for the lawful distance. [Ἐ΄. G-],
SABBATHE'US (SaBBaraios: Sabbathacus).
SHABBETHAI the Levite (1 Esd. ix. 14; comp. Ezr.
Xa 0).
SABBATICAL YEAR. As each seventh day
and each seventh month were holy, so was each
seventh year, by the Mosaic code. We first en-
counter this law in Ex. xxiii. 10, 11, given in
words corresponding to those of the Fourth Com-
mandment, and followed (ver. 12) by the re-en-
forcement of that commandment. It is impossible to
read the passage and not feel that the Sabbath Day
and the Sabbatical year are parts of one general law.
The commandment is, to sow and reap for six
years, and to let the land rest on the seventh,
“that the poor of thy people may eat ; and what
they leave the beasts of the field shall eat.” It is
added, ‘In like manner thou shalt deal with thy
vineyard and thy oliveyard.”
We next meet with the enactment in Lev. xxv.
2-7, and finally in Deut. xv., in which last place
the new feature presents itself of the seventh year
being one of release to debtors.
When we combine these several notices, we find
that every seventh year the land was to have
rest to enjoy her Sabbaths. Neither tillage nor
cultivation of any sort was to be practised. The
spontaneous growth ofthe soil was not to be reaped
by the owner, whose rights of property were in
abeyance. All were to have their share in the glean-
ings: the poor, the stranger, and even the cattle.
This singular institution has the aspect, at first
sight, of total impracticability. This, however,
wears off when we consider that in no year was
the owner allowed to reap the whole harvest (Lev.
xix. 9, xxiii. 22). Unless, therefore, the remainder
was gleaned very carefully, there may easily have
been enough left to ensure such spontaneous deposit
of seed as in the fertile soil of Syria would produce
some amount of crop in the succeeding year, while
the vines and olives would of course yield their
fruit of themselves. Moreover, it is clear that the
owners of land were to lay by corn in previous years
for their own and their families’ wants. This is
the unavoidable inference from Lev. xxv. 20-22.
And though the right of property was in abeyance
during the Sabbatical year, it has been suggested
that this only applied to the fields, and not to the
gardens attached to houses.
The claiming of debts was unlawful during this
year, as we learn from Deut. xv. The exceptions
jaid down are in the case of a foreigner, and that of
there being no poor in the land. This latter, how-
ever, it is straightway said, is what will never
happen. But though debts might not be claimed,
it is not said that they might not be voluntarily |
SABBATICAL YEAR
paid; and it has been questioned whether the re-
lease of the seventh year was final or merely lasted
through the year. This law was virtually abro-
gated in later times by the well-known prosbol® of
the great Hillel, a permission to the judges to
allow a creditor to enforce his claim whenever he
required to do so. The formula is given in the
Mishna (Shewiith, 10, 4).
The release of debtors during the Sabbatical year
must not be confounded with the release of slaves
on the seventh year of their service. ‘The two are
obviously distinct—the one occurring at one fixed
time for all, while the other must have varied with
various families, and with various slaves.
The spirit of this law is the same as that of the
weekly Sabbath. Both have ἃ beneficent ten-
dency, limiting the rights and checking the sense of
property; the one puts in God’s claims on time, the
other on the land. The land shall ‘ keep a Sabbath
unto the Lord.” “ὙΠΟ land is mine.”
There may also have been, as Kalisch conjectures,
an eye to the benefit which would accrue to the
land from lying fallow every seventh year, in a
time when the rotation of crops was unknown.
The Sabbatical year opened in the Sabbatical
month, and the whole Law was to be read every
such year, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to the
assembled people. It was thus, like the weekly
Sabbath, no mere negative rest, but was to be
marked by high and holy occupation; and connected
with sacred reflection and sentiment.
At the completion of a week of Sabbatical years,
the Sabbatical scale received its completion in the
year of Jubilee. For the question whether that
was identical with the seventh Sabbatical year, or
was that which succeeded it, 7. 6. whether the year
of Jubilee fell every forty-ninth or every fiftieth
year, see JUBILER, YEAR OF.
The next question that presents itself regarding
the Sabbatical year relates to the time when its
observance became obligatory. It has been inferred
from Leviticus xxv. 2, “ When ye come into the
land which I give you, then shall the land keep a
Sabbath unto the Lord,” that it was to be held by
the people on the first year of their occupation of
Canaan; but this mere literalism gives a result in
contradiction to the words which immediately fol-
low: “Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six
years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in
the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be
a Sabbath of rest unto the land.” It is more rea-
sonable to suppose, with the best Jewish authori-
ties, that the law became obligatory fourteen years
after the first entrance into the Promised Land, the
conquest of which took seven years and the distribu-
tion seven more.
A further question arises. At whatever period
the obedience to this law ought to have commenced,
was it in point of fact obeyed? This is an inquiry
which reaches to more of the Mosaic statutes than
the one now before us. It is, we apprehend, rare
to see the whole of a code in full operation; and
the phenomena of Jewish history previous to the
Captivity present us with no such spectacle. In the
threatenings contained in Lev. xxvi., judgments on
the violation of the Sabbatical year are particu-
larly contemplated (vers. 32, 34) ; and that it was
greatly if not quite neglected appears from 2 Chron.
a ὈΞΥ —probably προβουλή or προσβολή. For
this and other curious speculations on the etymology of the
word see Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. 1307.
SABBEUS
xxxvi. 20, 21: “Them that escaped from the sword
carried he away to Babylon; where they were
seryants to him and his sons until the reign of the
kingdom of Persia: to fulfil the word of the Lord
by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had en-
joyed her Sabbaths ; for as long as she lay desolate
she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.”
Some of the Jewish commentators have inferred
from this that their forefathers had neglected exactly
seventy Sabbatical years. If such neglect was con-
tinuous, the law must have been disobeyed through-
out a period of 490 years, 7. 6. through nearly the
whole duration of the monarchy ; and as there is
nothing in the previous history leading to the in-
ference that the people were more scrupulous then,
we must look to the return from captivity for indi-
cations of the Sabbatical year being actually ob-
served. Then we kuow the former neglect was re-
placed by a punctilious attention to the Law ; and as
its leading feature, the Sabbath, began to be scrupu-
lously reyerenced, so we now find traces of a like
observance of the Sabbatical year. We read (1 Mace.
vi. 49) that “they came out of the city, because
they had no victuals there to endure the siege, it
being a year of rest to the land.’ Alexander the
Great is said to have exempted the Jews from tri-
bute during it, since it was unlawful for them to
sow seed or reap harvest then; so, too, did Julius
Caesar (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, 86). Tacitus (ist.
lib. v. 2, $4), having mentioned the observance of
the Sabbath by the Jews, adds :—* Dein blan-
dienti inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae
datum.” And St. Paul, in reproaching the Ga-
latians with their Jewish tendencies, taxes them
with observing years as well as days and months
and times (Gal. iv. 10), from which we must infer
that the teachers who communicated to them those
tendencies did more or less the like themselves.
Another allusion in the N. T. to the Sabbatical year
is perhaps to be found in the phrase, ἐν σαββάτῳ
δευτεροπρώτῳ (Luke vi. 1). Various explanations
have been given of the term, but one of the most
probable is that it denotes the first Sabbath of
the second year in the cycle (Wieseler, quoted by
Alford, vol. 1.). [F. G.]
SABBE'US (Σαββαίας ; Alex. SaBBaos: Sa-
meas), 1 Hsdr. ix. 32, [SHBMATAH, 14.]
SABE’ANS. [Sueza.]
SA'BI (Σαβείν ; Alex. Σαβιή : Sabathen). “The
children of Pochereth of Zebaim” appear in 1 Esd.
y. 34 as “ the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabi.”
SAB'TAH (AAD, in 21 MSS. δὲ ΠΣ’, Gen.
xiles NPD, 1Chr-i.9, A. V. SABTA: Σαβατθά:
Sabatha). The third in order of the sons of Cush.
In accordance with the identifications of the settle-
ments of the Cushites in the article ARABIA and
elsewhere, Sabtah should be looked for along the
southern coast of Arabia. The writer has found no
traces in Arab writers; but the statements of Pliny
(vi. 32, $155, xii. 32), Ptolemy (vi. 7, p. 411), and
Anon. Peripl. (27), respecting Sabbatha, Sabota, or
Sobotale, metropolis of the Atramitae (probably the
Chatramotitae), seem to point to a trace of the
tribe which descended from Sabtah, always sup-
posing that this city Sabbatha was not a corrup-
tion or dialectic variation of Saba, Seba, or Sheba.
This point will be discussed under SHEBA. It is
only necessary to remark here that the indications
afforded by the Greek and Roman writers of Arabian
geography require very cautious handling, pre-
SACAR 1075
senting, as they do, a mass of contradictions and
transparent travellers’ tales respecting the unknown
regions of Arabia the Happy, Arabia Thurifera, &.
Ptolemy places Sabbatha in 77° long. 16° 30! lat.
It was an important city, containing no less than
sixty temples (Pliny, NV. /. vi. c. xxiii. §32); it was
also situate in the territory of king Elisarus, or
Eleazus (comp. Anon. Peripl. ap. Miiller, Geog.
Min. 278-9), supposed by Fresnel to be identical
with “6 Ascharides,”’ or ** Alascharissoun,” in Arabic
(Journ. Asiat. Nouv. Serie, x. 191). Winer thinks
the identification of Sabtah with Sabbatha, &c., to
be probable; and it is accepted by Bunsen (ibel-
werk, Gen, x. and Atlas). It certainly occupies a
position in which we should expect to find traces of
Sabtah, where are traces of Cushite tribes in very
early times, on their way, as we hold, from their
earlier colonies in Ethiopia to the Euphrates.
Gesenius, who sees in Cush only Ethiopia, “ has
no doubt that Sabtah should be compared with
Σαβάτ, SaBd, Σαβαί (see Strab. xvi. p. 770,
Casaub. ; Ptol. iv. 10), on the shore of the Arabian
Gulf, situated just where Arkiko is now, in the neigh-
bourhood of which the Ptolemies hunted elephants.
Amongst the ancient translators, Pseudojonathan
saw the true meaning, rendering it °877DD, for
which read "SOD, 7. 6. the Sembritae, whom
Strabo (loc. cit. p. 786) places in the same region.
Josephus (Ant. i. 6, §1) understands it to be the
inhabitants of Astabora ” (Gesenius, ed. Tregelles,
s.v.). Here the etymology of Sabtah is compared
plausibly with Sa8ar; but when probability is
against his being found in Ethiopia, etymology
is of small value, especially when it is remem-
bered that Sabat and its variations (Sabax, Sabai)
may be related to Seba, which certainly was in
Ethiopia. On the Rabbinical authorities which
he quotes we place no value.» It only remains
to add that Michaelis (Suppl. p. 1712) removes
Sabtah to Ceuta opposite Gibraltar, called in Arabic
ZOE
Sebtah, KAAmw (comp. Marasid, s. v.); and that
Bochart (Phaleg, i. 114, 115, 252, seqq.), while
he mentions Sabbatha, prefers to place Sabtah near
the western shore of the Persian Gulf, with the
Saphtha of Ptolemy, the name also of an island in
that gulf. [E. S. P.]
SAB'TECHA, and SAB'TECHAH (NDAD :
Σαβαθακά, Σεβεθαχά: Subatacha, Sabathacha,
Gen. x. 7, 1 Chr.i. 9). The fifth in order of the
sons of Cush, whose settlements would probably be
near the Persian Gulf, where are those of Raamah,
the next before him in the order of the Cushites.
[RaAmMAH, DEDAN, SHEBA.] He has not been iden-
tified with any Arabic place or district, nor satis-
factorily with any name given by classical writers.
Bochart (who is followed by Bunsen, Bibelw., Gen.
x, and Atlas) argues that he should be placed in Car-
mania, on the Persian shore of the gulf, comparing
Sabtechah with the city of Samydace of Steph. Byz.
(Ξαμιδάκη or ΣΣαμυκάδη of Ptol. vi. 8,7). This ety-
mology appears to be very far-fetched. Gesenius
merely says that Sabtechah is the proper name of a
district of Ethiopia, and adds the reading of the Targ.
Pseudojonathan (%N33}, Zingitani). [z. S. P.]
SA'CAR (3: Axap; Alex. Saxdp: Sachar).
1. A Hararite, father of Ahiam, one of David’s
mighty men (1 Chr. xi. 35). In 2 Sam. xxiii. 35
he is called SHaARAR, but Kennicott regards Sacar
as the correct reading.
2 2
1076 SACKBUT
2. (Saxdp.) The fourth son of Obed-edom (1
Chr. xxvi. 4).
SACKBUT (N30, Dan. iii. 5; NDBY, Dan.
iii. 7,10, 15: σαμβύκη : sambuca). The rendering
in the A. V. of the Chaldee sabbécd. If this mu-
sical instrument be the same as the Greek cap Bunn
and Latin sambuca,* the English translation is en-
tirely wrong. The sackbut was a wind-instrument ;
the sambuca was played with strings. Mr. Chappell
says (Pop. Mus. i. 35), <* The sackbut was a bass
trumpet with a slide, like the modern trombone.”
It had a deep note according to Drayton (Polyolbion,
iv. 365):
“ The hoboy, sagbut deep, recorder, and the flute.”
The sambuca was a triangular instrument with
four or more strings played with the fingers. Ac-
cording to Athenaeus (xiv. 633), Masurius described
it as haying a shrill tone; and Euphorion, in his
book on the Isthmian Games, said that it was used
by the Parthians and Troglodytes, and had four
strings. Its invention is attributed to one Sambyx,
and to Sibylla its first use (Athen. xiv. 637). Juba,
in the 4th book of his Theatrical History, says it
was discovered in Syria, but Neanthes of Cyzicum,
in the first book of the Hours, assigns it to the poet
Ibyeus of Rhegium (Athen. iv. 77). This last tra-
dition is followed by Suidas, who describes the sam-
buca asa kind of triangular harp. That it was a
foreign instrument is clear from the statement of
Strabo (x. 471), who says its name is barbarous.
Isidore of Seville (Orig. iii. 20) appears to regard
it as a wind instrument, for he connects it with the
sambucus, or elder, a kind of light wood of which
pipes were made.
The sambuca was early known at Rome, for
Plautus (Stich. ii. 2, 57) mentions the women who
played it (sambucae, or sambucistriae, as they are
called in Livy, xxxix. 6). It was a favourite among
the Greeks (Polyb. v. 37), and the Rhodian women
appear to have been celebrated for their skill on
this instrument (Athen. iv. 129).
There was an engine called sambuca used in
siege operations, which derived its name from the
musical instrument, because, according to Athenacus
(xiv. 654), when raised it had the form of a ship
and a ladder combined in one. [W. A. W.]
SACKCLOTH (pw: σάκκος : saccus). A
coarse texture, of a dark colour, made of goats’
hair (Is. 1. 3; Rev. vi. 12), and resembling the
cilicium of the Romans. [Ὁ was used (1.) for
making sacks, the same word describing both the
material and the article (Gen. xlii. 25; Lev. xi.
32; Josh. ix. 4); and (2.) for making the rough
garments used by mourners, which were in extreme
cases worn next the skin (1 K. xxi. 27; 2 K. vi.
30; Job xvi. 15; Is. xxxii. 11), and this even by
females (Joel i. 8; 2 Mace. iii. 19), but at other
times were worn over the coat or cethoneth (Jon.
iii. 6) in lieu of the outer garment. The robe pro-
bably resembled a sack in shape, and fitted close to
the person, as we may infer from the application of
the term chdgar» to the process of putting it on
(2 Sam. iii. 31; Ez. vii. 18, &c.). It was con-
fined by a girdle of similar material (Is. iii, 24).
Sometimes it was worn throughout the night (1 K.
xxi. 27). [We L. Bal
ἃ Compare ambubaia, from Syr. ΔΊΣ, abbiba, a
flute, where the m occupies the place of the dagesh.
b ΠῚ,
|
SACRIFICE
SACRIFICE. The peculiar features of each
kind of sacrifice are referred to under their re-
speetive heads ; the object of this article will be :—
I. To examine the meaning and derivation of
the various words used to denote sacrifice in Scrip-
ture.
11. To examine the historical development of
sacrifice in the Old Testament.
III. To sketch briefly the theory of sacrifice, as
it is set forth both in the Old and New Testaments,
with especial reference to the Atonement of Christ.
I. Of all the words used in reference to sacri-
fice, the most general appear to be—
(a.) M3, minchah, from the obsolete root
M319, “to give;” used in Gen, xxxii. 13, 20, 21, of
ae
a gift from Jacob to Esau (LXX. δῶρον) : in 2
Sam. viii. 2, 6 (ξένια), in 1 Κ΄. iv. 21 (δῶρα),
in 2 K. xvii. 4 (uavad), of a tribute from a vassal
king; in Gen. iv. 3, 5, of a sacrifice generally
(δῶρον and θυσία, indifferently); and in Lev. ii.
1, 4, 5, 6, joined with the word korban, of an
unbloody sacrifice, or ‘ meat-offering” (generally
δῶρον θυσία). Its derivation and usage point to
that idea of sacrifice, which represents it as an Eu-
charistic gift to God our King.
(5.) JAP, Aorban, derived from the root 37,
Tor ω =
“to approach,” or (in Hiphil) to “make to ap-
proach ;” used with minchah in Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5, 6,
(LXX. δῶρον θυσία), generally rendered δῶρον
(see Mark vii. 11, κορβᾶν, 8 ἐστι δῶρον) or mpoo-
φόρα. The idea of a gift hardly seems inherent in
the root; which rather points to sacrifice, as a
symbol of communion or covenant between God
and man.
(c.) Mt, zebach, derived trom the root M3t, to
“slaughter animals,” especially to “ slay in sacri-
fice,” refers emphatically to a bloody sacrifice, one
in which the shedding of blood is the essential
idea. Thus it is opposed to minchah, in ῬΕΙ͂ ΣΙ Ὁ
(θυσίαν καὶ προσφοράν), and to dlah (the whole
burnt-offering) in Ex. x. 25, xviii. 12, &c. With it
the expiatory idea of sacrifice is naturally connected.
Distinct from these general terms, and often
appended to them, are the words denoting special
kinds of sacrifice :—
(ἃ.) πον, διαί. (generally ὁλοκαύτωμα), the
τ
“‘ whole burnt-offering.”
(e.) obvi, shelem (θυσία σωτηρίου). used fre-
quently with Mar, and sometimes called 272, the
“ peace-” or “ thank-offering.””
(f.) MINION, chatidth (generally περὶ ἁμαρτία),
soit
the “ sin-offering.”
(g-) DWN, dshdm (generally πλημμελεία) the
ors er
“ trespass-oflering.”
For the examination of the derivation and mean-
ing of these, see each under its own head.
II. (A.) ORIGIN OF SacriFICE,
In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first
beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic
ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed
question, as to the oriyin of sacrifice; whether it
arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned
and guided by God, or whether it was the subject
of some distinct primeval revelation.
It is a question, the importance of which has
probably been exaggerated. There can be no doubt,
SACRIFICE
that sacrifice was sanctioned by God’s Law, with a
special typical reference to the Atonement of Christ ;
its universal prevalence, independent of, and often
opposed to, man’s natural reasonings on his relation
to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply
rooted in the instincts of humanity. Whether it was
first enjoined by an external command, or whether
it was based on that sense of sin and lost communion
with God, which is stamped by His hand on the
heart of man—is a historical question, perhaps inso-
luble, probably one which cannot be treated at all,
except in connexion with some general theory of the
method of primeval revelation, but certainly one,
which does not affect the authority and the meaning
of the rite itself.
The great difficulty in the theory, which refers
it to a distinct command of God, is the total silence
of Holy Scripture—a silence the more remarkable,
when contrasted with the distinct reference made in
Gen. ii. to the origin of the Sabbath. Sacrifice when
first mentioned, in the case of Cain and Abel, is re-
ferred to as a thing of course; it is said to have
been brought by men ; there is no hint of any com-
mand given by God. This consideration, the strength
of which no ingenuity® has been able to impair,
although it does not actually disprove the formal
revelation of sacrifice, yet at least forbids the asser-
tion of it, as of a positive and important doctrine.
Nor is the fact of the mysterious and super-
natural character of the doctrine of Atonement, with
which the sacrifices of the O. T. are expressly con-
nected, any conclusive argument on this side of the
question. All allow that the eucharistic and depre-
catory ideas of sacrifice are perfectly natural to
man. . The higher view of its expiatory character,
dependent, as it is, entirely on its typical nature,
appears but gradually in Scripture. It is veiled under
other ideas in the case of the patriarchal sacrifices.
It is first distinctly mentioned in the Law (Lev.
xvii. 11, &c.); but even then the theory of the sin-
effering, and of the classes of sins to which it
referred, is allowed 40 be obscure and difficult ; it
is only in the N. T. (especially in the Epistle to the
Hebrews) that its nature is clearly unfolded. It is
as likely that it pleased God gradually to superadd
the higher idea to an institution, derived by man
from the lower ideas (which must eventually find
their justification in the higher), as that He ori-
ginally commanded the institution when the time
for the revelation of its full meaning was not yet
come. ‘The rainbow was just as truly the symbol
of God’s new promise in Gen, ix. 13-17, whether it
had or had not existed, as a natural phenomenon
before the Flood. What God sets His seal to, He
makes a part of His revelation, whatever its origin
may be. It is to be noticed (see Warburton’s Div.
Leg. ix. c. 2) that, except in Gen. xv. 9, the method |
of patriarchal sacrifice is left free, without any
direction on the part of God, while in all the
Mosaic ritual the limitation and regulation of sacri-
fice. as to time, place, and material, is a most pro-
minent feature, on which much of its distinction
from heathen sacrifice depended. The inference is
SACRIFICE 1077
at least probable, that when God sanctioned formally
a natural rite, then, and not till then, did He define -
its method.
The question, therefore, of the origin of sacrifice
is best left in the silence, with which Scripture sur-
rounds it.
(B.) AnrE-Mosarc History OF SACRIFICE,
In examining the various sacrifices, recorded in
Scripture before the establishment of the Law, we
find that the words specially denoting expiatory
sacrifice (NWN and Dw) are not applied to
them. This fact does not at all show, that they
were not actually expiatory, nor even that the
offerers had not that idea of expiation, which must
have been vaguely felt in all sacrifices; but it jus-
tifies the inference, that this idea was not then the
prominent one in the doctrine of sacrifice.
The sacrifice of Cain and Abel is called minchah,
although in the case of the latter it was a bloody
sacrifice. (So in Heb. xi. 4 the word θυσία is
explained by the τοῖς δώροις below.) In the case
of both it would appear to have been eucharistic,
and the distinction between the offerers to have
lain in their “ faith ” (Heb. xi. 4). Whether that
faith of Abel referred to the promise of the Redeemer,
and was connected with any idea of the typical
meaning of sacrifice, or whether it was a simple
and humble faith in the unseen God, as the giver
and promiser of all good, we are not authorised by
Scripture to decide.
The sacrifice of Noah after the Flood (Gen. viii.
20) 15 called burnt-offering (d/ah). This sacrifice
is expressly connected with the institution of the
Covenant which follows in ix. 8-17. The same
ratification of a covenant is seen in the burnt-
offering of Abraham, especially enjoined and defined
by God in Gen. xv. 9; and is probably to be traced
in the “ building of altars” by Abraham on entering
Canaan at Bethel (Gen. xii. 7, 8) and Mamre (xiii.
18), by Isaac at Beersheba (xxvi. 25), and by Jacob
at Shechem (xxxiii. 20), and in Jacob’s setting up
and anointing of the pillar at Bethel (xxviii. 18,
xxxv. 14). The sacrifice (zebach) of Jacob at Mizpak
also marks a covenant with Laban, to which God
is called to be a witness and a party. Inall these,
therefore, the prominent idea seems to have been
what is called the federative, the recognition of a
bond between the sacrificer and God, and the dedi-
cation of himself, as represented by the victim, to
the service of the Lord.
The sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 1-13) stands by
itself, as the sole instance in which the idea of human
sacrifice was even for a moment, and as a trial,
countenanced by God. Yet in its principle it ap-
pears to have been of the same nature as before:
the voluntary surrender of an only son on Abraham's
part, and the willing dedication ot himself on Isaac’s,
are in the foreground ; the expiatory idea, if recog-
nised at all, holds certainly a secondary position.
In the burnt-offerings of Job for his children
(Job i. 5) and for his three friends (xlii. 8), we,
for the first time, find the expression of the desire
* See, for example (as in Faber’s Origin of Sacrifice),
the elaborate reasoning on the translation of ΤΙΝΙ
in Gen. iv. 7. Even supposing the version, a “ sin-
offering coucheth at the door’’ to be correct, on the
ground of general usage of the word, of the curious version
of the LXX., and of the remarkable grammatical con-
struction of the masculine participle, with the feminine
noun (as referring to the fact that the sin-offering was
actually a male), still it does not settle the matter. The
Lord even then speaks of sacrifice as existing, and as
known to exist: He does not institute it fhe sup-
position that the “skins of beasts” in Gen. iii. 21 were
skins of animals sacrificed by God’s command is a pure
assumption. The argument on Heb. xi. 4, that faith can
rest only on a distinct Divine command as to the special
occasion of its exercise, is contradicted by the general
definition of it given in v. 1.
1078 SACRIFICE
of expiation for sin, accompanied by repentance and
prayer, and brought prominently forward. The
same is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh,
as to the necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness
_ (Ex. x. 25), where sacrifice (zebach) is distinguished
from burnt-offering. Here the main idea is at least
deprecatory ; the object is to appease the wrath, and
avert the vengeance of God.
(C.) Tue SACRIFICES OF THE Mosaic PERIOD.
These are inaugurated by the offering of the
PASSOVER and the sacrifice of Ex. xxiv. The
Passover indeed is unique in its character, and
seems to embrace the peculiarities of all the various
divisions of sacrifice soon to be established. Its
ceremonial, however, most nearly resembles that of
the sin-offering in the emphatic use of the blood,
which (atter the first celebration) was poured at the
bottom of the altar (see Ley. iv. 7), and in the care
taken that none of the flesh should remain till the
morning (see Ex. xii, 10, xxxiv. 25). It was unlike
it in that the flesh was to be eaten by all (not burnt,
or eaten by the priests alone), in token of their
entering into covenant with God, and eating “ at
His table,” as in the case of a peace-offering. [{5
peculiar position as a historical memorial, and its
special reference to the future, naturally mark it
out as incapable of being referred to any formal class
of sacrifice; but it is clear that the idea of sal-
vation from death by means of sacrifice is brought
out in it with a distinctness before unknown.
The sacrifice of Ex. xxiv., offered as a solemn in-
auguration of the Covenant of Sinai, has a similarly
comprehensive character. It is called a ‘burnt-
offering ” and “ peace-offering” in v. 5; but the
solemn use of the blood (comp. Heb. ix. 18-22)
distinctly marks the idea that expiatory sacrifice
was needed for entering into covenant with God,
the idea of which the sin- and trespass-offerings
were afterwards the symbols. :
The Law of Leviticus now unfolds distinctly the
various forms of sacrifice :—
(a.) The burnt-offering. SELF-DEDICATORY.
(b.) Lhe meat-offering (unbloody) |
The peace-offering (bloody) f
(c.) The sin-offering Ὶ
The trespass-offering § JELSIUE
To these may be added,—
(d.\ The incense offered after sacrifice in the
Holy Place, and (on the Day of Atonement) in the
Holy of Holies, the symbol of the intercession of the
priest (as a type of the Great High Priest), accom-
panying and making efficacious the prayer of the
people.
In the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev.
viii.) we find these offered, in what became ever
afterwards the appointed order: first came the
sin-oflering, to prepare access to God; next the
burnt-offering, to mark their dedication to His
service; and thirdly the meat-offermg of thanks-
giving. The same sacrifices, in the same order,
with the addition of a peace-offering (eaten no
doubt by all the people), were offered a week after
for all the congregation, and accepted visibly by
the descent of fire upon the burnt-otiering. Hence-
forth thé sacrificial system was fixed in all its parts,
until He should come whom it typified.
It is to be noticed that the Law of Leviticus
EUCHARISTIC.
Ὁ For instances of infringement of this rule uncensured,
see Judg. ii. 5, vi. 26, xiii. 193 1 Sam. xi. 15, xvi.5; 2Sam
vi. 13; 1 K. iii. 2, 3. Most of these cases are special,
SACRIFICE
takes the rite of sacrifice for granted (see Lev. i. 2,
ii, 1, &c., “Ifa man bring an offering, ye shall,”
&e.), and is directed chiefly to guide and limit its
exercise. In every case but that of the peace-
offering, the nature of the victim was carefully
prescribed, so as to preserve the ideas symbolized,
but so as to avoid the notion (so inherent in
heathen systems, and finding its logical result in
human sacrifice) that the more costly the offering,
the more surely must it meet with acceptance.
At the same time, probably in order to impress
this truth on their minds, and also to guard against
corruption by heathenish ceremonial, and against
the notion that sacrifice in itself, without obedi-
ence, could avail (see 1 Sam, xv. 22, 23), the place
of offering was expressly limited, first to the Taber-
nacle,» afterwards to the Temple. This ordinance
also necessitated their periodical gathering as one
nation before God, and so kept clearly before their
minds their relation to Him as their national King.
Both limitations brought out the great truth, that
God Himself provided the way by which man
should approach Him, and that the method of
reconciliation was initiated by Him, and not by
them.
In consequence of the peculiarity of the Law, it
has been argued (as by Outram, Warburton, &c.)
that the whole system of sacrifice was only a con-
descension to the weakness of the people, borrowed,
more or less, from the heathen nations, especially
from Egypt, in order to guard against worse super-
stition and positive idolatry. The argument is
mainly based (see Warb. Div. Leg. ἵν.» sect. vi. 2)
on Ez. xx. 25, and similar references in the O. and
N.T. to the nullity of all mere ceremonial. Taken
as an explanation of the theory of sacrifice, it is weak
and superficial; it labours under two fatal diffi-
culties, the historical fact of the primeval existence of
sacrifice, and its typical reference to the one Atone-
ment of Christ, which was foreordained from the
very beginning, and had been already typified, as,
for example, in the sacrifice of Isaac. But as giving
a reason for the minuteness and elaboration of the
Mosaic ceremonial, so remarkably contrasted with
the freedom of patriarchal sacrifice, and as furnish-
ing an explanation of certain special rites, it may
probably have some value. It certainly contains this
truth, that the craving for visible tokens of God's
presence, and visible rites of worship, from which
idolatry proceeds, was provided for and turned into a
safe channel, by the whole ritual and typical system,
of which sacrifice was the centre. The contact with
the gigantic system of idolatry, which prevailed in
Egypt, and which had so deeply tainted the spirit
of the Israelites, would doubtless render such pro-
vision then especially necessary. It was ove part
of the prophetic office to guard against its degrada-
tion into formalism, and to bring out its spiritual
meaning with an ever-increasing clearness.
(D.) Post-Mosatc SACRIFICES.
It will not be necessary to pursue, in detail, the
history of Post-Mosaic Sacrifice, for its main prin-
ciples were now fixed for ever. The most remark-
ablé instances of sacrifice on a large scale are by
Solomon at the consecration of the Temple (1 K.
viii. 63), by Jehoiada after the death of Athaliah
(2 Chr. xxii, 18), and by Hezekiah at his great
Passover and restoration of the Temple-worship
some authorized by special command; but the Law pro-
bably did not attain to its full strictness till the foundation
of the Temple.
SACRIFICE
(2 Chr. xxx. 21-24). In each case, the lavish use
of victims was chiefly in the peace-offerings, which
were a sacred national feast to the people at the
Table of their Great King.
The regular sacrifices in the Temple service
were :—
(a.) BURNT-OFFERINGS.
1. The daily burnt-offerings (Ex. xxix. 38-42).
2. The double burnt-offerings on the Sabbath
(Num. xxviii. 9, 10).
3. The burnt-offerings at the great festivals
(Num. xxviii, 11-xxix. 39).
(6.) MEAT-OFFERINGS.
1. The daily meat-offerings accompanying the
daily burnt-otferings (flour, oil, and wine) (Ex.
xxix. 40, 41).
2. The shew-bread (twelve loayes with frankin-
cense), renewed every Sabbath (Lev. xxiv. 5-9).
3. The special meat-offerings at. the Sabbath and
the great festivals (Num. xxvili., xxix.).
4, The first-fruits, at the Passover (Lev. xsiii.
10-14), at Pentecost (xxiii. 17-20), both “ wave-
offerings ;” the first-fruits of the dough and thresh-
ing-floor at the harvest-time (Num. xv. 20, 21;
Deut. xxvi. 1-11), called ““ heave-offerings.”
(c.) SIN-OFFERINGS.
1. Sin-offering (a kid) each new moon (Num.
xxviii. 15).
2. Sin-offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast
of Trumpets, and Tabernacles (Num. xxviii. 22, 30,
xxix. Ὁ. 16,19, 22, 255028, 31, 34, 38).
3. The offering of the two goats (the goat |
sacrificed, and the scape-goat) for the people, and
of the bullock for the priest himself, on the Great
Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.). ͵
(d.) INCENSE.
1. The morning and evening incense (Ha. xxx.
7-8).
: The incense on the Great Day of Atonement
(Lev. xvi. 12).
Besides these public sacrifices, there were offer-
ings of the people for themselves individually ; at
the purification of women (Lev. xii.), the presenta-
tion of the first-born, and circumcision of all male
children, the cleansing of the leprosy (Lev. xiv.) or
any uncleanness (Ley. xy.), at the fulfilment of
Nazaritic and other vows (Num. vi. 1-21), on oc-
casions of marriage and of burial, &c., &c., besides
the frequent offering of private sin-offerings. ‘hese
must have kept up a constant succession of sacri-
fices every day; and brought the rite home to
every man’s thought, and to every occasion of
human life.
(HI.) In examining the doctrine of sacrifice, it is
necessary to remember, that, in its development,
the order of idea is not necessarily the same as the
order of time. By the order of sacrifice in its per-
fect form (as in Ley. viii.) it is clear that the sin-
offering occupies the most important place, the
burnt-offering comes next, and the meat-offering or
peace-offering last of all. The second could only
be offered, after the first had been accepted; the
third was only a subsidiary part of the second.
Yet, in actual order of time, it has been seen, that
the patriarchal sacrifices partook much more of
the nature of the peace-offering and burnt-offering ;
and that, under the Law, by which was “ the know-
© See Magee’s Diss. on Sacr., vol. i. diss. v., and Ernst
von Lasaulx’s Treatise on Greek and Roman Sacrifice,
SACRIFICE - 1079
ledge of sin”’ (Rom. iii. 20) the sin-offering was for
the first time explicitly set forth. This is but na-
tural, that the deepest ideas should be the last in
order of development.
It is also obvious, that those, who believe in the
unity of the Ο. and N. T., and the typical nature
| of the Mosaic Covenant, must view the type in
constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared
therefore to find in the former vague and recondite
_meanings, which are fixed and manifested by the
| latter. The sacrifices must be considered, not merely
as they stand in the Law, or even as they might
| have appeared to a pious Israelite; but as they
were illustrated by the Prophets, and perfectly in-
terpreted in the N. T. (6. 4. in the Epistle to the
Hebrews). It follows from this, that, as belonging
to a system which was to embrace all mankind in
its influence, they should be also compared and
contrasted with the sacrifices and worship of God
in other nations, and the ideas which in them were
dimly and confusedly expressed.
It is needless to dwell on the universality of
heathen sacrifices,¢ and difficult to reduce to any
single theory the various ideas involved therein.
It is clear, that the sacrifice was often looked upon
as a gift or tribute to the gods: an idea which (for
example) runs through all Greek literature, from
the simple conception in Homer to the caricatures
of Aristophanes or Lucian, against the perversion
of which St. Paul protested at Athens, when he de-
clared that God needed nothing at human hands -
(Acts xvii. 25). It is also clear that sacrifices
were used as prayers, to obtain benefits, or to avert
wrath ; and that this idea was corrupted into the
superstition, denounced by heathen satirists as well
as by Hebrew prophets, that by them the gods’
favour could be purchased for the wicked, or their
“envy” be averted from the prosperous. On the
other hand, that they were recarded as thank-offer-
ings, and the feasting on their flesh as a partaking
of the “table of the gods” (comp. 1 Cor. x. 20,
21), is equally certain. Nor was the higher idea
of sacrifice, as a representation of the sel{-devotion
of the offerer, body and soul. to the god, wholly
lost, although generally obscured by the grosser
and more obvious conceptions of the rite. But,
besides all these, there seems always to have been
latent the idea of propitiation, that is, the belief in a
communion with the gods, natural to man, broken off
in some way, and by sacrifice to be restored. The
emphatic “ shedding of the blood,” as the essential
part of the sacrifice, while the flesh was often eaten by
the priests or the sacrificer, is not capable of any full
explanation by any of the ideas above referred to.
Whether it represented the death of the sacrificer, or
(as in. cases of national offering of human victims,
and of those self-devoted for their country) an
atoning death for him; still, in either case, it con-
tained the idea that ““ without shedding of blood is
no remission,” and so had a vague and distorted
glimpse of the great central truth of Revelation.
Such an idea may be (as has been argued) “ unna-
tural,” in that it could not be explained by natural
reason; but it certainly was not unnatural, if fre-
quency of existence, and accordance with a deep
natural instinct, be allowed to preclude that epithet.
Now the essential difference between these heathen
views of sacrifice and the Scriptural doctrine of
the O. T. is not to be found in its denial of any of
|
| quoted in notes 23, 26, to Thomson’s Bampton Lectures,
| 1853.
i
1080 = SACRIFICE
these ideas. The very names used in it for sacri-
fice (as is seen above) involve the conception of the
rite as a gift, a form of worship, a thank-offering, a
self-devotion, and an atonement. In fact, it brings
out, clearly and distinctly, the ideas which in hea-
thenism were uncertain, vague, and perverted.
But the essential points of distinction are two.
First, that whereas the heathen conceived of their
gods as alienated in jealousy or anger, to be sought
after, and to be appeased by the unaided action of
man, Scripture represents God Himself as approach-
-ing man, as pointing out and sanctioning the way
by which the broken covenant should. be restored.
This was impressed on the Israelites at every step
by the minute directions of the Law, as to time,
place, victim, and ceremonial, by its utterly dis-
countenancing the “will-worship,” which in hea-
thenism found full scope, and rioted in the invention
of costly or monstrous sacrifices. And it is espe-
cially to be noted, that this particularity is increased,
as we approach nearer to the deep propitiatory idea ;
for that, whereas the patriarchal sacrifices generally
seem to have been undefined by God, and even under
the Law, the nature of the peace-offerings, and (to
some extent) the burnt-offerings, was determined by
the sacriticer only, the solemn sacrifice of Abraham
in the inauguration of his covenant was prescribed
to him, and the sin-offerings under the Law were
most accurately and minutely determined. (See, for
example, the whole ceremonial of Lev. xvi.) It is
needless to remark, how this essential difference
purifies all the ideas above noticed from the corrup-
tions, which made them odious or contemptible,
and sets on its true basis the relation between God
and fallen man.
The second mark of distinction is closely con-
nected with this, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice to
be a scheme proceeding from God, and, in His fore-
knowledge, connected with the one central fact of
all human history. It is to be found in the typical
character of all Jewish sacrifices, on which, as the
Epistle to the Hebrews argues, all their efficacy
depended. It must be remembered that, like other
ordinances of the Law, they had a twofold effect,
depending on the special position of an Israelite, as a
member of the natural Theocracy, and on his general
position, as a man in relation with God. On the
one hand, for example, the sin-offering was an
atonement to the national law for moral offences of
negligence, which in ‘ presumptuous,” 7. 6. de-
liberate and wilful crime, was rejected (see Num.
xv. 27-31; and comp. Heb. x. 26, 27). On the
other hand it had, as the prophetic writings show
us, a distinct spiritual significance, as a means of
expressing repentance and receiving forgiveness,
which could have belonged to it only as a type of the
Great Atonement. How far that typical meaning
was recognized at different periods and by different
persons, it is useless to speculate: but it would be
impossible to doubt, even if we had no testimony
on the subject, that, in the face of the high spiritual
teaching of the Law and the Prophets, a pious
Israelite must have felt the nullity of material
sacrifice in itself, and so believed it to be availing
only as an ordinance of God, shadowing out some
great spiritual truth, or action of His. Nor is it
SACRIFICE
unlikely that, with more or less distinctness, he
connected the evolution of this, as of other truths,
with the coming of the promised Messiah. But,
however this be, we know that, in God’s pur-
pose, the whole system was typical, that all its
spiritual efficacy depended on the true sacrifice
which it represented, and could be received only on
condition of Faith, and that, therefore, it passed
away when the Antitype was come.
The nature and meaning of the various kinds of
sacrifice is partly gathered from the form of their
institution and ceremonial, partly from the teaching
of the Prophets, and partly from the N. T., especi-
ally the Epistle to the Hebrews. All had relation,
under different aspects, to a Covenant between God
and man.
The SIN-OFFERING represented that Covenant as
broken by man, and as knit together again, by God’s
appointment, through ‘the ‘shedding of blood.”
Its characteristic ceremony was the sprinkling of
the blood before the veil of the Sanctuary, the put-
ting some of it on the horns of the altar of incense,
and the pouring out of all the rest at the foot of
the altar of burnt-offering. The flesh was in no
case touched by the offerer; either it was consumed
by fire without the camp, or it was eaten by the
priest alone in the holy place, and everything that
touched it was holy (W4P).4 This latter point
marked the distinction from the peace-offering, and
showed that the sacrificer had been rendered un-
worthy of communion with God. The shedding of
the blood, the symbol of life, signified that the
death of the offender was deserved for sin, but that
the death of the victim was accepted for his death
by the ordinance of God’s mercy. This is seen
most clearly in the ceremonial of the Day of Atone-
ment, when, after the sacrifice of the one goat, the
high-priest’s hand was Jaid on the head of the scape-
goat —which was the other part of the sin-offering—
with confession of the sins of the people, that it
might visibly bear them away, and so bring out
explicitly, what in other sin-offerings was but
implied. Accordingly we find (see quotation from
the Mishna in Outr. De Sacr. i. c. xv., §10) that,
in all cases, it was the custom for the offerer to lay
his hand on the head of the sin-offering, to confess
generally or specially his sins, and to say, “" Let this
be my expiation.’””’ Beyond all doubt the sin-offer-
ing distinctly witnessed, that sin existed in man,
that the ‘“‘ wages of that sin was death,” and that
God had provided an Atonement by the vicarious
suffering of an appointed victim. The reference of
the Baptist to a “ Lamb of God who taketh away
the sins of the world,” was one understood and
hailed at once by a “true Israelite.”
The ceremonial and meaning of the BURNT-
OFFERING were very diflerent. The idea of ex-
piation seems not to have been absent from it (for
the blood was sprinkled round about the altar of
sacrifice) ;® and, before the Levitical ordinance of the
sin-offering to precede it, this idea may have been
even prominent. But in the system of Leviticus
it is evidently only secondary. The main idea is
the offering ot the whole victim to God, representing
(as the laying of the hand on its head shows) the
ἃ Some render this (like sacer) “accursed; but the
primitive meaning, “clean,” and the usage of the word,
seem decisive against this. LXX. ayia (vid. Gesen. s.v.).
e In Levy. i. 4, it is said to “atone” 53, i.e. to
“cover,” and so to “do away;” LXX. ἐξιλάσασθαι). The
same word is used below of the sin-offering; and the
later Jews distinguished the burnt-offering as atoning for
thoughts and designs, the sin-offering for acts of trans-
gression. (See Jonath. Paraphr. on Ley. vi. 17, &c., quoted
by Qutram.)
_—e ν᾿ ὰ πα να" ἷΦΌ π αἕψ ψ απ αὐτὰ σαν
SACRIFICE
devotion of the sacrificer, body and soul, to Him.
The death of the victim was (so to speak) an inci-
dental feature, to signify the completeness of the
devotion ; and it is to be noticed that, in all solemn
sacrifices, no burnt-oflering could be made until a
previous sin-offering had brought the sacrificer
again into covenant with God. The main idea of
this sacrifice must have been representative, not
vicarious, and the best comment upon it is the
exhortation in Rom. xii. 1, “to present our bodies
a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.”
The MEAT-OFFERINGS, the peace or thank-
offering, the first-fruits, &c., were simply offerings
to God of His own best gifts, as a sign of thankful
homage, and as a means of maintaining His service
and His servants. Whether they were regular or
voluntary, individual or national, independent or
subsidiary to other offerings, this was still the lead-
ing idea. The meat-offering, of flour, oil, and wine,
seasoned with salt, and hallowed by frankincense,
was usually an appendage to the devotion implied
in the burnt-offering ; and the peace-offerings for
the people held the same place in <Aaron’s first
. sacrifice (Lev. ix. 22), and in all others of special
solemnity. The characteristic ceremony in the peace-
offering was the eating of the flesh by the sacrificer
(after the fat had been burnt before the Lord, and
the breast and shoulder given to the priests). It
betokened the enjoyment οὔ" communion with God
at ‘the table of the Lord,” in the gifts which His
mercy had bestowed, of which a choice portion was
offered to Him, to His servants, and to His poor
(see Deut. xiv. 28, 29). To this view of sacrifice
allusion is made by St. Paul in Phil. iv. 18; Heb.
xiii. 15, 16. It follows naturally from the other
two.
It is clear from this, that the idea of sacrifice is a
complex idea, involving the propitiatory, the dedi-
catory, and the eucharistic elements. Any one of
these, taken by itself, would lead to error and
superstition. The propitiatory alone would tend
to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, as
being effectual without any condition of repentance
and faith; the self-dedicatory, taken alone, ignores
the barrier of sin between man and God, and under-
mines the whole idea of atonement; the eucharistic
alone leads to the notion that mere gifts can satisfy
God’s service, and is easily perverted into the
heathenish attempt to “ bribe” God by vows and
offerings. All three probably were more or less
implied in each sacrifice, each element predomi-
nating in its turn: all must be kept in mind in
considering the historical influence, the spiritual
meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice.
Now the Israelites, while they seem always to
have retained the ideas of propitiation and of eucha-
ristic offering, even when they perverted these by
half-heathenish superstition, constantly ignored the
self-dedication which is the link between the two,
and which the regular burnt-offering should have im-
pressed upon them as their daily thought and duty.
It is therefore to this point that the teaching of the
Ἐπ ΠΡ is mainly directed; its key-note is con-
tained in the words of Samuel: ‘ Behold, to obey is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams” (1 Sam. xv. 22). So Isaiah declares (as in
i. 10-20) that “ the Lord.delights not in the blood
of bullocks, or lambs, or goats;” that to those
who “cease to do evil and learn to do well, . . . -
though their sins be as scarlet, they shall be white
as snow.” Jeremiah reminds them (vii. 22, 23)
that the Lord did not “ command burnt-offerings
SACRIFICE 1081
or sacrifices’” under Moses, but said, * Obey my
voice, and I will be your God.” Ezekiel is full of
indignant protests (see xx. 39-44) against the pol-
lution of God’s name by offerings of those whose
hearts were with their idols. Hosea sets forth
God’s requirements (vi. 6) in words which our
Lord Himself sanctioned: “41 desired mercy and
not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt-offerings.” Amos (vy. 21-27) puts it even
more strongly, that God ‘ hates” their sacrifices,
unless “ judgment run down like water, and
righteousness like a mighty stream.” And Micah
(vi. 6-8) answers the question which lies at the
root of sacrifice, ‘* Wherewith shall 1 come before
the Lord?” by the words, ‘* What doth the Lord
require of thee, but to do justly, and love mercy,
and walk humbly with thy God?” ΑἹ] these pas-
sages, and many others, are directed to one object—
not to discourage sacrifice, but to purify and spiritu-
alize the feelings of the offerers.
The same truth, here enunciated from without,
is recognized from within by the Psalmist. Thus
he says, in Ps. xl. 8-11, “ Sacrifice and meat-
offering, burnt-offering and sin-offering, Thou hast
not required;” and contrasts with them the ho-
mage of the heart—“ mine ears hast Thou bored,”
and the active service of life—** Lo! I come to do
Thy will, O God.” In Ps. 1. 13, 14, sacrifice is
contrasted with prayer and adoration (comp. Ps.
exli. 2): “ Thinkest thou that I will eat bulls’ flesh,
and drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God
thanksgiving, pay thy vows to the Most Highest,
and call upon me in time of trouble.” In Ps. li.
16, 17, it is similarly contrasted with tiue re-
pentance of the heart: ‘‘ The sacrifice of God is a
troubled spirit, a broken and a contrite heart.”
Yet here also the next verse shows that sacrifice
was not superseded, but purified : “ Zien shalt thou
be pleased with burnt-offerings and oblations; then
shall they offer young bullocks upon thine altar.”
These passages are correlative to the others, express-
ing the feelings, which those others in God’s Name
require. It is not to be argued from them, that this
idea of self-dedication is the main one of sacrifiée.
The idea of propitiation lies below it, taken for
granted by the Prophets as by the whole people,
but still enveloped in mystery until the Antitype
should come to make all clear. For the evolution
of this doctrine we must look to the N. T.; the
preparation for it by the Prophets was (so to speak)
negative, the pointing out the nullity of all other
propitiations in themselves, and then leaving the
warnings of the consvience and the cravings of the
heart to fix men’s hearts on the better Atonement
to come.
Without entering directly on the great subject
of the Atonement (which would be foreign to the
scope of this article), it will be sufficient to refer to
the connexion, established in the N. T., between it
and the sacrifices of the Mosaic system. To do this,
we need do little more than analyse the Epistle to
the Hebrews, which contains the key of the whole
sacrificial doctrine.
In the first place, it follows the prophetic books
by stating, in the most emphatic terms, the intrinsic
nullity of all mere material sacrifices. The ‘* gifts
and sacrifices”’ of the first tabernacle could “ never
make the sacrificers perfect in conscience” (κατὰ
συνείδησιν) ; they were but “ carnal ordinances, im-
posed on them till the time of reformation”’ (διορ-
θώσεως) (Heb. ix. 9,10). The very fact of their
constant repetition is said to prove this imperfection,
1082 SACRIFICE
which depends cn the fundamental! principle, “ that
it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats
should take away sin” (x. 4). But it does not
lead us to infer, that they actually had no spiritual
efficacy, if offered in repentance and faith. On the
contrary, the object of the whole Epistle is to show
their typical and probationary character, and to
assert that in virtue of it alone they had a spiritual
meaning. Our Lord is declared (see 1 Pet. i. 20)
“to have been foreordained”’ as a sacrifice “ before
the foundation of the world;” or (as it is more
strikingly expressed in Rev. xiii. 8) ‘ slain from the
foundation of the world.” The material sacrifices
represented this Great Atonement, as already made
and accepted in God’s foreknowledge ; and to those
who grasped the ideas of sin, pardon, and self-
dedication, symbolized in them, they were means
of entering into the blessings which the One True
Sacrifice alone procured. Otherwise the whole sacri-
ficial system could have been only a superstition
and a snare. The sins provided for by the sin-
offering were certainly in some cases moral. [See
Sry-OFFERING.] The whole of the Mosaic de-
scription of sacrifices clearly implies some real spi-
ritual benefit to be derived from them, besides the
temporal privileges belonging to the national theo-
cracy. Just as St. Paul argues (Gal. ili. 15-29)
that the Promise and Covenant to Abraham were of
primary, the Law only of secondary, importance,
so that men had wnder the Law more than they had
by the Law; so it must be said of the Levitical
sacrifices. They could convey nothing in them-
selves ; yet, as types, they might, if accepted by a
true, though necessarily imperfect, faith, be means
of conveying in some degree the blessings of the
Antitype.
This typical character of all sacrifice being thus
set forth, the next point dwelt upon is the union in
our Lord’s Person of the priest, the offerer, and the
sacrifice. [PRrEsT.] The imperfection of all sacri-
fices, which made them, in themselves, liable to
superstition, and even inexplicable, lies in this,
that, on the one hand, the victim seems arbitrarily
chosen to be the substitute for, or the representative
of, the sacrificer ;f£ and that, on the other, if there
be a barrier of sin between man and God, he has no
right of approach, or security that his sacrifice will
be accepted ; that there needs, therefore, to be a
Mediator, 7. ὁ. (according to the definition of Heb.
v. 1-4), a true Priest, who shall, as being One with
man, offer the sacrifice, and accept it, as being One
with God. It is shown that this imperfection, which
necessarily existed in all types, without which indeed
they would have been substitutes, not preparations
for the Antitype, was altogether done away in Him ;
that in the first place He, as the representative of
the whole human race, ofleved no arbitrarily-chosen
victim, but the willing sacrifice of His own blood ;
that, in the second, He was ordained by God, by a
solemn oath, to be a high-priest for ever, “ after the
order of Melchizedek,” one “in all points tempted like
as we are, yet without sin,” united to our human
nature, susceptible to its infirmities and trials, yet,
at the same time, the True Son of God, exalted far
above all created things, and ever living to make
Intercession in heaven, now that His sacrifice is
over ; and that, in the last place, the barrier between
man and God is by His mediation done away for
ever, and the Most Holy Place once for all opened
f It may be remembered that devices, sometimes ludi-
crous, sometimes horrible, were adopted to make the
SACRIFICE
to man. All the points, in the doctrine of sacrifice,
which had before been unintelligible, were thus
made clear.
This being the case, it next follows that all the
various kinds of sacrifices were, each in its measure,
representatives and types of the various aspects of
the Atonement. It is clear that the Atonement, in
this Epistle, as in the N. T. generally, is viewed in
a twofold light.
On the one hand, it is set forth distinctly as a
vicarious sacrifice, which was rendered necessary by
the sin of man, and in which the Lord ‘* bare the
sins of many.” It is its essential characteristic,
that in it He stands absolutely aione, offering His
sacrifice without any reference to the faith or the
conversion of men—oftering it indeed for those who
“ were still sinners” and at enmity with God.
Moreover it is called a “ propitiation” (ἱλασμός or
ἱλαστήριον, Rom. iii. 24; 1 John ii, 2); a ‘ ran-
som” (ἀπολύτρωσι-“, Rom. 11]. 25; 1 Cor. i. 30, &e.) ;
which, if words mean anything, must imply that it
makes a change in the relation between God and man,
from separation to union, from wrath to love, and
a change in man’s state from bondage to freedom.
In it, then, He stands. out alone as the Mediator
between God and man; and His sacrifice is offered
once for all, never to be imitated or repeated. *
Now this view of the Atonement is set forth in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, as typified by the sin-
offering ; especially by that particular sin-offering
with which the high-priest entered the Most Holy
Place on the Great Day of Atonement (ix. 7-12) ;
and by that which hallowed the inauguration of the
Mosaic covenant, and cleansed the vessels of its mi-
nistration (ix. 13-23). In the same way, Christ is
called “ our Passover, sacrificed for τι5 (1 Cor.
v. 7); and is said, in even more startling language,
to have been ‘‘ made sin for us,” though He “ knew
no sin’’ (2 Cor. v. 21). This typical relation is
pursued even into details, and our Lord’s suffering
without the city is compared to the burning of the
public or priestly sin-otterings without the camp
(Heb, xiii. 10-13). The altar of sacrifice (θυσια-
στήριον) is said to have its antitype in His Passion
(xiii. 10). ΑἸ] the expiatory and propitiatory sacri-
fices of the Law are now for the first time brought
into fulllight. And though the principle of vicarious
sacrifice still remains, and must remain, a mystery,
yet the fact of its existence in Him is illustrated by
a thousand types. As the sin-offering, though not
the earliest, is the most fundamental of all sacrifices,
so the aspect of the Atonement, which it symbolizes,
is the one on which all others rest.
On ‘the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ is set
forth to us, as the completion of that perfect obe-
dience to the will of the Father, which is the natural
duty of sinless man, in which He is the repre-
sentative of all men, and in which He calls upon us,
when reconciled to God, to “take up the Cross and
follow Him.” “In the days of His flesh He offered
up prayers and supplications . . . and was heard, in
that He feared; though He were a Son, yet learned
He obedience by the things which He suffered:
and being made perfect” (by that suffering ; see
ii. 10), “* He became the author of salvation to all
them that obey Him” (ν. 7, 8,9). In this view
His death is not the principal object; we dwell
rather on His lowly Incarnation, and His life of
humility, temptation, and suffering, to which that
victim appear willing; and that voluntary sacrifice, such
as that of the Decii, was held to be the noblest of all.
ὄν
SACRIFICE
death was but a fitting close. In the passage above
referred to the allusion is not to the Cross of Calvary,
but to the agony in Gethsemane, which bowed His
human will to the will of His Father. The main
idea of this view of the Atonement is representative,
rather than vicarious. In the first view the “ second
Adam” undid by His atoning blood the work of evil
which the first Adam did ; in the second He, by His
perfect obedience, did that which the first Adam
left undone, and, by His grace making us like Him-
self, calls upon us to follow Him in the same path.
This latter view is typified by the burnt-offering :
in respect of which the N. T. merely quotes and
enforces the language already cited from the O. T.,
and especially (see Heb. x. 6-9) the words of Ps. xl.
6, &c., which contrast with material sacrifice the
“ doing the will of God.” It is one, which cannot be
dwelt upon at all without a previous implication of
the other; as both were embraced in one act, so are
they inseparably connected in idea. Thus it is put
forth in Rom. xii. 1, where the ‘‘ mercies of God”
(ὦ. ὁ. the free salvation, through the sin-offering of
Christ’s blood, dwelt upon in all the preceding part
of the Epistle) are made the ground for calling on
us ‘to present our bodies, a living sacrifice, holy
and acceptable to God,” inasmuch as we are all (see
ν. 5) one with Christ, and members of His body.
In.-this sense it is that we are said to be “ crucified
with Christ” (Gal. ii. 20; Rom. vi. 6); to have
“the sufferings of Christ abound in us” (2 Cor. i.
5); even to “fill up that which is behind” (τὰ
ὑστερήματα) thereot (Col. i. 24); and to ‘ be
cffered’’ (σπένδεσθαι) “ upon the sacrifice of the
faith” of others (Phil. ii. 17; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 6;
1 John iii. 16). As without the sin-offering of the
Cross, this, our burnt-offering, would be impossible,
so also without the burnt-offering the sin-offering
will to us be unavailing.
With these views of our Lord’s sacrifice on earth,
as typified in the Levitical sacrifices on the outer
altar, is also to be connected the offering of His In-
tercession for us in heaven, which was represented
by the incense. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, this
part of His priestly office is dwelt upon, with parti-
cular reference to the offering of incense in the Most
Holy Place by the high-priest on the Great Day of
Atonement (Heb. ix. 24-28; comp. iv. 14-16, vi.
19, 20, vii. 25). It implies that the sin-offering
has been made once for all, to rend asunder the veil
(of sin) between man and God; and that the conti-
nual burnt-oflering is now accepted by Him for the
sake of the Great Interceding High-priest. That
intercession is the strength of our prayers, and
“with the smoke of its incense” they rise up to
heaven (Rey. viii. 4). [PRAYER. ]
The typical sense of the meat-offering, or peace-
offering, is less connected with the sacrifice of Christ
Himself, than with those sacrifices of praise, thanks-
giving, charity, and devotion, which we, as Chris-
tians, offer to God, and ‘‘ with which He is well
pleased” (Heb. xiii. 15, 16) as with “an odour of
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable to God”’ (Phil.
iv. 18). They betoken that, through the peace won
by the sin-offering, we have already been enabicd
to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it
were, the ornaments and accessories of that self-
dedication. :
Such is a brief sketch of the doctrine of Sacrifice.
It is seen to have been deeply rooted in men’s hearts ;
and to have been, from the beginning, accepted and
sanctioned by God, and made by Him one channel
of His Revelation. In virtue of that sanction it had
SADDUCEES 1083
a value, partly symbolical, partly actual, but in all
respects derived from the one True Sacrifice, of
which it was the type. It involved the expiatory,
the self-dedicatory, and the eucharistic ideas, each
gradually developed and explained, but all capable
of full explanation only by the light reflected back
from the Antitype.
On the antiquarian part of the subject valuable
information may be found in Spencer, De Legibus
Hebracorum, and Outram, De Sacrificiis. The
question of the origin of sacrifice is treated clearly
on either side by Faber, On the (Divine) Origin of
Sacrifice, and by Davison, Inquiry into the Origin
of Sacrifice ; and Warburton, Div. Leg. (Ὁ. ix. ¢. 2).
On the general subject, see Magee’s Dissertation on
Atonement ; the Appendix to Tholuck’s Treatise on
the Hebrews; Kurtz, Der Alttestamentliche Opfer-
cultus, Mitau, 1862; and the catalogue of autho-
rities in Winer’s Realwérterb. “ Opfer.” But it needs
for its consideration little but the careful study of
Scripture itself. [A. B.]
SADAMI'AS (Sadanias). The name of SHAL-
LUM, one of the ancestors of Ezra, is so written in
2 Hsd. i. 1.
SA’DAS (‘Apyai ; Alex. ᾿Ασταά : Archad).
AZGAD (1 Esd. v. 13; comp. Ezr. ii, 12). The
form Sadas is retained from the Geneva Version.
SADDE'US (Λοδδαῖος ; Alex. Δολδαῖος : Lod-
deus). ‘Ippo, the chief at the place Casiphia,” is
called in 1 Esd. viii. 45, ““ Saddeus the captain, who
was in the place of the treasury.” In 1 Hsd. viii.
46 the name is written ‘‘ Daddeus” in the A. V.,
as in the Geneva Version of both passages.
SAD'DUC (SaddovKos: Sadoc). ZADOK the
high-priest, ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 2).
κι
SADDUCEES (Σαδδουκαῖοι ϑασαμοαοὶ :
Matt. iii. 7, xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34; Mark
xii. 18; Luke xx. 27; Actsiv. 1, v. 17, xxiii. 6, 7, 8).
A religious party or school among the Jews at the
time of Christ, who denied that the oral law was a
revelation of God to the Israelites, and who deemed
the written law alone to be obligatory on the
nation, as of divine authority. Although frequently
mentioned in the New Testament in conjunction
with the Pharisees, they do not throw such vivid
light as their great antagonists on the real signi-
ficance of Christianity. Except on one occasion,
when they united with the Pharisees in insidiously
asking for a sign from heaven (Matt. xvi. 1, 4, 6),
Christ never assailed the Sadducees with the same
bitter denunciations which he uttered against the
Pharisees; and they do not, like the Pharisees,
seem to have taken active measures for causing Him
to be put to death. In this respect, and in many
others, they have not been so influential as the
Pharisees in the world’s history; but still they
deserve attention, as representing Jewish ideas*before
the Pharisees became triumphant, and as_ illus-
trating one phase of Jewish thought at the time
when the new religion of Christianity, destined to
produce such a momentous revolution in the opinions
of mankind, issued from Judaea.
Authorities.—The sources of information respect-
ing the Sadducees are much the same as for the
Pharisees. [PHARISEES, p. 885.] There are, how-
ever, some exceptions negatively. Thus, the Sad-
ducees are not spoken of at all in the fourth Gospel,
where the Pharisees are frequently mentioned, John
vii. 32,45, xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3, vill. 5, 13-19, ix. 13;
| an omission, which, as Geiger suggests, is not unim-
1084 SADDUCEES
portant in reference to the criticism of the Gospels
( Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 107).
Moreover, while St. Paul had been a Pharisee and
was the son of a Pharisee; while Josephus was a
Pharisee, and the Mishna was a Pharisaical digest
‘of Pharisaical opinions and practices, not a single
undoubted writing of an acknowledged Sadducee
has come down to us, so that for an acquaintance
with their opinions we are mainly dependent on
their antagonists. This point should be always
borne in mind in judging their opinions, and forming
an estimate of their character, and its full bearing
will be duly appreciated by those who reflect that
even at the present day, with all the checks against
misrepresentation arising from publicity and the
invention of printing, probably “πὸ religious or poli-
tical party in England would be content to accept
the statements of an opponent as giving a correct
view of its opinions,
Origin of the name.—Like etymologies of words,
the origin of the name of a sect is, In some cases,
almost wholly immaterial, while in other cases it is
of extreme importance towards understanding opi-
nions which it is proposed to investigate. The
origin of the name Sadducees is of the latter de-
scription ; and a reasonable certainty on this point
would go far towards ensuring correct ideas respect-
ing the position of the Sadducees in the Jewish State.
The subject, however, is involved in great diffi -
culties. The Hebrew word by which | they are
called in the Mishna is Tsedikim; the plural of
Tsdd6k, which undoubtedly means “ just,’’ or
‘‘yighteous,” but which is never used in the Bible
except as a proper name, and in the Anglican Version
is always translated ‘ Zadok” (2 K. xv. 33; 2
Sam. viii. 17 ; 1 Chr. vi. 8, 13, ἄς. ; Neh. iii. 4, 29,
xi. 11). The most obvious translation of the word,
therefore, is to call them Zadoks or Zadokites; and
a question would then arise as to why they were so
called. The ordinary Jewish statement is that
they are named from a certain Zadok, a disciple
of the Antigonus of Socho, who is mentioned in
the Mishna ( Avéth i.) as having received the oral
law from Simon the Just, the last of the men of
the Great Synagogue. It is recorded of this Anti-
gonus that he used to say: ‘‘ Be not like servants
who serve their Master for the sake of receiving a
reward, but be like servants who serve their master
without a view of receiving a reward ;” and the
current statement has been that Zadok, who gave
his name to the Zadokites or Sadducees, misinter-
preted this saying so far, as not only to maintain
the great truth that virtue should be the rule of
conduct without reference to the rewards of the in-
dividual agent, but likewise to proclaim the doctrine
that there was no future state of rewards and pu-
(See Buxtorf, s. υ. PITY; Lightfoot’s
Horae Hebraicae on Matth, iii. 8; and the Note
of Maimonides in Surenhusius’s Mis/na, iv. p- 411.)
If, however, the statement is traced up to its ori-
ginal source, it is found that there is no mention of
it either in the Mishna, or in any other part of the
Talmud (Geiger’s Urschrift, &e., p. 105) and that
the first mention of something of the kind is ina small
nishments.
work by a certain Rabbi Nath: in, which he wrote on |
4 Aruch, or’ Artic yy, means “ ey ” or “set
in order.” The author of this work was another Rabbi
Nathan Ben Jechiel, president of the Jewish Academy at
Rome, who died in 1106, A.p. (See Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabb.
iv. 261). ‘The reference to Rabbi Nathan, author of the
DIN.
SADDUCEES
the Treatise of the Mishna called the Avéth, or “ Fa-
thers.” But the age in which this Rabbi Nathan lived
is uncertain (Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbi-
nica, vol. iii. p. 770), and the earliest mention of him
is in a well-known Rabbinical dictionary called the
Aruch,? which was completed about the year 1105,
A.D. The following are the words of the above men-
tioned Rabbi Nathan of the Avéth. Adverting to
the passage in the Mishna, already quoted, respect-
ing Antigonus’s saying, he observes, “ Antigonus
of Socho had two disciples who taught the saying
to their disciples, and these disciples again taught it
to their disciples. At Jast these began to scrutinize
it narrowly, and said, ‘ What did our Fathers mean
in teaching this saying? Is it possible that a la-
bourer is to perform his work all the day, and
not receive his wages in the evening? Truly, if
our Fathers had known that there is another world
and a resurrection of the dead, they would not
have spoken thus.’ They then began to separate
themselves from the law; and so there arose two
Sects, the Zadokites and Baithusians, the former
from Zadok, and the latter from Baithos.” Now
it is to be observed on this passage that it does not
justify the once current belief that Zadok himself
misinterpreted Antigonus’s saying; and it suggests
no reason why the followers of the supposed new
doctrines should have taken their name from Zadok
rather than Antigonus. Bearing this in mind, in con-
nexion with several other points of the same nature,
such as for example, the total silence respecting any
such story in the works of Josephus or in the Talmud ;
the absence of any other special information respect-
ing even the existence of the supposed Zadok ; the
improbable and childishly illogical reasons assigned
for the departure of Zadok’s disciples from the Law ;
the circumstance that Rabbi Nathan held the tenets
of the Pharisees, that the statements of a Pharisee
respecting the Sadducees must always be received
with a certain reserve, that Rabbi Nathan of the
Avéth, for aught that has ever heen proved to
the contrary, may have lived as long as 1000 years
after the first appearance of the Sadducees as a party
in Jewish history, and that he quotes no authority
of any kind for his account of their origin, it seems
reasonable to reject this Rabbi Nathan’s narration as
unworthy of credit. Another ancient suggestion
concerning the origin of the name ‘Sadducees,” is
in Epiphanius (Adversus Haereses, i. 4), who states
that the Sadducees called themselves by that name
from “ὁ righteousness,” the interpretation of the
Hebrew word Zedek ; ‘‘and that there was likewise
anciently a Zadok among the priests, but that they
did not continue in the doctrines of their chief.”
But this statement is unsatisfactory in two respects:
Ist. It does not explain why, if the suggested ety-
mology was correct, fhe name of the Sadducees was
not Tsaddikim or Zaddikites, which would have
been the regular Hebrew adjective for the “ Just,”
or “Righteous;” and 2ndly. While it evidently
implies that they once held the doctrines of an
ancient priest, Zadok, who is even called their chief
or master (ἐπιστάτης), it does not directly assert
that there was. any connexion between his name
and theirs; nor yet does it say that the coin-
cidence between the two ,names was accidental.
treatise on the Avéth, is made in the Aruch under the word
The treatise itself was published in a Latin
translation by F, Tayler, at London, 1657. The original
passage respecting Zadok’s disciples is printed by Geiger
in Hebrew, and translated by him, Urschrift, é&c., Ὁ. 105.
OO ee
SADDUCEES
Moreover, it does not give information as to when
Zadok lived, nor what were those doctrines of his
which the Sadducees once held, but subsequently
departed from. The unsatisfactoriness of Kpipha-
nius’s statement is increased by its being coupled
with an assertion that the Sadducees were a branch
broken off from Dositheus; or in other words Schis-
mitics fiom Dositheus (ἀπόσπασμα ὄντες ἀπὸ
Δοσιθεοῦ) ; for Dositheus was a heretic who lived
about the time of Christ (Origen, contra Celsum,
lib. i. ec. 17; Clemens, Recognit. ii. 8; Photius,
Biblioth. ce. xxx.), and thus, if Epiphanius was
correct, the opinions characteristic of the Sadducees
wereproductions of the Christian aera ; a supposition
contrary to the express declaration of the Pharisee
Josephus, and to a notorious fact of history, the
connexion of Hyrcanus with the Sadducees more than
100 years before Christ. (See Josephus, An. xiii.
9, §6, and xviii. 1, §2, where observe the phrase ἐκ
τοῦ πάνυ apxatov...). Hence Npiphanius’s expla-
nation of the origin of the word Sadducees must be
rejected with that of Rabbi Nathan of the Avdth.
In these circumstances, if recourse is had to con-
jecture, the first point to be considered is whether the
word is likely to have arisen from the meaning of
“righteousness,” or from the name of an individual.
This must be decided in favour of the latter alter-
native, inasmuch as the word Zadok never occurs in
the Bible, except as a proper name; and then we are
led to inquire as to who the Zadok of the Sadducees
is likely to have been. Now, according to the
existing records of Jewish history, there was one
Zadok of transcendent importance, and only one;
viz., the priest who acted such a prominent part at
the time of David, and who declared in favour of
Solomon, when Abiathar took the part of Adonijah
as successor to the throne (1 K. i. 32-45). This
Zadok was tenth in descent, according to the ge-
nealogies, from the high-priest, Aaron ; and what-
ever may be the correct explanation of the state-
ment in the Ist Book of Kings ii. 35, that Solomon
put him in the room of Abiathar, although on
previous occasions he had, when named with him,
been always mentioned first (2 Sam. xv. 35, xix.
11; cf. viii. 17), his line of priests appears to
have had decided pre-eminence in subsequent. his-
tory. Thus, when in 2 Chr. xxxi. 10 Hezekiah is
represented as putting a question to the priests and
Levites generally, the answer is attributed to Aza-
riah, “ the chief priest of the house of Zadok:” and
in Ezekiel’s prophetic vision of the future Temple,
‘the sons of Zadok,’ and ‘‘ the priests the Levites
of the seed of Zadok” are spoken of with peculiar
honour, as those who kept the charge of the sanctuary
of Jehovah, when the children of Israel went astray
(Ez. xl. 46, xlii. 19, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11). Now, as
the transition from the expression “sons of Zadok,”
and ‘‘ priests of the seed of Zadok” to Zadokites
is easy and obyious, and as in the Acts of the
Apostles v.17, it is said, ‘* Then the high-priest
rose, and all they thai were with him, which is the
sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indigna-
tion,” it has been conjectured by Geiger that the
Sadducees or Zadokites were originally identical
with the sons of Zadok, and constituted what may
be termed a kind of sacerdotal aristocracy ( Urschrift
&e., p. 104). Τὸ these were afterwards attached
all who for any reason reckoned themselves as
SADDUCEES 1085
belonging to the aristocracy; such, for example,
as the families of the high-priest ; who had ob-
tained consideration under the dynasty of Herod.
These were for the most part judges,» and indi-
viduals of the official and governing’class. Now,
although this view of the Sadducees is only
inferential, and mainly conjectural, it certainly
explains the name better than any other, and elu-
cidates at once in the Acts of the Apostles the
otherwise obscure statement that the high-priest,
and those who were with him, were the sect of the
Sadducees. Accepting, therefore, this view till a
more probable conjecture is suggested, some of the
principal peculiarities, or supposed peculiarities of
the Sadducees will now be noticed in detail, although
in such notice some points must be touched upon,
which have been already partly discussed in speak-
ing of the Pharisees.
I. The leading tenet of the Sadducees was the
negation of the leading tenet of their opponents.
As the Pharisees asserted, so the Sadducees denied,
that the Israelites were in possession of an Oral
Law transmitted to them by Moses. The manner
in which the Pharisees may have gained acceptance
for their own view is noticed elsewhere in this
work [vol. ii. p. 887]; but, for an equitable esti-
mate of the Sadducees, it is proper to bear in mind
emphatically how destitute of historical evidence
the doctrine was which they denied. That doctrine
is at the present day rejected, probably by almost all,
if not by all, Christians; and it is indeed so foreign
to their ideas, that the greater number of Christians
have never even heard of it, though it is older than
Christianity, and has been the support and conso-
lation of the Jews under a series of the most cruel
and wicked persecutions to which any nation has
ever been exposed during an equal number of cen-
turies. It is likewise now maintained, all over the
world, by those who are called the orthodox Jews.
It is therefore desirable, to know the kind of argu-
ments by which at the present day, in an historical
and critical age, the doctrine is defended. For this
an opportunity has been given during the last three
years by a learned French Jew, Grand-Rabbi of the
circumscription of Colmar (Klein, Le Judaisme, ou
la Vérité sur le Talmud, Mulhouse, 1859), who still
asserts asa fact, the existence of a Mosaic Oral Law.
To do full justice to his views, the original work
‘should be perused. But it is doing no injustice to
his learning and ability, to point out that not one
of his arguments has a positive historical value.
Thus he relies mainly on the inconceivability (as
will be again noticed in this article) that a Divine
revelation should not have explicitly proclaimed
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish-
ments, or that it should have promulgated laws,
left in such an incomplete form, and requiring so
much explanation, and so many additions, as the
laws in the Pentateuch. Now, arguments of this
kind may be sound or unsound; based on reason,
or illogical; and for many they may have a philo-
sophical or theological. value; but they have no
pretence to be regarded as historical, inasmuch as
the assumed premisses, which involve a knowledge
of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and the
‘manner in which He would be likely to deal with
man, are far beyond the limits of historical verifica-
tion. The nearest approach to au historical argument
Ὁ According to the Mishna, Sanhed. ἵν. 2, no one was
“clean,” in the Levitical sense, to act as a judge in ca-
pital trials, except priests. Levites, and Israelites whose
daughters might marry priests. This again tallies with
the explanation offered in the text, of the Sadducees, as a
sacerdotal aristocracy, being “ with the high-priest.”
1086 SA DDUCEES
is the following (p. 10): ‘In the first place, nothing
proves better the fact of the existence of the tra-
dition than the belief itself in the tradition. An
entire nation does not suddenly forget its religious
code, its principles, its laws, the daily ceremonies of
its worship, to such a point, that it could easily be
persuaded that a new doctrine presented by some
impostors is the true and only explanation of its
law, and has always determined and ruled its appli-
cation. Holy Writ often represents the Israelites
as a stiff-necked people, impatient of the religious
yoke, and would it not be attributing to them ra-
ther an excess of docility, a too great condescension,
a blind obedience, to suppose that they suddenly
consented to troublesome and rigorous innovations
which some persons might have wished to impose
on them some fine morning? Such a supposition
destroys itself, and we are obliged to acknowledge
that the tradition is not a new invention, but that
. its birth goes back to the origin of the religion ; and
that transmitted from father to son as the word of
God, it lived in the heart of the people, identified
itself with the blood, and was always considered as
an inviolable authority.’ But if this passage is
carefully examined, it will be seen that it does not
supply a single fact worthy of being regarded as a
proof of a Mosaic Oral Law. Independent testi-
mony of persons contemporary with Moses that he
had transmitted such a law to the Israelites would
be historical evidence ; the testimony of persons in
the next generation as to the existence of such an
Oral Law which their fathers told them came from
Moses, would have been secondary historical evi- |
dence ; but the belief of the Israelites on the point
1200 years after Moses, cannot, in the absence of
any intermediate testimony, be deemed evidence of
an historical fact. Moreover, it is a mistake to
assume, that they who deny a Mosaic Oral Law,
imagine that this Oral Law was at some one time,
as one great system, introduced suddenly amongst
the Israelites. The real mode of conceiving what
occurred is far different. After the return from the
Captivity, there existed probably amongst the Jews
a large body of customs and decisions not contained
in the Pentateuch ; and these had practical authority
over the people long before they were attributed to
Moses. ‘I'he only phenomenon of importance requiring
explanation is not the existence of the customs sanc-
tioned by the Oral Law, but the belief accepted by.
a certain portion of the Jews that Moses had divinely
revealed those customs as laws to the Israelites.
To explain this historically from written records
is impossible, from the silence on the subject of the
very scanty historical Jewish writings purporting to
be written between the return from the Captivity in
538 before Christ and that uncertain period when
the canon was closed, which at the earliest could
not have been long before the death of Antiochus
Kpiphanes, B.c. 164. For all this space of time,
a period of about 374 years, a period as long as
from the accession of Henry VII. to the present
year (1862) we have no Hebrew account, nor in
fact any contemporary account, of the history of the
Jews in Palestine, except what may be contained in
the short works entitled Ezra and Nehemiah. And
the last named of these works does not carry the
SADDUCEES
history much later than one hundred years after the
return from the Captivity : so that there is a long and
extremely important period of more than two cen-
turies and a half before the heroic rising of the
Maccabees, during which there is a total absence of
contemporary Jewish history. In this dearth of
historical materials, it is idle to attempt a positive
narration of the circumstances under which the Oral
Law became assigned to Moses as its author. It is
amply sufficient if a satisfactory suggestion is made
as to how it might have been attributed to Moses,
and in this there is not much difficulty for any one
who bears in mind how notoriously in ancient times
laws of a much later date were attributed to Minos,
Lycurgus, Solon, and Numa. The unreasonableness
of supposing that the belief in the Oral traditions
being from Moses must have coincided in point of
time with the acceptance of the Oral tradition, may
be illustrated by what occurred in England during
the present century. During a period when the
fitness of maintaining the clergy by tithes was
contested, the theory was put forth that the origin
of tithes was to be assigned to “ an unrecorded reve-
lation made to Adam.Ӣ Now, let us suppose that
England was a country as small as Judaea ; that the
English were as few in number as the Jews of
Judaea must have been in the time of Nehemiah,
that a temple in London was the centre of the English
religion, and that the population of London hardly
ever reached 50,000. [ JERUSALEM, p. 1025.] Let
us further suppose that printing was not invented,
that manuscripts were dear, and that few of the
population could read. Under such circumstances
it is not impossible that the assertion of an unre-
corded revelation ‘made to Adam, might have been
gradually accepted by a large religious party in
England as a divine authority for tithes. If this
belief had continued in the same party during a
period of more than 2000 years, if that party had
become dominant in the English Church, if for
the first 250 years every contemporary record of
English history became Jost to mankind, and if all
previous English writings merely condemned the
belief by their silence, so that the precise date of
the origin of the belief could not be ascertained, we
should have a parallel to the way in which a belief
in a Mosaic Oral Law may possibly have arisen. Yet
it would have been very illogical for an English
reasoner in the year 4000 a.pD. to have argued
from the burden and annoyance of paying tithes to
the correctness of the theory that the institution of
tithes was owing to tis unrecorded revelation to
Adam. It is not meant by this illustration to
suggest that reasons as specious could be advanced
for such a divine origin of tithes as even for a Mosaic
Oral Law. The main object of the illustration is to
show that the existence of a practice, and the belief
as to the origin of a practice, are two wholly distinct
points; and that there is no necessary connexion in
time between the introduction of a practice, and the
introduction of the prevalent belief in its origin.
Under this head we may add that it must not be
assumed that the Sadducees, because they rejected
a Mosaic Oral Law, rejected likewise all traditions
and all decisions in explanation of passages in the
Pentateuch. Although they protested against the
¢ See ἢ. 32 of Essay on the Revenues of the Church
of England, by the Rey. Morgan Cove, Prebendary of
Hereford, and Rector of Eaton Bishop. 578 pp. London,
Rivington, 1816. Third Edition. “Thus do we return
again to the original difficulty (the origin of tithes], to the
solution of which the strength of human reason is unequal,
Nor does there remain any other method of solving it, but
by assigning the origin of the custom, and the peculiar
observance of it, to some unrecorded revelation made to
Adam, and by him and his descendants delivered down to
posterity.”
|
|
|
SADDUCEES
assertion that such points had been divinely settled
by Moses, they probably, in numerous instances,
followed practically the same traditions as the Pha-
risees. This will explain why in the Mishna spe-
cific points of difference between the Pharisees and
Sadducees are mentioned, which are so unimportant ;
such, 9. g. as whether touching the Holy Serip-
tues made the hands technically τ unclean,” in the
Levitical sensé, and whether the stream which flows
when water is poured from a clean vessel into an un-
clean one is itself technically ‘‘ clean” or “ unclean”
(Yadaim, iv. 6,7). If the Pharisees and Sadducees
had differed on all matters not directly contained in
the Pentateuch, it would scarcely have been neces-
sary to particularize points of difference such as
these, which to Christians imbued with the ge-
nuine spirit of Christ’s teaching (Matt. xv. 11;
Luke xi. 37-40), must appear so trifling, as
almost to resemble the products of a diseased ima-
gination.4
II. The second distinguishing doctrine of the Sad-
ducees, the denial of man’s resurrection after death,
followed in their conceptions as a logical conclusion
from their denial that Moses had revealed to the
Israelites the Oral Law. For on a point so mo-
mentous as a second life beyond the grave, no
religious party among the Jews would have deemed
themselves bound to accept any doctrine as an
article of faith, unless it had been proclaimed by
Moses, their creat legislator; ana it is certain that
in the written Law of the Pentateuch there is a
total absence of any assertion by Moses of the resur-
rection of the dead. The absence of this doctrine,
so far as it involves a future state of rewards and
punishments, is emphatically manifest from the
numerous occasions for its introduction in the Pen-
tateuch, among the promises and threats, the bless-
ings and curses, with which a portion of that great
work abounds. In the Law Moses is represented
as promising to those who are obedient to the com-
mands of Jehovah the most alluring temporal re-
wards, such as success in business, the acquisition
of wealth, fruitful seasons, victory over their
enemies, long life, and freedom from sickness (Deut.
Vil. 12-15, xxviii. 1-12; Ex, xx. 12, xxiii. 25, 26);
and he likewise chances the ΤΠ with the
most dreadful evils which can afflict humanity,
with poverty, fell diseases, disastrous and disgrace-
ful deteats, subjugation, dispersion, oppression, and
overpowering anguish of heart (Deut. xxviii. 15-
68): but in not a single instance does he call to his
aid the consolations and terrors of rewards and
punishments hereafter. Moreover, even in a more
restricted indefinite sense, such as might be in-
volved in the transmigration of souls, or in the
immortality of the soul as believed in by Plato,
and appavently by Cicero,® there is a similar absence
of any assertion by Moses of a resurrection of the
dead. This fact is presented to Christians in a
striking manner by the well-known words of the
Pentateuch which are quoted by Christ in argu-
ment with the Sadducees on this subject (Ex. iii.
6, 16; Mark xii. 26, 27; Matt. xxii. 31, 32; Luke
SADDUCEES 1087
xx. 37). It cannot be doubted that in such a case
Christ would quote to his powerful adversaries the
most cogent text in the Law; and yet the text
actually quoted does not do more than suggest an
inference on this great doctrine. Indeed it must
be deemed probable. that the Sadducees, as they did
not acknowledge the divine authority of Christ,
denied even the logical validity of the inference,
and argued that the expression that Jehovah was
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob, did not necessarily mean more than
that Jehovah ἐπὶ been the God of those patriar chs
while they lived on earth, without conveying a
suggestion, one way or another, as to whether they
were or were not still living elsewhere. It is true
that in other parts of the Old Testament there are
individual passages which express a belief in a
resurrection, such as in Is, xxvi. 19, Dan. xii. 2,
Job xix. 26, and in some of the Psalms; and it may
at first sight be a subject of surprise that the Sad-
ducees were not convinced by the authority of those
passages. But although the Sadducees regarded the
books which contained these passages as sacred, it
is more than doubtful whether any of the Jews
regarded them as sacred in precisely the same sense
as the written Law. There is a danger here of con-
founding the ideas which are now common amongst
Christians, who regard the whole ceremonial law
as abrogated, with the ideas of Jews after the time
of Bizra while the Temple was still standing, or
even with the ideas of orthodox modern Jews. To
the Jews Moses was and is a colossal Form, pre-
eminent in authority above all subsequent prophets.
Not only did his series of signs and wonders in
Egypt and at the Red Sea transcend in magnitude
and brillianey those of any other holy men in the
Old Testament, not only was he the centre in
Mount Sinai of the whole legislation of the Israel-
ites, but even the mode by which divine communi-
cations were made to him from Jehovah was
peculiar to him alone. While others were ad-
dressed in visions or in dreams, the Supreme Being
communicated with him alone mouth to mouth and
face to face (Num. xii. 6, 7, 8; Ex. xxxiii. 11;
Deut. v. 4, xxxiv. 10-12). Hence scarcely any Jew
would have deemed himself bound to believe in
man’s resurrection, unless the doctrine had been
proclaimed by Moses; and as the Sadducees dis-
believed the transmission of any Oral Law by Moses,
the striking absence of that doctrine from the written
law freed them from the necessity of accepting the
doctrine as divine. It is not meant by this to deny
that Jewish believers in the resurrection had their
faith strengthened and confirmed by allusions to a
resurrection in scattered passages of the other sacred
writings; but then these passages were read and
interpreted by means of the central light which
streamed from the Oral Law. The Sadducees, how-
ever, not making use of that light, would have
deemed all such passages inconclusive, as being,
indeed, the utterances of holy men, yet opposed to
other texts which had equal claims to be pro-
nounced sacred, but which could ely be sup-
ἃ Many other points of difference, ritual and juridical,
are mentioned in the Gemaras. See Graetz, (iii. pp.
514-18). . But it seems unsafe to admit the Gemaras
as an authority for statements respecting the Pharisees
and Sadducees. See, as to the date of those works,
the article PHARISEES.
© See De Senectute, xxiii. This treatise was composed
within two years before Cicero’s death, and although a
dialogue, may perhaps be accepted as expressing his phi-
losophical opinions respecting the immortality of the soul.
He had held, however, very different language in his
oration pro Cluentio, cap. 1xi., in a passage which is a
striking proof of the popular belief at Rome in his time.
See also Sallust, Catilin. li.; Juvenal, ii. 149; and Pliny
the Elder vii. 56.
1088. SADDUCEES
posed to have been written by men who believed in
a resurrection (Is. xxxviii. 18, 19; Ps. vi. 5, xxx.
9, Ixxxviii. 10, 11, 12; Eccles. ix. 4-10). The real
truth seems to be that, as in Christianity the doc-
trine of the resurrection of man rests on belief in
the resurrection of Jesus, with subsidiary arguments
drawn from texts in the Old Testament, and from
man’s instincts, aspirations, and moral nature; so,
admitting fully the same subsidiary arguments, the
doctrine of the resurrection among Pharisees, and
the successive generations of orthodox Jews, and
the orthodox Jews now living, has rested, and rests,
on a belief in the supposed Oral Law of Moses. On
this point the statement of the learned Grand-Rabbi
to whom allusion has been already made deserves
particular attention. ‘* What causes most sur-
prise in perusing the Pentateuch is the silence
which it seems to keep respecting the most funda-
mental and the most consoling truths. The doc-
trines of the immortality of the soul, and of retri-
᾿ bution beyond the tomb, are able powerfully to
fortify man against the violence of the passions and
the seductive attractions of vice, and to strengthen
his steps in the rugged path of virtue: of them-
selves they smooth all the difficulties which are
raised, all the objections which are made, against
the government, of a Divine Providence, and account
for the good fortune of the wicked and the bad
fortune of the just. But man searches in vain for
these truths, which he desires so ardently; he in
vain devours with avidity each page of Holy Writ;
he does not find either them, or the simple doctrine
of the resurrection of the dead, explicitly announced.
Nevertheless truths so consoling and of such an
elevated order cannot have been passed over in
silence, and certainly God has not relied on the
mere sagacity of the human mind in order to an-
nounce them only implicitly. He has transmitted
them verbally, with the means of finding them in
the text. A supplementary tradition was neces-
sary, indispensable: this tradition exists. Moses
received the Law from Sinai, transmitted it to
Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders trans-
mitted it to the prophets, and the prophets to the
men of the great synagogue’ (Klein, Le Judaisme
ou la Vérité sur le Talmud, p. 15).
In connexion with the disbelief of a resurrection
by the Sadducees, it is proper to notice the state-
ment (Acts xxiii. 8) that they likewise denied there
was “angel or spirit.” A perplexity arises as to
the precise sense in which this denial is to be
understood. Angels are so distinctly mentioned in
the Pentateuch and other books of the Old Testa-
ment, that it is hard to understand how those who
acknowledged the Old Testament to have divine
authority could deny the existence of angels (see
Gen. xvi. 7, xix. 1, xxii. 11, xxviii, 12; Ex. xxiii.
20; Num. xxii. 23; Judg. xiii. 18; 2 Sam. xxiv.
16, and other passages). The difficulty is increased
by the fact that no such denial of angels is recorded
of the Sadducees either by Josephus, or in the
Mishua, or, it is said, in any part of the Talmudical
writings, The two principal explanations which
have been suggested are, either that the Sadducees
regarded the angels of the Old Testament as tran-
sitory unsubstantial representations of Jehovah, or
that they disbelieved, not the angels of the Old
Testament, but merely the angelical system which
had become developed in the popular belief of
the Jews after their return from the Babylonian
Captivity (Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
SADDUCEES
iii. 364). Either of these explanations may pos-
sibly be correct; and the first, although there
are numerous texts to which it did not apply,
would have received some countenance from pas-
sages wherein the same divine appearance which at
one time is called the ‘‘ angel of Jehovah”? is after-
wards called simply ‘‘ Jehovah” (see the instances
pointed out by Gesenius, s. v. aN, Gen. xvi. 7,
13, xxii. 11, 12, xxxi. 11,16; Ex. iii, 2,4; Judg.
vi. 14, 22, xiii. 18, 22). Perhaps, however, an-
other suggestion is admissible. It appears from
Acts xxiii. 9, that some of the scribes on the side
of the Pharisees suggested the possibility of a spirit
or an angel having spoken to St. Paul, on the very
occasion when it is asserted that the Sadducees
denied the existence of angel or spirit. Now the
Sadducees may have disbelieved in the occurrence
of any such phenomena in their own time, although
they accepted all the statements respecting angels
in the Old Testament; and thus the key to the
assertion in the 8th verse that the Sadducees denied
“angel or spirit’? would be found exclusively in
the 9th verse. This view of the Sadducees may be
illustrated by the present state of opinion among
Christians, the great majority of whom do not in
any way deny the existence of angels as recorded
in the Bible, and yet they certainly disbelieve that
angels speak, at the present day, even to the most
virtuous and pious of mankind.
IIL. The opinions of the Sadducees respecting the
freedom of the will, and the way in which those
opinions are treated by Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5,
89), have heen noticed elsewhere [ PHARISEES,
p- 895], and an explanation has been there sug-
gested of the prominence given to a difference in
this respect between the Sadducees and the Phari-
sees. It may be here added that possibly the great
stress laid by the Sadducees on the freedom of the
will may have had some connexion with their
forming such a large portion of that class
from which criminal judges were selected. Jewish
philosophers in their study, although they knew
that punishments as an instrument of good were
unavoidable, might indulge in reflections that
man seemed to be the creature of circumstances,
and might regard with compassion the punishments
inflicted on individuals whom a wiser moral train-
ing and a more happily balanced nature might have
made useful members of society. Those Jews who
were almost exclusively religious teachers would
natuzally insist on the inability of man to do any-
thing good if God’s Holy Spirit were taken away
from him (Ps. li. 11, 12), and would enlarge on
the perils which surrounded man from the tempta-
tions of Satan and evil angels or spirits (1 Chr. xxi.
1; Tob. iii. 17). But it is likely that the ten-
dencies of the judicial class would be more practical
and direct, and more strictly in accordance with
the ideas of the Levitical prophet Ezekiel (xxxiii,
11-19) in a well-known passage in which he gives
the responsibility of bad actions, and seems to at-
tribute the power of performing good actions, exclu-
sively to the individual agent. Hence the sentiment
of the lines—
“Our acts our Angels are, or good or ill,
Our fatal shadows that walk by us still,”
would express that portion of truth on which the
Sadducees, in inflicting punishments, would dwell
with most emphasis: and as, in some sense, they
disbelieved in angels, these lines have a peculiar
SADDUCEES
claim to be regarded as a correct exponent of
Sadducean thought.£. And yet perhaps, if writings
were extant in which the Sadducees explained their
own ideas, we might find that they reconciled these
principles, as we may be certain that Ezekiel did,
with other passages apparently of a different import
m the Old Testament, and that the line of de- |
marcation between them and the Pharisees was not,
in theory, so very sharply marked as the account
of Josephus would lead us to suppose.
IV. Some of the early Christian writers, such as
Epiphanius (/aeres. xiv.), Origen, and Jerome (in
their respective Commentaries on Matt. xxii. 31,
32, 33) attribute to the Sadducees the rejection of
all the Sacred Scriptures except the Pentateuch.
Such rejection, if true, would undoubtedly constitute
a most important additional difference between the
Sadducees and Pharisees. The statement of these
Christian writers is, however, now generally ad-
mitted to have been founded on a misconception of
the truth, and probably to have arisen from a con-
fusion of the Sadducees with the Samaritans. See
Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae on Matt. iii. 7;
Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 363.
Josephus is wholly silent as to an antagonism on
this point between the Sadducees and the Pha-
risees ; and it is absolutely inconceivable that on
the three several oceasions when he introduces
an accqunt of the opinions of the two sects, he
should have been silent respecting such an antagon-
ism, if it had really existed (Ant. xiii. 5, 89, xviii.
1,§3; B. J. ii. 8, 814). Again, the existence of
such a momentous antagonism would be incompa-
tible with the manner in which Josephus speaks of
John Hyrcanus, who was high-priest and king
of Judaea thirty-one years, and who nevertheless,
having been previously a Pharisee, became a Sad-
ducee towards the close of his life. This Hyrcanus,
who died about 106 B.c., had been so inveterately
hostile to the Samaritans, that when about three
years before his death, he took their city Samaria,
he razed it to the ground; and he is represented to
have dug eaverns in various parts of the soil in
order to sink the surface to a level or slope, and
then to have diverted ‘streams of water over it, in
order to efface marks of such a city having ever
existed. If the Sadducees had come so near to the
Samaritans as to reject the divine authority of all
the books of the Old Testament, except the Pen-
tateuch, it is very unlikely that Josephus, after
mentioning the death of Hyrcanus, should have
spoken of him as he does in the following manner :—
“He was esteemed by God worthy of three of the
greatest privileges, the government of the nation,
the dignity of the high priesthood, and prophecy.
For God was with him, and enabled him to know
future events.” Indeed, it may be inferred from
this passage that Josephus did not even deem it a
matter of vital importance whether a high-priest
was a Sadducee or a Pharisee—a latitude of tolera-
tion which we may be confident he would not have
indulged in, if the divine authority of all the books
of the Old Testament, except the Pentateuch, had
been at stake. What probably had more influence
than anything else in occasioning this misconception
yespecting the Sadducees, was the circumstance that
SADDUCEES 1089
in arguing with them on the doctrine of a future life,
Christ quoted from the Pentateuch only, although
there are stronger texts in favour of the doctrine in
some other books of the Old Testament. But pro-
bable reasons have been already assigned why Christ
in arguing on this subject with the Sadducees re-
ferred only to the supposed opinions of Moses rather
than to isolated passages extracted from the produc-
tions of any other sacred writer.
V. In conclusion, it may be proper to notice a
fact, which, while it accounts for misconceptions of
early Christian writers respecting the Sadducees, is
on other grounds well worthy to arrest the atten-
tion. This fact is the rapid disappearance of the
Sadducees from history after the first century, and
the subsequent predominance among the Jews of
the opinions of the Pharisees. Two circumstances,
indirectly, but powerfully, contributed to produce
this result: Ist. The state of the Jews after the
capture of Jerusalem by Titus; and 2ndly. The
growth of the Christian religion. As to the first
point it is difficult to over-estimate the consterna-
tion and dismay which the destruction of Jerusalem
occasioned in the minds of sincerely religious Jews.
Their holy city was in ruins; their holy and beau-
tiful Temple, the centre of their worship and their
love, had been ruthlessly burnt to the ground, and
not one stone of it was left upon another: their
magnifictnt hopes, either of an ideal king who was
to restore the empire of David, or of a Son of Man
who was to appear to them in the clouds of heaven,
seemed to them for a while like empty dreams ; and
the whole visible world was, to their imagination,
black with desolation and despair. In this their hour
of darkness and anguish, they naturally turned to
the consolations and hopes of a future state, and the
doctrine of the Sadducees that there was nothing
beyond the present life, would haye appeared to
them cold, heartless, and hateful.—Again, while they
were sunk in the lowest depths of depression, a new
religion which they despised as a heresy and a super-
stition, of which one of their own nation was the
object, and another the unrivalled missionary to the
heathen, was gradually making its way among the
subjects of their detested conquerors, the Romans.
One of the causes of its success was undoubtedly the
vivid belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and a con-
sequent resurrection of all mankind, which was
accepted by its heathen converts with a passionate
earnestness, of which those who at the present day
are familiar from infancy with the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead can form only a taint idea.
To attempt to check the progress of this new re-
ligion among the Jews by an appeal to the tem-
porary rewards and punishments of the Pentateuch,
would have been as idle as an endeavour to
check an explosive power by ordinary mechanical
restraints. Consciously, therefore, or unconsciously,
many circumstances combined to induce the Jews,
who were not Pharisees, but who resisted the
new heresy, to rally round the standard of the
Oral Law, and to assert that their holy legislator,
Moses, had transmitted to his faithful people by
word of mouth, although not in writing, the reve-
lation of a future state of rewards and punishments.
A great belief was thus built up on a great fiction ;
f The preceding lines would be equally applicable, if,
as is not improbable, ihe Sadducees likewise rejected the
Chaldaean belief in astrology, so common among the Jews
and Christians of the Middle Ages -—
MOL. If;
* Man is his own Star; and the soul that can
Render an honest and a perfect man,
Commands all light, all influence, all fate:
Nothing to him falls early, or too late.”
Fretcuenr’s Lines “ Upon an Honest Man’s Fortune.”
4A
1090 SADOC
early teaching and custom supplied the place of evi-
dence ; faith in an imaginary fact produced results as
striking as could have flowed from the fact itself ;
and the doctrine of a Mosaic Oral Law, enshrining
convictions and hopes deeply rooted in the human
heart, has triumphed for nearly 1800 centuries in
the ideas of the Jewish people. This doctrine, the
pledge of eternal life to them, as the resurrection
of Jesus to Christians, is still maintained by the
majority of our Jewish contemporaries; and it will
probably continue to be the creed of millions long
after the present generation of mankind has passed
away from the earth. [E. T.]
SA'DOC (Sadoch). 1. ZApox the ancestor of
Ezra (2 Esd. i. 1; comp. Ezr. vii. 2).
2. (Σαδώκ : Sadoc.) A descendant of Zerubbabel
in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. i. 14).
SAFFRON (0579, carcém: κρόκος : crocus)
is mentioned only in Cant. iv. 14 with other odorous
substances, such as spikenard, calamus, cinnamon,
&e. ; there is not the slightest doubt that ‘ sattron”
is the correct rendering of the Hebrew word; the
Arabic Kurkum is similar to the Hebrew, and de-
notes the Crocus sativus, or ‘saffron crocus.”
Saffron has from the earliest times been in high
esteem as a perfume: “it was used,” says Rosen-
miiller (Bib. Bot. p. 138), ‘* for the same purposes
as the modern pot-pourri.” Saffron was “also used
in seasoning dishes (Apicius, p. 270), it entered
into the composition of many spirituous extracts
which retained the scent (see Beckmann’s Hist. of In-
vent, 1.p. 175, where the whole subject is very fully
discussed). The part of the plant which was used
was the stigma, which was pulled out of the flower
and then dried. Dr. Royle says, that ““ some-
times the stigmas are prepared by being submitted
to pressure, and thus made into cake saffron, a
form in which it is still imported from Persia into
India.” Hasselquist (Zrav. p. 36) states that in
certain places, as around Magnesia, large quantities
of saffron are gathered and exported to different
places in Asia and Europe. Kitto (Phys. Hist. of
Palest. p. 321) says that thé Saflower (Cartha-
mus tinctorius), a very different plant fiom the
crocus, is cultivated in Syria for the sake of the
flowers which are used in dyeing, but the Aarkém
no doubt denotes the Crocus sativus. The word
saffron is derived from the Arabic Zafran, * yellow.”
This plant gives its name to Saffron-Walden, in
Essex, where it is largely cultivated: it belongs to
the Natural Order [ridaceae. ΕἾ ἘΠῚ
SA'LA (Saad: Sale). ΒΑΤΙΑΗ, or SHELAH, the
father of Eber (Luke iii. 35).
SA'LAH (πον : Badd: Sale). The βοὴ of Ar-
phaxad and father of Eber (Gen. x. 24, xi. 12-14;
Luke iii. 35). The name is significant of extension,
the cognate verb being applied to the spreading out
of the roots and branches of trees (Jer. xvii. 8;
Ez. xvii. 6). It thus seems to imply the historical
fact of the gradual extension of a branch of the
Semitic race from its original seat in Northern
Assyria towards the river Euphrates. A place with
a similar name in Northern Mesopotamia is noticed
by Syrian writers (Knobel, in Gen. xi.); but we
5. In Germany and elsewhere, some of the most learned
Jews disbelieve in a Mosaic Oral Law ; and Judaism seems
ripe to enter on ἃ new phase. Based on the Old Testa-
ment, but avoiding the mistakes of the Karaites, it might
still have a great future; but whether it could last
SALAMIS
cen hardly assume its identity with the Salah of
the Bible. Ewald (Gesch. i. 354) and Von Bohlen
(Introd. to Gen. ii. 205) regard the name as
purely fictitious, the former explaining it as a son
or offspring, the latter as the father of a race.
That the name is significant does not prove it
fictitious, and the conclusions drawn by these writers
are unwarranted. [Wigley Be]
SAL’/AMIS (Σαλαμίς : Salamis), a city at the
east end of the island of Cyprus, and the first place
visited by Paul and Barnabas, on the first missionary
journey, after leaving the mainland at Seleucia.
Two reasons why they took this course obviously
suggest themselves, viz. the fact that Cyprus (and
probably Salamis) was the native-place ot Barnabas,
and the geographical proximity of this end of the
island to Antioch. But a further reason is indi-
cated by a circumstance in the narrative (Acts xiii.
5). Here alone, among all the Greek cities visited
by St. Paul, we read expressly of “" synagogues ἡ in
the plural. Hence we conclude that there were many
Jews in Cyprus. And this is in harmony with
what we read elsewhere. To say nothing of pos-
sible mercantile relations in very early times [Cu1T-
TIM; Cyprus], Jewish residents in the island
are mentioned during the period when the Seleu-
cidae reigned at Antioch (1 Mace. xv. 23). In the
reign of Augustus the Cyprian copper-mines were
farmed to Herod the Great (Joseph. Ané. xvi. 4,
§5), and this would probably attract many Hebrew
families: to which we may add evidence to the
same effect from Philo (Legat. ad Caium) at the
very time of St. Paul’s journey. And again at a
later period, in the reigns of ‘Trajan and Hadrian,
we are informed of dreadful tumuits here, caused
by a vast multitude of Jews, in the course of which
“the whole populous city of Salamis became a
desert” (Milman’s Hist. of the Jews, iii. 111, 112).
We may well believe that from the Jews of Salamis
came some of those early Cypriote Christians, who
are so prominently mentioned in the account of the
first spreading of the Gospel beyond Palestine (Acts
xi, 19, 20), even before the first missionary expe-
dition. Mnason (xxi. 16) might be one of them.
Nor ought Mark to be forgotten here. He was at
Salamis with Paul, and his own kinsman Barnabas;
and again he was there with the same kinsman after
the misunderstanding with St. Paul and the separa-
tion (xv. 39).
Salamis was not far from the modern Fama-
gousta. It was situated near a river called the
Pediaeus, on low ground, which is in fact a con-
tinuation of the plain running up into the interior
towards the place where Wicosia, the present capital
of Cyprus, stands. We must notice in regard to
Salamis that its harbour is spoken of by Greek
writers as very good; and that one of the ancient
tables lays down a road between this city and
Papuos, the next place which Paul and Barnabas
visited on their journey. Salamis again has rather
an eminent position in subsequent Christian history.
Constantine or his successor rebuilt it, and called it
Constantia (“Salamis, quae nunc Constantia di-
citur,’” Hieronym. Philem.), and, while it had this
name, Epiphanius was one of its bishops.
another 1800 years with the belief in a future life, as a
revealed doctrine, depending not on a supposed reve-
lation by Moses, but solely on scattered texts in the
Hebrew Scriptures, is an interesting subject for spec-
ulation.
SALASADAT
Of the travellers who have visited and described
Salamis, we must particularly mention Pococke
(Desc. of the East, ii. 214) and Ross (Reisen nach
Kos, Halikarnassos, Rhodos, und Cypern, 118-125).
These travellers notice, in the neighbourhood of
Salamis, a village named δέ. Sergius, which is
doubtless a reminiscence of Sergius Paulus, and a
large Byzantine church bearing the name of δέ.
Barnabas, and associated with a legend concerning
the discovery of his relics. The legend will be
found in Cedrenus (i. 618, ed. Bonn). (BARNABAS;
SERGIUS PAULUS. ] ᾿ [3 ἘΠ]
SALASADAT (Σαλασαδαΐ, Σαρασαδαΐ, Σουρι-
σαδέ), a variation for Surisadai (Sovpicadat, Num.
i. 6) in Jud. viii. 1. [Zurisnappar.|] [B.F.W.]
SALA'THIEL (Oy pony: Σαλαθιήλ - Sa-
lathiel: “1 have asked God’’4), son of Jechonias
king of Judah, and father of Zorobabel, accoraing
to Matt. i. 12; but son of Neri, and father of
Zorobabel, according to Luke iii. 27; while the
genealogy in 1 Chr, iii. 17-19, leaves it doubtful
whether he is the son of Assir or Jechonias, and
makes Zorobabel his nephew. [ZERUBBABEL. |
Upon the incontrovertible principle that no gene-
alogy would assign to the true son and heir of a
king any inferior and private parentage, whereas,
on the contrary, the son of a private person would
naturally be placed in the royal pedigree on his
becoming the rightful heir to the throne; we may
assert, with the utmost confidence, that St. Luke
gives us the true state of the case, when he informs
us that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and a de-
scendant of Nathan the son of David.’ And from
his insertion in the royal pedigree, both in 1 Chr.
and St. Matthew’s gospel, after the childless
Jechonias,© we infer, with no less confidence, that,
on the failure of Solomon’s line, he was the next
heir to the throne of David. The appearance of
Salathiel in the two pedigrees, though one deduces
the descent from Solomon and the other from
Nathan, is thus perfectly simple, and, indeed, neces-
sary ; whereas the notion of Salathiel being called
Neri’s son, as Yardley and others have thought,
because he married Neri’s daughter, is palpably
absurd on the supposition of his being the son of
Jechonias. On this last principle you might have
not two but about a million different pedigrees
between Jechonias and Christ ;2 and yet you have
no rational account, why there should actually be
more than one. It may therefore be considered as
certain, that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and the
heir of Jechoniah. The question whether he was
the father of Zerubbabel will be considered under
that article.¢ Besides the passages already cited,
Salathiel occurs in 1 Esdr. v. 5, 48, 56, vi. 2;
2 Esdr. v. 16.
As regards the orthography of the name, it has,
ἃ Possibly with an allusion to 1 Sam. i. 20, 27, 28. See
Broughton’s Our Lord’s Family.
b It is worth noting that Josephus speaks of Zorobabel
as ‘the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David, and of
the tribe of Judah” (A. J. xi.3,§10). Had he believed him
to be the son of Jeconiah, of whom he had spoken (x. 11, §2),
he could hardly have failed to say so. Comp. x. 7, §1.
ο “Of Jechonias God sware that he should die leaving
‘no child behind him; wherefore it were flat atheism to
prate that he naturally became father to Salathiel. Though
St. Luke had never left us Salathiel’s family up to Nathan,
whole brother to Solomon, to show that Salathiel was of
another family, God’s oath should make us believe that,
without any further record” (Broughton, μέ swpr.). Ϊ
SALCHAH 1091
as noted above, two forms in Hebrew. The con-
tracted form is peculiar to Haggai, who uses it
three times out of tive; while in the first and last
verse of his prophecy he uses the full form, which
is also found in Ezr. iii. 2; Neh. xii. 1. The LXX.
everywhere have Σαλαθιήλ, while the A. V. has
(probably with an eye to correspondence with Matt.
and Luke) Salathiel in 1 Chr. iii. 17, but everywhere
else in the O. T. SHEALTIEL. [GENEALOGY OF
JESUS CHRIST; JEHOIACHIN. | [A. C. H.]
SAL'CAH! (M39D: Σεκχαὶ, ᾿Αχά, Berd;
Alex. Ελχα, AceAxa, SeAxa: Salecha, Salacha),
A city named in the early records of Israel as the
extreme limit of Bashan (Deut. iii. 10; Josh. xiii.
11) and of the tribe of Gad (1 Chr. ν. 11). On
another occasion the name seems to denote a district
rather than a town (Josh. xii. 5). By Eusebius
and Jerome it is merely mentioned, apparently
without their having had any real knowledge of it.
It is doubtless identical with the town of Suilshad,
which stands at the southern extremity of the Jebel
Hauran, twenty miles 8. of Awnawat (the ancient
Kenath), which was the southern outpost of the
Leja, the Argob of the Bible. Sté/khad is named
by both the Christian and Mahomedan historians of
the middle ages (Will. of Tyre, xvi. 8, ‘‘Selcath ;”
Abulfeda, in Schultens’ Zndex geogr. “ Sarchad’’).
It was visited by Burckhardt (Syria, Nov. 22,
1810), Seetzen and others, and more recently by
Porter, who describes it at some length (Five Years,
ii. 176-116). Its identification with Salcah appears
to be due to Gesenius ‘Burckhardt’s Reisen, 57).
Immediately below Sii/khad commences the plain
of the great Euphrates desert, which appears to
stretch with hardly ἀπ΄ undulation from here to
Busra on the Persian Gulf. The town is of consi-
derable size, two to three miles in circumference,
surrounding a castle on a lofty isolated hill, which
rises 300 or 400 feet above the rest of the place
(Porter, 178, 179). One of the gateways of the
castle bears an inscription containing the date of
A.D. 246 (180). A still earlier date, viz. A.D. 196
(Septimius Severus), is found on a grave-stone
(185). Other scanty particulars of its later history
will be found in Porter. The hill on which the
castle stands was probably at one time a crater, and
its sides are still covered with volcanic cinder and
blocks of lava. [G.]
SAL'CHAH (39D: ‘EAxa: Seleha). The
form in which the name, elsewhere more accu-
rately given SALCAH, appears in Deut. ili. 10
only. The Tarquin Pseudojon. gives it xepnbp,
i. e. Selucia; though which Seleucia they can have
supposed was here intended it is difficult to
imagine. [G.]
4 See a curious calculation in Blackstone’s Comment.
ii. 203, that in the 20th degree of ancestry every mau has
above a million of ancestors, and in the 40th upwards of a
million millions. ἢ
e The theory of two Salathiels, of whom each had a
son called Zerubbabel, though adopted by Hottinger and
J. G. Vossius, is scarcely worth mentioning, except as a
curiosity.
f One of the few instances of our translators having
represented the Hebrew Caph by C. ‘Their common prac-
tice is to use ch for it—as indeed they have done on one
occurrence of this very name. [SALcHaH; and compare
| Canes; CapHtor; Carmet; Cozst; ΟἹ 5Η, ὅς.)
4A2
1092 SALEM
SA'LEM (Dov, 7, ὁ. Shalem: Sadnu: Salem).
1. The place of which Melchizedek was king (Gen.
xiv. 18; Heb, vii. 1,2). No satisfactory identifica-
tion of it is perhaps possible. The indications of the
harrative are not sufficient to give any clue to its
position. It is not even safe to infer, as some have
done,* that it lay between Damascus and Sodom ;
for though it is said that the king of Sodom—who
had probably regained his own city after the retreat
of the Assyrians—went out to meet (NIP) 2
Abram, yet it is also distinctly stated that this was
after Abram had returned (3 YAN) from the
slaughter of the kings. Indeed, it is not certain
that there is any connexion of time or place between
Abram’s encounter with the king of Sodom and the
appearance of Melchizedek. Nor, supposing this
last doubt to be dispelled, is any clue afforded by the
mention of the Valley of Shaveh, since the situation
even of that is more than uncertain.
Dr. Wolfl—no mean authority on Oriental ques-
tious—in a striking passage in his last work, implies
that Salem was—what the author of the Epistle of
the Hebrews understood it to be—a title, not the
name of a place. ‘‘ Melchizedek of old . . . had a
royal title; he was ‘King of Righteousness,’ in
Hebrew Melchi-zedek. And he was also ‘ King of
Peace,’ Melek-Salem. And when Abraham came
to his tent he came forth with bread and wine, and
was called ¢ the Priest of the Highest,’ and Abraham
gave him a portion of his spoil. And just so Wolft’s
friend in the desert of Meru in the kingdom of
Khiva . . . whose name is Abd-er-Rahman, which
means ‘Slave of the merciful God’ . . . has also
a royal title. He is called Shahe-Adaalat, ‘ Kine
of Righteousness’—the same as Melchizedek in
Hebrew. And when he makes peace between kings
he bears the title, Shahe Soolkh, ‘ King of Peace ’—
in Hebrew Melek-Salem.”
To revert, however, to the topographical ques-
tion; two main opinions have been current from
the earliest ages of interpretation. 1. That of the
Jewish commentators, who—from Onkelos( Targum)
and Josephus (B. J. vi. 10; Ant. i, 10, §2, vii. 3,
§2) to Kalisch (Comm. on Gen, p. 360)—with one
voice affirm that Salem is Jerusalem, on the ground
that Jerusalem is so called in Ps. Ixxvi. 2, the
Psalmist, after the manner of poets, or from some
exigency of his poem, making use of the archaic
name in preference to that in common use. This
is quite feasible; but it is no argument for the
identity of Jerusalem with the Salem of Melchi-
zedek. See this well put by Reland (Pal. 838).
The Christians of the 4th century held the same
belief with the Jews, as is evident from an expres-
sion of Jerome (“nostri omnes,’ 2p. ad Evan-
gelum, §7).
2. Jerome himself, however, is not of the same
opinion. He states (Hp. ad Evang. §7) without
hesitation, though apparently (as just observed)
alone in his belief, that the Salem of Melchizedek
was not Jerusalem, but a town near Scythopolis,
which in his day was still called Salem, and where
the vast ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were
a For instance, Bochart, Phaleg, ii. ; 4 Ewald, Gresch. i. 410.
» The force of this word is occwrrere in obviam (Gese-
nius, Thes. 1233 b).
© Professor Stanley seems to have been the first to call
attention to this (8. dé 2, 249). See Hupolemi Fragmenta,
auctore G. A. Kuhlmey (Berlin, 1840); one of those excel-
lent monographs which we owe to the German academical
custom of demanding a treatise at each step in honours.
SALEM
still to be seen. Elsewhere (Onom. ‘* Salem’’) he
locates it more precisely at eight Roman miles from
Scythopolis, and gives its then name as Salumias.
Further, he identifies this Salem with the Salim
(Ξαλείμ) of St. John the Baptist. That a Salem
existed where St. Jerome thus places it there need
be no doubt. Indeed, the name has been recovered
at the identical distance below Beisan by Mr. Van
de Velde, at a spot otherwise suitable for Aenon.
But that this Salem, Salim, or Salumias was the
Salem of Melchizedek, is as uncertain as that Jeru-
salem was so. The ruins were probably as much
the ruins of Melchizedek’s palace as the remains at
Ramet el-Khalil, three miles north of Hebron, are
those of “ Abraham’s house.’’ Nor is the decision
assisted by a consideration of Abram’s homeward
route. He probably brought back his party by the
road along the Ghor as far as Jericho, and then turn-
ing to the right ascended to the upper level of the
country in the direction of Mamre; but whether he
crossed the Jordan at the Jisr Benat Yakub above
the Lake of Gennesaret, or at the Jisr Mejamia
below it, he would equally pass by both Scythopolis
and Jerusalem. At the same time it must be con-
fessed that the distance of Salem (at least eighty
miles from the probable position of Sodom) makes it
difficult to suppose that the king of Sodom can have
advanced so far to meet Abram, adds its weight to
the statement that the meeting took place after
Abram had returned—not during his return—and
is thus so far in favour of Salem being Jerusalem.
3. Professor Ewald (Geschichte, i. 410 note)
pronounces that Salem is a town on the further
side of Jordan, on the road from Damascus to
Sodom, quoting at the same time John iii. 25, but
the writer has in vain endeavoured to discover any
authority for this, or any notice of the existence of
the name in that direction either in former or
recent times.
4. A tradition given by Eupolemus, a writer
known only throvgh fragments preserved in the
Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (ix. 17), differs
in some important points from the Biblical account.
According to this the meeting took place in the
sanctuary of the city Argarizin, which is interpreted
by Eupolemus to mean “ the Mountain of the Most
¢High.” Argarizin® is of course har Gerizzim,
Mount Gerizim. The source of the tradition is,
therefore, probably Samaritan, since the encounter
| of Abram and Melchizedek is one of the events to
which the Samaritans lay claim for Mount Gerizim.
But it may also proceed from the identification of
Salem with Shechem, which lying at the foot of
Gerizim wovld easily be confounded with the moun-
tain itself. [See SHALEM. |
5. A Salem is mentioned in Judith iv. 4, among
the places which were seized and fortified by the
Jews on the approach of Holofernes. ‘The valley
of Salem,” as it appears in the A. V. (τὸν αὐλῶνα
Sadhu), is possibly, as Reland has ingeniously sug-
gested (Pal. * Salem,” p. 977), a corruption of εἰς
αὐλῶνα εἰς SadAhu— into the plain to Salem.”
If Αὐλών is here, according to frequent usage, the
Jordan ® valley, then the Salem referred to must
4 Pliny uses nearly the same form—Argaris (1. N.
v. 14).
© Αὐλὼν is commonly employed in Palestine topography
for the great valley of the Jordan (see Eusebius and Je-
rome, Onomasticon, “Aulon”). But in the Book of Judith
it is used with much less precision in the general sense of a
valley or plain.
/
SALIM
surely be that mentioned by Jerome, and already
noticed. But in this passage it may be with equal
probability the broad plain of the Mukhna which
stretches from Ebal and Gerizim on the one hand,
to the hills on which Salim stands on the other,
whick is said to be still called the “plain of
Salim” (Porter, Handbook, 840 α), and through
which runs the central north road of the country.
Or, as is perhaps still more likely, it refers to
another Salim near Zerin (Jezreel), and to the
plain which runs up between those two places, as
far as Jenin, and which lay directly in the route
of the Assyrian army. There is nothing to show
that the invaders reached as far into the interior
of the country as the plain of the Mukhna. And
the other places enumerated in the verse seem, as
far as they can be recognized, to be points which
guarded the main approaches to the interior (one of
the chief of which was by Jezreel and Engannim),
not towns in the interior itself, like Shechem or the
Salem near it.
2. (abe: ev εἰρήνῃ : in paces), Ps. Ixxvi. 2.
It seems to be agreed on all hands that Salem is
here employed for Jerusalem, but whether as a mere
abbreviation to suit some exigency of the poetry,
and point the allusion to the peace (salem) which
the city enjoyed through the protection of God, or
whether, after a well-known habit of poets,» it is
an antique name preferred to the more modern and
familiar one, is a question not yet decided. The
latter is the opinion of the Jewish commentators,
but it is grounded on their belief that the Salem of
Melchizedek was the city which afterwards became
Jerusalem. This is to beg the question, See a re-
markable passage in Geiger’s Urschrift, &c., 74-6.
The antithesis in verse 1 betweeen ‘‘ Judah”’ and
“Israel,” would seem to imply that some sacred
place in the northern kingdom is being contrasted
with Zion, the sanctuary of the south. And if there
were in the Bible any sanction to the identification
of Salem with Shechem (noticed above), the passage
might be taken as referring to the continued rela-
tion of God to the kingdom of Israel. But there
are no materials even for a conjecture on the point.
Zion the sanctuary, however, being named in the
one member of the verse, it is tolerably certain that
Salem, if Jerusalem, must denote the secular part
of the city—a distinction which has been already
noticed [vol. i. 1026] as frequently occurring and
implied in the Psalms and Prophecies. [G.]
SA'LIM (Sarciu; Alex. Sarre: Salim).
* A place named (John iii. 23) to denote the situation
of Aenon, the scene of St. John’s last. baptisms—Salim
being the well-known town or spot, and Aenon a
place of fountains, or other water, near it. ‘here
is no statement in the narrative itself fixing the
situation of Salim, and the only direct testimony
we possess is that of Eusebius and Jerome, who
_both affirm unhesitatingly (Onom. ‘* Aenon”) that
it existed in their day near the Jordan, eight Ro-
man miles south of Scythopolis. Jerome adds
(under “ Salem”) that its name was then Salumias.
Elsewhere (Zp. ad Evangelum, §7, 8) he states
SALIM 1098
that it was identical with the Salem of Melchi-
zedek,
Various attempts have been more recently made
to determine the locality of this interesting spot.
1. Some (as Alford, Greek Test. ad loc.) propose
SHILHIM and AIN, in the arid country far in the
south of Judaea, entirely out of the circle of asso-
ciations of St. John or our Lord. Others identify
it with the SHALIM of 1 Sam. ix. 4, but this latter
place is itself unknown, and the name in Hebrew
contains δ), to correspond with which the name in
St. John should be Σεγαλείμ or Σααλείμ.
2. Dr. Robinson suggests the modern village of
Salim, three miles E. of Nablus (B. R. iii. 333),
but this is no less out of the circle of St. John’s
ministrations, and is too near the Samaritans ; and
although there is some reason to believe that the
village contains “two sources of living water”
(ib. 298), yet this is hardly sufficient for the
abundance of deep water implied in the narrative.
A writer in the Colonial Ch.. Chron., No. exxvi.
464, who concurs in this opinion of Dr. Robinson,
was told of a village an hour east (?) of Sulim
“named Ain-din, with a copious stream of water.’
The district east of Salim is a blank in the maps.
Yanun lies about 13 hour S.E. of Salim, but thiy
ean hardly be the place intended; and in th
description of Van de Velde, who visited it (ii. 303}
no stream or spring is mentioned.
3. Dr. Barelay (City, &c., 564) is filled with an
“assured conviction” that Salim is to be found in
Wady Seleim, and Aenon in the copious springs
of Ain Farah (ib. 559), among the deep and in-
tricate ravines some five miles N.E. of Jerusalem.
This certainly has the name in its favour, and, if
the glowing description and pictorial woodcut of
Dr. Barclay may be trusted—has water enough,
and of sufficient depth for the purpose.
4, The name of Salim has been lately discovered
by Mr. Van de Velde (Syr. δ᾽ Pal. ii. 345, 6) in a
position exactly in accordance with the notice of Ku-
sebius, viz. six English miles south of Beisdn, and
two miles west of the Jordan. On the northern base
of Tell Redghah is a site of ruins, and near it a
Mussulman tomb, which is called by the Arabs
Sheykh Salim (see also Memoir, 345). Dr. Robin-
son (iii, 333) complains that the name is attached
only to a Mussulman sanctuary, and also that no
ruins of any extent are to be found on the spot; but
with regard to the first objection, even Dr. Robinson
does not dispute that the name is there, and that
the locality is in the closest azieement with the
notice of Kusebius. As to the second it is only ne-
cessary to point to Kefr-Saba, where a town (An-
tipatris), which so late as the time of the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem was of great size and extensively
fortified, has absolutely disappeared. The career of
St. John has been examined in a former part of this
work, and it has been shown with great probability -
that his progress was from south to north, and that
the scene of his last baptisms was not far distant "
from the spot indicated by Eusebius, and now re-
covered by Mr. Vande Velde. [JorDAN, vol. i.
p- 1128.] Salim fulfils also the conditions implied
in the name of Aenon (springs), and the direct.
£ The writer could not succeed (in 1861) in eliciting
this name for any part of the plain. The name, given in
answer to repeated questions, for the astern branch or
leg of the Mukhna was always Wady Sajia.
5. The above is the reading of the Vulgate and of the
“Gallican Psalter.” But in the Liber Psalmorwm juxta
Hebraicam veritatem, in the Divina Bibliotheca included
in the Benedictine Edition of Jerome’s works, the reading
is Salem.
h The Arab poets are said to use the same abbreviation
(Gesenius, 17,65. 1422b). The preference of an archaic to
a modern name will surprise no student of poetry. Kew
things are of more constant occurrence.
1094 SALLAI
statement of the text, that the place contained
abundance of water. ‘The brook of Wady Chusneh
runs close to it, a splendid fountain gushes out
beside the Wely, and vivulets wind about in all
directions. ... Of few places in Palestine could it
so truly be said, ‘ Here is much water’” (Syr. &
Pal. ii. 346).
A tradition is mentioned by Reland (Palaestina,
978) that Salim was the native place of Simon
Zelotes. This in itself seems to imply that its po-
sition was, at the date of the tradition, believed to
be nearer to Galilee than to Judaea. [G.]
SALLA'I obp, in pause bp: Smart; Alex.
Σηλεί : Sellai). 1. A Benjamite, who with 928
of his tribe settled in Jerusalem after the captivity
(Neh. xi. 8).
2. (Sadrat.) The head of one of the courses of
priests who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel
(Neh. xii. 20). In Neh. xii. 7 he is called SaLu.
SALILU (5D: Σαλώμ, Σηλώ; Alex. Sand
in 1 Chr.: Salo, Sellum). 1. The son of Me-
shullam, a Benjamite who returned and settled in
Jerusalem after the captivity (1 Chr. ix. 7; Neh.
mab YE
2. (Om. in Vat. MS.; Alex. Σαλουαΐ : Selium.)
The head of one of the courses of priests who
returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 7). Called
also SALLAI. ,
SALLU'MUS (Σαλοῦμος ; Alex. Σαλλοῦμος :
Salumus), SHALLUM (1 Esd. ix, 25; comp. Ezr.
x. 24),
SAL'MA, or SAL'MON (nidbiy, NOY, or
bly : Σαλμών ; Alex. Σαλμάν, but Σαλωμών
both MSS. in Ruth iv.: Salmon). Son of Nahshon,
the prince of the children of Judah, and father of
Boaz, the husband of Ruth. Salmon’s age is dis-
tinctly marked by that of his father Nahshon, and
with this agrees the statement in 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54,
that he was of the sons of Caleb, and the father, or
head man of Bethlehem-Ephratah, a town which
seems to have been within the territory of Caleb
(1 Chr. ii. 50, 51). [EpHRATAH ; BETHLEHEM. |
On the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan,
Salmon took Rahab of Jericho to be his wife, and
from this union sprang the Christ. [RAHAB. |
From the circumstance of Salmon having lived at
the time of the conquest of Canaan, as well as from
his being the first proprietor of Bethlehem, where
his family continued so many centuries, perhaps till
the reign of Domitian (Euseb. Hccles. Hist. ii. 20).
he may be called the founder of the house of David.
Besides Bethlehem, the Netophathites, the house of
Joab, the Zorites, and several other families, looked
to Salmon as their head (1 Chr. ii. 54, 55).
Two circumstances connected with Salmon have
‘caused some perplexity. One, the variation in the
orthography of his name. The other, an apparent
variation in his genealogy.
As regards the first, the variation in proper
ἃ Eusebius (Chron. Canon. lib. i. 22) has no misgiving
as to the identity of Salma.
Ὁ See a work by Reuss, Der acht und sechzigste Psalm,
ein Denkmal exegetischer Noth und Kunst, zw Ehren unser
ganzen Zunft, Jena, 1851. Independently of its many
obscure allusions, the 8th Psalm contains thirteen ἅπαξ
λεγόμενα, including APWH). It may be observed that
this word is scarcely, as Gesenius suggests, analogous to
77227, DWN, Hiphils of colour; for these words have
SALMON
names (whether caused by the fluctuations of
copyists, or whether they existed in practice, and
were favoured by the significance of the names), is
so extremely common, that such slight differences
as those in the three forms of this name are scarcely
worth noticing. Compare ὁ. 5. the different forms
of the name Shimea, the son of Jesse, in 1 Sam.
xvi. 9; 2 Sam. xiii. 3; 1 Chr. ii. 15: or of Simon
Peter, in Luke ν. 4, &c.; Acts xv. 14. See other
examples in Hervey’s Geneal. of our Lord, ch, vi.
and x. Moreover, in this case, the variation from
Salma to Salmon takes place in two consecutive
verses, viz., Ruth iv. 20, 21, where the notion of
two different persons being meant, though in some
degree sanctioned by the authority of Dr. Kennicott
(Dissert..i. p. 184, 543), is not worth refuting.*
As regards the Saima of 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, his con-
nection with Bethlehem identifies him with the son
of Nahshon, and the change of the final 7 into δὲ
belongs doubtless to the late date of the Book of
Chronicles. The name is so written also in 1 Chr.
ii. 11. But the truth is that the sole reason for
endeavouring to make two persons out of Salma and
Salmon, is the wish to lengthen the line between
Salma and David, in order to meet the false chro-
nology of those times.
The variation in Salmas genealogy, which has
induced some to think that the Salma of 1 Chr. 1].
51, 54 is a different person from the Salma of
1 Chr. ii. 11, is more apparent than real. It arises
from the circumstance that Bethlehem Ephratah,
which was Salmon’s inheritance, was part of the
territory of Caleb, the grandson of Ephratah; and
this caused him to be reckoned among the sons of ’
Caleb. But it is a complete misunderstanding of
the language of such topographical genealogies to
suppose that it is meant to be asserted that Salma
was the literal son of Caleb. Mention is made of
Salma only in Ruth iv. 20, 21; 1 Chr. ii. 11, 51,
54; Matt. i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 52. The questions
of his age and identity ave discussed in the Geneal.
of our Lord, ch. iv. and ix.; Jackson, Chron.
Antiq. i. 171; Hales, Analysis, iii. 44; Burring-
ton, Geneal. i. 189; Dr. Mill, Vindic. of our Lord’s
Geneal. 123, &e. LA. C. H.]
SALMANA'SAR (Salmanasar). SHALMAN-
ESER, king of Assyria (2 Esd. xiii. 40).
SAL'MON ( wy: Σέλμων : Salmon, Judg.
ix. 48). The name of a hill near Shechem, on which
Abimelech and his followers cut down the boughs
with which they set the tower of Shechem on fire.
Its exact position is not known, ‘
It is usually supposed that this hill is mentioned
in a verse of perhaps the most difficult of all the
Psalms» (Ps. Ixviii. 14); and this is probable,
though the passage is peculiarly difficult, and the
precise allusion intended by the poet seems hope-
lesslv lost. Commentators differ from each other ;
and Fiirst, within 176 pages of his Handwérterbuch,
differs from himself (see by and 228). Indeed,
a signification of colour in Kal. The really analogous
word is WO%Di7, “he makes it rain,” which bears the
same relation to TOD, “ rain,’ which »ovin bears to
12, “snow.” Owing, probably, to Hebrew religious
conceptions of natural phenomena, no instance occurs of
VOID used as a neuter in the sense of “it rains ;”
though this would be grammatically admissible.
SALMON
of six distinguished modern commentators — De
Wette, Hitzic, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, and
Hupfeld—no two give distinctly the same meaning ;
and Mr. Keble, in his admirable Version of the
Psalms, gives a translation which, though poetical,
as was to be expected, differs from any one of those
suggested by these six scholars. This is not the
place for an exhaustive examination of the passage,
It may be mentioned, however, that the literal trans-
lation of the words wabya bvin is ‘ Thou
makest it snow,” or ‘ It snows,’ > with liberty to use
the word either in the past or in the future tense.
As notwithstanding ingenious attempts, this supplies
no satisfactory meaning, recourse is had to a trans-
lation of doubtful validity, ‘‘ Thou makest it white
as show,” or “It is white as snow”—words to
which various metaphorical meanings have been
attributed. he allusion which, through the Lexi-
con of Gesenius, is most generally received, is that
the words refer to the ground being snow-white
with bones after a defeat of the Canaanite kings;
and this may be accepted by those who will adit
the scarcely permissible meaning, ‘‘ white as snow,”
and who cannot rest satisfied without attaching
some definite signification to the passage. At the
same time it is to be remembered that the figure
is a very harsh one; and that it is not really
justified by passages quoted in illustration of it
trom Latin classical writers, such as, ‘* campique
ingentes ossibus albent” (Virg. Aen. xii. 36),
ant “humanis ossibus albet humus” (Ovid, Faust.
558), for in these cases the word ἐς bones’ is
ΣΙΝ used in the text, and is not left to be
supplied by the imagination. Granted, however,
that an allusion is made to bones of the slain,
there is a divergence of opinion as to whether
Salmon was mentioned simply because it had been
the battle-ground in some great defeat of the Ca-
naanitish kings, or whether it is only introduced as
an image of snowy whiteness. And of these two
explanations, the first would be on the whole most
probable; for Salmon cannot have been a very high
mountain, as the highest mountains near Shechem
are Ebal and Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest
ot the two, is only 1028 feet higher than the city
(see EBAL, p. 470; and Robinson’s Gesenius, 895 a).
If the poet had desired to use the image of a snowy
mountain, it would have been more natural-to select
Hermon, which is visible from the eastern brow of
Gerizim, is about 10,000 feet high, and is covered
with perpetual snow. Still it is not meant that
this circumstance by itself would be conclusive ; for
there may have been particular associations in the
mind of the poet, unknown to us, which led him to
prefer Salmon.
In despair of understanding the allusion to Salmon,
some suppose that Salm6n, i.e. Zsalmén, is not a
proper name in this passage, but merely signifies
‘darkness ;” and this interpretation, supported by
the Targum, though opposed to the Septuagint, has
been adopted by Ewald, and in the first state-
ment in his Lexicon is admitted by Fiirst. Since
tselem signifies ‘* shade,” this is a bare etymo-
logical possibility. But no such word as tsalmon
occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew language; while
there are several other words for darkness, in
different degrees of meaning, such as the ordinary
word choshek, ophel, aphélah, and ’araphel.
Unless the passage is given up as corrupt, it
seems more in accordance with reason to admit that
there was some allusion present to the poet’s mind,
SALOME 1095
the key to which is now lost; and this ought not to
surprise any scholar who reflects how many allu-
sions there are in Greek poets—in Pindar, for ex-
ample, and in Aristophanes—which would be wholly
unintelligible to us now, were it not for the notes
of Greek scholiasts. To these notes there is nothing
exactly analogous in Hebrew literature; and in the
absence of some such assistance, it is unavoidable
that there should be several passages in the O. Τὶ
respecting the meaning of which we must be content
to remain ignorant. [πὰ
SAL'MON the father of Boaz (Ruth iv. 20, 21;
Matt. 1. 4, 5; Luke iii. 32). [Sanma.]
SALMO'NE ine Salmone). The Kast
point of the island of CRETE. In the account of St.
Paul’s voyage to Rome this promontory is mentioned
in such a way (Acts xxvii. 7) as to afford a curious
illustration both of the navigation of the ancients
and of the minute accuracy of St. Luke’s narrative.
We gather from other circumstances of the voyage
that the wind was blowing from the N.W. (ἐναν-
tlous, ver. 4; βραδυπλοοῦντες, ver. 7). [See
Myra.] We are then told that the ship, on
making CNIDUS, could not, by reason of the wind,
hold on her course, which was past the south point
of Greece, W. by δ. She did, however, just fetch
Cape Salmone, which bears 8.W. by S. from Cnidus.
Now we may take it for granted that she could
have made good a course of less than seyen points
from the wind [Suir]: and, starting from this
assumption, we are at once brought to the conclu-
sion that the wind must have been between N.N.W.
and W.N.W. ‘Thus what Paley would have called
an ‘ undesigned coincidence” is elicited by a cross-
examination of the narrative. This ingenious argu-
ment is due to Mr. Smith of Jordanhill ( Voy. and
Shipwreck of St. Paul, pp. 73, 74, 2nd ed.), and
from him it is quoted by Conybeare and Howson
(Life and Epp. of St. Paul, ii. 393, 2nd ed.). To
these books we must refer for fuller details. We may
just add that the ship had had the advantages of a
weather shore, smooth water, and a favouring cur-
rent, before reaching Cnidus, and that by running
down to Cape Salmone the sailors obtained similar
advantages under the lee of Crete, as far as FAIR
HAVENS, near LASAEA. idle 5. 2815)
SA'LOM (ξΞαλώμ : Salom). The Greek form
1. of Shallum, the father of Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7).
[SHALLUM.] 2. (Salomus) of Salu the father of
Zimyi (1 Mace. ii. 26). [Sauu. ]
SALOME (Sardun: Salome). 1. The wife of
Zebedee, as appears from comparing Matt. xxvii.
56 with Mark xv. 40. It is further the opinion of
many modern critics that she was the sister of
Mary, the mother of Jesus, to whom reference is
made in John xix. 25. The words admit, however,
of another and hitherto generally received explana-
tion, according to which they refer to the ‘* Mary
the wife of Cleophas”’ immediately afterwards men-
tioned. In behalf of the former view, it may be
urged that it gets rid of the difficulty arising out.
of two sisters having the same name—that it har-
monises John’s narrative with those of Matthew
and Mark—that this circuitous manner of describing
his own mother is in character with St. John’s
manner of describing himself—that the absence of
any connecting link between the second and third
designations may be accounted for on the ground
that the four are arranged in two distinct couplets
—and, lastly, that the Peshito, the Persian, and the
1096 SALT
Aethiopic versions mark the distinction between the
second and third by interpolating a conjunction. On
the other hand, it may be urged that the difficulty
arising out of the name may be disposed of by
assuming a double marriage on the part of the
father—that there is no necessity to harmonise
John with Matthew and Mark, for that the time
and the place in which the groups are noticed differ
materially—that the language addressed to John,
“Behold thy mother!” favours the idea of the
absence rather than of the presence of his natural
mother—and that the varying traditions* current in
the early Church as to Salome’s parents, worthless
as they are in themselves, yet bear a negative testi-
mony against the idea of her being related to the
mother of Jesus. Altogether we can hardly regard
the point as settled, though the weight of modern
‘criticism is decidedly in favour of the former view
(see Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 648). The
only events recorded of Salome are that she pre-
ferred a request on behalf of her two sons for seats
of honour in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xx. 20),
that she attended at the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark
xv. 40), and that she visited his sepulchre (Mark
xvi. 1). She is mentioned by name only on the
two latter occasions.
2. The daughter of Herodias by her first hus-
band, Herod Philip (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5, §4). She
is the ‘daughter of Herodias” noticed in Matt.
xiv. 6 as dancing before Herod Antipas, and as pro-
curing at her mother’s instigation the death of John
the Baptist. She married in the first place Philip
the tetrarch of Trachonitis, her paternal uncle, and
secondly Aristobulus, the king of Chalcis. [W. L. B.]
SALT (nbn: GAs: sal). Indispensable as salt
is to ourselves, it was even more so to the Hebrews,
being tothem not only an appetizing condiment in
the food both of man (Job vi. 6) and beast (Is.
xxx, 24, see margin), and a most valuable antidote
to the effects of the heat of the climate on animal
food, but also entering largely into their religious
services as an accompaniment to the various offer-
ings presented on the altar (Lev. ii. 13). They
possessed an inexhaustible and ready supply of it
on the southern shores of the Dead Sea. Here may
have been situated the Valley of Salt (2 Sam. viii.
13), in proximity to the mountain of fossil salt
which Robinson (fesearches, ii. 108) describes as
five miles in length, and as the chief source of the
salt in the sea itself. Here were the saltpits (Zeph.
ii. 9), probably formed in the marshes at the
southern end of the lake, which are completely
coated with salt, deposited periodically by the rising
of the waters; and here also were the successive
pillars of salt which tradition has from time to
time identified with Lot’s wife (Wisd. x. 7; Jo-
seph. Ant. i. 11, 84). (SEA, THE Sart.] Salt
might also be procured from the Mediterranean
Sea, and from this source the Phoenicians would
naturally obtain the supply necessary for salting
fish (Neh. xiii. 16) and for other purposes. The
Jews appear to have distinguished between rock-
salt and that which was gained by evaporation, as
the Talmudists particularize one species (probably
the latter) as the ‘‘salt of Sodom” (Carpzoy,
Appar. p. 718). The notion that this expression
means bitumen rests on no foundation. The salt-
pits formed an important source of revenue to the
SALT
rulers of the country (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, §9),
and Antiochus conferred a valuable boon on Jeru-
salem by presenting the city with 375 bushels of
salt for the Temple service (Ant. xii. 3, §3). In
addition to the uses of salt already specified, the
inferior sorts were applied as a manure to the soil,
or to hasten the decomposition of dung (Matt. v.
13; Luke xiv. 35). Too large an admixture, how-
ever, was held to produce sterility, as exemplified
on the shores of the Dead Sea (Deut. xxix. 23;
Zeph. ii. 9): hence a “ salt” land was synonymous
with barrenness (Job xxxix. 6, see margin; Jer.
xvii. 6 ; comp. Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, §2, ἁλμυρώδης
καὶ ἄγονος); and hence also arose the custom of
sowing with salt the foundations of a destroyed city
(Judg. ix. 45), as a token of its irretrievable ruin.
It was the belief of the Jews that salt would, by
expesure to the air, lose its virtue (uwpav6y, Matt.
v. 13) and become saltless (&vadov, Mark ix. 50).
The same fact is implied in the expressions of Pliny,
sal iners (xxxi. 59), sal tabescere (xxxi. 44); and
Maundrell (arly Travels, p. 512, Bohn) asserts
that he found the surface of a salt rock in this con-
dition. The associations connected with salt in
Eastern countries are important. As one of the
most essential articles of diet, it symbolized hospi-
tality ; as an antiseptic, durability, fidelity, and
purity. Hence the expression, “ covenant of salt”
(Lev. ii. 13; Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chr. xiii. 5), as
betokening an indissoluble alliance between friends ;
and again the expression, “ salted with the salt of
the palace” (Ezr. iv. 14), not necessarily meaning
that they had “ maintenance from the palace,” as
the A. V. has it, but that they were bound by
sacred obligations of fidelity to the king. So in the
present day, ‘to eat bread and salt together” is
an expression for a league of mutual amity (Russell,
Aleppo, i. 232); and, on the other hand, the
Persian term for traitor is nemekharam, “ faithless
to salt” (Gesen. Thes. p. 790). It was probably
with a view to keep this idea prominently before
the minds of the Jews that the use of salt was en-
joined on the Israelites in their offerings to God ;
for in the first instance it was specifically ordered
for the meat-offering (Lev. ii. 13), which consisted
mainly of flour, and therefore was not liable to cor-
ruption. The extension of its use to burnt sacri-
fices was a later addition (Ez. xliii. 24; Joseph.
Ant. iii. 9, §1), in the spirit of the general injunc-
tion at the close of Lev. ii. 13. Similarly the
heathens accompanied their sacrifices with salted
barley-meal, the Greeks. with their οὐλοχύται (Hom.
Ti. i. 449), the Romans with their moda salsa (Hor.
Sat. ii. 3, 200) or their salsae fruges (Virg. Aen.
ii, 133). It may of course be assumed that in all
of these cases salt was added as a condiment; but
the strictness with which the rule was adhered to—
no sacrifice being offered without salt (Plin. xxxi.
41), and still more the probable, though perhaps
doubtful, admixture of it in incense (Ex. xxx. 35,
where the word rendered ‘tempered together”? is
by some understood as ‘* salted” )—leads to the con-
clusion that there was a symbolical force attached
to its use. Our Lord refers to the sacrificial use
of salt in Mark ix. 49, 50, though some of the other
associations may also be implied. The purifying
property of salt, as opposed to corruption, led to its
selection as the outward sign in Elisha’s miracle
(2 K. ii. 20, 21), and is also developed in the N.T.
« According to one account she was the daughter of
Joseph by a former marriage (Mpiphan. Hae7. 1xxviii. 8):
according to another, the wife ef Joseph (Niceph. H. 2,
ἘΠ 8.
;
SALT, CITY OF
(Matt. v. 15; Col. iv. 6). The custom of rubbing
infants with salt (Ez. xvi. 4) originated in sani-
tary considerations, but received also a symbolical
meaning. [W. L. B.]
SALT, CITY OF (nbpn—WY: αἱ πόλεις
Σαδῶν ; Alex. at modts adwy: civitas Salis).
The fifth of the six cities of Judah which lay in the
ἐς wilderness’ (Josh. xv. 62). Its proximity to En-
gedi, and the name itself, seem to point to its being
sitzated close to or at any rate in the neighbour-
hood of the Salt-sea. Dr. Robinson (δ. 10. ii. 109)
expresses his belief that it lay somewhere near the
plain at the south end of that lake, which he would
identify with the Valley of Salt. This, though
possibly supported by the reading of the Vatican
LXX., “the cities of Sodom,” is at present a mere
conjecture, since no trace of the name or the city has
ἢ yet been discovered in that position. On the other
hand, Mr. Van de Velde (Syr. Pal, ii. 99, Memoir,
111, and Map) mentions a Nahr Maleh which he
passed in his route from Wady el-Rmail to Sebbeh,
the name of which (though the orthography is not
certain) may be found to contain a trace of the
Hebrew. It is one of four ravines which unite to
form the Wady el Bedun. Another of the four, W.
’Amreh (Syr. § P.ii. 99 ; Memoir, 111, Map), recals
the name of Gomorrah, to the Hebrew of which it
is very similar. [G.]
SALT, VALLEY OF (nbd δ᾽}, but twice
with the article, MPM 2 : Γεβελέμ, Γεμελέδ,
κοιλὰς, and φάραγξ, τῶν ἁλῶν ; Alex. Tnuara,
Ταιμελα: Vallis Salinarum). <A certain valley, or
perhaps more accurately a ‘ ravine,” the Hebrew
word Ge appearing to bear that signification—in
which occurred two memorable victories of the
Israelite arms.
1. That of David over the Edomites (2 Sam.
viii, 13; 1 Chr. xviii. 12). It appears to have
immediately followed his Syrian campaign, and
was itself one of the incidents of the great Edomite
war of extermination.* The battle in the Valley
of Salt appears to have been conducted by Abishai
(1 Chr. xviii. 12), but David and Joab were both
present in person at the battle and in the pursuit
and campaign which followed; and Joab was left
‘behind for six months to consummate the doom
of the conquered country (1 K. xi. 15, 16; Ps. lx.
title). The number of Edomites slain in the battle
is uncertain: the narratives of Samuel and Chronicles
both give it at 18,000, but this figure is lowered in
the title of Ps. Ix. to 12,000.
2. That of Amaziah (2 K. xiv. 7; 2 Chr. xxv.
11), who is related to have slain ten thousand
Edomites in this valley, and then to have pro-
ceeded, with 10,000 prisoners, to the stronghold of
the nation at has-Sela, the Cliff, 7. e. Petra, and,
after taking it, to have massacred them by hurling
them down the precipice which gave its ancient
name to the city.
a The Received Text of 2 Sam. viii. 13 omits the men-
tion of Edomites ; but from a comparison of the parallel
passages in 1 Chr. and in the title of Ps. lx. there is good
ground for believing that the verse originally stood thus:
“ And David made himself a name [when he returned
from smiting the Aramites] [and when he returned he
smote the Edomites] in the Valley of Salt—eighteen
thousand ;” the two clauses within brackets having been
omitted by the Greek and Hebrew scribes respectively,
owing to the very close resemblance of the words with
which each clause finishes—D9}O7&X and HO FNX. This
is the conjecture cf Thenius (weg. Handbuch), and is
SALT, VALLEY OF 1097
Neither of these notices affords any clue to the
situation of the Valley of Salt, nor does the cursory
mention of the name (‘ Gemela”’ and ‘ Mela”)
in the Onomasticon. By Josephus it is not named
on either occasion. Seetzen (Reisen, ii. 856) was
probably the first to suggest that it was the broad
open plain which lies at the lower end of the Dead
Sea, and intervenes between the lake itself and the
range of heights which crosses the valley at six or
eight miles to the south. The same view is taken
(more decisively) by Dr. Robinson (.δ. #. ii, 109).
The plain is in fact the termination of the G/hér or
valley through which the Jordan flows from the
Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea. Its N.W. corner
is occupied by the Ahashm Usdim, a mountain of
rock salt, between which and the lake is an extensive
salt marsh, while salt streams and brackish springs
pervade, more or less, the entire western half of the
plain. Without presuming to contradict this sug-
gestion, which yet can hardly be aftirmed with safet}
in the very imperfect condition of our knowledge of
the inaccessible regions 5. and S.E. of the Dead Sea,
it may be well to call attention to some considera-
tions. which seem to stand in the way of the implicit
reception which most writers have given it since the
publication of Dr. R.’s Researches.
(a) The word Ge (815), employed for the place
in question, is not, to the writer’s knowledge, else-
where applied to a broad valley or sunk plain
of the nature of the lower Giér. Such tracts are
denoted in the Scripture by the words Hmek or
Bika’ ah, while Ge appears to be reserved for clefts
or ravines of a deeper and narrower character.
[ VALLEY. ]
(b) A priori, one would expect the tract in
question to be called in Scripture by the pecu-
liar name uniformly applied to the more northern
parts of the same valley—/a-Arabah—in the same
manner that the Arabs now call it el-Ghér—Ghér
being their equivalent for the Hebrew Ardbah.
(c) The name “ Salt,” though at first sight con-
clusive, becomes less so on reflection. It does not
follow, because the Hebrew word melach signifies
salt, that therefore the valley was salt. A case
exactly parallel exists at e/-Milh, the representative
of the ancient MOLADAH, some sixteen miles south
of Hebron. Like melach, milh signifies salt; but
there is no reason to believe that there is any salt
present there, and Dr. Robinson (B. R. ii. 201 note)
himself justly adduces it as ‘‘an instance of the
usual tendency of popular pronunciation to reduce
foreign proper names [ο΄ ἃ significant form.” Just
as el-Milh is the Arabic representative of the
Hebrew Moladah, so possibly was ge-melach the
Hebrew representative of some archaic Edomite
name.
(d) What little can be inferred from the narra-
tive as to the situation of the Ge-Melach is in
favour of its being nearer to Petra, Assuming
Selah to be Petra (the chain of evidence for which
adopted by Bunsen (Bibelwerk, ‘note to the passage).
Ewald has shown (Gesch. iii, 201, 2) that the whole
passage is very much disordered. oY wy should pro-
bably be rendered “ and set up a monument,” instead
of “and gat a name” (Gesen. Thes. 1431 b)); Michaelis
(Suppl. No. 2501, and note to Bibel fiir Ungel.) ; De Wette
(Bibel); LXX. Coisl. καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐστηλωμένην ; Jerome
(Quaest. Hebr.), evexit fornicem triumphalem. Raschi
interprets it “ reputation,” and makes the reputation to
have arisen from David's good act in burying the dead
even of his enemies.
1098 SALU
is tolerably connected), it seems difficult to believe
that a large body of prisoners should have been
dragged for upwards of fifty miles through the
heart of a hostile and most difficult country, merely
for massacre. ‘ [G.]
SA'LU (nop: Σαλμών : Alex. Σαλώ : Sal).
The father of Zimri the prince of the Simeonites,
who was slain by Phinehas (Num. xxv. 14). Called
also SALOM.
SA'LUM (Σαλούμ : Lsmennus). 1. SHALLUM,
the head ofa family of gatekeepers (A. V. “ porters”)
of the Temple (1 Esd. v. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42).
2. (Σαλήμος : Solome.) SHALLUM, the father
of Hilkiah and ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 1;
comp. Ezr. vii. 2). Called also SADAMIAS and
SADOM.
SALUTATION. Salutations may be classed
uhder the two heads of conversational and epistolary.
The salutation at meeting consisted in early times
of various expressions of blessing, such as ‘‘ God be
gracious unto thee” (Gen. xliii, 29); * Blessed be
thou of the Lord” (Ruth iii. 10; 1 Sam. xv..13) ;
. “The Lord be with you,” **The Lord bless thee ”
(Ruth ii. 4); ‘ The blessing of the Lord be upon
you; we bless you in the name of the Lord” (Ps.
exxix. 8). Hence the term ‘bless’ received the
secondary sense of ‘ sabute,’’ and is occasionally so
rendered in the A. V. (1 Sam. xiii. 10, xxv. 14;
2K. iv. 29, x. 15), though not so frequently as it
might have been (6. g. Gen, xxvii. 23, xlvii. 7, 10;
1 Kk. viii. 66). The blessing was sometimes accom-
panied with inquiries as to the health either of the
person addressed or his relations, The Hebrew
term used in these instances (sha/6m*) has no special
reference to ‘ peace,” as stated in the marginal
translation, but to general well-being, and strictly
answers to our “ welfare,” as given in the text (Gen.
xliii. 27; Ex. xviii. 7). It is used not only in the
case of salutation (in which sense it is frequently
rendered ‘to salute,” e.g. Judy. xviii. 15; 1 Sam.
x. 4; 2 K. x. 13); but also in other cases where it
is designed to soothe or to encourage a person (Gen.
xliii, 23; Judg. vi. 23, xix. 20; 1 Chr. xii. 18;
Dan. x. 19; compare 1 Sam. xx. 21, where it is
opposed to “hurt : 2 Sam. xviii. 28, ‘all is well ;”
and 2 Sam. xi. 7, where it is applied to the progress
of the war). The salutation at parting consisted
originally of a simple blessing (Gen. xxiv. 60,
xxvili, 1, xlvii. 10; Josh. xxii. 6), but in later
times the term sidlom was introduced here also in
the form “Go in peace,” or rather ‘‘ Farewell ”
(1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42; 2 Sam. xv. 9). This» was
current at the time of our Saviour’s ministry
(Mark ν. 34; Luke vii, 50; Acts xvi. 36), and is
adopted by Him in His parting addvess to His dis-
ciples (John xiv. 27). It had even passed into a
salutation on meeting, in such forms as “ Peace be
to this house” (Luke x. 5), "" Peace be unto you”’
(Luke xxiv. 36; John xx. 19). The more common
salutation, however, at this period was borrowed
from the Greeks, their word χαίρειν being used
both at meeting (Matt. xxvi. 49, xxvill, 9; Luke i.
28), and probably also at departure. In modern
times the ordinary mode of address current in the
Kast resembles the Hebrew:—ls-selam aleyhum,
“Peace be on you” (Lane's Mod. Ly. ii. 7), and
= piv,
Ly
b The Greek expression is evidently borrowed from the
Hebrew, the preposition εἰς not betokening the state into
SALUTATION
the term “salam” has been introduced into our
own language to describe the Oriental salutation.
The forms of greeting that we have noticed, were
freely exchanged among persons of different ranks
on the occasion of a casual meeting, and this even
when they were strangers. Thus Boaz exchanged
greeting with his reapers (Ruth ii. 4), the tra-
yeller on the road saluted the worker in the field
(Ps. exxix. 8), and members of the same family in-
terchanged greetings on rising in the morning (Prov.
xxvii. 14). The only restriction appears to have
been in regard to religion, the Jew of old, as the
Mohammedan of the present day, paying the com-
pliment only to those whom he considered “ bre-
thren,” ἡ, e. members of the same religious com-
munity (Matt. v.47; Lane, ii. 8; Niebuhr, Descript.
p. 43). Even the Apostle St. John forbids an
interchange of greeting where it implied a wish .
for the success of a bad cause (2 John 11). In
modern times the Orientals are famed for the ela-
borate formality of their greetings, which occupy a
very considerable time; the instances given in the
Bible do not bear such a character, and therefore
the prohibition addressed to persons engaged in
urgent business, ‘* Salute no man by the way” (2 K.
iv. 29; Luke x. 4), may best be referred to the
delay likely to ensue from subsequent conversation.
Among the Persians the monarch was never ap-
proached without the salutation “Oh, king! live
for ever” (Dan. ii. 4, &.). There is no evidence
that this ever became current among the Jews: the
expression in 1 Καὶ. i, 31, was elicited by the previous
allusion on the part of David to his own decease.
In lieu of it we meet with the Greek χαῖρε, “hail!”
(Matt. xxvii. 29). The act of salutation was ac-
companied with a variety of gestuies expressive ot
different degrees of humiliation, and sometimes with
a kiss. [ADORATION ; Kiss.] These acts involved
the necessity of dismounting in case a person were
riding or driving (Gen. xxiv. 64; 1 Sam. xxv. 235
2K. v. 21). The same custom still prevails in the
East (Niebuhr’s Descript. p. 39).
The @pistolary salutations in the period subsequent
to the O. T. were framed on the model of the Latin
style: the addition of the term ‘ peace” may, how-
ever, be regarded as a vestige of the old Hebrew
form (2 Mace. i. 1). The writer placed his own
name first, and then that of the person whom he
saluted ; it was only in special cases that this order
was reversed (2 Macc. i. 1, ix. 19; 1 Esdr. vi. ὯΝ
A combination of the first and third persons in the
terms of the salutation was not unfrequent (Gal. i.
1, 2; Philem. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1). The term used
(either expressed or understood) in the introductory
salutation was the Greek χαίρειν in an elliptical
construction (1 Macc. x. 18; 2 Mace. ix. 19;
1 Esdr. viii. 9; Acts xxiii. 26); this, however, was
more frequently omitted, and the only Apostolic
passages in which it occurs are Acts xv. 25 and
James i. 1, a coincidence which renders it probable
that St. James composed the letter in the former
passage. A form of prayer for spiritual mercies was
also used, consisting generally of the terms ‘* grace
and peace,” but in the three Pastoral Epistles and
in 2 John, ‘‘ grace, merey, and peace,” and in Jude
“mercy, peace, and love.” The concluding saluta-
tion consisted occasionally of a translation of the
Latin valete (Acts xv. 29, xxiii, 30), but more ge-
which, but answering to the Hebrew by in which the
person departs.
SAMAEL
nerally of the term ἀσπάζομαι, ““1 salute,’ or the
cognate substantive, accompanied by a prayer for
peace or grace. St. Paul, who availed himself of
an amanuensis (Rom, xvi. 22), added the salutation
with his own hand (1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18;
2 Thes. iii. 17). The omission of the introductory
salutation in the Epistle to the Hebrews is very
noticeable. [Wools Buy
SAM'AEL (Σαλαμιήλ : Salathiel), a variation
for (margin) Salamiel [SHeLUMIEL] in Jud. viii. 1
(comp. Num. i. 6), The form in A. V. is given
by Aldus. [B. F. W.]
SAMAT'AS (Sauaias: Semeias). 1. SHE-
MAIAH the Levite in the reign of Josiah (1 Esd. i.
95 comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 9).
2. SHEMAIAH of the sons of Adonikam (1 Esd.
viii. 39 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 13).
8. (Σεμεΐ; Alex. Seuetas: om. in Vulg.) The
“‘ oveat Samaias,” father of Ananias and Jonathas
(Tob. v. 13).
SAMA'RIA qin, 7. 6. ShomerOn: Chald.
Pw : Σαμάρεια, Σεμηρών, Soudowv*®; Joseph.
Σαμάρεια, but Ant. viii. 12, δῦ, Sewapewy: Sa- |
maria), a city of Palestine.
The word Shomeron means, etymologically, “ per-
taining to a watch,” or ‘¢a watch-mountain ;” and |
we should almost be inclined to think that the pecu- |
liarity of the situation of Samaria gave occasion to
its name. In the territory originally belonging to
the tribe of Joseph, about six miles to the north-west
of Shechem, there is a wide basin-shaped valley,
encircled with high hills, almost on the edge of the |
great plain which borders upon the Mediterranean,
In the centre of this basin, which is on a lower
level than the valley of Shechem, rises a less elevated
oblong hill, with steep yet accessible sides, and a
long Hat top. This hill was chosen by Omri, as the
site of the capital of the kingdom of Israel. The
first capital after the secession of the ten tribes had
been Shechem itself, whither all Israel had come to
make Rehoboam king. On the separation being fully
accomplished, Jeroboam rebuilt that city (1 K. xii.
25), which had been razed to the ground by Abi-
melech (Judg. ix. 45). But he soon moved to
Tirzah, a place, as Dr. Stanley observes, of great and
proverbial beauty (Cant. vi. 4); which continued to
be the royal residence until Zimri burnt the palace
and perished in its ruins (1 K, xiv. 17; xv. 21, 33;
xvi. 6-18). ‘Omri, who prevailed in the contest for |
the kingdom that ensued, after ‘ reigning six years ” |
there, ‘* bought the hill of Samaria (ἡ νοῦ ἽΠΠ ; τὸ |
ὄρος τὸ Σεμηρών) of Shemer (TRY ; Zeunp, Joseph.
Séuapos) for two talents of silver, and built on
the hill, and called the name of the city which
he built, after the name of the owner of the hill,
Samaria” (1 K. xvi. 23, 24). This statement of
course dispenses with the etymology above alluded
to; but the central position of the hill, as Herod
sagaciously observed long afterwards, made it ad-
mirably adapted for a place of observation, and a
fortress to awe the neighbouring country. And the
singular beauty of the spot, upon which, to this hour,
travellers dwell with admiration, may have struck
Omri, as it afterwards struck the tasteful Idu-
mean (8. J. i. 21, §2; Ant. xv. 8, §5).
SAMARIA 1099
From the date of Omni’s purchase, B.c. 925,
Samaria retained its dignity as the capital of the
ten tribes. Ahab built a temple to Baal there
( K. xvi. 32, 33); and from this circumstance a
portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separate
wall, was called “ the city of the house of Baal”
(2 K. x. 25). Samaria must have been ἃ place
of great strength. It was twice besieged by the
Syrians, in B.c. 901 (1 K. xx. 1), and in B.c. 892
(2 K. vi. 24—-vii. 20); but on both occasions the
sieze was ineffectual. On the latter, mdeed, it
was relieved miraculously, but not until the inha-
bitants had suffered almost incredible horrors from
famine during their protracted resistance. The pos- ὦ
sessor of Samaria was considered to be de facto
king of Israel (2 K. xv. 13, 14); and woes denounced
against the nation were directed against it by name
(Cs. vii. 9, &.). In B.c, 721, Samaria was taken,
| after a siege of three years, by Shalmaneser, king of
Assyria (2 K. xviii. 9, 10), and the kingdom οἵ the
ten tribes was put an end to. [See below, No. 3.1
Some years afterwards the district of which Samaria
was the centre was repeopled by Esarhaddon ; but
we do not hear especially of the city until the days
of Alexander the Great. That conqueror took the
city, which seems to have somewhat recovered itself
(Euseb. Chron. ad ann. Abr: 1684), killed a large
portion of the inhabitants, and suffered the remainder
to settle at Shechem. [SHECHEM; SycuHanr.]
He replaced them by a colony of Syro-Macedonians,
and gave the adjacent territory (Σαμαρεῖτις χώρα)
to the Jews to inhabit (Joseph. ὁ. Ap. ii. 4). These
Syro-Macedonians occupied the city until the time
ot John Hyreanus. It was then a place of consi-
'derable importance, for Josephus describes it (Ant.
| xiii. 10, §2) as a very strong city (πόλις ὀχυρω-
τάτη). John Hyreanus took it after a year’s siege,
and did his best to demolish it entirely. He inter-
/sected the hill on which it lay with trenches:
into these he conducted the natural brooks, and
thus undermined its foundations. “ In fact,” says
the Jewish historian, ‘* he took away all evidence
of the very existence of the city.” This story at
first sight seems rather* exaggerated, and incon-
sistent with the hilly site of Samaria. It may
have referred only to the suburbs lying at its foot.
“But,” says Prideaux (Conn. B.C. 109, note), “ Ben-
| jamin of Tudela, who was in the place, tells us in
his Itinerary» that there were upon the top of this
hill many fountains of water, and from these water
enough may have been derived to fill these trenches.”
It should also be recollected that the hill of Samaria
was lower than the hills in its neighbourhood. This
may account for the existence of these springs.
Josephus describes the extremities to which the
inhabitants were reduced during this siege, much in
the same way that the author of the Book of Kings
does during that of Benhadad (comp. Ané. xiii. 10,
§2, with 2 K. vi. 25). John Hyrcanus’ reasons
for attacking Samaria were the injuries which its
inhabitants had done to the people of Marissa,
colonists and allies of the Jews. This confirms what
was said above, of the cession of the Samaritan neigh-
bourhood to the Jews by Alexander the Great.
After this disaster (which occurred in B.c. 109),
| the Jews inhabited what remained of the city; at
least we find it in their possession in the time of
Alexander Jannaeus (Ant. xiii. 15, 84), and until
* 'The prevailing LXX. form in the 0. T. is Σαμάρεια,
with the following remarkable exceptions :—1 K. xvi. 24,
Σεμερών ... Leunpwv (Mai, Sauynpwv); Har. iv. 10, Ξομό-
ρων (Mai, Σωμώρων) ; Neh. iv. 2, Is. vii. 9, Ξομόρον.
b No such passage, however, now exists in Benjamin of
Tudela. See the editions of Asher and of Bon.
|
1100 SAMARIA
Pompey gave it back to the descendants of its
original inhabitants (τοῖς οἰκήτορσιν). ‘These οἰκή-
Topes may possibly have been the Syro-Macedonians,
but it is more probable that they were Samaritans
proper, whose ancestors had been dispossessed by the
colonists of Alexander the Great. By directions of
Gabinius, Samaria and other demolished cities were
rebuilt (Ant. xiv. 5, §3). But its more effectual
rebuilding was undertaken by Herod the Great, to
whom it had been granted by Augustus, on the
death of Antony and Cleopatra (Ant. xiii. 10, §3,
xv. 8, §5; B. J. i. 20, §3). He called it Sebaste,
Σεβαστή = Augusta, after the name of his patron
(Ant. xv. 7, §7). Josephus gives an elaborate de-
scription of Herod’s improvements. The wall sur-
rounding it was 20 stadia in length. In the middle
of it was a close, of a stadium and a half square,
containing a magnificent temple, dedicated to the
Caesar. It was colonised by 6000 veterans and
others, for whose support a most beautiful and
rich district surrounding the city was appropriated.
Herod’s motives in these arrangements were pro-
bably, first, the occupation of a commanding position,
and then the desire of distinguishing himself for taste
by the embellishment ofa spot already so adorned by
nature (Ant. xv. 8, §5; B. J. i. 20, 83; 21, §2).
How long Samaria maintained its splendour after
Herod’s improvements we are not informed. In
the N. T. the city itself does not appear to be men-
tioned, but rather a portion of the district to which,
even in older times, it had extended its name. Our
Version, indeed, of Acts viii. 5 says that Philip
the deacon “‘ went down to the city of Samaria ;”
but the Greek of the passage is simply eis πόλιν
τῆς Σαμαρείας. And we may fairly argue, both
from the absence of the definite article, and from
the probability that, had the city Samaria been
intended, the term employed would have been
Sebaste, that some one city of the district, the
name of which is not specified, was in the mind
of the writer. In verse 9 of the same chapter ‘ the
people of Samaria” represents τὸ ἔθνος τῆς Σαμα-
petas; and the phrase in verse 25, ‘‘ many villages
of the Samaritans,” shows that the operations of
evangelizing were not confined to the city of Sa-
maria itself, if they were ever carried on there.
Comp. Matt. x. 5, ‘¢ Into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not;” and John iv. 4, 5, where, after it has
been said, ‘‘ And He must needs go through Samaria,”
obviously the district, it is subjoined, ‘Then cometh
He to a@ city of Samaria called Sychar.” Hence-
forth its history is very unconnected. Septimius
Severus planted a Roman colony there in the begin-
ning of the third century (Ulpian, Leg. I. de Cen-
sibus, quoted by Dr. Robinson). Various specimens
of coins struck on the spot have been preserved,
extending from Nero to Geta, the brother of Cara-
calla (Vaillant, in MNwmism. Imper., and Noris,
quoted by Reland). But, though the seat of a Ro-
man colony, it could not have been a place of much
political importance. We find in the Codex of
Theodosius, that by A.D. 409 the Holy Land had
been divided into Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and
Tertia. Palaestina Prima included the country of
the Philistines, Samaria (the district), and the
northern part of Judaea; but its capital was not
Sebaste, but Caesarea. In an ecclesiastical point of
view it stood rather higher. It was an episcopal
see probably as early as the third century. At
any rate its bishop was present amongst those of
Palestine at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, and
subscribed its acts as “ Maximus (al. Marinus)
SAMARIA
Sebastenus.” The names of some of his successors
have been preserved—the latest of them mentioned
is Pelagius, who attended the Synod at Jerusalem,
A.D. 536. The title of the see occurs in the
earlier Greek Notitiae, and in the later Latin ones
(Reland, Pal. 214-229). Sebaste fell into the hands
of the Mahommedans during the siege of Jeru-
salem. In the course of the Crusades a Latin
bishopric was established there, the title of which
was recognised by the Roman Church until the
fourteenth century. At this day the city of Omri
and of Herod is represented by a small village
retaining few vestiges of the past except its name,
Sebiistieh, an Arabic corruption of Sebaste. Some
architectural remains it has, partly of Christian
construction or adaptation, as the ruined chureh
of St. John the Baptist, partly, perhaps, traces of
Idumaean magnificence. ‘ A long avenue of broken
pillars (says Dr, Stanley), apparently the main
street of Herod’s city, here, as at Palmyra and
Damascus, adorned by a colonnade on each side,
still lines the topmost terrace of the hill.” But
the fragmentary aspect of the whole place exhibits
a present fulfilment of the prophecy of Micah
(i. 6), though it may have been fulfilled more than
once previously by the ravages of Shalmaneser or
of John Hyrcanus. ‘I will make Samaria as an
heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard:
and I will pour down the stones thereof into the
valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof”
(Mic. i. 6; comp. Hos. xiii. 16).
St. Jerome, whose acquaintance with Palestine
imparts a sort of probability to the tradition which
prevailed so strongly in later days, asserts that
Sebaste, which he invariably identifies with Samaria,
was the place in which St. John the Baptist was
imprisoned and suffered death. He also makes it
the burial-place of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah
(see various passages cited by Reland, pp. 980-981).
Epiphanius is at great pains, in his work Adv.
Haereses (lib. i.), in which he treats of the heresies
of the Samaritans with singular minuteness, to
account for the origin of their name. He interprets
it as pny, φύλακες, or “ keepers.” The hill
on which the city was built was, he says, designated
Somer or Someron (Swujp, Σωμόρων), trom a
certain Somoron the son of Somer, whom he con-
siders to have been of the stock of the ancient
Perizzites or Girgashites, themselves descendants of
Canaan and Ham. But he adds, the inhabitants
may have been called Samaritans from their guard-
ing the land, or (coming down much later in their
history) from their guarding the Law, as distin-
guished from the later writings of the Jewish Canon,
which they refused to allow. [See SAMARITANS. |
For modern descriptions of the condition of Sa-
maria and its neighbourhood, see Dr. Robinson’s
Biblical Researches, ii. 127-23; Reland’s Palaes-
tina, 344, 979-982; Raumer’s Paldstina, 144-148,
notes; Van de Velde’s Syria and Palestine, i. 363-
388, and ii. 295, 296, Map, and Memoir; Dr. Stan-
ley’s Sinai and Palestine, 242-246; and a short
article by Mr. G. Williams in the Dict. of Geog.
Dr. Kitto, in his Physical History of Palestine, pp.
cxvii., exviii., has an interesting reference to and
extract from Sandys, illustrative of its topography
and general aspect at the commencement of the
seventeenth century.
2. The Samaria named in the present text of
1 Mace. v. 66 (τὴν Σαμάρειαν : Samaria) is evi-
dently an error. At any rate the well-known 5a-
1101
Sebustiyeh, the ancient SAMARIA, from the E.N.E.
Behind the city are the mountains of Ephraim, verging on the Plain of Sharon. The Mediterranean Sea is in the furthest distance.
The original sketch from which this view is taken was made by William Tipping, Esq., in 1842, and is engraved by his kind
permission.
maria of the Old and New Testaments cannot be
intended, for it is obvious that Judas, in passing
from Hebron to the land of the Philistines ( Azotus),
could not make so immense a détour. The true
correction is doubtless supplied by Josephus (Ant.
wii. 8, $6), who has Marissa (7. e. MARESHA), a place
which lay in the road from Hebron to the Philistine
Plain. One of the ancient Latin Versions exhibits
the same reading; which is accepted by Ewald
(Gesch. iv. 361) and a host of commentators (see
Grimm, Aurzg. Exeg. Handb., on the passage).
Drusius proposed Shaaraim ; but this is hardly so
feasible as Maresha, and has no external support.
3. SAMARIA (ἢ Σαμαρεῖτις χώρα; Joseph. χώρα
Σαμαρέων ; Ptol. Σαμαρίς, Σαμάρεια: Samaria).
SAMARITANS (ὩΣ) 2:
Σαμαρεῖς).
There are few questions in Biblical philolory
upon which, in recent times, scholars have come
to such opposite conclusions as the extent of the
territory to which the former of these words is
applicable, and the origin of the people to which
the latter is applied in the N. T. But a probable
solution of them may be gained by careful attention
to the historical statements of Holy Scripture and
of Josephus, and by a consideration of the geo-
graphical features of Palestine.
In the strictest sense of the term, a SAMARITAN
would be an inhabitant of the city of Samaria. But
it is not found at all in this sense, exclusively at
any rate, in the O.T. In fact, it only occurs there
once, and then in a wider signification, in 2 KX. xvii.
29. There it is employed to designate those whom
the king of Assyria had * placed in (what are
called) the cities of Samaria (whatever these may
be) instead of the children of Israel.”
Were the word Samaritan found elsewhere in the
O. T., it would have designated those who belonged
to the kingdom of the ten tribes, which in a large
sense was called Samaria. And as the extent of that
kingdom varied, which it did very much, gradually
Σαμαρεῖται ; Joseph.
diminishing to the time of Shalmaneser, so the
extent of the word Samaritan would have varied.
SAMARIA at first included all the tribes over
which Jeroboam made himself king, whether east.
or west of the river Jordan. Hence, even before
the city of Samaria existed, we find the ‘ old pro-
phet who dwelt at Bethel” describing the predic-
tions of *¢ the man of God who came trom Judah,”
in reference to the altar at Bethel, as directed not
merely against that altar, but ‘ against all the
houses of the high-places which are in the cities
of Samaria” (1 K. xiii. 32), ὁ. e., of course, the
cities of which Samaria was, or was to be, the head
or capital, In other places in the historical books
of the O. T. (with the exception of 2 K, xvii. 24,
26, 28, 29) Samaria seems to denote the city ex-
clusively. But the prophets use the word, much
as did the old prophet of Bethel, in a greatly ex-
tended sense. Thus the ‘‘ calf of Bethel” is called
by Hosea (viii. 5, 6) the ‘‘calf of Samaria ;” in
Amos (iii. 9) the ‘‘mountains of Samaria” are
spoken of; and the “ captivity of Samaria and her
daughters” is a phrase found in Ezekiel (xvi. 53).
Hence the word Samaritan must have denoted every
one subject to the king of the northern capital.
But, whatever extent the word might have ac-
quired, it necessarily became contracted as the limits
of the kingdom of Israel became contracted. [ἢ all
probability the territory of-Simeon and that of Dan
were very early absorbed in the kingdom of Judah.
This would be one limitation. Next, in B.c. 771
and 740 respectively, ‘‘ Pul, king of Assyria, and
Tilgath-pilneser, king of Assyria, carried away the
Yeubenites and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of
Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and
Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan” (1 Chr.
vy. 26). This would be a second limitation. But
the latter of these kings went further: ‘“ He took
Tjon, and Abel=beth-maachah, and Janoah, and
Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the
land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to As-
syria” (2 K. xv. 29). This would be a third
1102 SAMARIA
limitation. Nearly a century before, B.c. 860, |
“the Lord had begun to cut Israel short ;” for |
“Hazael, king of Syria, smote them in all the
coasts of Israel; from Jordan eastward, all the land |
of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the
Manassites, from <Aroer, which is by the river
Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan” (2 K. x. 32, 33).
This, however, as we may conjecture from the
diversity of expression, had been merely a passing |
inroad, and had involved no permanent subjection
of the country, or deportation of its inhabitants.
The invasions of Pul and of Tilgath-pilneser were
utter clearances of the population. ‘he territory
thus desolated by them was probably occupied by
degrees by the pushing forward of the neighbouring
heathen, or by straggling families of the Israelites
themselves. In reference to the northern part of
Galilee we know that a heathen population pre-
vailed. Hence the phrase ‘‘ Galilee of the Nations,”
or “Gentiles” (Is. ix. 1; 1 Mac. v. 15). And no
doubt this was the case also beyond Jordan.
But we have yet to arrive at a fourth limitation
of the kingdom of Samaria, and, by consequence, of
the word Samaritan. It is evident from an occur-
rence in Hezekiah’s reign, that just before the depo-
sition and death of Hoshea, the last king of Israel,
the authority of the king of Judah, or, at least, his
influence, was recognised by portions of Asher, Issa-
char, and Zebulun, and even of Ephraim and Ma-
nasseh (2 Chr. xxx. 1-26). Men came from all
those tribes to the Passover at Jerusalem. This
was about B.C. 726. In fact, to such miserable
limits had the kingdom of Samaria been reduced,
that when, two or three years afterwards, we are
told that “‘ Shalmaneser came up throughout the
land,” and after a siege of three years “ took Sa-
maria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and
placed them in Halah, and in Habor by the river
Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (2 K. xvii.
5, 6), and when again we are told that ‘Israel
was carried away out of their own land into As-
syria” (2 K. xvii. 23), we must suppose a very
small field of operations. Samaria (the city), and
a few adjacent cities or villages only, represented
that dominion which had once extended from Bethel
to Dan northwards, and from the Mediterranean to
the borders of Syria and Ammon eastwards. This
is further confirmed by what we read of Josiah’s
progress, in B.C. 641, through “the cities of Ma-
nasseh and Ephraim and Simeon, even unto Naph-
tali” (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6). Such a progress would
have been impracticable had the number of cities
and villages occupied by the persons then called
Samaritans been at all large.
This, however, brings us more closely to the
second point of our discussion, the origin of those
who are in 2 K. xvii. 29, and in the N. T., called
Samaritans. Shalmaneser, as we have seen (2 K.
xvii. 5, 6, 26), carried Israel, 7. e. the remnant of
the ten tribes which still acknowledged Hoshea’s
authority, into Assyria, This rernnant consisted, as
has been shown, of Samaria (the city) and a few
adjacent cities and villages. Now, 1. Did he carry
away all their inhabitants, or no? 2. Whether
they were wholly or only partially desolated, who
replaced the deported population? On the answer
to these inquiries will depend our determination of
the questions, were the Samaritans a mixed race,
composed partly of Jews, partly of new settlers, or
were they purely of foreign extraction ?
In reference to the former of these inquiries, it |
may be observed that the language of Scripture
SAMARIA
admits of scarcely a doubt.
away” (2 K. xvii. 6, 23), and other nations were
placed “in the cities of Samaria instead of the
children of Israel”? (2 K. xvii. 24). There is no
mention whatever, as in the case of the somewhat
parallel destruction of the kingdom of Judah, of
“the poor of the land being left to be vine-dressers
and Husbandmen”’ (2 K. xxv. 12). We add, that,
had any been left, it would have been impossible -
for the new inhabitants to have been so utterly
unable to acquaint themselves with “the manner
of the God of the land,” as to require to be taught
by some priest of the captivity sent from the king
ot Assyria. Besides, it was not an unusual thing
with Oriental conquerors actually to exhaust a land
of its inhabitauts. Comp. Herod. iii. 149, ‘ The
Persians dragged (σαγηνεύσαντες) Samos, and deli-
vered it up to Syloson stript of all its men ;” and,
again, Herod. vi. 31, for the application of the same
treatment to other islands, where the process called
caynvevew is described, and is compared to a
hunting out of the population (ἐκθηρεύειν). Such
a capture is presently contrasted with the capture
of other territories to which caynvevew was not
applied. Josephus’s phrase in reference to the cities
ot Samaria is that Shalmaneser ‘‘ transplanted ail
the people” (Ant. ix. 14, §1). A threat against
Jerusalem, which was indeed only partially carried
out, shows how complete and summary the desola-
tion of the last relics of the sister kingdom must
have been: “41 will stretch over Jerusalem the
line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of
Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth
a dish: he wipeth and turneth it upon the face
thereof” (2 K. xxi. 13), This was uttered within
forty years after B.c. 721, during the reign of Ma-
nasseh. It must have derived much strength from
the recentness and proximity of the calamity.
We may then conclude that the cities of Samaria
were not merely partially, but wholly evacuated of
their inhabitants in B.c. 721, and that they re-
mained in this desolated state until, in the words
of 2 K. xvii. 24, “the king of Assyria brought men
from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava
(Ivah, 2 K. xviii. 84), and from Hamath, and from
Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Sa-
maria instead of the children of Israel: and they
possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.”
Thus the new Samaritans—for such we must now
call them—were Assyrians by birth or subjugation,
were utterly strangers in the cities of Samaria, and
were exclusively the inhabitants of those cities. An
incidental question, however, arises, Who was the.
king of Assyria that effected this colonization? At
first sight, one would suppose Shalmaneser ; for the
narrative is scarcely broken, and the repeopling
seems to be a natural sequence of the depopulation,
Such would appear to have been Josephus’ view, for
he says of Shalmaneser, “‘ when he had removed the
people out of their land, he brought other nations
out of Cuthah, a place so called (for there is still in
Persia a river of that name), into Samaria and the
country of the Israelites” (Ant. ix. 14, §1, 3; x. 9,
§7) ; but he must have been led to this interpretation
simply by the juxtaposition of the two transactions
in the Hebrew text. The Samaritans themselves,
in Ezr. iv. 2, 10, attributed their colonization not to
Shalmaneser, but to ““ Esar-haddon, king of Assur,”
or to “ the great and noble Asnapper,” either the
king himself or one of his generals. It was probably
on his invasion of Judah, in the reign of Manasseh,
about B.c, 677, that Esarhaddon discovered the
*Tsrael was carried .
*SAMARIA
impolicy of leaving a tract upon the very frontiers
of that kingdom thus desolate, and determined to
garrison it with foreigners. The fact, too, that some
of these foreigners came from Babylon would seem
to direct us to Esarhaddon, rather than to his grand-
father, Shalmaneser. It was only recently that
Babylon had come into the hands of the Assyrian
king. And there is another reason why this date
should be preferred. It coincides with the termi-
nation of the sixty-five years of Isaiah’s prophecy,
delivered B.c. 742, within which “ Ephraim should
be broken that it should not be a people” (Is. vii. 8).
This was not effectually accomplished until the very
land itself was occupied by strangers. So long as
this had not taken place, there might be hope of
retin: after it had taken place, no hope. Josephus
(Ant. x. 9, §7) expressly notices this difference in
the cases of the ten and of the two tribes. The land
of the former became the possession of foreigners,
the land of the latter not so.
These strangers, whom we will now assume to
have been placed in “ the cities of Samaria” by
Esarhaddon, were of course idolaters, and wor-
shipped a strange medley of divinities. Each of the
five nations, says Josephus, who is confirmed by
the words of Scripture, had its own god. No place
was found for the worship of Him who had once
called the land His own, and whose it was still.
God’s displeasure was kindled, and they were in-
fested by beasts of prey, which had _ probably
increased to a great extent before their entrance
upon it. ‘ The Lord sent lions among them, which
slew some of them.’ On their explaining their
miserable condition to the king of Assyria, he de-
spatched one of the captive priests to teach them
“how they should fear the Lord.” The priest
came accordingly, and henceforth, in the language
of the sacred historian, they ‘‘ feared the Lord, and
served their graven images, both their children and
their children’s children: as did their fathers, so do
they unto this day” (2 K. xvii. 41). This last
sentence was probably inserted by Ezra. It serves
two purposes: Ist, to qualify the pretensions of the
Samaritans of Ezra’s time to be pure worshippers
of God—they were no more exclusively His ser-
vants, than was the Roman emperor who desired to
place a statue of Christ in the Pantheon entitled to
be called a Christian ; and, 2ndly, to show how en-
tirely the Samaritans of later days differed from
their ancestors in respect to idolatry. Josephus’
account of the distress of the Samaritans, and of the
remedy for it, is very similar, with the exception
that with him they are afflicted with pestilence.
Such was the origin of the post-captivity or new
Samaritans—men not of Jewish extraction, but from
the further East: “‘ the Cuthaeans had formerly be-
longed to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but
were then called ‘Samaritans,’ taking the name of
the country to which they were removed,” says
Josephus (Ant. x. 9, §7). And again he says (Ant.
ix. 14, §3) they are called “in Hebrew ‘ Cuthaeans,’
but in Greek ‘Samaritans.’ Our Lord expressly
terms them ἀλλογενεῖς (Luke xvii. 18); and Jo-
sephus’ whole account of them shows that he believed
them to have been μέτοικοι GAAocOvets, though,
as he tells us in two places (Ant. ix. 14, 83, and
xi. 8, §6), they sometimes gave a different account
of their origin. But of this bye and bye. A gap
occurs in their history until Judah has returned
from captivity. They then desire to be allowed to
participate in the rebuilding of the Temple at Jeru-
salem. It is curious, and perhaps indicative of the
SAMARIA 1108
treacherous character of their designs, to find them
even then called, by anticipation, ‘ the adversaries
of Judah and Benjamin ” (Kzr. iv. 1), a title which
they afterwards fully justified. But, so far as pro-
fessions go, they are not enemies; they are most
anxious to be friends. Their religion, they assert,
is the same as that of the two tribes, therefore they
have a right to share in that great religious under-
taking. But they do not call it a national under-
taking. They advance no pretensions to Jewish blood.
They confess their Assyrian descent, and even put it
forward ostentatiously, perhaps to enhance the merit
of their partial conversion to God. That it was but
partial they give no hint. It may have become
purer already, but we have no information that it
had. Be this, however, as it may, the Jews do not
listen favourably to their overtures. Ezra, no doubt,
from whose pen we have a record of the transaction,
saw them through and through. On this the Sama-
ritans throw off the mask, and become open enemies,
frustrate the operations of the Jews through the
reigns of two Persian kings, and are only effectually
silenced in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, B.c. 519.
The feud, thus unhappily begun, grew year by
year more inveterate. It is probable, too, that the
more the Samaritans detached themselves from idols,
and became devoted exclusively to a sort of worship
of Jehovah, the more they resented the contempt
with which the Jews treated their offers of fra-
ternization. Matters at length came to a climax.
About B.c. 409, a certain Manasseh, a man of
priestly lineage, on being expelled from Jerusalem
by Nehemiah for an unlawful marriage, obtained
permission from the Persian king of his day, Darius
Nothus, to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, for
the Samaritans, with whom he had found refuge.
The only thing wanted to crystallise the opposition
between the two races, viz., a rallying point for
schismatical worship, being now obtained, their ani-
mosity became more intense than ever. The Sama-
ritans are said to have done everything in their power
to annoy the Jews. They would refuse hospitality
to pilgrims on their road to Jerusalem, as in our
Lord’s case. They would even waylay them in
their journey (Joseph. Ant. xx. 6, §1); and many
were compelled through fear to take the longer
route by the east of Jordan. Certain Samaritans
were said to have once penetrated into the Temple
of Jerusalem, and to have defiled it by scattering
dead men’s bones on the sacred pavement (Ant.
xviii. 2, §2). We are told too of a strange
piece of mockery which must have been especially
resented. It was the custom of the Jews’ to com-
municate to their brethren still in Babylon the exact
day and hour of the rising of the paschal moon, by
beacon-fires commencing from Mount Olivet, and
flashing forward from hill to hill until they were
mirrored in the Euphrates. So the Greek poet
represents Agamemnon as conveying the news of
Troy’s capture to the anxious watchers at Mycenae.
Those who “ sat by the waters of Babylon” looked
for this signal with much interest. It enabled them
to share in the devotions of those whe were in their
father-land, and it proved to them that they were
not forgotten. The Samaritans thought scorn of
these feelings, and would not unfrequently deceive
and disappoint them, by kindling a rival flame and
perplexing the watchers on the mountains.* Their
a “This fact,” says Dr. Trench, “is mentioned by Ma-
krizi (see De Sacy’s Chrest. Arabe, fi. 159), who affirms
that it was this which put the Jews on making accurate
1104 SAMARIA
own temple on Gerizim they considered to be much
superior to that at Jerusalem. There they sacri-
ficed a passover. ‘Towards the mountain, even after
the temple on it had fallen, wherever they were,
they directed their worship. To their copy of the
Law they arrogated an antiquity and authority
greater than attached to any copy in the possession
οἵ the Jews. The Law (i.e. the five books of Moses)
was their sole code; for they rejected every other
book in the Jewish canon. And they professed to
observe it better than did the Jews themselves,
-employing the expression not unfrequently, ‘* The
Jews indeed do so and so; but we, observing the
letter of the Law, do otherwise.”
The Jews, on the other hand, were not more
conciliatory in their treatment of the Samaritans.
The copy of the Law possessed by that people they
declared to be the lezacy of an apostate (Manasseh),
and cast grave suspicions upon its genuineness.
Certain other Jewish renegades had from time to
time taken refuge with the Samaritans. Hence, by
degrees, the Samaritans claimed to partake of Jewish
blood, especially if doing so happened to suit their
interest (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, §6; ix. 14, 89). A
remarkable instance of this is exhibited in a request
which they made to Alexander the Great, about
B.C. 332. They desired to be excused payment of
tribute in the Sabbatical year, on the plea that as
true Israelites, descendants of Ephraim and Ma-
nasseh, sons of Joseph, they refrained from culti-
vating their land in that year. Alexander, on cross-
questioning them, discovered the hollowness of their
pretensions. (They were greatly disconcerted at
their failure, and their dissatisfaction probably led
to the conduct which induced Alexander to besiege
and destroy the city of Samaria. Shechem was
indeed their metropolis, but the destruction of Sa-
maria seems to have satisfied Alexander.) Another
instance of claim to Jewish descent appears in
the words of the woman of Samaria to our Lord,
John iy. 12, “ Art Thou greater than our father
Jacob, who gave us the well?” <A question which
she puts without recollecting that she had just
before strongly contrasted the Jews and the Sama-
ritans. Very far were the Jews from admitting
this claim to consanguinity on the part of these
people. They were ever reminding them that they
were after all mere Cuthaeans, mere strangers from
Assyria. They accused them of worshipping the
idol-gods buried long ago under the oak of Shechem
(Gen, xxxv. 4), They would have no dealings with
them that they could possibly avoid.® “ Thou art a
Samaritan and hast a devil,” was the mode in which
they expressed themselves when at a loss for a bitter
reproach. Every thing that a Samaritan had touched
was as swine’s flesh to them. The Samaritan was
publicly cursed in their synagogues—could not be
adduced as a.witness in the Jewish courts—could
not be admitted to any sort of proselytism—and
was thus, so far as the Jew could affect his position,
excluded from hope of eternal life. The traditional
hatred in which the Jew held him is expressed in
Ecclus. 1. 25, 26, ** There be two manner of nations
which my heart abhorreth, and the third is no
nation: they that sit on the mountain of Samaria ;
‘the Jews’
SAMARIA*
and they that dwell among the Philistines; and
that foolish people that dwell in Sichem.” And so
long was it before such a temper could be banished
from the Jewish mind, that we find even the
Apostles believing that an inhospitable slight shown
by a Samaritan village to Christ would be not unduly
avenged by calling down fire from heaven.
“ Ye know not what spirit ye are of,” said the
large-hearted Son of Man, and we find Him on no
one occasion uttering anything to the disparagement
of the Samaritans. His words, however, and the
records of His ministrations confirm most thoroughly
the view which has been taken above, that the
Samaritans were not Jews. At the first sending
forth of the Twelve (Matt. x. 5, 6) He charges
them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
So again, in His final address to them on Mount
Olivet, «Ye shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem
and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth’’ (Acts i. 8). So the
nine unthankful lepers, Jews, were contrasted by
Him with the tenth leper, the thankful stranger
(ἀλλογενή5), who was a Samaritan. So, in His
well-known parable, a merciful Samaritan is con-
trasted with the unmerciful priest and Levite. And
the very worship of the two races is described by
Him as different in character. ‘Ye worship ye
know not what,’’ this is said of the Samaritans:
“We know what we ρον for salvation is of
* (John iv. 22
Such were the Samaviine of our Lord’s day: a
people distinct from the Jews, though lying in the
very midst of the Jews; a people preserving their
identity, though seven centuries had rolled away
since they had been brought from Assyria by Esar-
haddon, and though they had abandoned their poly-
theism for a sort of ultra Mosaicism ; a people, who—
though their limits had been gradually contracted,
and the rallying place of their religion on Mount
Gerizim had been destroyed one hundred and sixty
years before by John Hyrcanus (B.c. 130), and
though Samaria (the city) had been again and
again destroyed, and though their territory had
been the hattle-field of Syria and Egypt—still pre-
served their nationality, still worshipped from
Shechem and their other impoverished settlements
towards their sacred hill; still retained their na-
tionality, and could not coalesce with the Jews:
ὄξος τ’ arAeupu τ᾽ ἐγχέας ταὐτῷ κύτει,
διχοστατοῦντ᾽ ἂν οὐ φίλως προσεννέποις.
Not indeed that we must suppose that the whole of
the country called in our Lord’s time Samaria, was
in the possession of the Cuthaean Samaritans, or that
it had ever been so. ‘* Samaria,” says Josephus,
(B. J, iii. 3,.§4) “lies between Judaea and Galilee.
It commences from a village called Ginaea (Jenin),
on the great plain (that of Esdraelon), and extends
to the toparchy of Acrabatta,” in the lower part of
the territory of Ephraim. ‘These points, indicating
the extreme northern and the extreme southern
parallels of latitude between which Samaria was
situated, enabie us to fix its boundaries with tole-
calculations to determine the moment of the new moon’s
appearance (comp. Schoettgen’s Hor, Ie. i, 344}.
b This prejudice had, of course, sometimes to give way
to necessity, for the disciples had gone to Sychar to buy
food, while our Lord was talking with the woman of Sa-
maria by the well if its suburb (John iv. 8). And from
Luke ix. 52, we learn that the disciples went before our
Lord at His command into a certain village of the
Samaritans “to make ready” for Him. Unless, indeed
(though, as we see on both occasions, our Lord’s influ-
ence over them was not yet complete), we are to attribute
this partial abandonment of their ordinary scruples to
the change which His example had already wrought in
them,
SAMARIA
rable certainty. It was bounded northward by the
range of hills which commences at Mount Carmel
on the west, and, after making a bend to the south-
west, runs almost due east to the valley of the
Jordan, forming the southern border of the plain ot
Esdraelon. It touched towards the south, as nearly
as possible, the northern limits of Benjamin, Thus
it comprehended the ancient territory of Ephraim,
and of those Manassites who were west of Jordan.
“Its character,” Josephus continues, “is in no
respect different from that ef Judaea. Both abound
in mountains and plains, and are suited for agricul-
ture, and productive, wooded, and full of fruits
both wild and cultivated. They are not abundantly
watered ; but much rain falls there. The springs
are of an exceedingly sweet taste ; and, on account
of the quantity of good grass, the cattle there pro-
duce more milk than elsewhere. But the best
proof of their richness and fertility is that both are
thickly populated.” The accounts of modern tra-
veilers confirm this description by the Jewish his-
torian of the “good land” which was allotted to
that powerful portion of the house of Joseph which
crossed the Jordan, on the first division of the ter-
ritory. The Cuthaean Samaritans, however, pos-
sessed only a few towns and villages of this large
area, and these lay almost together in the centre of
the district. Shechem or Sychar (as it was con-
temptuously designated) was their chief settlement,
even before Alexander the Great destroyed Samaria,
probably because it lay almost close to Mount Ge-
rizim. Afterwards it became more prominently so,
and there, on the destruction of the Temple on
Gerizim, by John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9,
§1), they built themselves a temple. The modern
representative of Shechem is Nablus, a corrup-
tion of Neapolis, or the “ New Town,” built by
Vespasian a little to the west of the older town which
was then ruined. At Nablus the Samaritans have
still a settlement, consisting of about 200 persons.
Yet they observe the Law, and celebrate the Passover
on a sacred spot on Mount Gerizim, with an exact-
ness of minute ceremonial which the Jews them-
selves have long intermitted :
“Quanquam diruta, servat
Ignem Trojanum, et Vestam colit Alba minorem.”
The Samaritans were very troublesome both to
their Jewish neighbours and to their Roman masters,
in the first century, A.D. Pilate chastised them with
a severity which led to his own downfall (Joseph.
Ant. xviii. 4, §1), and a slaughter of 10,600 of
them took place under Vespasian (B. J. iii. 7, 882).
In spite of these reverses they increased greatly in
numbers towards its termination, and appear to
have grown into importance under Dositheus, who
was probably an apostate Jew. Epiphanius (adv.
Huaereses, lib. i.), in the fourth century, considers
them to be the chief and most dangerous adver-
saries of Christianity, and he enumerates the several
sects into which they had by that time divided
themselves. They were popularly, and even by
some of the Fathers, confounded with the Jews, in-
somuch that a legal interpretation of the Gospel
was described as a tendency to Σαμαρειτισμός or
*Iovdaiouds. This confusion, however, did not
extend to an identification of the two races. It was
simply an assertion that their extreme opinions were
identical. And previously to an outrage which
they committed on the Christians at Neapolis in the
reign of Zeno, towards the end of the fitth century,
the distinction between them and the Jews was
sufficiently known, and even recognised in the Theo-
VOL. Il.
SAMARIA 1105
dosian Code, This was so severely punished, that
they sank into an obscurity, which, though they
are just noticed by travellers of the twelfth and
fourteenth centuries, was scarcely broken until the
sixteenth century. In the latter half of that cen-
tury a correspondence with them was commenced
by Joseph Scaliger. (De Sacy has edited two of
their letters to that eminent scholar.) Job Ludolf
received a letter from them, in the latter half of the
next century. These three letters are to be found in
Kichhorn’s Repertorium fiir Biblische und Morgen-
liindische Litteratur, vol. xiii. They are of great
archaeological interest, and enter very minutely into
the observances of the Samaritan ritual. Among
other points worthy of notice in them is the incon-
sistency displayed by the writers in valuing them-
selves on not being Jews, and yet claiming to be
descendants of Joseph. See also De Sacy’s Cor-
respondance des Samaritains, &c., in Notices et
Extr. des MSS. de la Biblioth. du Roi, &c., vol.
xii. And, for more modern accounts of the people
themselves, Robinson’s Biblical Researches, ii. 280-
311; iii, 129-30; Wilson’s Lands of the Bible,
ii. 46-78; Van de Velde’s Syria and Palestine, ii.
296 seq.; Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, p. 240 ;
Rogers’ Notices of the Modern Samaritans, p. 25;
Grove’s account of their Day of Atonement in
Vacation Tourists for 1861; and Dr. Stanley’s, of
their Passover, in his Lectures on the Jewish Church,
App. iil.
The view maintained in the above remarks, as to
the purely Assyrian origin of the New Samaritans,
is that of Suicer, Reland, Hammond, Drusius in the
Critici Sacri, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg, Hiivernick,
Robinson, and Dean Trench. ‘The reader is referred
to the very clear but too brief discussion of the
subject by the last mentioned learned writer, in
his Parables, pp. 310, 311, and to the authori-
ties, especially De Sacy, which are there quoted.
There is no doubt in the world that it was the
ancient view. We have seen what Josephus said,
and Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and
Theodoret, say the same thing. Socrates, it must
be admitted, calls the Samaritans ἀπόσχισμα ᾽Ἴου-
δαίων, but he stands almost alone among thie
ancients in making this assertion. Origen and
Cyril indeed both mention their claim to descent
from Joseph, as evidenced in the statement of the
woman at the well, but mention it only to declare
it unfounded. Others, as Winer, Dollinger, and
Dr. Davidson, have held a different view, which
may be expressed thus in Déllinger’s own words :
“© In the northern part of the Promised Land (as
opposed to Judaea proper) there grew up a mingled
race which drew its origin from the remnant of the
Isvaelites who were lett behind in the country on
the removal of the Ten Tribes, and also from the
heathen colonists who were transplanted into the
cities of Israel. Their religion was as hybrid as
their extraction: they worshipped Jehovah, but, in
addition to Him, also the heathen idols of Phoenician
origin which they had brought from their native
land” (Heidenthum und Judenthum, p. 739, §7).
If the words of Scripture are to be taken alone, it
does not appear how this view is to be maintained.
At any rate, as Drusius observes, the only mixture
was that of Jewish apostate fugitives, long after
Esarhaddon’s colonization, not at the time of the
colonization. But modern as this view is, it has
tor some years been the popular one, and even Dr.
Stanley seems, though quite incidentally, to have
admitted it (S. ¢ P. 240). He does not, however,
1106 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
enter upon its defence. Mr. Grove is also in favour
of it. See his notice already mentioned.
The authority due to the copy of the Law possessed
by the Samaritans, and the determination whether
the Samaritan reading of Deut. xxvii. 4, Gerizim,
or that of the Hebrew, Ebal, is to be preferred, are
discussed in the next article. [See SAMARITAN
PENTATEUCH; EBAL; GERIZIM; SHECHEM ;
SICHEM; SYCHAR. | [9 ἼΞΕΞΗ
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, a Recen-
sion of the commonly received Hebrew Text of the
Mosaic Law, in use with the Samaritans, and
written in the ancient Hebrew (Zbri), or so-called
Samaritan character. This recension is found
vaguely quoted by some of the early Fathers of the
Church, under the name of ““ Παλαιότατον Ἕ βραϊ-
κὸν τὸ παρὰ Samaperrais,”’ in contradistinction to
the “‘EBpaikdy τὸ παρὰ ᾿Ιουδαίοις ;” further, as
ἐς Samaritanorum Volumina,” ἕο. Thus Origen on
Num. xiii. 1,....“ ἃ καὶ αὐτὰ ἐκ τούτων
Σαμαρειτῶν Ἑ βραϊκοῦ μετεβάλομεν 1 and on
Num, xsi. 13, ... “ἃ ἐν μόνοις τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν
εὕρομεν. &c. Jerome, Prol. to Kings: “Samaritani
etiam Pentateuchum Moysis totidem (? 22, like the
“Hebrews, Syrians and Chaldaeans’’) litteris habent,
figuris tantum et apicibus discrepantes.”” Also on Gal.
iii. 10, ‘* quam ob causam ”—(viz. ᾿Επικατάρατος
πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς γεγραμμένοις,
being quoted there from Deut. xxvii. 26, where the
Masoretic text has only NS Op xd WS TIN
MON ANA 2 -- cursed be he that confirmeth
not the words of this Law to do them;” while the
LXX. reads πᾶς ἄνθρωπος .. πᾶσι τοῖς λόγοις)
**quam ob causam Samaritanorum Hebraea vo-
lumina relerens inyem bs scriptum esse ;” and he
forthwith charges the Jews with having deliberately
taken out the b>, because they did not wish to be
bound individually to all the ordinances: forgetting
at the same time that this same b5 occurs in the
very next chapter of the Masoretic test (Dent. xxviii.
15) :—* All his commandments and his statutes.”
Eusebius of Caesarea observes that the LXX. and
the Sam. Pent. azvee against the Received Text in
the number of years from the Deluge to Abraham.
Cyril of Alexandria speaks of certain words (Gen.
iv. 8), wanting in the Hebrew, but found in the Sa-
maritan. The same remark is made by Procopius
of Gaza with respect to Deut. i. 6; Num. x. 10,
x. 9, &. Other passages are noticed by Diodorus,
the Greek Scholiast, &e. The Talmud, on the other
hand, mentions the Sam. Pent. distinctly and con-
temptuously as a clumsily forged record: ‘ You
have falsified your Pentateuch,” said R. Eliezer b.
Shimon to the Samaritan scribes, with reference to
a passage in Deut. xi. 30, where the well-understood
word Shechem was gratuitously inserted after ‘the
plains of Moreh,”—‘and you have not profited
- aught by it” (comp. Jer. Sotah 21, ef.17; Babli
33 b). On another occasion they are ridiculed on
account of their ignorance of one of the simplest rules
of Hebrew Grammar, displayed in their Pentateuch ;
viz. the use of the 7 locale (unknown, however,
according to Jer. Meg. 6, 2, also to the people of
Jerusalem). ‘Who has caused you to blunder?’
said Rh. Shimon b. Eliezer to them ; referring to their
ὁ Ana, pyr. MIIY and, as distinguished
from δ), NNW IND. Comp. Synb 21 b, Jer.
Meg. 5,2; Tosifta Synh. 4; Synhedr, 22 a, Meg. Jer.
1, $, Sota Jer. 7, 2, sq.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
abolition of the Mosaic ordinance of marrying the
deceased brother’s wife (Deut. xxv. 5 ff.),—through
a misinterpretation of the passage in question, which
enjoins that the wife of the dead man. shall not be
“ without’’ to a stranger, but that the brother
should marry her: they, however, taking T3S1N0
(=yind) to be an epithet of MW&, “ wife,” trans-
lated “the outer wife,” i.e. the betrothed only
(Jer. Jebam. 8, 2, Ber. R., &c.).
Down to within the last two hundred and fifty
years, however, no copy of this divergent Code of
Laws had reached Europe, and it began to be pro-
nounced a fiction, and the plain words of the Church-
Fathers—the better known authorities—who quoted
it, were subjected to subtle interpretations. Sud-
denly, in 1616, Pietro della Valle, one of the first dis-
coverers also of the Cuneiform inscriptions, acquired
a complete Codex from the Samaritans in Damascus.
In 1623 it was presented by Achille Harley de Sancy
to the Library of the Oratory in Paris, and in 1628
there appeared a brief description of it by J. Mo-
rinus in his preface to the Roman text of the LXX.
Three years later, shortly before it was published
in the Paris Polyglott,—whence it was copied, with
few emendations from other codices, by Walton,—
Morinus, the first editor, wrote his Pxercitationes
Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Penta-
teuchum, in which he pronounced the newly found
Codex, with all its innumerable Variants from the
Masoretic text, to be infinitely superior to the
latter: in fact, the unconditional and speedy emen-
dation of the Received Text thereby was urged most
authoritatively. And now the impulse was given
to one of the fiercest and most barren literary and
theological controversies: of which more anon, Be-
tween 1620 and 1630 six additional copies, partly
complete, partly incomplete, were acquired by
Ussher: five of which he deposited in English
libraries, while one was sent to De Dieu, and has
disappeared mysteriously. Another Codex, now in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan, was brozht to
Italy in 1621. Peirese procured two more, one of
which was placed in the Royal Library of Paris, and
one in the Barberini at Rome. Thus the number of
MSS. in Europe gradually grew to sixteen. During
the present century another, but very fragmentary
copy, was acquired by the Gotha Library. A copy
of the entire(?) Pentateuch, with Targum (? Sam.
Version), in parallel columns, 4to., on parchment,
was brought from Nablus by Mr. Grove in 1861,
for the Count of Paris, in whose library it is.
Single portions of the Sam. Pent., in a more or
less defective state, are now of no rare occurrence
in Europe.
Respecting the external condition of these MSS.,
it may be observed that their sizes vary from 12mo.
to folio, and that no scroll, such as the Jews and the
Samaritans use in their synagogues, is to be found
among them. The letters, which are of a size cor-
responding to that of the book, exhibit none of those
varieties of shape so frequent in the Masor, Text ;
such as majuscules, minuscules, suspended, inverted
letters, &c. Their material is vellum or cotton-
paper; the ink used is black in all cases save the
scroll used by the Samaritans at Nablus, the letters
of which are in gold. There are neither vowels,
» The A. V., following the LXX., and perhaps Luther,
has inserted the word all.
“Ont.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
accents, nor diacritical points. The individual words
are separated from each other by a dot. Greater
or smaller divisions of the text are marked by two
dots placed one above the other, and by an asterisk.
A small line above a consonant indicates a peculiar
meaning of the word, an unusual form, a passive,
(250) δ᾽ ΓΝ PSPs PWN ἼΒΟ ΠῚΠ
(200) D’NND » τ κα
ase) obey map. wun >
(218) πο SS Ξηπιο ιν».
(166) WT) SMT eh
The Sam. Pentateuch is halved in Lev. vii. 15
(viii. 8, in Hebrew Text), where the words “ Middle
of the Thorah”’é are found. At the end of each MS.
the year of the copying, the name of the scribe, and
also that of the proprietor, are usually stated. Yet
their dates are not always trustworthy when given,
and very difficult to be conjectured when entirely
omitted, since the Samaritan letters afford no internal
evidence of the period in which they were written.
To none of the MSS., however, which have as yet
reached Europe, can be assigned a higher date than
the 10th Christian century. The scroll used in
Nablus bears—so the Samaritans pretend—the fol-
lowing inscription :—‘‘JI, Abisha, son of Pinehas,
son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the Priest,—upon.-
them be the Grace of Jehovah! To His honour
have I written this Holy Law at the entrance of
the Tabernacle of Testimony on the Mount Gerizim,
Beth El, in the thirteenth year of the taking pos-
session of the Land of Canaan, and all its boundaries
around it, by the Children of Israel. I praise Jeho-
‘yah.” (Letter of Meshalmah b. Ab Sechuah, Cod.
19,791, Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. Comp. Zpist. Sam.
Sichemitarum ad Jobum Ludolphum, Cizae, 1688 ;
Antiq. Eccl. Orient. p. 123; Huntingtoni Lpist.
pp- 49. 56; Eichhorn’s Repertorium f. bibl. und
morg. Lit., tom. ix., ὥς.) But no Europeanf has
ever succeeded in finding it in this scroll, however
great the pains bestowed upon the search (comp.
Kichhorn, Linleit. ii. 132); and even if it had been
found, it would not have deserved the slightest
credence.
We have briefly stated above that the Exercita-
tiones of Morinus, which placed the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch far above the Received Text in point of ge-
nhuiteness,—partly on account of its agreeing in
many places with the Septuagint, and partly on
account of its superior “lucidity and harmony,”—
excited and kept up for nearly two hundred years one
of the most extraordinary controversies on record.
Characteristically enough, however, this was set at
rest once for all by the very first systematic inves-
tigation of the point at issue. It would now appear
as if the unquestioning rapture with which every
new literary discovery was formerly hailed, the in-
nate animosity against the Masoretic (Jewish ) Text,
the general preference for the LXX., the defective
state of Semitic studies,—as if, we say, all these put
ἃ ΤΣ and 1377, TY and TY, 13 and 72,
Stk ste Ξ τ kt τς
ON and Oy, DDN) ἀπά DSN, NIP ana NID.
Ὁ and ty, the suffixes at the end of a word, the Π with-
out a dagesh, &c., are thus pointed out to the reader.
eNMITINT Nude.
f It would appear, however (sce Archdeacon ‘lattam’s
notice in the Parthenon, No. 4, May 24, 1862), that Mr.
Levysohn, a person lately attached to the Russian staff in
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1107
and the like: it is, in fact, a contrivance to bespeak
attention.4 The whole Pentateuch is divided into
nine hundred and sixty-four paragraphs, or Kazzin,
the termination of which is indicated by these figures,
=,.%;0r <. At the end of each book the number
of its divisions is stated thus :—
[Masoret. Cod., 12 Sidras (Parshioth), 50 Chapters].
[ i 11 4 40 ed
[ 3 10 Me 27 ey
[ 5 10 Fs 36 aan
[ - 11 45 34 ἢ
together were not sufficient to account for the phe-
nomenon that men of any critical acumen could for
one moment not only place the Sam. Pent. on a par
with the Masoretic Text, but even raise it, uncon-
ditionally, far above it. There was indeed another
cause at work, especially in the first period of the dis-
pute: it was a controversial spirit which prompted
Morinus and his followers, Cappellus and cthers, to
prove to the Reformers what kind of value was to
be attached to their authority: the received form of
the Bible, upon which and which alone they pro-
fessed to take their stand ;—it was now evident that
nothing short of the Divine Spirit, under the influ-
ence and inspiration of which the Scriptures were
interpreted and expounded by the Roman Church,
could be relied upon. On the. other hand, most of
the “ Antimorinians”—De Muys, Hottinger, St.
Morinus, Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeiffer, &c¢—
instead of patiently and critically examining the
subject and refuting their adversaries by arguments
which were within their reach, as they are within
ours, directed their attacks against the persons of
the Morinians, and thus their misguided zeal left
the question of the superiority of the New Document
over the Old where they found it. Of higher value
were, it is true, the labours of Simon, Le Clerc,
Walton, &c., at a later period, who proceeded
eclectically, rejecting many readings, and adopting
others which seemed preferable to those of the Old
Text. Houbigant, however, with unexampled igno-
rance and obstinacy, returned to Morinus’ fizst no-
tion—already generally abandoned—of the unques-
tionable and thorough superiority. He, again, was
followed more or less closely by KXennicott, Al. a St.
Aquilino, Lobstein, Geddes, and others. The discus-
sion was taken up once more on the other side,
chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in finally disposing
of this point of the superiority (Lercitt. Phil. in
Houbig. Prol. Lugd. Bat. 1755). ΤῈ was from his
day forward allowed, almost on all hands, that the
Masoretic Text was the genuine one, but that in
doubtful cases, when theSamaritan had an ‘ unques-
tionably clearer ” reading, this was to be adopted,
since a certain amount of value, however limited,
did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt,
Jahn, and the majority of modern critics, adhered
to this opinion. Here the matter rested until 1815,
when Gesenius (De Pent. Sam. Origine, Indole,
Jerusalem, has found the inscription in question “ going
through the middle of the body of the Text of the Deca-
logue, and extending through three columns.” Consider-
ing that the Samaritans themselves told Huntington,
“that this inscription had been in their scroll once, but
must have been erased by some wicked hand,” this
startling piece of information must be received with
extreme caution :—no less so than the other more or less
vague statements with respect to the labours and pre-
tended discoveries of Mr. Levysohn. See note, p. 1118.
4 Bre
1108 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
et Auctoritate) abolished the remnant of the
authority of the Sam. Pent. So masterly, lucid,
and clear are his arguments and his proofs, that
there has been and will be no further question as
to the absence of all value in this Recension, and in
its pretended emendations. Jn fact, a glance at the
systematic arrangement of the variants, of which
he first of all bethought himself, is quite sufficient
to convince the reader at once that they are for the
most part mere blunders, arising from an imperfect
knowledge of the first elements of grammar and
exegesis. That others owe their existence toa studied
design of conforming certain passages to the Sama-
ritan mode of thought, speech, and faith—moie
especially to show that the Mount Gerizim, upon
which their temple stood, was the spot chosen and
indicated by God to Moses as the one upon which
He desired to be worshipped.& Finally, that others
are due to a tendency towards removing, as w ell as
linguistic shortcomings would allow, all that seemed
obscure or in any way doubtful, and towards
filling up all apparent imperfections :—either by
repetitions or by means of newly-invented and
badly-fitting words and phrases. It must, how-
ever, be premised that, except two ἘΠ ΕΟ ΣΕ (Ex.
xiii. 7, where the Sam. reads “ Sic days shalt
thou eat unleavened bread,” instead of the received
“ Seven days,” and the chanze of the word ΠῚ ΠῚ,
“There shall not 6e,” into ΠΤ, “ live,” Deut.
xxiii, 18), the Mosaic laws and ordinances them-
selves are nowhere tampered with.
We will now proceed to lay specimens of these
once so highly prized variants before the reader, in
order that he may judge for himself. We shall
follow in this the commonly received arrangement
& For 97), “ He will elect” (the spot), the Sam.
always puts ἽΓΠ, “ He has elected” (viz. Gerizim). See
below.
ἈΦ “Δ must be a misprint.
i Thus OY is found in the Samar. for D> of the Ma-
soretic [.; FR) for ἢγ,- ” for aa pbs for DIN: 3
NN ἽΝ for MND. &e. : sometimes a} is put even
where the Heb. ‘I’. has, in accordance with the gram-
matical rules, only a short vowel or a sheva:—)335)}—7 is
found for yan NVI for DVIS.
‘M2, ὉΠ, ‘$yn, become 49MIN, ΓΙΌ, MONN-
m JAF) becomes 457}; ΓΙ is emendated into
ny; δὲ (verb 5) into FN); the final | —of the
3rd pers. fem. plur. fut. into nd.
2 995) is shortened into j>w, YN into "7.
© Masculine are made the words Of>D (Gen. xlix. 20)
WY (Deut. xv. 7, &c.), FMD (Gen. xxxii. 9); feminine
the words P48 (Gen. xiii. 6), FJ (Deut. xxviii. 25),
WH) (Gen. xlvi. 25, &c.); wherever the word 43) occurs
in the sense of “ girl,” a 7 is added at the end (Gen, xxiv.
14, &c.).
Ρ ΔἸ son Δ 55), “ the waters returned conti-
nually,” is transformed into ἢ Δ 2 ὉΠ 43), “ they
returned, they went and they returned’’ (Gen. viii. 3).
Where the infin. is used as an adverb, e. g. pain (Gen.
xxi. 16), “far off,” it is altered into AD‘7F, “she went
far away,” which rgnders the passage almosi unintelligible.
4 DIY for Oy Gen. iii. 10, 11); FS» for ΟῚ (xi.
30); DID for the collective ΣΝ (xv. 10); FON.
“ female servants,” for ΠῚ ΠΝ (Xx. 18): ATID NV
M2) 5 for the adverbial 34%) Cxlix. 15); 9799 for
Dm 3 (Ex. xxvi. 26, making it depend from ἡ);
DUD, in the unusnal sense of “ from it” (comp. 1 K. xvii.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
of Gesenius, who divides all these readings into eight
classes; to which, as we shall afterwards show,
Frankel has suggested the addition of two or
three others, while Kirchheim (in his Hebrew
work ΠΥ ΠῚ D713) enumerates thirteen,* which
we will name hereafter.
1. The first class, then, consists of readings by
which emendations of a grammatical nature have
been attempied.
(a.) The quiescent letters, or so-called matres
lectionis, ave supplied.i
(b.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns,
probably less known to the Sam., are altered into
the more common ones.*
(c.) The same propensity for completing appa-
rently incomplete forms is noticeable in the flexion
of the verbs. The apocopated or short future is
altered into the regular future.™
(d.) Ou the other hand the paragogical letters ἢ and
δ at the end of nouns, are almost universally struck
out by the Sam. corrector ;® and, in the ignorance
of the existence of nouns of a common gender, he
has given them genders according to his fancy.°
(e.) The infin. absol. is, in the quaintest manner-
possible, reduced to the form of the finite verb.P
For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more
common ones have been substituted in a great num-
ber of places.4
2. The second class of variants consists of glosses
and interpretations received into the text: glosses,
moreover, in which the Sam. not unfrequently
coincides with the LXX., and which are in many
cases evidently derived by both from some ancient
Targum.?
3. The third class exhibits conjectural emen-
13), fs altered into ΠΣ (Lev. ii. 2); ΓΛ is wrongly
put for "1 (3rd p. 5. m. of "7 = 3 “yp, the obsolete
form, is replaced by the more recent YY (Num. xxi. 15) ;
the unusual fem, termination (comp. brosays)
Sypay, is elongated into 7»- ; ΓΔ) is the emendation
for my (Deut. xxii. 1); 997) for mn (Deut. xxxiii.
15), ete.
τ SW) Wo, “man and woman,” used by Gen. vii. 2
of animals, is changed into J)3) TD}, “ male and
female :᾿ ἽΝ (Gen. xxiv. 60), ‘his haters,” becomes
ye, “bis enemies;” for 2 (indefin.) is substituted
MDINDs ND, “he will see, choose,” is amplified by a
45, « for himself ;” i ‘14/7 is transformed into 437
13) WH (Lev. xvii. 10); oda dx ‘TON PN
(Num. xxiii. 4), “ And God met Bileam,” becomes with
the Sum. "3 ΠΝ ON NDI NY, “and an Angel
of the Lord found Bileam;’ FWA DY (Gen. xx. 3),
“ for the woman,” is amplified into RWSA NTS by,
“for the sake of the woman:” for $93)D), from 45)
(obsol., comp. ἐν: ), is put 51}, “ those that are be-
fore me,”
after me ;” ΠΝ ΠῚ, “ and she emptied” (her pitcher into
the trough, Gen. xxiv. 20), has made room for "J44}7),
“and she took down;’ YW WMTW, “1 will meet
there” (A. V., Ex. xxix. 43), is made DW 9WW 7).
“1 shall be [searched] found there;’” Num. xxxi. 15,
before the words 7) $5 ΓΟ ΤΠ, “ Have you spared
the life of every female?” a MD 2, “Why,” is inserted
(LXX.); for NIPN 717 Dw Ὁ (Deut. xxxii. 3),
“ If I call the name of Jehovah,” the Sam. has DW,
“In the name,”’ etc.
in contradistinction to “ those who will come |
4
od
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
dations—sometimes far from happy—of real or
imaginary difficulties in the Masoretic text.§
4, The fourth class exhibits readings in which ap-
parent deficiencies have been corrected or supplied
from parallel passages in the common text. Gen,
xviii, 29, 30, for “1 shall not do it,” ὃ “I shall not
destroy” ® is substituted from Gen. xviii, 28, 31, 32.
Gen xxxvii. 4, TIN, “his brethren,” is replaced by
133, “his sons,” from the former verse. One of the
most curious specimens of the endeavours of the
Samaritan Codex to render the readings as smooth
and consistent as possible, is its uniform spelling of
proper nouns like }7M', Jethro, occasionally spelt
ΠΣ in the Hebrew text, Moses’ father-in-law—a
man who, according to the Midrash (Sifri), had no
less than seven names; YW? (Jehoshua), into
which form it corrects the shorter YW (Hoshea)
when it occurs in the Masoretic Codex. More fire-
quent still are the additions of single words and
short phrases inserted from parallel passages, where
the Hebrew text appeared too concise :*—unneces-
sary, often excessively absurd interpolations.
5. The fifth class is an extension of the one im-
mediately preceding, and comprises larger phrases,
additions, and repetitions from parallel passages.
Whenever anything is mentioned as having been
done or said previously by Moses, or where a com-
mand οὐ God is related as being executed, the
whole speech bearing upon it is repeated again at
full length. These tedious and always superfluous
repetitions are most frequent in Exodus, both in the
record of the plagues and in the many interpola-
tions from Deuteronomy.
6. To the sixth class belong those ‘* emendations ”
* The elliptic use of a5, frequent both in Hebrew and
Arabic, being evidently unknown to the emendator, he
alters the aby) mw ΠΝ ibn (Gen. xvii, 17), “shall
a chiid be born unto him that is a hundred years old?”
into p5yy, “shall lbeget?” Gen. xxiv.62, 2 NO,
“he came from going” (A. V. “from the way”) to the
well of Lahai-roi, the Sam. alters into 495799 ΜΝ,
“in or through the desert” (LXX., διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου). In
Gen. xxx. 34, grabs) 7 ν ji “ Behold, may it be
according to thy word,” the yb (Arab. ry is transformed
into sd. “‘and if not—let it be like thy word.” Gen.
xii. 32, ona nawn DY) “ And for that the dream
was doubled,” becomes "Π FW mbyy, “The dream
rose a second time,” which is both un-Hebrew, and
diametrically opposed to the sense and construction of
the passage. Better is the emendation Gen. xlix. 10,
Ve 37 3 “from between his feet,” into “from
among his banners,” poo jad. , Ex. xv. 18, all but
five of the Sam, Codd. read "1)}}} DD iY, “for ever and
longer,’ instead of YJ}, the common form, “ evermore.”
HiXGX RLV ils mpd’ ND mp), “ that will by no means
clear the sin,” becomes mp3 Ὁ mp3), “and the inno-
cent to him shall be innocent,” against both the parallel
passages and the obvious sense. The somewhat difficult
45D) NP. “and they did not cease” (A. V., Num. xi,
25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural JDDN”»
which we would venture to translate, “ they were not
gathered in,’ in the sense of “killed:” instead of
either the JYYJDN, “congregated,” of the Sam. Vers., or
Castell’s “continuerunt,” or Houbigant’s and Dathe’s
“convenerant.” Num. xxi. 28, the W, “ Ar” (Moab), is
emendated into TY, “as far as,” a perfectly meaningless
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1109
οὐ passages and words of the Hebrew text which
contain something objectionable in the eyes of the
Samaritans, on account either of historical impro-
bability or apparent want of dignity in the terms
applied to the Creator. Thus in the Sam, Pent.
no one in the antediluvian times, begets his first
son after he has lived 150 years: but one hundred
years are, where necessary, subtracted before, and
added after the birth of the first son. Thus Jared,
according to the Hebrew Text, begot at 162 years,
lived #fterwards 800 years, and ‘all his years were
962 years;” according to the Sam. he begot when
only 62 years old, lived afterwards 785 years, “ and
all his years were 847.” After the Deluge the
opposite method is followed. A hundred or fifty
years are added before and subtracted after the be-
getting: H.g. Arphasad, who in the Common Text
is 385 years old when he begets Shelah, and lived
atterwards 403 years: im all 458—is by the Sam.
made 135 years old when he begets Shelah, and
lives only 303 years afterwards=438. (The LXX.
has, according to its own peculiar psychological and
chronological notions, alteretl the Text in the oppo-
site manner. [See SEPTUAGINT.]) An exceedingly
important and often discussed emendation of this
class is the passage in Ex. xii. 40, which in om
text reads, ‘* Now the sojourning of the children of
Israel who dwelt in Egypt was tour hundred and
thirty years.’ The Samaritan (supported by LXX.
Cod, Al.) has “The sojourning of the children of
Israel, [and their fathers who dwelt in the land of
Canaan and in the land of Eqypt—eév γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ
kal ἐν γῇ Kavady] was four hundred and thirty
years: an interpolation of very Jate date indeed.
reading ; only that the VW, “city,” as we saw above, was
a word unknown to the San The somewhat uncommon
words (Num. xi. 32), Mw Od ympw, “and they
(the people) spread them all abroad,” are transposed into
mommy ond yonw, “and they slanghtered for
themselves a slanghter.’ Deut. xxviii. 37, the word
MDL. , “an astonishment” (A. V.), very rarely used in
this sense (Jer. xix. 8, xxv. 9), becomes ov?, “toa
name,” i.é., a bad name. Deut. xxxiii. 6, nip 7)
IED), “May his men be a multitude,” the Sam., with
its characteristic aversion to, or rather ignorance of, the
use of poetical diction, reads TDID WAND 1) “ May
there be from him a multitude,’ thereby trying perhaps
to eucounter also the apparent difficulty of the word
75D), standing for “a great number.” Anything more
absurd than the FX in this place could hardly be
imagined. <A few verses further on, the uncommon use
of 2 in the phrase [})21}0᾽ 112. (Deut. xxxiii. 11), as
“lest,” “not,” caused the no less unfortunate alteration
3199/27 "2, so that the latter part of the passage, “smite
through the loins of them that rise against him, and of
them that hate him, that they rise not again,” becomes
“who will raise them??’—barren alike of meaning and
of poetry. For the unusual and poetical ape a (Deut.
Xxxili. 25; A. V. “thy strength”), Wea is suggested ;
a word about the significance of which the commentators
are at a greater loss even than about that of the original.
ἐπῶν xd. » ΠΩΣ Nd.
x Thus in Gen. i. 14, the words YANT 2Y syn.
“ to give light upon the earth,” are inserted from ver. 17;
Gen. xi. 8, the word S501, “and a tower,” is added
a ᾽ν
from ver. 4; Gen. xxiv. m|N by, “on her face
(nose), is added from ver. 47, 50 that the former verse
reads “ And the man took (7) for DY)) a golden ring
‘upon her face.’ "ἢ
22.
“2,
1110 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
Again, in Gen, ii, 2, “ And God [? had] finished
(52, ? pluperf.) on the seventh day,” Δ ΠῚ is
altered into WWM, “the sixth,’ lest God's rest
on the Sabbath-day might seem incomplete (LXX.).
In Gen. xxix. 3, 8, “ We cannot, until all the flocks
be gathered tocether, and till they roll the stone
from the mouth of the well,” OY, ‘“ flocks,”
is replaced by MY}7, ““ shepherds,” since the flocks
could not roll the stone from the well: the cor-
rector not being apparently aware that in common
parlance in Hebrew, as in other languages, ‘‘ they”
occasionally refers to certain not particularly spe-
cified persons. Well may Gesenius ask what this
corrector would have made of Is. xxxvii. [not
xxxvi.] 36: “ And when they arose in the morning,
behold they were all dead corpses.” The surpassing
reverence of the Samaritan is shown in passages like
Ex, xxiv. 10, “and they beheld God,” ¥ which
is transmuted into “and they held by, clung to,
God” —a reading certainly Jess in harmony with
the following—* and they ate and drank.”
7. The seventh class comprises what we might
briefly call Samaritanisms, 7. 6. certain Hebrew
forms, translated into the idiomatic Samaritan ;
aud here the Sam. Codices vary considerably among
themselves,—as far as the very imperfect collation of
them has hitherto shown—some having retained
the Hebrew in many places where the others have
adopted the new equivalents.*
8. The eighth and last class contains alterations
made in favour or on behalf of Samaritan theology,
hermeneutics, and domestic worship. Thus the
word Zlohim, four times construed with the plural
verb in the Hebrew Pentateuch, is in the Sam-
avitan Pent. joined to the singular verb (Gen. xx.
13, xxxi. 53, xxxv. 7; Ex. xxii. 9); and further,
both anthropomorphisms as well as anthropopathisms
are carefully expunged—a practice very common in
7 DYNON MN WN. + STN:
4 The ‘gutturals and Ahevi-letters are frequently
changed :—t4979 becomes ΔΝ (Gen. viii. 4); 8 is
altered into 999 (xxiii.18); FAW into yAyy (xxvii. 19) ;
"ὉΠ stands for sort (Deut. xxxii. 24); the FR is changed
into Γ in words like 573, O95, which become 37),
OMIA; ΓῚ is altered into }—-yyF becomes 4DY. ‘The
‘is frequently doubled (? as a mater lectionis): "12"
is substituted for 351997] ; NAN for WAN 5 994) for 15.
Many words are joined together :—3\935)D stands for
VWI 9 (ix. xxx. 23); jeans for is ἸΠ2 (Gen. xli.
45); DJ TNA is always OH 7) ἼΠΠ.- The pronouns
AS and JAN, 2nd p. fem. sing. and plur., are changed into
oT, POs (the obsolete Heb. forms) respectively ; the
suff, J into ἽΝ; Ἵ: into Ἵ" the termination of the 2nd
Ὁ, s. fem. praet., i=, becomes ‘7, like the first p.; the
verbal form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; "ΣΝ for
9775717; the medial letter of the verb ἡ" Ὁ) is sometimes
retained as & or ", instead of being dropped as in the Heb.
Again, verbs of the form Σ΄ have the 9 frequently at the
end of the infin. fut. aud part., instead of the 7. Nouns of
the schema 20P Oar, &e.) are often spelt Swap, into
which the form Dine is likewise occasionally trans-
formed. Of distinctly Samaritan words may be men-
tioned: iI (Gen. xxxiv.31)="]" "ΠῚ (Chald.), “like ;”
Dn, for Heb. OM, “seals” NTMHD, “as though
later times.> ‘lhe last and perhaps most momentous
it budded,” becomes ΠΝ —Targ. ΘΝ ID; |
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
of all intentional alterations is the constant change
of all the WMI‘, ** God will choose a spot,” into
93, ‘“ He has chosen,” viz. Gerizim, and the well-
known substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut.
xxvii, 4 (A. V. 5):— It shall be when ye be gone
over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones which
I command you this day on Mount Ebal (Sam.
Gerizim), and there shalt thou build an altar
unto the Lord thy God,” &e. This passage gains a
certain interest from Whiston and Kennicott having
charged the Jews with corrupting it from Gerizim
into Ebal, This supposition, however, was met by
Rutherford, Parry, Tychsen, Lobstein, Verschuir,
and others, and we need only add that it is com-
pletely given up by modern Biblical scholars, al-
though it cannot be denied that there is some prima
facie ground for a doubt upon the subject. To this
class also belong more especially interpolations of
really existing passages, dragged out of their con-
text for a special purpose. In Exodus as well as
in Deuteronomy the Sam. has, immediately after
the Ten Commandments, the following insertions
from Deut. xxvii. 2-7 and xi. 30: ‘¢ And it shall be
on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan... ye
shall set up these stones... on Mount Gerizim
εν and there shalt thou build an altar... “ That
mountain’ on the other side Jordan by the way
Where the sun goeth down... in the champaign
over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh, ‘ over
against Shechem:’”—this last superfluous addi-
tion, which is also found in Deut. xi. 30 of the
Sam, Pent.. being ridiculed in the Talmud, as we
have seen above.
From the immense number of these worse than
worthless variants Gesenius has singled out four,
which he thinks preferable on the whole to those
of the Masoretic Text. We will confine ourselves
to mentioning them, and refer the reader to the
recent commentaries upon them: he will find that
| DDN, ‘ wise,” reads DIDM; Ty, “spoil,” Sy; ni".
* days,” ni.
Ὁ apnby WN, “man of war,” an expression used
of God (Ex. xv. 3), becomes “2 995, “hero of war,’
the former apparently of irreverent import to the Sama~-
ritan ear; for ‘5 ὮΝ {wy (Deut. xxix. 19, A. V. 20), e
lit. ‘And the wrath (nose) of the Lord shall smoke,”
= aN “\r', “ the wrath of the Lord will be kindled,” is
substituted ; sone “VY (Deut. xxxii. 18), “ the rock
(God) which begat thee,” is changed into sbbnn talline
“ the rock which glorifies thee ;” Gen. xix. 12, DIWINF,
“the men,” used of the angels, has been replaced by
pwn. “the angels.” Extreme reverence for the
patriarchs changed ἜΝ, ‘Cursed be their (Simeon and
Levi’s) anger,” into ἽΝ, “ brilliant is their anger”
(Gen. xlix. 7). A flagrant falsification is the alteration,
in an opposite sense, which they ventured in the passage
mad yw) 4 IT), “The beloved of God [Ben-
jamin, the founder of the Judaeo-Davidian empire, hate-
ful to the Samaritans] shall dwell securely,” trans-
formed by them into the almost senseiess ‘J "79
ΠΣ yw, “ Lhe hand, the hand of God will rest [if
Hiph. ; [3 27), « will cause to rest] securely ” (Deut. xxiii.
12). Reverence for the Law and the Sacred Records gives
rise to more emendations:— Δ (Deut. xxv. 12,
A. V. 11), “by his secrets,” becomes ἡ). 3, ‘“ by his
flesh ;” πολ», “coibit cum ea” (Deut. xxviii, 12),
MOY 3D, “ concumbet cum ea;” navn za) 55,
“to the dog shall ve throw it” (Ex. xxii, 30), sown
Lymn, “ye shall indeed throw it [away ].”
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
they too have since been, all but unanimously,
rejected.¢ (1,) After the words, “ And Cain spoke
(ΘΝ) to his brother Abel” (Gen. iv. 8), the
Sam. adds, “ let us ¢o into the field,’ ἃ in ignorance
of the absol. use of “WON, ‘* to say, speak’ (comp.
Ex. xix. 25; 2 Chr. ii. 10, xxxii. 34), and the
absol. 2) (Gen. ix. 21). (2.) For IAN (Gen. xxii.
18) the Sam. reads SIM, ἃ ὁ. instead of behind
‘¢one vam.” (3.) For OA WON
(Gen. xlix. 14), ‘an ass of bone” 7,e. a strong
ass, the Sam. has OJ WOM (Targ. O41, Syr.
9
AQ): And (4.) for PA (Gen. xiv. 14), “he
him a yam,”
led forth his trained servants,” the Sam. reads |
P1), “he numbered.” -
We must briefly state, in concluding this por-
tion of the subject, that we did not choose this
classification of Gesenius because it appeared to us
to be either systematic (Gesenius says himself :
“¢Ceterum facile perspicitur complures in his esse
lectiones quarum singulas alius ad aliud genus re-
ferve forsitan malit . . . in una vel altera lectione ad
aliam classem referenda haud difficiles erimus . . -”)
or exhaustive, or even because the illustrations
themselves are unassailable in point of the reason
he assigns for them; but because, deficient as it is,
it has at once and for ever silenced the utterly un-
founded though time-hallowed claims of the Sama-
ritan Pentateuch, It was only necessary, as we said
before, to collect a great number of variations (or
to take.them from Walton), to compare them with
the old text and with each other, to place them in
some kind of order before the reader and let them
tell their own tale. That this was not done during
the two hundred years of the contest by a single
one of the combatants is certainly rather strange:
—albeit not the only instance of the kind.
Important additions to this list have, as we
hinted before, been made by Frankel, such as the
Samaritans’ preference of the imperat. for the 3rd
pers. ;© ignorance of the use of the abl. absol. 3f
Galileanisms,—to which also belongs the permuta-
tion of the letters Ahevi® (comp. Arb. 53, WN,
ἽΝ, WY), in the Samaritan Cod. ; the occasional
sottening down of the § into ey one minton δον
into J, &c., and chiefly the presence of words and
phrases in the Sam. which are not interpolated from
parallel passages, but are entirely wanting in our
text.i Frankel derives from these passages chiefly
the conclusion that the Sam. Pent. was, partly at
least, emendated from the LXX., Onkelos, and other
very late sources. (See below.)
We now subjoin, for the sake of completeness, the
beforementioned thirteen classes of Kirchheim, in the
original, to which we have added the translation :—
a1. aaa a ΠΌΝΟ pe mipoin. [Ad
ditions and alterations in the Samaritan Pentateuch
in favour of Mount Gerizim. |
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1111
2 madd MIpoiN. [Additions for the pur
pose of completion. |
_ 3. ΝΖ. (Commentary, closses. |
4. 0°93) mo Syan sion. [Change of verbs
and moods. |
5. NIDwWN mon. [Change of nouns. |
6. MNIwWr. [Emendation of seeming inregu-
larities by assimilating forms, &c. |
τ. MYM MIN. [Permutation of letters. |
8. O35. [ Pronouns. |
9. }%. (Gender. ]
10. MAIBDIIA ΤῊΝ. [Letters added. |
11. OMA MYM. [Addition of prepositions,
conjunctions, articles, &c. |
12. TH) Pp.
separation of joined words. ]
13. nowy myo’. [Chronological alterations. |
It may, perhaps, not be quite superfluous to ob-
serve, before we proceed any further, that, since up
to this moment no critical edition of the Sam. Pent.,
or even an examination of the Codices since Ken-
nicott—who can only be said to have begun the
work—has been thought of, the treatment of the
whole subject remains a most precarious task, and
beset with unexampled difficulties at every step;
and also that, under these circumstances, a more or
less scientific arrangement of isolated or common
Samaritan mistakes and falsifications appears to us
to be a subject of very small consequence indeed.
It is, however, this same rudimentary state of
investigation—after two centuries and a half of
fierce discussion—which has left the other and
much more important question of the Aye and
Origin of the Sam, Pent. as unsettled to-day as it
was when it first came under the notice of European
scholars. For our own part we cannot but think
that as long as—(1) the history of the Samaritans
yemains involved in. the obscurities of which a
former article will have given an account; (2) we
are restricted to a small number of comparatively
recent Codices; (3) neither these Codices them-
selves have, as has just been observed, been tho-
roughly collated and recollated, nor (4) more than
a feeble beginning has been made with anything
like a collation between the various readings of
the Sam. Pent. and the LXX. (Walton omitted
the greatest number, “cum nullam sensus varie-
tatem constifuant ”);—so long must we have a
variety of the most divergent opinions, all based on
“probabilities,” which are designated on the other side
as “false reasonings” and “ individual crotchets,”
and which, moreover, not unfrequently start from
flagrantly false premisses.
We shall, under these circumstances, confine our-
selves to a simple enumeration of the leading opi-
nions, and the chief reasons and arguments alleged
for and against them :—
[Junction of separated, and
ς Keil, im the latest edition of his Introd. p. 590, note 7,
says, ‘‘ Even the few variants, which Gesenius tries to
prove genuine, fall to the ground on closer examina-
tion.”
ἃ ΠΊΦΠ nb.
© Bg. APF for AIP (Ex. xii. 48); ΠῚ ND?
(Ex. xxxy. 10).
f £.g. ΔΥΣῚ for 7D} (Ex. xiii. 13); Yy999 for OIA
(Num. xv, 35).
8. E.g. ya} for 4 (Gen. viii. 22); yin ΤᾺΣ wy
(Gen. XXXvi. 28°; ΝΠ for Ane (Lev xi. 16), &e.
1
| apys mds xin may maw nary ns
hyn) for WET (Gen. xxxi. 35)5 ΠΙΞ tor
MDs (Ex. xv. 10). ᾿
i Gen, xxiii. 2, after YAING NPA the words 5X
Poy are added; xxvii. 27, after F3WM the word δὲ 2.2
is found (LXX.); xliii. 28, the phrase UNM ἽΠΞ
prnmbsd S777 is inserted after the Ethnach ; xlvii. 21,
passage is found in Ex, xxiii. 19, reading WY 93
1112 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
(1.) The Samaritan Pentateuch came into the
hands of the Samaritans as an inheritance from the
ten tribes whom they succeeded—so the popular
notion runs. Of this opinion are J. Morinus, Walton,
Cappellus, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bauer,
Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, Mazade, Stuart, Davidson,
and others. Their reasons for it may be thus briefly
summed up :—
(a.) It seems improbable that the Samaritans
should have accepted their code at the hands of the
Jews after the Exile, as supposed by some critics,
since there existed an intense hatred between the
two nationalities.
(6.) The Samaritan Canon has only the Penta-
teuch in common with the Hebrew Canon: had
that book been received at a period when the Hagio-
grapha and the Prophets were in the Jews’ hands,
it would be surprising if they had not also received
those. 4
(c.) The Sam. letters, avowedly the more ancient,
are found in the Sam. Cod.: therefore it was written
before the alteration of the character into the square
Hebrew—which dates from the end of the Exile—
took place.
{ We cannot omit briefly to draw attention here to
.a most keen-eyed suggestion of S. D. Luzzatto,
contained in a letter to R. Kirchheim (Carme.
Shomron, p. 106, &c.), by the adoption of which
many readings in the Heb, Codex, now almost un-
intelligible, appear perfectly clear. He assumes that
the copyist who at some time or other after Ezra
transcribed the Bible into the modern square He-
brew character, from the ancient copies written in
so-called Samaritan, occasionally mistook Samaritan
letters of similar form.* And since our Sam. Pent.
has those difficult readings in common with the
Mas. Text, that other moot point, whether it was
copied from a Hebrew or Samaritan Codex, would
thus appear to be solved. Its constant changes
of 7 and J, ἡ and }, M and M—letters which
are similar in Hebrew, but not in Samaritan—
have been long used as a powerful argument for
the Samaritans having received the Pent. at a very
late period indeed. |
Since the above opinion—that the Pent. came
into the hands of the Samaritans from the Ten
Tribes—is the most popular one, we will now
adduce some of the chief reasons brought against it,
and the reader will see by the somewhat. feeble
nature of the arguments on either side, that the last
word has not yet been spoken in the matter.
(a.) There existed no religious animosity what-
soever between Judah and Israel when they sepa-
yated. The ten tribes could not therefore have
bequeathed such an animosity to those who suc-
ceeded them, and who, we may add, probably cared
as little originally for the disputes between Judah
and Israel, as colonists from far-off countries, be-
longing to utterly different races, are likely to care
for the quarrels of the aborigines who formerly in-
habited the country. On the contrary, the contest
between the slowly judaized Samaritans and the
Jews, only dates from the moment when the latter
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
refused to recognise the claims of the former, of
belonging to the people of God, and rejected their
aid in building the Temple: why then, it is said,
should they not first have received the one book
which would bring them into still closer conformity
with the returned exiles, at their hands? That the
Jews should yet have refused to receive them as
equals is no more surprising than that the Sama-
ritans from that time forward took their stand upon
this very Law—altered according to their circum-
stances ; and proved from it that they and they alone
were the Jews κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν.
(b.) Their not possessing any other book of the
Hebrew Canon is not to be accounted for by the
circumstance that there was no other book in exist-
ence at the time of the schism, because many psalms
of David, writings of Solomon, &c., must have been
circulating among the people. But the jealousy
with which the Samaritans regarded Jerusalem, and
the intense hatred which they naturally conceived
against the post-Mosaic writers of national Jewish
history, would sufficiently account for their reject-
ing the other books, in all of which, save Joshua,
Judges, and Job, either Jerusalem, as the centre of
worship, or David and his House, are extolled. If,
however, Loewe has really found with them, as he
reports in the Allgem. Zeitung d. Judenth. April
18th, 1839, our Book of Kings and Solomon’s Song
of Songs,—which they certainly would not have re-
ceived subsequently,—all these arguments are per-
fectly gratuitous.
(c.) The present Hebrew character was not intro-
duced by Ezra after the return from the Exile, but
came into use at a much later period. The Samari-
tans might therefore have received the Pentateuch
at the hands of the returned exiles, who, according
to the Talmud, afterwards changed their writing,
and in the Pentateuch only, so aso distinguish
it from the Samaritan. ““ Originally,’ says Mar
Sutra (Sanhedr. xxi. b), “the Pentateuch was
given to Israel in Jbri writing and the Holy
(Hebrew) language: it was again giyen to them
in the days of Ezra in the Ashurith writing and
Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ashurith
writing and the Holy language, and left to the He-
diotes (Ἰδιῶται) the Ibri writing and the Aramaic
language. Who are the Hediotes? The Cuthim
(Samaritans). What is Ibri writing? The Libo-
naah (Samaritan).” It is well known also that
the Maccabean coins bear Samaritan inscriptions : so
that ‘ Hediotes” would point to the common use
of the Samaritan character for ordinary purposes,
down to a very late period.
(2.) The second leading opinion on the age and
origin of the Sam. Pent. is that it was introduced by
Manasseh (comp. Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, 82, 4) at the
time of the foundation of the Samaritan Sanctuary
on Mount Gerizim (Ant. van Dale, R. Simon, Pri-
deaux, Fulda, Hasse, De Wette, Gesenius, Hupfeld,
Hengstenberg, Keil, &c.). In support of this opinion
are alleged, the idolatry of the Samaritans before
they received a Jewish priest through Esarhaddon
k #,g., Is. xi. 15, DY instead of HYYI (adopted by
Gesenius in Thes. p. 1017 a, without a mention of its
source, which he, however, distinctly avowed to Rosen-
miiller—comp. 187,2, p. 107, note &); Jer. iii. 8, RANI
instead of ΠῚ} 1 Sam. xxiv. 11, OAM) for DANI;
Ezy. vi. 4, IM for SWF; Ez. xxii. 20, "ΠῚ ΠῚ for
ὙΠ ΠῚ ; Judg. xv. 20, O9wy—Samson’s reign during
the time of the Philistines being given as twenty years
instead of forty (comp. Jer. Sot. 1), accounted for by the {9
(numerical letter for forty) in the original being mistaken
for 5 (twenty). Again, 2 Chr. xxii. 2, forty is put in-
stead of twenty (comp. 2 K. viii..26); 2 K. xxii. 4, 07%)
for 4143 Ez, iii. 12, 4999 for DA, &e. :—all these
letters—[Tf and ΠῚ, Ay and /y, 2 and \, X and X—
resembling each other very closely.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1113
2 Κ΄ xvii, 24-33), and the immense number of | unimportant a nature that they cannot be adduced
readings common to the LXX. and this Code,
against the Masoretic Text.
(3.) Other, but very isolated notions, are those of
Morin, Le Clere, Poncet, &c., that the Israelitish
priest sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the
new inhabitants in the religion of the country
brought the Pentateuch with him.
the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of
an impostor, Dositheus ΟΝ in Talmud), who
lived during the time of the Apostles, and who
falsified the sacred records in order to prove that he
was the Messiah (Ussher). Against which there
is only this to be observed, that there is ποῦ the
slightest alteration of such a nature to be found.
Further, that |
Finally, that it is a very late and faulty recension, |
made after the Masoretic Text (sixth Century after |
Christ), into which glosses from the LXX. had been
received (Frankel). Many other suggestions have
been made, but we cannot here dwell upon them:
sutlice it to have mentioned those to which a certain
popularity and authority attaches.
Another question has been raised :—Have all the
variants which we find in our copies been introduced
at once, or are they the work of many generations ?
From the number of vague opinions on that point,
we have only room here to adduce that of Azariah
de Rossi, who traces many of the glosses (Class 2)
both in the Sam. and in the LXX. to an ancient
Targum in the hands of the people at the time of |
Ezra, and refers to the Talmudical passage of Nedar, |
37: “And he read in the Book of the Law of)
God—this is Mikra, the Pentateuch; W751, ex-
planatory, this is Targum.” [VERSIONS (TARGUM). ] | Tene ον
| ade- τ,
Considering that no Masorah fixed the letters and
signs of the Samar. Codex, and that, as we have
noticed, the principal object was to make it read
as smoothly as possible, it is not easily seen why |
each succeeding century should not have added its
own emendations. But, here too, investigation still
wanders about in the mazes of speculation.
The chief opinions with respect to the agreement "Also supposed to be of the 7th century, but very
of the numerous and as yet uninvestigated—even
uncounted—readings of the LXX. (of which likewise
no critical edition exists as yet), and the Sam. Pent.
are :—
1. That the LXX. have translated from the Sam.
(De Dieu, Selden, Hottinger, Hassencamp, Eichhorn,
&c.).
2. That mutual interpolations have taken place
(Grotius, Ussher, Ravius, &c.).
3. That both Versions were formed from Hebrew |
Codices, which differed among themselves as well
as from the one which afterwards obtained public
authority in Palestine; that however very many
wilful corruptions and interpolations have crept in
in later times (Gesenius). Ὶ
4. That the Samar. has, in the main, been altered
from the LXX. (Frankel).
It must, on the other hand, be stated also! that
the Sam. and LXX. quite as often disagree with |
each other, and follow each the Masor. Text.
Also, that the quotations in the N. T. from the
LXX., where they coincide with the Sam. against
the Hebr. Text, are so small in number and οἵ so
/with an Arab. Vers.
| Wanting the first 34 ch., and very defective in
| Many places.
as any argument whatsoever.
The following is a list of the MSS. of the Sam.
Pent, now in European Libraries [Kennicott.] :—
No. 1. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., fol., No. 3127.
Perfect, except the 20 first and 9 last verses.
No. 2. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to., No. 3128,
with an Arabic version in Sam. characters. Imper-
fect. Wanting the whole of Leviticus and many
portions of the other books.
No. 3. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to., No. 3129.
Wanting many portions in each book.
No. 4. Oxtord (Ussher, Laud) Bodl., 4to., No.
624, Defective in parts of Deut.
No. 5. Oxford (Marsh) Bodl., 12mo0., No. 15.
Wanting some verses in the beginning; 21 chapters
obliterated.
No. 6. Oxford (Pocock) Bodl., 24mo., No. 5328.
| Parts of leaves lost ; otherwise perfect.
No. 7. London (Ussher) Br. Mus. Claud. B. 8.
Vellum. Complete. 254 leaves.
No. 8. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 1.
Recent MS, containing the Hebr. and Sam. Texts,
in the Sam. character.
No. 9. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 2.
Ancient MS., wanting first 17 chapters of Gen.;
and all Deut. from the 7th ch. Houbigant, how-
ever, quotes from Gen. x. 11 of this Codex, a
rather puzzling circumstance.
No. 10. Paris (Harl. de Sancy) Oratory, No. 1.
The famous MS. of P. della Valle.
No. 11. Paris (Dom. Nolin) Oratory, No. 2.
No. 12. Paris (Libr. St. Genév.). Of little
value.
No. 13. Rome (Peir. and Barber.) Vatican,’
No. 106. Hebr. and Sam. texts, with Arab.
Vers. in Sam. character. Very defective and re-
cent. Dated the 7th century (9).
No. 14, Rome (Card. Cobellutius}, Vatican.
doubtful.
No. 15. Milan (Ambrosian Libr.). Said to be
| very ancient ; not collated.
No. 16. Leyden (Golius MS.), fol., No. 1.
to be complete.
No. 17, Gotha (Ducal Libr.). A fragment only.
No. 18. London, Count of Paris’ Library. With
Version.
Printed editions are contained in the Paris and
Walton Polyglots; and a separate reprint from
the latter was made by Blayney, Oxford, 1790. A
Said
| Facsimile of the 20th ch. of Exodus, from one of
the Nablus MSS., has been edited, with portions of
the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian
Translation and Introduction, by Levysohn, Jeru-
salem, 1860.™
Il. VERSIONS.
1. Samaritan.—The origin, author, and age of the
Samaritan Version of the Five Books of Moses, has
hitherto—so Kichhorn quaintly observes—* always
been a golden apple to the investigators, and will very
probably remain so, until people leave off venturing
decisive judgments upon historical subjects which
m The original intention of the Russian Government to
publish the whole Codex in the same manner seems to
have been given up for the present. We can only hope
that, if the work is ever taken up again, it will fall into
more competent hands. Mr. Levysohn’s Introduction,
ie. oie
brief as it is, shows him to be utterly wanting both in
scholarship and in critical acumen, and to be, moreover,
entirely unacquainted with the fact that his new dis-
coveries have been disposed of some hundred and fifty
| years since,
1114 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
no one has recorded in antiquity.” And, indeed,
modern investigators, keen as they have been, have
done little towards the elucidation of the subject.
According to the Samaritans themselves (De Sacy
Mem. 33 Paulus; Winer), their high - priest
Nathaniel, who died about 20 B.C., is its author.
Gesenius puts its date a few years after Christ.
Juynboll thinks that it had long been in use in
the second post-Christian century. Frankel places
it in the post-Mohammedan time. Other inves-
tigators. date it from the time of Esarhaddon’s
priest (Schwarz), or either shortly before or after
the foundation of the temple on Mount Gerizim.
It seems certain, however, that it was composed
before the destruction of the second temple; and
being intended, like the Targums, for the use of the
people exclusively, it was written in the popular
Samaritan idiom, a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Syriac.
In this version the original has been followed,
with a very few exceptions, in a slavish and some-
times perfectly childish manner, the sense evidently
being of minor consideration. As a very striking
instance of this may be adduced the translation of
Deut. iii, 9: “The Zidonians call Hermon }/%
(Shirion), and the Amorites call it 113% (Shenir).”
The translator deriving }W from WW “ prince,
master,” renders it J “ masters ;” and finding
the letters reversed in the appellation of the Amor-
rites as ")¥, reverses also the sense in his version,
and translates it by “slaves” }YTAYWIO! In
other cases, where no Samaritan equivalent could be
found for a Hebrew word, the translator, instead of
paraphrasing it, simply transposes its letters, so as
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
to make it look Samaritan. Occasionally he is
misled by the orthography of the originai :
2 NIDN 13 ON, ‘If so, where. . .?” he renders
MIN 19. ON, “If so, I shall be wrath :” mistak-
ing NIBN for JN, from FN “ anger.” On the
whole it may be considered a very valuable aid
towards the study of the Samar. Text, on account
of its very close verbal adherence. A few cases,
however, may be brought forward, where the Ver-
sion has departed from the Text, either under the
influence of popular religious notions, or for the
sake of explanation. “ We pray ”’—so they write
to Scaliger—‘‘ every day in the morning and in the
evening, as it is said, the one lamb shalt thou pre-
pare in the morning and the second in the evening ;
we bow to the ground and worship God.”’ Accord-
ingly, we find the translator rendering the passage,
“ And Isaac went to ‘walk’ (ΠῚ 22) in the field,”
by—“and Isaac went to pray (axdyn) in the |
field.” ‘ And Abraham rose in the morning
(7p133),’’ is rendered sya, “in the prayer,”
ὅθ. Anthropomorphisms are avoided. “The
image (MJWON) of God” is rendered ΤΠ 259), κ᾿ the
glory.” i119 55, “the mouth of Jehovah,” is
transformed into ΠῚ" WD, “the word of
Jehovah.” For DYMSN, “God,” ΠΙΞΝΟ,
“ Angel” is frequently found, ἕο. A great diffi-
culty is offered by the proper names which this
version often substitutes, they being, in many
cases, less intelligible than the original ones.2 ‘The
similarity it has with Onkelos occasionally amounts
to con.plete identity, for instance—
Onkelos in Polyglott. Num. vi. 1, 2.
Sswy 55. oy SS sso mw oy min Sony) Saws 9a oy S$: s025 nen op ΠῚΠ bn”
999 7905 wney ms SANS IN Ἴ2) ΠΠῸ ᾽ΠῚ a9 9705 wre! 3D ANN ἸΝ Ἴ22 pd aM
ὉΠ Ἢ pny nan wend: mim op and x0 YOR WY eM Ton [Ὁ : ΠῚΠ Ὁ mand ὍΣ
nin 55} ne xd pny sont ὉΠῚ nan tons | pay nw wo Say anew xd ὉΠ em Tons
Sam. Vers. in Barberini Triglott.
Sy xd ΣῪ pao pao ney xd pay
But no safe conclusion as to the respective rela-
tion of the two versions can be drawn trom this.
This Version has likewise, in passing through the
hands of copyists and commentators, suffered many
interpolations and corruptions, The first copy of
it was brought to Europe by De la Valle, together
with the Sam. Text, in 1616. Joh. Nedrinus first
published it together with a faulty Latin transla-
n A list of the more remarkable of these, in the case of
gecgraphical names, is subjoined :—
Gen. viii. 4, for Ararat, Sarendib, 73D.
x. 10, ,, Shinar, Tsofah, ΠῚ Ὁ Zobah).
11, ,, Asshur, Astun, 7}ODY-
— ,, Rehoboth, Satcan, }20D (? Sittacene),
— ,, Calah, Laksab, AO.
12, , Resen, Asfah, MDD.
30, ,, Mesha, Mesbal, Sp).
xi. 9, ,, Babel, Lilak, pds,
xiii. 3, , Ai, Cefrah, HD (? Cephirah, Josh.
ix. 17),
xiv. 5, ,, Ashteroth Karnaim, Afinith Karniah,
mp Ms py.
Ham, Lishah, YD.
El Paran, Pelishah, &c., 455 DTD
ΠΡ
Sow yd pura paso pa one
tion in the Paris Polyglott, whence it was, with a
[as emendations, reprinted in Walton, with some
| notes by Castellus. Single portions of it appeared
in Halle, ed. by Cellarius, 1705, and by Uhlemann,
Leipz., 1837. Compare Gesenius, De Pent. Sam.
Origine, &c., and Winer’s monograph, De Versions
Pent. Sam. Indole, &c., Leipzig, 1817.
2. Τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν. The hatred between the
DN*J2-
Gen. xiv. 14, for Dan, Banias,
— 15, ,, Hobah, Fogah, 7445.
— 17, ,, Shaveh, Mifneh, 252.
xv. 8, ,, Euphrates, Shalmah, spo.
—20, , Rephaim, Chasah, AS DM-
xx.1, ,, Gerar, Askelun, bony.
xxvi. 2, ,, Mitsraim, Netik, pp) (? Exodus).
xxxvi.8,9,&c. , Seir, Gablab, 7533 (Jebal).
37, ,, Rehoboth, Fathi, ΠΏ.
Num. xxi. 33, ,, Bashan, Bathnin, 2 ΠΞ (Batanaea).
xxxiv.10, ,, Shepham, ’Abamiah, 7799) (Apa-
maea),
11, ,, Shepham, ’Afamiah, ΠΏ.
Deut. ii. 9, ,, Ar (4), Arshah, FW N-
iii. 4, ,, Argob, Rigobaah, ΠΝ 2) (PeyaBa).
—17, ,, Chinnereth, Genesar, D3}.
iv. 48, ,, Sion, Tar Telga, soon WO (Jebel
et Telj).
xb
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
Samaritans and the Jews is supposed to have causea
the former to prepare a Greek translation of their
Pent. in opposition to the LXX. of the Jews. In
this way at least the existence of certain fragments
of a Greek Version of the Sam, Pent., preserved in
some MSS. of the LXX., together with portions of
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, &c., is accounted
for. These fragments are supposed to be alluded to
by the Greek Fathers under the name Σαμαρειτικόν.
It is doubtful however whether it ever existed (as
Gesenius, Winer, Juynboll, suppose) in the shape of
a complete translation, or only designated (as Cas-
tellus, Voss, Herbst hold) a certain number of scholia
translated from the Sam. Version. Other critics
again (Havernick, Hengstenberg, &c.) see in it only
a corrected edition of certain passages of the LXX.
3. In 1070 an Arabic Version of the Sam. Pent.
was made by Abu Said in Egypt, on the basis of
the Arabic translation of Saadjah haggaon, Like the
original Samaritan it avoids Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms, replacing the latter by Euphe-
misms, besides occasionally making some slight alter-
atious, more especially in proper nouns, It is extant
in several MS. copies in European libraries, and is
now in course of being edited by Kuenen, Leyden,
1850-54, ἕο. It appears to have been drawn up
from the Sam. Text, not from the Sam. Version ;
the Hebrew words occasionally remaining unal-
tered in the translation.° Often also it renders
the original differently from the Samar. Version.?
Principally noticeable is its excessive dread of as-
signing to God anything like human attributes,
physical or mental. For ods mim, “God,”
we find (as in Saadiah sometimes) adJ§ Mo,
“the Angel of God;” for “ the eyes of God” we
have (Deut. ix. 12) ΔΤ sb. “the Be-
holding of God.” For “ Bread of God :” Sy “the
necessary,” &c. Again, it occasionally adds ho-
nourable epithets where the Scripture seems to have
omitted them, &c. Its language is far from elegant
or even correct; and its use must likewise be con-
fined to the critical study of the Sam. Text.
4. To this Arabic version Abu Barachat, a Syrian,
wrote in 1208 asomewhat paraphrastic commentary,
which has by degrees come to be looked upon as a
new Version—the Syriac, in contradistinction to
the Arabic, and which is often confounded with it in
the MSS. On both Recensions see Eichhorn, Gese-
nius, Juynboll, ἕο.
Ill. SAMARITAN LITERATURE,
It may. perhaps not be superfluous to add here a
concise account of the Samaritan literature in general,
since to a certain degree it bears upon our subject.
1. Chronicon Samaritanum.—Of the Pentateuch
and its Versions we have spoken. We have also men-
Sioned that the Samaritans have no other book of our
Received Canon. “ There is no Prophet but Moses”
is one of their chief dogmas, and fierce are the in-
vectives in which they indulge against men like
Samuel, “a Magician and an Infidel,” yaJ 4 (Chron.
° Bg. Ex. xiii. 12, OAD WH 55 (Gam. Ver. by
BM Ns) remains HLS ST: ssi. 8, nv Syn
(Sam. Ver. ANS {MDID) is given x} of hey.
P Thus JY, Gen. xlix. 11 (Sam. Ver. Ap. “his
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1115
Sam.); Eli; Solomon, “ Shiloh”? (Gen. xlix. 10),
“ες 6. the man who shall spoi/ the Law and whom
many nations will follow because of their own
licentiousness’’ (De Sacy, Mem. 4); Ezra “cursed
for ever” (Lett. to Huntington, &c.). Joshua
alone, partly on account of his being an Ephraimite,
partly because Shechem was selected by him as the
scene of his solemn valedictory address, seems to
have found favour in their eyes; but the Look
of Joshua, which they perhaps possessed in its
original form, gradually came to form only the
groundwork of a fictitious national Samaritan his-
tory, overgrown with the most fantastic and ana-
chronistic legends. This is the so-called “ Samaritan
Joshua,” or Chronicon Samaritanum ( Fearn) yw
oY cy?) sent to Scaliger by the Samaritans of
Cairo in 1584, It was edited by Juynboll (Leyden,
1848), and his acute investigations have shown
that it was redacted into its present form about
A.D. 1300, out of four special documents, three
of which were Arabic, and one Hebrew (i. e.
Samaritan), The Leyden MS, in 2 pts., which
Gesenius, De Sam. Theol. p. 8. n. 18, thinks unique,
is dated A.H. 764-919 (a.p. 1362-1513) ;—the
Cod, in the Brit. Museum, lately acquired, dates
A.H. 908 (A.D. 1502). The chronicle embraces
the time from Joshua to about A.D. 350, and was
originally written in, or subsequently translated into,
Arabic. After eight chapters of introductory matter
begins the early history of “Isvael”” under “ Aing
Joshua,” who, among other deeds of arms, wages
war, with 300,000 mounted men—* half Israel ”
—against two kings of Persia. The last of his five
κε yoyal”” successors is Shimshon (Samson), the hand-
somest and most powerful of them all. These reioned
for the space of 250 years, and were followed by five
high-priests, the last of whom was Usi (? = Uzzi,
Ezr. vii. 4). With the history of Eli, ‘ the seducer,”
which then follows, and Samuel “a sorcerer,” the
account by asudden transition runs off to Nebuchad-
nezzar (ch. 45), Alexander (ch. 46), and Hadrian
(47), and closes suddenly at the time of Julian the
Apostate. ἱ
We shall only adduce here a single specimen out
of the 45th ch. of the Book, which treats of the
subject of the Pentateuch :—
Nebuchadnezzar was king of Persia (Mossul), and
conquered the whole world, also the kings of Syria.
In the thirteenth year of their subjugation they re-
belled, together with the kings of Jerusalem (Kodsh).
Whereupon the Samaritans, to escape from the
vengeance of their pursuer, fled, and Persian colo-
nists took their place. A curse, however, rested
upon the land, and the new immigrants died from
eating of its fruits (Joseph. Ant. ix. 14, §3). The
chiefs of Israel (i. e. Samaritans), being asked the
reason of this by the king, explained it by the abo-
lition of the worship of God. The king upon this
permitted them to return and to erect a temple, in
which work he promised to aid them, and he gave
them a letter to all their dispersed brethren. The
whole Dispersion now assembled, and the Jews said,
“We will now go up into the Holy City (Jeru-
city”), the Arab, renders KS eAS 3 Gen. xli. 43, VAS
(Sam. Ver. Ὁ) = κήρυξ), the Arab. translates _,)f
SseS)=7 IN
4 A word, it may be observed by the way, taken by the
Mohammedans from the Rabbinical (4Y3) 75)5.
1116 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
salem) and live there in unity.” But the sons of
Hardin (Aaron) and of Joseph (7. 6. the priests and
the Samaritans) insisted upon going to the “ Mount
of Blessing,” Gerizim. The dispute was referred to
the king, and while the Samaritans proved their
case from the books of Moses, the Jews grounded
their preference for Jerusalem on the post-Mosaic
books. The superior force of the Samaritan argu-
ment was fully recognised by the king. But as each
side—by the mouth of their spokesmen, Sanballat
and Zerubabel respectively,—charged the other with
basing its claims on a forged document, the sacred
books of each party were subjected to the ordeal
of fire. The Jewish Record was immediately con-
sumed, while the Samaritan leaped three times from
the flames into the king’s lap: the third time, how-
ever, a portion of the scroll, upon which the king
had spat, was found to have been consumed. ‘Thirty-
six Jews were immediately beheaded, and the Sama-
ritans, to the number of 300,000, wept, and all:
Israel worshipped henceforth upon Mount Gerizim
—‘“and so we will ask our help from the grace of
God, who has in His mercy granted all these things,
and in Him we will confide.”
2. From this work chiefly has been compiled an-
other Chronicle written in the 14th century (1355),
by Abu’l Fatah.t This comprises the history of the
Jews and Samaritans from Adam to A.H. 756 and
798 (A.D. 1555 and 1397) respectively (the forty-
two years must have been added by a later historio-
grapher). It is of equally low historical value ; its
only remarkable feature being its adoption of certain
Talmudical legends, which it took at second hand
from Josippon ben Gorion. According to this
chronicle, the deluge did not cover Gerizim, in the
same manner as the Midrash (Ber, Rab.) exempts
the whole of Palestine from it. A specimen, like-
wise on the subject of the Pentateuch, may not be
out of place :—
In the year of the world 4150, and in the 10th
year of Philadelphus, this king wished to learn the
difference between the Law of the Samaritans, and
that of the Jews. He therétore bade both send him
some of their elders. The Samaritans delegated
Ahron, Sumla, and Hudmaka, the Jews Eleazar only.
The king assigned houses to them, and gave them
eacu an adept of the Greek language, in order that
he might assist them in their translation. The Sa-
maritans rendered only their Pentateuch into the
language of the land, while Eleazar produced a
translation of the whole Canon. The king, per-
ceiving yariations in the respective Pentateuchs,
asked the Samaritans the reason of it. Whereupon
they replied that these differences chiefly turned
upon two points. (1.) God had chosen the Mount
οἵ Gerizim: and if the Jews were right, why was
there no mention of it in their Thora? (2.) The Sa-
maritans read, Deut. xxxii. 35, OD3 py, * to the
day of vengeance and reward,” the Jews Dp) 5,
“« Mine is vengeance and reward ”—which left it
uncertain whether that reward was to be given
here or in the world to come. The king then asked
what was their opinion about the Jewish prophets
and their writings, and they replied, ‘‘ Either they
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
must have said and contained what stood in the
Pentateuch, and then their saying it again was super-
fluous; or more; or 1655: 5 either of which was again
distinctly prohibited in the Thora; or finally they
must have changed the Laws, and these were un-
changeable,”’? A Greek who stood near, observed that
Laws must be adapted to different times, and altered
accordingly ; whereupon the Samaritans proved that
this was only the case with human, not with Divine
Laws: moreover, the seventy Elders had left them
the explicit command not to accept a word beside
the Thora. The king now fully approved of their
translation, and gave them rich presents. But to
the Jews he strictly enjoined, not even to approach
Mount Gerizim. There can be no doubt that there
is a certain historical fact, however contorted, at
the bottom of this (comp. the ‘l'almudical and other
accounts of the LXX.), but we cannot now further
pursue the subject. A lengthened extract from this
chronicle—the original text with a German trans-
lation—is given by Schnurrer in Paulus’ Neue
Repertorium, 1790, 117-159.
3. Another “historical” work is the GUS
pala dh on the history and genealogy of the
patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, attributed to Moses
himself; perhaps the same which Petermann saw
at Nablus, and which consisted of sixteen vellum
leaves (supposed, however, to contain the history of
the world down to the end). An anonymous recent
commentary on it, AH. 1200, A.D. 1784, is in the
Brit. Mus. (No. 1140, Add.).
4, Of other Samaritan works, chiefly in Avabie—
their Samaritan and Hebrew literature having mostly
been destroyed by the Emperor Commodus—may be
briefly mentioned Commentaries upon the whole or
parts of their Pentateuch, by Zadaka b. Manga b.
Zadaka ;* further, by Maddib Eddin Jussuf b. Abi
Said Ὁ. Khalef; by Ghazal Ibn Abu-l-Surur Al-
Safawi Al-Ghazzi® (A.H. 1167-8, a.D. 1753-4,
Brit. Mus.), &c. Theological works chiefly in
Arabic, mixed with Samaritanisms, by Abul Has-
san of Tyre, On the religious Manners and
Customs of the Samaritans and the World to
come; by Mowaffek Eddin Zadaka el Israili, A Com-
pendium of Religion, on the Nature of the Divine
Being, on Man, on the Worship of God; by Amin
Eddin Abu’! Baracat, On the Ten Commandments ;
by Abu’l Hassan Jbn ΕἸ Markum Gonajem ben
Abulfaraj’ ibn Chatdr, On Penance ; by Muhaddib
Eddin Jussnf Ibn Salamah Ibn Jussuf Al Askari, An
Exposition of the Mosaic Laws, &e., &c. Some gram-
matical works may be further mentioned, by Abu
Ishak Ibrahim, On the Hebrew Language; by Abu
Said, On reading the Hebrew Text (ω 5
πν This grammar begins in the following
characteristic manner : —
“Thus said the Sheikh, rich in good works and
knowledge, the model, the abstemious, the well-
guided Abu Said, to whom God be merciful and
compassionate.
“ Praise be unto God for His help, and I ask for
His guidance towards a clear exposition. I have
Pose) Gus (Bodl.; Imp. Library, Paris),
Two copies in Berlin Library (Petermann, Rosen)
recently acquired.
ΤΕ
* Compare the well known dictum of Omar on the
Alexandrian Library (Gibbon, ch. 51).
5 AYO) piu) εν (13th century, Bodl.).
“ Under the title, Saw) ωξ nos) 3 Δ
rblyell.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
resolved to. lay down a few rules for the proper
manner of reading the Holy Writ, on account of the
difference which I found, with respect to it, among
our co-religionists—whom may God make numerous
and inspire to obedience unto Him !—and in such a
manner that I shall bring proofs for my assertions,
from which the wise could in no way differ. But
God knows best !
“Rule 1:—With all their discrepancies about
dogmas or religious views, yet all the confessors of
the Hebrew religion agree in this, that the N of
the first pers. (sing. perf.) is always pronounced
with Kasra, and that a 9 follows it, provided it has
no suffix. It is the same, when the suffix of the
plural D, is added to it, according to the unanimous
testimony of the MSS., &e.”
The treatise concludes, at the end of the 12th
Canon or Rule :—
** Often also the perfect is used in the form of
the imperative. Thus it is reported of a man of
the best reputation, that he had used the form of the
imperative in the passage (Ex, ii. 13), % DN
WW ΤΠ] --- And they shall say to me, What is his
name?’ He who reported this to me, is a man of
very high standing, against whose truthfulness no-
thing can be brought forward. But God knows best!
* There are now a few more words to be treated,
of which, however, we will treat vivd voce. And
blessed be His name for evermore.”
5. Their Liturgical literature is more extensive,
and not without a certain poetical value. It consists
chiefly of hymns (Defter, Durran) and prayers for
Sabbath and Feast-days, and of occasional prayers at
nuptials, cireumcisions, burials, and the like. We
subjoin a few specimens from MSS. in the British
Museum, transcribed into Hebrew characters.
The following is part of a Litany for the dead :—
TOYIy - ἼΞῚ - Poms - pTbN - VT. ITN
» Spey - ῬΙΝῚ DAIAN - 15) Ν 3 - F799
"935 WD. 22} ΝῚ
Lord Jehovah, Elohim, for Thy mercy, and for Thine
Own sake, and for Thy name, and for Thy glory, and for
the sake of our Lords Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and
our Lords Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar, and Ithamar,
and Pinehas, and Joshua, and Caleb, and the Holy Angels,
and the seventy Elders, and the holy mountain of Gerizim,
Beth ΕἸ. If Thou acceptest [O%~Ypq] this prayer (NPD
=reading], may there go forth from before Thy holy
countenance a gift sent to protect the spirit of Thy
servant, Sho Ms ΓΝ. the son of N.], of the
WS gtd gd
sons of [——], daughter [——] from the sons of [——]}.
O Lord Jehovah, in Thy mercy have compassicn on
him GS [or] have compassion on her), and rest his (her)
soul in the garden of Eden ; and forgive him ( οὗ [0Γ] her),
and all the congregation of Israel who flock to Mount
Gerizim Beth El. Amen. Through Moses the trusty.
Amen, Amen, Amen.
The next is part cf a hymn (see Kirchheim’s
Carme Shomron, emendations on Gesenius, Carm.
Sam. iii.) :—
1
ἽΠΝ ὃν aby n> There is no God but one,
mo yp onbs The everlasting God,
nbyd ἽΝ DY Who liveth for ever ;
pdon Sa by ΠῸΝ
ndyd 33 Ὁ)
God above all powers,
And who thus remaineth for
ever.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 1117
2.
ymin ra fat na In Thy great power shall
we trust,
17) 10 ST For Thou art our Lord;
MWS smnbsa In Thy Godhead; for Thou
hast conducted
nw jd moby The world from beginning
3.
MDD qn) Thy power was hidden,
On) ὙΠΠῸΩῚ And Thy glory and mercy.
mOXDd) snes by Revealed are both the things
that are revealed, and
those that are unrevealed
ABI sands wow Before the reign of Thy
Godhead, &c. ἄς,
IV. We shall only briefly touch here, in conelu-
sion, upon the strangely contradictory rabbinical laws
framed for the regulation of the intercourse between
the two rival nationalities of Jews and Samaritans
in religious and ritual matters; discrepancies due
partly to the ever-shifting phases of their mutual
relations, partly to the modifications brought about
in the Samaritan-creed, and partly to the now less
now greater acquiescence of the Jews in the reli-
gious state of the Samaritans. Thus we find the
older Talmudical authorities disputing whether the
Cuthim (Samaritans) are to be considered as “ Real
Converts” MON 799, or only converts through
fear—‘‘ Lion Converts” FY IN 9'3—in allusion
to the ncident related in 2 K. xvii. 25 (Baba K.
38 ; Kidush. 75, &c.). One Rabbi holds 33 "N\5,
“Α Samaritan is to be considered as a heathen ;”
while R. Simon b. Gamaliel—the same whose
opinion on the Sam. Pent. we had occasion to quote
before—pronounces that they are “to be treated
in every respect like Israelites” (Dem. Jen. ix. 2 ;
Ketub. 11, &c.). It would appear that notwith-
standing their rejection of all but the Penta-
teuch, they had adopted many traditional religious
practices from the Jews — principally such as
were derived direct from the Books of Moses.
It was acknowledged that they kept these
ordinances with even greater rigour than those
from whom they adopted them. The utmost con-
fidence was therefore placed in them for their
ritually slaughtering animals, even fowls (Chul.
4a); their wells are pronounced to be conformed
to all the conditions prescribed by the Mishnah
(Toseph. Mikw.6; comp. Mikw.8,1). See, how-
ever Abodah Zarah (Jer. v. 4). Their unleavened
bread for the Passover is commended ((rit. 10;
Chul. 4); their cheese (Mass. Cuth. 2); and even
their whole food is allowed to the Jews (Ab. Zar.
Jer. ν. 4). Compare John iv. 8, where the disciples
are reported to have gone into the city of Samaria
to buy food. Their testimony was valued in that
most stringent matter of the letter of divorce
(Mas. Cuth. ii.). They were admitted to the office of
circumcising Jewish boys (Mas. Cuth. i.)—against
R. Jehudah, who asserts that they circumcise “in
the name of Mount Gerizim” (Abodah Zarah, 43).
The criminal law makes no difference whatever be-
tween them and the Jews (Mas. Cuth. 2; Makk.
8); and a Samaritan who strictly adheres to his
own special creed is honoured with the title of a
Cuthi-Chaber (Gittin, 10b; Middah, 33b). By
degrees, however, inhibitions began to be laid upon
the use of their wine, vinegar, bread (Mas. Cuth. 2;
Toseph. 77, 5), &c. This intermediate stage of
1118 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
uncertain and inconsistent treatment, which must
have lasted for nearly two centuries, is best char-
acterized by the small rabbinical treatise quoted
above—Massecheth Cuthim (2nd cent. a.D.)—first
edited by Kirchheim (5w x MIP ‘DD yay
Franef. 1851,—the beginning of which reads :—
“The ways (treatment) of the Cuthim (Samaritans),
sometimes like Goyim (heathens) sometimes like
Israel.” No less striking is its conclusion :
“ And why are the Cuthim not permitted to come
into the midst of the Jews?- Because they have
mixed with the priests of the heights” (idolaters).
R. Ismael says: “ They were at first pious converts
(PTS 993 =real Israelites), and why is the inter-
course with them prohibited? Because of their
illegally begotten children,¥ and because they do
not fulfil the duties of O29 (marrying the deceased
brother’s wife)”; a law which they understand, as
we saw above, to apply to the betrothed only.
“At what period are they to be received (into
the Community)?” “ When they abjure the Mount
Gerizim, recognise Jerusalem (viz., its superior
claims), and believe in the*Resurrection.” 5
We hear of their exclusion by R. Meir (Chul.
6), in the third generation of the Tanaim, and
later again under R. Abbuha, the Amora, at the
time of Diocletian; this time the exclusion was un-
conditional and final (Jer. Abodah Zarah, 5, &c.).
Partaking of their bread¥ was considered a trans-
gression, to be punished like eating the flesh of
swine (Zeb. 8, 6). The intensity of their mutual
hatred, at a later period, is best shown by dicta like
that in Meg. 28, 6. ‘May it never happen to
me that I behold a Cuthi.” ‘* Whoever receives a
Samaritan hospitably in his house, deserves that his
children go into exile’ (Synh. 104, 1). In Matt.
x. 5 Samaritans and Gentiles are already mentioned
together; and in Luke xvii. 18 the Samaritan is
called ‘*a stranger” (ἀλλογενής5). The reason for
this exclusion is variously given. They are said
by some to have used and sold the wine of heathens
for sacrificial purposes (Jer. ib.); by others they
were charged with worshipping the dove sacred
to Venus; an imputation over the correctness of
which hangs, up to this moment, a certain myste-
rious doubt. It has, at all events, never been
brought home to them, that they really worshipped
this image, although it was certainly seen with
them, even by recent travellers.
Authorities—1. Oviginal texts. Pentateuch in
the Polyglotts of Paris, and Walton ; also (in Hebr.
letters) by Blayney, 8vo. Ox. 1790. Sam. Version
in the Polyglotts of Walton and Paris. Arab. Vers.
of Abu Said, Libri Gen. Ex. et Lev. by Kuenen,
8vo. Lugd. 1851-4; also Van Vloten, Specimen,
&e., 4to, Lugd. 1805. Literae ad Scaliger, &e.
‘by De Sacy) and Lpistola ad Ludolph. (Bruns),
in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, xiii. Also, with Letters
to De Sacy himself, in Notices ct Extraits des
MSS. Par. 1831. Chronicon Samaritanum, by
Juynboll, 4to. Leyden 1848. Specimen of Samar.
Commentary on Gen, xlix. by Schnurrer, in Eich-
horn’s Repert. xvi. Carm. Samar. Gesenius, 4to.
Lips. 1824.
2. Dissertations, &. J. Morinus, Zzercitationes,
7 The briefest rendering of ὩΣ which we can
give—a full explanation of the term would exceed our
limits.
x On this subject the Pent. contains nothing explicit.
They at first rejected that dogma, but adopted it at a later
period, perhaps since Dositheus; comp. the sayings of
SAMMUS
&e., Par. 1631; Opuscula Ποῦ», Samaritica, Par.
1657; Antiquitates Eccl. Orient., Lond. 1682.
J. H. Hottinger, Exercit. Anti-morinianae, &c.,
Tigur. 1644, Walton, De Pent. Sam. in Prologom.
ad Polyglott. Castell, Animadversiones, in Poly-
glott, vi. Cellarius, Horae Samaritanae, Ciz. 1682;
also Collectanea, in Ugolini, xxii. Leusden, Philo-
logus Hebr. Utraj. 1686. St. Morinus, Ezercit.
de Ling. primaeva, Utr. 1694. Schwarz, Percita-
tiones, ἕο. Houbigant, Prolegomena, &c., Pay.
1746. Kennicott, State of the Heb. Text, &e., ii.
1759. J. G. Carpzov, Crit. Sacri V. T. Pt.-1,
Lips. 1728. Hassencamp, Hntdeckter Ursprunq,
&e. O.G. Tychsen, Disputatio, &c., Biitz. 1765¢6
Bauer, Crit. Sacr. Gesenius, De Pent. Sam.
Origine, &e., Hal. 1815; Samar. Theologia, &e.,
Hal. 1822; Anecdota Exon. Lips. 1824. Heng-
stenberg, Auth. des Pent, Mazade Sur U Origine,
&e., Gen. 1830. M. Stuart, W. Amer. Rev.
Frankel, Vorstudien, Leipz. 1841. Kirchheim,
sw 995, Frankfort 1851. The Binleitungen
of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Vater, De Wette, Havernick,
Keil, &. _The Geschichten of Jost, Herzfeld, &c.
3. Versions. Winer, De Vers. Pent. Sam.
De Sacy, Mém. sur la Vers. Arabe des Livres de
Moise, in Mém. de Littérature, xlix. Par. 1808 ;
also L’ Etat actuel des Samaritains, Par, 1812 ;
De Versione Samaritano- Arabica, &c., in Eich-
horn’s Allg. Bibliothek, x. 1-176. [E. D.]
SAM’ATUS (Ξαματός : Semedius). One of the
sons of Ozora in the list of 1 Esd. ix. 34, The
whole verse is very corrupt.
SAMEI’US (Sauaios). ΞΒΗΒΜΑΙΑῊ of the
sons of Harim (1 Esd. ix. 21; comp. Ezr. x. 21).
SAM'GAR-NE'BO ΟΣ) ΣΟ: Samegar-
nebu). One of the princes or generals of the king
of Babylon who commanded the victorious army of
the Chaldaeans at the capture of Jerusalem (Jer.
xxxix. 3). The text of the LXX. is corrupt. The
two names ‘‘ Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim,” are there
written Σαμαγὼθ καὶ Ναβουσάχαρ. The Nebo
is the Chaldaean Mercury; about the Samgar,
opinions are divided. Von Bohlen suggested that
from the Sanscrit sangara, ‘‘ war,” might be formed
sangara, “ warrior,” and that_this was the original
of Samgar.
SA'MI (TwBis; Alex. SaBei: Tobi). SHOBAT
(1 Esd. v. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42).
SA'MIS (Souets: om. in Vulg.).
(1 Esd. ix. 34; comp. Ezr. x. 38).
SAM’LAH (ρον: Sauada; Alex. Σαλαμά:
Semla), Gen. xxxvi. 36, 37; 1 Chr. i. 47, 48.
One of the kings of Edom, successor to HADAD or
Hapar. Samlah, whose name signifies ‘a gar-
ment,” was of MASREKAH; that being probably
the chief city during his reign. This mention of
a separate city as belonging to each (almost with-
out exception) of the “ kings’? of Edom, suggests
that the Edomite kingdom consisted of a confederacy
of tribes, and that the chief city of the rejoning
tribe was the metropolis of the whole. [E. S. P.]
SAM'MUS (Σαμμούς : Samus). SHemA (1 Esd.
ix. 45; comp. Neh. viii. 4).
SHIMEI 13
Jehudda-hadassi and Massudi, that one of the two Sama-
ritan sects believes in the Resurrection; Epiphanius,
Leontius, Gregory tke Great, testify unanimously to
their former unbelief in this article of their present faith.
Υ 5, Lightfoot “ bucella ” (2)
[
SAMOS
SA'MOS (Σάμος). A very illustrious Greek
island off that part of Asia Minor where ἸΟΝΊΑ
touches CariA. For its history, from the time
when it was a powerful member of the Ionic con-
federacy to its yecent struggles against T urkey
during the war of independence, and since, we
must refer to the Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geog."
Samos is a very lofty and commanding island ; the
word, in fact, denotes a height, especially by the
sea-shore: hence, also, the name of SAMOTHRACIA,
or “the Thracian Samos.” The Ionian Samos
comes before our notice in the detailed account of
St. Paul’s return from his third missionary jour-
ney (Acts xx. 15). He had been at Chios, and
was about to proceéd to Miletus, having passed
by Ephesus without touching there. The topo-
graphical notices given incidentally by St. Luke are
most exact. The night was spent at the anchorage
of TROGYLLIUM, in the narrow strait between
Samos and the extremity of the mainland-ridge of
Mycale. This spot is famous both for the great
battle of the old Greeks against the Persians in B.C.
479, and also fer a gallant action of the modern
Greeks against the Turks in 1824, Here, how-
ever, it is more natural (especially as we know,
from 1 Mace. xv. 23, that Jews resided here) to
allude to the meeting of Herod the Great with
Marcus Agrippa in Samos, whence resulted many
privileges to the Jews (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2, §2, 4).
At this time and when St. Paul was there it was
politically a “free city” in the province of Astra,
Various travellers (Tournefort, Pococke, Dallaway,
Ross) have described this island. We may reter
particularly to a very recent work on the subject,
Description de Vile de Patmos et de Vile de
Samos (Paris, 1856), by V. Guérin, who spent
two months in the island. [J.S. H.]
SAMOTHRA'CIA (SapoOpdéxn: Samothra-
cia). The mention of this island in the account of
St. Paul’s first voyage to Europe (Acts xvi. 11) is for
two reasons worthy of careful notice. In the first
place, being a very lofty and conspicuous island, it is
an excellent landmark for sailors, and must have been
full in view, if the weather was clear, throughout
that voyage from Tyoas to Neapolis. From the shore
αὖ Troas Samothrace is seen towering over Imbros
(Hom. Jl. xiii. 12, 13; Kinglake’s Hothen, p. 64),
and it is similarly a marked object in the view from
the hills between Neapolis and Philippi (Clarke’s
Travels, ch. xiii.). These allusions tend to give
vividness to one of the most important voyages
that ever took place. Secondly, this voyage was
made with a fair wind. Not only are we told that
it occupied only parts of two days, whereas on a
subsequent return-voyage (Acts xx. 6) the time
spent at sea was five: but the technical word here
used (εὐθυδρομήσαμεν) implies that they ran be-
fore the wind. Now the position of Samothrace is
exactly such as to correspond with these notices,
and thus incidentally to confirm the accuracy of a
“most artless narrative. St. Paul and his companions
anchored for the night off Samothrace. The ancient
city, and therefore probably the usual anchorage,
was on the N. side, which would be sufficiently
sheltered from a S.E. wind. It may be added, as a
further practical consideration not to be overlooked,
that such a wind would be favourable for over-
coming the opposing current, which sets southerly
pala eee τις
a A curious illustration of the renown of the Samian
earthenware is furnished by the Vulgate rendering of
Is xlv. 9° “Testa de Samiis terrae.”
SAMSON 1119
after leaving the Dardanelles, and easterly between
Samothrace and the mainland. Fuller details are
given in Life and Epp. of St. Paul, 2nd ed. i.
335-338. The chief classical associations of this
island ave mythological and connected with the
mysterious divinities called Cabeiri. Perseus took
refuge here after his defeat by the Romans at
Pydna. In St. Paul’s time Samothrace had, ac-
cording to Pliny, the privileges of a small free state,
though it was doubtless considered a dependency of
the province of Macedonia. [J.S. H.j
SAMP’SAMES (Saubdpns, Σαμψάκης: Lamp-
sacus, Samsames), a name which occurs in the list
of those to whom the Romans are said to have sent
letters in favour of the Jews (1 Macc. xv. 23). The
name is probably not that of a sovereign (as it appears
to be taken in A. V.), but of a place, which Grimm
identifies with Samsun on the coast of the Black
Sea, between Sinope and Trebizond. [B. F. W.]
SAM'SON (jit12¥’, i.e. Shimshon: Σαμψών:
“little sun,’ or “ sunlike;’ but according to
Joseph. Ant. v. 8, §4 “strong:” if the root
shemesh has the signification of ‘‘awe’’ which
Gesenius ascribes to it, the name Samson would
seem naturally to allude to the “awe” and
‘astonishment ” with which the father and mother
looked upon the angel who announced Samson’s
birth—see Judg. xiii. 6, 18-20, and Joseph. /. ¢.),
son of Manoah, a man of the town of Zorah, in
the tribe of Dan, on the border of Judah (Josh. xv.
33, xix. 41). The miraculous circumstances of his
birth are recorded in Judg. xiii.; and the three fol-
lowing chapters are devoted to the history of his life
and exploits. Samson takes his place in Scripture,
(1) as a judge—an office which he filled for twenty
years (Judg. xv. 20, xvi. 31); (2) as a Nazarite
(Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17); and, (3) as one endowed
with supernatural power by the Spirit of the Lord
(Jude. xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14).
(1.) As a judge his authority seems to have heen
limited to the district bordering upon the country
of the Philistines, and his action as a deliverer does
not seem to have extended beyond desultory attacks
upon the dominant Philistines, by which their hold
upon Israel was weakened, and the way prepared
for the future emancipation of the Israelites from
their yoke. It is evident from Judg. xiii. 1, 5, xv.
9-11, 20, and the whole history, that the Israelites,
or at least Judah and Dan, which are the only tribes
mentioned, were subject to the Philistines through
the whole of Samson’s judgeship; so that, of course,
Samson’s twenty years of office would be included
in the forty years of the Philistine dominion. From
the angel’s speech to Samson’s mother (Judg. xiii.
5), it appears further that the Israelites were
already subject to the Philistines at his birth ; and
as Samson cannot have begun to be judge before
he was twenty years of age, it follows that his
judgeship must about have coincided with the last
twenty years of Philistine dominion. But when
we turn to the First Book of Samuel, and especially
to vii. 1-14, we find that the Philistine dominion
ceased under the judgeship of Samuel. Hence it is
obvious to conclude that the early part of Sarmuel’s
judgeship coincided with the latter part of Samson's ;
and that the capture of the ark by the Philistines
in the time of Eli occurred during Samson’s life-
time. There are besides several points in the re-
spective narratives of the times of Samson and Sa-
muel which indicate great proximity. First, there
1120 SAMSON
is the general prominence of the Phil.stines in their
relation to Isvael. Secondly, there is the remark-
able coincidence of both Samson and Samuel being
Nazarites (Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17, compared with
1 Sam. 1. 11). It looks as if the great exploits of
the young Danite Nazarite had suggested to Hannah
the consecration of her son in like manner, or, at all
events, as if for some reason the Nazarite vow was
at that time prevalent. No other mention of Na-
zatites. occurs in the Scripture history till Amos ii.
11, 12; and even there the allusion seems to be to
Samuel and Samson. Thirdly, there is a similar
notice of the house of Dagon in Judg. xvi. 23, and
1 Sam. y. 2. Fourthly, the lords of the Philis-
tines ave mentioned in a similar way in Judg. xvi.
8, 18, 27, and in 1 Sam. vii. 7. All of which,
taken together, indicates a close proximity between
the times of Samson and Samuel. There does not
seem, however, to be any means of fixing the time
of Samson’s judgeship more precisely. The effect of
his prowess must have been more of a preparatory
kind, by arousing the cowed spirit of his people,
and shaking the insolent security of the Philistines,
than in the way of decisive victory or deliverance.
There is no allusion whatever to other parts of
Israel during Samson’s judgeship, except the single
fact of the men of the border tribe of Judah, 3000
in number, fetching him from the rock Etam to
deliver,him up to the Philistines (Judg. xy. 9-13).
The whole narrative is entirely local, and, like the
following story concerning Micah (Judg. xvii. xviii.),
seems to be taken from the annals of the tribe of
Dan.
(2.) As a Nazarite, Samson exhibits the law in
Num. vi. in full practice. [NazARITE.] The emi-
nence of such Nazarites as Samson and Samuel
would tend to give that dignity to the profession
which is alluded to in Lam. iv. 7, 8.
(3.) Samson is one of those who are distinctly
spoken of in Scripture as endowed with super~
natural power by the Spirit of the Lord. ‘“* The
Spirit of the Lord began to move him at times in
Mahaneh-Dan.” ‘The Spirit of the Lord came
mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon
his arms became as flax burnt with fire.’ ‘The
Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went
down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them.”
a “ Hercules once went to Egypt, and there the inha-
bitants took him, and, putting a chaplet’ on his head, led
him out in solemn procession, intending to offer him in
sacrifice to Jupiter. For a while he submitted quietly;
but when they led him up to the altar, and began the
ceremonies, he put forth his strength aud slew them all”
(Rawlins. Herod. book ii. 45).
The passage from Lycophron, with the scholion, quoted
by Bochart (Hieroz. pars ii. lib. v. cap. xii.), where Her-
cules is said to have been three nights in the belly of the
sea-monster, and to have come out with the loss of all his
hair, is also curious, and seems to be a compound of the
stories of Samson and Jonah. To this may be added the
connexion between Samson, considered as derived from
Shemesh, “the Sun,” and the designation of Moui, the
Egyptian Hercules, as “Son of the Sun,” worshipped also
under the name Sem, which Sir G. Wilkinson compares
with Samson. The T'yrian Hercules (whose temple at Tyre
is described by Herodot. ii. 44), he also tells us, “ was ori-
ginally the Sun, and the same as Baal” (Rawl. Herod. ii.
44, note 7). The connexion between the Phoenician Baal
(called Baal Shemen, Baal Shemesh, and Baal Hamman), and
Hercules is well known, Gesenius (7'hes. s. v. bya) tells us
that, in certain Phoenician inscriptions, which are accom-
panied by a Greek translation, Baal is rendered Heralcles,
and that “the I'yrian Hercules” is the constant Greek
SAMSON
But, on the other hand, after his locks were cut,
and his strength was gone from him, it is said
“He wist not that the Lord was departed from
him” (Judg, xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, xvi. 20).
The phrase, ‘‘the Spirit of the Lord came upon
him,” is common to him with Othniel and Gideon
(Judg, iii. 10, vi. 34) ; but the connexion of super-
natural power with the integrity of the Nazaritic
vow, and the particular gift of great strength of
body, as seen in tearing in pieces a lion, breaking
his bonds asunder, carrying the gates of the city
upon his back, and throwing down the pillars which
supported the house of Dagon, are quite peculiar to
Samson. Indeed, his whole character and history
have no exact parallel in Scripture. It is easy,
however, to see how forcibly the Israelites would
be taught, by such an example, that their national
strength lay in their complete separation from
idolatry, and consecration to the true God ; and that
He could give them power to subdue their mightiest
enemies, if only they were true to His service
(comp. 1 Sam. ii. 10).
It is an interesting question whther any of the
levends which have attached themselves to the name
of Hercules may have been derived from Phoenician
traditions of the strength of Samson. The com-
bination of great strength with submission to the
power of women ; the slaying of the Nemeaean lion ;
the coming by his death at the hands of his wite ;
and especially the story told by Herodotus of the
captivity of Hercules in Egypt,* are certainly re-
markable coincidences. Phoenician traders might
easily have carried stories concerning the Hebrew
hero to the different countries where they traded,
especially Greece and Italy; and such stories would
have been moulded according to the taste or ima-
gination of those who heard them. ‘The following
description of Hercules given by C, O. Miiller
(Dorians, Ὁ. ii. c. 12) might almost have been
written for Samson :—‘ The highest degree of
human suffering aud courage is attributed to Her-
cules: his character is as noble as could be con-
ceived in those rude and early times; but he is by
no means represented as free ‘from the blemishes of
human nature; on the contrary, he is frequently
subject to wild, ungovernable passions, when the
noble indignation and anger of the suffering hero
designation of the Baal of Tyre. He also gives many Car-
thaginian inscriptions to Baal Hamman, which he renders
Baal Solaris; and also a sculpture in which Baal Ham-
man’s head is surrounded with rays, and which has an
image of the sun on the upper part of the monument
(Mon. Phoen. i. 171; ii. tab. 21). Another evidence of
the identity of the Phoenician Baal and Hercules may be
found in Bauli, near Baiae, a place sacred to Hercules
(“locus Herculis,” Serv.), but evidently so called from
Baal. ‘Vhirlwall (Hist. of Greece) ascribes to the nume-
rous temples built by the Phoenicians in honour of Baal
in their different settlements the Greek fables of the
labours and journeys of Hercules. Bochart thinks the
custom described, by Ovid (Fast. liv.) of tying a lighted
torch between two foxes in the circus, in memory of the
damage once done to the harvest by a fox with burning
hay and straw tied to it, was derived from the Phoenicians,
and is clearly to be traced to the history of Samson (Hieroz.
pars i. lib. iii. cap. xiii.). From all which arises a con-
siderable probability that the Greek and Latin conception
of Hercules in regard to his strength was derived from
Phoenician stories and reminiscences of the great Hebrew
hero Samson. Some learned men connect the name Her-
cules with Samson etymologically. (See Sir G. Wilkinson’s
note in Rawlinson’s Herod. ii. 43; Patrick, On Judg. xvi.
30; Cornel. a Lapide, &c.) But none of these etymologies
are very convincing.
SAMUEL
degenerate into frenzy. Every crime, however, is
atoned for by some new suffering; but nothing
breaks his invincible courage, until, purified from
earthly corruption, he ascends Mount Olympus.”
And again: ‘‘ Hercules was a jovial guest, and not
backward in enjoying himself. . . . It was Hercules,
above all other heroes, whom mythology placed in
ludicrous situations, and sometimes made the butt
of the buffoonery. of others. The Cercopes are
represented as alternately amusing and annoying
the hero. In works of art they are often repre-
sented as satyrs who rob the hero of his quiver,
bow, and club. Hercules, annoyed at their insults,
binds two of them to a pole, and marches off with
his prize. ... It also seems that mirth and buffoonery
were often combined with the festivals of Hercules:
thus at Athens there was a society of sixty men,
who on the festival of the Diomean Hercules
attacked and amused themselves and others with
sallies of wit.” Whatever is thought, however, of
such coincidences, it is certain that the history of
Samson is an historical, and not an allegorical nar-
yative. It has also a distinctly supernatural element
which cannot be explained away. The history, as
we now have it, must have been written several
centuries after Samson’s death (Judg. xv. 19, 20,
xviii. 1, 50, xix. 1), though probably taken from
the annals of the tribe of Dan. Josephus [μὰ 5
given it pretty fully, but with alterations and em-
bellishments of his own. after his manner. For
example, he does not make Samson eat any of the
honey which he took out of the hive, doubtless as
unclean, and unfit for a Nazarite, but makes him
give it to his wife. The only mention of Samson
in the N. T. is that in Heb. xi. 32, where he is
coupled with Gideon, Barak, and Jephthah, and
spoken of as one of those who ‘through faith
waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the
armies of the aliens.” See, besides the places quoted
in the course of this article, a full article in Winer,
Realwb.; Ewald, Geschichte, ii. 516, &c.; Ber-
theau, On Judges; Bayle’s Dict. [A. C. H.]
SAM'UEL On, i.e. Shemiel: Σαμουήλ:
Arabic, Samwil, or Aschmouyl, see D’ Herbelot, under
this last name). Different derivations have been
given. (1) bx Ow, “name of God:”’ so appa-
rently Origen (Eus. H. 1. vi. 25), Θεοκλητός.
2) 5x pw, « placed by God.” (3) Sy Sin,
“asked of God” (1 Sam. i. 20). Josephus inge-
niously makes it correspond to the well-known Greek
name Theaetetus. (4) Ox YOY, “ heard of God.”
This, which may have the same meaning as the pre-
vious derivation, is the most obvious. The last Judge,
the first of the regular succession of Prophets, and the
founder of the monarchy. So important a position
did he hold in Jewish history as to have given his
name to the sacred book, now divided into two,
which covers the whole period of the first establish-
ment of the kingdom, corresponding to the manner
in which the name of Moses has been assigned to
the sacred book, now divided into five, which covers
the period of the foundation of the Jewish Church
itself. In fact no character of equal magnitude had
arisen since the death of the great Lawziver.
He was the son of Elkanah, an Ephrathite or
Ephraimite, and Hannah or Anna. His father is
one of the few private citizens in whose household
we find polygamy. It may possibly have arisen
from the irregularity of the period.
The descent ef Elkanah is inyolyed in great ob-
VOL. U.
SAMUEL 117}
security. In 1 Sam, i. 1 he is described as, an
Ephraimite. In 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23 he is made ἃ de-
scendant of Korah the Levite. Hengstenberg (on
Ps. Ixxviii. 1) and Ewald (ii. 433) explain this by
supposing that the Levites were occasionally incoi-
porated into the tribes amongst whom they dwelt.
The question, however, is of no practical import-
ance, because, even if Samuel were a Leyite, he
certainly was not a Priest by descent.
His birthplace is one of the vexed questions of
sacred geography, as his descent is of sacred gene-
alogy. [See RamarHarM-Zopuim.] All that ap-
pears with certainty from the accounts is that it
was in the hills of Ephraim, and (as may be in-
ferred from its name) a double height, used for the
purpose of beacons or outlookers (1 Sam. i. 1). At
the foot of the hill was a well (1 Sam. xix. 22).
On the brow of its two summits was the city. It
never lost its hold on Samuel, who in later life made
it his fixed abode.
The combined family must have been large.
Peninnah had several children, and Hannah had,
besides Samuel, three sons and two daughters. But
of these nothing is known, unless the names of the
sons are those enumerated in 1 Chr. vi. 26, 27.
It is on the mother of Samuel that our chief
attention is fixed in the account of his birth. She
is described as a woman of a high religious mission.
Almost a Nazarite by practice (1 Sam. i. 15), and
a prophetess in her gifts (1 Sam. ii. 1), she sought
from God the gift of the child for which she longed
with a passionate devotion of silent prayer, of which
there is no other example in the O. T., and when
the son was granted, the name which he bore, and
thus first introduced into the world, expressed her
sense of the urgency of her entreaty—Samuel, “ the
Asked or Heard of God.”
Living in the great age of vows, she had before
his birth dedicated him to the office of a Nazarite.
As soon as he was weaned, she herself with her
husband brought him to the Tabernacle at Shiloh,
where she had received the first intimation of his
birth, and there solemnly consecrated him. The
form of consecration was similar to that with which
the irregular priesthood of Jeroboam was set apart
in later times (2 Chr. xiii. 9)—a bullock of three
years old (LXX.), loaves (LXX.), an ephah of flour,
and a skin of wine (1 Sam. i. 24). First took place
the usual sacrifices (LXX.) by Elkanah himself—
then, after the introduction of the child, the special
sacrifice of the bullock. Then his mother made
him over to Eli (i. 25, 28), and (according to the
Hebrew text, but not the LXX.) the child himself
performed an act of worship.
The hymn which followed on this consecration
is the first of the kind in the sacred volume. It is
possible that, like many of the Psalms, it may have
been enlarged in later times to suit great occasions
of victory and the like. But verse 5 specially
applies to this event, and verses 7, 8 may well
express the sense eptertained by the prophetess of
the coming revolution in the fortunes of her son and
of her country.
From this time the child is shut up in the
tabernacle. The priests finished him with a sacred
garment, an ephod, made, like their own, of white
linen, though of inferior quality, and his mother
every year, apparently at the only time of their
meeting, gave him a little mantle reaching down to
his feet, such as was worn only by high personages,
or women, over the other dress, and such as he
retained, as his badge, till the latest times of his
4C
1122 SAMUEL
‘life. [MANTLE, vol. ii. p.2310.}] He seems to
have slept within the Holiest Place (LXX., 1 Sam.
iii. 3), and his special duty was to put out, as it
would seem, the sacred candlestick, and to open the
doors at sunrise.
In this way his childhood was passed. It was
whilst thus sleeping in the tabernacle that he re-
ceived his first prophetic call. The stillness of the
night—the sudden voice—the childlike misconcep-
tion—the venerable Eli—the contrast between the
terrible doom and the gentle creature who has to
announce it—give to this portion of the narrative
a universal interest. It is this side of Samuel’s
career that has been so well caught in the well-
known picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds,
From this moment the prophetic character of
Samuel was established. His words were treasured
up, and Shiloh became the resort of those who
came to hear him (iii, 19-21).
In the overthrow of the sanctuary, which fol-
lowed shortly on this vision, we hear not what
became of Samuel. He next appears, probably
twenty years afterwards, suddenly amongst the
people, warning them against their idolatrous prac-
tices, He convened an assembly at Mizpeh—pyro-
bably the place of that name in the tribe of Ben-
jamin—and there with a symbolical rite, expressive
partly of deep humiliation, partly of the libations
of a treaty, they poured water on the ground, they
fasted, and they entreated Samuel to raise the
piercing cry, for which he was known, in suppli-
cation to God for them. It was at the moment
that he was offering up a sacrifice, and sustaining
this loud cry (compare the situation of Pausanias
before the battle of Plataea, Herod. ix. 61), that
the Philistine host suddenly burst upon them. A
violent thunderstorm, and (according to Josephus,
Ant. vi. 2, §2) an earthquake, came to the timely
assistance of Israel. The Philistines fled, and,
exactly at the spot where twenty years before they
had obtained their great victory, they were totally
routed. A stone was set up, which long remained
as a memorial of Samuel’s triumph, and gave to
the place its name of Eben-ezer, ‘the Stone of
Help,” which has thence passed into Christian
phraseology, and become a common name of Non-
conformist chapels (1 Sam. vii. 12). The old Ca-
naanites, whom the Philistines had dispossessed in
the outskirts of the Judaean hills, seem to have
helped in the battle, and a large portion of territory
was recovered (1 Sam. vi. 14), This was Samuel’s
first and, as far as we know, his only military
achievement. But, as in the case of the earlier
chiefs who bore that name, it was apparently this
which raised him to the office of ‘* Judge’ (comp.
1 Sam. xii. 11, where he is thus reckoned with
Jerubbaal, Bedan, and Jephthah; and Ecclus. xlvi.
15-18). He visited, in discharge of his duties
as ruler, the three chief sanctuaries (ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς
ἡγιασμένοις τούτοις) on the west of the Jordan—
Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 16). His
own residence was still his native city, Ramah or
Ramathaim, which he further consecrated by an
altar (vii. 17). Here he married, and two sons
grew up to repeat under his eyes the same per-
version of high office that he had himselt witnessed
in his childhood in the case of the two sons of Eli.
SAMUEL
One was Abiah, the other Joel, sometimes called
simply <‘the second” (vashni, 1 Chr. vi. 28). In
his old age, according to the quasi-hereditary prin-
ciple, already adopted by previous Judges, he shared
his power with them, and they exercised their func«
tions at the southern frontier in Beersheba (1 Sam.
viii. 1-4).
2. Down to this point in Samuel’s lite there is
but little to distinguish his career from that of his
predecessors. Like many characters in later days,
had he died in youth his fame would hardly have
been greater than that of Gideon or Samson. He
was a Judge, a Nazarite, a warrior, and (to a cer-
tain point) a prophet.
But his peculiar position in the sacred narrative
turns on the events which follow. He is the
inaugurator of the transition from what is com-
monly called the theocracy to the monarchy. he
misdemeanour of his own sons, in receiving bribes,
and in extorting exorbitant interest on loans (1 Sam.
viii. 3, 4), precipitated the catastrophe which had
been long preparing. The people demanded a king.
Josephus (Ant. vi. 3, §3) describes the shock to
Samuel’s mind, ‘‘ because of his inborn sense of
justice, because of his hatred of kings, as so far
inferior to the aristocratic form of government,
which conferred a godlike character on those who
lived under it.” For the whole night he lay fasting
and sleepless, in the perplexity of doubt and dif_i-
culty. In the vision of that night, as recorded by
the sacred historian, is given the dark side of the
new institution, on which Samuel dwells on the
following day (1 Sam. viii. 9-18).
This presents his reluctance to receive the new
order of things. The whole narrative of the recep-
tion and consecration of Saul gives his acquiescence
in it. [SAuL. |
The final conflict of feeling and surrender of his
office is given in the last assembly over which he
presided, and in his subsequent relations with Saul.
The assembly was held at Gilgal, immediately after
the victory over the Ammonites. The monarchy was
a second time solemnly inaugurated, and (according
to the LXX.) “Samuel” (in the Hebrew text
“ Saul”) “and all the men of Israel rejoiced
creatly.” Then takes place his farewell address.
By this time the long flowing locks on which no
razor had ever passed were white with age (xii. 2).
He appeals to their knowledge of his integrity.
Whatever might be the lawless habits of the chiefs
of those times—Hophni, Phinehas, or his own sons
—he had kept aloof from all. No ox or ass had
he taken from their stalls—no bribe to obtain his
judgment (LXX., e&iAacua)—not even a sandal
(ὑπόδημα, LXX., and Ecclus. xlvi. 19). It is this
appeal, and the response of the people, that has
made Grotius call him the Jewish Aristides. He
then sums up the new situation in which they have
placed themselves; and, although “ the wickedness
of asking a king” is still strongly insisted on, and
the unusual portent» of a thunderstorm in May or
June, in answer to Samuel’s praver, is urged as a
sign of Divine displeasure (xii. 16-19), the general
tone of the condemnation is much softened from
that which was pronounced on the first intimation
of the change. he first king is repeatedly acknow-
ledged as “the Messiah” or anointed of the Lord
4 According to the Mussulman tradition, Samuel’s birth
is granted in answer to the prayers of the nation on the
overthrow of the sanctuary and loss of the ark (1)’Her-
b According to the Mussulman traditions, his anger was
occasioned by the people rejecting Saul as not being of the
tribe of Judah. The sign that Saul was the king was the
belot, Aschmouyl). This, though false in the letter, is true | liquefaction of the sacred oil in his presence and the re-
to the spirit of Samuel’s life,
| covery of the tabernacle (D’Herbelot, Aschmouyl).
SAMUEL
(xii. 3, 5), the future prosperity of the nation is
declared to depend on their use or misuse of the
new constitution, and Samuel retires with expres-
sions of goodwill and a —‘] will teach you the
good and the right way ... only fear the Lord.
(1 Sam. xii. 23, 24).
It is the most signal example afforded in the
O. T. of a great chi aracter reconciling himself to a
changed order of things, and of the Dive sanction
resting on his. acquiescence. For this reason it is
that Athanasius is by Basil called the Samuel of
the Church (Basil, Zp. 82).
3. His subsequent relations with Saul are of the
same mixed kind. The two institutions which they
respectively represented ran on side by side. Samuel
was still Judge. He judged Israel “ ‘all the days of
his life” (vii. "15), and from time to time came across
the king’s path. But these interventions are chiefly
in another capacity, which this is the place to unfold.
Samuel is called emphatically “ the Prophet”
(Acts iii. 24, xiii. 20). To a certain extent this
was in consequence of the gift which he shared in
common with others of his time. He was especially
known in his own age as “Samuel the Seer ”
(1 Chr. ix. 22, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29). ‘I am the
seer,” was his answer to those who asked “‘ Where
is the seer ?’’ “‘ Where is the seer’s house?”’ (1 Sam.
ix. 11,18, 19). ‘Seer,’ the ancient name, was not
yet superseded by ‘ Prophet” (1 Sam. ix.). By
this name, Samuel Videns and Samuel 6 βλέπων,
he is called in the Acta Sanctorum. Of the three
modes by which Divine communications were then
made, ‘by dreams, Urim and Thummim, and pro-
phets,” the first was that by which the Divine will
was made known to Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 1,25 Jos.
Ant. v.10, 84). ‘‘ The Lord uncovered his ear” to
whisper into it in the stillness of the night the
messages that were to be delivered. It is the first
distinct intimation of the idea of ** Revelation’ to
a human being (see {SEM y im voc. ΠΡ). He
was consulted far and hear on the small affairs of life ;
loaves of “ bread,’ or * the fourth pait of a shekel of
silver,” were paid for the answers (1 Sam. ix. 7, 8).
From this faculty, combined with his office of
ruler, an awful reverence grew up round him. No
sacrificial feast was thought complete without his
blessing (ib. ix. 13). When he appeared suddenly
elsewhere for the same purpose, the villagers “ trem-
bled” at his approach (1 Sam. xvi. 4,5). A pecu-
liar virtue was believed, to reside in his intercession.
He was conspicuous in later times amongst those
that ‘call upon the name of the Lord”’ (Ps, xcix.
6; 1 Sam. xii. 18), and was placed with Moses as
“ standing” for prayer, in a special sense, “ before
the Lord” (Jer. xv. 1). It was the last consolation
he left in his parting addvess that he would “ pray
to the Lord’’ for the people (1 Sam. xii. 19, 23).
There was something peculiar in the long-sustained
ery or shout of supplication, which seemed to draw
down as by force the Divine answer (1 Sam. vii.
8,9). All night long, in agitated moments, “he
cried unto the Lord’ (1 Sam. xv. 11).
But there are two other points which more
especially placed him at the head of the prophetic
order as it afterwards appeared. The first is
brought out in his relation with Saul, the second
in his relation with David.
SAMUEL 1123
(a). He represents the independence of the moval
law, of the Divine Will, as distinct from regal or
sacerdotal enactments, which is so remarkable a
characteristic of all the later prophets. As we
have seen, he was, if a Levite, yet certainly not a
Priest ; and all the attempts to identify his oppo-
sition to Saul with a hierarchical interest are
founded on a complete misconception of the facts
of the case. From the time of the overthrow of
Shiloh, he never appears in the remotest connexion
with the priestly order. Amongst all the places
included in his personal or administrative visits,
neither Shiloh, nor Nob, nor Gibeon, the seats of
the sacerdotal caste, are ever mentioned. When he
counsels Saul, it is not as the priest but as the
prophet ; when he sacrifices or blesses the sacrifice,
it is not as the priest, but either as an individual
Israelite of eminence, or asa ruler, like Saul him-
self. Saul’s sin in both cases where he came into
collision with Samuel, was not of intruding into
sacerdotal functions, but of disobedience to the
prophetic voice. The first was that of not waiting
for Samuel's arrival, according to the sign given
by Samuel at his original meeting at Ramah (1
Sam. x. 8, xili. 8); the second was that of not car-
rying out the stern prophetic injunction for the
destruction of the Amalekites. When, on that
occasion, the aged Prophet called the captive © prince
before him, and with his own hands hacked him
limb from limb, in retribution for the desolation
he had brought into the homes of Israel, and thus
offered up his mangled remains almost as a human
sacrifice («before the Lord in Gilgal”), we see the
representative of the older part of the Jewish his-
tory. But it is the-true prophetic utterance such
as breathes through the psalmists and prophets when
he says to Saul in words which, from their poetical
form, must have become fixed in the national me-
mory, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams.”
The parting was not.one of rivals, but of dear
though divided friends. The King throws himself
on the Prophet with all his force; not without a
vehement effort (Jos. Ant. vi. 7, §5) the prophet,
tears himself away. The long mantle by which
he was always known is rent in the struggle; and,
like Ahijah after him, Samuel was in this the
omen of the coming rent in the monarchy. They
parted, each to his house, to meet no more. But
a long shadow of grief fell over the prophet,
« Samuel mourned for Saul.” “ It grieved Samuel
fer Saul.” “ον long wilt thou mourn for Saul ?”
(1 Sam. xv. 11, 35, xvi. 1.)
(b). He is the first of the regular succession of
prophets. ‘* All the prophets from Samuel and
those that follow after” (Acts iii, 24), “Ex
quo sanctus Samuel propheta coepit, et deinceps
donec populus Israel in Babyloniam captivus ve-
heretury 702 τ. totum est tempus prophetarum ”
(Aug. Civ, Dei, xvii. 1). Moses, Miriam, and
Deborah, perhaps Ehud, had been prophets. But
it was only from Samuel that the continuous suc-
cession was unbroken. This may have been merely
from the coincidence of his appearance with the
beginning of the new order of things, of which the
prophetical office was the chief expression, Some
_| Predisposing causes there may have been in his own
ς Agag is “described by Josephus (Ant. vi. 1, 92) ) asa
chief of magnificent appearance; and hence rescued from
destruction. This is perhaps an inference from the word
nay, which the Vulgate translates pinguissimus.
4 1Sam. xv. ‘The LXX. softens this into ἔσφαξε ; but
the Vulg. translation, in frusta concidit, “ cut up inte
small pieces,” seems to be the true meanicg.
4 Ore
1124 SAMUEL
family and birthplace. His mother, as we have
seen, though not expressly so called, was in fact a
prophetess; the word Zophim, as the affix of Ra-
mathaim, has been explained, not unreasonably, to
mean “seers;” and Elkanah, his father, is by the
Chaldee parayhrast on 1 Sam. i. 1, said to be “a
disciple of the prophets.” But the connexion of
the continuity of the office with Samuel appears to
be still more direct. It is in his lifetime, long after
he had been ‘‘established as a prophet” (1 Sam.
iii. 20), that we hear of the companies of disciples,
called in the O. T. “the sons of the prophets,” by
modern writers ‘‘ the schools of the prophets.” All
the peculiarities of their education are implied or
expressed—the sacred dance, the sacred music, the
solemn procession (1 Sam. x. 5, 10; 1 Chr. xxv.
1,6). At the head of this congregation, or “ church
as it were within a church” (LXX. τὴν ἐκκλη-
σίαν, 1 Sam. x. 5,10), Samuel is expressly described
as “standing appointed over them” (1 Sam, xix. 20).
Their chief’ residence at this time (though atter-
wards, as the institution spread, it struck root in
other places) was at Samuel’s own abode, Ramah,
where they lived in habitations (Nototh, 1 Sam.
xix. 19, &c.) apparently of a rustic kind, like the
leafy huts which Elisha’s disciples afterwards occu-
pied by the Jordan (Naioth = ““ habitations,” but
more specifically used for ‘ pastures’’), —
In those schools, and learning to cultivate the pro-
phetic gifts, were some, whom we know for certain,
others whom we may almost certainly conjecture, to
have been so trained or influenced. One was Saul.
Twice at least he is described as having been in the
company “of Samuel’s disciples, and as having caught
from them the prophetic fervour, to such a degree as
to have “prophesied among them” (1 Sam. x. 10,
11), and on one occasion to have thrown off his clothes,
and to have passed the night in a state of prophetic
trance (1 Sam. xix, 24): and even in his palace,
the prophesying mingled with his madness on ordi-
nary occasions (1 Sam. xviii. 9). Another was
Davip. The first acquaintance of Samuel with
David, was when he privately anointed him at the
house of Jesse [see Davin]. But the connexion
thus begun with the shepherd boy must have been
continued afterwards. David, at first, fled to
“ Naioth in Ramah,” as to his second home (1 Sam.
xix. 19), and the gifts of music, of song, and of
prophecy, here developed on so large a scale, were
exactly such as we find in the notiees of those who
looked up to Samuel as their father. It is, further,
hardly possible to escape the conclusion that David
there first met his fust friends and companions in
after life, prophets like himself —Gap and NATHAN.
It is needless to enlarge on the importance with
which these incidents invest the appearance of Sa-
muel. He there becomes the spiritual father of the
Psalmist king. He is also the Founder of the first
regular institutions of religious instruction, and com-
munities for the purposes of education. The schools
of Greece were not yet in existence. From these
Jewish institutions were developed, by a natural
order, the universities of Christendom. And it may
be further added, that with this view the whole life
of Samuel is in accordance. He is the prophet—
the only prophet till the time of Isaiah—of whom we
know that he was so from his earliest years. It is
this continuity of his own life and character, that
makes him so fit an instrument for conducting his
nation through so great a change. 5
The death of Samuel is described as taking place
in the year of the close of David’s wanderings. It
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
is said with peculiar emphasis, as if to mark the
loss, that’ “ all the Israelites”—all, with a univer-
sality never specified before—* were gathered to-
gether” from all parts of this hitherto divided
country, and “lamented him,” and ‘ buried him,”
not in any consecrated place, nor outside the walls
of his city, but within his own house, thus in a
manner consecrated by being turned into his tomb
(1 Sam. xxv. 1). His relics were translated “ from
Judaea” (the place is not specified) a.D. 406, to
Constantinople, and received there with much pomp
by the Emperor Arcadius. They were landed at
the pier of Chalcedon, and thence conveyed to a
church, near the palace of Hebdomon (see Acta
Sanctorum, Aug. 20).
The situation of Ramathaim, as has been observed,
is uncertain. But the place long pointed out as his
tomb is the height, most conspicuous of all in the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem, immediately above
the town of Gibeon, known to the Crusaders as
“Montjoye,” as the spot from whence they first
saw Jerusalem, now called Neby Samil, ‘the
Prophet Samuel.” The tradition can be traced back
as far as the 7th century, when it is spoken of as the
monastery of S. Samuel (Robinson, B. 20. ii. 142),
and if once we discard the connexion of Ramathaim
with the nameless city where Samuel met Saul,
‘as is set forth at length in the articles RAMAN;
RAMATHAIM-ZoPHIM) there is no reason why the
tradition should be rejected. A cave is still shown
underneath the floor of the mosque. ‘ He built the
tomb in his lifetime,” is the account of the Mussul-
man guardian of the mosque, ‘* but was not buried
here till after the expulsion of the Greeks.” [Ὁ is
the only spot in Palestine which claims any direct
connexion with the first great prophet who was
born within its limits; and its commanding situa-
tion well agrees with the importance assigned to
him in the sacred history.
His descendants were here till the time of David.
Heman, his grandson, was one of the chief singers
in the Levitical choir (1 Chr. vi. 33, xv. 17, xxv. δὴ:
The apparition of Samuel at Endor (1 Sam. xxvill.
14; Ecclus. xlvi. 20) belongs to the history of SAUL.
It has been supposed that Samuel wrote a Life
of David (of course of his earlier years), which was
still accessible to one of the authors of the Book of
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxix. 29); but this appears
doubtful. [See p. 1126,0.] Various other books of
the O. T. have been ascribed to him by the Jewish
tradition: the Judges, Ruth? the two Books of Sa-
muel, the latter, it is alleged, being written in the
spirit of prophecy. He is regarded by the Sama-
ritans as a magician and an infidel (Hottinger, Hist.
Orient. p. 52).
The Persian traditions fix his life in the time
of Kai-i-Kobad, 2nd king of Persia, with whom
he is said to have conversed (D’Herbelot, Kaz
Kobad). fA. P. ΘΗ,
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (Osi): Βασιλείων
πρώτη, Δευτέρα: Liber Regum Primus, Secundus).
Two historical books of the Old Testament, which
are not separated from each other in the Hebrew
MSS., and which, from a critical point of view,
must be regarded as one book. The present division
was first made in the Septuagint translation, and
was adopted in the Vulgate from the Septuagint.
But Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Histor. Eccles.
vi! 25), expressly states that they formed only one
book among the Hebrews. Jerome (/racfatio in
Libros Samuel et Mclachim) implies the same state-
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
ment; and in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, fol. 14,
ὁ. 2), wherein the authorship is attributed to Samuel,
they are designated by the name of his book, in the
singular number (75D 15 Sy). After the
invention of printing they were published as one
book in the first edition of the whole Bible printed
at Soncino in 1488 A.p., and likewise in the Com-
plutensian Polyglot printed at Alcala, 1502-1517
A.D.; and it was not till the year 1518 that
the division of the Septuagint was adopted in He-
brew, in the edition of the Bible printed by the
Bombergs at Venice. The book was called by the
Hebrews “ Samuel,” probably because the birth and
life of Samuel were the subjects treated of in the
beginning of the work—just as a treatise on fes-
tivals in the Mishna bears the name of Beitsah, an
egg, because a question connected with the eating
of an egg is the first subject discussed in it. { PHa-
RISEES, p. 890.] It has been suggested indeed by
Abarbanel, as quoted by Carpzoy (p. 211), that the
book was called by Samuel’s name because all things
that occur in each book may, in a certain sense, be
referred to Samuel, including the acts of Saul and
David, inasmuch as each of them was anointed by
him, and was, as it were, the work of his hands.
This, however, seems to be a refinement of explana-
tion for a fact which is to be accounted for in a less
artificial manner. And, generally, it is to be ob-
served that the logical titles of books adopted in
modern times must not be looked for in Eastern
works, nor indeed in early works of modern Europe.
Thus David’s Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan
was called “The Bow,” for some reason connected
with the occurrence of that word in his poem
(2 Sam. i, 18-22) ; and Snorro Storleson’s Chronicle
of the Kings of Norway obtained the name of
* Heimskringla,” the World’s Circle, because Heims-
kringla was the first prominent word of the MS.
that caught the eye (Laing’s Heimskringla, i. 1).
Authorship and Date of the Book—The most
interesting points in regard to every important his-
torical work are the name, intelligence, and character
of the historian, and his means of obtaining correct
information. If these points should not be known,
next in order of interest is the precise period of time
when the work was composed. On all these points,
however, in reference to the Book of Samuel, more
questions can be asked than can be answered, and
the results of a dispassionate inquiry are mainly
negative.
Ist, as to the authorship. In common with all
the historical books of the Old Testament, except
the beginning of Nehemiah, the Book of Samuel
contains no mention in the text of the name of its
author. The earliest Greek historical work extant,
written by one who has frequently been called the
Father ot History, commences with the words,
“This is a publication of the researches of Hero-
dotus of Halicarnassus;” and the motives which
induced Herodotus to write the work are then set
forth. Thucydides, the writer of the Greek his-
torical work next in order of time, who likewise
specifies his reasons for writing it, commences by
stating, ““ Thucydides the Athenian wrote the his- |
tory of the war between the Pelopénnesians and
Athenians,” and frequently uses the formula that
such or such a year ended—the second, or third, or
fourth, as the case might be—“ of this war of which
Thucydides wrote the history ” (ii. 70, 103; iii. 25,
88, 116). Again, when he speaks in one passage
of events in which it is necessary that he should
\
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 1125
mention his own name, he refers to himself as
«Thucydides son of Olorus, who composed this
work” (iv. 104). Now, with the one exception
of this kind already mentioned, no similar informa-
tion is contained in any historical book of the Old
Testament, although there are passages not only in
Nehemiah, but likewise in Ezra, written in the first
person. Still, without any statement of the author-
ship embodied in the text, it is possible that his-
torical books might come down to us with a title
containing the name of the author. This is the
case, for example, with Livy’s Roman History, and
Caesar’s Commentaries of the Gallic War. In the
latter case, indeed, although Caesar mentions a long
series of his own actions without intimating that he
was the author of the work, and thus there is an
antecedent improbability that he wrote it, yet the
traditional title of the work outweighs this impro-
bability, confirmed as the title is by an unbroken
chain of testimony, commencing with contemporaries
(Cicero, Brut. 75; Caesar, De Bell. Gall. viii. 1 ;
Suetonius, Jul. Cues. 56; Quinctilian, x. 1 ;
Tacitus, Germ. 28). Here, again, there is no-
thing precisely similar in Hebrew history. The
five books of the Pentateuch have in Hebrew no
title except the first Hebrew words of each part;
and the titles Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, which are derived from the Sep-
tuagint, convey no information as to their author.
In like manner, the Book of Judges, the Books of
the Kings and the Chronicles, are not referred to
any particular historian; and although six works
bear respectively the names of Joshua, Kuth, Samuel,
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is nothing in the
works themselves to preclude the idea that in each
case the subject only of the work may be indicated,
and not its authorship; as is shown conclusively by
the titles Ruth and Esther, which ne one has: yet.
construed into the assertion that those celebrated
women wrote the works concerning themselves.
And it is indisputable that the title “Samuel”
does not imply that the prophet was the author of
the Book of Samuel as a whole; for the death of
Samuel is recorded in the beginning of the 25th
chapter ; so that, under any circumstances, a dif-
ferent author would be required for the remaining
chapters, constituting considerably more than one-
half of the entire work. Again, in reference to the
Book of Samuel, the absence of the historian’s name
from both the text and the title is not supplied by
any statement of any other writer, made within a
reasonable period from the time when the book may
be supposed to have been written. No mention of
the author’s name is made in the Book of Kings,
nor, as will be hereafter shown, in the Chronicles,
nor in any other of the sacred writings. In like
| manner, it is not mentioned either in the Apocrypha
or in Josephus. The silence of Josephus is par-
ticularly significant. He published his Antiquities
about 1100 years after the death of David, and in
them he makes constant use of the Book of Samuel
for one portion of his history. Indeed it is his
exclusive authority for his account of Samuel and
Saul, and his main authority, in conjunction with
the Chronicles, for the history of David. Yet he
nowhere attempts to name the author of the Book
of Samuel, or of any part of it. There is a similar
silence in the Mishna, where, however, the inference
from such silence is far less cogent. And it is not
until we come to the Babylonian Gemara, which is
supposed to have been completed in its present form
somewhere about 500 a.D., that any Jewish state-
a
1126 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
ment respecting the authorship can be pointed out,
and then it is for the first time asserted (Buba
Bathra, fol. 14, α. 2), ina passage already referred
to, that “ Gannel wrote his book,” 7. e. as the words
imply, the book which bears his name. But this
statement cannot be proved to have been made
earlier than 1550 years after the death of Samuel—
a longer period than has elapsed since the death of
the Emperor Constantine ; and unsupported as the
statement is by reference to any authority of any
kind, it would be unworthy of credit, even if it
were not opposed to the internal evidence of the
book itself. At the revival of learning, an opinion
was propounded by Abarbarel, a learned Jew,
Ὁ A.D. 1508, that the Book of Samuel was written
by the prophet Jeremiah* (Lat. by Avg. Pfeiffer,
Leipzig, 1686), and this opinion was adopted by Hugo
Grotius (Pref. ad Librum priorem Sanuelis) , with
a general statement that there was no discr epancy ip
the language, and with only one special reference,
Notwithstanding the eminence, however, of these
writers, this opinion must be rejected as highly im-
probable. Under any circumstances it could not be
regarded as more than a mere guess; and it is, in
reality, a guess uncountenanced by peculiar simi-
larity of language, or of style, between the history
of Samuel and the writings of Jeremiah. In our
own time the most prevalent idea in the Anglican
Church seems to have been that the first twenty-four
chapters of the Book of Samuel were written by the
prophet himself, and the rest of the chapters by
the prophets Nathan and Gad. This is the view
favoured by Mr. Horne (Introduction to the Holy
Scriptures, ed. 1846, p. 45), in a work which has
had very extensive circulation, and which amongst
many readers has been the only work of the ind
‘consulted in England. If, however, the authority
adduced by him is examined, it is found to be ulti-
mately the opinion “ of the Talmudists, which was
adopted by the most learned Fathers of the Christian
Church, who unquestionably had better means of
ascertaining this point than we have.’ Now the
absence of any evidence for this opinion in the
Talmud has been already indicated, and it is diffi-
cult to understand how the opinion could have been
stamped with rea! value through its adoption by
learned Jews called Talmudists, or by learned
Christians called Fathers of the Christian Church,
who lived subsequently to the publication of the
Talmud. For there is not the slightest reason for
supposing that in the year 500 4.p. either Jews or
Christians had access to trustworthy documents on
this subject which haye not been transmitted to
modern times, and without such documents it can-
not be shown that they had any better means of
ascertaining this point than we have. Two circum-
stances have probably contributed to the adoption
of this opinion at the present day :—1st, the growth
of stricter ideas as to the importance of knowi ing
who was the author of any historical work which
advances claims to be trustworthy ; and 2ndly, the
mistranslation of an ambiguous passage in the Virst
Book of Chronicles (xxix. 29), respec ting the autho-
8. Professor Hitzig, in like manner, attributes some of
the Psalms to Jeremiah. In support of this view, he
points out, Ist, several special instances of striking simi-
larity of language between those Psalms and the writings
of Jeverniah, and, 2ndly, agreement between historical facts
in the life of Jeremiah and the situation in which the writer
of those Psalms depicts himself as having been placed
(Hitzig, Diz Psaimen, pp. 48-85). Whether the conclu-
sion is correct or incorrect, this is a legitimate mode of
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
rities for the life of David. The first point requires
nocomment. On the second point it is to be ob-
served that the following appears to be the correct
translation of the passage in question :—‘* Now the
history of Dayid first and last, behold it is written
in the history of Samuel the seer, and in the history
of Nathan the prophet, and in the history of Gad
the seer”—in which the Hebrew word dibret, here
translated ‘history,’ has the same meaning given
to it each of the four times that it is used. This
agrees with the translation in the Septuagint, which
is particularly worthy of attention in reference to
the Chronicles, as the Chronicles are the very last
work in the Hebrew Bible; and whether this arose
from their having been the last admitted into the
Canon, or the last composed, it is scarcely probable
that any. translation in the Septuagint, with one
great exception, was made so soon after the com-
position of the original. The rendering of the
Septuagint is by the word λόγοι, in the sense, so
Me known in Herodotus, of ‘ history” (i. 184,
. 161, vi. 137), and in the like sense in the Apo-
cr eats wherein it is used to describe the history of
Tobit, βίβλος λόγων Τωβίτ. The word “history ”
(Geschichte) is likewise the word four times used in|
the translation of this passage of the Chronicles in
Luther’s Bible, and in the modern version of the
German Jews made under the superintendence of
the learned Dr. Zunz (Berlin, 1858). In the
English Version, however, the word dibrei is trans-
lated in the first instance “ acts” as applied to
David, and then ‘‘ book” as applied to Samuel,
Nathan, and Gad; and thus, through the ambiguity
of the word ‘ book,” the possibility is suggested
that each of these three prophets wrote a book
respecting his own life and times. This double
rendering of the same word in one passage seems
wholly inadmissible ; as is also, though in a less
degree, the translation of dibrei as ““ book,” for
which there is a distinct Hebrew word—sépher.
And it may be deemed morally certain that this
passage of the Chronicles is no authority for the
supposition that, when it was written, any work
was in existence of which either Gad, Nathan, or
Samuel was the author.
2. Although the authorship of the Book of Samuel
cannot be ascertained, there are some indications as
to the date of the work. And yet even on this
point no precision is attainable, and we must be |
satisfied with a conjecture as to the range, not of
years or decades, but of centuries, within which the
history was probably composed. Evidence on this
head is either external or internal. The. earliest
undeniable external evidence of the existence of the
book would seem to be the Greek translation of it
in the Septuagint. The exact date, however, of the
translation itself is uncertain, though it must have
been made at some time between the translation of
the Pentateuch in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus,
who died B.C, 247, and the century before the birth
of Christ. The next best external testimony is that
of a passage in the Second Book of Maccabees (ii.
13), in which it is said of Nehemiah, that ‘‘ he,
reasoning, and ‘there i is a sound basis for a critical super-
structure. See Psalms xxxi., xxxv., Xl.
b In the Swedish Bible the word ‘dibrei in each of the
four instances is translated “acts” (Gerningar), being pre-
cisely the same word which is used to designate the Acts
of the Apostles in the New Testament. ‘This translation
is self-consistent and admissible. But the German
translations, supported as they are by the Septuagint,
seem preferable.
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
founding a library, gathered together the acts of
the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the
epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts.”
Now, although ΠῚ passage cannot be relied on for
proving that Nehemiah himself did in fact ever
found such a library, yet it is good evidence to
prove that the Acts of the Kings, τὰ περὶ τῶν
βασιλέων, were in existence when the passage was
written; and it cannot reasonably be doubted that
this phrase was intended to include the Book of
Samuel, which is equivalent to the two first Books
of Kings in the Septuagint., Hence there is external
evidence that the Book of Samuel was written
before the Second Book of Maccabees. And lastly,
the passage in the Chronicles already quoted (1 Chr.
xxix. 29) seems likewise to prove externally that
the Book of Samuel was written before the Chro-
nicles. This is not absolutely certain, but it seems
to be the most natural inference from the words
that the history of David, first and last, is con-
tained in the history of Samuel, the history of
Nathan, and the history of Gad. For as a work
has come down to us, entitled Samuel, which con-
tains an account of the life of David till within a
short period before his death, it appears most rea-
sonable to conclude (although this point is open to
dispute) that the writer of the Chronicles referred
to this work by the title History of Samuel. In
this case, admitting the date assigned, on internal
- grounds, to the Chronicles by a modern Jewish
writer of undoubted learning and critical powers,
there would be external evidence for the existence
of the Book of Samuel earlier than 247 B.c., though
not earlier than 312 B.c., the era of the Seleucidae
(Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden,
p- 32). Supposing that the Chronicles were written
earlier, this evidence would go, in precise proportion,
farther back, but there would be still a total absence
of earlier external evidence on the subject than is
contained in the Chronicles. If, however, instead
of looking solely to the external evidence, the in-
ternal evidence respecting the Book of Samuel is
examined, there are indications of its having been
written some centuries earlier. On this head the
following points are worthy of notice :—
1. The Book of Samuel seems to have been writ-
ten at a time when the Pentateuch, whether it was
or was not in existence in its present form, was at
any vate not acted on as the rule of religious ob-
servances. According to the Mosaic Law as finally
established, sacrifices to Jehovah were not lawful
‘anywhere but before the door of the tabernacle
of the congregation, whether this was a permanent
temple, as at Jerusalem, or otherwise (Deut. xii.
13, 14; Lev. xvii. 3,4; but see Ex. xx. 24). But
in the Book of Samuel, the offering of sacrifices, or
the erection of altars, which implies sacrifices, is
mentioned at several places, such as Mizpeh, Ramah,
Bethel, the threshing-place of Araunah the Jebusite,
and elsewhere, not only without any disapprobation,
apology, or explanation, but in a way which pro-
duces the impression that such sacrifices were
pleasing to Jehovah (1 Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17, ix. 13,
Keo ΧΙν. 99. 2, OADM KV 18572): This circum-
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 1127
stance points to the date of the Book of Samuel as
earlier than the reformation of Jésiah, when Hil-
kiah the high-priest told Shaphan the scribe that
he had found the Book of the Law in the house of
Jehovah, when the Passover was kept as was en-
joined in that book, in a way that no Passover had
been holden since the days of the Judges, and when
the worship upon high-places was abolished by the
king’s orders (2 K. xxii. 8, xxiii. 8, 13, 15, 19, 21,
22). The probability that a sacred historian, writing
after that reformation, would have expressed dis-
approbation of, or would have accounted for, any
seeming departure from the laws of the Pentateuch
by David, Saul, or Samuel, is not in itself conclu-
sive, but joined to other considerations it is entitled
to peculiar weight. The natural mode of dealing with
such a religious scandal, when it shocks the ideas
of a later generation, is followed by the author of the
Book of Kings, who undoubtedly lived later than
the reformation of Josiah, or than the beginning, at
least, of the captivity of Judah (2 K. xxv. 21, 27).
This writer mentions the toleration of worship on
high-places with disapprobation, not only in con-
nexion with bad kings, such as Manasseh and Ahaz,
but likewise as a drawback in the excellence of
other kings, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jchoash,
Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham, who are praised for
having done what was right in the sight of Jehovah
(CO ἰ τυ 4. χη 418. 2 Ke aS σιν, xv 4,
55, xvi. 4, xxi. 3); and something of the same kind
might have been expected in the writer of the Book
of Samuel, if he had lived at a time when the wor-
ship on high- -places had been abolished.
2. It is in accordance with this early date of the
Book of Samuel that allusions in it even to the
existence of Moses are so few. After the return
from the Captivity, and more especially after the
changes introduced by Ezra, Moses became that
great central figure in the thoughts and language
ot devout Jews which he could not fail to be when
all the laws of the Pentateuch were observed, and
they were all referred to him as the divine prophet
who communicated them directly from Jehovah.
This transcendent importance of Moses must already
have commenced at the finding of the Book of the
Law at the reformation of Josiah. Now it is re-
markable that the Book of Samuel is the historical
work of the Old Testament in which the name of
Moses occurs most rarely. In Joshua it occurs 56
times; in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah 51 times ;
in the Book of Kings ten times; in Judges three
times; but in Samuel only twice (Zunz, Vortrdge,
35). And it is worthy of note that in each case
Moses is merely mentioned with Aaron as having
brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt, but
nothing whatever is sdid of the Law of Moses
(1 Sam. xii. 6, 8). It may be thought that no
inference can be drawn from this omission of the
name of Moses, because, inasmuch as the Law of
Moses, as a whole, was evidently not acted on in
the time of Samuel, David, and Solomon, there was
no occasion for a writer, however late he lived, to
introduce the name of Moses at all in connexion
with their life and actions. But it is very rare
ς Professors Ew ald ana Bleek have accepted the state-
ment that Nehemiah founded such a library, and they
make inferences from the account of the library as to the |
time when certain books of the Old Testament were ad-
mitted into the Canon. There are, however, the following
reasons for rejecting the statement :—lst. It occurs in a
letter generally deemed spurious.
(ii. 1-7), but likewise of Nehemiah himself. srdly. An
erroneous historical statement is likewise made in the
same letter, that Nehemiah built the Temple of Jerusalem
(i. 18). No witness in a court of justice, whose credit had
been shaken to a similar extent, would, unless corroborated
| by other evidence be relied on as an authority for any
2ndly. In the same |
letter a fabulous story is recorded uot only of Jeremiah
important fact.
11238 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
indeed for later writers to refrain in this way from
importing the ideas of their own time into the ac-
count of earlier transactions. Thus, very early in
the Book of Kings there is an allusion to what is
** written in the Law of Moses” (1 Καὶ. ii. 3). Thus
the author of the Book of Chronicles makes, for the
reign of David, a calculation of money in darics,
a Persian coin, not likely to have been in common
use among the Jews until the Persian domination
had been fully established. Thus, more than once,
Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, attributes
expressions to personages in the Old Testament
which are to be accounted for by what was familiar
to his own mind, although they are not justified
by his authorities. For example, evidently copying
the history of a transaction from the Book of
Samuel, he represents the prophet Samuel as ex-
horting the people to bear in mind ‘ the code of
laws which Moses had Sa them” (τῆς Μωσέως
νομοθεσίας, Ant. vi. 5, 83), though there is no
mention of Moses, or τ his legislation, in the
corresponding passage of Samuel (1 Sam. xii. 20-
25). Again, in giving an account of the punish-
ments with which the Israelites were threatened for
disobedience of the Law by Moses in the Book of
Deuteronomy, Josephus attributes to Moses the
threat that their temple should be burned (Ant. iv.
8, §46). But no passage can be pointed out in the
whole Pentateuch in which such a threat occurs ;
and in fact, according to the received chronology
(1 K. vi. 1), or according to any chronology, the
first temple at Jerusalem was not built till some
centuries after the death of Moses, Yet this allu-
sion to the burning of an unbuilt temple ought not
to be regarded as an intentional misrepresentation.
It is rather an instance of the tendency in an histo-
rian who describes past events to give unconsciously
indications of his living himself at a later epoch.
Similar remarks apply to a passage of Josephus (Ant.
vii. 4, 84), in which, giving an account of David’s
project to build a temple at Jerusalem, he says that
David wished to prepare a temple for God, “as
Moses commanded,” though no such command or
injunction is to be found in the Pentateuch. Toa
religious Jew, when the laws of the Pentateuch were
observed, Moses could not fail to be the predominant
idea in his mind; but Moses would not necessarily
be of equal importance to a Hebrew historian who
lived before the reformation of Josiah.
3. lt tallies with an early date for the compo-
sition of the Book of Samuel that it is one of the
best specimens of Hebrew prose in the golden age
of Hebrew literature. In prose it holds the same
place which Joel and the undisputed prophecies of
Isaiah hold in poetical or prophetical language. It
is free from the peculiarities of the Book of Judges,
which it is proposed to account for by supposing
that they belonged to the popular dialect of Northern
Palestine ; and likewise from the slight peculiarities
of the Pentateuch, which it is proposed to regard
as archaisms ὦ (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, §2, 5).
It is a striking contrast to the language of the Book
of Chronicles, which undoubtedly belongs to the
silver age of Hebrew prose, and it does not contain
as many alleged Chaldaisms as the few in the Book
of Kings. Indeed the number of Chaldaisms in the
Book of Samuel which the most rigid scrutiny has
suggested do not amount to more than about six
instances, some of them doubtful ones, in 90 pages
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
of our modern Hebrew Bible. And, considering the
general purity of the language, it is not only
possible, but probable, that the trifling residuum of
Chaldaisms may be owing to the inadvertence of
Chaldee copyists, when Hebrew had ceased to be a
living language. At the same time this argument
from language must not be pushed so far as to
imply that, standing alone, if would be conclusive ;
for some writings, the date of which is about the
time of the Captivity, are in pure Hebrew, such
as the prophecies of Habakkuk, the Psalms exx.,
CXXXVii., CXxxix., pointed out by Gesenius, and by
far the largest portion of the latter part of the pro-
phecies attributed to ‘ Isaiah ’’ (xi.—Ixvi.). And we
have not sufficient knowledge of the condition of
the Jews at the time of the Captivity, or for a few
centuries after, to entitle any one to assert that
there were no individuals among them who wrote
the purest Hebrew. Still the balance of probability
inclines to the contrary direction, and, as a sub-
sidiary argument, the purity of language of the
Book of Samuel is entitled to some weight.
Assuming, then, that the work was composed at
a period not later than the reformation of Josiah—
say, B.C. 622—the question arises as to the very
earliest point of time at which it could have existed
in its present form? And the answer seems to be,
that the earliest period was subsequent to the seces-
sion of the Ten Tribes. This results from the passage
in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, wherein it is said of David,
“ Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day: wherefore
Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah to this
day:” for neither Saul, David, nor Solomon is in a
single instance called king of Judah simply. It is true
that David is said, in one narrative respecting him, to
have reigned in Hebron seven years and six months
over Judah (2 Sam. v. 5) before he reigned in Jeru-
salem thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah ;
but he is, notwithstanding, never designated by
the title King of Judah. Before the secession,
the designation of the kings was that they were
kings of Israel (1 Sam. xiii. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1; 2 Sam.
Ve LT vile 15: ΚΟ ΠΤ πν ly evae L, ΣΙ ee) eekb
may safely, therefore, be assumed that the Book of
Samuel could not have existed in its present form
at an earlier period than the reign of Rehoboam,
who ascended the throne B.c. 975. If we go be-
yond this, and endeavour to assert the precise time
between 975 B.C. and 622 B.c., when it was com-
posed, all certain indications fail us. The expres-
sion ‘unto this day,” used several times in the
book (1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 18, xxx. 25; 2 Sam. iv. 3,
vi. 8), in addition to the use of it in the passage
already quoted, is too indefinite to prove anything,
except that the writer who employed it liv ed sub-
sequently to the events he described. It is in-
adequate to prove whether he lived three centuries,
or only half a century, after those events. The
same remark applies to the phrase, ‘“ Therefore it
became a proverb, “ [5 Saul among the Prophets δ᾽
(1 Sam. x. 12), and to the verse, “" Betoretime in
Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus
he spake, Come, and let us yo to the seer: for he
that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called
a Seer” (1 Sam. ix. 9). In both cases it is not
certain that the writer lived more than eighty years
after the incidents to which he alludes. In like
manner, the various traditions respecting the manner
in which Saul first became acquainted with David
a As ‘compared with Samuel, the peculiarities of the
Pentateuch are not quite as striking as the differences in
language between Lucretius and Virgil: the parallel which
has been suggested by Gesenius. Virgil seems to have
been about 14 years of age when Lucretius’s great poem
was published.
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
(1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58)—yrespecting the
manner of Saul’s death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13 ;
2 Sam. i. 2-12)—do not necessarily show that a
very long time (say even a century) elapsed between
the actual events and the record of the traditions.
In an age anterior to the existence of newspapers or
the invention of printing, and when probably few
could read, thirty or forty years, or even less, have
been sufficient for the growth of different traditions
respecting the same historical fact. Lastly, internal
evidence of language lends no assistance for discri-
mination in the period of 353 years within which
the book may have been written; for the undis-
puted Hebrew writings belonging to that period
are comparatively few, and not one of them is a
history, which would present the best points of
comparison. They embrace scarcely more than the
writings of Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum,
and a certain portion of the writings under the
title “ Isaiah.’ The whole of these writings to-
gether can scarcely be estimated as occupying more
than sixty pages of our Hebrew Bibles, and what-
ever may be their peculiarities of language or style,
they do not afford materials for a safe inference as
to which of their authors was likely to have been
contemporary with the author of the Book of Sa-
muel, All that can be asserted as undeniable is,
that the book, as a whole, can scarcely have been
composed later than the reformation of Josiah, and
that it could not have existed in its present form
earlier than the reion of Rehoboam.
It is to be added that no great weight, in opposition
to this conclusion, is due to the fact that the death
of David, although in one passage evidently implied
(2 Sam. v. 5), is not directly recorded in the Book
of Samuel. From this fact Hiivernick (Hinleitung
im das Alte Testament, part ii., p. 145) deems it
a certain inference that the author lived not long
after the death of David. But this is a very slight
foundation for such an inference, since we know
nothing of the author’s name, or of the circum-
stances under which he wrote, or of his precise
ideas respecting what is required of an historian.
We cannot, therefore, assert, from the knowledge of
the character of his mind, that his deeming it logi-
cally requisite to make a formal statement of David’s
death would have depended on his living a short
time οἱ a long time atter that event. Besides, it is
very possible that he did formally record it, an
that the mention of it was subsequently omitted on
account of the more minute details by which the
account of David’s death is preceded in the First
Book of Kings. There would have been nothing
wrong in,such an omission, nor indeed, in any addi-
tion to the Book of Samuel; for, as those who
finally inserted it in the Canon did not transmit: it
to posterity with the name of any particular author,
their honesty was involved, not in the mere circum-
stance of their omitting or adding anything, but
solely in the fact of their adding nothing which they
believed to be false, and of omitting nothing of im-
portance which they believed to be true.
In this absolute ignorance of the author’s name,
and vague knowledge of the date of the work,
there has been a controversy whether the Book of
Samuel is or is not a compilation from pre-existing
documents ; and if this is decided in the affirmative,
to what extent the work is a compilation. It is
not intended to enter fully here into this contro-
versy, respecting which the reader is referred to Dr.
Davidson’s Introduction to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, London, Long-
man, 1856, in which this subject is dispassionately
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 1129
and fairly treated. One observation, however, of
some practical importance, is to be borne in mind.
It does not admit of much reasonable doubt that in
the Book of Samuel there are two different accounts
(already alluded to) respecting Saul’s first acquaint-
ance with David, and the circumstances of Saul’s
death—and that yet the editor or author of the
Book did not let his mind work upon these two
different accounts so far as to make him interpose
his own opinion as to which of the conflicting
accounts was correct, or even to point out to the
reader that the two accounts were apparently con-
tradictory. Hence, in a certain sense, and to a
certain extent, the author must be regarded as a
compiler, and not an original historian, And in
reference to the two accounts of Saul’s death, this
is not the less true, even if the second account be
deemed reconcileable with the first by the supposi-
tion that the Amalekite had fabricated the story of
his having killed Saul (2 Sam. 1, 6-10). Although
possibly true, this is an unlikely supposition, be-
cause, as the Amalekite’s object in a lie would have
been to eurry favour with David, it would have
been natural for him to have forged some story
which would have redounded more to his own credit
than the clumsy and improbable statement that he,
a mere casual spectator, had killed Saul at Saul’s
own request. But whether the Amalekite said
what was true or what was false, an historian, as
distinguished from a compiler, could scarcely have
failed to convey his own opinion on the point,
affecting, as on one alternative it did materially,
the truth of the narrative which he had just before
recorded respecting the circumstances under which
Saul’s death occurred. And if compilation is ad-
mitted in regard to the two events just mentioned,
or to one of them, there is no antecedent improba-
bility that the same may have been the case in
other instances ; such, for example, as the two expla-
nations of the proverb, ‘‘Is Saul also among the
Prophets?” (1 Sam, x. 9-12, xix. 22-24), or the
two accounts of David’s having forborne to take
Saul’s life, at the very time when he was a fugitive
from Saul, and his own life was in danger from
Saul’s enmity (1 Sam. xxiv. 3-15, xxvi. 7-12).
The same remark applies to what seem to be sum-
maries or endings of narratives by different writers,
such as 1 Sam. vii. 15-17, 1 Sam. xiv. 47-52, com-
pared with chapter xv.; 2 Sam. viii. 15-18. In
these cases, if each passage were absolutely isolated,
and occurred in a work which contained no other
instance of compilation, the inference to be drawn
might be uncertain. But when even one instance
of compilation has been clearly established in a
work, all other seeming instances must be viewed
in its light, and it would be unreasonable to contest
each of them singly, on principles which imply that
compilation is as unlikely as it would be in a work
of modern history. It is to be added, that as the
author and the precise date of the Book of Samuel
are unknown, its historical value is not impaired
by its being deemed to a certain extent a compila-
tion. Indeed, from one point of view, its value is
in this way somewhat enhanced ; as the probability
is increased of its containing documents of an early
date, some of which may have been written by
persons contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the
events described.
Sources of the Book of Samuel.—Assuming that
the book is a compilation, it is a subject of rational
inquiry to ascertain the materials trom which it
was composed. But our information on this head
is scanty. The only work actually quoted in this
1130 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
book is the Book of Jasher; ὁ, 6. the Book of the
Upright. Notwithstanding the great learning which
has been brought to bear on this title by numerous
commentators [vol. i. p. 932], the meaning of the
title must be regarded as absolutely unknown, and
the character of the bool: itself as uncertain. The
best conjecture hitherto offered as an induction from
facts is, that it was a Book of Poems; but the facts
are too few to establish this as a positive general
conclusion. It is only quoted twice in the whole
Bible, once as a work containing David’s Lamenta-
tion over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 18), and
secondly, as an authority for the statement that
the sun and moon stood still at the command of
Joshua (Josh. x. 13). There can be no doubt that
the Lamentation of David is a poem ; and it is most
probable that the other passage referred to as written
in the Book of Jasher includes four lines of Hebrew
poetry, though the poetical diction and rhythm of
the original are somewhat impaired in a translation.
But the only sound deduction from these facts is, that
the Book of Jasher contained some poems. What else
it may have contained we cannot say, even negatively.
Without reference, however, to the Book of Jasher,
the Book of Samuel contains several poetical com-
positions, on each of which a few observations may
be offered ; commencing with the poetry of David.
(1.) David’s Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan,
called “The Bow.’ This extremely beautiful com-
position, which seems to have been preserved through
David’s having caused it to be taught to the chil-
dren of Judah (2 Sam. i. 18), is universally admitted
to be the genuine production of David. In this
respect, it has an advantage over the Psalms; as,
owing to the unfortunate inaccuracy of some of the
inscriptions, no one of the Psalms attributed to
David has wholly escaped challenge. One point in
the Lamentation especially merits attention, that,
contrary to what a later poet would have ventured
to represent, David, in the generosity and tenderness
of his nature, sounds the praises of Saul.
(2.) David’s Lamentation on the death of Abner
(2 Sam. iii. 33, 34). There is no reason to doubt
the genuineness of this short poetical ejaculation.
(3.) 2 Sam. xxii. A Song of David, which is in-
troduced with the inscription that David spoke the
words of the song to Jehovah, in the day that Je-
hovah had delivered him out of the hand of all his
enemies and out of the hand of Saul. This song,
with a few unimportant verbal differences, is merely
the xviiith Psalm, which bears substantially the
same inscription. For poetical beauty, the song is
well worthy to be the production of David. The
following difficulties, however, are connected with it.
(a.) The date of the composition is assigned to
the day when David had been delivered not only out
of the hand of all his enemies, but likewise ‘* out of
the hand of Saul.’”” Now David reigned forty years
after Saul’s death (2 Sam. v. 4, 5), and it was as
king that he achieved the successive conquests to
which allusion is made in the Psalm. Moreover,
the Psalm is evidently introduced as composed at a
late period of his life; and it immediately precedes
the twenty-third chapter, which commences with
the passage, ‘* Now these be the last words of David.”
It sounds strange, therefore, that the name of Saul
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
should be introduced, whose hostility, so far distant
in time, had been condoned, as it were, by David in
his noble Lamentation.
(b.) In the closing verse (2 Sam. xxii. 51), Je-
hovah is spoken of as showing “mercy to His
anointed, unto David and his seed for evermore.’
These words would be more naturally written of
David than by David. They may, however, be a
later addition; as it may be observed that at the
present day, notwithstanding the safeguard of print-
ing, the poetical writings of living authors, are
occasionally altered, and it must be added disfigured,
in printed hymn-books. Still, as far as they go,
the words tend to raise a doubt whether the Psalm
was written by David, as it cannot be proved that,
they are an addition.
(c.) In some passages of the Psalm, the strongest
assertions are made of the poet’s uprightness and
purity. He says of himself, “ According to the
cleanness of my hands hath He recompensed me.
For I have kept the ways of Jehovah, and have not
wickedly departed from my God. For all His judg-
ments were before me: and as for His statutes, I
did not depart from them. I was also upright before
Him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity”
(xxii. 21-24). Now it is a subject of reasonable
surprise that, at any period after the painful incidents
of his life in the matter of Uriah, David should
have used this language concerning himself. Ad-
mitting fully that, in consequence of his sincere
and bitter contrition, ‘‘the princely heart of inno-
cence” may have been freely bestowed upon him,
it is difficult to understand how this should have
influenced him so far in his assertions respecting
his own uprightness in past times, as to make him
forget. that he had once been betrayed by his passions
into adultery and murder. ‘These assertions, if
made by David himself, would form a striking con-
trast to the tender humility and self-mistrust in
connexion with the same subject by a great living
genius of spotless character. (See ‘Christian Year,’
6th Sunday after Trinity—ad finem.)
(4.) A song, called ‘last words of David,’ 2
Sam. xxiii. 2-7. According to the Inscription, it
was composed by ““ David the son of Jesse, the man
who was raised up on high, the anointed of the
God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel.”
Jt is suggested by Bleek, and is in itself very pro-
bable, that both the Psalm and the Inscription were
taken from some collection of Songs or Psalms.
There is not sufficient reason to deny that this song
is correctly ascribed to David.
(5.) One other song remains, which is perhaps
the most perplexing in the Book of Samuel. This
is the Song of Hannah, a wife of Elkanah (1 Sam.
ii. 1-10). One difficulty arises from an allusion in
verse 10 to the existence of a king under Jehovah,
many years before the kingly power was established
among the Israelites, Another equally great difti-
culty arises from the internal character of the song.
it purports to be written by one of two wives as a
song of thanksgiving for having borne a child, after
a lony period of barrenness, which had caused her
to be looked down upon by the other wife of her
husband. But, deducting a general allusion, in
verse 5, to the barren having borne seven, there is
© Any Hebrew scholar who will write out the original
four lines commencing with “Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon!” may satisfy himself that they belong to a poem.
The last line, “ Until the people had avenged themselves
upon their enemies,” which in the A. V. is somewhat
heavy, is almost unmistakeably a line of poetry in the
original. Ina narrative respecting the Israelites in prose
they would not have been described as ΝῊ (gt), without
even an article. Moreover, there is no other instance in
which the simple accusative of the person on whom ven-
geance is taken is used after D3 (nakam). In simple
prose 12) (min) intervenes, and, like the article, it may
have been here omitted for conciseness.
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
nothing in the song pecutiarly applicable to the
supposed circumstances, and by far the greater
portion of it seems to be a song of triumph for deli-
verance from powerful enemies in battle (vers. 1,
4,10). Indeed, Thenius does not hesitate to con-
jecture that it was written by David after he had
slain Goliath, and the Philistines had been defeated
in a great battle (Lxegetisches Handbuch, p. 8).
There is no histerical warrant for this supposition ;
but the song is certainly more appropriate to the
victory of David over Goliath, than to Hannah’s
having given birth to a child under the circum-
stances detailed in the first chapter of Samuel. It
would, however, be equally appropriate to some
other great battles of the Israelites.
In advancing a single step beyond the songs of
the Book of Samuel, we enter into the region of
conjecture as to the materials which were at the
command of the author; and in points which arise
for consideration, we must be satisfied with a sus-
pense of judgment, or a slight balance of probabi-
lities. For example, it being plain that in some
instances there are two accounts of the same trans-
action, it is desirable to form an opinion whether
these were founded on distinct written documents,
or on distinct oral traditions. This point is open
to dispute; but the theory of written documents |
seems preferable; as in the alternative of mere
oral traditions it would have been supereminently
unnatural even for a compiler to record them
without stating in his own person that there were
different traditions respecting the same event.
Again, the truthful simplicity and extraordinary
vividness of some portions of the Book of Samuel |
naturally suggest the idea that they were founded
on contemporary documents or a peculiarly trust-
worthy tradition. This applies specially to the
account of the combat between David and Goliath,
which has been the delight of successive genera-
tions, which charms equally in different ways the
old and the young, the learned and the illiterate,
and which tempts us to deem it certain that the |
account must have proceeded from an eye-witness. |
On the other hand, it is to be remembered that |
vividness of description often depends more on the
discerning faculties of the narrator than on mere |
bodily presence. ‘‘It is the mind that sees,” so |
that 200 years after the meeting of the Long Par-
liament a powerful imaginative writer shall pour-
tray Cromwell more vividly than Ludlow, a con- |
temporary who knew him and conversed with him. |
Moreover, Livy has described events of early Roman |
History which educated men regard in their details |
as imaginary ; and Defoe, Swift, and the authors of |
The Arabian Nights have described events which all |
men admit to be imaginary, with such seemingly |
authentic details, with such a-charm of reality, |
movement, and spirit, that it is sometimes only by |
a strong effort of reason that we escape from the
illusion that the narratives are true. In the absence,
therefore, of any external evidence on this point, it is
safer to suspend our judgment as to whether any por- |
tion of the Book of Samuel is founded on the writing |
of a contemporary, or on a tradition entitled to any |
peculiar credit. Perhaps the two conjectures re- |
specting the composition of the Book of Samuel
which are most entitled to consideration are—1st. |
That the list which it contains of officers or public
functionaries under David is the result of contem-
porary registration; and 2ndly. That the Book
᾿ mitted to us.
| the Chronicles and the Book of Samuel
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 1131
of Samuel was the compilation of some one con-
nected with the schools of the prophets, or pene-
trated by their spirit. On the first point, the
reader is referred to such passages as 2 Sam. viii.
16-18, and xx, 23-26, in regard to which one fact
may be mentioned. It has already been stated
[ KING, p. 42] that under the Kings there existed
an officer called Recorder, Remembrancer, or Chro-
nicler ; in Hebrew, mazkir. Now it can scarcely
be a mere accidental coincidence that such an officer
is mentioned for the first time in David’s reign,
and that it is precisely for David’s reign that a list
of public functionaries is for the first time tians-
On the second point, it cannot but be
observed what prominence is given to prophets in
the history, as compared with priests and Levites.
This prominence is so decided, that it undoubtedly
contributed towards the formation of the uncritical
opinion that the Book of Samuel was the produc-
tion of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad.
This opinion is unsupported by external evidence,
and is contrary to internal evidence; but it is by
no means improbable that some writers among the
sons of the prophets recorded the actions of those
prophets. This would be peculiarly probable in
reference to Nathan’s rebuke of David after the
murder of Uriah. Nathan here presents the image
of a prophet in its noblest and most attractive torm.
Boldness, tenderness, inventiveness, and tact, were
combined in such admirable proportions, that a
prophet’s functions, if always discharged in a similar
manner with equal discretion, would have been
acknowledged by all to be purely beneficent. In
his interposition there is a kind of ideal moral
beauty. In the schools of the prophets he doubt-
less held the place which St. Ambrose afterwards
held in ‘the minds of priests for the exclusion of the
Emperor Theodosius from the church at Milan after
the massacre at Thessalonica. It may be added,
that the following circumstances are in accordance
with the supposition that the compiler of the Book
of Samuel was connected with the schools of the
| prophets. The designation of Jehovah as the “ Lord
ot Hosts,” er God of Hosts, does not occur in the
Pentateuch, or in Joshua, or in Judges; but it
occurs in the Book of Samuel thirteen times. In
the Book of Kings it occurs only seven times ; and
in the Book of Chronicles, as far as this is an ori-
ginal or independent work, it cannot be said to
occur at all, for although it is found in three
passages, all of these are evidently copied from the
Book of Samuel. (See 1 Chr. xi. 9—in the original,
precisely the same words as in 2 Sam. v. 10; and
see 1 Chr. xvii. 7, 24, copied from 2 Sam. vii. 8, 26.)
Now this phrase, though occurring so rarely else-
where in prose, that it occurs nearly twice as often
in the Book of Samuel as in alk the other historical
writings of the Old Testament put together, is a
very favourite phrase in some of the great pro-
phetical writings. In Isaiah it occurs sixty-two times
| (six times only in the chapters xl.—Ixvi.), and in Je-
remiah sixty-five times at least. Again, the predo-
minance of the idea of the prophetical office in
Samuel is shown by the very subordinate place
assigned in it to the Levites. The difference between
in this
respect is even more striking than their difference
in the use of the expression “ Lord of Hosts;’’£
though in a reverse proportion. In the whole Book
of Samuel the Levites are mentioned only twice
f It is worthy of note that the prophet Ezekiel never
uses the expression “ Lord of Hosts.” On the other hand, |
there is no mention of the Levites in the undisputed
writings of Isaiah.
1132 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
(1 Sam. vi. 15; 2 Sam. xv. 24), while in Chro-
nicles they are mentioned above thirty times in the
First Book alone, which contains the history of
David’s reign.
Jn conclusion, it may be observed that it is very
instructive to direct the attention to the passages in
Samuel and the Chronicles which treat of the same
events, and, generally, to the manner in which the
life of David is treated in the two histories. A
comparison of the two works tends to throw light
on the state of the Hebrew mind at the time when
the Book of Samuel was written, compared with the
ideas prevalent among the Jews some hundred years
later, at the time of the compilation of the Chro-
nicles. Some passages correspond almost precisely
word for word ; others agree, with slight but signi-
ficant alterations. In some cases there are striking
omissions; in others there are no less remarkable
additions. Without attempting to exhaust the sub-
ject, some of the differences between the two histories
will be now briefly pointed out ; though at the same
time it is to be borne in mind that, in drawing in-
ferences from them, it would be useful to review
likewise all the differences between the Chronicles
and the Book of Kings,
1. In 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, it is stated that the men
of Jabesh Gilead took the body of Saul and the
bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and
came to Jabesh and burnt them there. The com-
piler of the Chronicles omits mention of the burning
of their bodies, and, as it would seem, designedly ;
for he says that the valiant men of Jabesh Gilead
buried the bones of Saul and his sons under the oak
in Jabesh ; whereas if there had been no burning,
the natural expression would have been to have
spoken of burying their bodies, instead of their
bones. Perhaps the chronicler objected so strongly
to the burning of bodies that he purposely refrained
from recording such a fact respecting the bodies of
Saul and his sons, even under the peculiar circum-
stances connected with that incident.
2. In the Chronicles it is assigned as one of the
causes of Saul’s defeat that he had asked counsel of
one that had a familiar spirit, and “had not en-
quired of Jehovah” (1 Chr. x. 13, 14); whereas in
Samuel it is expressly stated (i Sam. xxviii. 6) that
Saul Aad inquired of Jehovah before he consulted the
witch of Endor, but that Jehovah had not answered
him either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets.
3. The Chronicles make no mention of the civil
war between David and Ishbosheth the son of Saul,
nor of Abner’s changing sides, nor his assassination
by Joab, nor of the assassination of Ishbosheth by
Rechab and Baanah (2 Sam. ii. 8-32, iii., iv.).
4, David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the ex-
posure of Uriah to certain death by David’s orders,
the solemn rebuke of Nathan, and the penitence of
David, are all passed over in absolute silence in the
Chronicles (2 Sam. xi., xii. 1-25).
5. In the account given in Samuel (2 Sam. vi.
2-11) of David’s removing the Ark from Kirjath-
jearim, no special mention is made of the priests or
Levites. David’s companions are said, generally,
to have been ‘all the people that were with him,”
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
and “all the house of Israel” are said to have
played before Jehovah on the occasion with all
manner of musical instruments. In the correspond-
ing passage of the Chronicles (1 Chr. xiii. 1-14)
David is represented as having publicly proposed to
send an invitation to the priests and Levites in
their cities and “‘ suburbs,” and this is said to have
been assented to by all the congregation. Again,
in the preparations which are made for the reception
of the Ark of the Covenant at Jerusalem, nothing
is said of the Levites in Samuel; whereas in the
Chronicles David is introduced as saying that none
ought to carry the Ark of God but the Levites ; the
special numbers of the Levites and of the children
of Aaron are there given ; and names of Levites are
specified as having been appointed singers and players
on musical instruments in connexion with the Ark
(1 Chr. xv., xvi. 1-6).
6. The incident of David’s dancing in public with
all his might before Jehovah, when the Ark was
brought into Jerusalem, the censorious remarks of
his wife Michal on David’s conduct, David’s answer,
and Michal’s punishment, are fully set forth in
Samuel (2 Sam. vi. 14-235); but the whole subject
is noticed in one verse only in Chronicles (1 Chr.
xv. 29). On the other hand, no mention is made
in Samuel of David’s having composed a Psalm on
this great event ; whereas in Chronicles a Psalm is
set forth which David is represented as having deli-
vered into the hand of Asaph and his brethren on
that day (1 Chr. xvi. 7-36). Of this Psalm the
first fifteen verses are almost precisely the same as
in Ps. ev. 1-15. The next eleven verses are the
same as in Ps. xevi. 1-11; and the next three con-
cluding verses are in Ps. evi. 1, 47,48. The last
verse but one of this Psalm (1 Chr. xvi. 35) appears
to have been written at the time of the Captivity.
7. It is stated in Samuel that David in his con-
quest of Moab put to death two-thirds either of the
inhabitants or of the Moabitish army (2 Sam.
viii 2). This fact is omitted in Chronicles (1 Chr.
xviii. 2), though the words used therein in men=
tioning the conquest are so nearly identical with the
beginning and the end of the passage in Samuel,
that in the A. V. there is no difference in the
translation of the two texts, ‘‘ And he smote Moab ;
and the Moabites became David’s servants, and
brought gifts.”
8. In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, it is stated that ‘there was
a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan
the son of Jaare-orecim, a Bethlehemite (in the ori-
ginal Beit hal-lachmi), slew Geliath the Gittite, the
staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” In
the parallel passage in the Chronicles (1 Chr. xx.
5) it is stated that ““ Elhanan the son of Jair slew
Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.”’ Thus
Lachmi, which inthe former case is merely part of
an adjective describing Elhanan’s place of nativity,
seems in the Chronicles to be the substantive name
of the man whom Elhanan slew, and is so translated
in the LXX. [ELHANAN, i. 520; LAHMI, ii. 55. ]
9, In Samuel (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) it is stated that,
the anger of Jehovah having been kindled against
Israel, He moved David against them to give orders
g Tacitus records it as a distinguishing custom of the
Jews, “corpora condere quam cremare, ex more Aegyptio”
(ist. v. 5). And it is certain that, in later times, they
buried dead bodies, and did not burn them; though, not-
withstanding the instance in Gen. 1. 2, they did not,
strictly speaking, embalm them, like the Ngyptians.
And though it may be suspected, it cannot be proved,
that they ever burned their dead in early times, The
passage in Am. vi. 10 is ambiguous. It may merely refer
to the burning of bodies, as a sanitary precaution in a
plague; but it is not undoubted that burning is alluded
to. See Fiirst, s. v. 7D. The burning for Asa (2 Chr.
Xvi. 14) is different from the burning of his body. Compare
Jer. xxxiv. δ; 2 Chr. xxi. 19, 20; Joseph. Ant. xv. 3, §4,
De Bell. Jud. i. 33, §9.
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
for taking a census of the population. In the
Chronicles*(1 Chr. xxi. 1) it is mentioned that
David was provoked to take a census of the popu-
lation by Satan. This last is the first and the only
instance in which the name of Satan is introduced
into any historical book of the Old Testament. In
the Pentateuch Jehovah Himself is represented as
hardening Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. vii. 15), as in this
passage of Samuel He is said to have incited David to
give orders for a census,
10. In the incidents connected with the three
days’ pestilence upon Israel on account of the census,
some facts of a very remarkable character are nar-
rated in the Chronicles, which are not mentioned in
the earlier history. Thus in Chronicles it is stated
of the Angel of Jehovah, that he stood between the
earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his
hand stretched over Jerusalem; that afterwards
Jehovah commanded the angel, and that the angel
put up again his sword into its sheath» (1 Chr.
xxi. 15-27). It is further stated (ver. 20) that
Ornan and his four sons hid themselves when they
saw the angel ; and that when David (ver. 26) had
built an altar to Jehovah, and offered burnt-offer-
ings to Him, Jehovah answered him from heaven by
fire upon the altar of burnt-offering. Regarding all
these circumstances there is absolute silence in the
corresponding chapter of Samuel.
11. The Chronicles make no mention of the hor-
rible fact mentioned in the Book of Samuel (2 Sam.
xxi, 3-9) that David permitted the Gibeonites to
sacrifice seven sons of Saul to Jehovah, as an atone-
ment for the injuries which the Gibeonites had
formerly received from Saul. This barbarous act
of superstition, which is not said to have been com-
manded by Jehovah (ver. 1) is one of the most
painful incidents in the life of David, and can
scarcely be explained otherwise than by the supposi-
tion either that David seized this opportunity to
rid himself of seven possible rival claimants to the |
throne, or that he was, for a while at least, infected |
by the baneful example of the Phoenicians, who en- |
deavoured to avert the supposed wrath of their gods
by human sacrifices [PHOENICIA]. It was, per-
haps, wholly foreign to the ideas of the Jews at the |
time when the Book of Chronicles was compiled.
It only remains to add, that in the numerous
‘instances wherein there is a close verbal agreement
between passages in Samuel and in the Chronicles,
the sound conclusion seems to be that the Chro-
nicles were copied from Samuel, and not that both
were copied from a common original. In a matter
of this kind, we must proceed upon recognised
principles of criticism. If a writer of the 3rd or
4th century narrated events of Roman history almost
precisely in the words of Livy, no critic would he-
sitate to say that all such narratives were copied
from Livy. [Ὁ would be regarded as a very impro-
bable hypothesis that they were copied from docu-
ments to which Livy and the later historian had
equal access, especially when no proof whatever was
adduced that any such original documents were in
existence at the time of the later historian. The
same principle applies to the relation in which the
Chronicles stand to the Book of Samuel. ‘There is
not a particle of proof that the original documents,
or any one of them, on which the Book of Samuel
was founded were in existence at the time when the
SANBALLAT 1133
Chronicles were compiled; and in the absence of
such proof, it must be taken for granted that, where
there is a close verbal correspondence between the
two works, the compiler of the Chronicles copied
passages, more or less closely, from the Book of
Samuel. At the same time it would be unreason-
able to deny, and it would be impossible to dis-
prove, that the compiler, in addition to the Book of
Samtiel, made use of other historical documents
which are no longer in existence.
Literature.—The following list of Commentaries
is given by De Wette:—Serrarii, Seb. Schmidii,
Jo. Clerici, Maur. Commentt.; Jo. Drusii, An-
notatt. in Locos diffic. Jos., Jud., et Sam. 3; Vic-
torini, Strigelii, Comm. in Libr. Sam., Reg., et Pa-
ralipp., Lips. 1591, fol.; Casp. Sanctii, Comm. in
IV. Lib. Reg. et Paralipp., 1624, fol.; Hensler,
Erlaiterungen des T. B. Sam. τι. α΄. Salom. Denk-
spriiche, Hamburg, 1795. The best modern Com-
mentary seems to be that of Thenius, Yxegetisches
Handbuch, Leipzig, 1842. In this work there is
an excellent Introduction, and an interesting de-
tailed comparison of the Hebrew text in the Bible
with the Translation of the Septuagint. There are
no Commentaries on Samuel in Rosenmiiller’s great
work, or in the Compendium of his Scholia,
The date of the composition of the Book of Samuel
and its authorship is discussed in all the ordinary
Introductions to the Old Testament—such as those
of Horne, Havernick, Keil, De Wette, which have
been frequently cited in this work. To these may
be added the following works, which have ap-
peared since the first volume of this Dictionary was
printed: Bleek’s Hinleitung in das Alte Testament,
Berlin, 1860, pp. 355-368; Stéihelin’s Specielle
Einleitung in die Kanonischen Biicher des Alten
Testaments, Elberfeld, 1862, pp. 83-105; David-
son’s Introduction to the Old Testament, London
and Edinburgh, 1862, pp. 491-536. ee ats]
SANABAS'SAR (Σαμανάσσαρος ; Alex. Sava-
Bdooupos: Salmanasarus). SHESHBAZZAR (1 Esd.
ii. 12, 155 comp. Ezr..i. 8, 11).
SANABAS'SARUS (SaBavdcoapos; Alex.
Σαναβάσσαρος : Salmanasurus). SHESHBAZZAR
(1 Esd. vi. 18, 20; comp. Nzr. v. 14, 16).
SAN'ASIB (SavaciB; Alex. ᾿Ανασείβ: Lli-
asib). The sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are
reckoned ‘among the sons of Sanasib,” as priests
who returned with Zorobabel (1 Esd. ν. 24).
SANBAL'LAT (06390: Ξαναβαλλάτ: Sana-
ballat). Of uncertain etymology; according to Gese-
nius after von Bohlen, meaning in Sanscrit “ giving
strength to the army,” but according to Fiirst “a
' chestnut tree.” A Moabite of Horonaim, as appears
by his designation ‘ Sanballat the Horonite ” (Neh.
ii. 10, 19, xiii. 28). All that we know of him
from Scripture is that he had apparently some civil
or military command in Samaria, in the service of
Artaxerxes (Neh. iv. 2), and that, from the moment
of Nehemiah’s arrival in Judaea, he set himself, to
oppose every measure for the welfare of Jerusalem,
and was a constant adversary to the Tirshatha.
His companions in this hostility were Tobiah the
Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian (Neh. ii. 19,
iv. 7). For the details of their opposition the
| reader is referred to the articles NEHEMIAH and
h The statue of the archangel Michael on the top of the
mausoleum of Hadrian at Rome is in accordance with the
same idea. Ina procession to St. Peter’s, during a pes-
tilence, Gregory the Great saw the archangel in a vision,
as he is supposed to be represented in the statue. 1 is
owing to this that the fortress subsequently had the name
of the Castle of St. Angelo. See Murray’s Handbook for
| Kome, p. 67, 6th edit. 1862.
1194 SANBALLAT
SANDAL
NEHEMIAH, Book or, and to Neh. vi., where the | but the temple on Mount Gerizim remained, and
enmity between Sanballat and the Jews is brought
out in the strongest colours. The only other inci-
dent in his life is his alliance with the high-priest’s
family by the marriage of his daughter with one
of the grandsons of Eliashib, which, from the
similar connexion formed by Tobiah the Ammonite
(Neh. xiii. 4), appears to have been part of a
settled policy concerted between Eliashib and the
Samaritan faction. The expulsion from the priest-
hood of the guilty son of Joiada by Nehemiah
must have still further widened the breach between
him and Sanballat, and between the two parties in
the Jewish state. Here, however, the Scriptural
narrative ends —owing, probably, to Nehemiah’s
return to Persia—-and with it likewise our know-
ledge of Sanballat. ᾿
But on turning to the pages of Josephus a
wholly new set of actions, in a totally different
time, is brought before us in connexion with San-
ballat, while his name is entirely omitted in the
account there given of the government of Nehe-
miah, which is placed in the reign of Xerxes,
Josephus, after interposing the whole reign of
Artaxerxes Longimanus between the death of Nehe-
miah and the transactions in which Sanballat took
part, and utterly ignoring the very existence of Darius
Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, &c., jumps
at once to the reign of ‘‘ Darius the last king,”
and tells us (Ant. xi. 7, §2) that Sanballat was his
officer in Samaria, that he was a Cuthean, 7. @ a
Samaritan, by birth, and that he gave his daughter
Nicaso in marriage to Manasseh, the brother of the
high-priest Jaddua, and consequently the fourth in
descent from Eliashib, who was high-priest in the
time of Nehemiah. He then relates that on the
threat of his brother Jaddua and the other Jews to
expel him from the priesthood unless he divorced
his wife, Manasseh stated the case to Sanballat,
who thereupon promised to use his influence with
king Darius, not only to give him Sanballat’s
government, but to sanction the building of a rival
temple on Mount Gerizim of which Manasseh
should be the high-priest. Manasseh on this agreed
to retain his wife and join Sanballat’s faction,
which was further strengthened by the accession
of all those priests and Levités (and they were
many) who had taken strange wives. But just
at this time happened the invasion of Alexander
the Great ; and Sanballat, with 7000 men, joined
him, and renounced his allegiance to Darius (Ant.
xi. 8, §4). Being favourably received by the con-
queror, he took the opportunity of speaking to him
in behalf of Manasseh. ° He represented to him how
much it was for his interest to divide the strength
of the Jewish nation, and how many there were who
wished for a temple in Samaria; and so obtained
Alexander’s permission to build the temple on
Mount Gerizim, and make Manasseh the heredi-
tary high-priest. Shortly after this, Sanballat died ;
the Shechemites, as they were called} continued
also as a permanent schism, which was continually
fed by all the lawless and disaffected Jews, Such
is Josephus’s account. If there is any truth in it,
of course the Sanballat of whom he speaks is a
different person from the Sanballat of Nehemiah,
who flourished fully one hundred years earlier ;
but when we put together Josephus’s silence con-
cerning a Sanballat in Nehemiah’s time, and the
many coincidences in the lives of the Sanballat of
Nehemiah and that of Josephus, together with the
inconsistencies in Josephus’s narrative (pointed out
by Prideaux, Connect. i. 466, 288, 290), and
its disagreement with what Eusebius tells of the
relations of Alexander with Samaria® (Chron. Can.
lib. post. p. 346), and remember how apt Jose-
phus is to follow any narrative, no matter how
anachronistic and inconsistent with Scripture, we
shall have no difficulty in concluding that his ac-
count of Sanballat is not historical. It is doubt-
less taken from some apocryphal romance, now
lost, in which the writer, living under the em-
pire of the Greeks, and at a time when the
enmity of the Jews and Samaritans was at its
height,b chose the downfall of the Persian empire
for the epoch, and Sanballat for the ideal instru-
ment, of the consolidation of the Samaritan Church
and the erection of the temple on Gerizim. To
borrow events from some Scripture narrative and
introduce some Scriptural personage, without any
regard to chronology or other propriety, was
the regular method of such apocryphal books.
See 1 Esdras, apocryphal Esther, apocryphal addi-
tions to the Book of Daniel, and the articles on
them, and the story inserted by the LXX. after
2 K. xii. 24, &c., with the observations on it at
p- 91 of this volume. To receive as_ historical
Josephus’s narrative of the building of the Sa-
maritan temple by Sanballat, circumstantial as it
is in its account of Manasseh’s relationship to
Jaddua, and Sanballat’s intercourse with both
Darius Codomanus and Alexander the Great, and
yet to transplant it, as Prideaux does, to the
time of Darius Nothus (B.C. 409), seems scarcely
compatible with sound criticism. For a further
discussion of this subject, see the article NEHE-
MIAH, Book or, p. 4913; Prideaux, Connect. i.
395-6; Geneal. of our Lord, p. 323, &c.; Mill’s
Vindic. of our Lord’s Geneal. p. 1653; Hales’s
Analys. ii. 534. [A. C. H.]
SANDAL ὦν): ὑπόδημα, σανδάλιον). The
sandal appears to have been the article ordinarily
used by the Hebrews for protecting the feet. It
consisted simply of a sole attached to the foot by
thongs. The Hebrew term na’al¢ implies such an
article, its proper sense being that of confining or
shutting in the foot with thongs: we have also
express notice of the thong 4 αὐν; iuas’s; AY Vie
a He says that Alexander appointed Andromachus
governor of Judea and the neighbouring districts; that
the Samaritans murdered him; and that Alexander on
his return took Samaria in revenge, and settled a colony
of Macedonians in it, and the inhabitants of Samaria
retired to Sichem.
» Such a time, 6. g., as when the Book of Ecclesiasticis
was written, in which we read (ch. 1. 25, 26), “ There be
two manner of nations which mine heart abhorreth, and
the third is no nation: they that sit upon the mountain
of Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines,
and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem.”
¢ In the A. V. this term is invariably rendered “shoes.”
There is, however, little reason to think that the Jews
really wore shoes, and the expressions which Carpzoy
(Apparat. pp. 781, 782) quotes to prove that they did—
(viz. “put the blood of war in his shoes,” 1 K. ii. 5; “make
men go over in shoes,’’ Is. xi. 15), are equally adapted to
the sanda!—the first signifying that the blood was sprinkled
on the thong of the sandal, the second that men should
cross the river on foot instead of in boats. The shoes
found in Egypt probably belonged to Greeks (Wilkinson,
ii. 333). .
4 The terms applied to the removal of the shoe α ὅπ,
a Ὁ ΘΣΎ» ΨΌ., 06
SANDAL
“ shoe-latchet ”) in several passages (Gen. xiv. 23;
Is. v. 27; Mark i. 7). The Greek term ὑπόδημα
properly applies to the sandal exclusively, as it
means what is bound wnder the foot; but no stress
can be laid on the use of the term by the Alexan-
drine writers, as it was applied to any covering of
the foot, even to the military caliga of the Romans
(Joseph. B. J. vi. 1, 88). A similar observation
applies to σανδάλιον, which is used ina general,
and not in its strictly classical sense, and was adopted
in a Hebraized_ rm by the Talmudists. We have
no description of the sandal in the Bible itself, but
the deficiency can be supplied from collateral sources.
Thus we learn from the Talmudists that the ma-
terials employed in the construction of the sole
were either leather, felt, cloth, or wood (Mishn.
Jebam. 12, §1, 2), and that it was occasionally
shod with iron (Sabb. 6. §2). In Egypt various
fibrous substances, such as palm leaves and papyrus
stalks, were used in addition to eather (Herod. ii.
37; Wilkinson, ii. 332, 333), while in Assyria,
wood or leather was employed (Layard, Nin. ii.
323, 324). In Egypt the sandals were usually
turned up at the toe like our skates, though other
forms, rounded and pointed, are also exhibited. In
Assyria the heel and the side of the foot were en-
cased, and sometimes the sandal consisted of little
else than this. This does not appear to have been
Assyrian Sandals. (From Layard, ii. 234.)
the case in Palestine, for a heel-strap was essential
to a proper sandal (Jebam. 12, §1). Great atten-
tion was paid by the ladies to their sandals; they
were made of the skin of an animal, named tachash
(Ez. xvi. 10), whether a hyena or a seal (A. V.
“badger’’), is doubtful: the skins of a fish (a
species of Halicore) are used for this purpose in the
peninsula of Sinai (Robinson, Bib, Res. i. 116).
The thongs were handsomely embroidered (Cant.
vil. 1; Jud. x. 4, xvi. 9), as were those of the
Greek ladies (Dict. of Ant.s. v. “Sandalium”). San-
dals were worn by all classes of society in Palestine,
even by the very poor (Am. viii. 6), and both the san-
dal and the thong or shoe-latchet were so cheap and
common, that they passed into a proverb for the most
insignificant thing (Gen. xiv. 23; Ecclus. xlvi. 19).
They were not, however, worn at all periods ; they
were dispensed with in-doors, and were only put
on by persons about to undertake some business
away from their homes; such as a military expe-
dition (Is. v. 27; Eph. vi. 15), or a journey (Ex.
xii. 11; Josh. ix. 5, 13; Acts xii. 8): on such
occasions persons carried an extra pair, a practice
which our Lord objected to as far as the Apostles
SANDAL 1135
were concerned (Matt. x. 10 ; compare Mark vi. 9,
and the expression in Luke x. 4, ‘*do not carry,”
which harmonizes the passages). An extra pair
might in certain cases be needed, as the soles were
liable to be soon worn out (Josh, ix. 5), or the
thongs to be broken (Is. v. 27). During meal-
times the feet were undoubtedly uncovered, as im-
plied in Luke vii. 385; Jchn xiii. 5,6, and in the
exception specially made in reference to the Paschal
feast (Ex. xii. 11): the same custom must have
prevailed wherever reclining at meals was practised
(comp. Plato, Sympos. p. 213). It was a mark of
reverence to cast off the shoes in approaching a place
or person of eminent sanctity:® hence the com-
mand to Moses at the bush (Ex. iii. 5) and to
Joshua in the presence of the angel (Josh. v. 15).
In deference to these injunctions the priests are said
to have conducted their ministrations in the Temple
barefoot (Theodoret, ad Ex. iii. quaest. 7), and the
Talmudists even forbade any person to pass through
the Temple with shoes on (Mishn, Berach. 9, §5).
This reverential act was not peculiar to the Jews:
in ancient times we have instances of it in the
worship of Cybele at Rome (Prudent. Peris. 154),
in the worship of Isis as represented in a picture at
Herculaneum (Ant. d’Frcol. ii. 320), and in the
practice of the Egyptian priests, according to Sil.
Ital. iii. 28. In modern times we may compare the
‘similar practice of the Mohammedans of Palestine
before entering a mosk (Robinson’s Researches, ii.
36), and particularly before entering the Kaaba at
Mecca (Burekhardt’s Arabia, i, 270), of the Yezidis
of Mesopotamia before entering the. tomb of their
patron saint (Layard’s Win, i. 282), and of the Sa-
maritans as they tread the summit of Mount Ge-
rizim (Robinson, ii. 278). The practice of the
modern Egyptians, who take off their shoes before
stepping on to the carpeted /eewan, appears to be
dictated by a feeling of reverence rather than clean-
liness, that spot being devoted to prayer (Lane,
i. 35). It was also an indication of violent emotion,
or of mourning, if a person appeared barefoot in
public (2 Sam. xv. 30; Is. xx. 2; Ez. xxiv.
17, 23). This again was held in common with
other nations, as instanced at the funeral of Au-
gustus (Suet. Aug. 100), and on the occasion of
the solemn processions which derived their name of
Nudipedalia from this feature (Tertull, Apo/. 40).
To carry or to unloose a person’s sandal was a me-
nial office betokening great inferiority on the part
ot the person performing it; it was ‘hence selected
by John the Baptist to express his relation to the
Messiah (Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 7; John i. 27;
Acts xiii. 25). The expression in Ps. Ix. 8, eviii.
9, “over Edom will I cast out my shoe,” evidently
signifies the subjection of that country, but the
exact point of the comparison is obscure; for it may
refer either to the custom of handing the sandal te
a slave, or to that of claiming possession of a pro-
perty by planting the foot on it, or of acquiring it
by the symbolical action of casting the shoe, or
again, Edom may be regarded in the still more sub-
ordinate position of a shelf on which the sandals
were rested while their owner bathed his feet. The
use of the shoe in the transfer of property is noticed
in Ruth iv. 7, 8, and a similar significancy was
attached to the act in connexion with the repudia-
tion of a Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 9). Shoe
Deut. xxv. 10; 15. xx. 2; and now, Ruth iv. 7) imply
that the thongs were either so numerous or 80 broad as
almost to cover the top of the foot.
© It is worthy of observation that the term used for
“putting off” the shoes on these occasions is peculiar
ὦν», and conveys the notion of violence and haste.
ra
1136 SANHEDRIM
making, or rather strap-making (ἡ, 6. making the
straps for the sandals), was a recognised trade among
the Jews (Mishn. Pesach. 4, §6). [W. L. B.]
SA N'HEDRIM (accurately Sanhedrin, })7M3D;
formed from συνέδριον : the attempts of the Rab- |
bins to find a Hebrew etymology are idle ; Buxtorf, |
Lex. Chald. s. v.), called also in the Talmud the |
great Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jewish |
people in the time of Christ and earlier. In the |
Mishna it is also styled 1) NS, Beth Din, “house |
of judgment.” |
1. The origin of this assembly is traced in the |
Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) to the seventy elders
whom Moses was directed (Num. xi. 16, 17) to
associate with him in the government of the
Israelites. This body continued to exist, according |
to the Rabbinical accounts, down to the close |
of the Jewish commonwealth. Among Christian |
writers Schickhard, Isaac Casaubon, Salmasius,
Selden, and Grotius have held the same view.
Since the time of Vorstius, who took the ground
(De Synhedriis, §25-40) that the alleged identity
between the assembly of seventy elders mentioned
in Num. xi. 16, 17, and the Sanhedrim which
existed in the later period of the Jewish common-
wealth, was simply a conjecture of the Rabbins, and
that there are no traces of such a tribunal in Deut.
xvii. 8, 10, nor in the age of Joshua and the judges,
nor during the reign of the kings, it has been gener-
ally admitted that the tribunal established by Moses
was probably temporary, and did not continue to
exist after the Israelites had entered Palestine (Winer,
Realuérterb. art. “ Synedrium ”’).
In the lack of definite historical information as
to the establishment of the Sanhedrim, it can
only be said in general that the Greek etymology
of the name seems to point to a period subse-
quent to the Macedonian supremacy in Palestine.
Livy expressly states (xiv. 32), ‘ pronuntiatum
quod ad statum Macedoniae pertinebat, senatores,
quos synedros vocant, legendos esse, quorum con-
silio respublica administraretur.’ The fact that
Herod, when procurator of Galilee, was sum-
moned before the Sanhedrim (B.c. 47) on the
ground that in putting men to death he had
usurped the authority of the body (Jos. Ané. xiv.
9, §4) shows that it then possessed much power
and was not of very recent origin. If the γερου-
σία τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, in 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44, x1. 27,
designates the Sanhedrim—as it probably does—
this is the earliest historical trace of its existence.
On these grounds the opinion of Vorstius, Witsius,
Winer, Keil, and cthers, may be regarded as pro-
bable, that the Sanhedrim described in the Talmud
arose after the return of the Jews from Babylon,
and in the time of the Seleucidae or of the Hasmo-
nean princes.
In the silence of Philo, Josephus, and the Mishna
respecting the constitution of the Sanhedrim, we
are obliged to depend upon the few incidental
notices in the New Testament. Fyrem these we
gather that it consisted of ἀρχιερεῖς, chief
priests, or the heads of the twenty-four classes
into which the priests were divided (including,
probably, those who had been high-priests), mpeo-
βύτεροι, elders, men of age and experience, and
γραμματεῖς, scribes, lawyers, or those learned in
the Jewish law (Matt. xxvi. 57, 59; Mark xv. 1;
Luke xxii. 66; Acts v. 21).
2. The number of members is usually given as
seventy-one, but this is a point on which there
|
SANHEDRIM
is not a perfect agreement among the learned.
The nearly unanimous opinion of the Jews is given
in the Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6): “the great San-
hedrim consisted of seventy-one judges. How is
this proved? From Num. xi. 16, where it is
said, ‘ gather unto me seventy men of the elders of
Israel.’ To these add Moses, and we have seventy-
one. Nevertheless R. Judah says there were
seventy.” The same difference made by the addi-
tion or exclusion of Moses, appears in the works
of Christian writers, which accounts for the varia-
tion in the books between seventy and seventy-
one, Baronius, however (Ad Ann. 31, §10), and
many other Roman Catholic writers, together with
not a few Protestants, as Drusius, Grotius, Pri-
deaux, Jahn, Bretschneider, etc., hold that the true
number was seventy-two, on the ground that Eldad
and Medad, on whom it is expressly said the Spirit
rested (Num, xi. 26), remained in the camp, and
should be added to the seventy (see Hartmann,
Verbindung des A, 7. p. 1823; Selden, De Synedr.
lib. ii. cap. 4). Between these three numbers,
that given by the prevalent Jewish tradition is
certainly to be preferrel; but if, as we have
seen, there is really no evidence for the identity
of the seventy elders summoned by Moses, and
the Sanhedrim existing after the Babylonish cap-
tivity, the argument from Num. xi. 16 in respect
to the number of members of which the latter
body consisted, has no force, and we are left, as
Keil maintains (Archdologie, ii. §259), without
any certain information on the point.
The president of this body was styled SY),
Nasi, and, according to Maimonides and Lightfoot,
was chosen on account of his eminence in worth
and wisdom. Often, if not generally, this pyre-
eminence was accorded to the high-priest, That
the high-priest presided at- the condemnation of
Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 62) is plain from the narra-
tive. The vice-president, called in the Talmud
7 Ma AN, «ὁ father of the house of judgment,”
sat at the right hand of the president. Some writers
speak of a second vice-president, styled ὩΣ,
“wise,” but this is not sufliciently confirmed (see
Selden, De Synedr. p. 156, seq.). The Babylonian
Gemara states that there were two scribes, one of
whom registered the votes for ucquittal, the other
those for condemnation. In Matt. xxvi. 58;
Mark xiv. 54, &c., the lictors or attendants of
the Sanhedrim are referred to under the name of
ὑπηρέται. While in session the Sanhedrim sat in
the form of a half circle (Gem. Hieros. Const. vii.
ad Sanhedr, i.), with all which agrees the state-
ment of Maimonides (quoted by Vorstius): ‘* him
who excels all others in wisdom they appoint head
over them and head of the assembly. And he it
is whom the wise everywhere call Nast, and he is
in the place of our master Moses. Likewise him
who is the oldest among the seventy, they place
on the right hand, and him they call ‘ father of
the hotise of judgment.’ The rest of the seventy
sit before these two, according to their dignity, in
the form of a semicircle, so that the president and
vice-president may have them all in sight.”
3. The place in which the sessions of the San-
hedrim were ordinarily held was, according to the
Talmud, a: hall called mya, Gazzth (Sanhedr. x.),
supposed by Lightfoot ( Works, i. 2005) to have
been situated in the south-east corner of one of the
courts near the Temple building. In special exi=
SANSANNAH
gencies, however, it seems to have met in the
residence of the high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 3). Forty
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and con-
sequently while the Saviour was teaching in Pales-
tine, the sessions of the Sanhedrim were removed
from the hall Gazzith to a somewhat greater
distance from the temple building, although still
on Mt. Moriah (Abod. Zara i. Gem, Babyl. ad
Sunhedr. v.). After several other changes, its
seat was finally established at Tiberias (Lightfoot,
Works, ii. 365).
As a judicial body the Sanhedrim constituted a
supreme court, to which belonged in the first
instance the trial of a tribe fallen into idolatry,
false prophets, and the high-priest (Mishna, San-
hedr. i.); also the other priests (JJiddoth, v.).
As an administrative council it determined other
important matters. Jesus was arraigned before
this body as a false prophet (John xi. 47), and
Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul as teachers of
error and deceivers of the people. From Acts ix.
2 it appears that the Sanhedrim exercised a degree
of authority beyond the limits of Palestine. Ac-
cording to the Jerusalem Gemara (quoted by
Selden, lib. ii. ο. 15, 11), the power of inflicting
capital punishment was taken away from this
tribunal forty years before the destruction of Jeru-
salem. With this agrees the answer of the Jews
to Pilate (John xix. 31), “It is not lawful for us
to put any man to death.’ Beyond the arrest,
trial, and condemnation of one convicted of vio-
lating the ecclesiastical law, the jurisdiction of
the Sanhedrim at the time could not be extended ;
the confirmation and execution of the sentence in
capital cases belonged to the Roman procurator.
The stoning of Stephen (Acts vii. 56, &c.) is only
an apparent exception, for it was either a tu-
multuous procedure, or, if done by order of the
Sanhedrim, was an illegal assumption of power,
as Josephus (Ant. xx. 9, §1) expressly declares the
execution of the Apostle James during the absence
of the procurator to have been (Winer, Realwb.
art. “ Synedrium ”).
The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhedrim of
twenty-three members in every city in Palestine in
which were not less than 120 householders; but
respecting these judicial bodies Josephus is entirely
silent.
The leading work on the subject is Selden, De
Synedriis et Praefecturis Juridicis veterum Ebrae-
orum, Lond. 1650, Amst. 1679, 4to. It exhibits
immense learning, but introduces much irrelevant
matter, and is written in a heavy and unattractive
style. The monographs of Vorstius and Witsius,
contained in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxv. are able
and judicious. The same volume of Ugolini con
tains also the Jerusalem and Babylonian Gemaras,
along with the Mishna on the Sanhedrim, with
which may be compared Duo Tituli Talmudici
Sanhedrin et Maccoth, ed. Jo. Coch, Amst. 1629,
4to., and Maimonides, De Sanhedriis et Poenis,
ed. Houting. Amst. 1695, 4to. Hartmann, Die
Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen,
Hamb. 1831, 8vo,, is worthy of consultation, and
for a compressed exhibition of the subject, Winer,
Realwb. and Keil, Archaeologie. [G. ἢ. E.]
SANSAN'NAH (3920 : Σεθεννάκ ; Alex.
Σανσαννα: Sensenna). One of the towns in the
south district of Judah, named in Josh. xv. 31 only.
The towns of this district are not distributed into
small groups, like those of the highlands or the
VOL. Il.
SAPHIR 1137
Shefelah ; and as only very few of them have been
yet identified, we have nothing to guide us to the
position of Sansannah. It can hardly have had any
connexion with KIRJATH-SANNAH (Kirjath-Sepher,
or Debir), which was probably near Hebron, many
miles to the north of the most northern position
possible for Sansannah. It does not appear to be
mentioned by any explorer, ancient or modern.
Gesenius (Zves. 962) explains the name to mean
“palm branch ;” but this is contradieted by Fiirst
(Huwb. ii. 88), who derives it from a root which
signifies “‘ writing.” The two propositions are pro-
bably equally wide of the mark. ‘The conjecture
of Schwarz that it was at Simsim, on the valley of
the same name, is less feasible than usual.
The termination of the name is singular (comp.
MADMANNAH).
By comparing the list of Josh. xv. 26-32 with
those in xix. 2-7 and 1 Chr. iv. 28-33, it will be
seen that Beth-mareaboth and Hazar-susim, or
-susah, occupy in the two last the place of Mad-
mannah and Sansannah respectively in the first.
In like manner Shilhim is exchanged for Sharuhen
and Shaaraim. It is difficult to believe that these
changes can have arisen from the mistakes of copy-
ists solely, but equally difficult to assign any other
satisfactory reason, Prof. Stanley has suggested
that Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susim are tokens
of the trade in chariots and horses which arose in
Solomon’s time; but, if so, how comes it that the
new names bear so close a resemblance in form to
the old ones ? [G.]
SAPH (4D: Sép; Alex. Sepé: Saph). One
of the sons of the giant (Papa, Arapha) slain by
Sibbechai the Hushathite in the battle against the
Philistines at Gob or Gaza (2 Sam. xxi. 18). In
1 Chr. xx. 4 he is called Stppat. ‘The title of Ps.
exliii. in the Peshito Syriac is, “ΟἹ David: when
he slew Asaph (Saph) the brother of Gilyad
(Goliath), and thanksgiving tor that he had con-
quered.”
SA'PHAT (Sadr: om. in Vulg.).
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esd. v. 9; comp. Ezr. ii. 4).
SAPHATI'AS (Σαφατίας : Saphatias). SHe-
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esd. viii, 34; comp. Ezr. viii. 8).
SA'PHETH (Σαφυΐ; Alex. Sapu8i: Saphuzi).
SHEPHATIAH (1 Esd. v. 33; comp. Ezr. ii. 57).
SA'PHIR (WEY, ὁ. ὁ. Shaphir: καλῶς : pul-
chra, but in Jerome's Comment. Saphir). One of
the villages addressed by the Prophet Micah (i, 11),
but not elsewhere mentioned. By Eusebius and
Jerome (Onomast. ‘“Saphir’’) it is described as
“in the mountain district between Eleutheropolis
and Ascalon.” In this direction a village called
es-Sawafir still exists (or rather three of that name,
two with affixes), possibly the representative of
the ancient Saphir (Rob. B. R. ii. 34 note; Van
de Velde, Syr. ὁ Pal. 159). Es-Sawafir lies seven
or eight miles to the N.E. of Ascalon, and about
12 W. of Beit-Jibrin, to the right of the coast-road
from Gaza. ‘Tobler prefers a village called Saber,
close to Sawdjir, containing a copious and apparently
very ancient well (Stte Wanderung, 47). In one im-
portant respect, however, the position of neither of
these agrees with the notice of the Onomasticon,
since it is not near the mountains, but on the open
plain of. the Shefelah. But as Beit-Jibrin, the
ancient Eleutheropolis, stands on the western slopes
of the mountains of Judah, it is difficult to under-
4D
SHE-
1138 SAPPHIRA
stand how any place could be westward of it (ἡ, e.
between it and Ascalon), and yet be itself in the
mountain district, unless that expression may refer
to places which, though situated in the plain, were
for some reason considered as belonging to the
towns of the mountains. We have already seen
reason to suspect that the reverse was the case with
some others. [KEILAH; ΝΈΖΙΒ, &c. |
Schwarz, though aware of the existence of Sa-
wdfir (p. 116), suggests as a more feasible identifi-
cation the village of Safiriyeh, a couple of miles
N.W. of Lydda (136). The drawback to this is,
that the places mentioned by Micah appear, as far as
we can trace them, to be mostly near Beit-Jibrin,
and in addition, that Safiriyeh is in clear contyadic-
tion to the notice of Eusebius and Jerome. [G:]
SAPPHI'RA (Samelpn=either “ sapphire,”
from σάπφειρος, or “ beautiful,” from the Syriac
NVA). The wife of Ananias, and the participator
both in his guilt and in his punishment (Acts v.
1-10). The interval of three hours that elapsed
between the two deaths, Sapphira’s ignorance of
what had happened to her husband, and the pre-
dictive language of St. Peter towards her, are de-
cisive evidences as to the supernatural character of
the whole transaction. The history of Sapphira’s
death thus supplements that of Ananias’s, which
might otherwise have been attributed to natural
causes. fiWieelaaBel
SAPPHIRE (WD, sappir: σάπφειρος : sap-
phirus). A precious stone, apparently of a bright
blue colour, see Ex. xxiv. 10, where the God of
Israel is represented as being seen in vision by
Moses and the Elders with “a paved work of a
sappir stone, and as it were the body of heaven in
its clearness” (comp. Ez. i. 26). The sappir was
the second stone in the second row of the high-
priest’s breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 18); it was ex-
tremely precious (Job xxviii. 16); it was one of
the precious stones that ornamented the king of
Tyre (Ez. xxviii. 13), Notwithstanding the identity
of name between our sapphire and the σάπφειρος,
and sapphirus of the Greeks and Romans, it is ge-
nerally agreed that the sapphirus of the ancients
was not our gem of that name, viz., the azure or
indigo-blue, crystalline variety of Corundum, but
our Lapis-lazuli (Ultra-marine) ; this point may
be regarded as established, for Pliny (NV. H. xxxvii.
9) thus speaks of the Sapphirus, “It is refulgent
with spots of gold, of an azure colour sometimes,
but not often purple; the best kind comes from
Media; it is never transparent, and is not well
suited for engraving upon when intersected with
hard crystalline particles.” This description an-
swers exactly to the character of the Lapis-lazuli ;
the “crystalline particles” of Pliny are crystals of
iron pyrites, which often occur with this mineral.
It is, however, not so certain that the Sappir of
the Hebrew Bible is identical with the Lapis-lazuli ;
for the Scriptural requirements demand transpa-
rency, great value and good material for the en-
graver’s art, all of which combined characters the
Lapis-lazuli does not possess in any great degree.
Mr. King (Antique Gems, p. 44) says that intagli
and camei of Roman times are frequent in the
material, but rarely any works of much merit.
Again, the Sappir was certainly pellucid, ** sane apud
Judaeos,” says Braun (De Vest. Sac. p. 680, ed.
1680), “ saphiros pellucidas notas fuisse manifestis-
simum est, adeo etiam ut pellucidum illorum phi-
SARAH
losophis dicatur WD, Saphir.” Beckmann (List.
of Invent. i. 472) is of opinion that the Sappir οἱ
the Hebrews is the same as the Lapis-lazuli; Rosen-
miiller and Braun argue in favour of its being our
sapphire or precious Corundum. We are inclined
to adopt this latter opinion, but are unable to come
to any satisfactory conclusion. [W. H.}
SA'RA (Σάῤῥα: Sara). 1. Saran, the wife
of Abraham (Heb. xi. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 6).
2. The daughter of Raguel, in the apocryphal
history of Tobit. As the story goes, she had been
married to seven husbands, who were all slain on
the wedding night by Asmodeus the evil spirit, who
loved her (Tob. iii. 7). The breaking of the spell
and the chasing away of the evil spirit by the
“ fishy fume,” when Sara was married to Tobias,
are told in chap. viii.
SARABIAS (SapaBias: Sarebias). SHERE-
BIAH (1 Esd. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7).
SA'RAH (71, “princess:” Σάῤῥα: Sara:
originally my : Σάρα : Sarai). 1. The wife of
Abraham, and mother of Isaac.
Of her birth and parentage we have no certain
account in Scripture. Her name is first introduced
in Gen. xi. 29, as follows: “* Abram and Nahor
took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was
Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife was Mil-
cah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah
and the father of Iscah.” In Gen. xx. 12, Abraham
speaks of her as ‘‘ his sister, the daughter of the
same father, but not the daughter of the same
mother.” The common Jewish tradition, taken for
granted by Josephus (Ant. i. ¢. 6, §6) and by St.
Jerome (Quaest. Hebr. ad Genesin, vol. iii. p. 323,
ed. Ben. 1735), is that Sarai is the same as Iscah,
the daughter of Haran, and the sister of Lot, who
is called Abraham’s “ brother’’ in Gen. xiv. 14, 16.
Judging from the fact that Rebekah, the grand-
daughter of Nahor, was the wife of Isaac the son
of Abraham, there is reason to conjecture that
Abraham was the youngest brother, so that his
wife might not improbably be younger than the
wife of Nahor. It is certainly strange, if the tra-
dition be true, that no direct mention of it is found
in Gen. xi. 29, But it is not improbable in itself;
it supplies the account of the descent of the mother
of the chosen race, the omission of which in such a
passage is most unlikely ; and there is no other to
set against it.
The change of her name from “Sarai” to ‘‘Sa-
rah” was made at the same time that Abram’s
name was changed to Abraham, on the establish-
ment of the covenant of circumcision between him
and God. That the name ‘ Sarah”’ signifies ‘ prin-
cess” is universally acknowledged. But the mean-
ing of “Sarai” is still a subject of controversy,
The older interpreters (as, for example, St. Jerome
in Quaest. Hebr., and those who follow him) sup-
pose it to mean ‘‘ my princess;” and explain the
change from Sarai to Sarah, as signifying that she
was no longer the queen of one family, but the
royal ancestress of “all families of the earth.” They
also suppose that the addition of the letter Γῆ, as
taken from the sacred Tetragrammaton Jehovah, to
the names of Abram and Sarai, mystically signified
their being received into covenant with the Lord.
Among modern Hebraists there is great diversity of
interpretation. One opinion, keeping to the same
general derivation as that referred to above, expiains
a
SARAH
“Sarai ” as ‘* noble,” ‘‘ nobility,’’ &c., an explana-
tion which, even more than the other, labours under
the objection of giving little force to the change.
Another opinion supposes Sarai to be a contracted
form of may (Sérayah), and to signify “ Jehovah
is ruler.’ But this gives no force whatever to the
change, and besides introduces the same name Jah
into a proper name too early in the history. <A
third (following Ewald) derives it from mv, a root
which is found in Gen. xxxii. 28, Hos. xii. 4, in the
sense of “to fight,” and explains it as ‘“ conten-
tious” (streitsiichtig). This last seems to be
etymologically the most probable, and differs from
the others in giving great, force and dignity to the
change of name. (See Ges. Ties. vol. iii. p. 13380.)
Her history is, of course, that of Abraham. She
came with him from Ur to Haran, from Haran to
Canaan, and accompanied him in all the wanderings
of his life. Her only independent action is the de-
mand that Hagar and Ishmael should be cast out,
far from all rivalry with her and Isaac ; a demand,
symbolically applied in Gal, iv. 22-31, to the dis-
placement of the Old Covenant by the New. The
times, in which she plays the most important
part in the history, are the times when Abraham
was sojourning, first in Egypt, then in Gerar,
and where Sarah shared his deceit, towards Pha-
yaoh and towards Abimelech. On the first oc-
casion, about the middle of her lite, her personal
beauty is dwelt upon as its cause (Gen. xil. 11-15) ;
on the second, just before the birth of Isaac, at a
time when she was old (thirty-seven years before her
death), but when her vigour had been miracu-
lously restored, the same cause is alluded to, as
supposed by Abraham, but not actually stated
(xx. 9-11). In both cases, especially the last, the
truthfulness of the history is seen in the unfavour-
able contrast, in which the conduct both of Abra-
ham and Sarah stands to that of Pharaoh and Abime-
lech. She died at Hebron at the age of 127 years,
28 years before her husband, and was buried by him
in the cave of Machpelah. Her burial place, pur-
chased of Ephron the Hittite, was the only posses-
sion of Abraham in the land of promise; it has re-
mained, hallowed in the eyes of Jews, Christians,
and Mohammedans alike, to the present day ; and in
it the “ shrine of Sarah” is pointed out opposite to
that of Abraham, with those of Isaac and Rebekah
on the one side, and those of Jacob and Leah on the
other (See Stanley’s Lect. on Jewish Church, app.
li. pp. 484-509).
Her character, like that of Abraham, is no ideal
type of excellence, but one thoroughly natural, in-
ferior to that of her husband, and truly feminine,
both in its excellences and its defects. She is the
mother, even more than the wife. Her natural
motherly affection is seen in her touching desire
for children, even from her bondmaid, and in her
unforgiving jealousy of that bondmaid, when she
became a mother; in her rejoicing over her son
Isaac, and in the jealousy which resented the slightest
insult to him, and forbade Ishmael to share his son-
ship. It makes her cruel to others as well as tender
to her own,* and is remarkably contrasted with the
sacrifice of natural feeling on the part of Abraham
to God’s command in the last case (Gen. xxi. 12).
| serted by puzzled copyists.
SARAMEL 1139
To the same character belong her ironical laughter
at the promise of a child, long desired, but now
beyond all hope; her trembling denial of that
laughter, and her change of it to the laughter of
thankful joy, which she commemorated in the name
of Isaac. It is a character deeply and truly affec-
tionate, but impulsive, jealous, and imperious in
its affection. It is referred to in the N. T. as a
type of conjugal obedience in’1 Pet. iii. 6, and as
one of the types of faith in Heb. xi. 11. [A. B.]
2. (AW: Σάρα: Sara), SERAH the daughter
of Asher (Num. xxvi. 46).
SARA'T (WY: Σάρα: Sarai). The original
name of Sarah, the wife of Abraham. It is always
used in the history from Gen. xi. 29 to xvii. 15,
when it was changed to Sarah at the same time that
her husband’s name from Abram became Abraham,
and the birth of Isaac was more distinctly foretold.
The meaning of the name appears to be, as Ewald
has suggested, ‘‘ contentious.” [SARAH. |
SARAIT'AS (Σαραίας : om. in Vulg.).
RAIAH the high-priest (1 ἔβα, v. 5).
2. (ACapaias; Alex. Σαραίας : Azarias, Aza-
reus.) SERAIAH the father of Ezra (1 Ksd. viii. 1 ;
2 Esd. 1. 1).
SAR'AMEL (Sapapev; Alex. Sapauea ; other
MSS. ᾿Ασαραμέλ : Asaramel). The name of the
place in which the assembly of the Jews was held
at which the high-priesthood was conferred upon
Simon Maccabaeus (1 Mac. xiv. 28). The fact that
the name is found only in this passage has led to
the conjecture that it is an imperfect version of a
word in the original Hebrew or Syriac, from which
the present Greek text of the Maccabees is a trans-
lation. Some (as Castellio) have treated it as a
corruption of Jerusalem; but this is inadmissible,
since it is inconceivable that so well-known a name
should be corrupted. The other conjectures are
enumerated by Grimm in the Kurzgef. exegetisches
Handb. on the passage. A few only need be named
here, but none seem perfectly satisfactory. All
appear to adopt the reading Asaramel. 1. Ha~
hatsar Millo, ‘the court of Millo,’ Millo being
not improbably the citadel of Jerusalem [ vol. ii.
367 a). This is the conjecture of Grotius, and
has at least the merit of ingenuity.» 2. Hahatsar
Am El, “the court of the people of God, that
is, the great court of the Temple.” This is due
to Ewald (Gesch. iv. 387), who compares with
it the well-known Sarbeth.Sabanai El, given by
Eusebius as the title of the Maccabaean history.
[See MaccaBEEs, vol. ii. 173 a.] 3. Hasshaar Am
El, “the gate of the people of God” adopted by
Winer (Realwb.). 4. Hassar Am Ll, “ prince of
the people of God,” as if not the name of a place,
but the title of Simon, the “in” having been in-
This is adopted by
Grimm himself. It has in its favour the fact that
without it Simon is here styled high-priest only,
and his second title, “captain and governor of the
Jews and priests” (ver. 47), is then omitted in the
solemn official record—the very place where it ought
to be found. It also seems to be countenanced by
the Peshito-Syriac version, which certainly omits the
title of “high-priest,” but inserts 7 ubba de Israel,
1. SE-
4 Note the significant remark on Isaac’s marriage (Gen.
xxiv. 67), ‘Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”
There is a Jewish tradition, based apparently on the
mention of Sarah’s death almost immediately after the
sacrifice of Isaac, that the shock of it killed her, and that
Abraham found her dead on his return from Moriah.
Ὁ Junius and Tremellius render it by in atrio muni-
tionis.
4 Ὁ 2
1140 SARAPH
“Jeader of Israel.” None οὔ these explanations, how-
ever, can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. [G.]
SA'RAPH Cpe : Sapap: Incendens). Men-
tioned in 1 Chr. iv. 22 among the descendants of
Shelah the son of Judah. Burrington (Geneal.
i. 179) makes Saraph a descendant of Jokim, whom
he regards as the third son of Shelah. In the
Targum of R. Joseph, Joash and Saraph are iden-
tified with Mahlon and Chilion, “who married
(bya) in Moab,”
SARCHE'DONUS (Saxepdovds, Saxepdav:
Arehedonassar, Achenossar, Sarcedonassar), a col-
lateral form of the name Msar-haddon [HSAR-HAD-
oN |. occurring Tob. i. 21. The form in A. V. for
Sacherdonus appears to be an oversight. [B. Εἰ, W.]
SARDE'US (Ζεραλίας ; Alex. Zapdaios: The-
bedias). Aztza (1 Esd. ix. 28 ; comp. Ezr. x. 27).
SARDINE, SARDIUS (ΟΝ, ddem: odp-
διον : sardius) is, according to the LXX. and
Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. 5, §7) the correct render -
ing of the Heb. term, which occurs in Ex. xxviii.
17; xxxix. 10, as the name of the stone which
occupied the first place in the first row of the high-
priest’s breastplate ; it should, however, be noticed
that Josephus is not strictly consistent with him-
self, for in the Anfiq. iii. 7, §5, he says that the
surdonyx was the first stone in the breastplate ; still
as this latter named mineral is merely another
variety of agate, to which also the sard or sardius
belongs, there is no very great discrepancy in the
statements of the Jewish historian. The ddem is
mentioned by Ezek. (xxviii. 13) as one of the orna-
ments of the king of Tyre. In Rey. iv. 3, St. John
declares that he whom he saw sitting on the
heavenly throne ** was to look upon like a jasper
and a sardine stone.’ ‘The sixth foundation of the
wall of the heavenly Jerusalem was a sardius (Rev.
xxi. 20). There can scarcely be a doubt that either
the sard or the sardonyx is the stone denoted by
édem. The authority of Josephus in all that relates
to the high-priest’s breastplate is of the greatest
value, for as Braun (De Vest. Sac. Heh. p. 635) has
remarked, Josephus was not only a Jew buta priest,
who might have seen the breastplate with the whole
sacerdotal vestments a hundred times, since in his
time the Temple was standing; the Vulgate agrees
with his nomenclature ; in Jerome s time the breast-
plate was still to be inspected in the Temple of
Concord ; hence it will readily be acknowledged that
this agreement of the two is of great weight.
The sard, which is a superior variety of agate,
has long been a favourite stone for the engraver’s
art; ‘on this stone,” says Mr. King (Antique
Gems, p. 5), “all the finest works of the most
celebrated artists are to be ‘ound; and this not
without good cause, such is its toughness, facility
of working, beauty of colour, and the high polish
of which it is susceptible, and which Pliny states
that it retains longer than any other gem.” Sards
differ in colour; there is a bright red variety which,
in Pliny’s time, was the most esteemed, and, per-
haps, the Heb. édem, from a root which means “ to
be red,” points to this kind; there is alsoa paler or
honey-coloured variety; but in all sards there is
always a shade of yellow mingling with the red
(see King’s Ant. Gems, p. 6). The sardius, ac-
cording to Pliny (NV. H. xxxvii. 7), derived its
name from Sardis in Lydia, where it was first
found ; Babylonian specimens, however, were the
SARDIS
most esteemed. The Hebrews, in the time of Moses,
could easily have obtained their sard stones from
Arabia, in which country they were at the time the
breastplate was made ; other precious stones not ac-
quirable during their wanderings, may have been
brought with them from the land of their bondage
when “ὁ they spoiled the Egyptians.” [W. H.]
SAR'DIS (Σάρδεις). A city situated about two
miles to the south of the river Hermus, just below
the range of Tmolus (Bos Dagh), on a spur of
which its acropolis was built. It was the ancient
residence of the kings of Lydia. After its conquest
by Cyrus, the Persians always kept a garrison in the
citadel, on account of its natural strength, which
induced Alexander the Great, when it was surren-
dered to him in the sequel of the battle of the Gra-
nicus, similarly to occupy it. Sardis was in very
early times, both from the extremely fertile cha-
racter of the neighbouring region, and from its
convenient position, a commercial mart of import-
ance. Chestnuts were first produced in the neigh-
bourhood, which procured them the name of βάλανοι
Σαρδιανοί. ‘The art of dyeing wool is said by Pliny
to have been invented there ; and at any rate, Sardis
. was the entrepOt of the dyed woollen manufactures,
of which Phrygia with its vast flocks (πολυπροβᾶ-
τωτάτη, Herod. ν. 49) furnished the raw material.
Hence we hear of the φοινικίδες Σαρδιαναί, and
Sappho speaks of the ποικίλος μάσθλης Λύδιον
καλὸν ἔργον. which was perhaps something like
the modern Turkish carpets. Some of the woollen
manufactures, of a peculiarly fine texture, were
called ψιλοτάπιδες. The hall, through which the
king of Persia passed from his state apartments to
the gate where he mounted on his horse, was laid
with these, and no foot but that of the monarch
was allowed to tread on them. In the description
given of the habits of a young Cyprian exquisite of
great wealth, he is represented as reposing upon a
bed of which the feet were silver, and upon which
these ψιλοτάπιδες Σαρδιαναί were laid asa mattrass.
Sardis too was the place where the metal e/ectrum
was procured (Soph. Antig. 1037); and it was
thither that the Spartans sent in the 6th century
B.C. to purchase gold for the purpose of gilding the
face of the Apollo at Amyclae. This was probably
furnished by the auriferous sand of the Pactolus, a
brook which came from Tmolus, and ran through
the agora of Sardis by the side of the great temple
of Cybebe. But though its gold-washings may have
been celebrated in early times, the greatness of Sardis
in its best days was much more due to its general
commercial importance and its convenience as an
entrepot. This seems to follow from the state-
ment, that not only silver and gold coins were
there first minted, but there also the class of κά-
πηλοι (stationary traders as contradistinguished
from the ἔμποροι, or travelling merchants) first
arose. It was also, at any rate between the fall of
the Lydian and that of the Persian dynasty, a
slave-mart.
Sardis recovered the privilege of municipal go-
vernment (and, as was alleged several centuries
afterwards, the right of a sanctuary) upon its sur-
render to Alexander the Great, but its fortunes for
the next three hundred years are very obscure. It
changed hands more than once in the contests
between the dynasties which arose after the death
of Alexander. In the year 214 B.C., it was taken
and sacked by the army of Antiochus the Great, who
besieged his cousin Achaeus in it for two years before
succeeding, as he at last did through treachery, i
SARDIS
obtaining possession of the person of the latter.
After the ruin of Antiochus’s fortunes, it passed,
with the rest of Asia on that side of Taurus, under
the dominion of the kings of Pergamus, whose in-
to divert the course of traffic
Its
productive soil must always have continued a source
terests led them
between Asia and Europe away from Sardis.
of wealth; but its importance as a central mart
appears to have diminished from the time of the
Of the few iuscrip-
tions which have been discovered, all, or nearly all,
Yet there
invasion of Asia by Alexander.
belong to the time of the Roman empire.
still exist considerable remains of the earlier days.
The massive temple of Cybebe still bears witness in
its fragmentary remains to the wealth and archi-
tectural skill of the people that raised it. Mr.
Cockerell, who visited it in 1812, found two columns
standing with their architrave, the stone of which
stretched in a single block trom the centre of one to
that of the other. This stone, although it was not
the largest of the architrave, he calculates must
ξ ΒΆΑΒΙΒ 1141
have weighed 25 tons. The diameters of the co-
lumns supporting it are 6 feet 44 inches at about
35 feet below the capital. The present soil (appa-
rently formed by the crumbling away of the hill
which backs the temple on its eastern side) is move
than 25 feet above the pavement. Such propor-
tions are not inferior to those of the columns in the
Heraeum at Samos, which divides, in the estimation
of Herodotus, with the Artemisium at Ephesus, the
palm of pre-eminence among all the works of Greek
art. And as regards the details, ‘* the capitals ap-
peared,” to Mr. Cockerell, “ to surpass any specimen
of the Ionic he had seen in perfection of design aad
execution.” On the north side of the acropolis,
overlooking the valley of the Hermus, is a theatre
near 400 feet in diameter, attached to a stadium of
about 1000. This probably was erected after the
restoration of Sardis by Alexander. [ἢ the attack
of Sardis by Antiochus, described by Polybius (vii.
15-18), it constituted oue of the chief points on
which, after entering the city, the assaulting force
Ruins of Sardis.
was directed. The temple belongs to the era of the
Lydian dynasty, and is nearly contemporaneous
with the temple of Zeus Panhellenius in Aegina,
and that of Heré in Samos. To the same date may
be assigned the ‘ Valley of Sweets” (γλυκὺς ay-
k@y), a pleasure ground, the fame of which Poly-
crates endeavoured to rival by the so-called Lawra
at Samos.
The modern name of the ruins at Sardis is Sert-
Kalessi. ‘Tvavellers describe the appearance of the
locality on approaching it from the N.W. as that
of complete solitude. ‘lhe Pactolus is a mere thread
of water, all but evanescent in summer time. The
Wadis-tchai (Hermus), in the neighbourhood of the
town, is between 50 and 60 yards wide, and nearly
3 feet deep, but its waters are turbid and disagree-
able, and are not only avoided as unfit for drinking,
but have the jocal reputation of generating the fever
which is the scourge cf the neighbouring plains.
In the time of the emperor Tiberius, Sardis was
desolated by an earthquake, together with eleven, or
as Kusebius says twelve, other important cities of
Asia. | The whole face of the country is said to have
been changed by this convulsion. In the case of
Sardis the calamity was increased by a pestilential
fever which followed ; and so much compassion was
in consequence excited for the city at Rome, that its
tribute was remitted for five years, and it received
a benefaction from the privy purse of the emperor.
This was in the year 17 A.D. Nine years after-
wards the Sardians are found among the competitors
for the honour of erecting, as representatives οἱ
the Asiatic cities, a temple to their benefactor.
[Smyrna.] On this occasion they plead, not only
their ancient services to Rome in the time of the
Macedonian war, but their well-watered country,
their climate, and the richness of the neighbouring
soil: there is no allusion, however, to the important
manufactures and the commerce of the early times.
In the time of Pliny it was included in the same
1142 SARDITES, THE
conventus juridicus with Philadelphia, with the
Cadueni, a Macedonian colony in the neighbourhood,
with some settlements of the old Maeonian popula-
tion, and a few other towns of less note. These
Maeonians still continued to call Sardis by its ancient
name Hydé, which it bore in the time of Omphale.
The only passage in which Sardis is mentioned
in the Bible, is Rev. iii. 1-6. There is nothing
in it which appears to have any special reference
to the peculiar circumstances of the city, or to any-
thing else than the moral and spiritual condition of
the Christian community existing there. This latter
was probably, in its secular relations, pretty nearly
identical with that at Philadelphia.
(Athenaeus ii. p. 48, vi. p. 231, xii. p. 514,
540; Arrian, i.17; Pliny, N. H. v. 29, xv. 23;
Stephanus Byz. v. -Y67; Pausanias, 11: 9, 5;
Diodorus Sic. xx. 107; Scholiast, Aristoph. Pac.
1174; Boeckh, ae iptiones Graecae, Nos. 3451-
3472; Herodotus, i. 69, 94, iii. 48, viii. 105;
Strabo, xiii. §5; ἢ αρίνας, Annal. ii. 47, iii. 63, iv. 5B:
Cockerell, in Leake’s Asia Minor, p. 345 ; Arundell,
Discoveries in Asia Minor, i. pp. 26-28 ; Tchi-
hatcheff, Asie Mineure, pp. 252-242.) [J.W.B.]
SAR'DITES, THE (IDM: 6 Sapedi: Sa-
reditae). The descendants of Sered the son of Zebulon
(Num. xxvi. 26).
SARDONYX (capSdévvé: sardonyx) is men-
tioned in the N. T. once only, viz., in Rev. xxi. 20,
as the stone which garnished the fifth foundation of
the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem, ‘* By sardonyx,”
says Pliny (V. H. xxxvii. 6), who describes several
varieties, ὁ’ was formerly understood, as its name
implies, a sard with a white ground beneath it,
like the flesh under the finger-nail.” The sardonyx
consists of “a white opaque layer, superimposed
upon a red transparent stratum of the true red
sard” (Antique Gems, p. 9); it is, like the sard,
merely a variety of agate, and is frequently em-
ployed by engravers for the purposes of a signet-
ring. [W. H.]
SARE'A (Sarea). One of the five scribes “ ready
to write swiftly”? whom Esdras was commanded to
take (2 Esd. xiv. 24).
SAREP'TA (Σάρεπτα: Sarepta: Syriac, Tsar-
path). The Greek form of the name which in the
Hebrew text of the O. T. appears as ZAREPHATH.
The place is designated by the same formula on its
single occurrence in the N. T. (Luke iv. 26) that
it is when first mentioned in the LXX. version of
1 Kx. xvii. 9, ““ Sarepta of Sidonia.” [ἃ]
SAR'GON (20 : ᾿Αρνᾶ: Sargon) was one
of the greatest of the Assyrian kings. His name is
read in the native inscriptions as Sargina, while a
town which he built and called after himself (now
Khorsabad) was known as Surg/uin to the Arabian
geographers. He is mentioned by name only once
in Scripture (Is. xx. 1), and then not in an historical
book, which formerly led historians and critics to
suspect that he was not really a king distinct from
those mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, but rather
one of those kings under another name. Vitringa,
Offerhaus, Eichhorn, and Hupfeld identified him
with Shalmaneser; Grotius, Lowth, and Keil with
Sennacherib; Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Michaélis
SARGON
with Esarhaddon. All these conjectures are now
shown to be wrong by the Assyrian inscriptions,
which prove Sargon to have been distinct and
different from the several monarchs named, and fix
his place in the list—where it had been already as-
signed by Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Ewald, and Winer
—between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. He was
certainly Sennacherib’s father, and there is no reason
to doubt that he was his. immediate predecessor.
He ascended the throne of Assyria, as we gather
from his annals, in the same year that Merodach-
Baladan ascended the throne of Babylon, which,
according to Ptolemy’s Canon, was B.c. 721. He
seems to have been an usurper, and not of royal
birth, for in his inscriptions he carefully avoids all
mention of his father. It has been conjectured that
he took advantage of Shalmaneser’s absence at the
protracted siege of Samaria (2 Κα. xvii. 5) to effect
a revolution at the seat of government, by which
that king was deposed, and he himself substituted
in his room. [SHALMANESER.] It is remarkable
that Sargon claims the conquest of Samaria, which
the narrative in Kings appears to assign to his
predecessor. He places the event in his first year,
before any of his other expeditions. Perhaps, there-
fore, he is the “king of Assyria” intended in 2 K.
xvii. 6 and xviii. 11, who is not said to be Shal-
maneser, though we might naturally suppose so from
no other name being mentioned. Or perhaps he
claimed the conquest as his own, though Shalmaneser
really accomplished it, because the capture of the
city occurred after he had been acknowledged king
in the Assyrian capital. At any rate, to him belongs
the settlement of the Samaritans (27,280 families,
according to his own statement) in Halah, and on
the Habor (Khabour), the river of Gozan, and (at
a later period probably) in the cities of the Medes.
Sargon was undoubtedly a great and successful
warrior. In his annals, which cover a space of
fifteen years (from B.C. 721 to B.c. 706), he gives
an account of his warlike expeditions against Baby-
lonia and Susiana on the south, Media on the east,
Armenia and Cappadocia towards the north, Syria,
Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt towards the west and
the south-west. In Babylonia he deposed Merodach-
Baladan, and established a viceroy; in Media he
built a number of cities, which he peopled with
captives from other quarters; in Armenia and the
neighbouring countries he gained many victories ;
while in the far west he reduced Philistia, penetrated
deep into the Arabian peninsula, and forced Egypt
to submit to his arms and consent to the payment
of a tribute. In this last direction he seems to
have waged three wars—one in his second year
(B.C. 720), for the possession of Gaza; another in
his sixth year (B.c. 715), when Egypt itself was
the object of attack; anda third in his ninth (8.6.
712), when the special subject of contention was
Ashdod, which Sargon took by one of his generals.
This is the event which causes the mention of Sar-
gon’s name in Scripture. Isaiah was instructed at
the time of this expedition to ‘* put off his shoe, and
go naked and barefoot,” for a sign that ““ the king
of Assyria should lead away the Egyptians pri-
soners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old,
ae and barefoot, to the shame of Egypt” (Is.
x. 2-4). We may gather from this, either that
ΠΕΣ and Egyptians formed part of the garri-
ἃ There is a peculiarity of phraseology in 2 K. xviii.
9, 10, which perhaps indicates a knowledge on the part
of the writer that Shalmaneser was not the actual captor.
“In the fourth year of Hezekiah,” he says, “ Shalmaneser
king of Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it :
and at the end of three years, THEY took it,”
ee
SARID
son of Ashdod and were captured with the city,
or that the attack on the Philistine town was ac-
companied by an invasion of Egypt itself, which
was disastrous to the Egyptians. The year of the
attack, being B.c. 712, would fall into the reign
of the first Ethiopian king, Sabaco I., who probably
conquered Egypt in B.c. 714 (Rawlinson’s Hero-
dotus, i. 386, note 7, 2nd ed.), and it is in agree-
ment with this Sargon speaks of Egypt as being at
this time subject to Meroé. Besides these expe-
ditions of Sargon, his monuments mention that he
took Tyre, and received tribute from the Greeks of
Cyprus, against whom there is some reason to think
that he conducted an attack in person.»
It is not as a warrior only that Sargon deserves
special mention among the Assyrian kings. He was
also the builder of useful works and of one of the
most magnificent of the Assyrian palaces. He
relates that he thoroughly repaired the walls of
Nineveh, which he seems to have elevated from a
provincial city of some importance to the first posi-
tion in the empire; and adds further, that in its
neighbourhood he constructed the palace and town
which he made his principal residence. This was
the city now known as ‘the French Nineveh,” or
“Khorsabad,” from which the valuable series of
Assyrian monuments at present in the Louvre is
derived almost entirely. ‘Traces of Sargon’s buildings
have been found also at Nimrfd and Koyunjik ; and
his time is marked by a considerable advance in the
useful and ornamental arts, which seem to have
profited by the connexion which he established be-
tween Assyria and Egypt. He probably reigned
nineteen years, from B.C. 721 to B.c. 702, when
he left the throne to his son, the celebrated Sen-
nacherib. [G. R.]
SA'RID cay : Ἐσεδεκγωλᾶς, Sedd0vK ; Alex.
Σαρθιδ, Σαριδ: Sarid). A chief landmark of the
territory of Zebulun, apparently the pivot of the
western and southern boundaries (Josh. xix. 10, 12).
All that can be gathered of its position is that it
lay to the west of Chisloth-Tabor. It was unknown
to Eusebius and Jerome, and no trace of it seems to
have been found by any traveller since their day
(Onom. “ Savith”’).
The ancient Syriac version, in each case, reads
Asdod. This may be only from the interchange,
so frequent in this version, of Rand D. At any
rate, the Ashdod of the Philistines cannot be in-
tended. [G.]
SA'RON (τὸν. Σαρῶνα ; in some MSS. ασσα-
ρωνα, ἵ. ὁ. wa : Savona). The district in which
Lydda stood (Acts ix. 35 only); the SHARON of
the O, T. The absence of the article from Lydda,
and its presence before Saron, is noticeable, and
shows that the name denotes a district—as in
“ The Shefelah,” and in our own “The Weald,”
“The Downs.” [G.]
SARO'THIE (SapwOi ; Alex. SapwOié: Ca-
roneth). ‘The sons of Sarothie” are among the
sons of the servants of Solomon who returned with
Zorobabel, according to the list in 1 Esd. v. 34.
There is nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew.
SAR'SECHIM (D°3D1Y: Sarsachim). One
of the generals of Nebuchadnezzar’s army at the
SATAN 1143
taking of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix. 3). He appears
to have held the office of chief eunuch, for Rab-
saris is probably a title and not a proper name.
In Jer. xxxix. 13 Nebushasban is called Rab-saris,
“chief eunuch,’ and the question arises whether
Nebushasban and Sarsechim may not be names of
the same person. In the LXX., verses 3 and 13
are mixed up together, and so hopelessly corrupt
that it is impossible to infer anything from their
reading of NaBovadxap for Sarsechim. In Gese-
nius’ Thesaurus it is conjectured that Sarsechim
and Rab-saris may be identical, and both titles of
the same office.
SA'RUCH (Σαρούχ : Sarug). Srrue the son
of Reu (Luke iii. 35).
SA'TAN. The word itself, the Hebrew yor,
is simply an “adversary,” and is so used in 1 Sam.
xxix. 45 2 Sam. xix. 22; 1 K. v. 4 (LXX. ἐπί-
Bovaos); in 1 K. xi. 25 (LXX. ἀντικείμενος) ; in
Num. xxii. 22, 32, and Ps. cix. 6 (LXX. διάβολος
and cognate words); in 1 K. xi. 14, 23 (LXX.
gardy). This original sense is still found in our
Lord’s application of the name to St. Peter in Matt.
xvi. 23. It is used as a proper name or title only
four times in the O. T., viz. (with the article) in
Job 1. 6, 12, ii. 1, Zech. iii. 1, and (without the
article) in 1 Chr. xxi. 1. In each case the LXX.
has διάβολος, and the Vulgate Satan. In the N. T.
the word is σατανᾶς, followed by the Vulgate
Sutanas, except in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where σατᾶν is
used. It is found in twenty-five places (exclusive
of parallel passages), and the corresponding word
6 διάβολος in about the same number. ‘The title
6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου is used three times ;
6 πονηρός is used certainly six times, probably more
frequently, and 6 πειράζων twice.
It is with the scriptural revelation on the subject
that we are here concerned, and it is clear, from
this simple enumeration of passages, that it is to be
sought in the New, rather than in the Old Testament.
It divides itself naturally into the consideration
of his existence, his nature, and his power and
action.
(A.) His Existence.—It would be a waste of
time to prove, that, in various degrees of clearness,
the personal existence of a Spirit of Evil is revealed
again and again in Scripture. Every quality, every
action, which can indicate personality, is attributed
to him in language which cannot be explained away.
It is not dithicult to see why it should be thus re-
vealed. It is obvious, that the fact of his existence
is of spiritual importance, and it is also clear, from
the nature of the case, that it could not be discovered,
although it might be suspected, by human reason.
It is in the power of that reason to test any sup-
posed manifestations of supernatural power, and
any asserted principles of Divine action, which fall
within its sphere of experience (‘‘ the earthly things”
of John iii. 12) ; it may by such examination satisfy
itself of the truth and divinity of a Person or a
book; but, having done this, it must then accept
and understand, without being able to test or to
explain, the disclosures of this Divine authority
upon subjects beyond this world (the ‘‘ heavenly
things,” of which it is said that none can see or
| disclose them, save the “‘Son of Man who is in
| Heaven”),
Ὁ The statue of Sargon, now in the Berlin Museum, was
found at Idalium in Cyprus. Τῇ is not very likely that the
king's statue would have been set up unless he had made
i
the expedition in person.
¢ 'This barbarous word is obtained by joining to Sarid
the first word of the following verse, MOV).
ἘΠῚ
1144 SATAN
It is true, that human thought can assert an
ὰ priort probability or improbability in such state-
ments made, based on the perception of a greater or
less degree of accordance in principle between the
things seen and the things unseen, between the
effects, which are visible, and the causes, which are
revealed from the regions of mystery. But even
this power of weighing probability is applicable
rather to the fact and tendency, than to the method,
of supernatural action. This is true even of natural
action beyond the sphere of human observation. In
the discussion of the Plurality of Worlds, for ex-
ample, it may be asserted without doubt, that in
all the orbs of the universe the Divine power, wis-
dom, and goodness must be exercised; but the in-
ference that the method of their exercise is found
there, as here, in the creation of sentient and rational
beings, is one at best of but moderate probability.
Still more is this the case in the spiritual world.
Whatever supernatural orders of beings may exist,
we can conclude that in their case, as in ours, the
Divine government must be carried on by the union
of individual freedom of action with the overruling
power of God, and must tend finally to that good
which is His central attribute, But beyond this
we can assert nothing to be certain, and can scarcely
even say of any part of the method of this govern-
ment, whether it is antecedently probable or im-
probable.
Thus, on our present subject, man can ascertain
by observation the existence of evil, that is, of facts
and thoughts contrary to the standard which con-
science asserts to be the true one, bringing with
them suffering and misery as their inevitable results.
If he attempts to trace them to their causes, he
finds them to arise, for each individual, partly from
the power of certain internal impulses which act
upon the will, partly from the influence of external
circumstances. These circumstances themselves arise,
either from the laws of nature and society, or by
the deliberate action of other men. He can con-
clude with certainty, that both series of causes must
exist by the permission of God, and must finally be
overruled to His will. But whether there exists
any superhuman but subordinate cause of the cir-
cumstances, and whether there be any similar in-
fluence acting in the origination of the impulses
which move the will, this is a question which he
cannot answer with certainty. Analogy from the
observation of the only ultimate cause which he can
discover in the visible world, viz. the free action of
a personal will, may lead him, and generally has
led him, to conjecture in the affirmative, but still
the inquiry remains unanswered by authority.
The tendency of the mind in its inquiry is gene-
rally towards one or other of two extremes. The first
is to consider evil as a negative imperfection, aris-
ing, in some unknown and inexplicable way, from the
nature of matter, or from some disturbing influences
which limit the action of goodness on earth; in
fact, to ignore as much of evil as possible, and to
decline to reter the residuum to any positive cause
at all. The other is the old Persian or Manichaean
hypothesis, which traces the existence of evil to a
rival Creator, not subordinate to the Creator of
Good, though perhaps inferior to Him in power,
and destined to be overcome by Him at last. Be-
SATAN
tween these two extremes the mind varied, through
many gradations of thought and countless forms of
superstition, Each hypothesis had its arguments
of probability against the other. The first laboured
under the difficulty of being insufficient as an
account of the anomalous facts, and indeterminate
in its account of the disturbing causes; the second
sinned against that belief’ in the Unity of God and
the natural supremacy of goodness, which is sup-—
ported by the deepest instincts of the heart. But
both were laid in a sphere beyond human cogni-
zance; neither could be proved or disproved with
certainty.
The Revelation of Scripture, speaking with au-
thority, meets the. truth, and removes the error,
inherent in both these hypotheses. It asserts in
the strongest terms the pertect supremacy of God,
so that under His permission alone, and for His
inscrutable purposes, evil is allowed to exist (see
for example Prov. xvi. 4; Is. xlv. 7; Am. iil. 6;
comp. Rom, ix. 22, 23). It regards this evil as
an anomaly and corruption, to be taken away by a
new manifestation of Divine Love in the Incarnation
and Atonement, The conquest of it began virtually
in God’s ordinance after the Fall itself, was effected
actually on the Cross, and shall be perfected in its
results at the Judgment Day. Still Scripture re-
cognises the existence of evil in the world, not only
as felt in outward circumstances (‘‘ the world’’),
and as inborn in the soul of man (‘the flesh”),
but also as proceeding fiom the influence of an
Evil Spirit, exercising that mysterious power of
free will, which God’s rational creatures possess, to
rebel against Him, and to draw others into the
same rebellion (‘ the devil”’).
In accordance with the ‘ economy” and pro-
gressiveness of God’s revelation, the existence of
Satan is but gradually revealed. In the first en-
trance of evil into the world, the temptation is re-
ferred only to the serpent. It is true that the
whole narrative, and especially the spiritual nature
of the temptation (‘* to be as gods”’), which was
united to the sensual motive, would force on any
thoughtful reader? the conclusion that something
more than a mere animal agency was at work; but
the time was not then come to reveal, what after-
wards was revealed, that ‘he who sinneth is of
the devil’? (1 John iii. 8), that ‘the old serpent”’
of Genesis was ‘called the devil and Satan, who
deceiveth the whole world” (Rev. xii. 9, xx. 23).
Throughout the whole period of the patriarchal
and Jewish dispensation, this vague and imperfect
revelation of the Source of Evil alone was given.
The Source of all Good is set forth in all His su-
preme and unapproachable Majesty; evil is known
negatively as the falling away from Him; and the
“vanity” of idols, rather than any positive evil
influence, is represented as the opposite to His
reality and goodness. The Law gives the “ know-
ledge of sin” in the soul, without referring to any
external influence of evil to foster it; it denounces
idolatry, without even hinting, what the N. T.
declares plainly, that such evil implied a ** power
of Satan.” >
The Book of Job stands, in any case, alone
(whether we refer it to an early or a later period)
on the basis of ‘‘ natural religion,” apart from the
a See Wisd. ii. 24, φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν
εἰς TOV κόσμον.
b For this reason, if for no other, it seems impossible to
zccept the interpretation of “ Azazel,” given by Spencer,
Hengstenberg, and others, in Ley. xvi. 8, as a reference 10
the Spirit of Evil. Such a reference would not only stand
alone, but would be entirely inconsistent with the whole
tenor of the Mosaic revelation. See Day or ATONEMENT.
SATAN
gradual and orderly evolutions of the Mosaic reve-
lation. In it, for the first time, we find a distinct
mention of ‘ Satan,” “the adversary” of Job.
But it is important to remark the emphatic stress
laid on his subordinate position, on the absence of
all but delegated power, of all terror, and all
grandeur in his character. He comes among the
“sons of God” to present himself before the Lord ;
his malice and envy are permitted to have scope,
in accusation or in action, only for God’s own pur-
~ poses ; and it is especially remarkable that no power
of spiritual influence, but only a power over out-
ward circumstances, is attributed to him. ΑἸ] this
is widely different from the clear and terrible reve-
lations of the N. T.
The Captivity brought the Israelites face to face
with the great dualism of the Persian mythology,
the conflict of Ormuzd with Ahriman, the co-
ordinate Spirit of Evil. In the books written
after the Captivity we have again the name of
‘«Satan”’ twice mentioned; but it is confessed by
all that the Satan of Scripture bears no resemblance
to the Persian Ahriman. His subordination and
inferiority are as strongly marked as ever. In
1 Chr. xxi. 1, where the name occurs without the
article ( an Bayer. not ‘the adversary”),
the comparison with 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 shows dis-
tinctly that, in the temptation of David, Satan’s
malice was overruled to work out the “ anger of
the Lord” against Israel. In Zech. iii. i 2;
“Satan”? is 6 ἀντίδικος (as in 1 Pet. v. 8), the
accuser of Joshua before the throne of God, re-
buked and put to silence by Him (comp. Ps. cix. 6).
Tn the case, as of the good angels, so also of the
Evil One, the presence of fable and idolatry gave
cause to the manifestation of the truth. [ANGELs,
p- 70 α.1] It would have been impossible to guard
the Israelites more distinctly from the fascination
of the great dualistic theory of their conquerors.
It is perhaps not difficult to conjecture, that the
reason of this reserve as to the disclosure of the ex-
istence and nature of Satan is to be found in the in-
veterate tendency of the Israelites to idolatry, an
idolatry based as usual, in great decree, on the sup-
posed power of their false gods to inflict evil. The
existence of evil spirits is suggested to them in the
stern prohibition and punishment of witchcraft
(Ex. xxii. 18; Deut. xviii. 10), and in the narra-
tive of the possession of men by an “evil” or
“ lying spirit from the Lord” (1 Sam. xvi. 14;
1 K. xxii. 22); the tendency to seek their aid i
shown by the rebukes of the prophets (Is. viii.
19, &c.). But this tendency would have been in-
creased tenfold by the revelation of the existence of
the great enemy, concentrating round himself all
the powers of evil and enmity against God. There-
fore, it would seem, the revelation of the “ strong
man armed” was withheld until “ὁ the stronger
than he” should be made manifest.
For in the New Test. this reserve suddenly
vanishes. In the interval between the Old and
New Test. the Jewish mind had pondered on the
scanty revelations already given of evil spiritual
influence. But the Apoeryphal Books (as, for ex-
ample, Tobit and Judith), while dwelling on
* demons ” (δαιμόνια), have no notice of Satan.
The same may be observed of Josephus. The only
instance to the contrary is the reference already
made to Wisd. ii. 24. It is to be noticed also that
the Targums often introduce the name of Satan
into the descriptions of sin and temptation found
in the O. T., as for example in Ex. xxxii. 19, in
SATAN 1145
connexion with the worship of the golden calf
(comp. the tradition as to the body of Moses, Deut.
xxxiv. 5, 6; Jude 9, MicHaEL). But, while a
mass of fable and superstition grew up on the
general subject of evil spiritual influence, still the
existence and nature of Satan remained in the back-
ground, felt, but not understood.
The N. T. first brings it plainly forward. From
the beginning of the Gospel, when he appears as the
personal tempter of our Lord, through all the
Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, it is asserted or
implied, again and again, as a familiar and im-
portant truth. To refer this to mere ‘* accommo-
dation” of the language. of the Lord and His
Apostles to the ordinary Jewish belief, is to contra-
dict facts, and evade the meaning of words. The
subject is not one on which error could be tolerated
as unimportant; but one important, practical, and
even awful. The language used respecting it is
either truth or falsehood ; and unless we impute
error or deceit to the writers of the N. T., we must
receive the doctrine of the existence of Satan as a
certain doctrine of Revelation. Without dwelling
on other passages, the plain, solemn, and unmeta-
phorical words of John viii. 44, must be sufficient:
“Ye are of your father the devil. . . . He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abides (ἕστηκεν)
not in the truth. . . . When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father
of it.” On this subject, see DEMONTACS, vol. i
Ρ. 4250.
(B.) His Narure.—Of the nature and original
state of Satan, little is revealed in Scripture. Most
of the common notions on the subject are drawn
from mere tradition, popularized in England by
Milton, but without even a vestige of Scriptural
authority. He is spoken of as a “ spirit’? in Eph.
ii. 2, as the prince or ruler of the ““ demons”
(δαιμόνια) in Matt. xii. 24-26, and as having
“angels” subject to him in Matt. xxv. 41; Rev.
xii. 7, 9. The whole description of his power
implies spiritual nature and spiritual influence.
We conclude therefore that he was of angelic nature
[ ANGELS], a rational and spiritual creature, super-
human in power, wisdom, and energy; and not
only so, but an archangel, one of the “ princes” of
heaven. We cannot, of course, conceive that any-
thing essentially and originally evil was created by
God. We find by experience, that the will of a free
and rational creature can, by His permission, oppose
His will; that the very conception of freedom
implies capacity of temptation: and that every
sin, unless arrested by God’s fresh gift of grace,
strengthens the hold of evil on the spirit, till it
may fall into the hopeless state of reprobation. We
can only conjecture, therefore, that Satan is a fallen
angel, who once had a time of probation, but whose
condemnation is now irrevocably fixed.
But of the time, cause, and manner of his fall,
Scripture tells us scarcely anything. It limits its
disclosures, as always, to that which we need to
know. The passage on which all the fabric of tra-
dition and poetry has been raised is Rev. xii. 7, 9,
which speaks of ** Michael and his angels ”’ as “ fight-
ing against the dragon and his angels,” till the
“creat dragon, called the devil and Satan” was
‘cast out into the earth, and his angels cast out
with him.” Whatever be the meaning of this pas-
sage, it is certain that it cannot refer to the original
fall of Satan. The only other passage which refers
to the fall of the angels is 2 Pet. ii. 4, “" God spared
not the angels, when they had sinned, but having
1146 SATAN
cast them into hell, delivered them to chains of
darkness (σειραῖς ζύφυυ ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν),
reserved unto judgment,” with the parallel passage
in Jude 6, “ Angels, who kept not their tirst estate
(τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν), but left their own habita-
tion. he hath reserved in everlasting chains under
darkness unto the judgment of the Great Day.”
Here again the passage is mysterious ;* but it seems
hardly possible to consider Satan as one of these;
for they are in chains and guarded (τετηρημένου5)
till the Great Day; he is permitted still to go
about as the Tempter and the Adversary, until his
appointed time be come.
Setting these passages aside, we have still to con-
sider the declaration of our Lord in Luke x. 18,
“1 beheld (ἐθεώρουν) Satan, as lightning, fall
from heaven.” ‘This may refer to the fact of his
original fall (although the use of the imperfect
tense, and the force of the context, rather refer it
figuratively to the triumph of the disciples over the
evil spirits) ; but, in any case, it tells nothing of its
cause or method. ‘There is also the passage already
quoted (John viii. 44), in which our Lord declares
οἵ him, that “he was-a murderer from the be-
ginning,” that “he stands not (ἕστηκε) in the
truth, because there is no truth in him,” ‘ that he
is a liar and the father of it.” But here it seems
likely the words ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς refer to the beginning
of his action upon man; perhaps the allusion is
to his temptation of Cain to be the first murderer,
an allusion explicitly made in a similar passage in
1 John iii. 9-12. The word ἕστηκε (wrongly ren-
dered ‘‘ abode” in A. V.), and the rest of the verse,
refer to present time. The passage therefore throws
little or no light on the cause and method of his fall.
Perhaps the only one, which has any value, is
1 Tim. iii. 6, “lest being lifted up by pride he fall
into the condemnation” (κρίμα) “ of the devil.” It
is concluded from this, that pride was the cause of
the devil’s condemnation, The inference is a pro-
bable one ; it is strengthened by the only analogy
within our reach, that of the fall of man, in which
the spiritual temptation of pride, the desire ‘“ to be
as gods,” was the subtlest and most deadly temp-
tation. Still it is but an inference; it cannot be
regarded as a matter of certain Revelation.
But, while these pomts are passed by almost in
silence (a silence which rebukes the irreverent
exercise of imagination on the subject), Scripture
describes to us distinctly the moral nature of the
Evil One. ‘This is no matter of barren speculation
to those, who by yielding to evil may become the
“children of Satan,” instead of “ children of God.”
The ideal of goodness is made up of the three great
moral attributes of God, Love, Truth, and Purity
or Holiness ; combined with that spirit, which is the
natural temper of a finite and dependent creature,
the spirit of Faith. We find, accordingly, that the
opposites to these qualities are dwelt upon as the
characteristics of the devil. In John viii. 44, com-
pared with 1 John iii. 10-15, we have hatred and
falsehood ; in the constant mention of the ‘ un-
clean ”’ spirits, of which he is the chief, we find im-
purity ; trom 1 Tim. iii. 6, and the narrative of the
Temptation, we trace the spirit of pride. These
are especially the ‘‘ sins of the devil;” in them we
trace the essence of moral evil, and the features of
the reprobate mind, Add to this a spirit of rest-
less activity, a power of craft, and an intense desire
© It is referred by some to Gen, vi. 2, where many MSS.
of the LXX. have ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ for “5018 of God ;”
SATAN
to spread corruption, and with it eternal death, and
we have the portraiture of the Spirit of Evil as
Scripture has drawn it plainly before our eyes.
(C.) His PowErR AND AcTion.—Both these
points, being intimately connected with our own
life and salvation, are treated with a distinctness and
fulness remarkably contrasted with the obscurity
of the previous subject.
The power of Satan over the soul is represented
as exercised, either directly, or by his instruments.
His direct influence over the soul is simply that of
a powerful and evil nature on those, in whom lurks
the germ of the same evil, differing from the in-
fluence exercised by a wicked man, in degree rather
than in kind; but it has the power of acting by
suggestion of thoughts, without the medium of
actions or words—a power which is only in very
slight degree exercised by men upon each other.
This influence is spoken of in Scripture in the
strongest terms, as a real external influence, corre-
lative to, but not to be confounded with, the
existence of evil within. In the parable of the
sower (Matt. xiii. 19), it is represented as a ne-
gative influence, taking away the action of the
Word of God for good; in that of the wheat and
the tares (Matt. xiii. 39), as a positive influence for
evil, introducing wickedness into the world. St.
Paul does not hesitate to represent it as a power,
permitted to dispute the world with the power of
God; for he declares to Agrippa that his mission
was “ to turn men from darkness to light, and from
the power (ἐξουσίας) of Satan unto God,” and re-
presents the excommunication, which cuts.men off
trom the grace of Christ in His Church, as a “ de-
liverance of them unto Satan” (1 Cor. v. 5; 1 Tim.
i, 20). The same truth is conveyed, though ina
bolder and more startling form, in the Epistles to
the Churches of the Apocalypse, where the body of
the unbelieving Jews is called a “synagogue of
Satan” (Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9), where the secrets of false
doctrine are called ‘ the depths of Satan” (ii. 24),
and the * throne”? and “ habitation” of Satan are
said to be set up in opposition to the Church of
Christ. Another and even more remarkable expres
sion of the same idea is found in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, where the death of Christ is spoken of as
intended to bafile (katapyecv) ““ him, that hath the
power (τὸ κράτος) of death, that is, the devil ;”
for death is evidently regarded as the ‘‘ wages of
sin,’ and the power of death as inseparable from
the power of corruption. Nor is this truth only
expressed directly and formally ; it meets us again
and again in passages simply practical, taken for
granted, as already familiar (see Rom. xvi. 20;
θα (σις re) 14.5.0. hess: isi 8 59 2aehessealiseohs
1 Tim. v. 15). The Bible does not shrink from
putting the fact of Satanic influence over the soul
before us, in plain and terrible certainty.
Yet at the same time, it is to be observed, that
its language is very tar from countenancing, even
for a moment, the horrors of the Manichaean theory.
The influence of Satan is always spoken of as tem-
porary and limited, subordinated to the Divine
counsel, and broken by the Incarnate Son of God.
It is brought out visibly, in the form of possession,
in the earthly life of our Lord, only in order that
it may give the opportunity of His triumph. As
for Himself, so for His redeemed ones, it is true,
that ‘God shall bruise Satan under their feet
especially because 2 Pet. iii. 5, relating to the Flood,
seems closely connected with that passage.
SATAN
shortly” (Rom. xvi. 20; comp. Gen. iii. 15).
Nor is this all, for the history of the Book of Job
shows plainly, what is elsewhere constantly implied,
that Satanic influence is permitted, in order to be
overruled to good, to teach humility, and therefore
faith. The mystery of the existence of evil is left
unexplained ; but its present subordination and future
extinction are familiar truths. So accordingly, on
the other hand, his power is spoken of, as capable
of being resisted by the will of man, when aided
by the grace of God. ‘Resist the devil, and he
will flee from you,” is the constant language of
Scripture (Jam. iv. 7). It is indeed a power, to
which ‘* place” or opportunity sais giv a ” only
by the consent of man’s will (Eph. iv. 27). It is
probably to be traced most distinctly in ‘the power
of evil habit, a power real, but not irresistible,
created by previous sin, and by every successive act
of sin riveted more closely upon the soul. It is-a
power which cannot act directly and openly, but
needs craft and dissimulation, in order to get ad-
vantage over man by entangling the will. The
“wiles” (Eph. vi. 11), the « devices” (2 Cor. ii
11), the ‘‘snare”’ (1 Tim. iii. 7, vi. 9; 2 Tim. ii.
26) “of the devil,” ave expressions which indicate
the indirect and unnatural character of the power
of evil. It is therefore urged as a reason for “ so-
berness and vigilance” (1 Pet. v. 8), for the careful
use of the “ whole armour of God” (Eph. vi. 10-
17); but it is never allowed to obscure the supre-
macy of God’s grace, or to disturb the inner peace
of the Christian. “ He that is born of God, keepeth
himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not”
(1 John v. 18).
Besides his own direct influence, the Scripture
discloses to us the fact that Satan is the leader of a
host of evil spirits or angels who share his evil
work, and for whom the “ everlasting fire is pre-
paved” (Matt. xxv. 41). Of their origin and fall
we know no more than of his, for they cannot be
the Same as the fallen and imprisoned angels of
2 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude 6; but one passage (Matt.
xii. 24-26) identifies them distinctly with the
δαιμόνια (A. V. “devils” 4) who had power to
possess the souls of men. The Jews there speak
. of a Beelzebub (Βεελζεβούλ), “a prince of the
demous,” whom they identify with, or symbolise
by, the idol of Ekron, the ‘god of flies” [see
BEELZEBUB], and by whose power they accuse our
Lord of casting out demons. His answer is, “ How
can Satan cast out Satan?” The inference is clear
that Satan is Beelzebub, and therefore the demons
are "6 the angels of the devil ;’’ and this inference is
strengthened by Acts x. 38, in which St. Peter
describes the possessed as καταδυναστευομένους
ὑπὸ τοῦ Διαβόλου, and by Luke x. 18, in which
the mastery over the demons is connected by our
Lord with the “ fall of Satan from heaven,” and
their power included by Him in the “ power of the
enemy ” (τοῦ ἐχθροῦ ; comp. Matt. xiii. 39), For
their nature, see DEMONS. They are mostly spoken
of in Scripture in reference to possession ; but in
Eph. vi. 12 they are deseribed 1 in var ious lights, as
κε principalities’’ (apxat), powers” (&ovcla.),
“yulers of the darkness of this world,” and
“ spiritual powers of wickedness in heavenly places”
SATAN 1147
(or ἐς things’ Ὁ (τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν
τοῖς ἐπουρανίοι5); and in all as “ wrestling ”
against the soul of man. The same reference is
made less explicitly in Rom, viii. 38, and Col. ii.
15. In Rev. xii. 7-9 they are spoken of as fight-
ing with “ the dragon, the old serpent called the
devil and Satan,” against ‘* Michael and his angels,”
and as cast out of heaven with their chief. Taking
all these passages together, we find them sharing the
enmity to God and man implied in the name and
nature of Satan; but their power and action are
but little dwelt upon in comparison with his. That
there is against us a power of spiritual wickedness
is a truth which we need to know, and a mystery
which only Revelation can disclose; but whether it
is exercised by few or by many is a matter of com-
parative indifference,
But the Evil One is not only the “ prince of the
demons,” but also he is called the “ prince of this
world” (6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου) in John xii.
31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, and even the ‘god of this
world” (6 θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) in 2 Cor. iv.
4; the two expressions being united in the words
τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου, used in Eph, vi. 12.5 This power he
claimed for himself, as a delegated authority, in
the temptation of our Lord (Luke iv. 6); and the
temptation would have been unreal, had he spoken
altogether falsely. It implies another kind of in-
direct influence exercised through earthiy instru-
ments. ‘here are some indications in Scripture of
the exercise of this power through inanimate in-
struments, of an influence over the powers of
nature, and what men call the ““ chances”’ of life.
Such a power is distinctly asserted in the case of
Job, and probably implied in the case of the woman
with a spirit of infirmity ( (in Luke xiii. 16), and of
St. Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. xii. De
It is only consistent with the attribution of such
action to the angels of God (as in Ex, xii. 23; 2
Sam. xxiv. 16; 2 K. xix. 35; Acts xii. 23); and,
in our ignorance of the method of connexion of the
second causes of nature with the Supreme Will of
God, we cannot even say whether it has in it any
antecedent improbability; but it is little dwelt
upon in Scripture, in comparison with the other
exercise of this power through the hands of wicked
men, who become “children of the devil,’ ἀπά
accordingly “do the lusts of their father.” (See
John viii. 44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii. 8-10;
and comp. John vi. 70.) In this sense the Scrip-
ture regards all sins as the “ works of the devil,”
and traces to him, through his ministers, all
spiritual evil and error (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15), and all
the persecution and hindrances which oppose the
Gospel (Rev. ii. 10; 1 Thess. ii, 18), Most of all
is this indirect action of Satan manifested in those
who deliberately mislead and tempt men, and who
at last, independent of any interest of their own,
come to take an unnatural pleasure in the sight of
evil-doing in others (Rom. i. 32).
The method of his action is best discer ned by an
examination of the title, by which he is designated
in Scripture. He is called emphatically 6 διάβολος,
* the devil.’ The derivation of the word in itself
implies only the endeavour to break the bonds be-
ἃ Tt is unfortunate that the A. V. should use the word
“devil,” not only for its proper equivalent διάβολος, but
also for δαιμόνιον.
e 'The word κόσμος, properly referring to the system of
the universe, and so used in John i. 10, is generally applied
in Scripture to human society as alienated from God, with
a reference to the “‘ pomp and vanity” which makes it an
idol (see, 6. g., 1 John ii. 15); αἰών refers to its transitory
character, and is evidently used above to qualify the
startling application of the word θεός, a “ god of an age”
being of course no true God at all. It is used with κόσμος
in Eph. ii. 2
1148 SATAN
tween others, and “set them at variance” (see,
e.g., Plat. Symp. p. 222 ὁ : διαβάλλειν ἐμὲ καὶ
᾿Αγάθωνα) ; but common usage adds to this general
sense the special idea of “setting at variance by
slander.’ In the N. T. the word διάβολοι is
used three times as an epithet (1 Tim. iii. 11;
2 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. ii. 3); and in each case with
something like the special meaning. In the appli-
vation of the title to Satan, both the general and
special senses should be kept in view. His general
object is to break the bonds of communion between
God and man, and the bonds of truth and love
which bind men to each other, to “ set”’ each soul
ἐς αἱ variance” both with men and God, and so
reduce it to that state of self-will and selfishness
which is the seed-plot of sin. One special means, by
which he seeks to do this, is slander of God to man,
and of man to God.
The slander of God to man is seen best in the
words of Gen. iii. 4,5: ‘* Ye shall not surely die:
for God doth know, that in the day that ye eat
thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be
as gods, knowing good and evil.” These words
contain the germ οἵ the false notions, which keep
men from God, or reduce their service to Him to a
hard and compulsory slavery, and which the hea-
then so often adopted in all their hideousness, when
they represented their gods as either careless of
human weal and woe, or ‘‘ envious” of human ex-
cellence and happiness. They attribute selfishness
and jealousy to the Giver of all good. This is
enough (even without the imputation of falsehood
which is added) to pervert man’s natural love of
freedom, till it rebels against that, which is made to
appear as a hard and arbitrary tyranny, and seeks
to set up, as it thinks, a freer and nobler standard
of its own. Such is the slander of God to man, by
which Satan and his agents still strive against His
reuniting grace.
The slander of man to God is illustrated by the
Book of Job (Job i. 9-11, ii. 4, 5). In reference
to it, Satan is called the “ adversary” (ἀντίδικος)
of man in 1 Pet. v. 8, and represented in that cha-
racter in Zech. iii. 1, 2; and more plainly still de-
signated in Rey. xii. 10, as ‘ the accuser of our
brethren, who accused them before our God day
and night.” It is difficult for us to understand
what can be the need of accusation, or the power of
slander, under the all-searching eye of God. The
mention of it 1s clearly an ‘‘ accommodation” of
God’s judgment to the analogy of our human expe-
rience: but we understand by it a practical and
awful truth, that every sin of life, and even the
admixture of lower and evil motives which taiuts
the best actions of man, will rise up against us at
the judgment, to claim the soul as their own, and
fix for ever that separation from God, to which,
through them, we have yielded ourselves. In that
accusation Satan shall in some way bear a leading
part, pleading against man, with that worst of
slander which is based on perverted or isolated
facts ; and shall be overcome, not by any counter-
claim of human merit, but “ by the blood of the
Lamb” received in true and stedfast faith.
But these points, important as they are, are of
less moment than the disclosure of the method of
Satanic action upon the heart itself. It may be
summed up in twe words—Temptation and Pos-
session.
SATAN
The subject of temptation is illustrated, not only
by abstract statements, but also by the record
of the temptations of Adam and of our Lord. It
is expressly laid down (as in Jam. i, 2-4) that
“temptation,” properly so called, 7.¢. “trial”
(πειρασμός), is essential to man, and is accord-
ingly ordained for him and sent to him by God
(as in Gen. xxii. 1). Man’s nature is progressive;
his faculties, which exist at first only in capacity
(δυνάμει), must be brought out to exist in actual
efficiency (ἐνεργείᾳ) by tree exercise.£ His appe-
tites and passions tend to their objects, simply and
unreservedly, without respect to the rightness or
wrongness of their obtaining them ; they need to be
checked by the reason and conscience, and this
need constitutes a trial, in which, if the conscience
prevail, the spirit receives strength and growth; if
it be overcome, the lower nature tends to predomi-
nate, and the man has fallen away. Besides this,
the will itself delights in independence of action.
Such independence of physical compulsion is its high
privilege ; but there is over it the Moral Power of
God’s Law, which, by the very fact of its truth and
goodness, acknowledged as they are by the reason
and the conscience, should regulate the human will.
The need of giving up the individual will, freely
and by conviction, so as to be in harmony with the
will of God, is a still severer trial, with the reward
of still greater spiritual progress, if we sustain it,
with the punishment of a subtler and more dan-
gerous fall, if we succumb. In its struggle the
spirit of man can only gain and sustain its authority
by that constant grace of God, given through com-
munion of the Holy Spirit, which is the breath
of spiritual life.
It is this tentability of man, even in his original
nature, which is represented in Scripture as giving
scope to the evil action of Satan. He is called the
“¢tempter” (as in Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. 111, 5).
He has power (as the record of Gen. iii. shows
clearly), first, to present to the appetites or passions
their objects in vivid and captivating forms, so as
to induce man to seek these objects against the Law
of God “written in the heart ;” and next, to act
upon the false desire of the will for independence,
the desire ‘“ to be as gods, knowing” (that is, prac-
tically, judging and detefmining) ‘ good and evil.”
It is a power which can be resisted, because it is
under the control and overruling power of God, as
is emphatically laid down in 1 Cor. x. 18; Jam. iv.
7, &c.; but it can be so resisted only by yielding
to the grace of God, and by a struggle (sometimes
an “ agony”’) in reliance on its strength.
It is exercised both negatively and positively.
Its negative exercise is referred to in the parable of
the sower, as taking away the word, the “ engratted
word” (James i. 21) of grace, 7. 6. as interposing
itself, by consent of man, between him and the
channels of God’s grace. Its positive exercise is set
forth in the parable of the wheat and the tares,
represented as sowing actual seed of evil in the in-
dividual heart or the world generally ; and it is to
be noticed, that the consideration of the true nature
of the tares (Ci¢avia) leads to the conclusion, which
is declared plainly in 2 Cor. xi. 14, viz. that evil is
introduced into the heart mostly as the counterfeit
of good.
This exercise of the Tempter’s power is possible,
even against a sinless nature. We see this in the
f See the connexion between faith and love by which
it is made perfect (ἐνεργουμένη) in Gal. v. 6, and between
faith and the works by which it is perfected (τελειοῦται)
in Jam. ii. 22.
SATAN
Temptation of our Lord. The temptations pre-
sented to Him appeal, first to the natural desire
and need of food, next to the desire of power, to
be used for good, which is inherent in the noblest
minds; and lastly, to the desire of testing and
realizing God’s special protection, which is the in-
evitable tendency of human weakness, under a real
but imperfect faith. The objects contemplated in-
volved in no case positive sinfulness ; the temptation
was to seek them by presumptubus or by unholy
means; the answer to them (given by the Lord as
the Son of Man, and therefore as one like ourselves
in all the weakness and finiteness of our nature)
lay in simple Faith, resting upon God, and on His
Word, keeping to His way, and refusing to con-
template the issues of action, which belong to Him
alone. Such faith is a renunciation of all self-
confidence, and a simple dependence on the will and
on the grace of God.
But in the temptation of a fallen nature Satan
has a greater power. Every sin committed makes
a man the “servant of sin” for the future (John
viii. 34; Rom. vi. 16); it therefore creates in the
spirit of man a positive tendency to evil, which
sympathizes with, and aids, the temptation of the
Evil One. This is a fact recognized by experience ;
the doctrine of Scripture, inscrutably mysterious,
but unmistakeably declared, is that, since the Fall,
this evil tendency is born in man in capacity, prior
to all actual sins, and capable of being brought out
into active existence by such actual sins committed.
It is this which St. Paul calls “a law,” 1. 6. (ac-
cording to his universal use of the word) an external
power “of sin” over man, bringing the inner man
(the νοῦς) into captivity (Rom. vii. 14-24). Its
power is broken by the Atonement and the gift of
the Spirit, but yet not completely cast out ; it still
“lusts against the spirit” so that men ‘cannot do
the things, which they would” (Gal. v.17). It is
to this spiritual power of evil, the tendency to false-
hood, cruelty, pride, and unbelief, independently of
any benefits to be derived from them, that Satan is
said to appeal in tempting us. If his temptations
be yielded to without repentance, it becomes the
reprobate (ἀδόκιμος) mind, which delights in evil
for its own sake (Rom. i. 28, 32) and makes men
emphatically ‘children of the devil” (John viii.
44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii. 8, 10), and “ac-
cursed” (Matt. xxv. 41), fit for “ the fire pre-
pared for the devil and his angels.” If they be
resisted, as by God’s grace they may be resisted,
then the evil power (the “flesh” or the “old
man”) is gradually “ crucified”? or “ mortified,”
until the soul is prepared for that heaven, where
no evil can enter.
This twofold power of temptation is frequently
referred to in Scripture, as exercised, chiefly by the
suggestion of evil thoughts, but occasionally by the
delegated power of Satan over outward circum-
stances. To this latter power is to be traced
(as has been said) the trial ot Job by temporal loss
and bodily suffering (Job i., ii.), the remarkable
expression, used by our Lord, as to the woman with
a “spirit of infirmity”? (Luke xiii. 16), the ‘thorn
in the flesh,” which St. Paul calls the ‘‘ messenger
of Satan” to buffet him (2 Cor. xii. 7). Its lan-
guage is plain, incapable of being explained as me-
taphor, or poetical personification of an abstract
principle. Its general statements are illustrated
by examples of temptation. (See, besides those already
mentioned, Luke xxii. 8; John xxiii. 27 (Judas) ;
Luke xxii. 51 (Peter); Acts v. 3 (Ananias and
SATYRS 1149
Sapphira); 1 Cor. vii. 53; 2 Cor. ii. 11; 1 Thess.
iii. 5.) The subject itself is the most startling form
of the mystery of evil; it is one, on which, from
our ignorance of the connexion of the First Cause
with Second Causes in Nature, and of the process
of origination of human thought, experience can
hardly be held to be competent, either to confirm,
or to oppose, the testimony of Scripture.
On the subject of Possession see DEMONIACS. It
is sufficient here to remark, that although widely
different in form, yet it is of the same intrinsic cha-
racter as the other power of Satan, including both
that external and internal influence to which refer-
ence has been made above. It is disclosed to us
only in connexion with the revelation of that
redemption from sin, which destroys it,—a reve-
lation begun in the first promise in Eden, and
manitested, in itself at the Atonement, in its effects
at the Great Day. Its end is seen in the Apoca-
lypse, where Satan is first “ bound for a thousand
years,” then set free for a time for the last conflict,
and finally “ cast into the lake of fire and brimstone
... for ever and ever” (xx. 2, 7-10). (A. B.]
SATHRABU'ZANES (Ξαθραβουζάνης : Sa-
trabuzanes). SHETHARBOZNAI (1 Esd. vi. 3, 7,
27; comp. Hzr. v. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13).
SATYRS (ΟΦ), séirim: δαιμόνια : pilosi),
the rendering in the A. V. of the above-named
plural noun, which, having the meaning of “hairy ”
or “rough,” is frequently applied to “ he-goats ”
(comp. the Latin Aircus, from hirtus, hirsutus); the
Séirim, however, of Is. xiii. 21, and xxxiv. 14,
where the prophet predicts the desolation of Babylon,
have, probably, no allusion to any species of goat
whether wild or tame. According to the old ver-
sions, and nearly all the commentators, our own
translation is correct, and Satyrs, that is, demons of
woods and desert places, half men and half goats,
are intended. Comp. Jerome (Comment. ad Is.
xiii.), ‘¢ Seirim vel incubones vel satyros vel sylves-
tres quosdam homines quos nonnulli fatuos ficarios
vocant, aut daemonum genera intelligunt.” This
explanation receives confirmation from a passage in
Lev. xvii. 7; “they shall no more offer their
sacrifices unto Séirim,” and from a similar one in
2 Chr. xi. 15. The Israelites, it is probable, had
become acquainted with a form of goat-worship
from the Egyptians (see Bochart, Mieroz. 111. 825;
Jablonski Pant. Aeqypt. i. 273, et sqq.). The
opinion held by Michaelis (Supp. p. 2342) and
Lichtenstein (Commentat. de Simiarum, &c., §4,
Cynocophalus (kgypuan Monuments).
1150 SAUL
p- 50, sqq.), that the Séirim probably denote some
species of ape, has been sanctioned by Hamilton
Smith in Kitto’s Cyc. art. Ape. From a few
passages in Pliny (VV. H. v. 8; vii. 2; viii. 54) it is
clear that by Satyrs are sometimes to be understood
some kind of ape or monkey ; Col. H. Smith has
figured the Macacus Arabicus as being the probable
satyr of Babylon. That some species of Cyno-
cephalus (dog-faced baboon) was an ‘animal that
entered into the theology of the ancient Egyptians,
is evident from the monuments and from what
Horapollo (i. 14-16) has told us. The other ex-
planation, however, has the sanction of Gesenius,
Bochart, Rosenmiiller, Parkhurst, Maurer, Fiirst,
and others. As to the “dancing” satyrs, comp.
Virg. Eel. v. 73,
“ Saltantes satyros imitabitur Alphesiboeus.”
[W. H.]
SAUL (νυ, i.e. Shafil: Σαούλ ; Joseph.
Sdovaos: Sail), more accurately SHAUL, in which
form it is given on several occasions in the Autho-
rized Version. The name of various persons in the
Sacred History.
1. Saul of Rehoboth by the River was one of
the early kings of Edom, and successor of Samlah
(Gen. xxxvi. 37, 98). In 1 Chr. i. 48 he is called
SAUL
2. The first king of Israel. The name here
first appears in the history of Israel, though found
before in the Edomite prince already mentioned ;
and in a son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; A. Y.
Shaul). It also occurs among the Kohathites in
the genealogy of Samuel (1 Chr. vi. 24), and in
Saul, like the king, of the tribe of Benjamin, better
known as the Apostle Paul (see below p. 1154).
Josephus (B. J. ii. 18, §4) mentions a Saul, father
of one Simon wh6 distinguished himself at Seytho-
polis in the early part of the Jewish war.
In the following genealozy may be observed—
1. The repetition in two generations of the names
of Kish and Ner, of Nadab and Abi-nadab, and of
Mephibosheth. 2. The occurrence of the name of
Baal in three successive generations: possibly in
four, as there were two Mephibosheths. 3. The
constant shiftings of the names of God,. as incor-
porated in the proper names: (a) Ab-iel =Je-hiel.
(0) Matchi-shua =Je-shua. (0) Esh-baal=Ish-
bosheth. (d) Mephi- (or Meri-) baal = Mephi-
bosheth. 4. The long continuance of the family
down to the times of Ezra. 5. Is it possible
that Zimri (1 Chr. ix. 42) can be the usurper
of 1 K. xvi.—if so, the last attempt of the house
of Saul to regain its ascendancy? ‘The time would
SHAUL, Gs aan
Apmiau. (1 Sam, ix. 1.)
Bechorath.
|
Zeror, (LUXX. Jaord.)
Abiel, or Jehiel = Maachah.
(1 Sam. ix. 1.) (1 Chr, ix.)
(1 Chr, viii. 33.)
| Ι 1 Ι ] | Ι ΣΤΗ͂Σ eat Se |
Abdon, Zur. Kish, Baal. Ner. Nadab, Gedor. Ahio. Zechariah. Mikloth.
(1 Chr. ix. 26.) (Zacher, (1 Chr, ix. 37.)
| 1 Chr. viii.) |
| | Shimenh,
Kish, Abner.
|
Ahinoam = SAUL = Rizpah.
(1 Chr. ix. 33.)
|
| | eerie
Jonathan. Ishui. Malchi-shua. Abmadab. Esh-baal. Merab,
way 3 τ | ἘΠ
David = Michal = Phalticl. Armoni. Mephibosheth.
|
(1 Sam. Joshua (Jos. Ant. Ishbosheth.
Merib-baal. xiv. 49.) vi. 6, 1.) 5 sons.
Mephibosheth (1 Chr. ix. 34).
Micah,
| 2
Ἴ | | |
Pithon, Melech, Tahrea, Ahaz.
Jchoadah (Jarah, 1 Chr. ix. 42).
|
| Ι ΤΠ ΡΣ
Alemeth, Azmaveth. Zimri.
Moza.
Binea.
Rephar (Rephaiah, 1 Chr. ix, 43).
Eleasah.
|
| |
Azel. Eshek.
| ae:
J | | ΙΝ i | | a
Azrikam. Bocheru, Ishminel, Sheariah. Obadiah, Hanan. Ulam. Jehush. Eliphetet.
There is a contradiction between the pedigree in
1 Sam. ix. 1, xiv. 51, which represents Saul and.
Abner as the grandsons of Abiel, and 1 Chr. viii.
33, ix. 39%, which represents them as his great-
grandsons. If we adopt the more elaborate pedigree
in the Chronicles, we must suppose either that a
link has been dropped between Abiel and Kish, in,
1 Sam. ix. 1, or that the elder Kish, the son of
Abiel (1 Chr. ix. 36), has been confounded with
150 descendants,
the younger Kish, the son of Ner (1 Chr. ix. 39).
The pedigree in 1 Chr. viii. is not free from con-
fusion, as it omits amongst the sons of Abiel, Ner,
who in 1 Chr. ix. 36 is the fifth son, and who in
' both is made the father of Kish.
His character is in part illustrated by the fierce,
wayward, fitful nature of the tribe [Bensamin |,
_and in part accounted for by the struggle between
| the old and new systems in which he found him-
SAUL
self involved. To this we must add a taint of
madness, which broke out in violent frenzy at
times, leaving him with long lucid intervals. His
affections were strong, as appears in his love both
for David and his son Jonathan, but they were
unequal to the wild accesses of religious zeal or
insanity which ultimately led to his ruin. He was,
like the earlier Judges, of whom in one sense he
may be counted as the successor, remarkable for his
strength and activity (2 Sam. i. 23), and he was,
like the Homeric heroes, of gigantic stature, taller
by head and shoulders than the rest of the people,
and of that kind of beauty denoted by the Hebrew
word “‘ good” (1 Sam. ix. 2), and which caused
him to be compared to the gazelle, ‘‘ the gazelle
of Israel.” *® It was probably these external quali-
ties which led to the epithet which is frequently
attached to his name, ‘¢ chosen ”—‘* whom the Lord
did choose” —* See ye (i. 6. Look at) him whom
the Lord hath chosen!” (1 Sam. ix. 17, x. 24;
2)Sam. xxi. 6).
The birthplace of Saul is not expressly mentioned ;
but as Zelah was the place of Kish’s sepulchre
(2 Sam. xxi.), it was probably his native village.
There is no warrant for saying that it was Gibeah,»
though, from its subsequent connexion with him, it
is called often ‘‘Gibeah of Saul” [GrBEAH]. His
father, Kish, was a powerful and wealthy chief,
though the family to which he belonged was of
little importance (ix. 1,21). A portion of his pro-
perty consisted of a drove of asses. In search of
these asses, gone astray on the mountains, he sent
his son Saul, accompanied by a servant,* who acted
also as a guide and guardian of the young man
(ix. 3-10). After a three days’ journey (ix. 20),
which it has hitherto proved impossible to track,
through Ephraim and Benjamin [SHALISHA; SHA-
Lim; ZupH], they arrived at the foot of a hill sur-
rounded by a town, when Saul proposed to return
home, but was deterred by the advice of the servant,
who suggested that before doing so they should
consult “ἃ man of God,’ ‘a seer,”’ as to the fate
of the asses—securing his oracle by a, present
(backshish) of a quarter of a silver shekel. They
were instructed by the maidens at the well outside
the city to catch the seer as he came out of the
city to ascend to a sacred eminence, where a sacri-
ficial feast was waiting for his benediction (1 Sam.
ix. 11-13). At the gate they met the seer for the
first time—it was Samuel. <A divine intimation
had indicated to him the approach and the future
destiny of the youthful Benjamite. Surprised at
his language, but still obeying his call, they ascended
to the high place, and in the inn or caravanserai at
the top (τὸ κατάλυμα, LXX., ix. 27) found thirty
or (LXX., and Joseph. Ant. vi. 4, §1) seventy guests
assembled, amongst whom they took the chief place.
In anticipation of some distinguished stranger,
Samuel had bade the cook reserve a boiled shoulder,
SAUL 1151
from which Saul, as the chief guest, was bidden to
tear oif the first morsel (LXX., ix. 22-24). They
then descended to the city, and a bed was prepared
for Saul on the housetop. At daybreak Samuel
roused him. ‘They descended again to the skirts
of the town, and there (the servant having left them)
Samuel poured over Saul’s head the consecrated oil,
and with a kiss of salutation announced to him that
he was to be the ruler and (LXX.) deliverer of the
nation (ix. 25-x. 1), From that moment, as he
tured on Samuel the huge shoulder which towered
above all the rest (x. 9, LXX.), a new life dawned
upon him. He returned by a route which, like
that of his search, it is impossible to make out
distinctly ; and at every step homeward it was con-
firmed by the incidents which, according to Samuel’s
prediction, awaited him (x. 9,10). At Rachel’s
sepulchre he met two men,“ who announced to him
the recovery of the asses—his lower cares were to
cease. At the oak® of Tabor [PLAIn; TABor,
PLAIN OF | he met three men carrying gifts of kids
and bread, and a skin of wine, as an offering to
Bethel. Two of the loaves were offered to him as
if to indicate his new dignity. At “the hill of
fGod” (whatever may be meant thereby, possibly
his own city, GIBEAH), he met a band of prophets
descending with musical instruments, and he caught
the inspiration from them, as a sign of his new life.®
This is what may be called the private, inner
view of his call. The outer call, which is related
independently of the other, was as follows. An
assembly was convened by Samuel at Mizpeh, and ἢ
lots (so often practised at that time) were cast to
find the tribe and the family which was to produce
the king. Saul was named—and, by a Divine inti-
mation, found hid in the circle of baggage which sur-
rounded the encampment (x. 17-24). His stature
at once conciliated the public feeling, and for the
first time the shout was raised, afterwards so often
repeated in modern times, ‘‘ Long live the king”
(x. 23-24), and he returned to his native Gibeah,
accompanied by the fighting part of the people,
of whom he was now to be the especial head. The
munnurs of the worthless part of the community
who refused to salute him with the accustomed
presents were soon dispelledi by an occasion arising
to justify the selection of Saul. He was (having
apparently returned to his private life) on his way
home, driving his herd of oxen, when he heard one
of those wild lamentations in the city of Gibeah,
such as mark in Eastern towns the arrival of a
great calamity. It was the tidings of the threat
issued by Nahash king of Ammon against Jabesh
Gilead (see AMMON). The inhabitants of Jabesh
were connected with Benjamin, by the old adven-
ture recorded in Judg. xxi. It was as if this one
spark was needed to awaken the dormant spirit of
the king. “The Spirit of the Lord came upon
him,” as on the ancient Judges. The shy, re-
a 2 Sam. i. 19, the word translated “ beauty,’ but the
same term (71%) in 2 Sam. ii. 18 and elsewhere is
translated “roe.” The LXX. have confounded it with a
very similar word, and render it Στήλωσον, “set up a
pillar.”
b When Abiel, or Jehiel (1 Chr. viii. 29, ix. 35), is called
the father of “Gibeon,’ it probably means founder of
Gibeah.
ὁ The word is W3, “ servant,” not Ty, “slave.”
ἃ At Zelzah, or (LXX.) “ leaping for joy.”
© Mistranslated in A. V. ‘ plain.”
f In x. 5, Gtbeath ha-Hlohim ; in x. 10, hag-gibeah only.
Joseph. (Ant. vi. 4,§2) gives the name Gabatha, by which
he elsewhere designates Gibeah, Saul’s city.
& See for this Ewald (iii. 28-30).
h Sinn, “the strength,” the host, x. 26; comp. 2 Sam.
xxiv. 2. The word “ band” is usually employed in the
A. V. for TIA, a very different term, with a strict
meaning of its own. [TRoov.]
i The words which close 1 Sam. x. 27 are in the
Hebrew text “he was as though he were deaf;” in
Joseph. Ané. vi. 5, §1, and the LXX. (followed by Ewald),
“and it came to pass after a month that.’’
1152 SAUL
tiring nature which we have observed, vanished
never to return. He had recourse to the expedient
of the earlier days, and summoned the people by
the bones of two of the oxen from the herd which
he was driving: three (or six, LXX.) hundred thou-
sand followed trom Israel, and (perhaps not in due
proportion) thirty (or seventy, LXX.) thousand
from Judah: and Jabesh was rescued. The efiect
was instantaneous on the people—the punishment
of the murmurers was demanded—but refused by
Saul, and the monarchy was inaugurated anew at
Gilgal (xi. 1-15). It should be, however, observed
that, according to 1 Sam. xii. 12, the affair of
Nahash preceded and occasioned the election of
Saul. He becomes king of Israel. But he still
so far resembles the earlier Judges, as to be vir-
tually king only of his own tribe, Benjamin, or of
the immediate neighbourhood. Almost all his ex-
ploits are confined to this circle of territory or
associations.
Samuel, who had up to this time been still named
as ruler with Saul (xi. 7, 12, 14), now withdrew,
and Saul became the acknowledged chief. In the
2nd year! of his reign, he began to organise an
attempt to shake off the Philistine yoke which
pressed on his country ; not least on his own tribe,
where a Philistine officer had long been stationed
even in his own field (x. 5, xiii. 3). An army of
3000 was formed, which he soon afterwards gathered
together round him; and Jonathan, apparently with
his sanction, rose against the officer™ and slew him
(xiii, 2-4). This roused the whole force of the
Philistine nation against him. The spirit of Israel
was completely broken. Many concealed them-
selves in the caverns; many crossed the Jordan;
all were disarmed, except Saul and his son, with
their immediate retainers, In this crisis, Saul,
now on the very confines of his kingdom at
Gilgal, found himself in the position long before
described by Samuel ; longing to exercise his royal
right of sacrifice, yet deterred by his sense of obe-
dience to the Prophet." At last on the 7th day, he
could wait no longer, but just after the sacrifice
was completed Samuel arrived, and pronounced the
first curse, on his impetuous zeal (xiii. 5-14),
Meanwhile the adventurous exploit of Jonathan at
Michmash brought on the crisis which ultimately
drove the Philistines back to their own territory
[JONATHAN]. It was signalised by two remark-
able incidents in the life of Saul. One was the first
appearance of his madness in the rash vow which
all but cost the lite of bis son (1 Sam. xiv. 24, 44),
The other was the erection of his first altar, built
either to celebrate the victory, or to expiate the
savage feast of the famished people (xiv. 35).
The expulsion of the Philistines (although not
entirely completed, xiv. 52) at once placed Saul
in a position higher than that of any previous ruler
of Israel. Probably from this time was formed
the organisation of royal state, which contained
in germ some of the future institutions of the
monarchy. ‘The host of 3000 has been already
mentioned (1 Sam. xiii., xxiv. 2, xxvi. 2; comp.
k Also 2 Sam. x. 15, LXX., for “ Lord.”
1 The expression, xiii. 1, “Saul was one year old” (the
son of a year), in his reigning, may be either, (1) he
reigned one year; or (2), the word 30 may have dropped
out thence to xiii. 5, and it may have been “ he was 31
when he began to reign.”
m The word may be rendered either “ garrison” or
“officer ;” its meaning is uncertain.
Ὁ ‘The command of Samuel (x. 8) had apparently a
|
SAUL
1 Chr. xii. 29). Of this Abner became captain
(1 Sam, xiv. 50). A body guard was also formed of
runners and messengers (see 1 Sam. xvi, 15; 17,
xxii. 14, 17, xxvi. 22).° Of this David was after-
wards made the chief. These two were the prin-
cipal oftticers of the court, and sate with Jonathan
at the king’s table (1 Sam. xx. 25). Another officer
is incidentally mentioned—the keeper of the royal
mules —the comes stabuli, the ‘ constable” of
the king—such as appears in the later monarchy
(1 Chr. xxvii. 30). He is the first instance of a
foreigner employed about the court—being an
Edomite or (LXX.) Syrian, of the name of Doeg
(1 Sam. xxi. 7, xxii. 9). According to Jewish
tradition (Jer. Qu. Heb. ad loc.) he was the servant
who accompanied Saul in his pursuit of his father’s
asses—who counselled him to send for David (ix.,
xvi.), and whose son ultimately killed him (2 Sam.
i. 10). The high-priest of the house of Ithamar
(Ahimelech or Ahijah) was in attendance upon him
with the ephod, when he desired it (xiy. 3), and
felt himself bound to assist his secret commissioners
(xxi. 1-9, xxii. 14).
The king himself was distinguished by a state,
not before marked in the rulers. He had a tall
spear, of the same kind as that described in the
hand of Goliath. [ARms.] This never left him—
in repose (1 Sam. xviii. 10, xix. 9 ); at his meals
(xx. 33); at rest (xxvi. 11), in battle (2 Sam.
i. 6). In battle he wore a diadem on his head
and a bracelet on his arm (2 Sam. i. 10). He
sate at meals on a seat of his own facing his son
(1 Sam. xx. 25; LXX.). He was received on his
return from battle by the songs of the Israelite P
women (1 Sam. xviii. 6), amongst whom he was op
such occasions specially known as bringing back
from the enemy scarlet robes, and golden orna-
ments for their apparel (2 Sam. i. 24).
The warlike character of his reign naturally still
predominated, and he was now able (not merely,
like his temporary predecessors, to act on the
defensive, but) to attack the neighbouring tribes of
Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, and finally Amalek
(xiv. 47). The war with Amalek is twice re-
lated, first briefly (xiv. 48), and then at length
(xv. 1-9). Its chief connexion with Saul’s history
lies in the disobedience to the prophetical command
of Samuel; shown in the sparing of the king, and
the retention of the spoil.
The extermination of Amalek and the subsequent
execution of Agag belong to the general question
of the moral code of the O. T. There is no reason
to suppose that Saul spared the king for any other
reason than that for which he retained the spoil—
namely, to make a more splendid show at the
sacrificial thanksgiving (xv. 21), Such was the
Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. vi.
7, §2), who expressly says that Agag was spared for
his stature and beauty, and such is the general
impression left by the description of the celebration
of the victory. Saul rides to the southern Carmel
in a chariot (LXX.), never mentioned elsewhere,
and sets up a monument there (Heb. ‘‘a hand,”
perpetual obligation (xiii. 13). It had been given two
years before, and in the interval they had both been at
Gilgal (xi. 15). N.B.—The words “had appointed”
(xiii. 8) are inserted in A. V. :
o They were Benjamites (1 Sam. xxii. 7; Jos. Ant.
vii. 14), young, tall, and handsome (Zbid. vi. 6, 66).
Ρ Jos. (Ant. vi. 10, §1) makes the women sing the
praises of Saul, the maidens, of David. :
SAUL
2 Sam. xviii. 18), which in the Jewish traditions
(Jerome, Qu. Heb, ad loc.) was a triumphal arch
of olives, myrtles, and palms. And in allusion to
his crowning triumph, Samuel applies to God the
phrase, “* The V ictory (v ulg. triumphator) of Israel
will neither lie nor repent” (xv. 29; and comp.
1 Chr. xxix. 11). This second act of disobedience
called down the second curse, and the first distinct
intimation of the transference of the kingdom to a
rival. The struggle between Samuel and Saul in
their final parting is indicated by the rent of
Samuel’s robe of state, as he tears himself away
from Saul’s grasp (for the gesture, see Joseph. Ant.
vi. 7, §5), and by the long mourning of Samuel
for the separation—‘‘ Samuel mourned for Saul.”
“¢ How long wilt thou mourn for Saul?” (xiv. 35,
vel):
The rest of Saul’s life is one long tragedy. The
frenzy, which had given indications of itself before,
now at times took ‘almost entire possession of him.
It is described in mixed phrases as ‘an evil spirit
of God” (much as we might speak of ‘religious
madness’), which, when it came upon him, almost
choked or strangled him from its violence (avi. 14,
LXX.; Joseph. Ant. vi. 8, §2).
In this crisis David was recommended to him by
one of the young men of his guard (ih the Jewish
tradition groundlessly supposed to be Done. Jerome,
Qu. Heb, ad loc.). From this time forward their
lives are blended together. [DAvip.] In Saul’s
better moments he never lost the strong afiection
‘which he had contracted for David. ‘ He loved
him greatly’’ (xvi. 21). “ Saul would let him go
no more home to his father’s house” (xviii. 2).
“Ὁ Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat ?”
(xx. 27). “Is this thy voice, my son David. .
Return, my son David; blessed be thou, my son
David” (xxiv. 16, xxvi. 17, 25). Occasionally too
his prophetical itt aetna blended with his
madness. He “ prophesied” “raved” in the
midst of his house—‘‘ he ἜΡΥΜΑ, and lay down |
naked all day and all night”
But his acts of fierce, wild zeal increased.
at Ramah (xix. 24).
The
massacre of the priests, with all their families 4 |
his armour-bearer was pursued by the archers and
(xxii.)—the massacre, perhaps at the same time,
-of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. xxi. 1), and the violent
extirpation of the necromancers (1 Sam. xxviii.
3, 9), are all of the same kind. At last the
monarchy itself, which he had raised up, broke
down under the weakness of its head. The Philis-
tines re-entered the country, and with their chariots
and horses occupied the plain of Esdraelon. Their
camp was pitched on the southern slope of the
range now called Little Hermon, by Shunem. On
the < opposite side, on Mount Gilboa, was the Israelite
army, clinging as usual to the heights which were
their safety. It was near the spring of Gideon’s
encampment, hence called the spring of Harod or
“trembling ”’—and now the name assumed an evil
omen, and the heart of the king as he pitched his
camp there “ trembled exceedingly ” (1 Sam. xxviii.
5). In the loss of all the usual means of con-
salting the Divine Will, he determined, with that
wayward mixture of ‘superstition and religion which
marked his whole career, to apply™ to one of the
necromancers who had escaped his persecution.
SAUL 1153
She was a woman living at Endor, on the other
side of Little Hermon; she is called a woman of
“Ob,” ὦ e. of the skin or bladder, and this the
LXX. has rendered by ἐγγαστρίμυθος or ventrilo-
quist, and the Vulgate by Pythoness. According
to the Hebrew tradition mentioned by Jerome,
she was the mother of Abner, and hence hee
escape from the general massacre of the necro-
mancers (See Leo Allatius De Lngastrimutho,
cap. 6 in Critict Sacri ii.). Volumes have been
written on the question, whether in the scene
that follows we are to understand an imposture
or a 168] apparition of Samuel. LEustathius and
most of the Fathers take the former view (repre-
senting it, however, as a figment of the Devil) ;
Origen, the latter view. Augustine wavers. (See
Leo Allatius, ut supra, p. 1062-1114). The LXX.
of 1 Sam. xxvii. 7 (by the above translation)
and the A. V. (by its omission of “ himself” in
xxvili. 14, and insertion of “* when” in xxviii. 12)
lean to the former. Josephus (who pronounces a
glowing eulogy on the woman, Art. vi. 14, §2, 3),
and the LXX. of 1 Chr. x. 13, to the latter. At
this distance of time it is impossible to determine
the relative amount of fraud or of reality, though
the obvious meaning of the narrative itself tends
to the hypothesis of some kind of apparition. She
recognises the disguised king first by the appear-
ance of Samuel, seemingly from his threatening
aspect or tone as towards his enemy. Saul appa-
rently saw nothing, but listened to her description
of a god-like figure of an aged man, wrapped round
with the roy al or sacred robe,t
On hearing the denunciation, which the apparition
conveyed, Saul fell the whole length of his gigantic
stature (see xxviii. 20, margin) on the ground, and
remained motionless till the woman and his servants
forced him to eat.
The next day the battle came on, and according
to Josephus (Ant. vi. 14, §7), perhaps according to
the spirit of the sacred narrative, his courage ‘and
self-devotion returned. The Israelites were driven
up the side of Gilboa. The three sons of Saul
were slain (1 Sam. xxxi. 2). Saul himself with
the charioteers of the enemy (1 Sam. xxxi. 3;
2 Sam. i. 6). He was wounded in the stomach
(LXX., 1 Sam. xxxi. 3). His shield was cast
away (2 Sam. i. 21). According to one account,
he fell upon his own sword (1 Sam. xxxi. 4).
According to another account (which may be
reconciled with the former by supposing that it
describes a later incident), an Amalekite™ came up at
the moment of his death-wound (whether from
himself or the enemy), and found him “ fallen,’
but leaning on his spear (2 Sam. i. 6, 10). The
dizziness of death was gathered over him (LXX.,
2 Sam. i. 9), but he was still alive; and he was,
at his own request, put out of his pain by the
Amalekite, who took off his royal diadem and brace-
let, and carried the news to David (2 Sam. i, 7-10).
Not till then, according to Josephus (Ant. vi. 14,
§7), did the faithful armour-bearer fall on his sword
and die with him (1 Sam. xxxi. 5). The body on
being found by the Philistines was stripped, and
decapitated. The armour was sent into the Philis-
4 This is placed by Josephus as the climax of his guilt,
brought on by the intoxication of power (Amt. vi. 12, $7).
τ His companions were Abner and Amasa (Seder
Olam, Meyer, 492).
| not hating, Saul.
Had the massacre of the priests and
the persecution of David (xix. 18) alienated him ?
τ ἱερατικὴν διπλοΐδα (Jos. Ant. vi. 14, §2).
ἃ According to the Jewish tradition (Jerome, Qu. Heb.
* When we last heard of Samuel he was mourningfor, | ad loc.), he was the son of Doeg.
VOL. 11.
|
4E
1154 SAVARAN
tine cities, as if in retribution for the spoliation of
Goliath, and finally deposited in the temple of
Astarte, apparently in the neighbouring Canaan-
itish city of Bethshan; and over the walls of the
same city was hung the naked headless corpse,
with those of his three sons (ver. 9. 10). The
head was deposited (probably at Ashdod) in the
temple of Dagon (1 Chr. x. 10)... The corpse was
removed from Bethshan by the gratitude of the
inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, who came over the
Jordan by night, carried off the bodies, burnt them,
and buried them under the tamarisk at Jabesh
(1 Sam. xxxi. 13). Thence, after the lapse of
several years, his ashes and those of J onathan were
removed by David to their ancestral sepulchre at
Zelah in Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 14). [Mepui-
BOSHETH, p. 325a. | [ASB Sa}
3. The Jewish name of Sr. Paun. This was
the most distinguished name in the genealogies of
the tribe of Benjamin, to which the Apostle felt
some pride in belonging (Rom. xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5).
He himself leads us to associate his name with that
of the Jewish king, by the marked way in which
he mentiens Saul in his address at the Pisidian
Antioch: “ God gave unto them Saul the son of
Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin ” (Acts xiii.
21). These indications are in harmony with the
intensely Jewish spirit of which the life of the
Apostle exhibits so many signs. [PaAuL.] The
early ecclesiastical writers did not fail to notice the
prominence thus given by St. Paul to his trihe.
Tertullian (adv. Mare. v.1) applies to him the
dying words of Jacob on Benjamin. And Jerome,
in his Lpitaphium Paulae (§8), alluding to the
preservation of the six hundred men of Benjamin
after the affair of Gibeah (Judg. xx. 49), speaks
of them as “ trecentos (sic) viros propter Apostolum
reservatos.” Compare the article on BENJAMIN
[vol. i. 190 δ].
Nothing certain is known about the change of
the Apostle’s name from Saul to Paul (Acts xiii. 9),
to which reference has been already made. [ PAUL,
p- 736 b.| Twochief conjectures * prevail concern-
ing the change. (1.) That.of Jerome and Augustine,
that the name was derived from SERGIUS PAULUS,
the first of his Gentile converts. (2.) That which
appears due to Lightfoot, that Paulus was the
Apostle’s Roman name as a citizen of Tarsus, na-
turally adopted into common use by his biographer
when his labours among the heathen commenced.
The former of these is adopted by Olshausen and
Meyer. It isalso the view of Ewald ( Gesch. vi. 419,
20), who seems to consider it self-evident, and looks
on the absence of any explanation of the change as
a proof that it was so understood by all the readers
οὔ the Acts, However this may be, after Saul has
taken his place definitively as the Apostle to the
Gentile world, his Jewish name is entirely dropped.
Two divisions of his life are well marked by the
use of the two names. nls D.]
SAV'ARAN (ὁ Savapdy: filius Saura, Ava-
rum?), an erroneous form of the title Avaran,
borne by Eleazar the son of Mattathias, which is
found in the common texts in 1 Mace. vi. 43,
[ELEAzER 8, vol. i. p. 518. ] [B. F. W.]
SAVI'AS (om. in Vat.; Alex. Saovia: om. in
Vulg.). Uzzi the ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 2;
comp. zr. vii. 4).
SAVIOUR
SAVIOUR. The following article, together with
the one on the Son OF GOD, forms the complement
to the life of our Lord JEsusCHRIST. [See vol. i.
p- 1039.] An explanation is first given of the »
word ‘* Saviour,” and then of His work of salvation,
as unfolded and taught in the New Testament. [See
also MESSIAH. |
I. Tue Word SAviouR.—The term £‘ Saviour,”
as applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, represents the
Greek sdter (σωτήρ), which in turn represents
certain derivatives trom the Hebrew root ydash’a
(YW), particularly the participle of the Hiphil
form médshi’a (yw), which is usually rendered
«‘Saviour’’ in the A.V. (e.g. Is. xlvi. 15; xlix.
26). In considering the true import of ‘ Saviour,”
it is essential for us to examine the original terms
answering to it, including in onr view the use
of séter in the LXX., whence it was more immedi-
ately derived by the writers of the New Testament,
and further noticing the cognate terms “ to save”
and “salvation,” which express respectively the
action and the results of the Saviour’s office. 1. The
first point to be observed is that the term sdter is
of more frequent occurrence in the LXX. than the
term ‘ Saviour” in the A. V. of the Old Testa-
ment. It represents not only the word méshi’a
above-mentioned, but also very frequently the
nouns yesh’a (YW) and yéshd’ah (TPA), which,
though properly expressive of the abstract notion
* salvation,’ are yet sometimes used in a concrete
sense for ““ Saviour.” We may cite as an example
Is. Ixii. 11, “ Behold, thy salvation cometh, his
reward is with him,” where evidently “ salvation”
= Saviour. So again in passages where these
terms are connected immediately with the person
of the Godhead, as in Ps. Ixviii. 20, “the God our
Saviour” (A. V. “God of our salvation”). Not
only in such cases as these, but in many others
where the sense does not require it, the LXX. has
séter where the A. V. has “salvation ;” and thus
the word ‘‘ Saviour’? was more familiar to the ear
of the reader of the Old Testament in our Lord’s
age than it is to us. 2. The same observation holds
good with regard to the verb σώζειν, and the sub-
stantive σωτηρία, as used in the LXX. An ex-
amination of the passages in which they occur
shows that they stand as equivalents for words
conveying the notions of well-being, succour, peace,
and the like. We have further to notice σωτηρία
in the sense of recovery of the bodily health (2 Mace.
iii, 32), together with the etymological connexion
supposed to exist between the terms σωτήρ and
σῶμα, to which St, Paul evidently alludes in Eph.
v. 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21. 8. If we turn to the
Hebrew terms, we cannot fail to be struck with
their comprehensiveness. Our verb “to save”
implies, in its ordinary sense, the rescue of a person
from actual or impending danger. This is un-
doubtedly included ,in the Hebrew root yash’a, and
may be said to be its ordinary sense, as testified by
the frequent accompaniment of the preposition min,
ΟΣ compare the σώσει ἀπό which the angel gives
in explanation of the name Jesus, Matt. i. 21).
But ydsh’a, beyond this, expresses assistance and
protection οἵ every kind—assistance in aggressive
measures, protection against attack; and, in a
secondary sense, the results of such assistance—
« ‘There are many other theories, one of which may be
mentioned; that of Nicephorus (Hist. £cel. ii. 37), who
treats Paulus as a contraction of Pusillus, and supposes it
to have been a nickname given to the Apostle on account
of his insignificant stature !
SAVIOUR
victory, safety, prosperity, and happiness. We
may cite as an instance of the aggressive sense
Deut. xx. 4, “to fight for you against your enemies,
to save you;” of protection against attack Is. xxvi.
1, <‘ salvation will God appoint for walls and bul-
warks ;” of victory 2 Sam. viii. 6, “The Lord
preserved David,” i. e. gave him victory ; of pros-
perity and happiness, 15. Ix. 18, “ Thou shalt. call
thy walls Salvation ;” Is. Ixi. 10, “ He hath clothed
me with the garments of salvation.” No better
instance of this last sense can be adduced than the
exclamation ‘ Hosanna,” meaning, ‘ Save, I beseech
thee,” which was uttered as a prayer for God’s
blessing on any joyous occasion (Ps. cxvili. 25),
as at our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem, when the
etymological connexion of the terms Hosanna and
Jesus could not have been lost on the ear of the
Hebrew (Matt. xxi. 9,15). It thus appears that
the Hebrew and Greek terms had their positive as
well as their negative side, in other words that they
expressed the presence of blessing as well as the
absence of danger, actual security as well as the re-
moval of insecurity.2 4. The historical personages
to whom the terms are applied further illustrate
this view. The judges are styled “ saviours,”’ as
having rescued their country from a state of bondage
(Judg. iii. 9, 15, A. V. ‘‘ deliverer;” Neh. ix. 27);
a “saviour”? was subsequently raised up in the
person of Jeroboam II. to deliver Israel from the
Syrians (2 K. xiii. 5); and in the same sense Jo-
sephus styles the deliverance from Egypt a “ salva-
tion” (Ant. iii. 1, §1). Joshua on the other hand
verified the promise contained in his name by his
conquests over the Canaanites: the Lord was his
helper in an aggressive sense. Similarly the office
of the “saviours” promised in Obad. 21 was to
execute vengeance on Edom. ‘The names Isaiah,
Jeshua, Ishi, Hosea, Hoshea, and lastly, Jesus, are
all expressive of the general idea of assistance trom
the Lord. The Greek séter was in a similar manner
applied in the double sense of a deliverer from foreign
foes as in the case of Ptolemy Soter, and a general
protector, as in the numerous instances where it was
appended as the title of heathen deities. ὅ. There are
numerous indications in the O. T. that the idea of a
spiritual salvation, to be effected by God alone, was
by no means foreign to the mind of the pious He-
brew. In the Psalms there are numerous petitions
to God to save from the effects of sin (6. 4. xxxix.
8, Ixxix. 9). Isaiah in particular appropriates the
term ‘ saviour” to Jehovah (aliii..11), and con-
nects it with the notions of justice and righteousness
(xlv. 21, lx. 16, 17): he adduces it as the special
manner in which Jehovah reveals Himself to man
(xlv. 15): he hints at the means to be adopted for
effecting salvation in passages where he connects the
term ‘ saviour” with ‘‘redeemer”’ (goé/), as in
xli. 14, xlix. 26, lx. 16, and again with “ ransom,’
as in xliii. 3. Similar notices are scattered over the
prophetical books (6. g. Zech. ix. 9; Hos. i. 7), and
though in many instances these notices admitted of
a reference to proximate events of a temporal nature,
they evidently locked to higher things, and thus fos-
tered in the mind of the Hebrew the idea of a
«© Saviour” who should far surpass in his achieve-
a The Latin language possessed in the classical period
no proper equivalent for the Greek σωτήρ. This appears
from the introduction of the Greek word itself in a Latin-
ized form, and from Cicero’s remark (in Very, Act. 2, ii.
63) that there was no one word which expressed the
notion qui salutem dedit. ‘Tacitus (Amn. Xv. 71) uses
conservator, and Pliny (xxii. 5) servator. ‘The term sal-
SAVIOUR 1155
ments the ‘*saviours’’ that had as yet appeared.
The mere sound of the word would conjure up
before his imagination visions of deliverance, se-
curity, peace, and prosperity.
Il. THe Work OF THE SAviourR.—1. The
three first Evangelists, as we know, agree in show-
ing that Jesus unfolded His message to the disciples
by degrees. He Wrought the miracles that were to
be the credentials of the Messiah ; He laid down the
great principles of the Gospel morality, until He
had established in the minds of the Twelve the con-
viction that He was the Christ of God. Then as
the clouds of doom grew darker, and the malice of
the Jews became more intense, He turned a new
page in His teaching. Drawing from His disciples
the confession of their faith in Him as Christ, He
then passed abruptly, so to speak, to the truth that
remained to be learned in the last few months of
His ministry, that His work included suffering as
well as teaching (Matt. xvi. 20,21). He was in-
stant in pressing this unpalatable doctrine home to
His disciples, from this time to the end. Four occa-
sions when He prophesied His bitter death are on
record, and they are probably only examples out of
many more (Matt. xvi. 21). We grant that in
none of these places does the word ‘‘ sacrifice” occur’;
and that the mode of speaking is somewhat obscure,
as addressed to minds unprepared, even then, to
bear the full weight of a doctrine so repugnant to
their hopes. But that He must (δεῖ) go and meet
death ; that the powers of sin and of this world are
let loose against Him for a time, so that He shal!
be betrayed to the Jews, rejected, delivered by them
to the Gentiles, and by them be mocked and scourged,
crucified, and slain; and that all this shall be done
to achieve a foreseen work, and accomplish all things
written of Him by the prophets—these we do cer-
tainly find. They invest the death of Jesus with a
peculiar significance; they set the mind inquiring
what the meaning ‘can be of this hard necessity that
is laid on Him. For the answer we look to other
places; but at least there is here no contradiction
to the doctrine of sacrifice, though the Lord does
not yet say, “‘ I bear the wrath of God against your
sins in your stead ; I become a curse for you.” Of
the two sides of this mysterious doctrine,—that
Jesus dies for us willingly, and that he dies to bear
a doom laid on Him as of necessity, because some
one must bear it,—it is the latter side that is made
prominent. In all the passages it pleases Jesus to
speak, not of His desire to die, but of the burden
lai¢ on Him, and the power given to others against
Him.
_ 2. Had the doctrine’ been explained no further,
there would have been much to wait for. But the
series of announcements in these passages leads up
to one more definite and complete. It cannot be
denied that the words of the institution of the
Lord’s Supper speak most distinctly of a sacrifice.
“Drink ye all of this, for this is My blood of the
new covenant,” or, to follow St. Luke, ‘ the new
covenant in My blood.” We are carried back by
these words to the first covenant, to the altar with
twelve pillars, and the burnt-offerings and peace-
offerings of oxen, and the blood of the victims
vator appears appended as a title of Jupiter in an in-
scription of the age of Trajan (Gruter, p. 19, No.5). This
was adopted by Christian writers as the most adequate
equivalent for σωτήρ, though objections were evidently
raised against it (Augustin, Sev. 299, §6). Another
term, salutificator, was occasionally used by Tertullian
(De Reswrr. carn. 17 3 De carn. Chr. 14).
4 ΚΕ 2
1156 SAVIOUR
sprinkled on the altar and on the people, and the
words of Moses as he sprinkled it: ‘* Behold the
blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made
with you concerning all these words” (Ex. xxiv.).
No interpreter has ever failed to draw from these
passages the true meaning: ‘‘ When My sacrifice is
accomplished, M y blood shall be the sanction of the
new covenant.” The word “ sacrifice” is wanting ;
but sacrifice and nothing else is described. And
the words are no mere figure used for illustration,
and laid aside when they have served that turn,
“6 Do this in remembrance of Με. They are the
words in which the Church is to interpret the act
of Jesus to the end of time. They are reproduced
exactly by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 25). Then, as
now, Christians met together, and by a solemn act
declared that they counted the blood of Jesus as a
sacrifice wherein a new covenant was sealed; and of
the blood of that sacrifice they partook by faith,
professing themselves thereby willing to enter the
covenant and be sprinkled with the blood.
3. So far we have examined the three “ synoptic”
Gospels. They follow a historical order. In the
early chapters of all three the doctrine of our Lord’s
sacrifice is not found, because He will first answer
the question about Himself, “ Who is this?” before
he shows them ‘‘ What is His work?” But at
length the announcement is made, enforced, re-
peated ; until, when the feet of the betrayer are
ready for their wicked errand, a command is given
which secures that the death of Jesus shall be
described for ever as a sacrifice and nothing else,
sealing a new covenant, and carrying good to many.
Lest the doctrine of Atonement should seem to be
an afterthought, as indeed De Wette has tried to
represent it, St. John preserves the conversation
with Nicodemus, which took place early in the mi-
nistry; and there, under the figure of the brazen
serpent lifted up, the atoning virtue of the Lord’s
death is fully set forth. ** As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish, but have eternal life” (John iii.
14, 15). As in this intercessory act, the image of
the deadly, hateful, and accursed (Gen. ill. 14, 15)
reptile became by God’s decree the means of health
to all who looked on it earnestly, so does Jesus in
the form of sinful man, of a deceiver of the people
(Matt. xxvii. 63), of Antichrist (Matt. xii. 24;
John xviii. 33), of one accursed (Gal. iii. 13), be-
come the means of our salvation; so that whoever
fastens the earnest gaze of faith on him shall*not
perish, but have eternal life. There is even a sig-
nificance in the word “lift@d up;” the Lord used
probably the word PT, which in older Hebrew
meant to lift up in the widest sense, but began in
the Aramaic to have the restricted meaning of lift-
ing up for punishment. b With Christ the lifting
up was a seeming disgrace, a true triumph and
elevation. But the context in which these verses
occur is as important as the verses themselves. Ni-
codemus comes as an inquirer; he is told that a man
must be born again, and then he is directed to the
death of Jesus as the means of that regeneration.
The earnest gaze of the wounded soul is to be the
condition of its cure ; and that gaze is to be turned,
not to Jesus on the mountain, or in the Temple,
| but on the Cross.
| He is the bread; and He will give the bread.¢
SAVIOUR
This, then, is no passing allu-
sion, but it is the substance of the Christian teaching
addressed to an earnest seeker after truth.
Another passage claims a reverent attention—
“Ὁ 1 any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever,
and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I
will give for the life of the world ” (John vi. 51).
If
His presence on earth were the expected food, it
was given already ; but would He speak of “ ΠΕΣ
ing His blood ” Ὁ er. 53), which can only refer to
the dead? It is on the Cross that He will afford
this food to His disciples. We grant that this whole
passage has occasioned as much disputing among
Christian commentators as it did among the Jews
who heard it ; and for the same reason,— for the hard-
ness of the saying. But there stands the saying ;
and no candid person can refuse to see a reference
in it to the death of Him that speaks.
In that discourse, which has well been called the
Prayer of Consecration offered by our High Priest,
there is another passage which cannot. be alleged as
evidence to one who thinks that any word applied
by Jesus to His disciples and Himself must bear in
both cases precisely the same sense, but which is
really pertinent to this inquiry Ἐπ αὶ Sanctify them
through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. As Thou
hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent
them into the world. And for their sakes I sanc-
tify Myself, that they also might be sanctified
through the truth” (John xvii. 17-19). The word
ἁγιάζειν, ‘sanctify,’ ‘ consecrate,” is used in the
Septuagint for the offering of sacrifice (Levit. xxii:
2), and for the dedication of a man to the Divine
service (Num. iii. 15). Here the present tense,
“Ὁ 1 consecrate,’ used in a discourse in which our
Lord says He is “no more in the world,” is con-
clusive against the interpretation ‘I dedicate My
life to thee;” for life is over. No self-dedication,
except that by death, can now be spoken of as pre-
sent. “41 dedicate Myself to Thee, in My death,
that these may be a people consecrated to* Thee ;”
such is the great thought in this sublime passage,
which suits well with His other declaration, that
the blood of His sacrifice sprinkles them for a new
covenant with God. To the great majority of ex-
positors from Chrysostom and Cyril, the doctrine of
reconciliation through the death of Jesus is asserted
in these verses.
The Redeemer has already described Himself as
the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the
sheep (John x. 11, 17, 18), taking care to distin-
euish His death hom that of one “who dies against
his will in striving to compass some other aim:
‘¢ Therefore doth my Father love Me, because I lay
down My life that I might take it again, No man
taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again.”
Other passages that relate to His death will occur
to the memory of any Bible reader. The corn of
wheat that dies in the ground to bear much fruit
(John x. 24), is explained by His own words else-
where, where He says that He came ‘‘ to minister,
and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt.
xx. 28).
4. Thus, then, speaks Jesus of Himself. What
b So Tholuck, and Knapp Ce ieciiia p. 1.217), The trea-
tise of Knapp on this discourse is valuable throughout.
© Some, omitting ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω, would read, ‘ And my
flesh is the bread that I will give for the life of the world.”
So Tertullian seems to have read “ Panis quem ego dedero
pro salute mundi caro mea est.” The sense is the same
with the omission; but the received reading may be
successfully defended.
SAVIOUR
say His witnesses of Him? ‘* Behold the Lamb of
God,” says the Baptist, ‘which taketh away the
sin of the world” (John i. 29). Commentators
differ about the allusion implied in that name. But
take any one of their opinions, and a sacrifice is
implied. Is it the Paschal lamb that is referred
to ?—-Is it the lamb of the daily sacrifice? Either
way the death of the victim is brought before us.
ut the allusion in all probability is to the well-
known prophecy of Isaiah (liii.), to the Lamb
brought to the slaughter, who bore our griefs and
carried our sorrows.4
5. The Apostles after the Resurrection preach no
moral system, but a belief in and love of Christ,
the crucified and risen Lord, through whom, if they
repent, men shall obtain salvation. This was Peter’s
preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.) ; and he
appealed boldly to the Prophets on the ground of
an expectation of a suffering Messiah (Acts iii, 18).
Philip traced out for the Kunuch, in that picture
of suffering holiness in the well-known chapter of
Isaiah, the lineaments of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts
viii.; Isai. liii.). The first sermon to a Gentile
household proclaimed Christ slain and risen, and
added ‘that through His name whosoever believeth
in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts x.).
Paul at Antioch preaches ‘‘a Saviour Jesus’’ (Acts
xiii. 23); ‘through this Man is preached unto you
the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe
are justified from all things from which ye could not
be justified by the Law of Moses” (Acts xiii. 38, 39).
At Thessalonica all that we learn of this Apostle’s
preaching is “that Christ must needs have suffered
and risen again from the dead ; and that this Jesus,
whom I preach unto you, is Christ” (Acts xvii. 3).
Before Agrippa he declared that he had preached
always ‘that Christ should suffer, and that He
should be the first that should rise from the dead ”
(Acts xxvi. 23); and it was this declaration that
convinces his royal hearer that he was a crazed
fanatic. The account of the first founding of the
Church in the Acts of the Apostles is concise and
fragmentary ; and sometimes we have hardly any
means of judging what place the sufferings of Jesus
held in the teaching of the Apostles; but when we
read that they ‘‘ preached Jesus,” or the like, it is
only fair to infer from other passages that the
Cross of Christ was never concealed, whether Jews,
or Greeks, or barbarians were the listeners. And this
very pertinacity shows how much weight they
attached to the facts of the life of our Lord. They
did not merely repeat in each new place the pure
morality of Jesus as He uttered it in the Sermon on
the Mount: of such lessons we have no record.
They took in their hands, as the strongest weapon,
the fact that a certain Jew crucified atar off in Je-
rusalem was the Son of God, who had died to save
men from their sins; and they offered to all alike
an interest, through faith, in the resurrection from
the dead of this outcast of His own people. No
wonder that Jews and Greeks, judging in their
worldly way, thought this strain of preaching came
of folly or madness, and turned from what they
thought unmeaning jargon.
6. We are able to complete from the Epistles our
account of the teaching of the Apostles on the doc-
SAVIOUR 1157
trine of Atonement. ‘ The Man Christ Jesus” is
the Mediator between God and man, for in Him the
human nature, in its sinless purity, is lifted up to
the Divine, so that He, exempt from guilt, can
plead for the guilty (1 Tim. ii. 5; 1 John ii. 1, 2:
Heb, vii. 25). Thus He is the second Adam that
shall redeem the sin of the first ; the interests of
men are bound up in Him, since He has power to
take them all into Himself (Eph. v. 29, 830; Rom.
xi. 551 Cor. xv.) 22; Rom, v. 12; °17).. This
salvation was provided by the Father, to ‘ reconcile
us to Himself” (2 Cor. v. 18), to whom the name
of “ Saviour” thus belongs (Luke i. 47); and our
redemption is a signal proof of the love of God to
us (1 John iv. 10). Not less is it a proof of the
love of Jesus, since He freely lays down His life for
us—oflers it as a precious gift, capable of pur-
chasing all the lost (1 Tim. ii. 6; Tit. ii. 14; Eph.
i. 7. Comp. Matt. xx. 28). But there is another
side of the truth more painful to our natural reason.
How came this exhibition of Divine Jove to be
needed ? Because wrath had already gone out
against man. ‘The clouds of God’s anger gathered
thick over the whole human race; they discharged
themselves on Jesus only. God has made Him to
be sin for us who knew no sin (2 Cor. v. 21:; He
is made “a curse” (a thing accursed) for us, that
the curse that hangs over us may be removed (Gal,
iii, 13): He bore our sins in His own body on the
tree (1 Pet. ii. 24). There are those who would
see on the page of the Bible only the sunshine of
the Divineslove; but the muttering thunders of
Divine wrath against sin are heard there also; and
He who alone was no child of wrath, meets the
shock of the thunderstorm, becomes a curse for us,
and a vessel of wrath; and the rays of love break
out of that thunder-gloom, and shine on the bowed
head of Him who hangs on the Cross, dead for our
sins.
We have spoken, and advisedly, as if the New
Testament were, as to this doctrine, one book in
harmony with itself. That there are in the New
Testament different types of the one true doctrine,
may be admitted without peril to the doctrine.
The principal types are four in number.
7. In the Epistle of James there is a remarkable
absence of all explanations of the doctrine of the
Atonement ; but this admission does not amount to
so much as may at first appear. ‘True, the key-
note of the Epistle is that the Gospel is the Law
made perfect, and that it is a practical moral system,
in which man finds himself free to keep the Divine
law. But with him Christ is no mere Lawziver
appointed to impart the Jewish system. He knows
that Elias is a man like himself, but of the Person
of Christ he speaks in a different spirit. He calls
himself ‘‘a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ,” who is “ the Lord of Glory.” He speaks
of the Word of Truth, of which Jesus has been the
utterer, He knows that faith in the Lord of Glory
is inconsistent with time-serving and ‘respect of
persons” (James i. 1, ii. 1, 1. 18). “* There 15 one
Lawgiver,’ he says, ‘‘ who is able to save and to
destroy” (James iv. 12); and this refers no doubt
to Jesus, whose second coming he holds up as a
motive to obedience (James v. 7-9). These and
4 See this passage discussed fully in the notes of Meyer,
Lange (Bibelwerke), and Alford. The reference to tbe
Paschal lamb finds favour with Grotius and others; the
reference to Isaiah is approved by Chrysostom and many
others. The taking away of sin (αἴρειν) of the Baptist,
and the bearing it (φέρειν, Sept.) of Isaiah, have one
meaning, and answer to the Hebrew word NU). To
take the sins on Himself is to remove them from the
sinners ; and how can this be through His death except in
the way of expiation by that death itself?
1158 SAVIOUR
like expressions remove this Epistle far out of the
sphere of Ebionitish teaching. ‘The inspired writer
sees the Saviour, in the Father’s glory, preparing
to return to judge the quick and dead. He puts
forth Christ as Prophet and King, for he makes
Him Teacher and Judge of the world; but the
office of the Priest he does not dwell on. Far be
it ftom us to say that he knows it not. Something
must have taken place before he could treat his
hearers with confidence, as free creatures, able to re-
sist temptations, and even to meet temptations with
joy. He treats “* your faith ” as something founded
already, not to be prepared by this Epistle (James
i. 2, 3, 21). His purpose is a purely practical one.
There is no intention to unfold a Christology, such”
as that which makes the Epistle to the Romans so
valuable. Assuming that Jesus has manifested
Himself, and begotten anew the human race, he
seeks to make them pray with undivided hearts.
and be considerate to the poor, and strive with lusts,
for which they and not God are responsible; and
bridle their tongues, and show their fruits by their
works.¢
8. In the teaching of St. Peter the doctrine of
the Person of our Lord is connected strictly with
that of His work as Saviour and Messiah. The
frequent mention of His sufferings shows the pro-
minent place he would give them; and he puts
forward as the ground of his own right to teach,
that he was ‘‘a witness of the sufferings of Christ”
(1 Pet. v. 1). The atoning virtue of those suf-
ferings he dwells on with peculiar emphasis; and
not less so on the purifying influence of the Atone-
ment on the hearts of believers. He repeats again
and again that Christ died for us (1 Pet. ii. 21,
iii. 18, iv. 1); that He bare our sins in His own
body on the treef (1 Pet. ii. 24). He bare them ;
and what does this phrase suggest, but the goat
that “shall bear” the iniquities of the people off
SAVIOUR
9. In the inspired writings of John we are struck
at once with the emphatic statements as to the
Divine and human natures of Christ. Α right belief
in the incarnation is the test of a Christian man
(1 John iv. 2; John i. 14; 2 John 7); we must
believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and
| that He is manifested to destroy the works of the
devil (1 John iii. 8). And, on the other hand,
He who has come in the flesh is the One who alone
has been in the bosom of the Father, seen the
things that human eyes have never seen, and has
come to declare them unto us (1 John i. 2, iv. 14;
John i. 14-18). This Person, at once Divine and
human, is ‘the propitiation for our sins,” our
“ Advocate with the Father,’’ sent into the world
“that we might live through Him;” and the
means was His laying down His life for us, which
should make us ready to lay down our lives for
the brethren (1 John ii. 1, 2, iv. 9, 10, v. 11-13,
iii. 16, v. 6,1.7; John xi. 51). And the moral
effect of His redemption is, that “the blood of
Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John
i. 7). The intimate connexion’ between His work
and our holiness is the main subject of his First
Epistle: “Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin” (1 John iii. 9). As with St. Peter,
so with St. John; every point of the doctrine of
the Atonement comes out with abundant clearness.
The substitution of another who can bear our sins,
for us who cannot; the sufferings and death as the
means of our redemption, our justification thereby,
and our progress in holiness as the result of our
justification.
10. To follow out as fully, in the more volumi-
nous writings of St. Paul, the passages that speak
of our salvation, would far transgress the limits of
our paper. Man, according to this Apostle, is a
transgressor of the Law. His conscience tells him
that he cannot act up to that Law which, the same
into the land that was not inhabited? (Lev. xvi. | conscience admits, is Divine, and binding upon him.
22) or else the feeling the consequences of sin, as
the word is used elsewhere (Lev. xx.17,19)? We
have to choose between the cognate ideas of sacri-
fice and substitution. Closely allied with these
statements are those which connect moral reforma-
tion with the death of Jesus. He bare our sins
that we might live unto righteousness. His death
is our life. We are not to be content with a self-
satisfied contemplation of our redeemed state, but
to live a life worthy of it (1 Pet. ii, 21-25, iii.
15-18). In these passages the whole Gospel is
contained; we are justified by the death of Jesus,
who bore our sins that we might be sanctified and
renewed to a life of godliness. And from this
Apostle we hear again the name of ‘‘ the Lamb,”
as well as from John the Baptist; and the passage
of Isaiah comes back upon us with unmistakeable
clearness. We are redeemed “ with the precious
blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
without spot” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19; with Is, 1111. 7).
Every word carries us back to the Old Testament
and its sacrificial system: the spotless victim, the
release from sin by its blood (elsewhere, i. 2, by
the sprinkling of its blood), are here; not the type
and shadow, but the truth of them; not a cere-
monial purgation, but an effectual reconcilement of
man and God.
Through the old dispensations man remained in
this condition, Even the Law of Moses could not
| Justify him: it only by its strict behests held up a
mirror to conscience that its frailness might be
seen. Christ came, sent by the mercy of our
Father who had never forgotten us; given to, not
deserved by us. He came to reconcile men and
God by dying on the Cross for them, and bearing
their punishment in their stead 8 (2 Cor. v. 14-21 ;
Rom. v. 6-8). He is ‘‘a propitiation through
faith in His blood” (Rom, iii. 25, 26. Compare
Lev. xvi. 15. Ἱλαστήριον means “ victim for
/expiation”): words which most people will find
unintelligible, except in reference to the Old Testa-
ment and its sacrifices. He is the ransom, or price
paid, for the redemption of man from all injquity h
(Titus ii. 14), The wrath of God was against
man, but it did not fall on man. God made His
Son “to be sin for us” though He knew no sin,
and Jesus suffered though men had sinned. By
| this act God and man were reconciled (Rom. v. 10;
| 2 Cor.*v. 18-20; Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 21). On
| the side of man, trust and love and hope take the
place of fear and of an evil conscience ; on the side
‘of God, that terrible wrath of His, which is re-
| vealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
/unrighteousness of men, is turned away (Rom. i.
e See Neander, Pjlanzung, b. vi.c. 3; Schmid, Theologie
der N. 7., part ii.; and Dorner, Christologie, i. 95.
£ If there were any doubt that “for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν)
means “in our stead” (see ver. 21), this 24th verse, which
explains the former, would set it at rest.
| ae
| s These two passages are decisive as to the fact of sub-
| stitution: they might be fortified with many others.
| Ἀ Still stronger in 1 Tim. ii. 6, “ ransom instead of ”
(ἀντίλυτρον). Also Eph. i. 7 (ἀπολύτρωσις): 1 Cor, vi. 20,
Vii. 23.
‘
᾿
oo
SAVIOUR
18, v. 9; 1 Thess. i, 10). The question whether
we are reconciled to God only, or God is also re-
conciled to us, might be discussed on deep meta-
physical grounds; but we purposely leave that on
one side, content to show that at all events the in-
tention of God to punish man is averted by this
** propitiation ” and ‘* reconcilement.”
“11. Different views are held about the author-
ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, by modern
critics; but its numerous points of contact with
the other Epistles of St. Paul must be recognized.
In both the incompleteness of Judaism is dwelt on ;
redemption from sin and guilt is what religion has
to do tor men, and this the Law failed to secure.
In both, reconciliation and forgiveness and a new
moral power in the believers are the fruits of the
work of Jesus. In the Epistle to the Romans,
Paul shows that the Law failed to justify, and
that faith in the blood of Jesus must be the ground
of justification. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the
same result follows from an argument rather dif-
ferent: all that the Jewish system aimed to do is
accomplished in Christ in a far more perfect manner,
The Gospel has a better Priest, more effectual sacri-
fices, a more profound peace. In the one Epistle
the Law seems set aside wholly for the system of
faith ; in the other the Law is exalted and glorified
in its Gospel shape; but the aim is precisely the
same—to show the weakness of the Law and the
effectual fruit of the Gospel.
12. We are now ina position to see how far the
teaching of the New Testament on the effects of the
death of Jesus is continuous and consistent. * Are
the declarations of our Lord about Himself the
same as those of James and Peter, John and Paul ?
and are those of the Apostles consistent with each
other? The several points of this mysterious trans-
action may be thus roughly described :—
1. God sent His Son into the world to redeem
lost and ruined man from sin and death, and the
Son willingly took upon Him the form of a servant
for this purpose ; and thus the Father and the Son
manifested their love for us.
2. God the Father laid upon His Son the weight
of the sins of the whole world, so that He bare in
His own body the wrath which men must else have
borne, because there was no other way of escape for
them ; and thus the Atonement was a manifestation
of Divine justice.
3. The effect of the Atonement thus wrought is,
that man is placed in a new position, freed from the
dominion of sin, and able to follow holiness ; and
thus the doctrine of the Atonement ought to work
in all the hearers a.sense of love, of obedience, and
of self-sacrifice.
In shorter words, the sacrifice of the death of
Christ is a proof of Divine dove, and of Divine justice,
and is for us a document of obedience.
Of the four great writers of the New Testament,
Peter, Paul, and John set for'th every one of these
points. Peter, the “ witness of the sufferings of
Christ,” tells us that we are redeemed with the
blood of Jesus, as of a lamb without blemish and
without spot ; says that Christ bare our sins in His
own body on the tree. If we “have tasted that
the Lord is gracious” (1 Pet. ii. 3), we must. not
rest satisfied with a contemplation of our redeemed
state, but must live a life worthy of it. No one
can well doubt, who reads the two Epistles, that
the love of God and Christ, and the justice of God,
and the duties thereby laid on us, all have their
value in them; but the love is less dwelt on than
| in the Bible much to seek.
| by fragments out of many an exhortation and warn-
SAVIOUR 1159
the justice, whilst the most prominent idea of all is
the moral and practical working of the Cross of
Christ upon the lives of men.
With St. John, again, all three points find place.
That Jesus willingly laid down His life for us, and
is an advocate with the Father; that He is also the
propitiation, the suffering. sacrifice, for our sins ;
and that the blooa of Jesus Christ cleanseth us
from all sin, for that whoever is born of God doth
not commit sin; all are put forward. The death
of Christ is both justice and love, both a pro-
pitiation and an act of loving self-surrender ; but
the moral effect upon us is more prominent even
than these.
In the Epistles of Paul the three elements are all
present. In such expressions as a ransom, a pro-
pitiation, who was “‘made sin for us,” the wrath
of God against sin, and the mode in which it was
turned away, are presented to us. Yet not wrath
alone. “The love of Christ constraineth us; be-
cause we thus judge, that if one died for all, then
were all dead: and that He died for all, that they
which live should not henceforth live unto them-
selves, but unto Him which died for them, and
rose again” (2 Cor. vy. 14, 15). Love in Him
begets love in us, and in our reconciled state the
holiness which we could not practise before becomes
easy.
The reasons for not finding from St. James similar
evidence, we have spoken of already.
Now in which of these points is there the sem-
blance of contradiction between the Apostles and
their Master ? In none of them. In the Gospels,
as in the Epistles, Jesus is held up as the sacrifice
and victim, draining a cup from which His human
nature shrank, feeling in Himself'a sense of desolation
such as we fail utterly to comprehend on a theory
of human motives. Yet no one takes from Him
His precious redeeming life; He Jays it down of
Himself, out of His great love for men, But men
are to deny themselves, and take up their cross and
tread in His steps. They are His friends only if
they keep His commands and follow His footsteps.
We must consider it proved that these three
points or moments are the doctrine of the whole
New Testament. What is there about this teaching
that has provoked in times past and present so
much disputation? Not the hardness of the doc-
trine,—for none of the theories put in its place
are any easier,—but its want of logical complete-
ness. Sketched out for us in a few broad lines, it
tempts the fancy to fill it in and lend it colour;
and we do not always remember that the hands
that attempt this are trying to make a mystery
into a theory, an infinite truth into a finite one,
and to reduce the great things of God into the
narrow limits of our little field of view. To whom
was the ransom paid? What was Satan’s share of
the transaction? How can one suffer for another ?
How could the Redeemer be miserable when He
was conscious that His work was one which could
bring happiness to the whole human race? Yet
this condition of indefiniteness is one which is im-
posed on us in the reception of every mystery:
prayer, the incarnation, the immortality of the soul,
are’all subjects that pass far beyond our range ot
thought. And here we see the wisdom of God in
connecting so closely our redemption with our
reformation. If the object were to give us a com-
plete theory of salvation, no doubt there would be
The theory is gathered
1160 SAW
ing; nowhere does it stand out entire, and without
logical flaw. But if we assume that the New Tes-
tament is written for the guidance of sinful hearts,
we find a wonderful aptness for that particular end.
Jesus is proclaimed as the solace of our fears, as
the founder of our moral life, as the restorer of our
lost relation with our Father. If He had a cross,
there is a cross for us; if He pleased not Himself,
let us deny ourselves; if He suffered for sin, let us
hate sin. And the question ought not to be, What
do all these mysteries mean? but, Are these
thoughts really such as will serve to guide our life
and to assuage our terrors in the hour of death ?
The answer is twofold—one from history and one
from experience. The preaching of the Cross of
the Lord even in this simple fashion converted the
world. The same doctrine is now the ground of
any definite hope that we find in ourselves, of for-
giveness of sins and of everlasting life.
It would be out of place in a Dictionary of the
Bible to examine the History of the Doctrine or to
answer the modern objections urged against it. For
these subjects the reader is referred to the author’s
Essay on the “Death of Christ,” in Aids to Faith,
which also contains the substance of the present
article. Wesel]
SAW.? Egyptian saws, so far as has yet
been discovered, were single-handed, though St.
Jerome has been thought to allude to cireular saws.
As is the case in modern Oriental saws, the teeth
usually incline towards the handle, instead of away
from it like ours. ‘They have, in most cases, bronze
blades, apparently attached to the handles by lea-
thern thongs, but some οἵ those in the British
Museum have their blades let into them like our
knives. A double-handed iron saw has been found
at Nimrid ; and double saws strained with a cord,
such as modern carpenters use, were in use among
the Romans. In sawing wood the Egyptians placed
the wood perpendicularly in a sort of frame, and cut
it downwards. No evidence exists of the use of the
saw applied to stone in Egypt, nor without the
double-handed saw does it seem likely that this
should be the case; but we read of sawn stones
used in the Temple. (1K. vii. 9; Ges. 7168. 305 ;
Wilkinson, Anc. Hgyp. ii. 114, 119; Brit. Mus.
Eqyp. Room, No. 6046; Layard, Nin. and Bab.
p- 195; Jerome, Comm. in Is. xxviii. 27.) The
saws “under” or “in” > which David is said
to have placed his captives were of iron. The
expression in 2 Sam. xii. 3’, does not necessarily
imply torture, but the word “cut” in 1 Chr.
xx. 3, can hardly be understood otherwise. (Ges.
Thes. p. 1326; Thenius on 2 Sam. xii. and
1 Chr. xx.) A case of sawing asunder, by placing
the criminal between boards, and then beginning
at the head, is mentioned by Shaw, Trav. p. 254.
(See Dict. of Antiq. “Serra.”) [HANDICRAFT ;
PUNISHMENT }. Ee Werks
SCAPE-GOAT. [AtToNreMENT, Day oF.]
SCARLET. ([Cotours. ]
SCEPTRE (oa). The Hebrew term shebet,
like its Greek equivalent σκῆπτρον, and our deri-
vative sceptre, originally meant a rod or staff." It
was thence specifically applied to the shepherd's
crock (Lev. xxvii. 32; Mic. vii. 14), and to the
κ΄, ND. πρίων ; from “Ya: only used in part. |
Pual, 1 Κι vii. 9.
SCIENCE
wand or sceptre of a ruler. It has been inferred
that the latter of these secondary senses is derived
from the former (Winer, Realwb. “ Sceptre”); but
this appears doubtful from the circumstance that the
sceptre of the Egyptian kings, whence the idea of
a sceptre was probably borrowed by the early Jews,
resembled, not a shepherd’s crook, but a plough
(Diod. Sic. iii. 3). The use of the staff as asymbol
of authority was not confined to kings; it might
be used by any leader, as instanced in Judg. v. 14,
where for ‘ pen of the writer,” as in the A. V., we
should read ‘‘sceptre of the leader.’ Indeed, no
instance of the sceptre being actually handled by a
Jewish king occurs in the Bible; the allusions to it
are all of a metaphorical character, and describe
it simply as one of the insignia of supreme power
(Gen. xlix. 10; Num. xxiv. 17; Ps. xlv. 6; Is. xiv.
5s sAm. παρ τῷ + Zeohsex. 1165 Wisdsixs 1455 ΒΗ Τὴν
14). We are consequently unable to describe the
article from any Biblical notices; we may infer
from the term shebet, that it was probably made of
wood; but we are not warranted in quoting Ez.
xix. 11 in support of this, as done by Winer, for
the term rendered ‘‘ rods” may better be rendered
“ shoots,” or ‘‘ sprouts” as = offspring. The sceptre
of the Persian monarchs is described as ‘ golden,’’
ἧ. δ. probably of massive gold (Esth. iv. 11; Xen.
Cyrop. viii. 7, 819); the inclination of it towards
a subject by the monarch was a sign of favour, and
kissing it an act of homage (βίῃ. iv. 11, v. 2).
A carved ivory staff discovered at Nimriid is sup-
posed to have been a sceptre (Layard, Nin. and
Baby p. 195). The sceptre of the Egyptian
queens is represented in Wilkinson’s Anc. Ey.
i. 276. The term shebet is rendered in the A. V.
“rod” in two passages where sceptre should be
substituted, viz. in Ps. ii. 9, where “sceptre of
iron” is an expression for strong authority, and in
Rsacaxvaos [W.L. Β.1
SCE'VA (Sxevis; Sceva). A Jew residin
at Ephesus at the time of St. Paul’s second visit to
that town (Acts xix. 14-16). He is described as
a “high-priest? (ἀρχιερεύς), either as having
exercised the office at Jerusalem, or as being chief
of one of the twenty-four classes. His seven sons
attempted to exorcise spirits by using the name of
Jesus, and on one occasion severe injury was in-
flicted by the demoniac on two of them (as implied
in the term ἀμφοτέρων, the true reading in ver. 16
instead of αὐτῶν). [W. L. B.]
SCIENCE (YD: γνῶσις : scientia). In the
A, V. this word occurs only in Dan. i, 4, and 1 Tim.
vi. 20. Elsewhere the rendering for the Hebrew or
Greek words and their cognates is ‘ knowledge,”
while the Vulg. has as uniformly scientia. Its use
in Dan. i. 4 is probably to be explained by the
number of synonymous words in the verse, forcing
the translators to look out for diversified equivalents
in English, Why it should have been chosen for
1 Tim. vi. 20 is not so obvious. Its effect is inju-
rious, as leading the reader to suppose that St. Paul
is speaking of something else than the “* knowledge”
of which both the Judaizing and the mystic sects of
the Apostolic age continually boasted, against which
he so urgently warns men (1 Cor. viii. 1, 7), the
counterfeit of the true knowledge which he prizes
so highly (1 Cor. xii. 8, xiii, 2; Phil. i. 9; Col.
2. NWID; πρίων; serra.
b MINA ; ἐν τῷ πρίονι (ἔθηκε); Sera.
SCORPION
iii. 10). A natural perversion ’of the meaning of the
text has followed from this translation. Men have
seen in it a warning, not against a spurious theo-
sophy—of which Swedenborgianism is, perhaps, the
nearest’ modern analogue—but against that which
did not come within St. Paul’s horizon, and which,
if it had, we may believe he would have welcomed—
the study of the works of God, the recognition of
His Will working by laws in nature. It has been
hurled successively at the heads of astronomers and
geologists, wheneyer men have been alarmed at
what they have deemed the antagonism of physical
*‘science” to religion, It would be interesting to
ascertain whether this were at all the animus of the
translators of the A. V.—whether they were be-
ginning to look with alarm at the union of scepticism
and science, of which the common proverb, “ ubi
tres medici duo athei,” was a witness. As it is, we
must content ourselves with noting a few facts in
the Biblical history of the English word.
(1.) In Wiclit’s translation, it appears less fre-
quently than might have been expected in a version
based upon the Vulgate. For the ‘‘ knowledge of
salvation” of the A. V. in Luke i. 77, we have the
‘* science of health.” In Christ are hid ‘* the trea-
sures of wisdom and of science’’ (Col. ii. 3). In
1 Tim. vi. 20, however, Wiclif has ‘‘ kunnynge.”
(2.) Tindal, rejecting ‘“ science” as a rendering
elsewhere, introduces it here; and is followed by
Cranmer’s and the Geneva Bibles, and by the A. V.@
(3.) The Rhemish translators, in this instance ad-
hering less closely to the Vulg. than the Protestant
versions, give ‘“‘ knowledge.”
Itiwould obviously be out of place to enter here
into the wide question what were the ἀντιθέσεις
τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως of which St. Paul speaks.
A dissertation on the Gnosticism of the Apostolic
age would require a volume. What is necessary
for a Dictionary will be found under Trmoruy,
EPISTLES TO. [E. H. P.]
SCORPION (APY, akrab: σκορπίος: scorpio).
The well-known animal of that name, belonging to
the class 4rachnida and order Pulmonaria, which is
twice mentioned in the O. T. and four times in the
N.T. The wilderness of Sinai is especially alluded
to as being inhabited by scorpions at the time of
the exodus (Deut. viii. 15), and to this day these
animals are common in the same district, as well
as in some parts of Palestine. Ehrenberg (Symb.
Phys.) enumerates five species as occurring near Mt.
Sinai, some of which are found also in the Lebanon.
Ezekiel (ii. 6) is told to be in no fear of the rebel-
lious Israelites, here compared to scorpions. The
Apostles were endued with power to resist the
stings of serpents and scorpions (Luke x. 19). In
the vision of St. John (Rev. ix. 3, 10) the locusts that
came out of the smoke of the bottomless pit are
said to have had “ tails like unto scorpions,” while
the pain resulting from this creature’s sting is al-
luded to in verse 5. A scorpion for an ego (Luke
xi, 12) was probably a proverbial expression. Ac-
a The following quotation from Tindal is decisive as to
the sense in which he used the word. It shows that he
contemplated no form of science (in the modern sense of
the term), mathematical or physical, but the very oppo-
site of this,—the attempt to bring all spiritual or divine
truths under the formulae of the logical understanding. He
speaks of the disputes of Romish theologians as the “ con-
tradictions of which Paul warned ‘Timothy, calling them
he oppositions of a false-named science, for that their
scholastical divinity must make objections against any
SCORPION 1161
cording to Erasmus the Greeks had a similar proverb
(ἀντὶ περκῆς σκορπίον). Scorpions are genevally
found in dry and in dark places, under stones and
in ruins, chiefly in warm climates, They are car-
nivorous in their habits, and move along in a
threatening attitude with the tail elevated. The
sting, which is situated at the extremity of the tail,
has at its base a gland that secretes a poisonous
fluid, which is discharged into the wound by two
minute orifices at its extremity. In hot climates
the sting often occasions much suffering, and
sometimes alarming symptoms, The following
are the species of scorpions mentioned by Eh-
renbere :— Scorpio macrocentrus, S. palmatus,
δ΄, bicolor, S. leptochelis, S. funestus, all found at
Mt. Sinai; S. nigrocinctus, S. melanophysa, S.
palmatus, Mt. Lebanon.’ Besides these Palestine
and Sinai kinds, five others are recorded as oc-
curring in Egypt.
Scorpion.
The “ scorpions” of 1 IX. xii, 11, 14, 2 Chr. x. 11,
14, have clearly no ailusion whatever to the animal,
but to some instrument of scourging — unless
indeed the expression is a mere figure. Celsius
(Hierob. ii. 45) thinks the “ scorpion” scourge was
the spiny stem of what the Arabs call Hedek
(GX), the Solanuin melongena, var. esculentum,
ege-plant, because, according to Abul Fadli, this
plant, from the resemblance of its spines to the
sting of a scorpion, was sometimes called the
‘scorpion thorn;” but in all probability this in-
strument of punishment was in the form of a whip
armed with iron points ‘* Virga—si nodosa vel
aculeata, scorpio rectissimo nomine vocatur, qui
arcuato vulnere in corpus infigitur.” (Isidorus,
Orig. Lat. 5, 27; and see Jahn, Bib. Ant. p. 287.)
In the Greek of 1 Mace. vi. 51, some kind of war
missile is mentioned under the name σκορπίδιον ;
bat we want information both as to its form and
the reason of its name. (See Dict. of Antiquities,
art. “ Tormentum.’’) [W. H.]
truth, be it never so plain, with pro and contra” (Supper
of the Lord, iii. 284, Parker Soc, dition). Tindal’s use
and application of the word accounts, it may be remarked,
for the choice of a different word by the Rhemish trans-
lators. ‘Those of the A. V. may have used it with a dif-
meaning.
» Modern naturalists restrict the genus Scorpio to
those ,kinds which have six eyes, Boathus to those
which have eight, and Androctonus to those which have
twelve.
1162 SCOURGING
SCOURGING. The punishment of scourging
was prescribed by the Law in the case of a betrothed
bondwoman guilty of unchastity, and perhaps in
the case of both the guilty persons (Lev. xix. 20).
Women were subject to scourging in Egypt, as they
still are by the law of the Koran, for incontinence
(Sale, Koran, chap. xxiv. and chap. iv. note ;
Lane, Mod. Egyp.i. 147; Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp.
abridgm. ii. 211). The instrument of punishment
in ancient Egypt, as it is also in mode:n times
generally in the East, was usually the stick, applied
to the soles of the feet—bastinado (Wilkinson, /. ὁ. ;
Chardin, vi. 114; Lane, Mod. Egyp. i. 146). A
more severe scourge is possibly implied in the
term “ scorpions,’ whips armed with pointed
balls of lead, the “ horribile flagellum” of Horace,
though it is more probably merely a vivid figure,
Under the Roman method the culprit was stripped,
stretched with cords or thongs on a frame (divari-
catio), and beaten with rods. After the Porcian
law (B.C. 300), Roman citizens were exempted from
scourging, but slaves and foreigners were liable
to be beaten, even to death (Gesen. Tes. p. 1062;
1514. Orig. vy. 27, ap. Scheller; Lex. Lat. Scorpio ;
Hor. 1 Sat. ii. 41, iii. 119; Prov. xxvi. 3; Acts
xvi. 22, and Grotius, ad ]., xxii. 24, 25; 1 K. xii.
11; Cic. Ver. iii. 28, 29; pro Rab. 4; Liv. x. 9;
Sall. Cat. 51). Et Wee)
SCREECH-OWL. [Owt.]
‘SCRIBES (OM DID: γραμματεῖς : scribae).
The prominent position occupied by the Scribes in
the Gospel history would of itself make a know-
ledge of their life and teaching essential to any
clear conception of our Lord’s work. It was by
their influence that the later form of Judaism had
been determined. Such as it was when the “new
doctrine” was first proclaimed, it had become
through them. Far more than priests or Levites
they represented the religious life of the people.
On the one hand we must know what they were
in order to understand the innumerable points of
contrast presented by our Lord’s acts and words.
On the other, we must not forget that there were
also, inevitably, points of resemblance. Opposed
as His teaching was, in its deepest principles, to
theirs, He was yet, in the eyes of men, as one of
their order, a Scribe among Scribes, a Rabbi among
Rabbis (John i. 49, iii. 2, vi. 25, το. ; Schoettgen,
Hor. Heb. ii. Christus Rabbinorum Summus).
I. Name.—(1.) Three meanings are connected
with the verb séphar (75D), the root of Sopherim
—(1) to write, (2) to set in order, (3) to count.
The explanation of the word has been referred to
each of these. The Sopherim were so called because
they wrote out the Law, or because they classified
and arranged its precepts, or because they counted
with scrupulous minuteness every clause and letter
it contained. The traditions of the Scribes, glorying
in their own achievements,» weie in favour of the
SCRIBES
last of these etymologies (Sekalim, 53; Carpzov,
App. Crit. ii. 135). The second fits in best with
the military functions connected with the word in
the earlier stages of its history (infra). The au-
thority of most Hebrew scholars is with the first
(Gesenius, s.v.). The Greek equivalent answers
to the derived rather than the original meaning of
the word. The γραμματεὺς of a Greek state was
not the mere writer, but the keeper and registrar
of public documents (Thue. iv. 118, vii. 10; so in
Acts xix. 35). The Scribes of Jerusalem were, in
like manner, the custodians and interpreters of the
γράμματα upon which the polity of the nation
rested, Other words applied to the same class are
found in the N. T. Νομικοὶ appears in Matt. xxii.
35, Luke vii. 30, x. 25, xiv. 3; νομοδιδάσκαλοι
in Luke v. 17; Acts v. 34. Attempts have been
made, but not very successfully, to reduce the
several terms to a classification.¢, All that can be
said is that γραμματεὺς appears the most generic
term; that in Luke xi. 45 it is contrasted with
νομικὸς ; that νομοδιδάσκαλος, as in Acts ν. 34,
seems the highest of the three. Josephus (Ant.
xvii. 6, §2) paraphrases the technical word by
ἐξηγηταὶ νόμων.
(2.) The name of KirJATH-SEPHER (πόλις
γραμμάτων, LXX., Josh. xv. 15; Judg, i. 12) may
possibly connect itself with some early use of the
title. In the Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 14) the
word appears to point to military functions of some
kind. The “ pen of the writer” of the A. V.
(LXX. ἐν ῥάβδῳ διηγήσεως γραμματέως) is pro-
bably the rod or sceptre of the commander num-
bering or marshalling his troops.’ The title appears
with more distinctness in the early history of the
monarchy. Three men are mentioned as successively
filling the office of Scribe under David and Solomon
(2 Sam. viii. 17, xx. 25; 1 K. iv. 3, in this in-
stance two simultaneously). Their functions are
not specified, but the high place assigned to them,
side by side with the high-priest and the captain
of the host, implies power and honour. We may
think of them as the king’s secretaries, writing
his letters, drawing up his decrees, managing his
finances (comp. the work of the scribe under Joash,
2 K. xii. 10). At a later period the word again
connects itself with the act of numbering the mili-
tary forces of the country (Jer, lii. 25, and probably
Is, xxxiii, 18). Other associations, however, began
to gather round it about the same period. ‘The
zeal of Hezekiah led him to foster the growth of a
body of men whose work it was to transcribe old.
records, or to put in writing what had been handed
down orally (Prov. xxv. 1). To this period ac-
cordingly belongs the new significance of the title.
It no longer designates only an officer of the king’s
court, but a class, students and interpreters of the
Law, boasting of their wisdom (Jer. viii. 8).
(3.) The seventy years of the Captivity gave a
fresh glory to the name. The exiles would be
4 1, To scourge, OW, the scourge, DIwW; μάστιξ ;
flagellum; also in A. V. “ whip.”
2. DIY; ἧλος ; offendiculum ; only in Josh. xxiii. 13.
Hither a subst. or the inf. in Piel. (Ges. 1379).
» They had ascertained that the central letter of the
whole Law was the vaw of ᾿Ἷ ΠῚ) in Lev. xi. 42, and wrote
it accordingly in a larger character. (Kiddush. in Light-
toot, On Luke x.) ‘They counted up in like manner the
precepts of the Law that answered to the nuniber of
Abraham’s servants or Jacob’s descendants.
¢ Lightfoot’s arrangement, though conjectural, is worth |
giving (Harm. § 77). The “Scribes,” as such, were those
who occupied themselves with the Mikra. Next above
them were the “ Lawyers,” students of the Mishna, acting
as assessors, though not voting in the Sanhedrim. The
“ Doctors of the Law ” were expounders of the Gemara,
and actual members of the Sanhedrim. (Comp. Carpzov,
App. Crit. i. 7; Leusden, Phil. Hebr. c. 233; Leyrer, in
Herzog’s Encyclop. “ Schriftgelehrte.”) ‘
ἃ Ewald, however (Poet. Biich. i. 126), takes TED as
equivalent to DOU: «a judge.”
SCRIBES
anxious above all things to preserve the sacred
books, the laws, the hymns, the prophecies of the
past. To know what was worth preserving, to
transcribe the older Hebrew documents accurately,
when the spoken language of the people was passing
into Aramaic, to explain what was hard and ob-
scure—this was what the necessities of the time
demanded. The man who met them became em-
phatically Ezra’ the Scribe, the priestly functions
falling into the background, as the priestly order
itself did before the Scribes as a class. The words
of Ezr. vii. 10 describe the high ideal of the new
office.. The Scribe is ‘‘ to seek (77) the law of
the Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes
and judgments.” This, far more than his priest-
hood, was the true glory of Ezra. In the eyes
even of the Persian king he was “a Scribe of
the Law of the God of Heaven” (vii. 12). He
was assisted in his work by others, chiefly Levites.
Publicly they read and expounded the Law,
perhaps also translated it from the already obso-
lescent Hebrew into the Aramaic of the people ¢
(Neh. viii. 8-13).
(4.) Of the time that followed we have but
scanty records, The Scribes’ office apparently be-
came more and more prominent. Traces are found
in the later canonical books of their work and in-
fluence. Already they are recognised as ‘‘ masters
of assemblies,” acting under ‘‘ one shepherd,”’ hay-
ing, that is, something of a corporate life (Eccl. xii.
11; Jost, Judenth. i. 42). As such they set their
faces steadily to maintain the authority of the Law
and the Prophets, to exclude from all equality with
them the “many books” of which “ there is no
end” (Eccl. xii. 12). They appear as a distinct
class, ‘“‘ the families of the Scribes,” with a local
habitation (1 Chr. ii. 55). They compile, as in
the two Books of Chronicles, excerpta and epitomes
of larger histories (1 Chr. xxix. 29; 2 Chr. ix. 29).
The occurrence of the word midrash (“ the story
—margin, ‘the commentary ’—of the Prophet
Iddo ” ), afterwards so memorable, in 2 Chr. xiii. 22,
shows that the work of commenting and expounding
had begun already. i
Il. Development of Doctrine-—(1.) It is charac-
teristic of the Scribes of this period that, with the
exception of Ezra and Zadok (Neh. xiii. 13), we
have no record of their names. ΑΔ later age
honoured them collectively as the men of the Great
Synagogue, the true successors of the Prophets
(Pirke Aboth, i. 1), but the men themselves by
whose agency the Scriptures of the O. T. were
written in their present characters,f compiled in
their present form, limited to their present number,
remain unknown to us. Never, perhaps, was so
important a work done so silently. It has been
well argued (Jost, Judenthum, i. 42) that it was so
of set purpose. The one aim of those early Scribes
was to promote reverence for the Law, to make it
the groundwork of the people’s life. They would
write nothing of their own, lest less werthy words
SCRIBES 1163
should be raised to a level with those of the oracles
of God. If interpretation were needed, their teach-
ing should be oral only. No precepts should be
perpetuated as resting on their authority.8 In the
words of later Judaism, they devoted themselves to
the Mikra (1.6. recitation, reading, as in Neh. viii. 8),
the careful study of the text, and laid down rules’ for
transcribing it with the most scrupulous precision
(comp. the tract Sopherim in the Jerusalem Gemara).
(2.) A saying is ascribed to Simon the Just
(B.c. 300-290), the last of the succession of the
men of the Great Synagogue, which embodies the
principle on which they had acted, and enables us
to trace the next stage of the growth of their sys-
tem. ‘* Our fathers have taught us,” he said, ‘ three
things, to be’ cautious in judging, to train many
scholars, and to set a fence about the Law” (Pirke
Aboth, i. 1; Jost, i. 95). They wished to make
the Law of Moses the rule of life for the whole
nation and for individual men. But it lies in the
nature of every such Jaw, of every informal, half-
systematic code, that it raises questions which it
does not solve. Circumstances change, while the
Law remains the same. ‘The infinite variety of life
presents cases which it has not contemplated. <A
Roman or Greek jurist would have dealt with
these on general principles of equity or polity.
The Jewish teacher could recognise no principles
beyond the precepts of the Law. To him they all
stood on the same footing, were all equally divine.
All possible cases must be brought within their
range, decided by their authority.
(3.) The result showed that, in this as in other
instances, the idolatry of the letter was destructive
of the very reverence in which it had originated.
Step by step the Scribes were led to conclusions at
which we may believe the earlier representatives of
the order would have started back with horror.
Decisions on fresh questions were accumulated into
a complex system of casuistry. The new precepts,
still transmitted orally, more precisely fitting in to
the circumstances of men’s lives than the old, came
practically to take their place. The “ Words of the
Scribes ” (oO Ὁ ΛΔ Ἴ, now used as a technical
phrase for these decisions) were honoured above the
Law (Lightfoot, Harm. i. §77; Jost, Judenth. i.
99). It was a greater crime to offend against them
than against the Law. They were as wine, while
the precepts of the Law were as water. The first
step was taken towards annulling the command-
ments of God for the sake of their own traditions.
The casuistry became at once subtle and prurient,
evading the plainest duties, tampering with con-
science (Matt. xv. 1-6, xxiii. 16-23). The right
relation of moral and ceremonial laws was not only
forgotten, but absolutely inverted. This was the
result of the profound reverence for the letter
which gave no heed to the “ word abiding in them ”
(John v. 38).
(4.) The history of the full development of these
tendencies will be found elsewhere. [TALMUD. |
e If this were so (and most commentators adopt this
view), we should have in this history the starting-point of
the Targum. It has, however, been questioned. (Comp.
Leyrer, lL. 6.)
f Jost (Judenth. i. 52) draws attention to the singular,
almost unique combinations of this period. The Jewish
teachers kept to the old Hebrew, but used Aramaic charac-
ters. The Samaritans spoke Aramaic, but retained the
older Hebrew writing.
= The principle of an unwritten teaching was main-
tained among the Rabbis of Palestine up to the destruction
of the Temple (Jost, i. 97, 367).
h It would be profitless to accumulate proofs of this.
Those who care for them may find them in bBuxtorf,
Synagoga Judaica; M‘Caul, Old Paths. Revolting as it
is, we must remember that it rose out of the principle
that there can be no indifferent action, that there must
be a right or a wrong even for the commonest necessities,
the merest animal functions of man’s life, that it was the
work of the teacher to formulate that principle into rules.
1164 SCRIBES
Here it will be enough to notice in what way the
teaching of the Scribes in our Lord’s time was
making to that result. Their first work was to
report the decisions of previous Rabbis. These were
the Halachoth (that which goes, the current pre-
cepts of the schools )—precepts binding on the con-
science. As they accumulated they had to be com-
piled and classified. A new code, a second Corpus
Juris, the Mishna (δευτερώσεις), grew out of
them, to become in its turn the subject of fresh
questions and commentaries. Here ultimately the
spirit of the commentators took a wider range. The
anecdotes of the schools or courts of law, the
obiter dicta of Rabbis, the wildest fables of Jewish
superstition (Tit. i. 14), were brought in, with or
without any relation to the context, and the Gemara
(completeness) filled up the measure of the Insti-
tutes of Rabbinic Law. The Mishna and the Gemara
together were known as the Talmud (instruction),
the “necessary doctrine and erudition” of every
learned Jew (Jost, Judenth. ii. 202-222).
(5.) Side by side with this was a development
in another direction. The sacred books were not
studied asa code of laws only. ‘To search into
their meaning had from the first belonged to the
ideal office of the Scribe. He who so searched was
secure, in the language of the Scribes themselves,
οἵ everlasting life (John ν. 39; Pirke Aboth, ii. 8).
But here also the book suggested thoughts which
could not logically be deduced from it. Men came
to it with new beliefs, new in form if not in essence,
and, not finding any ground for them in a literal
interpretation, were compelled to have recourse to
an interpretation which was the reverse of literal.i
The fruit of this effort to find what was not. there
appears in the Midrashim (searchings, investiga-
tions) on the several books of the O.T. The
process by which the meaning, moral or mystical.
was elicited, was known as Hagada (saying.
opinion). There was obviously no assignable limit |
to such a process. It became a proverb that no one |
ought to spend a day in the Beth-ham-Midrash |
(“* the house of the interpreter”) without lighting
on something new. But there lay a stage higher
even than the Hagada. The mystical school οἵ in-
terpretation culminated in the Aabbala (reception,
the received doctrine). Every letter, every number,
became pregnant with mysteries. With the strangest
possible distortion of its original meaning, the Greek
word which had been the representative of the most
exact of all sciences was chosen for the wildest of
all interpretations. The Gematvia (-- γεωμετρία)
showed to what depths the wrong path could lead
men. The mind of the interpreter, obstinately
shutting out the light of day, moved in its self-
chosen darkness amid a world of fantastic Eidola
(comp. Carpzov, App. Crit. i. 7; Schoettgen, Hor.
Heb. de Mess. i. 4; Zunz, Gottesdienstl. Vortrige,
pp- 42-61; Jost, Judenth. iii. 65-81).
Ill. History.—(1.) The names of the earlier
scribes passed away, as has been said, unrecorded.
Simon the Just (cire. B.c. 500-290) appears as
_ the last of the men of the Great Synagozue, the
beginner of a new period. The memorable names
of the times that followed—Antigonus of Socho,
SCRIBES
Zadok, Boothos—connect themselves with the rise
of the first opposition to the traditional system
which was growing up. [SADDUCEES.} ‘The tenet
of the Sadducees, however, never commanded the
adhesion of more than a small minority. It tended,
by maintaining the sufficiency of the letter of the
Law, to destroy the very occupation of a Scribe,k
and the class, as such, belonged to the party of its
opponents. The words “ Scribes’’ and ‘ Pharisees ”’
were bound together by the closest possible alliance
(Matt. xxiii. passim; Luke v. 50). [PHARISEES. |
Within that party there were shades and sub-
divisions, and to understand their relation to each
other in Our Lord’s time, or their connexion with
His life and teaching, we must look back to what
is known of the five pairs (MID) of teachers who
represented the scribal succession. Why two, and
two only, are named in each case we can only
conjecture, but the Rabbinic tradition that one was
always the Nasi or President of the Sanhedrim as
a council, the other the Ab-beth-din (Father of
the House of Judgment), presiding in the supreme
court, or in the Sanhedrim when it sat as such, is
not improbable (Jost, Judenth. i. 160).
(2.) The two names that stand first in order
are Joses ben-Joezer, a priest, and Joses ben-
Jochanan (cire. B.C. 140-130). The precepts
ascribed to them indicate a tendency to a greater
elaboration of all rules connected with ceremonial
defilement. Their desire te separate themselves
and their disciples from. all occasions of’ defilement
may have furnished the starting-point for the
name of Pharisee. The brave struggle with the
Syrian kings had turned chiefly on questions of
this nature, and it was the wish of the two
teachers to prepare the people for any future con-
flict by founding a fraternity (the Chaberim, or
associates) bound to the strictest observance of
the Law. Every member of the order on his
admission pledged himself to this in the presence
of three Chaberim. They looked on each other as
brothers. The rest of the nation they looked on
as “the people of the earth.” The spirit of
Scribedom. was growing. The precept associated
with the name of Jose ben-Joezer, ‘‘ Let thy house
be the assembly-place for the wise; dust thyself
with the dust of their feet; drink eagerly of their
words,” pointed to a further growth (Pirke Aboth,
i. 1; Jost, i. 233). It was hardly checked by the
taunt of the Sadducees that ‘ these Pharisees would
purify the sun itself”? (Jost, i. 217).
(3.) Joshua ben-Perachiah and Nithai of Ar-
bela were contemporary with John Hyrcanus (circ.
B.C. 135-108), and enjoyed his favour till towards Ὁ
the close of his reign, when caprice or interest led
him to pass over to the camp of the Sadducees.
The saying ascribed to Joshua, “Take to thyself a
teacher (Rab), get to thyself an associate ( Chaber),
judge every man on his better side’? (Pirke Aboth,
i. 1), while its last clause attracts us by its
candour, shows how easily even a fairminded man
might comé to recognise no bonds of fellowship
outside the limits of his sect or order (Jost, i.
227-233).
(4.) The secession of Hyrecanus involved the
1 Comp. e.g, the exposition which found in Laban and
Balaam “ going to their own place’”’ (Gen. xxxi.55; Num.
xxiv. 25) an intimation of their being sentenced to Ge-
henna (Gill, Comm. on Acts, i, 25).
k A striking instance of this is seen in the history of
John Hyrcanus. A Sadducee came to him with proofs of
the disaffection of the Pharisees. The king asked, “ What
then am I to do?” “ Crush them,” was the answer. “ But
what then will become of the teaching of the Law?”
“The Law is now in the hands of every man. They,
and they only, would keep it in a corner’? (Jost, Judenti.
i. 235).
SCRIBES
Pharisees, and therefore the Scribes as a class, in
difficulties, and a period of confusion followed.
The meetings of the Sanhedrim were suspended or
became predominantly Sadducean. Under his sue-
cessor, Alexander Jannai, the influence of Simon
ben-Shetach over the queen-mother Salome re-
established for a time the ascendancy of the Scribes.
The Sanhedrim once again assembled, with none to
oppose the dominant Pharisaic party. The day
of meeting was observed afterwards as a festival
only less solemn than those of Purim and the
Dedication. The return of Alexander from his
campaign against Gaza again turned the tables.
Hight hundred Pharisees took refuge in a fortress,
were besieged, taken, and put to death. Joshua
ben-Perachiah, the venerable head of the order, was
driven into exile. Simon ben-Shetach, his successor,
had to earn his livelihood by spinning flax. The
Sadducees failed, however, to-win the confidence
of the people. Having no body of oral traditions
to fall back on, they began to compile a code.
They were accused by their opponents of wishing
to set up new laws on a level with those of Moses,
and had to abandon the attempt. On the death
of Jannai the influence of his widow Alexandra
was altogether on the side of the Scribes, and Simon
ben-Shetach and Judah ben-Tabbai entered on their
work as joint teachers. Under them the juristic
side of the Scribe’s functions became prominent.
Their rules turn chiefly on the laws of evidence
(Pirke Aboth, i. 1). In two memorable instances
they showed what sacrifices they were prepared to
make in support of thoSe laws. Judah had, on
one occasion, condemned false witnesses to death.
His zeal against the guilt led him to neglect the
rule which only permitted that penalty when it
would have been the consequence of the original
accusation. His colleague did not shrink from
rebuking him, ‘‘ Thou hast shed innocent blood,”
From that day Judah resolved never to give judg-
ment without consulting Simon, and every day
threw himself on the grave of the man he had
condemned, imploring pardon. Simon, in his turn,
showed a like sense of the supreme authority of
the Law. His own son was brought before him
as an offender, and he sentenced him to death.
On the way to execution the witnesses confessed
that they had spoken falsely; but the son, more
anxious that they should suffer than that he him-
self should escape, turned round and entreated his
father not to stop the completion of the sen-
tence. ‘The character of such a man could not
fail to impress itself upon his followers. To its
influence may probably be traced the indomitable
courage in defence of the Temple, which won the
admiration even of the Roman generals (Jost, i.
234-247).
(5.) The two that followed, Shemaiah and
Abtalion (the names also appear under the form
of Sameas, Jos. Ant. xiv. 9, §4, and Pollio, Jos.
Ant. xiv. 1, 81), were conspicuous for another
reason. Now, for the first time, the teachers
who: sat in Moses’ seat were not even of the
children of Abraham. Proselytes themselves, or
SCRIBES 1165
the sons of proselytes, their pre-eminence in the
knowledge of the Law raised them to this office.
The jealousy of the high-priest was excited. As
the people flocked round their favourite Rabbis,
when it was his function to pronounce the blessing,
he looked round and, turning his benediction into
a sarcasm, said, with a marked emphasis, “ May
the sons of the alien walk in peace!”’ ‘The auswer
of the two teachers expressed the feeling of scorn
with which the one order was beginning to look
upon the other: ‘ Yes, the sons of the alien shall
indeed walk in peace, for they do the work of
peace. Not so the son of Aaron who follows not
in the footsteps of his father.” Here also we have
some significant sayings. The growing love of
titles of honour was checked by Shemaiah by the
counsel that “men should love the work, but hate
the Rabbiship.” The tendency to new opinions
(the fruits, probably, of the freer exposition of the
Hagada) was yvebuked by Abtalion in a precept
which enwraps a parable, ‘Take good heed to thy
words, lest, if thou wander, thou light upon a
place where the wells are poisoned, and thy scholars
who come after thee drink deep thereof and die”
(Pirke Aboth, i. 1). The lot of these two also
was cast upon evil days. ‘They had courage to
attempt to check the rising power of Herod in his
bold defiance of the Sanhedrim (Jos. Ant. xiv. 9,
§3). When he showed himself to be irresistible
they had the wisdom to submit, and were suffered
to continue their work in peace. Its glory was,
however, in great measure, gone. The doors of
their school were no longer thrown open to all
comers so that crowds might listen to the teacher.
A fixed fee™ had to be paid on entrance. ‘The
reculation was probably intended to discourage the
attendance of the young men of Jerusalem at the
Scribes’ classes ; and apparently it had that effect
(Jost, 1. 248-253). On the death of Shemaiah and
Abtalion there were no qualified successors to take
their place. Two sons of Bethera, otherwise un-
known, for a time occupied it, but they weie them-
selves conscious of their incompetence. A question
was brought before them which neither they nor .
any of the other Scribes could answer. At last
they asked, in their perplexity, ‘‘ Was there none
present who had been a disciple of the two who
had been so honoured?” ‘The question was
answered by Hillel the Babylonian, known also,
then or afterwards, as the son of David. He
solved the difficulty, appealed to principles, and,
when they demanded authority as well as argu-
ment, ended by saying, “So have I heard from
my masters Shemaiah and Abtalion.’” This was
decisive. The sons of Bethera withdrew. Hillel
was invited by acclamation to enter on his high
office. His alleged descent from the house of
David may have added to his popularity.
(6.) The name of Hillel (born cire. B.c. 112) has
hardly received the notice due to it from students
of the Gospel history." The noblest and most
genial representative of his order, we may see in
him the best fruit which the system of the Scribes
was capable of producing.° It is instructive to
m The amount is uncertain. The story of Hillel (infra)
represents it as half a sfater, bat it is doubtful whether
the stater here is equal to twice the didrachma or to half
(Comp. Geiger, De Hillele et Shammaz, in Ugolini, Thes.
"xxi.). It was, at any rate, half the day’s wages of a
skilled labourer.
n The exhaustive treatise by Geiger in Ugolini, Tes.
xxi. must be mentioned as an exception.
© The reverence of later Jews for Hillel is shown in
some curious forms. To him it was given to under-
stand the speech of animals as well as of men. He who
hearkened not to the words of Hillel was worthy of death.
(Geiger, ut supra.) Of him too it was said that the Divine
Shechinah rested on him: if the heavens were parchment,
and all the trees of the earth pens, and all the sea ink, it
would not be enough to write down his wisdom (Comp,
1166 SCRIBES
mark at once how far he prepared the way for the
higher teaching which was to follow, how far he
inevitably fell short of it. The starting-point of
his career is told in a tale which, though deformed
by Rabbinic exaggerations, is yet fresh and genial
enough. The young student had come from Golah
in Babylonia to study under Shemaiah and Abta-
lion. He was poor and had no money. The new
rule requiring payment was in force. For the
most part he worked for his livelihood, kept him-
self with half his earnings, and paid the rest as. the
ἴδε to the college-porter. On one day, however,
he had failed to find employment. The door-
keeper refused him entrance; but his zeal for
knowledge was not to be baftled. He stationed
himself outside, under a window, to catch what
he could of the words of the Seribes within. It
was winter, and the snow began to fall, bat he
yemained there still. It fell till it lay upon him
six cubits high (!) and the window was darkened
and blocked up. At last the two teachers noticed
it, sent out to see what caused it, and when they
found out, received the eager scholar without pay-
ment. “For such a man,” said Shemaiah, ‘one
might even break the Sabbath” (Geiger, wt supra ;
Jost, i. 254). In the earlier days of his activity
Hillel had as his colleague Menahem, probably
the same as the Essene Manaen of Josephus (Ant.
xv. 10, 85). He, however, was tempted by the
growing power of Herod, and, with a large number
(eighty in the Rabbinic tradition) of his follow-
ers, entered the king’s service and abandoned at
once their calling as Scribes and their habits of
devotion. They appeared publicly in the gorgeous
apparel, glittering with gold, which was incon-
sistent with both P (Jost, i. 259). The place thus
vacant was soon filled by Shammai. The two were
held in nearly equal honour. One, in Jewish lan-
guage, was the Nasi, the other the Ab-beth-din of
the Sanhedrim. They did not teach, however, as
their predecessors had done, in entire harmony with
each other. Within the party of the Pharisees,
within the order of the Scribes, there came for the
_ first time to be two schools with distinctly opposed
tendencies, one vehemently, rigidly orthodox, the
other 6rthodox also, but with an orthodoxy which,
in the language of modern politics, might be
classed as Liberal Conservative. The points on
which they differed were almost innumerable (comp.
Geiger, ut supra). In most of them, questions as
to the causes and degrees of uncleanness, as to the
law of contracts or of wills, we can find little or
no interest. On the former class of subjects the
school of Shammai represented the extremest deve-
lopment of the Pharisaic spirit. Everything that
could possibly have been touched by a heathen or
SCRIBES
an unclean Israelite, became itself unclean. “ De-
filement ”? was as a contagious disease which it was
hardly possible to avoid even with the careful
scrupulosity described in Mark vii. 1-4. They
were, in like manner, rigidly sabbatarian. It was
unlawful to do anything before the Sabbath which
would, in any sense, be in operation during it, ὁ. 4.
to put cloth into a dye-vat, or nets into the sea.
It was unlawful on the Sabbath itself to give
money to the poor, or to teach childven, or to visit
the sick. They maintained the marriage law in
its strictness, and held that nothing but the adul-
tery of the wife could justify repudiation (Jost, i.
257-269). We must not think of them, however,
as rigid and austere in their lives. The religious
world of Judaism presented the inconsistencies
which it has often presented since. The “ straitest
sect” was also the most secular. Shammai him-
self was said to be rich, luxurious, self-indulgent.
Hiliel remained to the day of his death as poor as
in his youth (Geiger, /. c.).
(7.) The teaching of Hillel showed some capacity
for wider thoughts. His personal character was
more loveable and attractive. While on the one side
he taught as from a mind well stored with the tra-
ditions of the elders, he was, on the other, anything
but a slavish follower of those traditions. He was
the first to lay down principles for an equitable
construction of the Law with a dialectic precision
which seems almost to imply a Greek culture (Jost,
i. 257). When the letter of a law, as e.g. that
of the year of release, was no longer suited to the
times, and was working, so far as it was kept at all,
only for evil, he suggested an interpretation which
met the difficulty or practically set it aside. His
teaching as to divorce was in like manner an adapta-
tion to the temper of the age. It was lawfui for a
man to put away his wife for any cause of dis-
favour, even for so slight an offence as that of spoil-
ing his dinner by her bad cooking 4 (Geiger, /.c.).
The genial character of the man comes out in some
of his sayings, which remind us of the tone of Jesus
the son of Sirach, and present some faint approxima-
tions toa higher teaching: ‘‘ Trust not thyself to
the day of thy death.” ‘‘ Judge not thy neighbour
till thou art in his place.” ‘¢ Leave nothing dark and
obscure, saying to thyself, I will explain it when I
have time ; for how knowest thou whether the time
will come?” (comp. James iv. 13-15). “He who
gains a good name gains it for himself, but he whe
gains a knowledge of the Law gains everlasting life ”
(comp. John v. 39; Pirke Aboth, ii. 5-8). In one
memorable rule we find the nearest approach that
had as yet been made to the great commandment of
the Gospel: “Do nothing to thy neighbour that
thou wouldest not that he should do to thee.” *
John xxi. 25). (See Heubner, De Academiis Hebraecorum,
in Ugolini, 7hes. xxi.)
p We may perhaps find in this fact an explanation which
gives a special force to words that have hitherto been in-
terpreted somewhat vaguely. When our Lord contrasted
the stedfastness and austerity of the Baptist with the lives
of those who wore soft clothing, were gorgeously appa-
relled, and lived delicately in kings’ houses (Matt. xi. 3;
Luke vii. 24), those who lfeard Him may at once have
recognised the picture. In the multitude of uncertain
guesses as to the Herodiaus of the Gospels (Matt. xxii. 16)
we may be permitted to hazard the conjecture that they
may be identified with the party, perhaps rather with the
clique, of Menahem and his followers (Geiger, ut sup. ;
Otho, Hist. Doctorwm Misnicorum, in Ugolini, Thes. xxi.).
The fact that the stern, sharp words of a divine scorn
which have been quoted above, meet us just after the
first combination of Herodians and Pharisees, gives it a
strong confirmation (comp. Mark iii. 6; Luke vi. 11,
vii. 19).
ᾳ It is fair to add that a great Rabbinic scholar main-
tains that this “spoiling the dinner” was a well-known
figurative phrase for conduct which brought shame or
discredit on the husband (Jost, i. 264).
r The history connected with this saying is too charm-
ingly characteristic to be passed over, A proselyte came
to Shammai and begged for some instruction in the Law
if it were only for as long.as he, the learner, could stand
on one foot. The Scribe was angry, and drove him
away harshly. He went to Hillel with the same τος
quest. He received the inquirer benignantly, and gave
him the precept above quoted, adding—* Do this, and
thou hast fulfilled the Law and the Prophets” (Geiger,
wl supra).
1
SCRIBES
(8.) The contrast showed itself in the conduct: of |
the followers not Jess than in the teachers. ‘The
disciples of Shammai were conspicuous for their
fierceness, appealed to popular passions, used the
sword to decide their controversies. Out of that
school grew the party of the Zealots, fierce, fana-
tical, vindictive, the Orangemen of Pharisaism (Jost,
i. 267-269). Those of Hillel were, like their
master (comp. 6. g. the advice of Gamaliel, Acts v.
34-42), cautious, gentle, tolerant, unwilling to make
enemies, content to let things take their course.
One school resisted, the other was disposed to foster
the study of Greek literature. One sought to im-
pose upon the proselyte from heathenism the full
burden of the Law, the other that he should be
treated with some sympathy and _ indulgence.
[PRoseLyTE.] One subject of debate + between
the schools exhibits the contrast as going deeper
than these questions, touching upon the great pro-
blems of the universe. ‘‘ Was the state of man so
full of misery that it would have been better for
him never to have been? Or was this life, with
all its suffering, still the gift of God, to be valued
and used as a training for something higher than
itself 2?’ The school of Shammai took, as might
be expected, the darker, that of Hillel the brighter
and the wiser view (Jost, i. p. 264).
(9.) Outwardly the teaching of our Lord must
have appeared to men different in many ways from
both. While they repeated the traditions of the
elders, He “spake as one having authority,” ‘ not
as the Scribes” (Matt. vii. 29; comp. the constantly
recurring ‘‘ I say unto you”). While they confined
their teaching to the class of scholars, He “" had com-
passion on the multitudes” (Matt. ix. 36). While
they were to be found only in the council or in their
schools, He journeyed through the cities and vil-
lages (Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, &c., &.). While they
spoke of the kingdom of God vaguely, as a thing
far off, He proclaimed that it had already come nigh
to men (Matt. iv. 17). But in most of the points
at issue between the two parties, He must have
appeared in direct antagonism to the school of
Shammai, in sympathy with that of Hillel. In
the questions that gathered round the law of the
Sabbath (Matt. xii. 1-14, and 2 John y. 1-16,
&c.), and the idea of purity (Matt. xv. 1-11, and
its parallels), this was obviously the case. Even in
the controversy about divorce, while His chief work
was to assert the truth which the disputants on
both sides were losing sight of, He recognised, it
must be remembered, the rule of Hillel as being a
true interpretation of the Law (Matt. xix. 8). When
He summed up the great commandment in which
the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled, He repro-
duced and ennobled the precept which had been given
by that teacher to his disciples (Matt. vii. 12, xxii.
34-40). So far, on the other hand, as the temper of
the Hillel school was one of mere adaptation to the
feeling of the people, cleaving to tradition, wanting in
the intuition of a higher life, the teaching of Christ
must have been felt as unsparingly condemning it.
(10.) It adds to the interest of this inquiry to
remember that Hillel himself lived, according to the
SCRIBES 1167
tradition of the Rabbis, to the great age of 120,
and may therefore have been present among the
doctors of Luke ii, 46, and that Gamaliel, his grand-
son and successor,’ was at the head of this school
during the whole of the ministry of Christ, as well
as in the early portion of the history of the Acts.
Weare thus able to explain the fact, which so many
passages in the Gospels lead us to inter, the existence
all along of a party among the Scribes themselves,
more or less disposed to recognise Jesus of Nazareth
as a teacher, (John iii. 1; Mark x. 17), not far trom
the kingdom of God (Mark xii. 54), advocates of
a policy of toleration (John vii. 51), but, on the
other hand, timid and time-serving, unable to
confess even their half-belief (John xii. 42), afraid
to take their stand against the strange alliance
of extremes which brought together the Sadducean
section of the priesthood and the ultra-Pharisaie
followers of Shammai. When the last great crisis
came, they apparently contented themselves with a
policy of absence (Luke xxiii. 50, 51), possibly
were not even summoned, and thus the Council
which condemned our Lord was a packed meeting
of the confederate parties, not a formally consti-
tuted Sanhedrim. All its proceedings, the hasty
investigation, the immediate sentence, were vitiated
by irregularity (Jost, i. pp. 407-409). Afterwards,
when the fear of violence was once over, and po-
pular feeling had turned, we find Gamaliel summon-_
ing* courage to maintain openly the policy of a
tolerant expectation (Acts ν, 34).
IV. Education aid Life. —(1.) The special
training for a Scribe’s office began, probably, about
the age of thirteen. _ According to the Pirke Aboth
(v. 24) the child bézan to read the Mikra at five
and the Mishna at ten. Three years later every
Israelite became a child of the Law (Bar-Mitsvah),
and was bound to study and obey it. The great mass
of men rested in the scanty teaching of their syna-
gogues, in knowing and repeating their Tephillim,
the texts inscribed on their phylacteries. for the
boy who was destined by his parents, or who
devoted himself, to the calling of a Scribe, some-
thing more was required. He made his way to
Jerusalem, and applied for admission to the school
of some famous Rabbi. If he were poor, it was
the duty of the synagogue of his town or village
to provide for the payment of his fees, and in
part also tor his maintenance. His power to learn
was tested by an examination on entrance. If
he passed it he became a “ chosen-one” (ὙΠ,
comp. John xy. 16), aud entered on his work
as a disciple (Carpzov, App. Crit. i. 7). The
master and his scholars met, the former sitting
on a high chair, the elder pupils (δ ΡΠ. on ἃ
lower bench, the younger (D°3{P) on the cround,
both literally ‘‘at his feet.” The class-room might
be the chamber of the Temple set apart for this
purpose, or the private school of the Rabbi. In
addition to the Rabbi, or head master, there were
assistant teachers, and one interpreter, or crier,
whose function it was to proclaim aloud to the
whole school what the Rabbi had spoken in a whisper
s Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, came between
them, but apparently for a short tirae only. ‘The ques-
tion whether he is to be identified with the Simeon of
Luke ii. 25, is one which we have not sufficient data to
determine. Most commentators answer it in the nega-
tive. There seem, however, some probabilities on the
other side. One trained in the school of Hillel might not
unnaturally be looking for the “consolation of Israel.”
Himself of the house and lineage of David, he would
readily accept the inward witness which pointed to a
child of that house as “the Lord’s Christ.” There 15
something significant, too, in the silence of Rabbinic
literature. In the Pirke Aboth he is not even named,
Comp. Otho, Hist, Doct. Misn. in Ugolini xxi.
1168 SCRIBES
(comp. Matt. x. 27). The education was chiefly
catechetical, the pupil submitting cases and asking
questions, the teacher examining the pupil (Luke
ii.). . The questions might be ethical, ‘¢ What was
the great commandment: of all? What must a
mau do to inherit eternal life?” or casuistic, ‘* What
might a man do or leave undone on the Sabbath ?”
er ceremonial, “ What did or did not render him
unclean ?”?* In due time the pupil passed on to
the laws of property, of contracts, and of evidence.
So far he was within the circle of the Halachah, the
simple exposition of the traditional ‘* Words of the
Seribes.” He might remain content with this, or
might pass on to the higher knowledge of the Beth-
ham-Midrash, with its inexhaustible stores of mys-
tical interpretation. In both cases, pre-eminently
in the latter, parables entered largely into the method
of instruction. The teacher uttered the similitude,
and left it to his hearers to interpret for themselves.
[PARABLES.] That the relation between the two
was often one of genial and kindly feeling, we may
infer from the saying of one famous Scribe, “1
have learnt much from the Rabbis my teachers, 1
have learnt more from the Rabbis my colleagues,
I have learnt most of all from my disciples ”
(Carpzov, App. Crit. i. 7).
(2.) After a sufficient period of training, pro-
bably at the age of thirty," the probationer was
solemnly admitted to his office. The presiding
Rabbi pronounced the formula, “1 admit thee, and
thou art admitted to the Chair of the Scribe,’’ so-
lemnly ordained him by the imposition of hands
(the DID = χειροθεσία). and gave to him, as
the symbol of his work, tablets on which he was to
note down the sayings of the'wise, and the ‘key
of knowledge” (comp. Luke xi. 52), with which
he was to open or to shut the treasures of Divine
wisdom. So admitted, he took his place as a
Chaber, or member of the fraternity, was no longer
ἀγράμματος καὶ ἰδιώτης (Acts iv. 13), was sepa-
rated entirely from the multitude, the brute herd
that knew not the Law, the “cursed” “people of
the earth” (John vii. 15, 49).¥
(3.) There still remained for the disciple after
his admission the choice of a variety of functions,
the chances of failure and success. He might give
himself to any one of the branches of study, or com-
bine two or more of them. He might rise to high
places, become a doctor of the law, an arbitrator in
family litigations (Luke xii. 14), the head of a
school, a member of the Sanhedrim. He might
have to content himself with the humbler work of a
transcriber, copying the Law and the Prophets for
the use of synagogues, or Tephillim for that. of the
devout (Otho, Lexic. Rabbin. s. v. Phylacteria),
or ἃν notary writing out contracts of sale, covenants
of espousals, bills of repudiation. The position of
the more fortunate was.of course attractive enough.
Ὁ We are left to wonder what were the questions and
answers of the school-room of Luke ii. 46, but those pro-
posed to our Lord by his own disciples, or by the Scribes,
as tests of his proficiency, may fairly be taken as types of
what was commonly discussed. The A pocryphal Gospels,
as usual, mock our curiosity with the most irritating
puerilities. (Comp. Hvangel. Infant. ο. 45, in Tischendorf,
Codex Apoc. N. 1.)
u This is inferred by Schoettgen (Hor. Heb.1. c.) from
the analogy of the Levite’s office, and from the fact that
the Baptist and our Lord both entered on their ministry
at this age.
x It was said of Hillel that he placed a limit on this
practice. It had been exercised by any Scribe. After
SCRIBES
Theoretically, indeed, the office of the Scribe was
not to be a source of wealth. It is doubtful how
far the fees paid by the pupils were appropriated
by the teacher (Buxtorf, Synag. Judaic. cap. 46).
The. great Hillel worked as a day-labourer. St.
Paul’s work as a tentmaker, our Lord’s work as a
carpenter, were quite compatible with the popular
conception of the most honoured Rabbi. ‘The in-
direct payments were, however, considerable enough.
Scholars brought gifts. Rich and devout widows
maintained a Rabbi as an act of piety, often to
the injury of their own kindred (Matt. xxiii. 14).
Kach act of the notary’s office, or the arbitration of
the jurist, would be attended by an honorarium.
(4.) In regard to social position there was a like
contradiction between theory and practice. The
older Scribes had had no titles [RABBI] ; Shemaiah,
as we have seen, warned his disciples against them.
In our Lord’s time the passion for distinction was
insatiable. The ascending scale of Rab, Rabbi,
Rabban (we are reminded of our own Reverend,
Very Reverend, Right Reverend), presented so
many steps on the ladder of ambition (Serupius,
de tit. Rabbi, in Ugolini xxii.). Other forms of
worldliness were not far off. The salutations in
the market-place (Matt. xxiii. 7), the reverential
kiss offered by the scholars to their master, or
by Rabbis to each other, the greeting of Abba,
father (Matt. xxiii. 9, and Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.
in loc.), the long στολαὶ, as contrasted with the
simple χίτων and ἱμάτιον of our Lord and His dis-
ciples, with the -broad blue Zizith or fringe (the
κράσπεδον of Matt, xxiii. 5), the Tephillim of
ostentatious size, all these go to make up the picture
of a Scribe’s life. Drawing to themselves, as they
did, nearly all the energy and thought of Judaism,
the close hereditary caste of the priesthood was
powerless to compete with them. Unless the priest
became a Scribe also, he remained in obscurity.
The order, as such, became contemptible and base.*
For the Scribes there were the best places at feasts,
the chief seats in synagogues (Matt. xxiii. 6; Luke
xiv. 7).
(5.) The character of the order was marked
under these influences by a deep, incurable hypo-
crisy, all the more perilous because, in most cases,
it was unconscious. We must not infer from this
that all were alike tainted, or that the work which
they had done, and the worth of their office, were
not recognised by Him who rebuked them for their
evil. Some there were not far from the kingdom
of God, taking their place side by side with prophets
and wise men, among the instruments by which the
wisdom of God was teaching men (Matt. xxiii. 34).
The name was still honourable. The Apostles them-
selves were to be Scribes in the kingdom of God
(Matt. xiii, 52). The Lord himself did not refuse
the salutations which hailed Him as a Rabbi. In
his time it was reserved for the Nasi or President of the
Sanhedrim (Geiger, ué supra).
y For all the details in the above section, and many
others, comp. the elaborate treatises by Ursinus, Antigqgq.
Heb., and Heubner, Ve Academiis Hebraeorum, in Ugolini,
Thes. Xxi.
z The later Rabbinic saying that “ the disciples of the
wise have a right to a goodly house, a fair wife, and a soft
couch,” reflected probably the luxury of an earlier time.
(Ursini, Antiqg. Heb. cap. 5, ut supra.)
® The feeling is curiously prominent in the Rabbinic
scale of precedence. The Wise Man, ὁ. 6, the Rabbi, is
higher than the High Priest himself. (Gem. Hieros.
Horaioth, f. 84.)
|
|
|
SCRIP
“Zenas the lawyer” (νομικός, Tit. iii. 13) and
Apollos “mighty in the Scriptures,” sent appar-
ently for the special purpose of dealing with the
μάχαι νομικαί which prevailed at Crete (Tit. iii.
9), we may recognise the work which members of
the order were capable of doing for the edifying of the
Church of Christ (comp. Winer, Realwvb., and Her-
zog’s Encyclop, ‘*Schrittgelehrte”). [E. H. P.]
SCRIP (1p): συλλογή, wnpd: pera). The
Hebrew word * thus translated appears in 1 Sam.
xvii. 40, as a synonyme for D'Y74 > (τὸ κάδιον
τὸ ποιμενικόν), the bag in which the shepherds of
Palestine carried their food or other necessaries. In
Symmachus and the Vulg. pera, and in the mar-
ginal reading of A.V. “‘scrip,” appear in 2 K. iv.
42, for the "py, which in the text of the A. V. is
translated husk (comp. Gesen. s.v.). The πήρα of
the N. T. appears in our Lord’s command to his
disciples as distinguished from the ζώνη (Matt. x. 10;
Mark vi. 8) and the BaAAdytiov (Luke x. 4, xxii. 35,
36), and its natnre and use are sufficiently defined by
the lexicographers. The scrip of the Galilean pea-
sants was of leather, used especially to carry their
fool on a journey (ἡ θηκὴ τῶν ἄρτων, Suid. ;
δέρμα τι ἀρτόφορον, Ammon.), and slung over
their shoulders. In the Talmudic writers the word
ΙΓ is used as denoting the same thing, and is
named as part of the equipment both of shepherds
in their common life and of proselytes coming on a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on
Matt. x. 10}. The ζώνη, on the other hand, was
the loose girdle, in the folds of which money was
often kept for the sake of safety [GIRDLE]; the
βαλλάντιον (sacculus, Vulg.), the smaller bag
used exclusively for money (Luke xii. 33). The
command given to the ‘l'welve first, and afterwards
to the Seventy, involved therefore an absolute de-
pendance upon God for each day’s wants, They
were to appear in every town or village, as men un-
like all other travellers, freely doing without that
which others looked on as essential. The fresh rule
given in Luke xxii. 35, 36, perhaps also the facts
that Judas was the bearer of the bag (γλωσσόκομον,
John xii. 6),and that when the disciples were with-
out bread they were ashamed of their forgetfulness
(Mark viii. 14-16), show that the command was not
intended to be permanent.
The English word has a meaning precisely equi-
valent to that of the Greek. Connected, as it pro-
bably is, with scrape, scrap, the scrip was used for
articles of food. It belonged especially to shep-
herds (As You Like It, act iii. sc. 2). It was
made of leather (Milton, Comus, 626). A similar
article is still used by the Syrian shepherds ( Porter’s
Damascus, ii. 109). The later sense of scrip as a
written certificate, is, it need hardly be said, of dif-
ferent origin or meaning ; the word, on its first use in
English, was written “ script” (Chaucer). [E. H. P.]
SCRIPTURE (N35, Dan. x. 21: γραφή,
γράμματα, 2 Tim. iii. 16: Scriptura). The chief
facts relating to the books to which, individually
and collectively, this title has been applied, will be
found under BIBLE and CANON. It will fall within
the scope of this article to trace the history of the
SCRIPTURE 1169
word, and to determine its exact meaning in the
language of the O. and N. T.
(1.) It is not till the return from the Captivity
that the word meets us with any distinctive force.
In the earlier books we vead of the Law, the Book
of the Law. In Ex. xxxii. 16, the Commandments
written on the tables of testimony are said to be
“the writing of God” (ypaph θεοῦ), but there
is no special sense in the word taken by itself. In
the passage from Dan. x. 21 (ἐν γραφῇ ἀλη-
θείας), where the A.V. has “ the Scripture of
Truth,” the words do not probably mean more than
“a true writing.” The thought of the Scripture
as a whole is hardly to be found in them. This
first appears in 2 Chr. xxx. 5, 18 (31N35, κατὰ
τὴν γραφήν, LXX., ‘as it was written,” A. V.),
and is probably connected with the profound reve-
rence for the Sacred Books which led the earlier
Scribes to confine their own teaching to oral tradi-
tion, and gave therefore to “ the Writing ” a distinc-
tive pre-eminence. [ScRIBES.] The same feeling
showed itself in the constant formula of quotation,
“It is written,” often without the addition of any
words defining the passage quoted (Matt. iv. 4, 6,
xxi. 13, xxvi. 24). The Greek word, as will be
seen, kept its ground in this sense. A slizht change
passed over that of the Hebrew, and led to the
substitution of another. The DIDIND (céthibin
= writings), in the Jewish arrangement of the
O.T., was used for a part and not the whole of
the O. T. (the Hagiographa ; comp. BIBLE), while
another form of the same root (céthtb) came to -
have a technical significance as applied to the text,
which, though written in the MSS. of the Hebrew
Scriptures, might or might not be recognised as
kéri, the right intelligible reading to be read in the
congregation, Another word was therefore wanted,
and it was found in the Wikra’ (SOP, Neh. viii. 8),
or “ reading,’ the thing read or recited, recitation.»
This accordingly we find as the equivalent for the
collective γραφαί. The boy at the age of five
begins the study of the Mikra, at ten passes on to
the Mishna (Pirke Aboth, v.24). The old word
has not however disappeared, and 3INDA, “ the
Writing,” is used with the same connotation (ibid.
iii, 10).
(2.) With this meaning the word γραφή passed
into the language of the N.T. Used in the singular
it is applied chiefly to this or that passage quoted
from the O. T. (Mark xii. 10; John vii. 38, xiii.
18, xix. 37; Lukeiv.21; Rom. ix. 17; Gal. iii. 8,
et al.). In Acts viii. 32 (ἣ περιοχὴ τῆς γραφῆς)
it takes a somewhat larger extension, as denoting
the writing of Isaiah; but in ver. 35 the more
limited meaning reappears. In two passages of
some difficulty, some have seen the wider, some the
narrower sense. (1.) Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος
(2 Tim. iii. 16) has been translated in the A. V.
“5 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ as
though γραφή, though without the article, were
taken as equivalent to the O. Τὶ, as a whole (comp.
πᾶσα οἰκοδομή, Eph. ii. 21; πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα,
Matt. ii. 3), and θεόπνευστος, the predicate as-
serted of it. Retaining the narrower meaning,
however, we might still take θεόπνευστος as the
a Yalkut, the scrip, is the quaint title of some of the
most learned of the Rabbinical treatises: for instance, the
Yalkut Shimoni, a miscellaneous collection of fragmentary
comments on the whole of the Ὁ. ᾿ς, consisting of extracts
VOL. 11.
from more than fifty older Jewish works (Zunz, Gottesd.
Vortrage, cap. 18).
Ὁ The same root, it may be noticed, is found in the
title of the Sacred Book of Islam (Koran = recitation).
4 κὶ
1170 SCRIPTURE
predicate. ‘Every Scripture—sc. every separate
portion—is divinely inspired.” It has been urged,
however, that this assertion of a truth, which
both St. Paul and Timothy held in common, would
be less suitable to the context than the assigning
that truth as a ground for the further inference
drawn from it; and so there is a preponderance of
authority in favour of the rendering, ‘* Every
γραφή, being inspired, is also profitable, . . . ἢ
(comp. Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott,
Wiesinger, 7 Jloc.). There does not seem any
ground for making the meaning of γραφή depen-
dent on the adjective θεόπνευστος (“every inspired
writing ”), as though we recognised a γραφή not
inspired. The usus loquendi of the N. T. is uni-
form in this respect ; and the word γραφή is never
used of any common or secular writing.
(2.) The meaning of the genitive in πᾶσα
προφητεία γραφῆς (2 Pet. i. 20) seems at first
sight, anarthrous though it be, distinctly collective.
“ Every prophecy of, 7. e. contained in, the O. T.
Scripture.’ A closer examination of the passage
will perhaps lead to a different conclusion. The
Apostle, atter speaking of the vision on the holy
mount, goes on, “ We have as something yet firmer,
the prophetic word ” (here, probably, including the
utterances of N. T. προφῆται, as well as the
writings of the 0. T.©). Men did well to give heed
to that word. They needed one caution in dealing
with it. They were to remember that no προφητεία
γραφῆς, no such prophetic utterance starting from,
resting on a γραφή, came from the ἰδία ἐπίλυσις,
the individual power of interpretation of the speaker,
but was, like the γραφή itself, inspired. It was the
law of mpopnreia, of the later as well as the earlier,
that men of God spake, “ borne along by the Holy
Spirit.”
(3.) In the plural, as might be expected, the
collective meaning is prominent. Sometimes we
have simply ai γραφαί (Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29;
John v. 39; Acts xvii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 3). Some-
times πᾶσαι ai γραφαί (Luke xxiv. 27). The
epithets ἅγιαι (Rom. i. 2), προφητικαί (Rom.
xvi. 26), are sometimes joined with it. In 2 Pet.
iii. 16, we find an extension of the term to the
Epistles of St. Paul; but it remains uncertain
whether ai λοιπαὶ γραφαί are the Scriptures of
the O. T. exclusively, or include other writings,
then extant, dealing with the same topics. There
seems little doubt that such writings did exist.
A comparison of Rom. xvi. 26 with Eph. iii. 5,
might even suggest the conclusion, that in both
there is the same assertion, that what had not been
revealed before was now manifested by the Spirit
to the apostles and prophets of the Church; and so
that the “ prophetic writings” to which St. Paul
refers, are, like the spoken words of N. T. prophets,
those that reveal things not made known before, the
knowledge of the mystery of Christ.
It is noticeable, that in the 2nd Epistle of Clement
of Rome (c. xi.) we have a long citation of this
nature, not from the O.T., quoted as 6 προφητικὸς
Adyos (comp. 2 Pet. i. 19), and that in the Ist
Epistle (6. xxiii.) the same is quoted as 7 γραφή.
SCYTHOPOLIS
Looking to the special fulness of the prophetic
gifts in the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. i. 5, xiv. 1),
it is obviously probable that some of the spoken
prophecies would be committed to writing; and it
is a striking coincidence, that both the apostolic and
the post-apostolic references are connected, first with
that Church, and next with that of Rome, which
was so largely influenced by it.
(4.) In one passage, τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα (2 Tim.
ili. 15) answers to “‘The Holy Scriptures” of the
A.V. Taken by itself, the word might, as in John
vii. 15, Acts xxvi. 24, have a wider range, including
the whole circle of Rabbinic education. As deter-
mined, however, by the use of other Hellenistic
writers, Philo (Leg. ad Caium, vol. ii. p. 574, ed.
Mang.), Josephus (Ant. prooem. 3,x. 10, §4; c. Apion.
i, 26), there can be no doubt that it is accurately
translated with this special meaning. [E. H. P.]
SCYTHIAN (Σκύθης : Scytha) occurs in
Col. iii. 11 as a generalised term for rude, ignorant,
degraded. In the Gospel, says Paul, ‘there is
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncireum-
cision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but
Christ is alland in all.” The sane view of Scythian
barbarism appears in 2 Macc, iv. 47, and 3 Macc.
vii. 5. For the geographical and ethnographical
relations of the term, see Dict. of Geog. ii. pp. 936-
945. The Scythians dwelt mostly on the north of
the Black Sea and the Caspian, stretching thence
indefinitely into inner Asia, and were regarded by'
the ancients as standing extremely low in point of
intelligence and civilisation. Josephus (c. Apion.
ii. 37) says, Σκύθαι δὲ φόνοις χαίροντες ἀνθρώπων
καὶ βραχὺ τῶν θηρίων διαφέροντες ; and Par-
menio (ap, Athen. v. p. 221), ἀνὴρ γὰρ ἕλκων
οἶνον, ws ὕδωρ ἵππος Σκυθιστὶ φωνεῖ, οὐδὲ
κάππα γιγνώσκων. For other similar testimonies
see Wetstein, Nov. Test. vol. ii. p. 292. Perhaps
it may be inferred from Col. iii. 11 that there
were Scythians also among the early converts to
Christianity. Many of this people lived in Greek
and Roman lands, and could have heard the Gospel
there, even if some of the first preachers had not
already penetrated into Scythia itself.
Herodotus states (i. 103-105) that the Scythians
made an incursion through Palestine into Egypt,
under Psammetichus, the contemporary of Josiah.
In this way some would account for the Greek
name of Bethshean, Scythopolis. Bale Ids ΗΠ]
SCYTHOP'OLIS (Σκυθῶν πόλις: Peshito-
Syriac, Beisan : civitas Scytharum), that is, ‘“ the
city of the Scythians,” occurs in the A. V. of Jud.
ili. 10 and 2 Macc. xii. 29 only. In the LXX.
of Judg. i, 27, however, it is inserted (in both the
great MSS.) as the synonym of BrTHSHEAN, and
this identification is confirmed by the narrative of
1 Mace. v. 52, a parallel account to that of 2 Macc.
xii. 29, as well as by the repeated statements of
Josephus (Ant. v. 1, $22, vi. 14, §8, xii. 8, $5). He
uniformly gives the name in the contracted shape
(Σκυθόπολις) in which it is also given by Eusebius
(Onom. passim), Pliny (ZH. NV. v.18), Strabo (xvi.),
ἄς, &c., and which is inaccurately followed in the
A.V. Polybius (v. 70, 4) employs the fuller form of
© ὃ προφητικὸς λόγος is used by Philo of the words of
Moses (heg. Alleg. iii. 14, vol. i. p. 95, ed. Mang.). He,
of courgs, could recognize no prophets but those of the 0. T.
Clement of Rome (ii. 11) uses it of a prophecy not included
in the Canons.
ἃ So in the only other instance in which the genitive is
found (Rom. xv. 4), ἡ παράκλησις τῶν γραφῶν is the
counsel, admonition, drawn from the Scriptures. Λόγος
παρακλήσεως appears in Acts xiii. 15 as the received term
for such an address, the Sermon of the Synagogue. Tapa-
κλησις itself was so closely allied with προφητεία (comp.
Barnabas = vids προφητείας = vids παρακλήσεως), that
the expressions of the two Apostles may be regarded as
substantially identical. ἢ
eS tS ee
a
SCYTHOPOLIS
the LXX. Bethshean has now, like so many other
places in the Holy Land, regained its ancient name,
and is known as Geisdén only. A mound close to it
on the west is called Ted] Shik, in which it is perhaps
just possible that a trace of Scythopolis may linger.
But although there is no doubt whatever of tlie
identity of the place, there is considerable difference
of opinion as to the origin of the *name. The LXX.
(as is evident from the form in which they present it)
and Pliny (VY. H. ν. 16>) attribute it to the
Scythians, who in the words of the Byzantine his-
torian George Syncellus, ‘‘ overran Palestine, and
took possession of Baisan, which from them is called
Scythopolis.” This has been in modern times gene-
rally referred to the invasion recorded by Herodotus
(i. 104-6), when the Seythians, after their occupation
of Media, passed through Palestine on their road to
Egypt (about B.c, 600—a few years before the taking
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar), a statement now
recognised as a real fact, though some of the details
may be open to question (Dict. of Geogr. ii. 940);
Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 246). ‘It is not at all im-
probable that either on their passage through, or on
their return after being repulsed by Psammetichus
(Herod. i. 105), some Scythians may have settled in
the country (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 694, note); and no
place would be more likely to attract them than
Beisan—fertile, most abundantly watered, and in an
excellent military position. In the then state of the
Holy Land they would hardly meet with much
resistance.
Reland, however (apparently incited thereto by
his doubts of the truth of Herodotus’ account), dis-
carded this explanation, and suggested that Scytho-
polis was a corruption of Succothopolis—-the chief
town of the district of Succoth. In this he is sup-
ported by Gesenius (Notes to Burckhardt, 1058)
and by Grimm (Hzeg. Handbuch on 1 Mace. ν. 52).
Since, however, the objection of Reland to the his-
torical truth of Herodotus is now removed, the
necessity for this suggestion (certainly most in-
genious) seems not to exist. The distance of Suc-
coth from Beisan, if we identify it with Sakit, is
10 miles, while if the arguments of Mr. Beke are
valid it would be nearly double as far. And it is
surely gratuitous to suppose that so large, inde-
pendent, and important a town as Bethshean was
in the earlier history, and as the remains show it
to have been in the Greek period, should have taken
its name from a comparatively insignificant place
at a long distance from it. Dr. Robinson (Bib. Res.
iii. 330) remarks with justice, that had the Greeks
derived the name from Succoth they would have
employed that name in its translated form as Σκηναί,
and the compound would have been Scenopolis.
Reland’s derivation is also dismissed without hesi-
tation by Ewald, on the ground that the two names
Succoth and Skythes have nothing in common
(Gesch, ili, 694, note). Dr. Robinson suggests
a The ‘modern Greeks” are said to derive it from
σκῦτος, a hide (Williams, in Dict. of Geogr.). ‘Vhis is,
doubtless, another appearance of the legend so well known
in connexion with the foundation of Byrsa (Carthage).
One such has been mentioned in reference to Hebron
under MACHPELAH (Pp. 188).
b The singular name Nysa, mentioned in this passage
as a former appellation of Scythopolis, is identified by
Ewald (Gesch. iv. 453) with Neash, an inversion of (Beth-)
Shean, actually found on coins.
ς Ὁ», Ch. NID’, Dan. vii. 2, 3, θάλασσα, mare, from
MD, not used, i. ᾳ. ODT, or MDM, “roar,” A and ἡ
TT betes " Tt
SEA 1171
that, after all, City of the Scythians may be right ,
the word Scythia being used as in the N. T. as
equivalent to a barbarian or savage. In this sense
he thinks it may have been applied to the wild
Arabs, who then, as now, inhabited the Ghér, and at
times may have had possession of Bethshean.
The Canaanites were never expelled from Beth-
shean, and the heathen appear to have always main-
tained a footing there. It is named in the IMishna
as the seat of idolatry (Mishna, Aboda Zara, i. 4),
and as containing a double population of Jews and
heathens. At the beginning of the Roman war
(A.D. 65) the heathen rose against the Jews and
massacred a large number, according to Josephus
(5. J. ii. 18, §3) no less than 13,000, in a wood or
grove close to the town. Scythopolis was the largest
city of the Decapolis, and the only one of the ten
which lay west of Jordan. By Eusebius and Jerome
(Onom. ““ Bethsan”) it is characterised as πόλις
ἐπίδημος and urbs nobilis, It was surrounded by a
district of its own of the most abundant fertility. It
became the seat of a Christian bishop, and its name is
found in the lists of signatures as late as the Council
of Constantinople, A.D. 536. The latest mention
of it under the title of Scythopolis is probably that
of William of Tyre (xxii. 16 and 26). He men-
tions it as if it was then actually so called, carefully
explaining that it was formerly Bethshan. [G.]
SEA. The Sea, ydm,¢ is used in Scripture to
denote—1. The “ gathering of the waters” (ydmim),
encompassing the land, or what we call in a more
or less definite sense “ the Ocean.” 2. Some portion
of this, as the Mediterranean Sea. 3. Inland lakes,
whether of salt or fresh water. 4. Any great col-
lection of water, as the rivers Nile or Euphrates,
especially in a state of overflow.
1. In the first sense it is used in Gen. i. 2, 10, and
elsewhere, as Deut. xxx. 13; 1 K. x. 22; Ps. xxiv.
2; Job xxvi. 8, 12, xxxviii. 8; see Hom. JI. xiv.
301, 302, and Hes. Theog. 107, 109; and 2 Pet.
iii. 5.
2. In the second, it is used, with the article, (a) of
the Mediterranean Sea, called the “ hinder,’ ἃ the
“ western,’ and the “utmost” sea (Deut. xi. 24,
xxxiv. 2; Joel ii. 20); ‘sea of the Philistines”
(Ex. xxiii. 31) ; “ the great sea” (Num. xxxiv. 6, 7 ;
Josh. xv. 47) ; “the sea” (Gen. xlix. 13; Ps. Ixxx.
11, evii. 23; 1 K. iv. 20, &c.). (6) Also fre-
quently of the Red Sea (Ex. xv. 4; Josh. xxiv. 6),
or one of its gulfs (Num. xi. 31; Is. xi. 15), and
perhaps (1 K. x. 22) the sea traversed by Solomon’s
fleet. [RED SEA. ]
3. The inland lakes termed seas, as the Salt or
Dead Sea. (See the special articles.)
4, The term yam, like the Arabic Bahr, is also
applied to great rivers, as the Nile (Is. xix. 5; Am.
vill. 8, A.V. “flood ;” Nah. iii. 8; Ez. xxxii. 2),
the Euphrates (Jer. li. 36). (See Stanley, S. δ' P.
App. p. 533.)
being interchanged. Connected with this is Din,
ἄβυσσος, abyssus, “ the deep” (Gen. i. 2; Jon. ii. 5; Ges-
p. 371). It also means the west (Ges. pp. 360, 598).
When used for the sea, it very often, but not always,
takes the article.
Other words for the sea (in A. V. “ deep”) are :-—
1. ΠΟΥ, noisy (only in plur.), or πρὴν, ἄβυσσος,
βάθος, abyssus, profundum. 2. S920, κατακλυσμός,
diluvium, “ water-flood” (Ps. xxix. 10).
a Pans, (θάλασσα ἡ) ἐσχάτη, (mare) novissimum.
4¥ 2
1172 SEA, MOLTEN
The qualities or characteristics of the sea and
sea-coast mentioned in Scripture are, 1. The sand,¢
whose abundance on the coast both of Palestine and
Egypt furnishes so many illustrations (Gen. xxii.
ΠΡ xh. 49) Judo. vii. 125 1 Sam. xiii. 5; 1K.
iv. 20, 29; Is. x. 22; Matt. vii. 26; Strabo, lib.
xvi. p. 758, 759 ; Raiumer, Pal. p. 45; Robinson,
ii. 34-38, 464; Shaw, Zrav. p. 280; Hasselquist,
Trav. p. 119; Stanley, 5. δ' P. pp. 255, 260, 264).
2. The shoref 3. CreeksS or inlets. 4. Har-
bours.2 5, Waves! or billows.
It may be remarked that almost all the figures
of speech taken from the sea in Scripture, refer
either to its power or its danger, and among the
woes threatened in punishment of disobedience, one
may be remarked as significant of the dread of the
sea entertained by a non-seafaring people, the being
brought back into Egypt “in ships” (Deut. xxviii.
68). The national feeling on this subject may be
contrasted with that of the Greeks in reference to
the sea. [COMMERCE.] It may be remarked, that,
as is natural, no mention of the tide is found in
Scripture.
The place “ where two seas met”’?* (Acts xxvii.
41) is explained by Conybeare and Howson, as a
place where the island Salmonetta off the coast of
Malta in St. Paul’s Bay, so intercepts the passage
from the sea without to the bay within as to give
the appearance of two seas, just as Strabo represents
the appearance of the entrance from the Bosphorus
into the Kuxine; but it seems quite as likely that
by the ‘‘ place of the double sea,” is meant one
where two currents, caused by the intervention of the
island, met and produced an eddy, which made it
desirable at once to ground the ship (Conybeare and
Howson, ii. p. 423 ; Strabo, ii. p. 124). [H. W. P.]
SEA, MOLTEN." The name given to the
great brazen® laver of the Mosaic ritual. [LAVER. ]
In the place of the laver of the tabernacle, Solo-
mon caused a laver to be cast for a similar purpose,
which from its size was called a sea. It was made
partly or wholly of the brass, or rather copper,
which had been captured by David from “ Tibhath
and Chun, cities of Hadarezer king of Zobah”
(1 K. vii. 23-26; 1 Chr. xviii. 8). Its dimen-
sions were as follows :—Height, 5 cubits ; diameter,
10 cubits; circumference, 30 cubits; thickness, 1
handbreadth ; and it is said to have been capable of
containing 2000, or according to 2 Chr. iv. 5, 3000
baths. Below the brim® there was a double row
of “knops,” P 10 (7, ὁ. 5-5) in each cubit. These
were probably a running border or double fillet of
tendrils, and fruits, said to be gourds, of an oval
shape (Celsius, Hierob. i. 397, and Jewish authori-
ties quoted by him). The brim itself, or lip, was
wrought “ like the brim of a cup, with flowers4 of
SKA, MOLTEN
lilies,” ὁ. δ. curved outwards like a lily or lotus
flower. The laver stood on twelve oxen, three to-
wards each quarter of the heavens, and all looking
outwards. It was mutilated by Ahaz, by being
removed from its basis of oxen and placed on a
stone base, and was finally broken up by the Assy-
rians (2 K. xvi. 14, 17, xxv. 13).
Josephus says that the form of the sea was hemi-
spherical, and that it held 3000 baths; and he else-
where tells us that the bath was equal to 72 Attic
téorat, or 1 μετρητής = 8 gallons 5:12 pints
(Joseph. Ant. viii. 2, §9, and 3, §5). The question
arises, which occurred to the Jewish writers them-
selves, how the contents of the laver, as they are
given in the sacred text, are to be reconciled with
its dimensions. At the rate of 1 bath=8 gallons
5°12 pints, 2000 baths would amount to about
17,250 gallons, and 3000 (the more precisely stated
reading of 2 Chr. iv. 5) would amount to 25,920
gallons. Now supposing the vessel to be hemi-
spherical, as Josephus says it was, the cubit to be
= 204 inches (20°6250), and the palm or hand-
breadth = 3 inches (2°9464, Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp.
ii, 258), we find the following proportions :—From
the height (5 cubits = 1024 inches) subtract the
thickness (3 inches), the axis of the hemisphere
would be 994 inches, and its contents in gallons, at
277% cubic inches to the gallon, would be about
7500 gallons ; or taking the cubit at 22 inches, the
contents would reach 10,045 gallons—an amount
still far below the required quantity. On the other
hand, a hemispherical vessel, to contain 17,250
gallons, must have a depth of 11 feet nearly, or
rather more than 6 cubits, at the highest estimate
of 22 inches to the cubit, exclusive of the thickness
of the vessel. To meet the difficulty, we may ima-
gine—1. an erroneous reading of the numbers.
2. We may imagine the laver, like its prototype in
the tabernacle, to have had a ‘foot,’ which may
have been a basin which received the water as it
was drawn out by taps from the laver, so that the
priests might be said to wash “at”? not “in” it
(Ex, xxx. 18, 19; 2 Chr. iv. 6). 3. We may
suppose the laver to have had another shape than
the hemisphere of Josephus. The Jewish writers
supposed that it had a square hollow base for 3
cubits of its height, and 2 cubits of the circular
form above (Lightfoot, Deser. Zempl. vol. i. p.
647). A far more probable suggestion is that of
Thenius, in which Keil agrees, that it was of a
bulging form below, but contracted at the mouth
to the dimensions named in 1 K. vii. 25. 4. A
fourth supposition is perhaps tenable, that when
it is said the laver contained 2000 or 3000 baths,
the meaning is that the supply of water required
for its use amounted, at its utmost, to that quan-
tity. The quantity itself of water is not sur-
e bin, ἄμμος, arena,
€ SN, Joined with Ὁ"; παραλία γῆ ; littus. InGen.
xlix. 13, “ haven;’” Acts xxvii. 39, αἰγιαλός.
6 YTD), from 7B, “ break,” only in Judg. v. 17 in
plur.; διακοπαί: portus; A. V. “ breaches.”
a TIN, a place of retreat; λιμήν ; portus; A. V.
“ haven.”
cS hs
mare fluctuans, 2. ‘277, or N34; ἐπιτρίψεις ; fluctus;
ἃ, lit. a heap, in plur. waves; κῦμα; gurgites,
only in Ps. xciii. 3. 3. awn ; μετεωρισμός 5 Gurges,
elatio; “a breaker.” 4. m2 (Job ix. 8); luctus ; lit,
a high place (Ez. xx. 29).
Κ τόπος διθάλασσος ; locus dithalassus.
m psi 3 χυτός ; fusilis.
n ΠΩ ΠΣ 3 χαλκέος 5 Geneus.
o MAY: χεῖλος ; labrum.
Tit
Ρ DYpa : ὑποστηρίγματα ; sculptura ; properly
“ gourds.” i
4 jee N15 ; βλαστὸς κρίνου ; folium repandi lilit.
The passage literally is, “ and its lip (was) like work (such
as) a cup’s lip, a lily-flower.”
τ WDIDID; ἐξ αὐτοῦ; A.V. “ thereat” (Ex. xxx. 19).
ἯΞ; ἐν αὐτῇ (2 Chr. iv. 6).
SEA, THE SALT
prising, when we remember the quantity mentioned
as the supply of a private house for purification, viz.
6 amphorae of 2 or & firkins (μετρηταί) each, 7. 6.
from 16 to 24 gallons each (John ii. 6).
The laver is said to have been supplied in earlier
days by the Gibeonites, but afterwards by a conduit
from the pools of Bethlehem. Ben-Katin made
twelve cocks (epistomia) for drawing off the water,
and invented a contrivance for keeping it pure during
the night:(Joma, iii. 10 ; Tamid, iii. 8 ; Middoth, iii.
6; Lightfoot, 7. c.). Mr. Layard mentions some
circular vessels found at Nineveh, of 6 feet in dia-
meter and 2 feet in depth, which seemed to answer,
in point of use, to the Molten Sea, though far
inferior in size; and on the bas-reliefs it is remark-
able that cauldrons are represented supported by
oxen (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 180; see Thenius
on 1 K. vii.; and Keil, Arch. Bibl. i, 127, and
pl. 3, fig. i.). [H. W. P.]
Hypothetical restoration of the Laver. From Keil.
SEA, THE SALT (ΠΡΌ DY: ἡ θάλασσα
τῶν ἁλῶν ; θ. 7 ἁλυκή, And τῆς ἁλυκῆς; θ. ἁλός:
in Gen. mare salis, elsewhere m. salsissimum, except
Josh. iii. quod nune vocatur mortuum). The usual,
and perhaps the most ancient, name, for the remark-
able lake, which to the Western world is now gene-
rally known as the Dead Sea.
Π
Pentateuch (Gen. xiv. 3; Num. xxxiv. 3, 12;
Deut. iii. 17 8), and in the Book of Joshua (iii. 16,
iy αν ὦ» Ὁ. 2A anne IS)
2. Another, and possibly a later name, is the
SEA OF THE ARABAH (ΠΕ ΝΠ 1): θάλασσα
Αραβα; 7 θάλ. Αραβα; 7 θάλ. τῆς Αραβα:
mare solitudinis, or deserti; A. V. ““ sea of the
plain”), which is found in Deut. iv. 49, and 2 K.
xiv. 253 and combined with the former—*“ the sea |
of the Arabah, the salt sea” —in Deut. iii. 17;
Josh. iii. 16, xii. 3.
3. In the prophets (Joel ii. 20; Ezek. xlvii. 18 ;
Zech. xiv. 8) it is mentioned by the title of THE
bBast Sea (*V27P3 DN: in Ez. τὴν θάλασσαν
Thy πρὸς ἀνατολὰς “ Φοινικῶνος ; in Joel and Zech.
Thy Oar. Thy πρώτην : mare orientale).
4. In Ez. xlvii. 8, it is styled, without previous
reference, THE SEA (851), and distinguished from
‘* the great sea ’— the Mediterranean (ver. 10).
5. Its connexion with Sodom is first suggested in
the Bible in the book of 2 Esdras (v. 7) by the name
“* Sodomitish sea” (mare Sodomiticum).
1. It is found only, and but rarely, in the |
SEA, THE SALT 1173
6. In the Talmudical books it is called both the
“ Sea of Salt’’ (ἙΝ ΠΟΙΟῚ NID’), and “Sea of Sodom”
(OID ων N15"). See quotations from Talmud and
Midrash Tehillim, by Reland (Pal. 237).
7. Josephus, and before him Diodorus Siculus
(ii. 48, xix. 98), names it the Asphaltic Lake—
ἡ ᾿Ασφαλτίτις λίμνη (Ant. i. 9; iv. 5, §1; ix.
1 OSI Baie is, 59, Sols) TL sips ἵν 8.792;
4), and once A, 7 ἀσφαλτοφόρος (Ant. xvii. 6, §5).
Also (Ant. v. 1, §22) ἡ Σοδομίτις λίμνη.
8. The name “ Dead Sea’? appears to have
been first used in Greek (θάλασσα νεκρά) by
Pausanias (v. 7) and Galen (iv. 9), and in Latin
(mare mortuum) by Justin (xxxvi. 3, §6), or
rather by the older historian, Trogus Pompeiius
(cir. B.c. 10), whose work he epitomized. It is
employed also by Eusebius (Onom. Σόδομα). The
expressions of Pausanias and Galen imply that the
name was in use in the country. And this is corro-
borated by the expression of Jerome (Comm. on
Dan, xi. 45), “mare... . quod nune appellatur
mortuum.” The Jewish writers appear never to
have used it, and it has become established in mo-
dern literature, from the belief in the very exag-
gerated stories of its deadly character and gloomy
aspect, which themselves probably arose out of the
name, and were due to the preconceived notions of
the travellers who visited its shores, or to the implicit
faith with which they received the statements of
their guides. Thus Maundeville (chap. ix.) says it is
called the Dead Sea because it moveth not, but is ever
still—the fact being that it is frequently agitated,
and that when in motion its waves have great force.
Hence also the fable that no birds could fly across it
alive, a notion which the experience of almost every
modern traveller to Palestine would contradict.
9. The Arabic name is Bahr Lit, the “ Sea of
Lot.” The name of Lot is also specially connected
with a small piece of land, sometimes island some-
times peninsula, at the north end of the lake.
11. 1. The so-called DEAD SEA is the final re-
ceptacle of the river Jordan, the lowest and largest
of the three lakes which interrupt the rush of its
downward course. It is the deepest portion of that
very deep natural fissure which runs like a furrow
from the Gulf of Akaba to the range of Lebanon,
and from the range of Lebanon to the extreme
north of Syria. It is in fact a pool left by the
Ocean, in its retreat from what there is reason
to believe was at a very remote period a channel
connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea.
As the most enduring result of the great geological
operation which determined the present form of the
country it may be called without exaggeration the
key to the physical geography of the Holy Land.
It is therefore in every way an object of extreme
interest. The probable conditions of the formation
of the lake will be alluded to in the course of this
article: we shall now attempt to describe its dimen-
sions, appearance, and natural features.
2. Viewed on the map, the lake is of an oblong
form, of tolerably regular contour, interrupted only
by a large and long peninsula which projects from
the eastern shore, near its southern end, and vir-
tually divides tie expanse of the water into two
8 Tn the Samaritan Pentateuch also in iv. 49.
b In Zechariah and Joel, as an antithesis to “ the hinder
sea,” 7. 6. the Mediterranean; whence the obscure render-
ing of the A. V., “ former sea.”
© The version of the LXX. is remarkable, as introducing
the name of Phoenicia in both ver. 18 and 19. This may
be either an equivalent of Engedi, originally Hazazon-
tamar, the “City of Palm-trees” (φοινίκων) ; or may
arise out of a corruption of Kadmoni into Kanaan, which
in this version is occasionally rendered by Phoenicia.
The only warrant for it in the existing Heb. text is the
name Tamar (= “a palm,” and rendered Θαιμᾶν καὶ Φοι-
vik@vos) in ver. 19,
a
PAS ἵγ τ ep
a
aR
1(
SCALE OF GEOGRAPHICAL MILES FOR MAP AND SECTION
LEVEL OF MEDITERRANEAN SEA
Map, and Longitudinal Section (from North to South), of the DEAD SwWA, from the Observations, Surveys, and Soundings of Lynch,
Robinson, De Saulcy, Van de Velde, and others, drawn under the superintendence of Mr. Grove by ‘Trelawney Saunders, and
engraved by J. D. Cooper.
References.—1. Jericho.
Mersed. 8. Wady Mojib. 9. Ain Jidy.
Usdum. 15. Wady Vikreh. 16. Wady el Jeib.
Dra’ah. 21. The Peninsula. 22. The Lagoon.
10. Birket el Khulil.
2. Ford of Jordan. 8. Wady Goumran. 4, Wady Zirka Ma’in.
17. Wady Tufileh.
23. The Frank Mountain.
5. Ras el Feshkhah. 6. Ain Terabeh. 7. Ras
11. Sebbeh. 12. Wady Zuweirah. 13. Um Zoghal. 14, Khashm
18. Ghor es Safieh. 19. Plaines Sabkah. 20. Wady ed
24. Bethlehem. 25. Hebron.
The dotted lines crossing and recrossing the Lake show the place of the transverse sections given on the opposite page.
portions, connected by a long, narrow, and some-
what devious, passage. Its longest axis is situated
nearly North and South. It lies between 31° 6'
20" and 31° 46'N. lat., nearly ; and thus its water
surface is from N. to S. as nearly as possible 40
geographical, or 46 English miles long. On the
other hand, it lies between 35° 24' and 35° 37!
Kast long.,4 nearly ; and its greatest width (some
3 miles 8. of Ain Jidy) is about 9° geogr. miles,
or 10} Eng. miles. he ordinary area of the upper
portion is about 174 square geogr. miles; of the
channel 29; and of the lower portion, hereafter
styled “the lagoon,” 46; in all about 250 square
geographical miles. These dimensions are not very
dissimilar to those of the Lake of Geneva. They are,
however, as will be seen further on, subject to con-
siderable variation according to the time of the year.
At its northern end the lake receives the stream
of the Jordan: on its Kastern side the Zirka Main
(the ancient Callirrhoé, and possibly the more ancient
en-Eglaim), the Mojib (the Arnon of the Bible), and
the Beni-Hemdd. On the South the Awrdhy or el-
Ahsy ; and on the West that of Ain Jidy. These
are probably all perennial, though variable, streams ;
but, in addition, the beds of the torrents which lead
through the mountains East and West, and over the
flat shelving plains on both North and South of
the lake, show that in the winter a very large
ἃ The longitudes and latitudes are given with care by
Van de Velde (Mem. 65), but they can none of them be
implicitly trusted.
e Lynch says 9 to 9%; Dr. Robinson says 9 (i. 509).
The ancient writers, as is but natural, estimated its
dimensions very inaccurately. Diodorus states the length |
as 500 stadia, or about 50 miles, and breadth 60, or 6
miles. Josephus extends the length to 580 stadia, and the
breadth to 150. It is not necessary to accuse him, on this
account, of wilful exaggeration. Nothing is more difficult
to estimate accurately than the extent of a sheet of water,
especially one which varies so much in appearance as the
Dead Sea. As regards the length, it is not impossible
that at the time of Josephus the water extended over the
southern plain, which would make the entire length
| over 50 geogr. miles.
SEA, THE SALT
1. From Ain Feshkhah to E. shore.
West East
ap Gal ΠΣ προ tie ya hepa
oa; ἢ ! 1 1 Us ͵ !
250feot ἘΝῚ ty 3 ἡ eedaulifediustint
ech ἘΠ ΘΓ ΘΙ τὰ ἤ
Hah SCAM, ere
\ Tepe ORR ef
500 Hw HPCC HeLa
Udi heute
iad Τὰ aia {5.5
750 se
2. From Ain Feshkhah to Wady Zirka Ma’in.
====— 690----
-=——====~1050-=—=-—-=
pe Ξ-ΞΞ ΞΞ Ἰσβε.-- —
3. From Ain Terabeh to Wady Ziirka.
-- --
=
Ξ ἢ
250 feet--——
-1104-----~-~
ee 720...“ -
ἸΒΌΗ τ 5
ὶ
Ἑ
ἜΘ nese = Ss
a
fp == === ==-900--—-——
τ-ττττ--------7γο---------
-πτττττττ-οι4ο----ς------
1000
5. From Ain Jidy to Wady Mojib.
lial " - ͵ Oe
ee mgr aii
(isles Thame 1 Nous cs pet
ἐπ τ et) cent eto
Let γὴν ἀπο Le ee Dea
STORE SoS ΟὟ ἐμ
atoms Tar eS. Ament 1 1 Ue
500 et a 1 oy 1 o Aa ly
ea st el coe tHE pat lacie a νῊ
TERM Coma” Lance ΤΡ ἈΠ Υ
ΘΕ lic St Ὁ Tai at cette |
750 fe Fite UP beara avec tea [Ἢ
ἢ ἐν γι fect H ' Ἀν Και
eee ! Ι ΠΝ"
ΕΞ ΠῚ el 1 ΠΡΏΤΗ
tooo Teed ae eG
esa aha a
ae
,-----
7. From the W. shore to the N. point of Peninsula.
TA
=-366:-+
-- 408 --
--+=--822-------
:
a
Pee
250feel
eee
-==-642-—--
500.
ca
=
=
3 δ
WrlnearS
of Puts Aewss the Lagoon from Τὰ toW.
Transverse Sections (from West to East) of the DEAD SEA; plotted
for the first time, from the Soundings given by Lynch on the
Map in his Narrative of the U. 5. Expedition, &c., London, 1849,
The spots at which the Sections were taken are indicated on
the Map (opposite) by the dotted lines. The depths are given
in English feet.
N.B.—For the sake of clearness, the horizontal and vertical
scales for these Sections have been enlarged from those adopted
for the Map and Longitudinal Section on the opposite page.
SEA, THE SALT 1175
quantity of water must be poured into it. There
are also all along the western side a considerable
number of springs, some fresh, some warm, some
salt and fetid—which appear to run continually,
and all find their way, more or less absorbed by
the sand and shingle of the beach, into its waters.
The lake has no visiblef outlet.
3. Excepting the last circumstance, nothing has
yet been stated about the Dead Sea that may not
be stated of numerous other inland lakes. ‘The
depression of its surface, however, and the depth
which it attains below that surface, combined with
the absence of any outlet, render it one of the most
remarkable spots on the globe. According to the
observations of Lieut. Lynch, the surface of the lake
in May 1848, was 1316-78 feet below the level of
f Nor can there be any invisible one: the distance of
the surface below that of the ocean alone renders it im-
possible; and there is no motive for supposing it, because
the evaporation (see note to §4) is amply sufficient to
carry off the supply from without.
5 This figure was obtained by running levels from Ain
Terabeh up the Wady Ras el-Ghuweir and Wady en-Nar
to Jerusalem, and thence by Ramleh to Jaffa. It seems
to have been usually assumed as accurate, and as settling
the question. The elements of error in levelling across
such a country are very great, and even practised sur-
veyors would be liable to mistake, unless by the adoption
of a series of checks which it is inconceivable that Lynch’s
party can have adopted. The very fact that no datum on
the beach is mentioned, and that they appear to have
levelled from the then surface of the water, shews that
the party was not directed by a practised leveller, and
casts suspicion over all the observations. Lynch’s observa-
tion with the barometer (p. 12) gave 1234°589 feet—s2 feet
less depression than that mentioned above. The existence
of the depression was for a long time unknown. Even
Seetzen (i. 425) believed that it lay higher than the ocean.
Marmont (Voyage, iii. 61) calculates the Mount of Olives
at 747 metres above the Mediterranean, and then estimates
the Dead Sea at 500 metres below the mount. The fact
was first ascertained by Moore and Beek in March 1837 by
boiling water ; but they were unable to arrive ata figure.
It may be well here to give a list of the various observations
on the level of the lake made by different travellers :—
Eng. ft.
Apr. 1837 Von Schubert . . | Barom. 637°
1838 De Bertou . . Do. 1374°7
1838 Russegger .. . | Do. 1429-2
1841 Symonds... . | Trignom, | 1312:2
1845 Von Wildenbruch | Barom. 1446°3
May, 1848 Lynch =) Dor 1234°6
fe do. ΠΡΟ ΞΡ sone eons elec vel 1316°7
Nov. 1850 Rev. G. W. Bridges} Aneroid | 1367-
Oct. 27, 1855 Poole scr ee Os 1313:
Apr. (?) 1851 Πού sen enter τῇ ΒΆΙΌΜΙΣ: 15140
—See Petermann, in Geogr. Journal, xviii. 90; for Roth,
Petermann’s Mittheilungen, 1858, p. 33; for Poole, Geogr.
Journ. Xxvi. 58. Mr. Bridges has kindly communicated
to the writer the results of his observations, Captain
Symonds’s operations are briefly described by Mr. Ha-
milton in his addresses to the Royal Geogr. Society in
1842 and ’43. He carried levels across from Jaffa to Jeru-
salem by two routes, and thence to the Dead Sea by one
route: the ultimate difference between the two obseryva-
tions was less than 12 feet (Geogr. Journal, xii. p. 1x. 5 xiii.
Ρ. Ixxiv.). One of the sets, ending in 1312°2 ft., is given
in Van de Velde’s Memoir, 75-81.
Widely as the results in the table differ, there is yet
enough agreement among them, and with Lynch’s level-
observation, to warrant the statement in the text. Those
of Symonds, Lynch, and Poole, are remarkably close, when
the great difficulties of the case are considered ; but it must
be admitted that those of De Bertou, Roth, and Bridges are
equally close. The time of year must not be overlooked,
Lynch’s level was taken about midway between the winter
1176 SEA, THE SALT
the Mediterranean at Jaffa (Report of Secretary of
Navy, &e., 8vo. p. 23), and although we cannot
absolutely rely on the accuracy of that dimension,
still there is reason to believe that it is not very
far from the fact. . The measurements of the depth
of the lake taken by the same party are probably
more trustworthy. The expedition consisted of
sailors, who were here in their element, and to
whom taking soundings was a matter of every day
occurrence. In the upper portion of the lake,
north of the peninsula, seven cross sections were
obtained, six of which are exhibited on the pre-
ceding page." They shew this portion to be
a perfect basin, descending rapidly till it attains,
at about one-third of its length from the north
end, a depth of 1308: feet. Immediately west
of the upper extremity of the peninsula, however,
this depth decreases suddenly to 336 feet, then to
114, and by the time the west point of the penin-
sula is reached, to 18 feet. Below this the southern
portion is a mere lagooa of almost even bottom,
varying in depth from 12 feet in the middle to 3 at
the edges. It will be convenient to use the term
“Jagoon’’* in speaking of the southern portion.
The depression of the lake, both of its surface and
its bottom, below that of the ocean is at present
quite without parallel. The Jake Assal, on the
Somali coast of Hastern Africa opposite Aden,
furnishes the nearest approach to it. Its surface is
said to be 570 feet below that of the ocean.!
4. The level of the lake is liable to variation
according to the season of the year. Since it has
no outlet, its level is a balance struck between the
amount of water poured into it, and the amount
given off by™ evaporation. If more water is sup-
plied than the evaporation can carry off, the lake
will rise until the evaporating surface is so much
increased as to restore the balance. On the other
hand, should the evaporation drive off a larger
quantity than the supply, the lake will descend
until the surface becomes so small as ayain to restore
the balance. This fluctuation is increased by the
fact. that the winter is at once the time when the
clouds and streams supply most water, and when
the evaporation is least; while in summer on the
other hand, when the evaporation goes on most
furiously, the supply is at its minimum. The
extreme differences in level resulting from these
causes have not yet been carefully observed.
SEA, THE SALT
Dr. Robinson in May 1838, from the lines of drift-
wood which he found beyond the then brink of the
water in the southern part of the lake, judged that
the level must be sometimes from 10 to 15 feet higher
than it then was (B. R. i. 515, ii. 115); but this
was only the commencement of the summer, and
by the end of September the water would probably
have fallen much lower. The writer, in the be-
ginning of Sept. 1858, after a very hot summer,
estimated the line of driftwood along the steep
beach of the north end at from 10 to 12 feet above
the then level of the water. Robinson (i. 506)
mentions a bank of shingle at Ain Jidy 6 or 8 feet
above the then (May 10) level of the water, but
which bore marks of having been eovered. Lynch
(Narr. 289) says that the marks on the shore near
the same place indicated that the lake had already
(April 22) fallen 7 feet that season.
Possibly a more permanent rise has lately taken
place, since Mr. Poole (60) saw many dead trees
standing in the lake for some distance from the
shore opposite Ahashm Usdum, This too was at the
end of October, when the water must have been at
its lowest (for that year).
5. The change in level necessarily causes a change
in the dimensions of the lake. This will chiefly
affect the southern end. ‘he shore of that part
slopes up from the water with an extremely gradual
incline. Over so flat a beach a very slight rise in
the lake would send the water a considerable
distance. This was found to be actually the case.
The line of drift-wood mentioned by Dr. Robinson
(ii. 115) was about 3 miles from the brink of the
lagoon. Dr. Anderson, the geologist of the American
expedition, conjectured that the water occasionally
extended as much as 8 or 10 miles south of its then
position (Official Report, 4to. p. 182). On the
peninsula, the acclivity of which is much greater
than that of the southern shores of the lagoon, and
in the early part of the summer (June 2), Irby
and Mangles found the ‘“ high-water mark a mile
distant from the water’s edge.” At the northern end
the shore being steeper, the water-line probably re-
mains tolerably constant. The variation in breadth
will not beso much. At the N.W. and N.E. corners
there are some flats which must be often overflowed.
Along the lower part of the western shore, where
the beach widens, as at DBirket el-Khulil, it is occa-
sionally covered in portions, but they are probably
rains and the autumnal drought, and therefore is consistent
with that of Poole, taken 5 months later, at the very end
of the dry season.
h The map in Lynch's private Narrative (London, 1849)
from which these sections have, for the first time, been
plotted, is toa much larger scale, contains more details,
and is amore valuable document, than that in his Official
Report, 4to. (Baltimore, 1852), or his Report, 8vo. (Senate
Papers, 30th Congr., 2nd Session, No. 34).
i Three other attempts have been made to obtain sound-
ings, but in neither case with any very practical result.
1. By Messrs. Moore and Beek in March, 1837. They re-
cord a maximum depth of 2400 ft. between Ain Terabeh
and W. Zirka, and a little north of the same 2220 ft. (See
Palmer’s Map, to which these observations were contri-
buted by Mr. Beek himself: also Geogr. Jowrn. vii. 456).
Lynch’s soundings at nearly the same spots give 1170 and
1308 ft. respectively, at once reversing and greatly dimi-
nishing the depths. 2. Captain Symonds, R.E., is said to
have been upon the lake and to have obtained soundings,
the deepest of which was 2100 ft. But for this the writer
can find no authority beyond the statement of Ritter
(2rdkunde, Jordan, 704), who does not name the source of
his information. 3. Lieut. Molyneux, R.N., in Sept. 1817,
took three soundings. The first of these seems to have
been about opposite Ain Jidy, and gave 1350 ft., though
without certainly reaching the bottom. The other two were
further north, and gave 1068 and 1098 ft. (Geogr. Journ.
xviii. 127, 8). The greatest of these appears to be about
coincident with Lynch’s 1104 feet; but there is so much
vagueness about the spots at which they were taken, that
no use can be made of the results. Lynch and Beek agree
in representing the west side as more gradual in slope than
the east, which has a depth of more than 900 ft. close to
the brink.
k Irby and Mangles always term this part “ the back-
water,” and reserve the name “ Dead Sea’”’ for the
northern and deeper portion.
1 Murchison in Geogr. Journal, xiv. p. exvi. A brief
description of this lake is given in an interesting paper by
Dr. Buist on the principal depressions of the globe, re-
printed in the Hdinb. N. Phil. Journal, April, 1855.
m This subject has been ably and carefully investigated
by the late Professor Marchand, the eminent chemist of
Halle, in his paper on the Dead Sea in the Journal fiir
prakt. Chemie, Leipzig, 1849, 371-4. The result of bis
calculations, founded on the observations of Shaw, A. von
Humboldt, and Balard, is that while the average quantity
supplied cannot exceed 20,000,000 cub. ft., the evaporation
may be taken at 24,000,000 cub. ft. per diem.
SEA, THE SALT
not enough to make any great variation in the width
of the lake. Of the eastern side hardly anything is
known, but the beach there appears to be only partial,
and confined to the northern end.
6. The mountains which form the walls of the
great fissure in whose depths the lake is contained,
continue a nearly parallel course throughout its
entire length. Viewed from the beach at the
northern end of the lake—the only view within
the reach of most travellers—there is little per-
ceptible difference between the two ranges. Each
is equally bare and stern to the eye. On the left
the eastern mountains stretch their long, hazy, hori-
zontal line, till they are lost in the dim distance.
The western mountains on the other hand do not
offer the same appearance of continuity, since the
headland of Ras el-Feshkhah projects so far in front
of the general line as to conceal the southern portion
of the range when viewed from most points. The
horizon is formed by the water-line of the lake
itself, often lost in a thick mist which dwells on
the surface, the result of the rapid evaporation
always going on. In the centre of the horizon,
when the haze permits it, may be discovered the
mysterious peninsula.
7. Of the eastern side but little is known. One
traveller in modern times (Seetzen) has succeeded
in forcing his way along its whole length. The
American party landed at the W. Mojib and other
points. A few others have rounded the southern
end of the lake, and advanced for 10 or 12 miles
along its eastern shores. But the larger portion
of those shores—the flanks of the mountains which
stretch from the peninsula to the north end of the
lake—have been approached by travellers from the
West only on very rare occasions nearer than the
western shore, :
Both Dr. Robinson from Ain Jidy (i. 502), and
Lieut. Molyneux (127) from the surface of the lake,
record their impression that the eastern mountains
are much more lofty than the western, and much
more broken by clefts and ravines than those on the
west. In colour they are brown, or red,—a great
contrast to the grey and white tones of the western
mountains. Both sides of the lake, however, are
alike in the absence of vegetation—almost entirely
barren and scorched, except where here and there
a spring, bursting up at the foot of the mountains,
covers the beach with a bright green jungle of reeds
and thorn-bushes, or gives life to a clump of stunted
palms ; or where, as at Ain Jidy or the Wady Mojib,
a perennial stream betrays its presence, and breaks
the long monotony of the precipice by filling the rift
with acacias, or nourishing a little oasis of verdure
at its embouchure.
8. Seetzen’s journey, just mentioned, was accom-
plished in 1807. He started in January from the
ford of the Jordan through the upper country, by
Mkaur, Attarrus, and the ravine of the Wady Mojib
to the peninsula; returning immediately after by
the lower level, as near the lake as it was possible
to go. He was on foot with but a single guide.
He represents the general structure of the moun-
tains as limestone, capped in many places by
basalt, and having at its foot a red ferruginous
sandstone, which forms the immediate margin of
the lake." The ordinary path lies high up on the
face of the mountains, and the lower track, which
Seetzen pursued, is extremely rough, and often all
SEA, THE SALT 1177
but impassable. The rocks lie in a succession of
enormous terraces, apparently more vertical in form
than those on the west. On the lower one of these,
but still far above the water, lies the path, if path
it can be called, where the traveller has to scramble
through and over a chaos of enormous blocks of
limestone, sandstone, and basalt, or basalt conglo-
merate, the débris of the slopes above, or is brought
abruptly to a stand by wild clefts in the solid rock
of the precipice. The streams of the Mojib and
Zirka issue from portals of dark red sandstone of
romantic beauty, the overhanging sides of which
no ray of sun ever enters.° The deltas of these
streams, and that portion of the shore between
them, where several smaller rivulets? flow into
the lake, abound in vegetation, and form a truly
grateful relief to the rugged desolation of the re-
mainder. Palms in particular are numerous (An-
derson, 192; Lynch, Narr. 369), and in Seetzen’s
opinion bear marks of being the relics of an ancient
cultivation ; but except near the streams, there is
no vegetation. It was, says he, the greatest possible
rarity to see a plant. The north-east corner of the
lake is occupied by a plain of some extent left by
the retiring mountains, probably often overflowed
by the lake, mostly salt and unproductive, and
called the Ghér el-Belka.
9. One remarkable feature of the northern por-
tion of the eastern heights is a plateau which divides
the mountains halfway up, apparently forming a
gigantic landing-place in the slope, and stretching
northwards from the Wady Ziirka Ma’in. It is
very plainly to be seen from Jerusalem, especially
at sunset, when many of the points of these fasci-
nating mountains come out into unexpected relief.
This plateau appears to be on the same general level
with a similar plateau on the Western side opposite
it (Poole, 68), with the top of the rock of Sebbeh,
and perhaps with the Mediterranean.
10, The western shores of the lake have been more
investigated than the eastern, although they cannot
be said to have been yet more than very partially
explored. Two travellers have passed over their
entire length :—De Sauley in January 1851, from
North to South, Voyage dans la Syrie, &c., 1853 ;
and Narrative of a Journey, &c., London, 1854; and
Poole in Nov. 1855, from South to North (Geogr.
Journal, xxvi. 55). Others have passed over con-
siderable portions of it, and have recorded observa-
tions both with pen and pencil. Dr. Robinson on his
first journey in 1838 visited Aim Jidy, and proceeded
from thence to the Jordan and Jericho: —Wolcott
and Tipping, in 1842, scaled the rock of Masada
(probably the first travellers from the Western
world to do so), and from thence journeyed
to Ain Jidy along the shore. The views which
illustrate this article have been, through the kind-
ness of Mr. Tipping, selected from those which he
took during this journey. Lieut. Van de Velde in
1852, also visited Masada, and then went south as
far as the south end of Jebel Usdum, after which he
turned up to the right into the western mountains.
Lieut. Lynch’s party, in 1848, landed and travelled
over the greater part of the shore from Ain Feshkhah
to Usdum. Mr. Holman Hunt, in 1854, with the
Messrs. Beamont, resided at Usdum for several days,
and afterwards went over the entire Jength from
Usdum to the Jordan. Of this journey one of the
ultimate fruits was Mr. Hunt’s picture of the
πα Termed by Anderson (189, 190) the Undercliff.
o A rude view of the embouchure of the former of these
is given by Lynch (Narrative, 368). =
Ρ Conjectured by Seetzen to be the “springs of Pisgah.’
SEA, THE SALT
ΖΦ 2:
Ze
THE DEAD SEA.—View from Ain Jidy, looking South.
Dead Sea at sunset, known as “ The Scapegoat.”
Miss Emily Beaufort and her sister, in December
1860, accomplished the ascent of Masada, and the
journey from thence to Ain Jidy; and the same
thing, including Usdwm, was done in April 1863
by a party consisting of Mr. G. Clowes, jun.,
Mr. Straton, and others.
11. The western range preserves for the greater
part of its length a course hardly less regular than
the eastern, That it does not appear so regular
when viewed from the north-western end of the lake
is owing to the projection of a mass of the moun-
tain eastward from the line sufficiently far to shut |
out from view the range to the south of it. It is
Dr, Robinson’s opinion (B. R. i. 510, 11) that the
projection consists of the Ras el Feshkhah and its
‘adjacent cliffs’’ only, and that from that head-
land the western range runs in a tolerably direct
course as far as Usdum, at the S.W. corner of the lake.
The Ras el Feshkhah stands some six miles below
the head of the lake, and forms the northern side of
the gorge by which the Wady en Nar (the Kidron)
debouches into the lake. Dr. Robinson is such an
accurate observer, that it is difficult to question his
opinion, but it seems probable that the projection
really commences further south, at the Rus Mersed,
north of Ain Jidy. At any rate no traveller4
appears to have been able to pass along the beach
vetw een Ain Jidy and Ras Feshkhah, and the great
4 Poole appears to ‘have tried his utmost to keep the
shore, and to have accomplished more than others, but
with only small success. De Saulecy was obliged to take
to the heights at Ain Terdbeh, and keep to them till he
reached Ain Jidy.
r It is a pity that travellers should so often indulge in
the use of such terms as “ vertical,’ “ perpendicular,”
“ overhanging,” &c., to describe acclivities which prove
to be only moderately steep slopes. Even Dr. Robinson—
| mounts to the summit,
From a Drawing made on the spot in 1842, by W. Tipping, Esq.
Arab road, which adheres to the shore from the
south as far as Ain Jidy, leaves it at that point, and
It is much to be regretted
that Lynch’s party, who had encampments of several
days duration at Ain Feshkhah, Ain Terabeh, and
Ain Jidy, did not make such observations as would
have decided the configuration of the shores.
The accompanying woodcut represents the
view looking southward from the spring of Ain Jidy,
a point about 700 feet above the water (Poole, 66).
It is taken from a drawing by the accurate pencil
of Mr. Tipping, and gives a good idea of the course
of that portion of the western heights, and of their
ordinary character, except at a few such exceptional
spots as the headlands just mentioned, or the isolated
rock of Sebbeh, the ancient Masada. In their present
aspect they can hardly be termed ‘ vertical” ox
‘¢ perpendicular,’ or even ‘ cliffs”™ (the favourite
term for them), though from a distant point on
the surface of the lake they probably look vertical
enough (Molyneux, 127). Their structure was ori-
ginally in huge steps or offsets, but the horizontal
portion of each offset is now concealed by the slopes
of débris, which have in the lapse of ages rolled down
from the vertical cliff above.s
The portion actually represented in this view
is described by Dr. Anderson (p. 175) as ** vary-
ing from 1200 to 1500 feet in height, bold and
steep, admitting nowhere of the ascent or descent
usually so moderate—on more than one occasion speaks
of a mountain-side as “ perpendicular,” and immediately
afterwards describes the ascent or descent of it by his
party !
s Lynch’s view of Ain Jidy (Warr. 290), though rough,
is probably not inaccurate in general effect. It agrees
with Mr. Tipping’s as to the structure of the heights.
That in De Saulcy by M. Belly, which purports to be from
the same spot as the latter, is very poor.
SEA, THE SALT
of beasts of burden, and practicable only here
and there to the most intrepid climber. . . . The
marked divisions of the great escarpment, reckon-
ing from above, are:—1. Horizontal layers of lime-
stone from 200 to 300 feet in depth. 2. A series
of tent-shaped embankments of débris, brought
down through the small ravines intersecting the
upper division, and lodged on the projecting ter-
race below. 3, A sharply defined well-marked
formation, less perfectly stratified than No. 1, and
constituting by its unbroken continuity a zone of
naked rock, probably 150 feet in depth, running
like a vast frieze along the face of the cliff, and so
precipitous that the detritus pushed over the edge
of this shelf-like ledge finds no lodgment anywhere
on its almost vertical face. Above this zone is an
interrupted bed of yellow limestone 40 feet thick.
4. A broad and boldly sloping talus of limestone,—
partly bare, partly covered by débris from above—
descends nearly to the base of the cliff. 5. A breast-
work of fallen fragments, sometimes swept clean
away, separates the upper edge of the beach from
the ground line of the escarpment. 6. A beach of
variable width and structure—sometimes sandy,
sometimes gravelly or shingly, sometimes made up
of loose and scattered patches of a coarse travertine or
marl—falls gradually to the border of the Dead Sea.”
- 14. Further south the mountain sides assume a
more abrupt and savage aspect, and in the Wady
Zurveirah, and still more at Sebbeh—the ancient Ma-
sada *—yreach a pitch of rugged and repulsive, though
at the same time impressive, desolation, which per-
haps cannot be exceeded anywhere on the face of the
earth. Beyond Usdum the mountains continue their
general line, but the district at their feet is occupied
by a mass of lower eminences, which, advancing in-
wards, gradually encroach on the plain at the south
end of the lake, and finally shut it in completely,
at about 8 miles below Jebel Usdum.
15. The region which lies on the top of the western
heights was probably at one time a wide table-land,
rising gradually towards the high lands which form
the central line of the country—Hebron, Beni-naim,
ὅσ. It is now cut up by deep and difficult ravines,
separated by steep and inaccessible summits ; but
portions of the table-lands still remain in many
places to testify to the original conformation. The
material is a soft cretaceous limestone, bright white
in colour, and containing a good deal of sulphur.
The surface is entirely desert, with no sign of cul-
tivation: here and there a shrub of Retem, or some
other desert-plant, but only enough to make the
monotonous desolation of the scene more frightful.
“6 Il existe au monde,” says one of the most intelli-
gent of modern travellers, ‘* peu de régions plus
désolées, plus abandonnées de Dieu, plus fermées a la
vie, que la pente rocailleuse qui forme le bord occi-
dental de la Mer Morte” (Rénan, Vie de Jésus,
ch. vii.).
16. Of the elevation of this region we hitherto
SEA, THE SALT 1179
possess but scanty observations. Between Ain Jidy
and Ain Terdbeh the summit is a table-land 740
feet above the lake (Poole, 67)." Further north,
above Ain Terdbeh, the summit of the pass is
1305-75 feet above the lake (Lynch, Off. Rep. 43),
within a few feet the height of the plain between the
Wady en-Nar and Goumran, which is given by Mr.
Poole (p. 68) at 1340 feet. This appears also to be
about the height of the rock of Sebbeh, and of the
table-land, already mentioned, on the eastern moun
tains north of the Wady Zirka. It is also nearly
coincident with that of the ocean. In ascending
from the lake to Nebi Misa Mr. Poole (58) passed
over what he “ thought might be the original level
of the old plain, 5324 feet above the Dead Sea.”
That these are the remains of ancient sea margins,
chronicling steps in the history of the lake (Allen,
in Geogr. Journ, xxiii. 163), may reasonably be
conjectured, but can only be determined by the
observation of a competent geologist on the spot.
17. A beach of varying width skirts the foot
of the mountains on the western side. Above
Ain Jidy it consists mainly of the deltas of the
torrents—tfan-shaped banks of débrisv of all sizes,
at a steep slope, spreading from the outlet of the
torrent like those which become so familiar to tra-
vellers, in Northern Italy for example. In one
or two places—as at the mouth of the Kidron and
at Ain Terabeh—the beach may be 1000 to 1400
yards wide, but usually it is much narrower, and
often is reduced to almost nothing by the advance
of the headlands. For its major part, as already
remarked, it is impassable. Below Ain Jidy, how-
ever, a marked change occurs in the character of
the beach. Alternating with the shingle, solid de-
posits of a new material, soft friable chalk, marl, and
gypsum, with salt, begin to make their appearance.
These are gradually developed towards the south,
till at Sebbeh and below it they form a terrace 80
feet or more in height at the back, though sloping
off gradually to the lake. This new material is a
greenish white in colour, and is ploughed up by the
cataracts from the heights behind into very strange
forms :—here, hundreds of small mamelons, covering
the plain like an eruption; there, long rows of huge
cones, looking like an encampment of enormous
tents; or, again, rectangular blocks and pillars, ex-
actly resembling the streets of a town, with rows
of houses and other edifices, all as if constructed
of white marble.¥ These appear to be the remains
of strata of late- or post-tertiary date, deposited at
a time when the water of the lake stood much
higher, and covered a much larger area, than it
does at present. The fact that they are strongly im-
pregnated with the salts of the * lake, is itself pre-
sumptive evidence of this. In many places they have
completely disappeared, doubtless washed into the
lake by the action of torrents from the hills behind,
similar to, though more violent than those which
have played the strange freaks just described: but
t This was the fortress in which the last remnant of the
Zealots, or fanatical party of the Jews, defended them-
selves against Silva, the Roman general, in a.p. 71, and
at last put themselves to death to escape capture. The
spot is described and the tragedy related in a very graphic
and impressive manner by Dean Milman (Hist. of the Jews,
3rd edit. ii. 385-9).
" De Saulcy mentions this as a small rocky table-land,
250 metres above the Dead Sea, But this was evidently
not the actual summit, as he speaks of the sheikh occupy-
ing a post a few hundred yards above the level of that
position, and further west (Vary. i. 169).
v Lynch remarks that at Ain el-Feshkhah there was a
“total absence of round pebbles; the shore was covered
with small angular fragments of flint” (Varr. 274). The
same at Ain Jidy (290).
w De Saulcy, Narx. ibid.; Anderson, 176. See also a
striking description of the “resemblance of a great city”
at the foot of Sebbeh, in Beamont’s Diary, &c., ii. 52.
x A specimen brought by Mr. Clowes from the foot of
Sebbeh has been examined for the writer by Dr. Price, and
proves to contain no less than 688 per cent of salts soluble
in water, viz. chlor. sodium, 4559, chlor. calcium, 2°08,
chlor. magnesium, 0°241. Bromine was distinctly found.
1180 SEA, THE SALT
they still linger on this part of the shore, on the
peninsulaY opposite, at the southern and western
outskirts of the plain south of the lake, and pro-
bably in a few spots at the northern and north-
western end, to testify to the condition which once
existed all round the edge of the deep basin of the
lake. The width of the beach thus formed is con-
siderably greater than that above Ain Jidy. From
the Birket el-Khilil to the wady south of Sebbeh, |
a distance of six miles, it is from one to two miles
wide, and is passable for the whole distance. ‘The
Birket el-Khilil just alluded to is a shallow de-
pression on the shore, which is filled by the water
of the lake when at its greatest height, and forms a
natural salt-pan. After the lake retires the water
evaporates from the hollow, and the salt remains
for the use of the Arabs. They also collect it from
similar though smaller spots further” south, and on
the peninsula (Irby, June 2). One feature of the
beach is too characteristic to escape mention—the
line of driftwood which encircles the lake, and marks
the highest, or the ordinary high, level of the water.
It consists of branches of brushwood, and of the
limbs of trees, some of considerable size, brought
down by the Jordan and other streams, and in
course of time cast up on the beach. They stand
up out of the sand and shingle in curiously fantastic
shapes, all signs of life gone from them, and with a
charred though blanched look very desolate to be-
hold. Amongst them are said to be great numbers
of palm trunks (Poole, 69); some doubtless tloated |
over from the palm groves on the eastern shore
already spoken of, and others brought down by the
Jordan in the distant days when the palm flourished
along its banks. The driftwood is saturated with salt,
and much of it is probably of a very great age,
A yvemarkable feature of the western shore has |
been mentioned to the writer by the members of
Mr. Clowes’s party.
beaches one above the other, the highest about 50 ft.
above the water; which though often interrupted
by ravines, and by débris, &c., can be traced during
the whole distance from Wady Zuweirah to Ain
Jidy. These terraces are possibly alluded to by
Anderson when speaking of the ‘ several descents’? |
necessary to reach the floor of Wady Seyal (177).
18. At the south-west corner of the lake, below
where the wadys Zwveirah and Mahauwat break
down through the enclosing heights, the beach is |
encroached on by the salt mountain or ridge of
Khashm Usdum. This remarkable object is hitherto |
It is said to be quite |
independent of the western mountains, lying in |
but imperfectly known.
front of and separated from them, by a considerable
tract filled up with conical hills and short ridges
of the soft chalky marly deposit just described. It
is a long level ridge or dyke, of several miles long.*
y They are identified by Dr. Anderson.
z The salt of the Dead Sea was anciently much in)
It was preferred |
request for use in the ‘Temple service.
before all other kinds for its reputed effect in hastening
the combustion of the sacrifice, while it diminished the
unpleasant smell of the burning flesh,
character (due to the chlorides of alkaline earths it contains)
is also noticed in the Talmud (Menacoth xxi. 1; Jalkut),
It was called “ Sodom salt,’ but also went by the name of
the “salt that does not rest” (ANI pNw nor), |
because it was made on the Sabbath as on other days,
like the “Sunday salt” of the English salt-works. It is
still much esteemed in Jerusalem.
a There is great uncertainty about its length.
binson states it at 5 miles and “ a considerable distance
This is a set of 3 parallel |
Its deliquescent |
Dr. Ro- |
SEA, THE SALT
Its northern portion runs §.S.E.; but after more
| than half its length it makes a sudden and decided
| bend to the right, and then runs S.W. [10 is from
3 to 400 feet in height, of inconsiderable width,»
consisting of a body of crystallized rock-salt, more
or less solid, covered with a capping of chalky lime-
stone and gypsum. ‘The lower portion, the salt rock,
rises abruptly from the glossy plain at its eastern
base, sloping back at an angle of not more than 45°,
_ often less. It has a strangely dislocated, shattered
look, and is all furrowed and worn into huge
angular buttresses and ridges, from the face of
which great fragments are occasionally detached by
the action of the rains, and appear as “ pillars of
salt,” advanced in front of the general mass. At
the foot the ground is strewed with lumps and
masses of salt, salt streams drain continually from
it into the lake, and the whole of the beach is
covered with salt—soft and sloppy, and of a pinkish
hue in winter and spring, though during the heat
of summer dried up into a shining brilliant crust.
An occasional patch of the Kali plant (Salicorniae,
Xc.) is the only vegetation to vary the monotony of
this most monotonous spot.
Between the north end of A. Usdwm and the
lake is a mound covered with stones and bearing
the name of wm-Zoghal.< It is about 60 feet in
diameter and 10 or 12 high, evidently artificial, ant
not improbably the remains of an ancient structure.
A view of it, engraved from a photograph by
Mr. James Graham, is given in Isaaes’s Dead Sea
(p.21). This heap M. De Sauley maintained to be a
portion of the remains of Sodom. Its name is more
suggestive of Zoar, but there are great obstacles to
either identification. [Sopom; ZOAR. |
19. It follows from the fact that the lake’ oc-
cupies a portion of a longitudinal depression, that
its northern and southern ends are not enclosed by
highland, as its east and west sides are. The floor
of the Ghor or Jordan Valley has been already
described. [PALESTINE, p. 675.] As it approaches
the northern shore of the lake it breaks down by
two oflsets or terraces, tolerably regular in figure
| and level. At the outside edge of the second of these,
a range of driftwood marks the highest level of the
waters—and from this point the beach slopes more
rapidly into the clear light-green water of the lake.
20. A small piece of land lies off the shore about
halfway between the entrance of the Jordan and the
western side of the lake. It is nearly circular in
form. Its sides are sloping, and therefore its size
varies with the height of the water. When the
writer went to it in Sept. 1858, it was about 100
yards in diameter, 10 or 12 feet out of the water,
and connected with the shore by a narrow neck or
isthmus of about 100 yards in length. The isthmus
is concealed when the water is at its full height,
further” (ii. 107, 112). Van de Velde makes it 10 miles
(ii. 113), or 34 hours (116). But when these dimensions
are applied to the map they are much too large, and it is
| difficult to believe that it can be more than 5 miles in all.
b Dr. Anderson (181) says it is about 23 miles wide.
But this appears to contradict Dr. Robinson’s expressions
(ii. 107). The latter are corroborated by Mr. Clowes’s
| party. They also noticed salt in large quantities among °
the rocks in regular strata some considerable distance
| back from the lake.
c dj § (Robinson, ii. 107).
| name is given Redjom el-Mezorrahl (ihe gh and rr are
| both attempts to represent the ghain). The “ Pilgrim”
in Atheneum, Apr. 2, 1854, expressly states that his
guide called it Rudjeim ez-Zogheir.
By de Saulcy the
SHA, THE SALT
and then the little peninsula becomes an island.
M. De Sauley attributes to it the name Redjim Lut
—the cairn of Lot.4 It is covered with stones, and
dead wood washed up by the waves. The stones
are large, and though much weather-worn, appear
to have been originally rectangular. At any rate
they are very different from any natural fragments
on the adjacent shores.
21. Beyond the island the north-western corner
of the lake is bordered by a low plain, extending up
to the foot of the mountains of Neby Musa, and
south as far as Ras Feshkhah. This plain must be
considerably lower than the general level of the
land north of the lake, since its appearance implies
that it is often covered with water. It is described
as sloping gently upwards from the lake ; flat and
barren, except rare patches of reeds round a spring.
It is soft aud slimy to the tread, or in the summer
covered with a white film of salt formed by the
evaporation of the surface water. The upper sur-
face appears to be only a crust, covering a soft
and deep substratum, and often not strong enough
to bear the weight of the traveller. In all these
particulars it agrees with the plain at the south of
the lake, which is undoubtedly covered when the
waters rise. It further agrees with it in exhibiting
at the back remains of the late tertiary deposits
already mentioned, cut out, like those about Sebbeh,
into fantastic shapes by the rush of the torrents
from behind.
A similar plain (the Ghdr el-Belka, or Ghor
Seisaban) appears to exist on the N.E. corner of the
lake between the embouchure of the Jordan and the
slopes of the mountains of Moab. Beyond, how-
ever, the very brief notice of Seetzen (ii. 373),
establishing the fact that it is “salt and stony,”
nothing is known of it.f
92. The southern end is like the northern, a wide
plain, and like it retains among the Arabs the name of
El Ghor® Τὸ has been visited by but few travellers.
Seetzen crossed it from E. to W. in April, 1806
(Reisen, i. 426-9), Irby and Mangles in May, 1818,
De Sauley in Jan. 1851, and Poole in Noy. 1855,
all crossed it in the opposite direction at a moderate
distance from the lake. Dr. Robinson, on his way
from Hebron to Petra in May, 1838, descended the
Wady Zuweirah, passed. between A, Usdum and
the lake, and went along the western side of the
plain to the Wady el-Jeib. The same route was
partially followed by M. Van de Velde. The
plain is bounded on the west side, below the
Khashn Usdum, by a tract thickly studded with a
confused mass of unimportant eminences, “low cliffs
and conical hills,’ of chalky indurated marl (Rob. ii.
116), apparently of the same late formation as that
already mentioned further north. These eminences
intervene between the lofty mountains of Judah
and the plain, and thus diminish the width of the
Ghor trom what it is at Ain Jidy. Their present
forms are due to the fierce rush of the winter
torrents from the elevated tracts behind them. In
height they vary from 50 to 150 feet. In colour
they are brilliant white (Poole, 61). All along
SEA, THE SALT 1181
their base are springs, generally of brackish, though
occasionally of fresh water, the overflow from which
forms a tract of marshland, overgrown with canes,
tamarisks, retem, ghurkud, thorn, and other shrubs.
Here and there a stunted palm is to be seen. Several
principal wadys, such as the Wady Emaz, and the
Wady Fikreh, descend into the Ghor through these
hills from the higher mountains behind, and their
wide beds, strewed with great stones and deeply
furrowed, show what vast bodies of water they must
discharge in the rainy season. The hills themselves
bend gradually round to the eastward, and at last
close the valley in to the south. In plan they form
“an irregular curve, sweeping across the Gorin
something like the segment of a circle, the chord
of which would be 6 or 7 geogr. miles in length,
extending obliquely from N.W. to S.H.’’ (Rob. ii.
120). Their apparent height remains about what
it was on the west, but, though still insignificant in
themselves, they occupy here an important position
as the boundary-line between the districts of the
Ghor and the Arabah—the central and southern
compartments of the great longitudinal valley men-
tioned in the outset of this article. The Arabah
is higher in level than the Ghor. The valley takes
at this point a sudden rise or step of about 100 ft.
in height, and from thence continues rising gra-
dually to a point about 35 miles north of Akabeh,
where it reaches an elevation of 1800 ft. above the
Dead Sea, or very nearly 500 ft. above the ocean.
23. Thus the waters of two-thirds of the Arabah
drain northwards into the plain at the south of the
lake, and thence into the lake itself. The Wady
el Jeib—the principal channel by which this vast
drainage is discharged on to the plain—is very
large, ‘a huge channel,” ‘ not far from half a mile
wide,” “‘ bearing traces of an immense volume of
water, rushing along with violence, and covering
the whole breadth of the valley.” The body of de-
tritus discharged by such a river must be enormous.
We have no measure of the elevation of the plain
at. the foot of the southern line of mounds, but
there can be no doubt that the rise from the lake
upwards is, as the torrents are approached, consi-
derable, and it seems hardly possible to avoid the
conclusion that the silting up of the lagoon which
forms the southern portion of the lake itself is due
to the materials brought down by this great torrent,
and by those, hardly inferior to it, which, as already
mentioned, discharge the waters of the extensive
highlands both on the east and west.
24, Of the eastern boundary of the piain we possess
hardly any information. We know that it is formed
by the mountains of Moab, and we can just discern
that, adjacent to the lake, they consist of sandstone,
red and yellow, with conglomerate containing por-
phyry and granite, fragments of which have rolled
down and seem to occupy the position which on
the western side is occupied by the tertiary hills.
We know also that the wadys Ghurundel and Tu-
fileh, which drain a district of the mountains N. of
Petra, enter at the S.E. corner of the plain—but
beyond this all is uncertain.
ἃ This island was shewn to Maundrell (March 30, 1697)
as containing, or having near it, the “monument of Lot’s
wife.’ It forms a prominent feature in the view of “ the
Dead Sea from its northern shore,’ No, 429 of Frith’s
stereoscopic views in the Holy Land.
e This was especially mentioned to the writer by Mr.
David Roberts, R.A., who was nearly lost in such a hole
on his way from the Jordan to Var Saba.
f The statement of the ancient traveller Thietmar
(A.D. 1217), who crossed the Jordan at the ordinary ford,
and at a mile from thence was shewn the “ salt pillar”
of Lot’s wife, seems to imply that there are masses
of rock-salt at this spot, of the same nature as that
αὖ Usdum, though doubtless less extensive (Thietmar,
Peregr. Xi. 47).
& Rohr in the spelling adopted by De Saulcy.
h See the section given by Petermann in Geogr. Journ.
Xviii. 89.
1182 SEA, THE SALT
25. Of the plain itself hardly more is known
than of its boundaries. Its greatest width from W.
to E. is estimated at from 5 to 6 miles, while its
length from the cave in the salt mountain to the
range of heights on the south, appears to be about 8.
Thus the breadth of the GAdr seems to be here con-
siderably less than it is anywhere north of the lake,
or across the lake itself. That part of it which more
immediately adjoins the lake consists of two very
distinct sections, divided by a line running nearly
N.andS. Of these the western is a region of salt
and barrenness, bounded by the salt mountain of
Khashm Usdum, and fed by the liquefied salt from
its caverns and surface, or by the drainage from the
salt springs beyond it—and overflowed periodically
by the brine of the lake itself. Near the lake it
bears the name of es Sabkah, 7. ὁ. the plain of salt
mud (De Saulcy, 262). Its width from W. to E.—
from the foot of A. Usdum to the belt of reeds which
separates it from the Ghdr es Safieh—is from 3 to 4
miles.i Of its extent to the south nothing is known,
but it is probable that the muddy district, the
Sabkah proper, does not extend more at most than
3 miles from the lake. It is a naked marshy plain,
often so boggy as to be impassable for camels (Rob.
115), destitute of every species of vegetation, scored
at frequent intervals* by the channels of salt streams
from the Jebel Usdum, or the salt springs along the
base of the hills to the south thereof. As the southern
boundary is approached the plain appears to rise, and
its surface is covered with a ‘‘ countless number ”
of those conical mamelons (Poole, 61), the remains
of late aqueous deposits, which are so characteristic
of the whole of this region. At a distance from
the lake a partial vegetation is found (Rob. ii. 103),
clumps of reeds surrounding and choking the springs,
and spreading out as the water runs off.
26. To this curious and repulsive picture the
eastern section of the plain is an entire contrast. A
dense thicket of reeds, almost impenetrable, divides
it from the Sabkah. ‘This past, the aspect of the
land completely changes. It is a thick copse of
shrubs similar to that around Jericho (Rob. ii. 115),
and, like that, cleared here and there in patches
where the Ghawarineh, or Arabs of the Ghor,
cultivate their wheat and durra, and set up their
wretched villages. The variety of trees appears to
be remarkable. Irby and Mangles (108 δ) speak
of “an infinity of plants that they knew not
how to name or describe.” De Sauley expresses
himself in the same terms—‘ une riche moisson
botanique.” The plants which these travellers
name are dwarf mimosa, tamarisk, dom, osher,
Asclepias procera, nubk, arek, indigo. Seetzen
(i, 427) names also the Thuja aphylla. Here, as
at Jericho, the secret of this vegetation is an
abundance of fresh water acting on a soil of ex-
treme richness (Seetzen, ii. 355). Besides the
SEA, THE SALT
watercourse,™ in which the belt of reeds flourishes
(like those north of the Lake of Huleh in the
marshes which bound the upper Jordan™), the
Wady Kurahy (or el Ahsy), a considerable stream ὃ
from the eastern mountains, runs through it, and
Mr. Poole mentions having passed three swift brooks,
either branches of the same,? or independent streams.
But this would hardly be sufficient to account for
its fertility, unless this portion of the plain were
too high to be overflowed by the lake; and although
no mention is made of any such change of level, it
is probably safe to assume it. Perhaps also some-
thing is due to the nature of the soil brought down
by the Wady el-Ahsy, of which it is virtually the
delta. This district, so well wooded and watered,
is called the Ghdr es-Safieh.1 Its width is less than
that of the Sabkah. No traveller has traversed it
from W. to E., for the only road through it is ap-
parently that to Kerak, which takes a N.E. direc-
tion immediately after passing the reeds. De Sauley
made the nearest approach to such a traverse on
his return from Kerak (Narrative, i. 492), and on
his detailed map (feuille 6) it appears about 24 miles
in width. Its length is still more uncertain, as
we are absolutely without record of any exploration
of its southern portion. Seetzen (ii. 355) specifies
it (at second hand) as extending to the mouth of the
Wady el-Héssa (i. ὁ. the el-Ahsy). On the other
hand, De Sauley, when crossing the Sabkah for the
first time from W. to E. (Narr. i. 263), remarked
that there was no intermission in the wood before
him, between the Ghor es-Sajich and the foot of the
hills at the extreme south of the plain. Jt is pos-
sible that both are right—and that the wood extends
over the whole east of the Ghor, though it bears
the name of es-Safich only as far as the mouth of
the e/-Ahsy.
27. The eastern mountains which form the back-
ground to this district of woodland, are no less
naked and rugged than those on the opposite side
of the valley. They consist, according to the re-
ports of Seetzen (ii. 354), Poole, and Lynch, of a
red sandstone, with limestone above it—the sand-
stone in horizontal strata with vertical cleavage
(Lynch, Narr, 311,313). To judge from the frag-
ments at their feet, they must also contain very
fine brecciae and conglomerates, of granite, jasper,
greenstone, and felspar of varied colour. Irby and
Mangles mention also porphyry, serpentine, and
basalt; but Seetzen expressly declares that of basalt
he there found no trace.
Of their height nothing is known, but ail travel-
lers concur in estimating them as higher than those
on the west, and as preserving a more horizontal
line to the south.
After passing ‘from the G@hér es-Safich to the
north, a salt plain is encountered resembling the
Sabhah, and like it overflowed by the lake when
1 Irby, 14 hour; De Sanlcy, 1 hr. 18 min.+800 metres;
Poole, 1 hr. 5 min. Seetzen, 3 hours (i. 428).
k Irby and Mangles report the number of these “ drains”
between Jebel Usdum and the edge of the Ghor es-Safieh
at six; Poole at eleven; De Saulcy at three, but he evi-
dently names only the most formidable ones.
! The Ghorneys of Irby and Mangles; the Rhaouarnas
of De Saulcy.
m Probably the Wady et-Tufileh.
n See De Saulcy, Warr. i. 493.
© Larger than the Wady Mojib (Seetzen, i. 427).
P Seetzen (ii. 355) states that the stream, which he calls
el-Héssa, is conducted in artificial channels (Kandlen) |
through the fields (also i. 427). Poole names them Ain
Ashka.
a Mr. Tristram found even at the foot of the salt
mountain of Usdwm that about 2 feet below the salt
surface there was a splendid alluvial soil; and he has
suggested to the writer that there is an analogy between
this plain and certain districts in North Africa, which,
though fertile and cultivated in Roman times, are now
barren and covered with efflorescence of natron. The
cases are also to a certain degree parallel, inasmuch as
the African plains (also called Sebkha) have their salt
mountain (like the Khashm Usdum, “ isolated from the
mountain range behind,” and flanked by small mamelons
bearing stunted herbage), the streams from which supply
them with salt (Zhe Great Sahara, 71, &c.). They are
also, like the Sabkah of Syria, overflowed every winter by
the adjoining lake.
ἂν
SEA, THE SALT
1185
THE DEAD SEA.—View from the heights behind Sebleh (Masada), shewing the wide beach on the Western side of the Lake, and the
tongue-shaped Peninsula. From a Drawing made on the spot by W. Tipping, Esq.
high (Seetzen, ii. 355). With this exception the |
mountains come down abruptly on the water dur-
ing the whole length of the eastern side of the
lagoon. In two places only is there a projecting
beach, apparently due to the deltas caused by the |
Wadys en-Nemeirah and Uheimir.
28. We have now arrived at the peninsula which
projects from the eastern shore and forms the north
enclosure of the lagoon. It is too remarkable an
object, and too characteristic of the southern portion
of the lake, to be passed over without description.
It has been visited and described by three ex-
plorers—Ivby and Mangles in June 1818; Mr.
Poole in Nov. 1855; and the American expedition
in April 1848. Among the Arabs it appears to
bear the names Ghor el Mezra@ah and Ghor el-
Lisan. The latter name—‘‘ the Tongue—”’® recals
the similar Hebrew word Jashon, WW, which is
employed three times in relation to the lake in the
specification of the boundaries of Judah and Ben-
jamin contained in the Book of Joshua. But in its
three occurrences the word is applied to two different
places—one at the north (Josh. xv. 5, xviii. 19),
and one at the south (xv. 2); and it is probable
that it signifies in both cases a tongue of water
—a bay—instead of a tongues of land.
29. Its entire length from north to south is about
10 geogr. miles—and its breadth from 5 to 6—
though these dimensions are subject to some varia-
tion according to the time of year. It appears to be
formed entirely of recent aqueous deposits, late or
post-tertiary, very similar, if not identical, with
those which face it on the western shore, and with
the ‘‘ mounds” which skirt the plains at the south
and N.W. of the lake. It consists of a friable
carbonate of lime intermixed with sand or sandy
marls, and with frequent masses of sulphate of lime
(gypsum). The whole is impregnated strongly
with sulphur, lumps of which are found, as on the
plain at the north end of the lake, and also with
salt, existing in the form of lumps or packs of
rock-salt (And. 187). Nitre is reported by Irby
(139), but neither Poole nor Anderson succeeded
in meeting with it. The stratification is almost
horizontal, with a slight dip to the east (Poole,
63). At the north it is worn into a sharp ridge or
mane, with very steep sides and serrated top. To-
wards the south the top widens into a table-land,
which Poole (ib.) reports as about *230 ft. above
r This appellation is justified by the view at the top
of this page.
5 From the expression being in the first two cases
“ tongue of the sea,’ and in the third simply “ tongue,”
M. de Saulcy conjectures that in the last case a tongue of
land is intended: but there is nothing to warrant this.
It is by no means certain whether the two Arabic names
just mentioned apply to different parts of the peninsula,
or are given indiscriminately to the whole. Ghor el Mez-
ra’ah is the only name which Seetzen mentions, and he
attaches it to the whole. It is also the only one mentioned
by Dr. Anderson, but he restricts it to the depression on
the east side of the peninsula, which runs N. and §S., and
intervenes between the main body and the foot of the
eastern mountains (And. 184). M.deSaulcy is apparently
the earliest traveller to mention the name Lisdn. He
(Jan. 15) ascribes it to the whole peninsula, though he
appears to attach it more particularly to its southern
portion — “le Ligan actuel des Arabes, c’est-a-dire la
pointe sud de la presqu’-ile ” (Voyage, i. 290). And this
is supported by the practice of Van de Velde, who on his
map marks the north portion of the peninsula as Ghor-cl-
Mezra’ah, and the south Ghor-el-Lisin. M. de Saulcy
also specifies with much detail the position of the former
of these two as at the opening of the Wady ed Dra’a
(Jan.15). ‘The point is well worth the careful attention
of future travellers, for if the name Lisdn is actually
restricted to the south side, a curious confirmation of the
accuracy of the ancient survey recorded in Josh. xv. 2
would be furnished, as well as a remarkable proof of the
tenacity of an old name.
t This dimension, which Mr. Poole took with his ane-
roid, is strangely at variance with the estimate of Lynch’s
party. Lynch himself, on approaching it at the north
1188 4 SEA, THE SALT
the level of the oe at its southern end. It breaks
down on the W., S., and N.E. sides by steep decli-
vities to the ee erred by the rains which are
gradually washing it into the lake, into cones and
other fantastic forms, like those already described
on the western beach near Sebbeh. It presents a
brilliant white appearance when lit up by the blaz-
ing sun, and contrasted with the deep blue of the
lake (Beautort, 104). A scanty growth of shrubs
(Poole, 64)—so scanty as to be almost. invisible
(Irby, 1395) —is found over the table-land. On
the east the highland descends to a depression of
13 or 2 miles wide, which from the description of
Dr. Anderson (184) appears to run across the neck
from 8. to N., at a level hardly above that of the
lake. It will doubtless be ultimately worn down
auite to the level of the water, and then the
peninsula will become an island (Anderson, 184,
189). Into this valley lead the torrents from the
ravines of the mountains on the east. The principal
of these is the Wady ed-Draa or W. Kerak,
which leads up to the city of that name. It is here
that the few inhabitants of the Peninsula reside, in
a wretched village called Mezra’ah.
the most unbounded fertility, and only requires
water to burst into riotous prodigality of vegetation
(Seetzen, ii. 351, 2).
30. There seems no reason to doubt that this
peninsula is the remnant of a bed of late aqueous
strata which were deposited at a period when
the water of the lake stood very much higher
than it now does, but which, since it attained its
present level, and thus exposed them to the action
of the winter torrents, are gradually being disin-
tegrated and carried down into the depths of the
lake. It is in fact an intrusion upon the form of
the lake, as originally determined by the rocky
walls of the great fissure of the Gidr. Its presence
here, so long after the great bulk of the same for-
mation has been washed away, is an interesting and
fortunate circumstance, since it furnishes distinct
evidence of a stage in the existence of the lake,
which in its absence might have been inferred from
analogy, but could never have been affirmed as
certain. It may have been deposited either by the
general action of the lake, or by the special action
of a river, possibly in the direction of Wady Kerak,
which in that case formed this extensive deposit at
its mouth, just as the Jordan is now forming a
similar bank at its embouchure. If a change were
to take place which either lowered the water, or ele-
vated the bottom, of the lake, the bank at the mouth
of the Jordan would be laid bare, as the Lisén now
is, and would immediately begin to undergo the
process of disintegration which that is undergoing.
31. The extraordinary difference between the
depth of the two portions of the Jake—north and
south of the peninsula—has been already alluded
to, and may be seen at a glance on the section
given on page 1174. The former is a bowl, which
at one place attains the depth of more than 1300 feet,
while the average depth along its axis may be taken
The soil is of
SEA, THE SALT
at not far short of 1000. On the other hand the
southern portion is a flat plain, with the greater
part of its avea nearly level, a very few feet™ only
below the surface, shoaling gradually at the edges
till the brink is reached. So shallow is this lagoon
that it is sometimes possible to ford right across from
the west to the east side (Seetzen, i. 428," ii. 358;
Rob. i. 521; Lynch, Narr. 304).
The channel connecting the two portions, on the
western side of the peninsula, is very gradual in
its slope from S. to N.,Y increasing in depth from
3 fathoms to 13, and from 13 to 19, 32 and ὅθ,
when it suddenly drops to 107 (642 feet), and
joins the upper portion.
32. Thus the cireular portion below the penin-
sula, and a part of the channel, form a mere lagoon,
entirely distinct and separate from the basin of the
lake proper. This portion, and the plain at the
south as far as the rise or offset at which the
Arabah commences—a district in all of some 16
miles by 8—would appear to have been left by
the last great change in the form of the ground
at a level not far below its present one, and
consequently much higher than the bottom of the
lake itself. But surrounded as it is on three
sides by highlands, the waters of which have no
other outlet, it has become the delta into which
those waters discharge themselves. On its south
side are the immense torrents of the Jezb, the
Ghurundel, and the Fikreh. On the east the
somewhat less important δἰ Ahsy, Numeirah,
Humeir and ed-Draah. On the west the Zu-
weirah, Mubughghik,? and Senin. These streams
are the drains of a district not less than 6000
square miles in area, very uneven in form, and
composed of materials more or less friable. They
must therefore bring down enormous quantities of
silt and shingle. There can be little doubt that they
have already filled up the southern part of the
estuary as far as the present brink of the water,
and the silting up of the rest is merely a work of
time. It is the same process which is going on,
on a larger and more rapid scale, in the Sea of Azov,
the upper portion of which is fast filling up with
the detritus of the river Don. Indeed the two por-
tions of the Dead Sea present several points of ana-
logy to the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea.
It is difficult to speak with confidence on any of
the geological features of the lake, in the absence of
reports by competent observers. But the theory
that the lagoon was lowered by a recent change,
and overflowed (Robinson, B. &. ii. 189), seems
directly contrary to the natural inference from the
fact that such large torrents discharge themselves
into that spot. There is nothing in the appearance
of the ground to suggest any violent change in
recent (7. 6. historical) times, or that anything has
taken place but the gradual accumulation of the
deposits of the torrents all over the delta.
53. The water of the lake is not less remarkable
than its other features. Its most obvious pecu-
liarity is its great weight.* Its specifie gravity
point (Narr. 297), states it at from 40 to 60 ft. high, witha
sharp angular central ridge some 20 ft. above that. This
last feature is mentioned also by Irby (June 2). Anderson
increases the dimension of his chief to 80 or 90 ft. (Off.
Rep.185); but even this falls short of Poole. The penin-
sula probably slopes off considerably towards the north
end, at which Lynch and Anderson made their estimate.
u When sounded by Lynch, its depth over the greater
part of the area was 12 feet.
x He fixes the ford at + an hour north of the N. end of
Jebel Usdum.
y Across this, too, there is a ford, described in some
detail by Irby and Mangles (June 2). The water must
have been unusually low, since they not only state that
doukeys were able to cross, but also that the width did
not exceed a mile, ἃ matter in which the keen eye of a
practical sailor is not likely to have been deceived. Lynch
could find no trace of either ford, and his map shews the
channel as fully two miles wide at its narrowest spot.
z Pronounced Muburrik ; the Embarreg of De Saulcy.
ἃ Of the salt-lakes in Northern Persia (Urumiyeh,
&c.) nothing is yet known. Wagner's account is very
SEA, THE SALT
has been found to be as much as 12:28; that is
to say, a gallon of it would weigh over 12} 105.
instead of 10 lbs., the weight of distilled water.
Water so heavy must not ouly be extremely
buoyant, but must possess great inertia. Its buoy-
ancy is a common theme of remark by the travel-
lers who have been upon it or in it. Josephus
(B. J. iv. 8, §4) relates some experiments made by
Vespasian by throwing bound criminals into it; and
Lynch, bathing on the eastern shore near the mouth
of the Wady “Litrka, says (Narr. 371), in words
curiously parallel to those of the old historian,
“With great difficulty I kept my feet down, and
when I laid upon my back, and, drawing up my
knees, placed my hands upon them, I rolled imme-
diately over.” In the bay on the north side of the
peninsula ‘‘a horse could with difficulty keep him-
self upright. Two fresh hens’ egos floated up one
third of their length,” 7. ὁ. with one-third exposed ;
κε they would have sunk in the water of the Medi-
terranean or Atlantic” (Narr. 342). “ A muscular
man floated nearly breast-high without the least
exertion ” (ib. 325). One of the few things recol-
lected by the Maltese servant of Mr. Costigan—
who lost his life from exposure on the lake—was
that the boat ‘ floated a palm higher than before”
(Stephens, Jncidents, ch. xxxii). Dr. Robinson
“could never swim before, either in fresh or salt
water,” yet here he “ could sit, stand, lie, or swim
without difficulty” (B. R. i. 506).
34, So much for its buoyancy. Of its weight
and inertia the American expedition had also prac-
tical experience. In the gale in which the party
were caught on their first day on the lake, between
the mouth of the Jordan and Ain Feshkhah, “τὶ
seemed as if the bows of the boats were encoun-
tering the sledge-hammeyrs of the Titans.” When,
however, ‘‘ the wind abated, the sea rapidly fell;
the water, from its ponderous quality, settling as
soon as the agitating cause had ceased to act”
(Narr. 268, 9). At ordinary times there is
nothing remarkable in the action of the surface of
the lake. Its waves rise and fall, and surf beats on
the shore, just like the ocean. , Nor is its colour,
dissimilar to that of the Sea. The water has a
greasy feel, owing possibly to the saponification of
the lime and other earthy salts with the perspiration
of the skin, and this seems to have led some observers
to attribute to it a greasy look. But such a look
exists in imagination only. It is quite transparent,
of an opalescent green tint, and is compared by
Lynch (Narr. 337) to diluted absinthe. Lynch
(Narr. 296) distinctly contradicts the assertion
that it has any smell, noxious or not. So do the
chemists » who have analysed it.
35. One or two phenomena of the surface may be
mentioned. Many of the old travellers, and some
modern ones (as Osburn, Pal. Past and Present,
443, and Churton, Land of the Morning, 149),
mention that the turbid yellow stream of the
Jordan is distinguishable for a long distance in
the lake. Molyneux (129) speaks of a “ curious
broad strip of white foam which appeared to lie in
SEA, THE SALT 1183 6
a straight line nearly N. and S. throughout the
whole Tength of the sea... . . some miles W.
of the mouth of the Jordan” (comp. Lynch, Narr.
279, 295). ‘It seemed to be constantly bubbling
and in motion, like a stream that runs rapidly
through still water; while nearly over this track
during both nights we observed in the sky a white
streak like a cloud extending also N. and S, and as
far as the eye could reach.” Lines of foam on the
surface ‘are mentioned by others: as Robinson
(i. 503); Borrer (Journey, &c., 479); Lynch
(Narr. 288, 9). From Ain Jidy a current was
observed by Mr. Clowes’s party running steadily
to the N. not far from the shore (comp. Lynch,
Narr, 291). It is possibly an-eddy caused by the
influx of the Jordan. Both De Sauley (Narr.
Jan. 8) and Robinson (i. 504) speak of spots and
belts of water remaining smooth and calm while
the rest of the surface was rippled, and presenting
a strong resemblance to islands (comp. Lynch, 288,
Irby, June 5). The haze or mist which perpetually
broods over the water has been already mentioned.
It is the result of the prodigious evaporation.
Lynch continually mentions it. Irby (June 1) saw
it in broad transparent columns, like water-spouts,
only very much larger. Extraordinary effects of
mirage due to the unequal refraction produced by
the heat and moisture are occasionally seen (Lynch,
Narr. 320).
36. The remarkable weight of this water is due
to the very large quantity of mineral salts which it
holds in solution. The details of the various analyses
are given overleaf in a tabular form, accompanied
by that of sea-water for comparison. From that
of the U.S. expedition ® it appears that each gallon
of the water, weighing 12} lbs., contains nearly
34 Ibs. (3°319) of matter in solution—an immense
νου when we recollect that sea-water, weighing
101 Ibs. per gallon, contains less than 1 a lb. Of
this 34 lbs. nearly 1 Ib. is common salt (chloride of
See about 2 lbs. chloride of magnesium, and
less than 3 a lb. chloride of calcium (or muriate of
lime). The most unusual ingredient is bromide of
magnesium, which exists in. truly extraordinary
4 quantity. To its presence is due the therapeutic
reputation enjoyed by the lake when its water was sent
to Rome for wealthy invalids (Galen, in Reland, Pal.
242) or lepers flocked to its shores (Ant. Mart. §x.).
Boussingault (Ann. de Chimie, 1856, xlviii. 168)
remarks that if ever bromine should become an
article of commerce the Dead Sea will be the natural
source for it. It is the magnesian compounds which
impart so nauseous and bitter a flavour to the
water. The quantity of common salt in solution
is very large. Lynch found (Narr. 377) that while
distilled water would dissolve 5-17ths of its weight
of salt, and the water of the Atlantic 1-6th, the
water of the Dead Sea was so nearly saturated as
only to be able to take up 1-11th.
37. The sources of the components of the water
may be named generally without difficulty. The lime
and magnesia proceed from the dolomitic limestone of
the surrounding mountains ; from the gypsum which
Those in Southern Russia have been fully inves-
tigated by Goebel (Reisen &c., Dorpat, 1837). The
heaviest water is that of the “ Red Sea,” near Perekop
in the Crimea (solid contents 37:22 per cent.; sp. gr.
13:31). The others, including the Ieltonskoé or Elton,
contain from 24 to 28 per cent of solid matter in solution,
and range in sp. gr., from 12°07 to 12°68.
b With the single exception of Moldenhauer, who when
he first opened the specimen he analysed, found it to
VOL. Il.
vague,
smell strongly of sulphur.
e This is chosen because the water was taken from a
considerable depth in the centre of the lake, and there-
fore probably more fairly represents the average com-
position than the others.
4 Adopting Marchand’s analysis, it appears that the
quantity of this salt in the Dead Sea is 128 times as great
as in the Ocean and 74 times as great as in the Kreuznach
water, where its strength is considered remarkable.
et
1183 ¢
SEA, THE SALT
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ANALYSES OF THE WATER OF THE DEAD SEA.
ee eee ee eee ee eee
ap ae} 3. 4... wee 6. τ: Sr leaner
C. G. | Booth,
| Gmelin, | | of Phila- | Boutron- Prof. W. | Mold
| 24. | Apjohn, |Marchand, Herapath,| delphia | Charlard | Gee τ' a Cen- Water of the
As recal- | 1538, 1847. 1819. | (U.S. and Teed” Nov 14 Ocean.
culated by) | Exped.), | Henry. 95, ov. 185: |
| Marchand. | 1849.
cer ae ee ee eee oes peti iy Ss eee ee
Chloride of Magnesium 127166} 7-370) 10°543) 7°822) 14-589] 1°696) 13.951} 6°831| “360
>> Sodium | 7°039 7°839 6°578; 12°109) 7°855| 11-003! 7°339) 2°957) 2°700
»» Calcium | 37336) 2-438) 2-894) 2455 “35.101 680 2°796| 1-471! 32
ΤᾺ Potassium . 1°086, “852 1.398 1.217] "6058, “166, “571 2°391 “070
sid Manganese . “161 005 “006! | 4
ΜΠ Ammonium 007) : β “006, Bite Bra ; 5
>, Aluminium “143 SOI)... «7 056| το || Ἢ ;
a irons a's “003 ee | Aa Gal Β
Sulphate of Potash . ieee ἐν; : S40) ΤΣ ἘΠῚ : τ002, -
5s Lime — *052) 075 “088 063) -070 ee 106 140
53 Magnesia ἢ 5 met Bat Hae *233) Η Ἐν *230
Bromide of Magnesium 442) 201 251 251] .131] trace | “069 188 002
i Sodium . 4 ead Sal i aie
Organic matter. , . || * 062) 26s oe
Silica . ee | | “003, ἥ 0-200 : i
Bituminous matter . Ϊ 3 Ζ aS 2 5 wife
Carbonate of Lime | 0°953 Σ aoe] 003
Loss +025
- F mae See eed ieee pee om aor | eg er (aa aren [oe ΡΣ ΤΥ ΤΥ ΣΝ
Total solid contents . 24°435) 18.180] 21°773| 24.055! 26-416} 14-927) 24-832 13°895) 3°550
Water 15°565 81.220 78°227) 75-945, 737584) 85-073) 75°168/ 86°105) 96-470
———— τ - - - —- ee ee | | eee ----
100 000. 100-000, 100-000 Τ00Γ000. 100-000, 100-000) 100-000, 100°000, 100 000
—_— |e Se ee = | ee ——— τ Ξ a a Poe ———— |
Specific gravity . 1-202) 17153] 171841} 1°172| 1°22%7| 1-099] 1-210] 1°116} 10278
it Ἶ | at 66° F. at 60° F. at 60° F.
Boiling Point y 221° ~ | 227-75
Water obtained. . . . | . . | mile | in 1847, | in March, May 5, ’48| Apr. 2, from | in June,
ΙΓ from | atthe | 1849, 195 fath.| 1850, |Islandat| 1854.
| Jordan, north end., 4 mile | deep, “2 hours | _N. end.
| _ late | N.W. of | off from the | March 11,
in rainy | mouth of A.Terabeh| Jordan.” 1854. |
season. | | Jordan. | Ϊ |
No. 1. The figures in the Table are the recalculations
of Marchand (Journal, &c., 359) on the basis of the im-
proved chemical science of his time. The original analysis
is in Naturwis. Abhandl., Viibingen, i. (1827) 333.
No. 2. See The Atheneum, June 15, 1839.
No. 3. Journal fiir prakt. Chemie, &c., Leipzig, xvii.
(1849), 365.
No. 4. Quarterly Journal of Chem. Soc. ii. (1850) 336.
No. 5. Off. Report of τσ. δ΄. Expedition, Ato., p. 204.
No. 6. Journal de Pharmacie et de Chimie, Mars 1852.
No. 7. Calculated by the writer from the proportionate
table of salts given in Stewart’s Tent and Khan, 381.
No. 8. Liebig and Wohler’s Annalen der Chemie, xlvii.
(1856) 357; xlviii. (1856) 129-170.
No. 9. Regnault’s Cours Elém. de Chimie, ii. 190.
The older analyses have not been reprinted, the methods
employed having been imperfect and the results uncertain
as compared with the more modern ones quoted. ‘hey are
as follows :—1. Macquer, Lavoisier, and Lesage (Mém. de
V Acad. des Sciences, 1778); 2. Marcet (Phil. Trans., 1807,
p- 296, &c.); 3. Klaproth (Mag. der Gesells. naturfor.
Freunde zu Berlin, iii. 139); 4. Gay Lussac (Ann. de
Chimie, xi. (1819), p. 197); 5. Hermbstiidt (Schweigger’s
Journal, xxxiv. 163).
Want of space compels the omission of the analysis of
Boussingault of water collected in spring 1855 (Ann. de
Chimie, xlviii. (1856), 129-170), which corresponds very
closely with that of Gmelin (viz. sp. gr. 1°1943 salts,
22. 185 per cent), as well as that of Commines (quoted in
the same paper) of water collected in June 1853, showing
sp. gr. 1.190 and salts 18°26 per cent. Another analysis
by Prof. W. Gregory, giving 19°25 per cent of salts, is
quoted by Kitto (Phys. Geogr. 374).
The writer has been favoured with specimens of water
collected 13th Nov., 1850, by the Rev. G. W. Bridges, and
7th April, 1863, by Mr. R. D. Wilson. Both were taken
from the north end. The former, which had been care-
fully sealed up until examination, exhibited sp. gr. 1*1812,
solid contents, 21°585 per cent; the latter, sp. gr. 1-184,
solid contents, 22188; the boiling point in both cases
226°4 Fahr.;—a singular agreement, when it is remem-
bered that one specimen was obtained at the end, the other
at the beginning, of summer. For this investigation, and
much more valuable assistance in this part ef his article,
the writer is indebted to his friend Dr. David Simpson
Price, F.C.S.
The inferiority in the quantity of the salts in Nos. 2,
6, and 8 is very remarkable, and must be due to the fact
(acknowledged in the’2 first) that the water was obtained
during the rainy season, or from near the entrance of the
Jordan or other fresh water. Nos. 7 and 8 were collected
within two months of each other. The preceding winter,
1853-4, was one Of the wettest and coldest remembered
in Syria, and yet the earlier of the two analyses shows a
largely preponderating quantity of salts. There is suffi-
cient discrepancy in the whole of the results to render it
desirable that a fresh set of analyses should be made, of
water obtained from various defined spots and depths, at
different times of the year, and investigated by the same
analyst. The variable density of the water was observed
as early as by Galen (see quotations in Reland, Pal. 242).
The best papers on this interesting subject are those of
Gmelin, Marchand, Herapath, and Boussingault (see the
references given above). The second of these contains
an excellent review of former analyses, and most in-
structive observations on matters more or less connected
with the subject.
The absence of iodine is remarkable. It was particu-
larly searched for by both Herapath and Marchand, but
without effect. In Sept. 1858 the writer obtained a large
quantity of water from the island at the north end of the
lake, which he reduced by boiling on the spot. The
concentrated salts were afterwards tested by Dr. D. S.
Price by his nitrate of potash test (see Chem. Soc. Jour-
nal for 1851), with the express view of detecting iodine,
but not a trace could be discovered.
* Dr. Anderson (Of. Rep. 205) states that in water from “another part” of the lake he found as much as 4°8 per cent of chlor.
calcium.
SEA, THE SALT
exists on the shores, nearly pure, in large quantities ;
and from the carbonate of lime and carbonate of mag-
nesia found on the peninsuala and elsewhere (An-
derson, 185). The chloride of sodium is supplied
from Khashm Usdum, and the copious brine springs
on both shores. Balls of nearly pure sulphur (pro-
bably the deposit of some sulphurous stream) are
found in the neighbourhood of the lake, on the
peninsula (Anderson, 187), on the western beach
and the north-western heights (Ibid. 176, 180,
160), and on the plain S. of Jericho (Rev. G. W.
Bridges), Nitre may exist, but the specimens
mentioned by Irby and others are more probably
pieces of rock salt, since no trace of nitric acid
has been found in the water or soil (Marchand,
370). Manganese, iron, and alumina have been
found on the peninsula (Anderson, 185, 7), and the
other constituents are the product of the numerous
mineral springs which surround the lake,f and the
washings of the aqueous deposits on the shores
(see §17), which are gradually restoring to the
lake the salts they received from it ages back
when covered by its waters. The strength of
these ingredients is heightened by the continual
evaporation, which (as already stated) is sufficient
to carry off the whole amount of the water
supplied, leaving, of course, the salts in the lake;
and which in the Dead Sea, as in every other lake
which has affluents but no outlets, is gradually con-
centrating the mineral constituents of the water,
as in the alembic of the chemist. When the water
becomes saturated with salt, or even betore, deposi-
tion will take place, and salt-beds be formed on the
bottom of the lakes If, then, at a future epoch
a convulsion should take place which should up-
heave the bottom of the lake, a salt mountain
would be formed similar to the Khashm Usdum ;
and this is not improbably the manner in which
that singular mountain was formed. It appears to
have been the bed of an ancient salt lake, which
during the convulsion which depressed the bed of the
present lake, or some other remote change, was forced
up to its present position. Thus this spot may have
been from the earliest ages the home of Dead Seas;
and the present lake but one of a numerous series.
38. It has been long supposed that no life what-
ever existed in the lake. But recent facts show that
some inferior organizations can and do find a home
even in these salt and acrid waters. The Cabinet
@Hist. Naturelle at Paris contains a fine specimen of
a coral called Stylophora pistillata, which is stated
to have been brought from the lake in 1837 by the
Marq. de l’Escalopier, and has every appearance of
e On the subject of the bitumen of the lake the writer
has nothing to add to what is said under PALEsTINE,
682h, and SLIME, 1335, 4.
f The bromine has not yet been satisfactorily traced.
The salt of Khashm Usdum has been analysed for its dis-
covery (Rob. ii. 108), but in vain. Marchand examined
a specimen of soil from a ‘‘ salt-plain called Zeph” 4 an
hour W. of the lake, and found it to contain “an appre-
ciable quantity of bromine” (Journal fiir prakt. Chemie,
Xlvii. 369, 70).
In addition to the obvious sources named in the text,
there are doubtless others less visible. The remarkable
variation in the proportions of the constituents of the
water in the specimens obtained by different travellers
(see the analyses) leads to the inference that in the bed
of the lake there are masses of mineral matter, or
mineral springs, which may modify the constitution of
the water in their immediate neighbourhood.
8 This is already occurring, for Lynch’s sounding-lead
several times brought up cubical crystals of salt, some-
SEA, THE SALT 1183 ἃ
having been a resident there, and not an ancient or
foreign specimen.» Ehrenberg discovered 11 species
of Polygaster, 2 of Polythalamiae, and 5 of Phyto-
lithariae, in mud and water brought home by Lepsius
(Monatsh. d. Kin. Pr. Akad. June 1849). The
mud was taken from the north end of the lake,
1 hour ΝΟΥ. of the Jordan, and far from the shore.
Some of the specimens of Polygaster exhibited
ovaries, and it is worthy of remark that all the
species were found in the water of the Jordan also.
The copious phosphorescence mentioned by Lynch
(Narr, 280) is also a token of the existence of life
in the waters. In a warm salt stream which rose
at the foot of the Jebel Usdum, at a few yards only
from the lake, Mr. Poole (Noy. 4) caught small fish
(Cyprinodon hammonis) 14 inch long. He is of
opinion, though he did not ascertain the fact, that
they are denizens of the lake. The melanopsis
shells found by Poole (67) at the fresh springs
(? Ain Terabeh), and which other travellers have
brought from the shore at Aim Jidy, belong to the
spring and not to the lake. Fucus and ulva are
spoken of by some of the travellers, but nothing
certain is known of them. The ducks seen diving
by Poole must surely have been in search of some
form of life, either animal or vegetable.
39. The statements of ancient travellers and geo-
graphers to the eflect that no living creature could
exist on the shores of the lake, or bird fly across
its surface, are amply disproved by later travellers.
It is one of the first things mentioned by Maundrell
(March 30); and in our own days almost every tra-
veller has noticed the fable to contradict it. The
cane brakes of Ain Feshkhah, and the other springs
on the margin of the lake, harbour snipe, partridges,
ducks, nightingales, and other birds, as well as frogs ;
hawks, doves, and hares are found along the shore
(Lynch, 274, 277, 279, 287, 294, 371, 6); and the
thickets of Ain Jidy contain “ innumerable birds,”
among which were the lark, quail, and partridge,
as well as birds of prey (B. 1, i. 524). Lynch
mentions the curious fact that ‘all the birds, and
most of the insects and animals” which he saw on
the western side were of a stone colour so as to be
almost invisible on the rocks of the shore (Narr.
279, 291, 294). Van de Velde (S. & P. ii. 119),
Lynch (Narr. 279, 287, 308), and Poole (Nov. 2,
3, and 7), even mention having seen ducks and other
birds, single and in flocks, swimming and diving in
the water.
40. Of the temperature of the water more ob-
servations are necessary before any inferences can be
drawn. Lynch (Report, May 5) states that a stratum
times with mud, sometimes alone (Narr. 281, 297 ; comp.
Molyneux, 127). The lake of Assal, on the E. coast of
Africa, which has neither affluent nor outlet, is said to
be concentrated to (or nearly to) the point of saturation
(Edin. N. Phil, Journ. Apr. 1855, 259).
h This interesting fact is mentioned by Humboldt
(Views of Nat. 270); but the writer is indebted to the
kind courtesy of M. Valenciennes, keeper of the Cabinet,
for confirmation of it. Humboldt gives the coral the
name of Porites elongata, but the writer has the authority
of Dr. P. Martin Duncan for saying that its true designa-
tion is Stylophora pist. Unfortunately nothing whatever
is known of the place or manner of its discovery ; and it
is remarkable that after 26 years no second specimen
should have been acquired. It is quite possible for the
coral in question to grow under the conditions presented
by the Dead Sea, and it is true that it abounds also in the
Red Sea; but it will not be safe to draw any deduction
from these facts till other specimens of it have been
brought from the lake.
1184 SEA, THE SALT
at 59° Fahr. is almost invariably found at 10 fathoms
below the surface. Between Wady Zirka and Ain
Terabeh the Joa at surface was 76°, gradually de-
creasing to 62° at 1044 ft. deep, with the exception
just named (Narr. 374). At other times, and in
the lagoon, the temp. ranged from 82° to 90°, and
from 5° to 10° below that of the air (70. 510-20.
Comp. Poole, Nov. 2).
Khan, 381), on 11th March, 1854, found the
Jordan 60° Fahr., and the Dead Sea (ἃ. end) 73° ;
the temperature of the air being 83° in the former
case, and 78° in the latter.
41. Nor does there appear to be anything inimical
to life in the atmosphere of the lake or its shores,
except what naturally proceeds from the great heat
of the climate. The Ghawarineh and Rashaideh
Arabs, who inhabit the southern and western sides
and the peninsula, are described as a poor stunted
race; but this is easily accounted for by the heat
and relaxing nature of the climate, and by their
meagre way of life, without inferring anything spe-
cially unwholesome in the exhalations of the lake.
They do not appear to be more stunted or meagre
than the natives of Jericho, or, if more, not more
than would be due to the fact that they inhabit a
spot 500 to 600 feet further below the surface of the
ocean and more effectually enclosed. Considering the
hard work which the American party accomplished
in the tremendous heat (the thermometer on one
occasion 1062, after sunset, Narr. 314), and that the
sounding and working the boats necessarily brought
them a great deal into actual contact with the
water of the lake, their general good health is a
proof that there is nothing pernicious in the prox-
imity of the lake itself. A strong smell of sulphur
pervades some parts of the western shore, proceed-
ing from springs or streams impregnated with sul-
phuretted hydrogen (De Sauley, Warr. i. 192; Van
de Velde,i ii. 109; Beaufort, ii. 113). It accom-
panied the north wind which blew in the evenings
(Lynch, 292, 294). But this odour, though un-
pleasant, is not noxious, and in fact M. de Sauley
compares it to the baths of Bavéges.
has in summer a ‘‘ strong marshy smell,” from
the partial desiccation of the ditches which con-
vey the drainage of the salt springs and salt rocks
into the lagoon; but this smell can hardly be
stronger or more unhealthy than it is in the marshes
above the Lake e-Huleh, or in many other places
where marshy ground exists under a sun of equal
power ; such, tor example, as the marshes at /skan-
derim, quoted by Mr. Porter (Handbook, 201 a).
42. Of the Botany of the Dead Sea little or
nothing can be said. Dr. Hooker, in his portion
of the article PALESTINE, has spoken (pp. 687, 8)
of the vegetation of the Giér in general, and of
that of Ain Jidy and the N.W. shore of the lake
in particular. Beyond these, the only parts of the
lake which he explored, nothing accurate is known.
A few plants are named by "Seetzen as inhabit-
ing the Ghér es-Safich and the peninsula. These,
such as they are, have been already mentioned.
In addition, the following are enumerated in the
lists which accompany the Official Report (Ato.)
of Lynch, and the Voyage of De Sauley (Atlas
des Planches, ‘§¢.) At Ain Jidy, Reseda lutea,
Dr. Stewart (Zent and |
|
The Sabkah |
|idea conveyed by its popular name.
SEA, THE SALT
Maloa sylvestris, Glinus lotoides, Sedum reflexum,
Sideritis syriaca, Hupatorium syriacum, and Wi-
thania somnifera, On the south-eastern and eastern
shore of the lake, at the Ghér es-Safich, and on the
peninsula, they name Zilla myagroides, Zygophylla
coccinea, Ruta bracteosa, Zizyphus spina christi,
Indigofera, Tamarix, Aizoon canariense, Salva-
dora persica, Ifloga fontanesii, Picridium tingi-
tanum, Solanum villosum, Euphorbia peplus, Ery-
throstictus punctatus, Carex stenophylla, and Helio-
tropum albidum. At Ain Feshkhah, Ain Ghueeir,
Ain Terabeh, and other spots on the western shore,
they name, in addition to those given by Dr. Hooker,
Sida asiatica, Knautia arvensis, Scabiosa papposa,
Echium italicum and creticum, Stratice sinuata,
Anastatica hierochuntina, Heliotropum rotundi-
folium, and Phragmites communis. At other places
not specified along the shores, Aakile and Crambe
maritima, Arenaria maritima, Chenopodium mari-
timum, Anabasis aphylla, Anemone coronaria,
Ranunculus asiaticus, Fumaria micrantha, Sisym-
brium irio, Cleone trineroia, Anagyris foetida,
Chrysanthemum coronaria, Rhagadiolus stellatus,
Anagallis arvensis, Convolvulus siculus, Onosma
syriaca, Lithospermum tenuiflorum, Hyoscyamus
aureus, Euphorbia helioscopa, Tris caucasica,
Morea sisyrinchium, Romulea bulbocodium and
grandiflora. The mouth of the Wady Zuweirah
contains large quantities of oleanders.
43. Of the Zoology of the shores, it is hardly too
much to say that nothing is known. The birds and
animals mentioned by Lynch and Robinson have
been already named, but their accurate identification
must await the visit of a traveller versed in natural
history. On the question of the existence of life in
the lake itself, the writer has already said all that
oceurs to him.
44, The appearance of the lake does not fulfil the
** The Dead
Sea,” says a recent traveller,! “did not strike me
with that sense of desolation and dreariness which
I suppose it ought. I thought it a pretty, smiling ἡ
lake—a nice ripple on its surface.” * Lord Nugent
(Lands §e., ii. ch. 5) expresses himself in similar
terms. Schubert came to it from the Gulf of
Akabeh, and he contrasts the ‘ desert look” of that
with the remarkable beauties of this, “the most
| glorious spot he had ever seen” (Ritter, 557)2 This
was the view from its northern end. The same of
the southern portion. ‘J expected a scene of un-
equalled horror,” says Mr. Van de Velde (ii. 117),
“Ὁ instead of which I found a lake calm and glassy,
blue and transparent, with an unclouded heaven, a
smooth beach, and surrounded by mountains. whose
blue tints were of rare beauty. . . . It bears a re-
markable resemblance to Loch Awe.” —‘‘ It reminded
me of the beautiful lake of Nice’’,(Paxton, in Kitto,
Phys. Geogr. 383), ‘ Nothing of gloom and deso-
lation,” says another traveller, ‘*... even the shore
was richly studded with bright ™ yellow flowers
growing to the edge of the rippling waters.” Of the
view from Masada, Miss Beaufort (ii. 110) thus
speaks—‘* Some one says there is no beauty in
it... but this view is beyond all others for the
sptendour of its savage and yet beautiful wildness.”
Seetzen, in a lengthened and unusually enthusiastic
5
i M. Van de Velde’s watch turned black with the sul-
phur in the air of the hills and valleys south of Masada.
Miss Beaufort (at Birket el Khulil) says it was “ very
strong, immensely more nauseous than that of the springs
of Tadmor.”
k Lynch’s lists were drawn up by Dr. R. Eglesfield
\
Griffith ; ; and De Saulcy’s by. the Abbé Michon, who also
himself collected the bulk of the specimens.
1 Rev, W. Lea (1847), who has kindly allowed the writer
the use of his MS. journal. See very nearly the same
| remarks by Dr. Stewart (Tent and Khan).
m™ Probably Inula crithmoides.
SEA, THE SALT
passage (ij. 364, 5) extols the beauties of the view
from the delta at the mouth of the Wady Mojib,
and the advantages of that sitnation for a per-
manent residence. These testimonies might be
multiplied at pleasure, and they contrast strangely
with the statements of some of the mediaeval pil-
grims (on whose accounts the ordinary conceptions
of the lake ave based), and even those of some modern
travellers," of the perpetual gloom which broods
over the lake, and the thick vapours which roll from
its waters like the smoke of some infernal furnace,
filling the whole neighbourhood with a miasma
which has destroyed all life within its reach.
45. The truth lies, as usual, somewhere between
these two extremes. On the one hand the lake
certainly is not a gloomy. deadly, smoking, eulf,
In this respect it does not at all fulfil the promise
of its® name. The name is more suggestive of the
dead solitude of the mountain tarns of Wales or
Scotland, the perpetual twilight and undisturbed
lingering decay of the Great Dismal Swamp, or the
reeking miasma of the Putrid Sea of the Crimea.
Death can never be associated with the wonderful
brightness of the sun of Syria, with the cheerful re-
flexion of the calm bosom of the lake at some periods
of the day, or with the regular alternation of the
breezes which ruffle its surface at others. At sunrise
and sunset the scene must be astonishingly beau-
tiful. Every one who has been in the West of
Scotland knows what extraordinary pictures are
sometimes seen mirrored in the sea-water lochs
when they lie unruffled in the calm of early morn-
ing or of sunset. The reflexions from the bosom
of the Dead Sea are said to surpass those, as far as
the hues of the mountains which encircle it, when
lit up by the gorgeous rising and setting suns
of Syria, surpass in brilliancy and richness those
of the hills around Loch Fyne and Loch Goyle.
One such aspect may be seen—and it is said by
competent judges to be no exaggerated representation
—in “The Scapegoat” of Mr. Holman Hunt, which
is a view of the Moab mountains at sunset, painted
from the foot of Jebel Usdum, looking across the
lower part of the Lagoon.P But on the other hand,
with all the brilliancy of its illumination, its fre-
quent beauty of colouring, the fantastic grandeur of
its enclosing mountains, and the tranquil charm
afforded by the reflexion of that unequalled sky on
the no less unequalled mirror of the surface—with
all these there is something in the prevalent sterility
and the dry, burnt, look of the shores, the over-
powering heat, the occasional smell of sulphur, the
dreary salt marsh at the southern end, and the
fringe of dead driftwood round the margin, which
must go far to excuse the title which so many ages
have attached to the lake, and which we may be
sure it will never lose.
SEA, THE SALT 1185
46. It does not appear probable that the condition
or aspect of the lake in biblical times was mate-
vially different from what it is at present. Other
parts of Syria may have deteriorated in climate and
appearance owing to the destruction of the wood
which once covered them, but there are no traces
either of the ancient existence of wood in the neigh-
bourhood of the lake, or of anything which would
account for its destruction supposing it to have
existed. A few spots, such as Ain Jidy, the mouth
ot the Wady Zuweirah, and that of the Wady ed
Dra a, were more cultivated, and consequently more
populous, than they are under the discouraging in-
fluences of Mohammedanism. But such attempts
must always have been partial, confined to the imme-
diate neighbourhood of the fresh springs and to a
certain degree of elevation, and ceasing directly irri-
gation was neglected. In fact the climate of the
shores of the lake is too sultry and trying to allow
of any considerable amount of civilized occupation
being conducted there. Nothing will grow without
irrigation, and artificial irrigation is too laborious
for such a situation. The plain of Jericho we know
was cultivated like a garden, but the plain of Jeri-
cho is very nearly on a level with the spring of
Ain Jidy, some 600 feet above the Ghor el-Lisan,
the Ghor es Safieh, or other cultivable portions ot
the beach of the Dead Sea. Of course, as far as
the capabilities of the ground are concerned, pro-
vided there is plenty of water, the hotter the
climate the better, and it is not too much to say
that, if some system of irrigation could be carried out
and maintained, the plain of Jericho, and still more
the shores of the lake (such as the peninsula and
the southern plain), might be the most productive
spots in the world. But this isnot possible, and the
difficulty of communication with the external world
would alone be (as it must always have been) a
serious bar to any great agricultural eflorts in this
district.
When Machaerus and Callirrhoé were inhabited
(if indeed the former was ever more than a fortress,
and the latter a bathing establishment occasionally
resorted to), and when the plain of Jericho was
occupied with the crowded population necessary
for the cultivation of its balsam-gardens, vineyards,
sugar-plantations, and palm-groves, there may have
been a little more life on the shores. But this can
never have materially affected the lake. The track
along the western shore and over Ain Jidy was then,
as now, used for secret marauding expeditions, not for
peaceable or commercial traffic. What transport
there may have been between Idumaea and Jericho
came by some other channel. A doubtful passage
in (Josephus, and a reference by Edrisi (Ed. Jau-
bert, in Ritter, Jordun, 700) to an occasional ven-
ture by the people of “ Zara and Dara” in the 12th
n As, for instance, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, quoted by
Brocardus (A.D. 1290), and the terrific description given by
Quaresmius (ii. 759. &c.), as if from Brocardus, though it is
not in the Received Text of his works (Amst. 1711): Sir R.
Guylforde (a.p. 1506): Schwarz (A.D. 1845). It is, however,
surprising how free the best of the old travellers are from
such fables. The descriptions of the Bourdeaux Pilgrim, of
Arculfus, Maundeville, Thietmar, Doubdan, Maundrell,
barring a little exaggeration of the buoyancy of the water
and of its repulsion to life, are sober, and, as far as they go,
accurate. Itis to be lamented that the popular conception
of the lake was not founded on these accounts, instead of
the sensation-descriptions of others at secondhand.
ὁ “Jt is not gloom but desolation that is its prevail-
ing characteristic,” is the remark of Prof. Stanley, in his
excellent chapter on the lake in Sinai and Palestine
VOL. II.
(chap. vii,). ‘*So mournful a landscape, for one having
rea] beauty, I had never seen” (Miss Martineau, Eastern
Life, Pt. 111. ch. 4).
P The remarks in the text refer to the mountains which
form the background to this remarkable painting. ‘The
title of the picture and the accidents of the foreground
give the key to the sentiment which it conveys, which is
certainly that of loneliness and death, But the mountains
would form an appropriate background to a scene of a
very different description.
4 Quoted by Reland (Pal. 252) as “liber v. de bell.
cap. 3,’ But this—if it can be verified, which the writer
has not yet succeeded in doing—only shows that the
Romans on one occasion, sooner than let their fugitives
escape them, got some boats over and put them on the
lake. It does not indicate any continued navigation.
4G
1186 SEA, THE SALT
century, are all the allusions known to exist to
the navigation of the lake, until Englishmen and
Americans™ launched their boats on it within the
last twenty years for purposes of scientific inves-
tigation. The temptation to the dwellers in the
environs must always have been to ascend to the
fresher air of the heights, rather than descend to
the sultry climate of the shores.
47. The connexion between this singular lake and
the Biblical history is very slight. In the topogra-
phical records of the Pentateuch and sthe Book of
Joshua, it forms one among the landmarks of the
boundaries of the whole country, as well as of the
inferior divisions of Judah and Benjamin; and atten-
tion has been already drawn to the minute accuracy
with which, according to the frequent custom of
these remarkable records, one of the salient features
of the lake is singled out for mention, As a land-
mark it is once named in what appears to be a
quotation from a lost work of the prophet Jonah
(2 K. xiv. 25), itself apparently a reminiscence of
the old Mosaic statement (Num. xxxiv, 8, 12).
Besides this the name occurs once or twice in the
imagery of the Prophets. In the New Testament
there is not even an allusion to it. There is, how-
ever, one passage in which the “ Salt Sea” is men-~
tioned in a different manner to any of those already
quoted, viz., as having been in the time of Abraham
the Vale of Siddim (Gen. xiv. 3). The narrative in
which this occurs is now generally acknowledged to
be one of the most ancient of those venerable docu-
ments, from which the early part of the Book of
Genesis was compiled. But a careful examination
shows that it contains a number of explanatory
statements which cannot, from the very nature of
the case, have come from the pen of its original
author. The sentences, ‘‘ Bela which" is Zoar”
(2 and 8); ‘‘En-Mishpat which is Kadesh”’ (7) ;
“the Valley of Shaveh which is the King’s Valley ”
(17) ; and the one in question, ‘* the Vale of Siddim
which is the Salt Sea” (3), are evidently explana-
tions added by a later hand at a time when the
ancient names had become obsolete. These remarks
(or, as they may be termed, “ annotations’’) stand
on a perfectly different footing to the words of the
original record which they are intended to elucidate,
and whose antiquity they enhance. J¢ bears every
mark of being contemporary with the events it nar-
yates. They merely embody the opinion of a later
person, and must stand or fall by their own merits.
48. Now the evidence of the spot is sufficient to
show that no material change has taken place in the
upper and deeper portion of the lake for a period
very long anterior to the time of Abraham. In the
lower portion—the lagoon and the plain below it—
if any change has occurred, it appears to have been
yather one of reclamation than of submersion—the
gradual silting up of the district by the torrents
which discharge their contents into it (see §23).
SEA, THE SALT
We have seen that, owing to the gentle slope of the
plain, temporary fluctuations in the level of the lake
would affect this portion very materially ; and it is
quite allowable to believe that a few wet winters fol-
lowed by cold summers, would raise the level of the
lake sufficiently to lay the whole of the district south
of the lagoon under water, and convert it for the time
into a part of the “ Salt Sea.” A rise of 20 feet be-
yond the ordinary high-water point would probably
do this, and it would take some years to bring things
back to their former condition. Such an exceptional
state of things the writer of the words in Gen. xiv. 3
may have witnessed and placed on record.
49, This is merely stated as a possible explanation;
and it assumes the Vale of Siddim to have been the
plain at the south end of the lake, for which there
is no evidence. But it seems to the writer more
natural to believe that the author of this note on
a document which even in his time was probably
of great antiquity, believed that the present lake
covered a district which in historic times had been
permanently habitable dry land. Such was the im-
plicit belief of the whole modern world—with the
exception perhaps of ¥ Reland—till within less than
half a century. Even so lately as 1830 the for-
mation of the Dead Sea was described by a divine
of our Church, remarkable alike for learning and
discernment, in the following terms :—
“The Valley of the Jordan, in which the cities
of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma, and Tseboim, were
situated, was rich and highly cultivated. It is
most probable that the river then flowed in a deep
and uninterrupted channel down a regular descent,
and discharged itself into the eastern gulf of the
Red Sea. The cities stood on a soil broken and
undermined with veins of bitumen and sulphur.
These inflammable substances set on fire by light-
ning caused a terrible convulsion; the water-
courses—both the river and the canals by which the
land was extensively irrigated—burst their banks ;
the cities, the walls of which were perhaps built
from the combustible materials of the soil, were
entirely swallowed up by the fiery inundation, and
the whole valley, which had been compared to Pa-
radise and the well-watered cornfields of the Nile,
became a dead and fetid lake” (Milman, /ist. of
the Jews, 2nd ed. i. 15).
In similar language does the usually cautious Dr.
Robinson express himself, writing on the spot, before
the researches of his countrymen had revealed the
depth and nature of the chasm, and the consequent
remote date of the formation of the lake :—‘ Shat-
tered mountains and the deep chasms of the rent
earth are here tokens of the wrath of God, and of
his vengeance upon the guilty inhabitants of the
plain” (Bib. Res. i. 525).¥
Now if these explanations—so entirely ground-
less, when it is recollected that the identity of the
Vale of Siddim with the Plain of Jordan, and the
Costigan in 1835, Moore and Beek in 1837, Symonds
in 1841, Molyneux in 1847, Lynch in 1848,
s See thé quotations at the head of the article,
t One of these (Hz. xlvii.) is remarkable for the manner
in which the characteristics of the lake and its environs—
the dry ravines of the western mountains; the noxious
waters; the want of fish ; the southern lagoon — are
brought out. See Prof, Stanley’s notice (S. ὦ P. 294).
υ WYN yba : such is the formula adopted in each
of the instances quoted. It is the same which is used in the
precisely parallel case, “ Hazazon-Tamar, which is Engedi”
(2 Chr. xx. 2). In other cases, where the remark seems
to have proceeded from the original writer, another form
|
is used—W’N—as in “ el Paran, which is by the Wilder-
ness”’ (6), ‘‘ Hobah, which is on the left hand of Da-
mascus ”’ (15).
v See his chapter De lacw Asphaltite in Palaestina, lib,
i. cap. XXxviii—truly admirable, considering the scanty
materials at his disposal. He seems to have been the
first to disprove the idea that the cities of the plain were
submerged.
w Even Lieut. Lynch can pause between the casts of
the lead to apostrophise the “unhallowed sea... the
record of God’s wrath,’ or to notice the “sepulchral
| light” cast around by the phosphorence, &c., &c. (Narr.
284, 288, 280).
SEA, THE SALT
submersion of the cities, find no warrant whatever
in Scripture—are promulgated by persons of learn-
ing and experience in the 19th century after Christ,
surely it need occasion no surprise to find a similar
view put forward at a time when the contradic-
tions involved in the statement that the Salt Sea
had once been the Vale of Siddim could not have
presented themselves to the ancient commentator
who added that explanatory note to the original re-
cord of Gen. xiv. At the same time it must not be
overlooked that: the passage in question is the only
one in the whole Bible—Old Testament, Apocrypha,
or New Testament—to countenance the notion that
the cities of the plain were submerged; a notion which
the present writer has endeavoured elsewhere* to
shew does not date earlier than the Christian era.
50. The writer has there also attempted to
prove that the belief which prompted the state-
ments just quoted from modern writers, viz. that
the Dead Sea was formed by the catastrophe which
overthrew the ‘‘ Cities of the Plain”’—is a mere
assumption. It is not only unsupported by Scripture,
but is directly in the teeth of the evidence of the
sround itself. Of the situation of those cities we only
know that, being in the “ Plain of the Jordan,” they
must have been to the north of the lake. Of the cata-
strophe which destroyed them, we only know that it
is described as a shower of ignited sulphur descending
trom the skies. Its date is uncertain, but we shall
be safe in placing it within the limit of 2000 years
before Christ. Now, how the chasm in which the
Jordan and its lakes were contained was produced
out of the limestone block which forms the main
body of Syria, we are not at present sufficiently in-
formed to know. It may have been the effect of a,
sudden fissureY of dislocation, or of gradual 7 erosion,
or of a combination of both. But there can be no
doubt that, however the operation was performed,
it was of far older date than the time of Abraham,
or any other historic* event. And not only this, but
the details of the geology, so far as we can at present
discern them, all point in a direction opposite to
the popular hypothesis. That hypothesis is to the
effect that the valley was once dry, and at a certain
historic period was covered with water and con-
SEA, THE SALT 1187
verted into a lake. The evidence of the spot goes
to show that the very reverse was the case; the
plateaus and terraces traceable round its sides, the
aqueous deposits of the peninsula and the western
and southern shores, saturated with the salts of their
ancient immersion, speak of a depth at one time
far greater than it is at present, and of a gradual
subsidence, until the present level (the balance, as
already explained, between supply and evaporation)
was reached.
Beyond these and similar tokens of the action of
water, there are no marks of any geological action
nearly so recent as the date of Abraham. Inexpe-
rienced and enthusiastic travellers have reported
craters, lava, pumice, scoriae, as marks of modern
volcanic action, at every step. But these things are
not so easily recognized by inexperienced observers,
nor, if seen, is the deduction trom them so obvious.
The very few competent geologists who have
visited the spot—both those who have published
their observations (as Dr. Anderson, geologist to
the American expedition), and those who have
not, concur in stating that no certain indications
exist in or about the lake, of volcanic action
within the historical or human period, no volcanic
craters, and no coulées of lava traceable to any
vent. The igneous rocks described as lava are more
probably basalt of great antiquity ; the bitumen of
the lake has nothing necessarily to do with volcanic
action. The scorched, calcined look of the rocks
in the immediate neighbourhood, of which so many
travellers have ‘spoken as an evident token of
the conflagration of the cities, is due to natural
causes—to the gradual action of the atmosphere on
the constituents of the stone.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah may
have been by volcanic action, but it may be safely
asserted that no traces of it have yet been disco-
vered, and that, whatever it was, it can have had
no connexion with: that far vaster and far more
ancient event which opened the great valley of the
Jordan and the Dead Sea, and at some subsequent
time cut it off from communication with the Red
Sea by forcing up between them the tract of the
Wady Arabah.4 [G.]
x Under the heads of Sopom, Stppm, Zoar.
y See the remarks of Sir R. Murchison before the B
Association (in Athenaeum, 29 Sept. 1849).
z This is the opinion of Dr. Anderson.
a Dr. Anderson is compelled to infer from the features of
the eastern shore that the Ghor existed ‘‘ before the tertiary
age ’’ (189; and see his interesting remarks on 190, 2).
b This Report is the only document which purports to
give a scientific account of the geology of the Dead Sea.
The author was formerly Professor at Columbia College,
U.S. It forms a part of his Geological Reconnaissance of
those portions of the Holy Land which were visited by
the American Expedition. The writer is not qualified to
pass judgment on its scientific merits, but he can speak
to its fulness and clearness, and to the modesty with
which the author submits his conclusions, and which
contrasts very favourably with the loose bombast in which
the chief of the Expedition is too prone to indulge. Its
usefulness would be greatly inereased by the addition of
sections, showing the order of succession of the strata, and
diagrams of some of the more remarkable phenomena.
© An instance of the loose manner in which these ex-
pressions are used is found in Lynch’s Narrative (283),
where he characterises as “scathed by fire” a rock near
the mouth of the Kidron, which in the same sentence he
states was in rapid progress of disintegration, with a
“sloping hill of half its own height”’ at its base formed
by the dust of its daily decay.
4 There is a slight correspondence, though probably but
a superficial one, between the Dead Sea at the apex of the
Gulf of Akabeh and the Bitter Lakes at the apex of the
Gulf of Suez. Each was probably at one time a portion of
the sea, and each has been cut off by some change in the
elevation of the land, and left to concentrate its waters at a
distance from the parent branch of the ocean. The change
in the latter case was probably far more recent than in the
former, and may even have occurred since the Exodus.
The parallel between the Euxine and the Dead Sea has
been already spoken of. If by some geological change
the strait of the Bosphorus should ever be closed, and the
outlet thus stopped, the parallel would in some respects
be very close—the Danube and the Dnieper would cor-
respond to the Jordan and the Zurka: the Sea of Azov
with the Sivash would answer to the Lagoon and the
Sabkah—the river Don to the Wady el Jeib. “Che process
of adjustment between supply and evaporation would at
once commence, and from the day the straits were closed
the saltness of the water would begin to concentrate. If
further, the evaporation should be greater than the present
supply, the water would sink and sink until the great
Euxine became a little lake in a deep hollow far below
the level of the Mediterranean ; and the parallel would
then be complete.
The likeness between the Jordan with its lakes and the
river of Utah has been so often alluded to, that it need
not be more than mentioned here. See Dr. Buist in
Edin. N. Phil. Journal, April 1855; Burton’s City of the
Saints, 394.
4G 2
1188 SEAL
SEAL. The importance attached to seals in
the East is so great that without one no document
is regarded gs authentic (Layard, Nin. §& Bab. p.
608; Chardin, Voy. v. 454). The use of some
method of sealing is obviously, therefore, of remote
antiquity. Among such methods used in Egypt
at a very early period were engraved stones, pierced
through their length and hung by a string or
chain from the arm or neck, or set in rings for
the finger. ‘The most ancient form used for this
purpose was the scarabaeus, formed of precious
or common stone, or even of blue pottery or
porcelain, on the flat side of which the inscription
or device was engraved. Cylinders of stone or
pottery bearing devices were also used as signets.
One in the Alnwick Museum bears the date of
Osirtasen 1.,
Besides finger-rings, the Egyptians, and also the
Assyrians and Babylonians, made use of cylinders
of precious stone or terra-cotta, which were pro-
bably set in a frame and rolled over the document
which was to be sealed. The document, especially
among the two latter nations, was itself often made
of baked clay, sealed while it was wet and*burnt
afterwards. But in many cases the seal consisted
of a lump of clay, impressed with the seal and
attached to the document, whether of papyrus or
other material, by strings. These clay lumps often
bear the impress of the finger, and also the remains
of the strings by which they had been fastened.
One such found at Nimroud was the seal of Sabaco
king of Egypt, B.c. 711, and another is believed
by Mr. Layard to have been the seal of Sennacherib,
of nearly the same date (Birch, Hist. of Pottery,
i. 101, 118; Wilkinson, Anc. Εν. ii. 341, 364;
Layard, Nin. ¢ Bab, 154-160). In a somewhat
similar manner doors of tombs or other places
intended to be closed were sealed with lumps of
clay. The custom prevalent among the Ba-
bylonians of carrying seals is mentioned by
Herodotus i. 195, who also notices the seals on
tombs, ii. 121; Wilkinson, i. 15, ii. 364; Matt.
xxvil. 66; Dan. vi. 17. The use of clay in sealing
is noticed in the Book of Job xxxviii. 14, and the
signet-ring as an ordinary part of a man’s equip-
ment in the case of Judah (Gen. xxxviii. 18), who
probably, like many modern Arabs, wore it sus-
pended by a string» from his neck or arm. (See
Cant. vili: 6; Ges. pp. 538, 1140; Robinson, i.
36; Niebuhr, Descr. de Ar. p.90; Chardin, /. ὁ.
Olearius, Trav. p. 317; Knobel on Gen. xxxviii. in
Το. Hdb.) The ring or the seal as an emblem
of authority both in Egypt, in Persia, and else-
where, is mentioned in the cases of Pharaoh with
Joseph, Gen. xli. 42; of Ahab, 1 K. xxi. 8; of
Ahasuerus, Esth. iii. 10, 12, viii. 2; of Darius,
Dan. /. ¢., also 1 Mace. vi. 15; Joseph. Ant. xx.
2, §2; Her. iii. 128; Curtius, iii. 6,7; x. 5, 4;
Sandys, Zrav. p. 62; Chardin, ii. 291, v. 451,
462; and as an evidence of a covenant in Jer.
ἘΣΤΙ 04; Neh._ix, 38, x. 1; Hage ἢϊ 2o,
Its general importance is denoted by the meta-
phorical use of the word, Rey. v. 1, ix. 4. Rings
with seals are mentioned in the Mishna, Shabb,
vi, 3, and earth or clay © as used for seals of bags,
or between 2000 and 3000 Be. !
SEBA
viii. 5. Seals of four sorts used in the Temple, as
well as special guardians of them are mentioned in
΄
| Shekal. v. 1.
Among modern Orientals the size and _ place
of the seal vary according to the importance both
of the sender of a letter and of the person to
whom it is sent. In sealing, the seal itself, not
the paper, is smeared with the sealing-substance.
Thus illiterate persons sometimes use the object
nearest at hand—their own finger, or a stick
notched for the purpose—and, daubing it with
ink, smear the paper therewith (Chardin, v. 454,
ix. 347; Arvieux, Zrav. p. 161; Rauwolff, Trav.
in Ray, ii. 61; Niebuhr, /. c.; Robinson, i. p. 36).
Engraved signets were in use among the Hebrews
in early times, as is evident in the description of
the high-priest’s breastplate, Ex. xxviii. 11, 36,
xxxix. 6, and the work of the engraver as a distinct
occupation is mentioned in Ecclus, xxxviii. 27.
[Cuay, i. 337. ] [He ΕΠ
SE'BA (NID: Σαβά, Sonvy: Saba: gent. n.
pl. ΝΞ: Σαβαείμ, Ζαβαείμ: Sabaim: A.V.
incorrectly rendered SABEANS, a name there given
with more probability tothe D'NAL’, Joel ili. 8
[Heb. text, iv. 8]; and to Sheba, used for the people,
Job i. 15; but it would have been better had the
original orthography been followed in both cases by
such renderings as “ people of Seba,” ‘people of
Sheba,’ where the gent. nouns occur). Seba heads
the list of the sons of Cush. If Seba be of Hebrew,
or cognate, origin, it may be connected with the root
NID, “he or it drank, drank to excess,” which would
not be inappropriate to a nation seated, as we shall
‘see was that of Seba, in a well-watered country ;
but the comparison of two other similar names of
Cushites, Sabtah (2D) and Sabtechah (NDAD),
does not favour this’ supposition, as they were pro-
bably seated in Arabia, like the Cushite Sheba
(NAL), which is not remote from Seba (8D), the
two ‘letters being not unfrequently interchanged.
Gesenius has suggested the Ethiopic [If Δ:
sdbéay, “ἃ man,” as the origin of both Seba and
Sheba, but this seems unlikely. The ancient
Egyptian names of nations or tribes, possibly coun-
tries, of Ethiopia, probably mainly, if not wholly,
of Nigritian race, SAHABA, SABARA (Brugsch,
Geogr. Inschr. ii. p. 9, tav. xii. K.1.), are more to
the point; and it is needless to cite later geographical
names of cities, though that of one of the upper con-
fluents of the Nile, Astasobas, compared with Asta-
boras, and Astapus, seems worthy of notice, as per-
haps indicating the name of a nation. The proper
names of the first and second kings of the Ethi-
opian xxvth dynasty of Egypt, SHEBEK (81D)
and SHEBETEK, may also be compared. Gesenius
was led, by anerror of the Egyptologists, to con-
nect Sevechus, a Greek transcription of SHEBETEK,
with SABK or SBAK, the crocodile-headed divinity
ot Ombos (Lex. s. v. δὲ} Ὁ).
The list of the sons of Cush seems to indicate the
position of the Cushite nation or country Seba.
3)
-
ai Onin rete els: σφραγίς, ἀποσφράγισμα;
΄-
annulus (Gen, xxxviii. 25). NINN S. ; δακτύλιος 5 an-
nulus; from onn, “close” or “seal.” Ch. Donn;
σφραγίζομαι ; signum imprimere, signare. ᾿
2. Ring, or signet-ring, NYAL.
3. NPI, Ch. ; δακτύλιος 3 annulus.
b bene; ὅρμισκος ; armilla; A. V. “ bracelet.’
hy
© FID ἽΝ (sce Ges. p. 27).
SEBA
Nimrod, who is mentioned at the close of the list,
ruled at first in Babylonia, and apparently after-
wards in Assyria: of the names enumerated be-
tween Seba and Nimrod, it is highly probable that
some belong to Arabia, We thus may conjecture a
curve of Cushite settlements, one extremity of which
is to be placed in Babylonia, the other, if prolonged
tar enough in accordance with the mention of the
African Cush, in Ethiopia. The more exact position
of Seba will be later discussed.
Besides the mention of Seba in the list of the
sons of Cush (Gen. x. 7; 1 Chr. i. 9), there are
but three, or, as some Hold} four, notides of the
nation. In Psalm Ixxii., which has evidently a
first reference to the reign of Solomon, Seba is thus
spoken of among the distant nations which should do
honour to the king :—‘‘ The kings of Tarshish and
of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba
and Seba shall offer gifts” (10). This mention of
Sheba and Seba together is to be compared with
the occurrence of a Sheba among the descendants of
Cush (Gen. x. 7), and its fulfilment is found in the
queen of Sheba’s coming to Solomon, There can
be little doubt that. the Arabian kingdom of Sheba
was Cushite as well as Joktanite; and this occur-
rence of Sheba and Seba together certainly lends
some support to this view. On the other hand,
the connection of Seba with an Asiatic kingdom is
important in reference to the race of its people,
which, or at least the ruling class, was, no doubt,
not Nigvitian. In Isaiah xliii., Seba is spoken of
with Egypt, and more particularly with Cush,
apparently with some reference to the Exodus,
where we read: “1 gave Egypt [for] thy ransom,
Cush and Seba for thee” (3). Here, to render Cush
by Ethiopia, as in the A. V., is perhaps to miss the
sense of the passage, which does not allow us to
infer, though it is by no means impossible, that
Cush, as a geographical designation, includes Seba,
as it would do if here meaning Ethiopia. Later in
the book there is a passage parallel in its indica-
tions: ‘The labour of Egypt, and merchandize of
Cush, and of the people οἵ Seba, men of stature,
shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine”’
(xlv. 14). Here there is the same mention to-
gether of the three nations, and the same special
association of Cush and Seba. The great stature
and beauty of the Ethiopians is mentioned by
Herodotus, who speaks of them as by report the
tallest and handsomest men in the world (iii. 20;
comp. 114); and in the present day some of the
tribes of the dark races of a type intermediate be-
tween the Nigritians and the Egyptians, as well
as the Caucasian Abyssinians, are remarkable tor
their fine form, and certain of the former for their
height. The doubtful notice is in Ezekiel, in a
difficult passage: “ and with men of the multi-
tude of Adam [were] brought drunkards [Ὁ ὁ Δ,
but the Keri reads D°S2D, ‘ people of Seba’]
from the wilderness, which put bracelets upon oat
hands, and beautiful crowns npon their heads”
(xxiii. 42). The first clause would seem to 1: ἢ
the idea that a nation is meant, but the reading of
the text is rather supported by what follows the
mention of the “drunkards.” Nor is it clear why
people of Seba should come from the wilderness.
The passages we have examined thus seem to show
(if we omit the last) that Seba was a nation of
a The reading of the A. V. in the text is, “ with the men
of the common sort,’ and in the margin, “ with the men | Schacha, .or Sachachi).
of the multitude of men.’
SECACAH 1189
Africa, bordering on or included in Cush, and in
Solomon’s time independent and of’ political imaport-
ance. We are thus able to conjecture the posi-
tion of Seba. No ancient Ethiopian kingdom of
importance could have excluded the island ot Meioé,
and therefore this one of Solomon’s time may be
identified with that which must have arisen in
the period of weakness and division of Egypt that
followed the Empire, and have laid the basis of
that power that made SHEBEK, or Sabaco, able to
conquer Egypt, and found the Ethiopian dynasty
which ruled that country as well as Ethiopia.
Josephus says that Saba (SaBa) was the ancient
name of the Ethiopian island and city of Mercé
(A. J. ii. 10, §2), but he writes Seba, in the notice
of the Noachian settlements, Sabas (Jd. i. 6, §2).
Certainly the kingdom of Meroé succeeded that ot
Seba; and the ancient city of the same name may
have been the capital, or one of the capitais, of
Seba, though we do not find any of its monuments
to be even as early as the xxvth dynasty. There
can be no connection between the two names.
According to Josephus and others, Meroé was
named after a sister of Cambyses ; but this is ex-
tremely unlikely, and we prefer taking it from the
ancient Egyptian MERU, an island, which occurs
in the name of a part of Ethiopia that can only be
this or a similar tract, MERU-PET, “the island of
PET [Phut ?] the bow,’ where the bow may have
a geographical reference to a bend of the river, and
the word island, to the country enclosed by that
bend and a tributary [Puur].
As Meroé, from its fertility, must have been
the most important portion of any Ethiopian king-
dom in the dominions of which it was included,
it may be well here to mention the chief facts re-
specting it which are known, It may be remarked
that it seems certain that, from a remote time,
Ethiopia below Meroé could never have formed a
separate powerful kingdom, and was probably
always dependent upon either Meroé or Egypt.
The island of Meroé lay between the Astaboras, the
Atbara, the most northern tributary of the Nile, and
the Astapus, the Bahr el-Azrak or “ Blue Ri er,
the eastern of its two great confluents; it is also
described as bounded by the Astaboras, the Astapus,
and the Astasobas, the latter two uniting to form the
Blue River (Str. xvii. p. 821), but this is essentially
the same thing. It was in the time of the kingdom
rich and productive. The chief city was Meroé,
where was an oracle of Jupiter Ammon. Modern
research confirms these particulars. The country
is capable of being-rendered very wealthy, though
its neighbourhood to Abyssinia has checked its com-
merce in that direction, from the natural diead that
the Abyssinians have of their country being absorbed
like Kurdutéin, Dérfoor, and Fayzéglu, by their
powerful neighbour Egypt. The remains of the city
Meroé have not been identified with certainty, but
between N. lat. 16° and 179, temples, one of them
dedicated to the ram-headed Num, confounded with
Ammon by the Greeks, and pyramids, indicate that
there must have been a great population, and at
least one important city. When ancient writers
speak of sovereigns of Meroé, they may either mean
rulers of Meroé alone, or, in addition, of Ethiopia to
the north nearly as far or as far as Egypt. [R.S. P.]
SE'BAT. [Monru.] °
SEC’ACAH (7220: Αἰοχιόζα; Alex. Soxoxa:
One of the six cities of
Judah which were situated in the Jidbar (‘ wilder-
1190 SECHENIAS
ness’’), that is the tract bordering on the Dead Sea
(Josh. xv. 61). It occurs in the list between
Middin and han-Nibshan. It was not known to
Eusebius and Jerome, nor has the name been yet
encountered in that direction in more modern times.
From Sinjil, among the highlands of Ephraim, near
Seiliin, Dr. Robinson saw a place called Sekakeh
(B. R. ii. 267, note). [G.]
SECHENT’AS (Σεχενίας : Scecilias). 1.SHE-
CHANTAH (1 Esd. viii. 29; comp. Ezr. viii. 3).
2. (Jechonias.) SHECHANIAH (1 Esd. viii. 32;
comp. Ezr. viii. 5).
SE'CHU (130, with the article: ἐν τῷ Σεφεί;
Alex. ἐν Soxxw: Soccho). A place mentioned
once only (1 Sam. xix. 22), apparently as lying
on the route between Saul’s residence, Gibeah, and
Ramah (Ramathaim Zophim), that of Samuel. It
was notorious for “ὁ the great well” (or rather cis-
tern, 112) which it contained. The name is derivable
from a root signifying elevation, thus perhaps imply-
ing that the place was situated on an eminence.
Assuming that Saul started from Gibeah (Tuleil
el- Ful), and that Neby Samwil is Ramah, then Bir
Neballa (the well of Neballa), alleged by a modern
traveller (Schwarz, 127) to contain a large pit,
would be in a suitable position for the great well
of Sechu. Schwarz would identify it with Askar,
on the 5.E. end of Mount Ebal, and the well with
Jacob’s Well in the plain below; and Van de Velde
(S. & P. ii. 53, 4) hesitatingly places it at Shih,
in the mountains of Judah N.E. of Hebron; but
this they are forced into by their respective theories
as to the position of Ramathaim Zophim.
The Vat. LXX. alters the passage, and has “the
well of the threshing-floor that is in Sephei,” sub-
stituting, in the first case, 1 for bs), or ἅλω
for μεγάλου, and in the latter "ΒΔ for 13. The
Alex. MS., as usual, adheres more closely to the
Hebrew. [6.1
SECUN’DUS (Σεκοῦνδος : Secundus) was one
of the party who went with the Apostle Paul from
Corinth as far as Asia (ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας), probably
to Troas or Miletus (all of them so far, some fur-
ther), on his return to Jerusalem from his third
missionary tour (see Acts, xx. 4). He and Ari-
starchus are there said to have been Thessalonians.
He is otherwise unknown. [ἘΞ B. H.]
SEDECI'AS (Σεδεκίας : Sedecias), the Greek
form of Zedekiah. 1. A man mentioned in Bar.
i. 1 as the father of Maaseiah, himself the grand-
father of Baruch, and apparently identical with the
fulse prophet in Jer. xxix. 21, 22.
2. The “son of Josiah, king of Judah” (Bar.
i.8). [ZEDEKIAH. | [B. F. W.]
SEER. [Propuet.]
SE'GUB (3 ; Kri, aw: Σεγούβ : Segub).
1. The youngest son of Hiel the Bethelite, who
rebuilt Jericho (1 K. xvi. 34). According to Rab-
binical tradition he died when his father had set up
the gates of the city. One story says that his
tather slew him as a sacrifice on the same occasion.
2. (Σερούχ ; Alex. ZeyovB.) Son of Hezron, by
the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead (1 Chr.
ii. 21, 22),
SEIR, MOUNT (YY, “yough”’ or “rugged :”
Σηείρ: Scir). We have both yy YON, “land
of Seir” (Gen. xxxii, ὃ, xxxvi. 30), and py ἽΠ,
“¢ Mount Seir” (Gen. xiv. 6). 1. The original name
of the mountain ridge extending along the east side ot
SEIR, MOUNT
the valley of Arabah, from the Dead Sea to the Elan-
itic Gulf. The name may either have been derived
from Seir the Horite, who appears to have been the
chief of the aboriginal inhabitants (Gen. xxxvi. 20),
or, what is perhaps more probable, from the rough
aspect of the whole country. The view from
Aaron’s tomb on Hor, in the centre of Mount Seir,
is enough to show the appropriateness of the appel-
lation. The sharp and serrated ridges, the jagged
rocks and cliffs, the straggling bushes and stunted
trees, give the whole scene a sternness and rugged-
ness almost unparalleled. In the Samaritan Penta-
teuch, instead of WYW, the name mb33 is used ;
and in the Jerusalem Targum, in place of ““ Mount
Seir” we find NDI NY, Mount Gabla. ‘The
word Gabla signifies “‘ mountain,” and is thus de-
scriptive of the region (Reland, Pal. p. 83). The
name Gebala, or Gebalene, was applied to this pro-
vince by Josephus, and also by Eusebius and Jerome
(Joseph. Ant. ii. 1, §2; Onomast. “ Idumaea”).
The northern section of Mount Seir, as far as Petra,
is still called Jebal, the Arabic form of Gebal. The ©
Mount Seir of the Bible extended much farther
south than the modern province, as is shown by the
words of Deut. ii. 1-8. In fact its boundaries are
there defined with tolerable exactness. It had the
Avabah on the west (vers. 1 and 8); it extended as
far south as the head of the Gulf of Akabah (ver. 8) ;
its eastern border ran along the base of the moun-
tain range where the plateau of Arabia begins. Its
northern border is not so accurately determined.
The land of Israel, as described by Joshua, extended
from “the Mount Halak that goeth up to Seir,
even unto Baal Gad” (Josh. xi. 17). As no part of
Edom was given to Israel, Mount Halak must have
been upon its northern border. Now there is a line
of ‘‘naked” (halak signified ‘‘ naked”’) white hills
or clitfs which runs across the great valley about
eight miles south of the Dead Sea, forming the divi-
sion between the Arabah proper and the deep Ghor
north of it. The view of these clitts, from the shore
of the Dead Sea, is very striking. They appear as
a line of hills shutting in the valley, and extending
up to the mountains of Seir, The impression left
by them on the mind of the writer was that this is the
very ‘ Mount Halak, that coeth up to Seir” (Robin-
son, B. #. ii. 113, &e.; see Keil on Josh. xi. 17).
The northern border of the modern district of Jebal
is Wady el-Ahsy, which falls into the Ghor a few
miles farther north (Burckhardt, Syr. p. 401).
In Deut. xxxiii. 2, Seir appears to be connected
with Sinai and Paran; but a careful consideration
of that difficult passage proves that the connexion
is not a geographical one. Moses there only sums
up the several glorious manifestations of the Divine
Majesty to the Israelites, without regard either to
time or place (comp. Judg. v. 4, 5). :
Mount Seir was originally inhabited by the
Horites, or “ troglodytes,” who were doubtless the
excavators of those singular rock-dwellings found
in such numbers in the ravines and cliffs around
Petra. They were dispossessed, and apparently
annihilated, by the posterity of Esau, who “ dwelt
in their stead” (Deut. ii. 12). The history of Seir
thus early merges into that of Edom. Though the
country was afterwards called Edom, yet the older
name, Seir, did not pass away: it is frequently
mentioned in the subsequent history of the Israelites
(1 Chr. iv. 42; 2 Chr. xx. 10). Mount Seir is
the subject of a terrible prophetic curse pronounced
by Ezekiel (chap. xxxv.), which seems now to be
literally fulfilled :— Thus saith the Lord God,
SEIRATH
Behold, O Mount Seir, I am against thee, and I will
make thee most desolate. I will lay thy cities
waste, . . . when the whole earth rejoiceth I will
make thee desolate. . . . I will make thee perpetual
desolations, and thy cities shall not return, and ye
shall know that Iam the Lord.” [so Ley
2. (WY AI: ὄρος ᾿Ασσάρ ;* Alex. ὁ. Sneip:
Mons Seir). An entirely different place from the
foregoing; one of the landmarks on the north
boundary of the territory of Judah (Josh. xv. 10
only). It lay westward of Kirjath-jearim, and
between it and Beth-shemesh. If Auriet οἱ Enab
be the former, and Ain-shems the latter of these
two, then Mount Seir cannot fail to be the ridge
which lies between the Wady Aly and the Wad,
Ghurab (Rob. iii. 155), A village called Saris >
stands on the southern site of this ridge, which
Tobler (3tte Wanderung, 203) and Schwarz (97)
would identify with Seir. The obstacle to this is
that the names are radically ¢ different. The Swirah
; (syarw) on the south of the Wady Surar (Rob.
B. R. 1st edit. ii, 364), is nearer in orthography,
but not so suitable in position.
How the name of Seir came to be located so far
to the north of the main seats of the Seirites we
have no means of knowing. Perhaps, like other
names occurring in the tribe of Benjamin, it is a
monument of an incursion by the Edomites which
has escaped record. [OPHNI, &c.] But it is more
probable that it derived its name from some pecu-
liarity in the form or appearance of the spot. Dr.
Robinson (155), apparently without intending any
allusion to the name of Seir, speaks of the “rugged
points which composed the main ridge” of the
mountain in question, Such is the meaning of the
Hebrew word Seir. Whether there is any connec-
tion between this mountain and SEIRATH or has-
Seirah (see the next article) is doubtful. The name is
not a common one, and it is not unlikely that it may
have been attached to the more northern continua-
tion of the hills of Judah which ran up into Benjamin
—or, as it was then called, Mount Ephraim. [G.]
SEI'RATH (1) YW, with the definite article :
ἃ Σετειρωθά ; Alex. Σεειρωθα : Seirath). The place
to which Ehud fled after his murder of Eglon
(Judg. iii. 26), and whither, by blasts of his cow-
horn, he collected his countrymen for the attack of
the Moabites in Jericho (27). It was in ‘ Mount
Ephraim ” (27), a continuation, perhaps, of the same
wooded shaggy hills (such seems to be the signifi-
cation of Seir, and Seirath) which stretched even
so far south as to enter the territory of Judah
(Josh. xv. 10). The definite article prefixed to
the name in the original shows that it was a well-
known spot in its day. It has, however, hitherto
escaped observation in modern times. [G.]
" SE'LA and SE'LAH (yp, or yOpm: πέτρα,
or 4 πέτρα), 2 K. xiv. 7; Is. xvi. 1: rendered
“the rock” in the A. V., in Judg. i. 36, 2 Chr.
Ἃ Ασσάρ. This looks as if the Heb. name had once
had the article prefixed.
Ὁ Possibly the Swpy%s which, in the Alex. MS., is one of
the eleven names inserted by the LX X. in Josh.xv.59. The
neighbouring names agree. In the Vat. MS. it is ᾿Ἐωβής.
= un Las is the orthography of Saris (Lists of Dr.
Smith in ist ed. of Robinson, iii. App. 123), containing no
Ain and a duplicate 5.
4 This is the reading of the Vat Codex according to
Mai. If accurate, it furnishes an instance of the Ν᾽ being
represented by τ, which is of the greatest rarity, and is
SELA-HAM-MAHLEKOTH 1191
xxy. 12, Obad. 3. Probably the city later known
as Petra, 500 Roman miles from Gaza (Plin. vi.
32), the ruins of which are found about two days’
journey N. of the top of the gulf of Akaba, and
three or four S. from Jericho. It was in the
midst of Mount Seir, in the neighbourhood of
Mount Hor (Joseph. Ant. iv. 4, §7), and therefore
Edomite territory, taken by Amaziah, and called
JOKTHEEL (not therefore to be confounded with
Joktheel, Josh. xv. 38, which pertained to Judah
in the time of Joshua), but seems to have after-
wards come under the dominion of Moab. In the
end of the fourth century B.C. it appears as the
head-quarters of the Nabathaeans, who successfully
resisted the attacks of Antigonus (Diod. Sic. xix.
731, ed. Hanov. 1604), and under them became
one of the greatest stations for the approach of
Eastern commerce to Rome (ib. 94; Strabo, xvi.
799; Apul. Flor.i. 6). About 70 B.c. Petra ap-
pears as the residence of the Arab princes named
Aretas (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 1, §4, and 5, §1; B. J.
i. 6, §2, and 29, $3). It was by Trajan reduced to
subjection to the Roman empire (Dion Cass. lxviii.
14), and from the next emperor received the name
of Hadriana.¢ as appears from the legend of a coin.
Josephus (Ant. iv. 4, §7) gives the name of Arce
(“Aprn) as an earlier synonym for Petra, where,
however, it is probable that ᾿Αρκήμ or ᾿Αρκέμ!
(alleged by Euseb. Onom., as found in Josephus)
should be read. The city Petra lay, though at a
high level,£ in a hollow shut in by mountain-clifis,
and approached only by a narrow ravine through
which, and across the city’s site, the river winds
(Plin. vi. 325 Strabo, xvi. 779). The principal
ruins are—l, el Khuzneh; 2. the theatre; 3. a
tomb with three rows of columns; 4. a tomb with
a Latin inscription; 5. ruined bridges; 6. a tii-
umphal arch; 7. Zub Far’én; 8. Kiisr Βα θη;
and are chiefly known by the illustrations of La-
borde and Linant, who also thought that they
traced the outline of a naumachia or theatre for
sea-fights, which would be flooded from cisterns,
in which the water of the torrents in the wet season
had been reserved—a remarkable proof, if the hy-
pothesis be correct, of the copiousness of the water-
supply, if properly husbanded, and a confirmation
of what we are told of the exuberant fertility of the
region, and its contrast to the barren Arabah on its
immediate west (Robinson, ii. 169). Prof. Stanley
(S. & P. 95) leaves little doubt that Petra was the
seat of a primeval sanctuary, which he fixes at the
spot now called the “ Deir” or ““ Convent,”’ and
with which fact the choice of the site of Aaron’s
tomb may, he thinks, have been connected (96). As
regards the question of its identity with Kadesh, see
KADESH; and, for the general subject, Ritter, xiv. 69,
997 foll., and Robinson, ii. 1. [H. H.]
SELA -5HAM-MAHLEKOTH (i. 6. “ the
cliff of escapes’ or “ of divisions,” niponn yop:
πέτρα ἣ μερισθεῖσα, in both MSS.: Petra divi
not mentioned by Frankel (Vorstudien, &c.112). γ and
« are the ordinary equivalents of }j in the LXX.
© Nummi in quibus AAPIANH ΠΗΤΡᾺ MHTPO-
TIOAIS, Reland, s. v.
f Eusebius (Onom.), under a later article, identifies Petra
and “Pexeu, which appears (Num. xxxi. 8) as the name ΟἹ
a Midianitish prince (see Stanley, S. & P. p. 94, nete).
& Robinson (ii. 124) computes the Wady Mousa as about
2000 feet or more above the Arabah.
h Qne of the few cases in which the Hebrew article has
been retained in our translation. Ham-moleketh and
Helkath haz-Zurim are examples cf the same.
1192 SELAH
dens). A rock or cliff in the wilderness of Maon,
the scene of one of those remarkable escapes which
are so frequent in the history of Saul’s pursuit of
David (1 Sam. xxiii, 28). Its name, if interpreted
as Hebrew, signifies the “ cliff of escapes,” or “ of
divisions.” The former is the explanation of
Gesenius { Thes. 485), the latter of the Targum
and the ancient Jewish interpreters (Midrash ;
Rashi). he escape is that of David; the divi-
sions are those of Saul’s mind undecided whether
to remain in pursuit of his enemy or to go after
the Philistines; but such explanations, though
appropriate to either interpretation, and con-
sistent with the Oriental habit of playing on
words, are doubtless mere accommoiations. The
analory of topographical nomenclature makes it
almost certain that this cliff must have derived its
name either from its smoothness (the radical mean-
ing of pbn) or from some peculiarity of shape or
position, such as is indicated in the translations of
the LXX. and Vulgate. No identification has yet
been suggested. [G.]
SE'LAH (79D).
found in the poetical books of the Old Testament,
occurs seventy-one times in the Psalms, and three |
times in Habakkuk.
once, in fifteen twice, in seven three times, and in
one tour times—always at the end of a verse, ex-
cept in Ps. ly. 19 [20], lvii. 3 [4], and Hab. iit.
Ὁ, 9, where it is in the middle, though at the end
of a clause. All the Psalms in which it occurs,
except eleven (111. vii. xxiv. xxxil. xlviii. 1. Ixxxii.
Ixxxiil. Ixxxvii. Ixxxix. exliii.), have also the musical
direction, “‘to the Chief Musician”? (comp. also
Hab. iii. 19); and in these exceptions we find the
words “Ht, mizmor (A.V. * Psalm”’), Shiggaion,
or Maschil, which sufficiently indicate that they
were intended for music. Besides these, in the
titles of the Psalms in which Selah occurs, we meet
with the musical terms Alamoth (xlvi.), Altaschith
(vii. lix. Ixxv.), Gittith (Ixxxi. Ixxxiv.), Maha-
lath Leannoth (Ixxxviii.), Michtam (lvii. lix. ]x.),
Neginah (Ixi.), Neginoth (iv. liv. lv. xvii. Ixxvi.;
comp. Hab. iii. 19), and Shushan-eduth (Ix.); and
on this association alone might be formed a strong
presumption that, like these, Selah itself is a term
which had a meaning in the musical nomenclature
of the Hebrews. What that meaning may have
been is now a matter of pure conjecture. Of the
many theories which have been framed, it is easier
to say what is not likely to be the true one than to
pronounce certainly upon what is. The Versions
are tirst deserving of attention.
In by far the greater number of instances the
Targum renders the word by pooye, lé’almin,
“ for ever ;” four times (Ps. xxxii. 4, 7; xxxix. 11
[12]; 4 [6]) NDPYP, ἐδ αἰνιᾶ ; once (Ps. sliv. se)
pooy maby, 18; almé ’almin ; and (Ps. xlviii.
[9]) obey maby WY, “ad “ald “aluin, with the
same meaning, “for ever and ever.” In Ps, xlix.
13 [14] ithas "NNT NOPYP, [alma death, «for
the world to come ; 2 in Ps. xxxix. 5 [6] ρον par
lechayye ‘alma, “ for the life ev erlasting ;’ 2
ΒΕ ΟΧΙ Ὁ > 6] NTA, tédira, “ continually.”
and in
This
8 Except in Ps. ix. 16 [11] Ixxv. 3 [4], lxxvi. 3, 9
[1,10], where Ed. 5ta has ἀεί, Ps. xxi. 2 [3], where it has
διηνεκῶς, and in Hab. iii. 3,13, where it reproduces the
This word, which is only |
In sixteen Psalms ἯΙ is found |
SELAH
interpretation, which is the one adopted by the
majority of Rabbinical writers, is purely traditional,
and based upon no etymology whatever, It is fol-
lowed by Aquila, who renders “Selah” ἀεί ; by the
Editio quinta and Editio sexta, which give respec-
tively διαπαντός and εἰς TéAos;* by Symmachus
(eis τὸν αἰῶνα) and Theodotion (εἰς τέλος), in
Habakkuk; by the reading of the Alex. MS. (εἰς
τέλος) in Hab. iii. 13; by the Peshito-Syriac in
Ps. iii. 8 [9], iv. 2 [3], xxiv. 10, and Hab. iii. 13;
and by Jerome, who has semper. In Ps. ly. 19 [20]
APD DIP, Aedem seldh, is rendered in the Peshito
“from before the world.’ That this rendering is
manifestly inappropriate in some passages, as for
instance Ps. xxi. 2 [3], xxxii. 4, Ixxxi. 7 [8], and
Hab. iii. 3, and superfluous in others, as Ps. xliv.
8 [91], Ixxxiv. 4 [5], Ixxxix. 4 [5], was pointed out
long since by Aben Ezra. In the Psalms the uni-
form rendering of the LXX. is διάψαλμα. Sym-
machus and Theodotion give the same, except in
Ps. ix. 16 [17], where Theodotion has ἀεί, and
Ps. lii. 5 [7], where Symmachus has eis ἀεί. In
Hab. iii. 13, the Alex. MS. gives eis τέλος. In Ps.
xxxviii. (in LXX.) 7, Ixxx. 7 [8], διάψαλμα is added
| in the LXX., and in Hab. iii. 7 in the Alex. MS. In
Ps. lvii. it is put at the end of ver. 2; and in Ps.
iii. 8 [9], xxiv. 10, lxxxviii. 10 [11], it is omitted
altogether. In all passages except those already
referred to, in which it follows the Targum, the
Peshito-Syriac has OODAY, an abbreviation for
διάψαλμα. This abbreviation is added in Ps. xlviii.
13 [14], 1. 15 [16], Ixviii. 13 [14], lvii. 2, Ixxx.
7 [8], at the end of the verse; and in Ps. lii. 3 in
the middle of the verse after rip; in Ps. xlix, it
is put after JNBD in ver. 14 [15], and in Ps. Ixviii.
after neiyy in ver. 8 [9], and after ody in
ver. 32 iB 8]. The Vulgate omits it entirely, while
in Hab. iii. 3 the Hditio sexta and others give
μεταβυλὴ διαψάλματος.
The rendering διάψαλμα of the LXX. and other
translators is in every way as traditional as that of
the Targum “for ever,” and has no foundation in
any known etymology. With regard to the mean-
ing of διάψαλμα itself there are many opinions.
Both Origen (Comm. ad Ps., Opp. ed. Delarue, ii.
516) and Athanasius (Synops. Script. Sacr. xiii.)
are silent upon this point. Eusebius of Caesarea
(Praef. in Ps.) says it marked those passages in
which the Holy Spirit ceased for a time to work
upon the choir. Gregory of Nyssa (Zract. 2 in
Ps. cap. x.) interprets it as a sudden lull in the
midst of the psalmody, in order to receive anew
the Divine inspiration, Chrysostom (Opp. ed.
Montfaucon, y. p. 540) takes it to indicate the
portion of the psalm which was given to another
choir. Augustine (on Ps. iv.) regards it as an
interval of silence in the psalmody. Jerome (Zp.
ad Marcellam) enumerates the various opinions
which have been held upon the subject; that
diapsalma denotes a change of metre, a cessation
of the Spirit’s influence, or the beginning of another
sense. Others, he says, regard it as indicating a
difference of rhythm, and the silence of some kind
of music in the choir; but for himself he falls
back upon the version of Aquila, and renders Selah
by semper, with a reference to the custom of the
Hebrew σελά. In Ps. ix. 16 [17] Editio θέα has ἀεί,
in Ps. Ixxv. 3 [4] διαπαντός, and in Ps, Ixxvi. 3 [4] εἰς τὸ
τέλος.
SELAH
Jews to put at the end of their writings Amen,
Selah, or Shalom. In his commentary on Ps. iii.
he is doubtful whether to regard it as simply a
musical sign, or as indicating the perpetuity of the
truth contained in the passage after which it is
placed ; so that, he says, ‘* wheresoever Selah, that
is diapsalma or semper, is put, there we may know
that what follows, as well as what precedes, belong
not only to the present time, but to eternity.”
Theodoret (Praef. in Ps.) explains diapsalma by
μέλους μεταβολή or ἐναλλαγή (as Suidas), “a
change of the melody.” On the whole, the ren-
dering διάψαλμα rather increases the difficulty, for
it does not appear to be the true meaning of Selah,
and its own signification is obscure.
Leaving the Versions and the Fathers, we come
to the Rabbinical writers, the majority of whom
follow the Targum and the dictum of R. Eliezer
(Talm. Babl. Hrubin, v. p. 54) in rendering Selah
“for ever.” But Aben Ezra (on Ps. iii. 3) showed
that in some passages this rendering was inappro-
priate, and expressed his own opinion that Selah
was a word of emphasis, used to give weight and
importance to what was said, aud to indicate its
truth :--- But the right explanation is that the
meaning of Selah is like ‘ so it is” or ‘thus,’ and
‘the matter is true and right.’” Kimchi (Lee.
s. v.) doubted whether it had any special meaning
at all in connexion with the sense of the passage in
which it was found, and explained it as a musical
He derives it from 2b, to raise, elevate,
with 1 paragogic, and inter prets it as signifying
a raising or elevating the voice, as much as to say in
this place there was an elevation of the voice in song.
Among modern writers there is the same diversity
of opinion. Gesenius (Zhes. s. v.) derives Selah
from Te Ὁ, salah, to suspend, of which he thinks
term.
it is the ‘imperative Kal, with M paragogic, ΠΡΌ,
in pause ΠΡΌ. But this form is supported by no
parallel instance. In accordance with his deriv ation,
which is harsh, he interprets Selah to mean either,
“* suspend the voice,” that is, “ be silent,” a hint to
the singers; or “raise, elevate the stringed instru-
ments.” In either case he regards it as denoting a
pause in the song, which was filled up by an inter-
lude played by the choir of Levites. Ewald (Die
Dichter des A. B. i. 179) arrives at substantially
the same result ἘΣ a different process. He derives
Selah from Ded, sdlal, to rise, whence the sub-
stantive Sp, Eich with paragogic becomes in
pause 1 mop (comp. 11, from i, root 7771, Gen.
xiv. 10): So far as the form of the word is con-
cerned, this derivation is more tenable than the
former. Ewald regards the phrase “ Higgaion,
Selah,” in Ps. ix. 16 [17], as the full form, signi-
fying * music, strike up !’—an indication that the
voices of the choir were to cease while the instru-
ments alone camein. Hengstenberg follows Gesenius,
De Wette, and others, in the rendering pause! but
refers it to the contents of the psalm, and under-
stands it of the silence of the music in order to give
room for quiet reflection. If this were the case,
Selah at the end of a psalm would be superfluous.
The same meaning of pause or end is arrived at by
Fiirst (Handw. 5. v.), who derives Selah from a root
ned, sdlah, to cut off (a meaning which is per-
fectly arbitrary), whence the substantive bp, sél,
which with M paragogic becomes in pause nbp ; a
ἃ μάγον
SELAH 1193
form which is without parallel. While etymologists
have recourse to such shifts as these, it can scarcely
be expected that the true meaning of the word
will be evolved by their investigations. Indeed the
question is as far from solution as ever. Beyond
the fact that Selah is a musical term, we know
absolutely nothing about it, and are entirely in the
dark as to its meaning. Sommer (B7b/. Abhandl.
1-84) has devoted an elaborate discourse to its
explanation. After observing that Selah every-
where appears to mark critical moments in the reli-
gious consciousness of the Israelites, and that the
music was employed to give expression to the
energy of the poet’s sentiments on these occasions,
he (p. 40) arrives at the conclusion that the word
is used “in those passages where, in the Temple
Song, the choir of priests, who stood opposite to
the stage occupied by the Levites, were to raise
their trumpets (22D), and with the strong tones
of this instrument mark the words just spoken, and
bear them upwards to the hearing of Jehovah. Pro-
bably the Levite minstrels supported this priestly
intercessory music by vigorously striking their
harps and psalteries; whence the Greek expression
διάψαλμα. To this points, moreover, the fuller
direction, ‘ Higgaion, Selah’ (Ps. ix. 16); the first
word of which denotes the whirr of the stringed
instruments (Ps. xcii. 4), the other the raising of
the trumpets, both which were here to sound
together. The less important Higgaion fell away,
when the expression was abbreviated, and Selah
alone remained.” Dr. Davidson (Jntrod. to the
O. T. ii. 248) with good reason rejects this ex-
planation as laboured and artificial, though it is
adopted by Keil in Havernick’s Linleitung (iii.
120-129). He shows that in some passages (as
Ps, xxxii. 4, 5, lii. 3, lv. 7, 8) the playing of the
priests on the trumpets would be unsuitable, and
proposes the following as his own solution of the
difficulty :—‘* The word denotes elevation or ascent,
i.e, loud, clear. The music which commonly ac-
companied the singing was soft and feeble. In cases
where it was to burst in more strongly during the
silence of the song, Selah was the sign. At the end
of a verse or strophe, where it commonly stands,
the music may have readily been strongest and
loudest.” It may be remarked of this, as of all the
other explanations which have been given, that it
is mere conjecture, based on an etymology which,
in any other language than Hebrew, would at once
be rejected as unsound. A few other opinions may
be noticed as belonging to the history of the sub-
ject. Michaelis, in despair at being unable to assign
any meaning to the word, regarded it as an abbre-
viation, formed by taking the first or other letters
of three other words (Suppl. ad Lex. Hebr.),
though he declines to conjecture what these may
have been, and rejects at once the guess of Mei-
bomius, who extracts the meaning da capo from
the three words which he suggests. For other con-
jectures of this kind, see Eichhorn’s Bibliothek, v.
545. Mattheson was of opinion that the pas-
sages where Selah occurred were repeated either by
the instruments or by another choir: hence he took
it as equal to ritornello. Herder regarded it as
marking a change of key ; while Paulus Burgensis
and Schindler assigned to it no meaning, but looked
upon it as an enclitie word used to fill up the verse.
Buxtorf (Lev, Hebr.) derived it from ΠΡΌ, salah,
to spread, lay low:
the voice, like piano.
hence used as a sign to lower
In Kichhorn’s Gibliothek
1194 SELED
(v. 550) it is suggested that Selah may perhaps
signify a scale in music, or indicate a rising or
falling in the tone. Késter (Stud. und Krit, 1831)
saw in it only a mark to indicate the strophical
divisions of the Psalms, but its position in the
middle of verses is against this theory. Augusti
(Pract, Einl. in d. Ps. p. 125) thought it was an
exclamation, like hallelujah! and the same view
was taken by the late Prof. Lee (Heb. Gr. §243, 2),
who classes it among the interjections, and renders
it praise! “ For my own part,” he says, “I be-
‘he
blessed,’ &c., and used not unlike the Word amen,
or the dowxology, among ourselves.” If any further
information be sought on this hopeless snbject, it
may be found in the treatises contained in Ugolini,
vol. xxii., in Noldius (Concord. Part. Ann. et Vind.
No. 1877), in Saalschtitz (Hebr. Poes. p. 346), and
in the essay of Sommer quoted above. [W. A. W.]
SEL'ED (15D: Σαλάδ: Saled). One of the
sons of Nadab, a descendant of Jerahmeel (1 Chr.
ii. 30).
SELEMI'A (Salemia). One of the five men
“ready to write swiftly,” whom Esdras was com-
manded to take (2 Usd. xiv. 24).
SELEMI'AS (SeAeulas : om. in Vulg.), SHE-
LEMIAH of the sons of Bani (1 Esd. ix. 34; comp.
Hzr. x. 39).
SELEUCI'A (Σελεύκε.α : Seleucia) was prac-
tically the seaport of ANTIOCH, as Ostia was of
Rome, Neapolis of Philippi, Cenchreae of Corinth,
and the Piraeus of Athens. The river Orontes,
lieve it to be descended from the root ᾿
after flowing past Antioch, entered the sea not |
far from Seleucia. The distance between the two
towns was about 16 miles. We are expressly
told that St. Paul, in company with Barnabas,
sailed from Seleucia at the beginning of his first
missionary circuit (Acts xiii. 4); and it is almost
certain that he landed there on his return from
it (xiv. 26). The name of the place shows at
_ once that its history was connected with that
line of Seleucidae who reigned at Antioch from
the death of Alexander the Great to the close of
the Roman Republic, and whose dynasty had so
close a connexion with Jewish annals. This strong
fortress and convenient seaport was in fact con-
structed by the first Seleucus, and here he was
buried. It retained its importance in Roman times,
and in St. Paul’s day it had the privileges of a free
city (Plin. H. N. v.18). The remains are nu-
merous, the most considerable being an iminense
excavation extending from the higher part of the
city to the sea: but to us the most interesting are
the two piers of the old harbour, which still bear
the names of Paul and Barnabas. The masonry
continues so good, that the idea of clearing out and
repairing the harbour has recently been entertained.
Accounts of Seleucia will be found in the narrative
of the Huphrates Expedition by General Chesney,
and in his papers in the Journal of the Royal Geo-
graphical Society, and also in a paper by Dr. Yates
in the Museum of Classical Antiquities. [J.S.H.]
SELEU'CUS (Ξέλευκος : Seleucus) 1V. Philo-
pator, “king of Asia”’ (2 Mace. iii. 3), that is, of
the provinces included in the Syrian monarchy, ac-
cording to the title claimed by the Seleucidae, even
when they had lost their footing in Asia Minor
(comp. 1 Mace. viii. 6, xi. 13, xii. 39, xiii. 32), was
|
SENAAH
the son and successor of Antiochus the Great. He
took part in the disastrous battle of Magnesia (B.C.
190), and three years afterwards, on the death of
his father, ascended the throne. He seems to have
devoted himself to strengthening the Syrian power,
which had been broken down at Magnesia, seeking
to keep on good terms with Rome and Egypt till he
could find a favourable opportunity for war. He
was, however, murdered, after a reign of twelve
years (B.C. 175), by Heliodorus, one of his own
courtiers [HEL1opoRUS], ‘‘ neither in [sudden]
anger nor in battle’’ (Dan. xi. 20, and Jerome, ad
loc.), but by ambitious treachery, without having
effected anything of importance. His son Deme-
trius I. Soter [DEMETRIUS], whom he had sent,
while still a boy, as hostage to Rome, after a series
of romantic adventures, gained the crown in 162 B.c.
(1 Mace. vii. 1; 2) Macc. xiv. 1). The general
policy of Seleucus towards the Jews, like that of his
father (2 Mace. ili. 2, 3, καὶ Σέλευκον), was con-
ciliatory, as the possession of Palestine was of the
highest importance in the prospect of an Egyptian
war; and he undertook a large share of the expenses
of the Temple-service (2 Mace. iii. 8, 6). On one
occasion, by the false representations of Simon,
a Jewish officer [Stwon 3], he was induced to
make an attempt to carry away the treasures de-
posited in the Temple, by means of the same Helio-
dorus who murdered him. The attempt signally
failed, but it does not appear that he afterwards
showed any resentment against the Jews (2 Macc.
iv. 5,6); though his want of money to pay the
enormous tribute due to the Romans [ANTIOCHUS
| IIL., vol. i. p. 74] may have compelled him to raise
extraordinary revenues, for which cause he is de-
scribed in Daniel as ‘¢a raiser of taxes” (Dan. xi.
te Goi, Univ. αἰ oO): [Βα
SEM (Σήμ: Sem), SueEm the patriarch (Luke
iii. 36).
SEMACHI'AH ΟΠ: SaBaxia; Alex.
Σαμαχίας : Samachias). One of the sons of She-
/maiah, the son of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xxvi. 7).
SEM'EI (Σεμεΐ: Semei). 1. Surmet of the
sons of Hashum (1 Esd. ix. 33; comp. Ezr. x. 33).
2. (Seuelas.) SHIMEI, the ancestor of Mordecai
(Esth, xi. 2).
3. (Seuet.) The father of Mattathias in the
genealogy of Jesus Christ (Luke ili. 26).
SEMEL'LIUS (Σαμέλλιος : Sabellius), Sur-
SHAI the scribe (1 Esd. ii. 16, 17, 25, 30; comp.
zr. iv.).
SEM'IS (Semets: Semeis), SHrMet the Levite
in the time of Ezra (1 Esd. ix, 23; comp. Ezr.
Xen)
SEMITIC LANGUAGES. [Suemitic Lan-
GUAGES. |
SENA'AH (ANID: Zaava, Savava: Senaa).
The ‘* children of Senaah” are enumerated amongst
the ‘ people of Israel” who returned from the Cap-
tivity with Zerubbabel (Hzr. ii. 35; Neh. vii. 38).
In Neh. iii. 3, the name is given with the article,
has-Senaah.
The names in these lists are mostly those of
towns; but Senaah does not occur elsewhere in the
Bible as attached to a town.® Ἷ
The Magdal-Senna, or “ great Senna” of Eusebius
and Jerome, seven miles N. of Jericho (Onomast.
4 The rock ΘΈΝΕΗ of 1 Sam. xiv. 4 is hardly appropriate.
SENEH
« Senna’), however, is not inay propriate in position.
There is a variation in the numbers given by Ezra
and Nehemiah ; but even adopting the smaller figure,
it is difficult to understand how the people of Senaah
should have been so much more numerous than those
of the other places in the catalogue.
(ες. Handb.) suggests that Senaah represents not
a single place but a district ; but there is nothing |
to corroborate this.
In the parallel passages of 1 Esdras (iv. 23) the
name is given ANNAAS, and the number 3330. [G.]
SEN'EH (73D: Sevvd; Alex. omits: Sene).
The name of one of the two isolated rocks which
stood in the “ passage of Michmash,” at the time
of the adventure of Jonathan and his armour-bearer
(1 Sam. xiv. 4). It was the southern one of the
two (ver. 5), and the nearest to Geba. The name
in Hebrew means a “thorn,” or thorn-bush, and
is applied elsewhere only to the memorable thorn
of Horeb; but whether it refers in this instance
to the shape of the rock, or to the growth of seneh
upon it, we cannot ascertain. The latter is more
consistent with analocy. It is remarkable that
Josephus (B. J. ν. 2, §1), in describing the route
of Titus from the north to Jerusalem, mentions that
the last encampment of his army was at a spot
“‘which in the Jews’ tongue is called the valley ”
or perhaps the plain “ of thorns (ἀκανθῶν avrAay),
near a certain village called Gabathsaoulé,” 7. e.
Gibeath of Saul. The ravine of Michmash is
about four miles from the hill which is, with
tolerable certainty, identified with Gibeah. This
distance is perhaps too great to suit Josephus’s ex-
pression ; still the point is worth notice. [G.]
SENI'R (ὭΣ: Σανείρ: Sanir). This name
occurs twice in the A. V., viz. 1 Chr. v. 23, and
Ez. xxvii. 5; but it should be found in two other
passages, in each of which the Hebrew word is ex-
actly similar to the above, viz. Deut. iii, 9, and
Cant. iv. 8. In these it appears in the A. V. as
SHENIR. Even this slight change is unfortunate,
since, as one of the few Amorite words preserved, the
name possesses an interest which should have pro-
tected it from the addition of a single letter. It is
the Amorite name for the mountain in the north of
Palestine which the Hebrews called HERMON, and
the Phoenicians Srr10N ; or perhaps it was rather
the name for a portion of the mountain than the
whole. In 1 Chr. ν. 23, and Cant. iv, 8, Hermon
and it are mentioned as distinct. Abulfeda (ed.
Kohler, p. 164, quoted by Gesenius) reports that
the part of Anti-Lebanon north of Damascus—that
usually denominated Jebel esh Shurky, “the East
Mountain ”’—was in his day called Sentr. The use
of the word in Ezekiel is singular. In describing
Tyre we should naturally expect to find the Phoe-
nician name (Sirion) of the mountain employed,
if the ordinary Israelite name (Hermon) were dis-
carded. That it is not so may show that in the
time of Ezekiel the name of Senir had lost its ori-
ginal significance as an Amorite name, and was em-
ployed without that restriction.
The Targum of Joseph on 1 Chr. v. 23 (ed. Beck)
renders Senir by *T75 ‘WD 790, of which the
most probable translation is “the mountain of the
plains of the Perizzites.” In the edition of Wilkins
the text is altered to). "DID 'O, “the moun-
tain that corrupteth fruits,” in agreement with the
Targums on Deut. iii. 9, though it is there given as
Bertheau |
SENNACHERIB 1195
the equivalent of Sirion. Which of these is the
original it is perhaps impossible now to decide.
The former has the slight consideration in its
favour, that the Hivites are specially mentioned as
“under Mount Hermon,” and thus may have
been connected or confounded with the Perizzites ;
or the reading may have arisen from mere caprice,
as that of the Sam. ver. of Deut. iii. 9, appears
to have done. [See SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH,
p- 1114.] [G.]
SENNACH'ERIB (AID: Sevvaxnpiu,
Σενναχηρείμ, LXX.; Σεναχήριβος, Joseph.; Sa-
ναχάριβος, Herod. : Sennacherib) was the son and
successor of Sargon. [SarGon.] His name in the
original is read as Tsin-akki-irib, which is under-
stood to mean, “ Sin (or the Moon) increases bro-
thers:’’ an indication that he was not the first-born
of his father. The LXX. have thus approached
much more nearly to the native articulation than
the Jews of Palestine, having kept the vowel-sounds
almost exactly, and merely changed the labial at
the close from B to μ. Josephus- has been even
more entirely correct, having only added the Greek
nominatival ending.
We know little or nothing of Sennacherib during
his father’s lifetime. From his name, and from a
circumstance related by Polyhistor, we may gather
that he was not the eldest son, and not the heir to
the crown till the year before his father’s death.
Polyhistor (following Berosus) related that the tri-
butary kingdom of Babylon was held by a brother
—who would doubtless be an elder brother—of
Sennacherib’s, not long before that prince came to
the throne (Beros. Fr. 12). Sennacherib’s brother
was succeeded by a certain Hagisa, who reigned
only a month, being murdered by Merodach-Bala-
dan, who then took the throne and held it six
months. These events belong to the year B.C. 703,
which seems to have been the last year of Sargon.
Sennacherib mounted the throne B.€. 702. His
first efforts were directed to crushing the revolt of
Babylonia, which he invaded with a large army.
Merodach-Baladan ventured on a battle, but was
defeated and driven from the country. Sennacherib
then made Belibus, an officer of his court, viceroy,
and, quitting Babylonia, ravaged the lands of the
Avamaean tribes on the Tigris and Euphrates,
whence he carried off 200,000 captives. In the
ensuing year (B.C. 701) he made war upon the
independent tribes in Mount Zagros, and penetrated
thence to Media, where he reduced a portion of the
nation which had been previously independent. In
his third year (B.c. 700) he turned his arms towards
the west, chastised Sidon, took tribute from T yre,
Aradus, and the other Phoenician cities, as well as
from Edom and Ashdod, besieged and captured
Ascalon, made war on Egypt, which was still de-
pendent on Ethiopia, took Libnah and Lachish on
the Egyptian frontier, and, having probably con-
cluded a convention with his chief enemy,* finally
marched against Hezekiah, king of Judah. Heze-
kiah, apparently, had, not only revolted and with-
held his tribute, but had intermeddled with the
affairs of the Philistian cities, and given his support
to the party opposed to the influence of Assyria.
It was at this time that “ Sennacherib came up
against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took
a The impression on clay of the seal of a Sabaco, found
in Sennacherib’s palace at Koyunjik, had probably been
appended to this treaty.
1196 SENNACHERIB
them” (2 K, xviii. 13), There can be no doubt
that the record which he has left of his eampaign
against “ Hiskiah” in his third year, is the war
with Hezekiah so briefly touched in the four verses
of this chapter (vers. 13-16). The Jewish monarch
was compelled to make a most humble submission.
He agreed to bear whatever the Great King laid
upon him; and that monarch, besides carrying off
a rich booty and more than 200,000 captives,
appointed him a fixed tribute of 300 talents of
silver, and 30 talents of gold. He also deprived
him of a considerable portion of his territory,
which he bestowed on the petty kings of Ashdod,
Ekron, and Gaza. Having made these arrange-
ments, he left Palestine and returned into his own
country.
In the following year (B.c. 699), Sennacherib
invaded Babylonia for the second time. Merodach-
Baladan continued to have a party in that conntry,
where his brothers still resided; and it may be
suspected that the viceroy, Belibus, either secretly
favoured his cause, or at any rate was remiss in
opposing it, The Assyrian monarch, therefore,
took the field in person, defeated a Chaldaean chief
who had taken up arms on behalf of the banished
king, expelled the king’s brothers, and, displacing
Belibus, put one of his own sons on the throne in
his stead.
It was perhaps in this same year that Senna-
cherib made his second expedition into Palestine.
Hezekiah had again revoited, and claimed the pro-
tection of Egypt, which seems to have been regarded
by Sennacherib as the true cause of the Syrian
troubles. Instead, therefore, of besieging Jeru-
salem, the Assyrian king marched past it to the
Egyptian frontier, attacked once more Lachish and
Libnah, but apparently failed to take them, sent
messengers from the former to Hezekiah (2 K.
xviii. 17), and on their return without his submis-
sion wrote him a threatening letter (2 K. xix. 14), !
while he still continued to press the war against
Egypt, which had called in the assistance of Tir-
hakah, king of Ethiopia (ib. ver. 9). Tirhakah
was hastening to the aid of the Egyptians, but pro-
bably had not yet united his troops with theirs,
when an event occurred which relieved both Exypt
and Judaea from their danger. In one night the
Assyrians lost, either by a pestilence or by some
more awful manifestation of divine power, 185,000
men! The camp immediately broke up—the king
fled—the Egyptians, naturally enough, as the de-
struction happened upon their borders, ascribed it to
their own gods, and made a boast of it centuries after
(Herod. ii. 141). Sennacherib reached his capital
in safety, and was not deterred, by the terrible dis-
aster which had befallen his arms, from engaging
in other wars, though he seems thenceforward to
have carefully avoided Palestine, In his fifth year
he led an expedition into Armenia and Media; after
which, from his sixth to his eighth year, he was
engaged in wars with Susiana and Babylonia. From
this point his annals fail us.
Sennacherib reigned twenty-two years. The date
of his accession is fixed by the Canon of Ptolemy to
B.C. 702, the first year of Belibus or Elibus. The
date of his death is marked in the same document
by the accession of Asaridanus (Esar-Haddon) to the
throne of Babylon in B.c. 680. The monuments are
in exact conformity with these dates, for the 22nd
SSS τ πσν
eh
SENUAH
year of Sennacherib has been found upon them,
while they have not furnished any notice of a later
ear.
4 It is impossible to reconcile these dates with the
chronology of Hezekiah’s reign, according to the
numbers of the present Hebrew text. Those num-
bers assign to Hezekiah the space between B.C. 726
and B.C. 697. Consequently the first invasion of
Sennacherib falls into Hezekiah’s twenty-sevcnth
year instead of his fourteenth, as stated in 2 K.
xvill. 13, and Is. xxxvi. 1. Various solutions have
been proposed of this difiiculty. According to some,
there has been a dislocation as well as an alteration
of the text. Originally the words ran, ‘‘ Now it
came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Heze-
kiah, that the king of Assyria [Sargon], came up
against the fenced cities of Judah.” Then followed
ch. xx. (Is. xxxviii.)—‘‘ In those days was Hezekiah
sick unto death,” &c.; after which came the nar-
vative of Sennacherib’s two invasions. [See HEZE-
KIAH.] Another suggestion is, that the year has
been altered in 2 K. xviii. 13 and Is. xxxvi. 1, by a
scribe, who, referring the narrative in ch, xx. (Is.
xxxvili.) to the period of Sennacherib’s first inva-
sion, concluded (from xx. 6) that the whole hap-
pened in peace! fourteenth year (Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 479, note =), and therefore
boldly changed “ twenty-seventh” into ‘ four-
teenth.”
Sennacherib was one of the most magnificent of
the Assyrian kings. He seems to have been the
first who fixed the seat of government permanently
at Nineveh, which he carefully repaired and adorned
with splendid buildings. His greatest work is the
srand palace at Koyunjik, which covered a space of
above eight acres, and was adorned throughout with
sculptures of finished execution. He built also, or
repaired, a second palace at Nineveh on the mound
of Nebbi Yunus, confined the Tigris to its channel
hy an embankment of brick, restored the ancient
aqueducts which had gone to decay, and gave te
Nineveh that splendour which she thenceforth re-
tained till the ruin of the empire. He also erected
monuments in distant countries. It is his memorial
which still remains» at the mouth of the Nahr-el-
Kelb on the coast of Syria, side by side with an
inscription of Rameses the Great, recording his con-
quests six centuries earlier.
Of the death of Sennacherib nothing is known
beyond the brief statement of Scripture, that “ as
he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch (?), his
vod, Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him
with the sword, and escaped into the land of Ar-
menia” (2 K. xix. 37; Is. xxxvii. 38). It is curious
that Moses of Chorene and Alexander Polyhistor
should both call the elder of these two sons by a
different name (Ardumazanes or Argamozanus) ;
and it is still more curious that Abydenus, who
generally drew from Berosus, should interpose a king
Nergilus between Sennacherib and Adrammelech,
and make the latter be slain by Esarhaddon (Kuseb.
Chr, Can. i. 9;. comp. i. 5, and see also Mos. Chor.
Arm. Hist. i. 22). Moses, on the contrary, confirms
the escape of both brothers, and mentions the parts
of Armenia where they settled, and which were
afterwards peopled by their descendants. [G. R.]
SEN'UAH (ΠΡ) : Senna). Pro-
Hassenuah, Sait the def. article. A Ben-
᾽᾿Ασανά:
perly
» It has been stated that in 1861 the French occupants of
Syria destroyed this tablet, and replaced it by an inscrip-
‘ion in their own honour; but such an act of barbarism
seems scarcely possible in the nineteenth century,
SEORIM
jamite, the father of Judah, who was second over
the city after the return from Babylon (Neh, xi.
9). In 1 Chr. ix. 7, “Judah the son of Senuah”
is “ Hodaviah the son of Hasenuah.”
SEO'RIM (OY: Sewpiu; Alex. Sewply:
Seorim). The chief of the fourth of the twenty-
four courses of priests instituted by David (1 Chr.
xxiv. 8).
SE'PHAR (12D: Σαφηρά; Alex. Σωφηρά:
Sephar). Itis written, after the enumeration of the
sons of Joktan, “and their dwelling was from Mesha
as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east”
(Gen. x. 30). The immigration of the Joktanites
was probably from west to east, as we have shown in
ARABIA, Mesu, &c., and they occupied the south-
western portion of the peninsula. ‘The undoubted
identifications of Arabian places and tribes with
their Joktanite originals are included within these
limits, and point to Sephar as the eastern boundary.
There appears to be little doubt that the ancient
sea-port town called Dhafari or Zafari, and Dhafar
or Zafar, without the inflexional termination, repre-
sents the Biblical site or district: thus the etymo-
logy is sufficiently near, and the situation exactly
agrees with the requirements of the case. Accord-
ingly, it has been generally accepted as the Sephar
of Genesis. But the etymological fitness of this site
opens out another question, inasmuch as there are
no less than four places bearing the same name,
besides several others bearing names that are merely
variations from the same root. The frequent re-
currence of these variations is curious ; but we need
only here concern ourselves with the four first
named places, and of these two only are important
to the subject of this article. They are of twofold
importance, as bearing on the site of Sephar, and as
being closely connected with the ancient history of the
Joktanite kingdom of Southern Arabia, the kingdom
founded by the tribes sprung from the sons of Jok-
tan. The following extracts will put in a clear
light what the best Arabian writers themselves say
on the subject, The first is from the most im-
portant of the Arabic Lexicons :—
---
“ Dhafiri GLb) is a town of the Yemen;
one says, He who enters Dhafari learns the Him-
yeritic... Es-Sdghdnee says, ‘In the Yemen are
four places every one of which is called Dhatéri ;
two cities and two fortresses. The two cities are
Dhaféri-l-Hakl, near San’a, two days’ journey from
it on the south; and the Tubbaas used to abide
there, and it is said that it is San’& [itself]. In
relation to it is called the onyx of Dhafitri. (Ibn-
Es-Sikkeet says that the onyx of Dhaféri is so
called in relation to Dhafiiri-Asad, a city in the
Yemen.) Another is in the Yemen, near Mirbdt,
in the extremity of the Yemen, and is known by
the name of Dhafiiri-s-Séhib [that is, of the sea-
coast], and in relation to it is called the Kust-Dha-
ἐάν! [either costus or aloes-wood], that is, the wood
with which one fumigates, because it is brought
thither from India, and from it to [the rest of ] the
Yemen’... And it Yakoot meant, for he said,
‘Dhafari...is a city in the extremity of the
Yemen, near to Esh-Shihr.’ As to the two fortresses,
Geography, noticed by M. Fresnel (IVe- Lettre, p. 317).
He endeavours to prove that the two Zafdris were only
ἃ Abu-l-Fida has fallen into an absurd error in his |
SEPHAR 1197
one of them is a fortress on the south of San’a, two
days’ journey from it, in the country of [the tribe
of | Benoo-Murad, and it is called Dhafari-l-Wadi-
yeyn [that is, of the Two Valleys]. It is also called
Dhafari-Zeyd ; and another is on the north thereof,
also two days’ journey from it, in the country of
Hemdan, and is called Dhafari-dh-Dhahir” ( 7aj-
el-’ Aroos, MS., s.v.).#
Yakoot, in his Homonymous Dictionary (£/-
Mushtarak, s. v.) says:—‘ Dhafari is a celebrated
city in the extremity of the country of the Yemen,
between “Oman and Mirbat, on the shore of the
sea of India: 1 have been informed of this by one who
has seen it prosperous, abounding in good things.
It is near Esh-Shihr. Dhafiiri-Zeyd is a fortress in
the Yemen in the territory of Habb: and Dhafari
is a city near to San’a, and in relation to it is called
the Dhafari onyx; in it was the abode of the
kings of Himyer, and of it was said, He who enters
Dhafari learns the Himyeritic ;—and it is said that
San’a itself is Dhaféri.”’
Lastly, in the Geographical Dictionary called the
Marasid, which is ascribed to Ydkoot, we read, s. v.
‘¢ Dhafari: two cities in the Yemen, one of them
near to San’&, in relation to which is called the
Dhaféri onyx: in it was the dwelling of the kings
of Himyer; and it is said that Dhaféri is the city
of San’A itself. And Dhafari of this day is a city
on the shore of the sea of India, between it and
Mirbdt are five parasangs of the territories of Esh-
Shihr, [and it is] near to Suhdr, and Mirbdt is the
other anchorage besides Dhafiri. Frankincense is
only found on the mountain of Dhaféri of Esh-
Shihr.”
These extracts show that the city of Dhafari
near San’a was very little known to the writers,
and that little only by tradition; it was even sup-
posed to be the same as, or another name for,
San’a, and its site had evidently fallen into oblivion
at their day. But the sea-port of this name was a
celebrated city, still flourishing, and identified on
the authority of an eye-witness. M. Fresnel has
endeavoured to prove that this city, and not the
western one, was the Himyerite capital; and cer-
tainly his opinion appears to be borne out by most
of the facts that have been brought to light.
Niebuhr, however, mentions the ruins of Dhafari
near Yereem, which would be those of the western
city (Descr. 206). While Dhafari is often men-
tioned as the capital in the history of the Him-
yerite kingdom (Caussin, Lssai, i. passim), it was
also in the later times of the kingdom the seat of
a Christian Church (Philostorgius, Hist. LZccles.
iii. 4).
But, leaving this curious point, it remains to
give what is known respecting Dhafdri the sea-
port, or as it will be more convenient to call it,
after the usual pronunciation, Zafir. All the evi-
dence is clearly in favour of this site being that of
| the Sephar of the Bible, and the identification has
accordingly been generally accepted by critics. More
accurately, it appears to preserve the name mentioned
in Gen. x. 30, and to be in the district anciently so
named. It is situate on the coast, in the province of
Hadramawt, and near to the district which adjoins
that province on the east, called Esh-Shihr (or as
M. Fresnel says it is ‘pronounced in the modern
Himyeritic Shhér). Wellsted says of it, ‘* Dofar is
one, by supposing that the inland town, which he places
only twenty-four leagues from San’aé, was originally on
the sea-coast.
1198 SEPHARAD
situated beneath a lofty mountain” (ii. 453). In
the Mardsid it is said, as we have seen, that frank-
incense (in-the author’s time) was found only in |
the “ mountain of: Dhafari ;’ and Niebuhr (Descr.
248) says that it exports the best frankincense.
M. Fresnel gives almost all that is known of the
present state of this old site in his Lettres sur
U Hist. des Arabes avant (Islamisme (V®. Lettre,
Journ. Asiat. iii.e série, tome v.). Zafar, he tells
us, pronounced by the modern inhabitants “ Isfor,”
is now the name of a series of villages situate
some of them on the shore, and some close to
the shore, of the Indian Ocean, between Mirbat
and Ras-Sdjir, extending a distance of two days’
journey, or 17 or 18 hours, from east to west.
Proceeding in this direction, those near the shore
are named Takah, Ed-Dahareez, El-Beleed, EI-
Hafeh, Salahah, and Awkad. The first four are
on the sea-shore, and the last two at a small dis-
tance from it. El-Beleed, otherwise called Harkam,
is, in M. Fresnel’s opinion, the ancient Zafir. It
is in ruins, but ruins that attest its former pros-
perity. The inhabitants were celebrated for their
hospitality. There are now only three or four
inhabited houses in El-Beleed. It is on a small
peninsula lying between the ocean and a bay, and
the port is on the land side of the town. In the
present day, during nearly the whole of the year,
at least at low tide, the bay is a lake, and the
peninsula an isthmus, but the lake is of sweet
water. In the rainy season, which is in the spring,
it is a gulf, of sweet water at low tide and of salt
water at high tide.
The classical writers mention Sapphar metropolis
(ξαπφάρα μητρόπολις) or Saphar (in Anon. Peripl.
. 274), in long. 88°, lat. 14° 30’, according to
Ptol., the capital of the Sappharitae (Ξαπφαρῖται),
placed by Ptol. (vi. 6. §25) near the Homeritae ;
but their accounts are obscure, and probably from
hearsay. In later times, as we have already said,
it was the seat of a Christian Church: one of
three which were founded A.D. 343, by permis-
sion of the reigning Tubbaa, in Dhafairi (written
Tapharon, Τάφαρον, by Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles.
iii. 4), in *Aden, and on the shores of the Persian
Gulf. Theophilus, who was sent with an embassy
by order of the Emperor Constantine to effect this
purpose, was the first bishop (Caussin, i, 111
seqq.). In the reign of Abrahah (A.D. 537-570)
S. Gregentius was bishop of these churches, having
been sent by the Patriarch of Alexandria (cf. autho-
rities cited by Caussin, i. 142-5). [Ε- 5. Ρ.]
SEPHA’RAD (15D ; Targ. δ ΒΟ Σὲ, ἡ, ὁ.
Ispania: ἕως ᾿Εφραθᾶ, in both MSS.: in Bosporo).
A name which occurs in Obad. ver. 20 only, as
that of a place in which the Jews of Jerusalem
were then held in captivity, and whence they were
to return to possess the cities of the south.
Its situation has always been a matter of un-
certainty, and cannot even now be said to be
settled.
(1.) The reading of the LXX. given above, and
followed by the Arabic Version, is probably a mere
conjecture, thoughit may point to a modified form |
of the name in the then original, viz. Sepharath. In
Jerome’s copy of the LXX. it appears to have been
Εὐφράτης, since (Comm. in Abd.) he renders their |
version of the verse transmigratio Terusalem usque |
Euphrathem. This is certainly extremeiy ingenious,
but will hardly hold water when we turn it back
into Hebrew.
!
SEPHARAD
(2.) The reading of the Vulgate, Bosporus,2 was
, adopted by Jerome from his Jewish instructor, who
considered it to be ‘* the place to which Hadrian had
transported the captives from Jerusalem” (Comm.
in Abdiam), This interpretation Jerome did not
accept, but preferred rather to treat Sepharad as
connected with a similar Assyrian word signi-
fying a “‘ boundary,” and to consider the passage
as denoting the dispersion of the Jews into all
regions.
We have no mears of knowing to which Bosporus
Jerome’s teacher alluded—the Cimmerian or the
Thracian. If the former (Strait of Yeni-kale),
which was in Iberia, it is not impossible that this
Rabbi, as ignorant of geography outside the Holy
Land as most of his brethren, confounded it with
Iberia in Spain, and thus agreed with the rest of
the Jews whose opinions have come down to us.
If the latter (Strait of Constantinople), then he
may be taken as confirming the most modern opin-
ion (noticed below), that Sepharad was Sardis in
Lydia.
The Targum Jonathan (see above) and the
Peshito-Syriac, and from them the modern Jews,
interpret Sepharad as Spain (Ispamia and Ispania),
one common variation of which name, Hesperia
(Dict. of Geogr. i. 1074), does certainly bear con-
siderable resemblance to Sepharad ; and so deeply
has this taken root that at the present day the
Spanish Jews, who form the chief of the two great
sections into which the Jewish nation is divided,
are called by the Jews themselves the Scphardim,
German Jews being known as the Ashkenazim.
It is difficult. to suppose that either of these can
be the true explanation of Sepharad. The prophecy
of Obadiah has every appearance of referring to the
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and
there is no reason to believe that any Jews had
been at that early date transported te Spain.
(3.) Others have suggested the identity of Sepha-
rad with Sipphara in Mesopotamia, but that is more
probably SEPHARVAIM.
(4.) The name has perhaps been discovered in
the cuneiform Persian inscriptions of MVaksh-i-
Rustum and Behistun; and also in a list of Asiatic
nations given by Niebuhr (Reiseb. ii. pl. 31). In the
latter it occurs between Ka Ta Pa TUK (Cappa-
docia) and Ta UNA (Ionia). De Sacy was the first
to propose the identification of this with Sepharad,
|and subsequently it was sugsested by Lassen that
S Pa Ra D was identical with Sardis, the ancient
capital of Lydia, This identification is approved
of by Winer, and adopted by Dr. Pusey (Jntrod. to
Obad. p. 232, note, also 245). In support of this,
First (Handwb. ii. 95a) points out that Antigonus
(cir. B.C. 320) may very probably have taken some
of his Jewish captives to Sardis ; but it is more con-
sistent with the apparent date of Obadiah’s pro-
phecy to believe that he is referring to the event
mentioned by Joel (iii. 6), when ‘ children of
Judah and Jerusalem” were sold to the “sons of
the Javanim”’ (Ionians), which—as the first cap-
tivity that had befallen the kingdom of Judah, and
a transportation to a strange land, and that beyond
the sea—could hardly fail to make an enduring
impression on the nation,
(5.) Ewald (Propheten, i. 404) considers that
Sepharad has a connexion with Zarephath in the
a Obtained by taking the prefixed preposition as part
of the name—J9D3 and at the same time rejecting
the final 1),
SEPHARVAIM
preceding verse; and while deprecating the “« pene-
tration” of those who have discovered the name
in a cuneiform inscription, suggests that the true
reading is Sepharam, and that it is to be found
in a place three hours from Akka, i. 6. doubtless
the modern Shefa’ Omar, a place of much ancient
repute and veneration among the Jews of Palestine
(see Zunz, note to Parchi, 428); but it is not
obvious how a residence within the Holy Land can
have been spoken of as a captivity, and there are
considerable differences in the form of the two names.
(6.) Michaelis (Suppl. No. 1778) has devoted
Some space to this name ; and, among other conjec-
tures, ingeniously suggests that the “ Spartans” of
1 Mace. xii. 15 are accurately ‘‘ Sepharadites.”’
This suggestion, however, does not appear to have
stood the test of later investigation, [See Spar-
TANS. ] [G.]
SEPHARVA'IM (DIED: Serpapvoaty,
᾿Επφαρονυαΐμ: Sepharvaim) is mentioned by Sen-
nacherib in his letter to Hezekiah as a city whose
king had been unable to resist the Assyrians (2 K.
xix. 135 Is. xxxvii. 13; comp. 2 K. xviii. 34). It
is coupled with Hena and Ava, or Ivah, which were
towns on the Euphrates above Babylon. Again,
it is mentioned, in 2 K. xvii. 24, as one of the
places from which colonists were transported to
people the desolate Samaria, after the Israelites had
been carried into captivity, where it is again joined
with Ava, and also with Cuthah and Babylon.
These indications are enough to justify us in identi-
fying the place with the famous town of Sippara,
on the Euphrates above Babylon (Ptol. v. 18),
which was near the site of the modern Mosaib.
Sippara was mentioned by Berosus as the place
where, according to him, Xithrus (or Noah) buried
the records of the antediluvian world at the time of
the deluge, and from which his posterity recovered
them afterwards (Fraqm. Hist. Gr. ii. p- 501, iv.
Ρ- 280). Abydenus calls it πόλιν Σιππαρηνῶν
(Fr. 9), and says that Nebuchadnezzar excavated a
vast lake in its vicinity for purposes of irrigation.
Pliny seems to intend the same place by his “ op-
pida Hipparenorum ” @—where, according to him,
was a great seat of the Chaldaic learning (H. WV.
vi. 30). The plural form here used by Pliny may
be compared with the dual form in use among the
Jews ; and the explanation of both is to be found in
the fact that there were two Sipparas, one on either
side of the river. Berosus called Sippara, ‘a city
of the sun” (Ἡλίου πόλιν) ; and in the inscriptions
it bears the same title, being called Tsipar sha
Shamas, or “ Sippava of the Sun”—the sun being
the chief object of worship there. Hence the Se-
pharvites are said, in 2 Κα. xvii, 31, to have “ burnt
their children in the fire to Adrammelech and
Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim ’’—these two
distinct deities representing respectively the male
and female powers of the sun, as Lunus and Luna
represented the male and female powers of the moon
among the Romans. [G. R.]
SEPHE'LA (ἡ Σεφήλα: Sephela), The Greek
a When Pliny places Hippara or Sippara on the Nar-
ragam (Vahr Agam), instead of on the Euphrates; his
reference is to the artificial channel, which branched off
from the Euphrates at Sippara, and led to the great lake
(Chald. $9538) excavated by Nebuchadnezzar. Abydenus
called this branch “ Aracanus” CApdxavos), Ar Akan
(Fr. 10).
Ὁ So absolute is this usage, that on the single occa-
SEPHELA 1199
form of the ancient word has-Shéfélah (MbDUIn),
the native name for the southern division of the
low-lying flat district which intervenes between the
central highlands of the Holy Land and the Medi-
terranean, the other and northern portion of which
was known as SHARON. The name occurs through-
out the topographical records of Joshua, the his-
torical works, and the topographical passages in the
Prophets; always with the article prefixed, and
always denoting the same region > (Deut. i. 7; Josh.
ix. 1, x. 40, xi. 2, 16 ας xii. 8, xv. 33; Judg. i. 9;
1 K. x. 273 1 Chr. xxvii, 28 pie Chien Lae, ΤῊ:
xxvi. 10, xxviii. 18; Jer. xvii. 26, xxxii, 44, xxxiii.
13; Obad. 19; Zech. vii. 7). “In each of these
passages, however, the word is treated in the A. V.
not as a proper name, analogous to the Campagna,
the Wolds, the Carse, but as a mere appellative,
and rendered ‘the vale,” ‘the valley,” “ the
plain,” “the low plains,” and “the low country.”
How destructive this is to the force of the harrative
may be realized by imagining what confusion would
be caused in the translation of an English historical
work into a foreion tongue, if such a name as “* The
Downs” were rendered by some general term ap-
plicable to any other district in the country of
similar formation. Fortunately the Book of Macca-
bees has redeemed our Version from the charge of
having entirely suppressed this interesting name.
In 1 Mace. xii. 38 the name Sephela is found,
though even here stripped of the article, which was
attached to it in Hebrew, and still accompanies it in
the Greek of the passage,
Whether the name is given in the Hebrew Serip-
tures in the shape in which the Israelites encoun-
tered it on entering the country, or modified so as
to conform it to the Hebrew root shafal, and thus
(according to the constant tendency of language)
bring it into a form intelligible to Hebrews—we
shall probably never know. The root to which it
is related is in common use both in Hebrew and
faabic. In the latter it has originated more than
one proper name—as Mespila, now known as
Koyunjik; el-Mesfale, one of the quarters of the
city of Mecca (Burckhardt, Arabia, i. 203, 4); and
Seville, originally Hi-spalis, probably so called from
its wide plain (Arias Montano, in Ford, Handbook
of Spain).
The name Shefelah is retained in the old versions,
even those of the Samaritans, and Rabbi Joseph on
Chronicles (probably as late as the 11th century
A.D.). It was actually in use down to the 5th
century. Eusebius, and after him Jerome (Onomast.
“ Sephela,’ and Comm, on Obad.), distinctly state
that “ the region round Eleutheropolis on the north
and west was so called.”€ And a careful investi-
gation might not improbably discover the name
still lingering about its ancient home even at the
present day.
No definite limits are mentioned to the Shefelah,
nor is 16 probable that there were any. In the list
of Joshua (xv. 33-47) it contains 43 « cities,” as
well as the hamlets and temporary villages de-
pendent on them. Of these, as far as our know-
sion where it is used without the article (Josh, xi. 16 b)
it evidently does not denote the region referred to
above, but the plains surrounding the mountains of
Ephraim.
© In his comment on Obadiah, St. Jerome appears to
extend it to Lydda and Emmaus-Nicopolis ; and at the
same time to extend Sharon so far south as to include the
Philistine cities,
1200 SEPTUAGINT
ledge avails us, the most northern was Ekron, the
most southern Gaza, and the most western Nezib
(about 7 miles N.N.W. of Hebron). A large num-
ber of these towns, however, were situated not in
the plain, nor even on the western slopes of the
central mountains, but in the mountains themselves.
[Jarmutu; Kettan; ΝΈΖΙΒ, &c.] This seems
to show, either that on the ancient principle of
dividing terntory one district might intrude into
the limits of another, or, which is more probable,
that, as already suggested, the name Shefelah did
not originally mean a lowland, as it came to do in
its accommodated Hebrew form.
The Shefelah was, and is, one of the most pro-
ductive regions in the Holy Land. Sloping as it
does gently to the sea, it receives every year a fresh
dressing from the materials washed down from the
mountains behind it by the furious rains of winter.
This natural manure, aided by the great heat of its
climate, is sufficient to enable it to reward the
rude husbandry of its inhabitants, year after year,
with crops of corn which are described by the tra-
vellers as prodigious.
Thus it was in ancient times the corn-field of
Syria, and as such the constant subject of wartare
between Philistines and Israelites, and the retuge
of the latter when the harvests in the central coun-
try were ruined by drought (2 K. viii. 1-3). But
it was also, from its evenness, and from its situation
on the road between Egypt and Assyria, exposed to
continual visits from foreign armies, visits which
at last led to the destruction of the Israelite king-
dom. In the earlier history of the country the
Israelites do not appear to have ventured into the
Shefelah, but to have awaited the approach of their
enemies from thence. Under the Maccabees, how-
ever, their tactics were changed, and it became the
field where some of the most hardly contested and
successful of their battles were fought.
These conditions have hardly altered in modern
times. Any invasion of Palestine must take place
through the maritime plain, the natural and only
road to the highlands. It did so in Napoleon’s case,
as has already been noticed under PALESTINE [p.
667 a]. The Shefelah is still one vast corn-field, but
the contests which take place on it are now reduced
to those between the oppressed peasants and the
insolent and rapacious officials of the Turkish go-
vernment, who are gradually putting a stop by
their extortions to all the industry of this district,
and driving active and willing hands to better-
governed regions. [See JUDAH, vol. 1, 1156; Pa-
LESTINE, vol. ii, 666 a, 6676, 672, 3 ; PLAINS,
890 b.] [G.]
SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of the
Old Testament, known by this name, is like the
Nile, fontium qui celat origines. The causes which
produced it, the number and names of the trans-
lators, the times at which different portions were
translated, are all uncertain.
It will therefore be best to launch our skiff on
known waters, and try to track the stream upwards
towards its source.
This Version appears at the present day in four
principal editions.
1. Biblia Polyglotta Complutensis, A.D. 1514-
1517;
2. The Aldine Edition, Venice, A.D. 1518.
3. The Roman Edition, edited under Pope Sixtus
V..5 A.D. 1587.
4. Facsimile Edition of the Codex Alexandrinus,
by H. H. Baber, A.p. 1816.
SEPTUAGINT
1, 2. The texts of (1) and (2) were probably
formed by collation of several MSS.
3. The Roman edition (3) is printed from the
venerable Codex Vaticanus, but not without many
errors. This text has been followed in most of the
modern editions.
A transcript of the Codex Vaticanus, prepared
by Cardinal Mai, was lately published at Rome, by
Vercelloni. It is much to be regretted that this
edition is not so accurate as to preclude the neces-
sity of consulting the MS. The text of the Codex,
and the parts added by a later hand, to complete
the Codex (among them nearly all Genesis), are
printed in the same Greek type, with distinguishing
notes.
4. The Facsimile Edition, by Mr. Baber, is
printed with types made after the form of the letters
in the Codex Alexandrinus (Brit. Museum Library)
for the Facsimile Edition of the New Testament, by
Woide, in 1786. Great care was bestowed upon
the sheets as they passed through the press.
Other Editions.
The Septuagint in Walton’s Polyglot (1657) is
the Roman text, with the various readings of the
Codex Alexandrinus.
“ The Cambridge edition (1665), (Roman text), is
only valuable for the Preface by Pearson.
An edition of the Cod. Alex. was published by
Grabe (Oxford, 1707-1720), but its critical valuc
is far below that of Baber’s. It is printed in com-
mon type, and the editor has exercised his judg-
ment on the text, putting some words of the Codes
in the margin, and replacing them by what he
thought better readings, distinguished by a smaller
type. This edition was reproduced by Breitinger
(Zurich, 1730), 4 vols. 4to., with the various read-
ings of the Vatican text.
The Edition of Bos (Franeq. 1709) follows the
Roman text, with its Scholia, and the various read-
ings given in Walton’s Polyglott, especially those of
the Cod. Alex.
The valuable Critical Edition of Holmes, conti-
nued by Parsons, is similar in plan to the Hebrew
Bible of Kennicott ; it has the Roman text, with a
large body of various readings from numerous MSS.,
and editions, Oxford, 1798-1827.
The Oxford Edition, by Guisford, 1848, has
the Roman text, with the various readings of the
Codex Alexandrinus below.
Tischendorf’s Editions (the 2nd, 1856) are on
the same plan; he has added readings ‘from some
other MSS. discovered by himself, with very useful
Prolegomena.
, Some conveniext editions have been published by
Mr. Bagster, one in 8vo., others of smaller size,
forming part of his Polyglott series of Bibles. His
text is the Roman.
The latest edition, by Mr. Field (1859), differs
from any of the preceding. He takes as his basis
the Codex Alexandrinus, but corrects all the ma-
nifest errors of transcription, by the help of other
MSS.; and brings the dislocated portions of the
Septuagint into agreement with the order of the
Hebrew Bible.®
Manuscripts.
The yarious readings given by Holmes and Par-
sons enable us to judge, in some measure, of the
character of the several MSS. and of the degree of
their accordance with the Hebrew text.
a There are some singular variations in 1 Kings (see
the article on Kings, p. 81).
SEPTUAGINT
They are distinguished thus by Holmes: the }
uncial by Roman numerals, the cursive by Arabic
figures.
Amoug them may be specially noted, with their
probable dates and estimates of value as given by
Holmes in his Preface to the Pentateuch :—
ἘΓΟΡΒΌΙΘ
b ate.
UNCIAL. Century.
I. Corrontanus. Brit. Mus. (fragments) 4
11. Varicanus. Vat. Library, Rome . 4
11. ALvexanprinus, Brit. Mus.. . ᾿ 5
VIL. Ameprosranus. Ambros. Lib., Milan . τ
X. Corstmianus. Bibl. Imp., Paris . .° , 7
CURSIVE.
16. Mediceus. Med. Laurentian Lib., Florence 11
19. Chigianus. Similar to Complut. Text and
> LOS ALU a ces ᾿ς anieseney he alt ὁ ογιν» 10
25. Monachiensis. Munich. ... . . 10
58. Vaticanus(num.x.). Vat.Lib.,similarto72 13
δ: Glaseueosise eich we leet ne OS, tees, | 2
61. Bodleianus. Laud. 36, notaeoptimae. . 12
64. Parisiensis (11). Imperial Library - 1l0orll
72. Venetus. Maximifaciendus . . ws
45. Oxoniensis. Univ. Coll. . 12
84. Vaticanus (1901), optimae notae 11
ΤΣ Ferrarienses. These two agree if
108. § Vaticanus (330) Similar to Complut. § 14
j
The texts of these MSS. differ considerably from
each other, and consequently differ in various degrees
from the Hebrew original.
The following are the results of a comparison of
the readings in the first eight chapters of Exodus:
1. Several of the MSS. agree well with the He-
brew ; others differ very much.
2. The chief variance from the Hebrew is in the
addition, or omission, of words and clauses.
3. Taking the Roman text as the basis, there are
found 80 places (a) where some of the MSS. differ
from the Roman text, either by addition or omission,
tn agreement with the Hebrew; 26 places (8)
where differences of the same kind are not in agree-
ment with the Hebrew. There is therefore a large
balance against the Roman text, in point of accord-
ance with the Hebrew.
4, Those MSS. which have the largest number
of differences of class (a) have the smallest number
of class (8). There is evidently some strong reason
for this close accordance with the Hebrew in these
MSS.
5. The divergence between the extreme points of
the series of MSS. may be estimated from the fol-
lowing statement :—
118. ὃ Parisiensis, Imp. Lib. Textand (19) . 13
72 differs from the Roman § in 40 places, with Hebrew.
ἡ
ΤΟΣ ον μα τις ne Ain. 3 against ,,
. A in40 ,, wither Ξ
59 ditto ditto ἐξ ὙΠΟ Α πτ "
Between these andthe Roman text lie many
shades of variety.
The Alexandrine text falls about halfway between
the two extremes:
Differing from Roman Text 5 25 places, with Hebrew.
inlé6 ,, against ,,
The diagram below, drawn on a scale represent-
ing the comparison thus instituted (by the test of
agreement with the Hebrew in respect of additions
or omissions), may help to bring these results more
clearly into view.
> An uncial MS., brought by Tischendorf from St.
Catherine’s Monastery, and named Codex Sinaiticus, is
supposed by him to be as ancient as Cod. Vaticanus (1I.)
VOL, Il.
SEPTUAGINT
The base-line R. T
1201
. represents the Roman text,
τὴν ἘΣ
Bans
ΝΠ ΕΣ ede le -
“oO 2 ides
le Boe DOF
a ek ocd
μη ΞΕ ΘΕ
Ξ 5 3
yuan eet Bre
ope a, a
EAR EU ue Wie aw Aglare
Q ν᾿
Peel i= a
ieee ee eens
:
ΓΞ ΕΔΕ
| BEE
TS a A 8} nla a=
bent J μα
eA bee se ve
Ξ
ee ale Teast al tical tnt ees
R. ie
The above can only be taken as an approximation,
the range of comparison being limited. A more
extended comparison might enable us to discri-
minate the several MSS. more accurately, but the
result would, perhaps, hardly repay the labour.
But whence these varieties of text? Was the
Version at first more in accordance with the Hebrew,
as in (72) and (59), and did it afterwards dege-
nerate into the less accurate state of the Codex
Vaticanus ἢ
Or was the Version at first less accurate, like the
Vatican text, and afterwards brought, by critical
labours, into the more accurate form of the MSS.
which stand highest in the scale ?
History supplies the answer.
Hieronymus (Zp. ad Suniam et Fretelam, tom.
ii. p. 627) speaks of two copies, one older and less
accurate, κοινή, fragments of which are believed to
be represented by the still extant remains of the
old Latin Version; the other more faithful to the
Hebrew, which he took as the basis of his own new
Latin Version.
“6 Τὴ quo illud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis, aliam
esse editionem, quam Origenes, et Caesariensis Eu-
sebius, omnesque Graeciae tractatores κοινὴν, id est,
communem, appellant, atque vulgatam, et a ple-
risque nunc Λουκιανὸς dicitur; aliam LXX. inter-
pretum, quae et in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et
a nobis in latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et
Hierosolymae atque in Orientis Kcclesiis decan-
tatur . . . κοινὴ autem ista, hoc est, communis
editio, ipsa est quae et LXX. sed hoc interest inter
utramque, quod κοινὴ pro locis et temporibus, et
pro voluntate scriptorum, vetus corrupta editio est;
ea autem quae habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς, et quam nos
vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incor-
rupta et immaculata LXX. interpretum translatio
reservatur. Quicquid ergo ab hoc discrepat, nulli
dubium est, quin ita et ab Hebraeorum auctoritate
discordet.”
In another place (Praefat. in Paralip. tom. 1.
col. 1022) he speaks of the corruption of the ancient
translation, and the great variety of copies used in
different countries :—
4H
1202 SEPTUAGINT
“Cum germana illa antiquaque translatio cor-
rupta sit.” . . . “ Alexandria et Aegyptus in LXX,
suis Hesychium laudant auctorem ; Constantinopolis
usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria pro-
bat ; mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinds codices
legunt: quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et
Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter
se contraria varietate compugnat.”
The labours of Origen, designed to remedy the con-
flict of discordant copies, are best described in his own
words (Comment. in Matth, tom.i.p.381,ed. Huet.).
“ Now there is plainly a great difference in the
copies, either from the carelessness of scribes, or
the rash and mischievous correction of the text
by others, or from the additions or omissions made
by others at their own discretion. This discrepance
in the copies of the Old Covenant, we have found
means to remedy, by the help of God, using as our
criterion the other versions. In all passages of the
ΤᾺΝ, rendered doubtful by the discordance of the
copies, forming a judgment from the other versions,
we have preserved what agreed with them; and
some words we have marked with an obelos as not
found in the Hebrew, not venturing to omit them
entirely ; and some we have added with asterises
affixed, to show that they are not found in the
LXX., but added by us from the other versions, in
accordance with the Hebrew.”
The other ἐκδόσεις, or versions, are those of |.
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.
Origen, Comm. in Joann, (tom. ii. p. 131, ed.
Huet.). ‘ The same errors in names may be observed
frequently in the Law and the Prophets, as we have
learnt by diligent enquiry of the Hebrews, and by
comparing our copies with their copies, as repre-
sented in the still uncorrupted versions of Aquila,
Theodotion, and Symmachus.” '
It appears, from these and other passages, that
Origen, finding great discordance in the several
copies of the LXX., laid this version side by side
with the other three translations, and, taking their
accordance with each other as the test of their
agreement uith the Hebrew, marked the copy of
the LXX. with an obelos, +, where he found su-
perfluous words, and supplied the deficiencies of
the LXX. by words taken from the other versions,
with an asterisc, *, prefixed.
The additions to the LXX. were chiefly made from
Theodotion (Hieronymus, Prolog. in Genesin, t. 1).
“Quod ut auderem, Origenis me studium pro-
vocayit, qui Editioni antiquae translationem Theo-
dotionis miscuit, asterisco * et obelo +, id est,
stella et veru, opus omne distinguens: dum aut
illucescere facit quae minus ante fuerant, aut super-
flua quaeque jugulat et confodit ” (see also Praef,
im Job, p. 795).
From Eusebius, as quoted below, we learn that
this work of Origen was called τετραπλᾶ, the four-
fold Bible. The specimen exhibited at the top of
the next column is given by Montfaucon.
SEPTUAGINT
Gen. i. 1.
=YM- i
AKYAAS. | ΜΆΑΧΟΣ. Oi O. Θεοδοτίων.
ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐν ἀρχῇ
ἔκτισεν ὃ ἔκτισεν ὃ ἐποίησεν ἔκτισεν ὃ
Θεὸς σὺν τὸν Θεὸς τὸν ὃ Θεὸς Θεὸς τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ οὐρανὸν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ
σὺν τὴν γῆν. τὴν γῆν. καὶ τὴν γῆν. τὴν γῆν.
But this was only the earlier and the smaller
portion of Origen’s labours ; he rested not till he
had acquired the knowledge of Hebrew, and com-
pared the Septuagint directly with the Hebrew
copies. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 16, p. 217, ed.
Vales.) thus describes the labours which led to the
greater work, the Hexapla; the last clause of the
passage refers to the Tetrapla :—
“So careful was Origen’s investigation of the
sacred oracles, that he learnt the Hebrew tongue,
and made himself master of the original Scriptures
received among the Jews, in the Hebrew letters;
and reviewed the versions of the other interpreters
of the Sacred Scriptures, besides the LXX.; and
discovered some translations varying from the well-
known versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo-
dotion, which he searched out, and brought to light
from their long concealment in neglected corners ;
. and in his Hexapla, after the four principal
versions of the Psalms, added a fifth, yea, a sixth
and seventh translation, stating that one of these
was found in a cask at Jericho, im the time of An-
toninus, son of Severus: and bringing these all into
one view, and dividing them in columns, over
against one another, together with the Hebrew text,
he left to us the work called Hexapla; having ar-
ranged separately, in the Tetrapla, the versions of
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with
the version of the Seventy.”
So Jerome (in Catal. Script. Eccl. tom, iv. P. 2,
p- 116): ‘* Quis ignorat, quod tantum in Serip-
turis divinis habuerit studii, ut etiam hebraeam
linguam contra aetatis gentisque suae naturam
edisceret ; et acceptis LXX. interpretibus, alias quo-
que editiones in unum volumen congregaret : Aquilae
scilicet Pontici proselyti, et Theodotionis Ebionaei,
et Symmachi ejusdem dogmatis . . . . Praeterea
Quintam et Sextam et Septimam Editionem, quas
etiam nos de ejus Bibliothecé habemus, miro labore
reperit, et cum caeteris editionibus comparavit.”
From another passage of Jerome (in /pist. ad
Titum,t.iv. P.1, p.437) we learn that in the Hexapla
the Hebrew text was placed in one column in Hebrew
letters, in the next column in Greek letters :—
“Unde et nobis curae fuit omnes veteris legis
libros, quos vir doctus Adamantius (Origenes) in
Hexapla digesserat, de Caesariensi Bibliotheca de-
scriptos, ex ipsis authenticis emendare, in quibus et
ipsa hebraea propriis sunt characteribus verba de-
scripta, et Graecis literis tramite expressa vicino.”
Hexapta (Hos, xi. 1).
το 80. ἘΣ BP, Ϊ Ι
To EBPAIKON. EAAHNIKOIS ΤΡ. ΑΚΥΛΑΣ. =YMMAXOS. Οἱ O. | ®EOAOTION.
Sew WI 93 | X+ vep OTL TOLS OTL Tas ! ore νήπιος OTL νήπιος
ὙΠ ΠΝῚ Ισραηλ Ἰσραὴλ, Ισραηλ Ισραηλ και Ισραηλ
ουεαβηου και ἡγαπησα και eyw nyatnoa και ἠγάπησα
DSI) ουμεμεσραιμ QUTOV, Καὶ ἡγαπήμενος | avToyv και αυτον Kat
995 SAN Ww καραθι απο Avyumtou εξ Αἰγυπτου | εξ Avyurtou εκαλεσα
| λεβανι. εκάλεσα KEKANTAL KEKAQTaL VLOV μου
τον νιον μου. νιος μου. νιος μου. εξ Αἰγυπτου.
SEPTUAGINT
It should here be mentioned that some take the
Tetrapla as denoting, not a separate work, but
only that portion of the Hexapla which contains the
four columns filled by the four principal Greek ver-
sions. Valesius (Notes on Eusebius, p. 106) thinks
that the Tetrapla was formed by taking those four
columns out of the Hexapla, and making them into
a separate book.
But the testimony of Origen himself (i. 381,
ii. 151), above cited, is clear that he formed one
corrected text of the Septuagint, by comparison of
the three other Greek versions (A, &, ©), using
them as his criterion. If he had known Hebrew at
this time, would he have confined himself to the
Greek versions ? Would he have appealed to the
Hebrew, as represented by Aquila, &c.? It seems
very evident that he must have learnt Hebrew at a
later time, and therefore that the Hexapla, which
rests on a comparison with the Hebrew, must have
followed the ‘Tetrapla, which was formed by the
help of Greek versions only.
The words of Eusebius also (17. 2. vi. 16) ap-
pear to distinguish very clearly between the Hex-
apla and Tetrapla as separate works, and to imply
that the Tetrapla preceded the Hexapla.
The order of precedence is not a mere literary
question ; the view above stated, which is supported
by Montfaucon, Ussher, &c., strengthens the force
of Origen’s example as a diligent student of Scrip-
ture, showing his increasing desire integros accedere
Jontes.
The labours of Origen, pursued through a long
course of years, first in procuring by personal travel
the materials for his great work, and then in com-
paring and arranging them, made him worthy of
the name Adamantius.
But what was the result of all this toil? Where
is now his great work, the Hexapla, prepared with
so much care, and written by so many skilful
hands? Too large for transcription, too early by
centuries for printing (which alone could have saved
it), it was destined to a short existence. It was
brought from Tyre and laid up in the Library at
Caesarea, and there probably perished by the flames,
A.D. 653.
One copy, however, had been made, by Pam-
philus and Eusebius, of the column containing the
corrected text of the Septuagint, with Origen’s
asteriscs and obeli, and the letters denoting from
which of the other translators each addition was
taken. This copy is probably the ancestor of those
Codices which now approach most nearly to the
Hebrew, and are entitled Hexaplar; but in the
course of transcription the distinguishing marks have
disappeared or become confused ; and we have thus
a text composed partly of the old Septuagint text,
partly of insertions from the three other chief Greek
versions, especially that of Theodotion.
The facts above related agree well with the phe-
\ nomena of the MSS. before stated. As we have
Codices derived from the Hexaplar text, e. g. 72,
59, 58; and at the other extreme the Codex Vati-
canus (II.), probably representing nearly the ancient
uncorrected text, κοινή ; so between these we find
texts of intermediate character in the Codex Alex-
andrinus (III.), and others, which may perhaps be
derived from the text of the Tetrapla.
To these main sources of our existing MSS. must
be added the recensions of the Septuagint mentioned
by Jerome and others, viz. those of Lucian of
Antioch and Hesychius of Egypt, not long after the
time of Origen. We have seen above that each of
SEPTUAGINT 1203
these had a wide range; that of Lucian (supposed
to be corrected by the Hebrew) in the Churches
from Constantinople to Antioch; that of Hesychius
in Alexandria and Egypt ; while the Churches lying
between these two regions used the Hexaplar text
copied by Eusebius and Pamphilus (Hieron. tom. i.
col. 1022).
The great variety of text in the existing MSS. is
thus accounted for by the variety of sources from
which they have descended.
J. History OF THE VERSION.
We have now to pursue our course upwards, by
such guidance as we can find. The ancient text,
called κοινή, which was current before the time of
Origen, whence came it ? -
We find it quoted by the early Christian Fathers,
in Greek by Clemens Romanus, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus; in Latin versions by Tertullian and
Cyprian; we find it questioned as inaccurate by
the Jews (Just. Martyr, Apol.), and provoking
them to obtain a better version (hence the versions
of Aquila, &c.); we find it quoted by Josephus
and Philo; and thus we are brought to the time
of the Apostles and Evangelists, whose writings are
full of citations and references, and imbued with
the phraseolocy of the Septuagint.
But when we attempt to trace it to its origin,
our path is beset with difficulties. Before we enter
on this doubtful ground we may pause awhile to
mark the wide circulation which the Version had
obtained at the Christian era, and the important
services it rendered, first in preparing the way of
CHRIST, secondly in promoting the spread of the
Gospel.
1. This version was highly esteemed by the Hel-
lenistic Jews hefore the coming of Christ. An annual
festival was held at Alexandria in remembrance of
the completion of the work (Philo, De Vita Mosis,
lib. ii). The manner in which it is quoted by the
writers of the New Testament proves that it had
been long in general use. Wherever, by the con-
quests of Alexander, or by colonization, the Greek
language prevailed; wherever Jews were settled,
and the attention of the neighbouring Gentiles was
drawn to their wondrous history and law, there
was found the Septuagint, which thus became, by
Divine Providence, the means of spreading widely
the knowledge of the One True God, and His pro-
mises of a Saviour to come, throughout the nations ;
it was indeed ostiwm gentibus ad Christum. To the
wide dispersion of this version we may ascribe in
great. measure that general persuasion which pre-
vailed over the whole East (percrebuerut oriente
toto) of the near approach of the Redeemer, and led
the Magi to recognise the star which proclaimed
the birth of the King of the Jews.
2. Not less wide was the influence of the Septua-
gint in the spread of the Gospel. Many of those
Jews who were assembled at Jerusalem on the day
of Pentecost, from Asia Minor, from Africa, from
Crete and Rome, used the Greek language; the
testimonies to Christ from the Law and the Pro-
phets came to them in the words of the Septuagint ;
St. Stephen probably quoted from it in his address
to the Jews; the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the
Septuagint version of Isaiah in his chariot (...@s
πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ixOy...); they who were
scattered abroad went forth into many lands speaking
of Christ in Greek, and pointing to the things writ-
ten of Him in the Greek version of Moses and the
Prophets; trom Antioch and An ἐμ the East
4H 2
1204 SEPTUAGINT
to Rome and Massilia in the West the voice of the
Gospel sounded forth in Greek ; Clemens of Rome,
Ienatius at Antioch, Justin Martyr in Palestine.
Irenaeus at Lyons, and many more, taught and
wrote in the words of the Greek Scriptures; and a
still wider range was given to them by the Latin
version (or ver sions) made from the LXX. for the
use of the Latin Churches in Italy and Africa; and
in later times by the numerous other versions into
the tongues of Aegypt, Aethiopia, Armenia, Arabia,
aud Georgia. For a long period the Septuagint was
the Old Testament of the far larger part of the
Christian Church.¢
Let us now try to ascend towards the source.
Can we find any clear, united, consistent testimony
to the origin of the Septuagint? (1) Where and
(2) when was it made? and (3) by whom? and
(4) whence the title? The testimonies of ancient
writers, or (to speak more properly) their tradi-
tions, have been weighed and examined by many
learned men, and the result is well described by
Pearson (Praecf. ad LXX., 1665):
“ Neque vero de ejus antiquitate dignitateque
quicquam impraesentiarum dicemus, de quibus viri
docti multa, hoe praesertim saeculo, scripsere; qui
cum maxime inter se dissentiant, nihil adhuc satis
certi et explorati videntur tradidisse.”
(1) The only point in which all agree is that
Alexandria was the birthplace of the Version: the
Septuagint begins where the Nile ends his course.
(2) On one other point there is a near agree-
ment, viz. as to time, that the Version was made,
or at least commenced, in the time of the earlier
Ptolemies, in the first half of the third century B.c.
(3) By whom was it made ?—The following are
some of the traditions current among the Fathers :—
Irenaeus (ib. iii. c, 24) relates that Ptolemy Lagi,
wishing to adorn his Alexandrian Library with the
writings of all nations, requested from the Jews of
Jerusalem a Greek version of their Scriptures ; that
they sent seventy elders well skilled in the Serip-
tures and in later languages; that the king sepa-
rated them from one another, and bade them all
translate the several books. When they came to-
gether before Ptolemy and showed their versions,
God was glorified, for they all agreed exactly, from
beginning to end, in every phrase and word, so
that all men may know that the Scriptures are
translated by the inspiration of God.
Justin. Martyr (Cohort. ad Graecos, p. 34) gives
the same account, and adds that he was fakes to see
the cells in which the interpreters worked.
Epiphanius says that the translators were divided
into pairs, in 36 cells, each pair being provided
with two scribes; and that 36 versions, agreeing
in every point, were produced, by the gift of the
Holy Spirit (De Pond. et Mens. cap. iii.—vi.).
Among the Latin Fathers Augustine adheres to
the inspiation of the translators:— Non autem
secundum LXX. interpretes, qui etiam ipsi divino
Spiritu interpretati, ob hoe aliter videntur nonnulla
dixisse, ut ad spiritualem sensum scrutandum magis
admoneretur lectoris intentio . ” (De Doctr.
Christ. iv. 15).
But Jerome boldly throws aside the whole story
of the ceils and the inspiration :—*“ Et nescio quis
primus auctor Septuaginta cellulas Alexandriaeé
mendacio suo extruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scrip-
¢ On this part of the subject see an Hulsean Prize
Essay, by W. R. Churton, “ On the Influence of the LXX.
on the Progress of Christianity.”
SEPTUAGINT
titarent, cum <Aristaeus ejusdem Ptolemaei ὕπερ-
ασπιστής, et multo post tempore Josephus, nihil
tale retulerint: sed in una basilic& congregatos,
contulisse scribant, non prophetasse. Aliud est
enim vatem, alind esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus
ventura praedicit ; hic eruditio et verborum copia
ea quae iutelligit transfert ” (Praef. ad Pent.).
The decision between these conflicting reports as
to the inspiration may be best made by careful
study of the version itself.
It will be observed that Jerome, while rejecting
the stories of others, refers to the relation of Avri-
staeus, or Aristeas, and to Josephus, the former
being followed by the latter.
This (so called) letter of Aristeas to his brother
Philocrates is still extant; it may be found at the
beginning of the folio volume of Hody (De Bibli-
orum Textibus Originalibus, &c., Oxon. MDCCY.),
and separately in a small volume published at
Oxford (1692). It gives a splendid account of the
origin of the Septuagint ; of the embassy and pre-
sents sent by King Ptolemy to the high-priest at
Jerusalem, by the advice of Demetrius Phalereus,
his librarian, 50 talents of gold and 70 talents of
silver, &c.; the Jewish slaves whom he set free,
paying their ransom himself; the letter of the
king ; the answer of the high- “priest ; the choosing
of six interpreters from each of the twelve tribes,
and their names; the copy of the Law, in letters
of gold; their arrival at Alexandria on the anni-
versary of the king’s victory over Antigonus; the
feast prepared for the seventy-two, which continued
for seven days; the questions proposed to each of
the interpreters in turn, with the answers of each ;
their lodging by the sea-shore; and the accom-
plishment of their work in seventy-two days, by
conference and comparison.
Οἱ δὴ ἐπετέλουν ἕκαστα σύμφωνα ποιοῦντες
πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς Tais ἀντιβολαῖς, τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῆς
συμφωνίας γινόμενον πρεπόντως ἀναγραφῆς οὕτως
ἐτύγχανε παρὰ τοῦ Δημητρίου"... :
The king rejoiced greatly, and commanded the
books to be car efully kept ; gave to each three robes,
two talents of gold, &c. ; to Eleazar the high-priest
he sent ten silver-footed tables, a cup of thirty
talents, &c., and begged him to let any of the
interpreters who wished come and see him again,
for he loved to have such men and to pend his
wealth upon them.
This is the story which probably gave to this
version the title of the Septuagint. It differs from
the later accounts above cited, being more embel-
lished, but less marvellous. It speaks much of
royal pomp and munificence, but says nothing of
inspiration. The translators met together and con-
ferred, and produced the best version they could.
A simpler account, and probably more genuine,
is that given by Aristobulus (2nd century B.c.) in
a fragment preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus
(Stromata, lib. v. p. 595) and by Eusebius (Praep.
Lang. Ὁ. xiii. ο. 12) :—
“Tt is manifest that Plato has followed our Law,
and studied diligently all its particulars. For before
Demetrius Phalereus a translation had been made,
by others, of the history of the Hebrews’ going
forth out of Egypt, and of all that happened to
them, and of the conquest of the land, and of the
exposition of the whole Law. Hence it is manifest
that the aforesaid philosopher borrowed many
things; for he was very learned, as was Pytha-
goras, who also transferred many of our doctrines
into his system. But the entire translation of our
SEPTUAGINT
whole Law (ἡ δὲ ὅλη ἑρμήνεια τῶν διὰ τοῦ
νόμου πάντων) was made in the time of the king
named Philadelphus, a man of greater zeal, under
the direction of Demetrius Phalereus.” 4
This probably expresses the belief which prevailed
in the 2nd century B.C., viz. that some portions of
sthe Jewish history had been published in Greek
before Demetrius, but that in his time and under
his direction the whole Law was translated: and
this agrees with the story of Aristeas.
The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son
of Sirach (ascribed to the time of Ptolemy Physcon,
about 133 B.C.) makes mention of “ the Law itself,
the Prophets, and the rest of the books,” having
been translated from the Hebrew into another
tongue.
The letter of Aristeas was received as genuine
and true for many centuries; by Josephus and
Jerome, and by learned men in modern times. The
first who expressed doubts were Lud. de Vives
(Note on Augustin. De Civit. Dei, xviii. 42) and
Julius Sealiger, who boldly declared his belief that
it was a forgery: “a Judaeo quodam Aristeae
nomine confectam 6586: and the general belief of
scholars now is, that it was the work of some
Alexandrian Jew, whether with the object of en-
hancing the dignity of his Law, or the credit of the
Greek version, or for the meaner purpose of gain.
The age in which the letter of Aristeas makes its
appearance was fertile in such fictitious writings
(see Bentley on Phalaris, p. 85, ed. Dyce).
‘¢The passage in Galen that I refer to is this:
‘ When the Attali and the Ptolemies were in emu-
lation about their libraries, the knavery of forging
books and titles began. For there were those that,
to enhance the price of their books, put the names
of great authors before them, and so sold them to
those princes.’ ”
It is worth while to look through the letter of
Aristeas, that the reader may see for himself how
exactly the characters of the writing correspond to
those of the fictitious writings of the Sophists, so
ably exposed by Bentley.
Here are the same kind of errors and anachron-
isms in history, the same embellishments, eminent
characters and great events, splendid gifts of gold
and silver and purple, of which the writers of fic-
tion were so Javish. These are well exposed by
Hody; and we of later times, with our inherited
wisdom, wonder how such a story could have ob-
tained credit with scholars of former days.
“ What clumsie cheats, those Sibylline oracles
now extant, and Aristeas’ story of the Septuagint,
passed without contest, even among many learned
men” (Bentley on Phalaris, Introd. p. 83).
But the Pseudo-Aristeas had a basis of fact for
his fiction; on three points of his story there is no
material difference of opinion, and they are confirmed
by the study of the Version itself :—
1. The Version was made at Alexandria.
2. It was begun in the time of the earlier Ptole-
mies, about. 280 B.C.
3. The Law (i. 6. the Pentateuch) alone was
translated at first.
It is also very possible that there is some truth
in the statement of a copy being placed in the royal
library. (The emperor Akbar caused the New
Testament to be translated into Persian.)
d Some doubts have been raised of the genuineness
of this fragment, but it is well defended by Valckenaer
(Diatribe de Avistobulo Judaeo).
SEPTUAGINT 1205
But by whom was the Version made? As
Hody justly remarks, ‘it is of little moment
whether it was made at the command of the king
or spontaneously by the Jews; but it is a question
of great importance whether the Hebrew copy of
the Law, and the interpreters (as Pseudo-Aristeas
and his followers relate), were summoned from Jeru-
salem, and sent by the high-priest to Alexandria.”
On this question no testimony can be so con-
clusive as the evidence of the Version itself, which
bears upon its face the marks of imperfect know-
ledge of Hebrew, and exhibits the forms and phrases
of the Macedonic Greek prevalent in Alexandria,
with a plentiful sprinkling of Egyptian words.
The forms ἤλθοσαν, παρενεβάλοσαν, bewray the
fellow-citizens of Lycophron, the Alexandrian poet,
who closes his iambic line with κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχά-
(ocav. ody ii. c. iv.) gives several examples
of Egyptian renderings of names, and coins, aud
measures; among them the hippodrome of Alex-
andria, for the Hebrew Cibrath (Gen. xlviii. 7),
and the papyrus of the Nile for the rush of Job
(viii. 11). The reader of the LXX. will readily
agree with his conclusion, “ Sive regis jussu3 sive
sponte a Judaeis, a Judaeis Alexandrinis fuisse
factam.””
The question as to the moving cause which gave
birth to the Version is one which cannot be so
decisively answered either by internal evidence or
by historical testimony. The balance of proba-
bility must be struck between the tradition, so
widely and permanently prevalent, of the king’s
intervention, and the simpler account suggested by
the facts of history, and the phenomena of the
Version itself.
It is well known that, after the Jews returned
from the Captivity of Babylon, having lost in
great measure the familiar knowledge of the ancient
Hebrew, the readings from the Books of Moses
in the synagogues of Palestine were explained to
them in the Chaldaic tongue, in Targums or Para-
phrases; and the same was done with the Books of
the Prophets when, at a later time, they also were
read inthe synagogues.
The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less
knowledge of Hebrew; their familiar, Janguage was
Alexandrian Greek. They had settled in Alexan-
dria in large numbers soon after the time of
Alexander, and under the earlier Ptolemies. They
would naturally follow the same practice as thei
brethren in Palestine; the Law first and afterwards
the Prophets would be explained in Greek, and from
this practice would arise in time an entire Greek
Version.
All the phenomena of the Version seem to con-
firm this view; the Pentateuch is the best part of
the Version ; the other books are more detective,
betraying probably the increasing degeneracy of the
Hebrew MSS., and the decay of Hebrew learning
with the lapse of time.
4. Whence the title?—It seems unnecessary to
suppose, with Hichhorn, that the title Septuagint
arose from the approval given to the Version by
an Alexandrian Sanhedrim of 70 or 72; that title
appears sufficiently accounted for above by the pre-
valence of the letter of Aristeas, describing the mis-
sion of 72 interpreters from Jerusalem.
II.. CHARACTER OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
We come now to consider the character of the
Version, and the help which it affords in the criti-
cism and interpretation of the Scriptures.
1206 SEPTUAGINT
The Character of the Version.—Is it faithful
in substance? Is it minutely accurate in details?
Does it bear witness for or against the tradition of
its having been made by special inspiration ?
These are some of the chief questions: there are
others which relate to particulars, and it will be
weil to discuss these latter first, as they throw
some light on the more general questions.
&. Was the Version made from Hebrew MSS.
with the vowel points now used ?
A few examples will indicate the answer.
1. PROPER NAMES.
Hebrew. Septuagint.
Ex. vi. 17. 229, Libni. AoBevet.
vi. 19. δ ΠΡ, Machii. Μοολεί.
xiii. 20, DMN, Etham. δι
Deut. iii. 10. MDD. Salchah. Ἑλχᾶ.
iv. 43. ΝΞ, Bezer. Βοσόρ.
XXxiv. 1. mADB, Pisgah. Dacya.
P 2. OTHER WorRDS.
Hebrew. Septuagint.
Gen. i. 9. DIPID» place.
xv. τι. DMN 2
and he drove them away.
Ex. xii. 17. nisia-ns
συναγωγή (ΠΡ.
καὶ συνεκάθισεν αὐτοῖς
COM IE).
τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην
unleavened bread. (YSN).
Num. xvi. 5. pa: in the ἘΣ Ὲ ἘΠΕῚ
morning. (922).
Deut, xv. 18. MWD, double. ἐπέτειον Caw).
Is. ix. 8. 127; a word. θάνατον (25).
Examples of these two kinds are innumerable.
Plainly the Greek translators had not Hebrew MSS.
pointed as at present.
In many cases (6. 4. Ex. ii. 25; Nahum iii. 8)
the LXX. have probably preserved the true pro-
nunciation and sense where the Masoretic pointing
has gone wrong,
5. Were the Hebrew words divided from one
another, and were the final letters, γ᾽, ἢ, }, O, J, in
use when the Septuagint was made?
Take a few out of many examples:
Hebrew.
(1) Deut. xxvi. 5. TIN DIN,
a perishing Syrian.
LXX,
Συρίαν ἀπέβαλεν
(38° DAN).
2) 2K ii. 14. SAINTS ἀφφώ
Ξ {they join the two
, he also. words in one].
(3) 2K, xxii. 20. 12>. οὐχ οὕτως
therefore. Qa).
(4) 1 Chr. xvii. 10. > TAN) καὶ αὐξήσω σε
and I will tell thee. ΟΡ ΣΝ.
καὶ τὸ κρίμα μου
ὡς φῶς ἐξελεύ-
σεται.
The LXXx. read ;
ΝΞ "ORY
() Hos. vi.5. TIN POEL
δεν,
and thy judgments (are
as) the light (that)
goeth forth.
(6) Zech. xi. τ. [RYT IY ἘΦ
even you, O poor of the
flock.
εἰς τὴν Xavavirw
[they join the two
first words}.
Here we find three cases (2, 4, 6) where the
LXX. read as one word what makes two in the
SEPTUAGINT
present Hebrew text: one case (3) where one
Hebrew word is made into two by the LXX.;
two cases (1, 5) where the LXX. transfers a letter
from the end of one word to ‘the beginning of the
next. By inspection of the Hebrew in these cases
it will be easily seen that the Hebrew MSS. must
have been written without intervals between the
words, and that the present final forms were not
then in use.
In three of the above examples (4, 5, 6). the
Septuagint has probably preserved the true division
and sense.
In the study of these minute particulars, which
enable us to examine closely the work of the
translators, great help is afforded by Cappelli Critica
Sacra, and by the Vorstudien of Frankel, who has
most diligently anatomised the text of the LXX.
His projected work on the whole of the Version
has not been completed, but he has published a
part of it in his treatise Ueber den KHinfluss der
Palistinischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische
Hermeneutik, in which he reviews minutely the
Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch.
We now proceed to the larger questions.
A. Is the Septuagint faithful in substance ?—
Here we cannot answer by citing a few examples;
the question refers to the general texture, and
any opinion we express must be verified by con-
tinuous reading.
1. And first it has been clearly shown by Hody,
Frankel, and others, that the several books were
translated by different persons, without any com-
prehensive revision to harmonise the several parts.
Names and words are rendered differently in dif-
ferent books; ὁ. g. ADS, the passover, in the
Pentateuch is rendered πάσχα, in 2 Chr, xxxv. 6,
pacer. ;
DUN, Urim. Ex. xxviii. 26, δήλωσις, Deut.
xxxili. 8, δῆλοι, Ezy. ii. 63, φωτίζοντες, Neh. vii.
65, φωτίσων.
DMN, Thummin, in Ex, xxviii. 26, is ἀλήθεια ;
in Ezr. ii. 63, τέλειον.
The Philistines m the Pentateuch and Joshua
are φυλιστιεὶμ, in the other books, ἀλλόφυλοι.
The Books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, are
distinguished by the use of ἐγώ εἰμι, instead of ἐγώ.
These are a few out of many like variations.
2. Thus the character of the Version varies
much in the several books; those of the Penta-
teuch are the best, as Jerome says (Confitemur plus
quam caeteris cum hebraicis consonare), and this
agrees well with the external evidence that the
Law was translated first, when Hebrew MSS. were
more correct and Hebrew better known. Perhaps
the simplicity of the style in these early books
facilitated the fidelity of the Version.
3. The poetical parts are, generally speaking,
inferior to the historical, the original abounding
with rarer words and expressions. In these parts
the reader of the LXX. must be continually on the
watch lest an imperfect rendering of a difficult
word mar the whole sentence. The Psalms and
Proverbs are perhaps the best.
4. In the Major Prophets (probably translated
nearly 100 years after the Pentateuch) some of
the most important prophecies are sadly obscured :
ὁ. g. Is. ix. 1, τοῦτο πρῶτον mle ταχὺ ποίει,
χώρα Ζαβουλὼν, κ. τ. Δ.» and in ix. 6, Lsaias
nactus est interpretem sese incignum ( Zuingli) ;
Jer. xxiii. 6, καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὃ καλέσει
αὐτὸν Κύριος ᾿Ιωσεδὲκ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.
SEPTUAGINT
Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets (speaking gene-
rally) seem to be better rendered. The LXX.
version of Daniel was not used, that of Theodotion
being substituted for it.
5. Supposing the numerous glosses and duplicate
renderings, which have evidently crept from the
margin into the text, to be removed (6, g. Is. vii.
16; Hab. iii. 2; Joel i. 8),—for these are blem-
ishes, not of the Version itself, but of the copies—
and forming a rough estimate of what the Septua-
gint was in its earliest state, we may perhaps say
of it, in the words of the well-known simile, that it
was, in many parts, the wrong side of the Hebrew
tapestry, exhibiting the general outlines of the
pattern, but confused in the more delicate lines,
and with many ends of threads visible; or, to use
amore dignified illustration, the Septuagint is the
image of “the original seen through a glass not
adjusted to the proper focus; the larger features
are shewn, but the sharpness of definition is lost.
B. We have anticipated the answer to the second
question—Ts the Version minutely accurate in de-
tails ?—but will give a few examples:
1. The same word in the same chapter is often
rendered by differing words—Ex. xii. 13, ‘AND,
«ΕἸ will pass Sue * LXX. σκεπάσω, but 23, nds,
“will pass over,” LXX. παρελεύσεται.
2. Differing words by the same word—Ex. a
23, Ty, “pass through,” and NDA, * ‘pass over,’
both by παρελεύσεται ; Num. xv. 4, 5, nM,
and ΓΞ], “ἐ sacrifice,’ both by aucla:
3. The divine names are frequently interchanged ;
Κύριος is put for ods, Gop, and Θεός for min,
JEHOVAH; and the two are often wrongly com-
bined or th ongly separated,
4. Proper names are sometimes translated, some-
times not. In Gen. xxiii. by translating the name
Machpelah (τὸ διπλοῦν), the Version is made to
speak first of the cave being in the field (ver. 9),
and then of the field being in the cave (ver. 17),
6 ἀγρὸς ᾿Ἐφρὼν, ὃς ἦν ἐν τῷ διπλῷ σπηλαίῳ,
the last word not warranted by the Hebrew. Zech.
vi. 14 is a curious example of four names of
persons being translated, e. g. made, “to To-
bijah,” LXX. τοῖς χρησίμοις αὐτῆς; Pisgah in
Deut. xxxiv. 1 is φασγὰ, but in Deut. iii. 27, τοῦ
λελαξευμένου.
5. The translators are often misled by the simi-
larity of Hebrew words: e. g- Num. iii. 26,
pan", “the cords of it,’ LXX. τὰ κατάλοιπα,
and iv. 26, τὰ περισσά. In other places of κάλοι,
and Is, liv. 2, τὰ σχοινίσματα, both rightly. Ex.
mye alle syDw, “they heard,’ LXX. ἐχάρη
προ); ᾿ Num. xvi. 15, “ I have not taken one ass ””
cin), LXX. οὐκ ἐπιθύμημα (TOM) εἴληφα ;
Deut. xxxii. 10, JAN, “he found him,’ LXX.
αὐτάρκησεν αὐτόν ; 1 ‘Sam. xii. 2, may, “Tam
grayheaded,” LXX. καθήσομαι OMI) ; Gen. iii.
17, FVAYS, “ for thy sake,” LXX. ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις
σου (π for Ὕ.
In very many cases the error may be thus traced
to the similarity of some of the Hebrew letters,
Ἵ and 5, 7 and NM, ", and }, &c.; in some it is
difficult to see any connexion between the original and
Daw 23, “ the
“ offering,”
the version: ¢.g. Deut. xxxii. 8,
SEPTUAGINT
sons of Israel,” LXX. ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ.
Symmachus, υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ.
1207
Aquila and
HES Salle 04
Watchman, what of the night?
Watchman, what of the night ?
The watchman said,
The morning cometh, and also
the night :
If ye will enquire, enquire ye.
Xeturn, come.
LXX.
Φυλάσσετε ἐπάλξεις
Φυλάσσω ToTpwt Kav
τὴν νύκτα
ἐὰν ζητῇς ζήτει"
καὶ παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ οἴκει.
6. Besides the above deviations, and many like
them, which are probably due to credential causes,
the change of a letter, or doubtful writing in the
Hebrew, there are some passages which seem to
exhibit a studied ΤΉΝ in the LXX. from the
Hebrew: ὁ. g. Gen. ii. 2, on the seventh 3} Π)
day Gop ended his work, LXX. συνετέλεσεν ὃ
Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ gern τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. The
addition in Ex. xii. 40, καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ Χαναὰν,
appears to be of this idl inserted to solve a diffi-
culty.
Frequently the strong expressions of the Hebrew
are softened down ; where human parts are ascribed
to Gon, for hand the LXX. substitute power: for
mouth—word, ἄς. Ex. iv. 16, ‘* Thou shalt be to
him instead of Gop” cordon), LXX. σὺ δὲ
αὐτῷ ἔσῃ τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ; see Exod. iy. 15.
These and many more savour of design, rather than
of accident or error.
The Version is, therefore, not minutely accurate
in details ; and it may be laid down as a principle,
never to build any argument on words or phrases
of the Septuagint, without comparing them with the
Hebrew. The Greek may be right ; but very often
its variations are wrong.
T. We shall now be prepared ἧς weigh the tradi-
tion of the Father 5 that the Version was made by
inspiration: κατ᾽ ἐπίπνοιαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Irenaeus ;
“divino Spiritu interpretati,” Augustine. Even
Jerome himself seems to think that the LXX. may
have sometimes added words to the original, “ob
Spiritus Sancti auctoritatem, licet in Hebracis vo-
luminibus non legatur” (Praefat. in Paralip. tom.
i. col. 1419).
Let us try to form some conception of what is
meant by the inspiration of translators. It cannot
mean what Jerome here seems to allow, that the
translators were divinely moved to add to the ori-
ginal, for this would be the inspiration of Prophets ;
as he himself says in another passage (Prolog. in
Genesin, tom. i. ) ‘ aliud est enim vertere, aliud
esse interpretem.” Every such addition would be,
infact, a new revelation.
Nor can it be, as some have thought, that the
deviations of the Septuagint from the original were
divinely directed, whether in order to adapt the
Scriptures to the mind of the heathen, or for other
purposes. This would be, pro tanto, a new reve-
lation, and it is difficult to conceive of such a
revelation; for, be it observed, the discrepance
between the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures would
tend to separate the Jews of Palestine from those
of Alexandria, and of other places where the Greek
Scriptures were used; there would be two different
copies of the same books dispersed throughout the
world, each claiming Divine authority ; the appeal
to Moses and the Prophets would lose much of its
force; the standard of Divine truth would be ren-~
dered doubtful ; the trumpet would give an uncertain
sound.
No! If there be such a thing as an inspiration
1208 SEPTUAGINT
of translators, it must be an effect of the Holy
Spirit on their minds, enabling them to do their
work of translation more perfectly than by their
own abilities and acquirements; to overcome the
difficulties arising from defective knowledge, from
imperfect MSS., from similarity of letters, from
human infirmity and weariness ; and so to produce
a copy of the Scriptures, setting forth the Word of
God, and the history of his people, in its original
truth and purity. This is the kind of inspiration
claimed for the translators by Philo (Vit. Mosis,
lib. 1i.), “ We look upon the persons who made this
Version, not merely as translators, but as persons
chosen and set apart by Divine appointment, to
whom it was given to comprehend and express the
sense and meaning of Moses in the fullest and clearest
manner.”
The reader will be able to judge, from the fore-
going examples, whether the Septuagint Version
satisties this test. If it does, it will be found not
only substantially faithful, but minutely accurate
in details ; it will enable us to correct the Hebrew
in every place where an error has crept in; it will
give evidence of that faculty of intuition in its
highest form, which enables our great critics to
divine from the faulty text the true reading ; it will
be, in short, a republication of the original text,
purified from the errors of human hands and eyes,
stamped with fresh authority from Heaven.
This is a question to be decided by facts, by the
phenomena of the Version itself. We will simply
declare our own conviction that, instead of such a
Divine republication of the original, we find a marked
distinction between the original and the Septuagint ;
a distinction which is well expressed in the words of
Jerome (Prolog. in Genesin) :
Ibi Spiritus ventura praedicit ; hic eruditio et
verdorum copia ea quae intelligit transfert.
And it will be remembered that this agrees with
the ancient narrative of the Version, known by the
name of Aristeas, which represents the interpreters
as meeting in one house, forming one council, con-
ferring together, and agreeing on the sense (see Hody,
lib. ii..c. vi.).
There are some, perhaps, who will deem this
estimate of the LXX. too low; who think that the
use of this version in the N. Τὶ, stamps it with an
authority above that of a mere translation. But
as the Apostles and Evangelists do not invariably
cite the O. T. according to this version, we are left
to judge by the light of facts and evidence. Stu-
dents of Holy Scripture, as well as students of the
natural world, should bear in mind the maxim of
Bacon—Sola spes est in verd inductione.
11. WHAT, THEN, ARE THE BENEFITS TO BE
DERIVED FROM THE STUDY OF THE
SEPTUAGINT ?
After all the notices of imperfection above given,
it may seem strange to say, but we believe it to be
the truth, that the student of Scripture can scarcely
read a chapter without some benefit, especially if
he be a student of Hebrew, and able, even in a
very humble way, to compare the Version with
the Original.
‘1. For the Old Testament. We have seen above,
that the Septuagint gives evidence of the character
and condition of the Hebrew MSS. from which it
was made, with respect to vowel points and the
mode of writing.
This evidence often renders very material help in
the correction aud establishment of the Hebrew
SEPTUAGINT
text. Being made from MSS. far older than the
Masoretic recension, the Septuagint often indicates
readings more ancient and more correct than those
of our present Hebrew MSS. and editions; and often
speaks decisively between the conflicting readings
of the present MSS.
E. q. Ps. xxii. 17 (in LXX. xxi. 16), the printed
Hebrew text is ‘783; but several MSS. havea verb
in 3 pers. plural, OND: the Sept. steps in to decide
the doubt, ὥρυξαν χεῖράς μον καὶ πόδας μου, con-
firmed by Aquila, ἤσχυναν.
Ps, xvi. 10. The printed text is 7)7°DM, in the
plural; but near 200 MSS. have the singular,
JVDN, which is clearly confirmed by the évidence
of the Sept., οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν cov ἰδεῖν
διαφθοράν.
In passages like these, which touch on the car-
dinal truths of the Gospel, it is of great importance
to have the testimony of an unsuspected witness,
in the LXX., long before the controversy between
Christians and Jews.
In Hosea vi. 5, the context clearly requires that
the first person should be maintained throughout
the verse; the Sept. corrects the present Hebrew
text, without a change except in the position of one
letter, τὸ κρίμα μου ὧς φῶς ἐξελεύσεται, render-
ing unnecessary the addition of words in Italics, in
our English Version.
More examples might be given, but we must
content ourselves with one signal instance, of a
clause omitted in the Hebrew (probably by what is
called ὁμοιοτέλευτον.), and preserved in the Sept.
In Genesis iv. 8, is a passage which in the Hebrew,
and in our English Version, is evidently incomplete :
“And Cain talked (δ Ὁ) with Abel his bro-
ther ; and it came to pass when they were in the
field,” &c.
Here the Hebrew word TON, is the word con-
stantly used as the introduction to words spoken,
“Cain said unto Abel” ... , but, as the text
stands, there are no words spoken; and the follow-
ing words “. . . when they were in the field,”
come in abruptly. The Sept. fills up the lacuna
Hebraeorum codicum (Pearson), καὶ εἶπε Κάϊν
πρὸς ᾿Αβὲλ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διέλϑωμεν εἰς Td
πεδίον (= 77 7352). The Sam, Pentateuch
and the Syriac Version agree with the Sept., and
the passage is thus cited by Clemens Romanus
(Ep. i. c. iv.). The Hebrew transcriber’s eye was
probably misled by the word me, terminating
both the clauses.
In all the foregoing cases, we do not attribute
any paramount authority to the Sept. on account
of its superior antiquity to the extant Hebrew
MSS.; but we take it as an evidence of a more
ancient Hebrew text, as an eye-witness of the texts,
280 or 180 years B.c. ‘The decision as to any par-
ticular reading must be made by weighing this
evidence, together with that of other ancient Ver-
sions, with the arguments from the context, the rules
of grammar, the genius of the language, and the
comparison of parallel passages. And thus the He-
brew will sometimes correct the Greek, and some-
times the Greek the Hebrew; both liable to err
through the infirmity of human eyes and hands,
but each checking the othér’s errors.
2. The close connexion between the Old and New
Testament makes the study of the Septuagint ex-
tremely valuable, and almost indispensable to the
theological student. Pearson quotes from Ire-
SEPTUAGINT
naeus and Jerome, as to the citation of the words
of prophecy from the Septuagint. The former, as
Pearson observes, speaks too universally, when he
says that the Apostles, “" prophetica omnia ita enun-
ciaverunt quemadmodum Seniorum interpretatio
continet.”” But it was manifestly the chief’ store-
house from which they drew their proofs and pre-
cepts. Mr. Grinfield® says that “the number of
direct ae from the Old Testament in the
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, may be estimated at
350, of which not more than 50 materially differ
from the LXX. But the indirect verbal allusions
would swell the number to a far greater amount ”
(Apol. for LXX., p. 37). The comparison of the
citations with the Septuagint is much facilitated by
Mr. Grinfield’s ‘ Editio Hellenistica’ of the New
Testament, and by Mr. Gough’s ‘ New Test. Quo-
tations,’ in which the Hebrew and Greek passages
of the Old Test. are placed side by side with the
citations in the New. (On this subject see Hody, p.
248, 281; Kennicott, Dissert. Gen. 584; Cappelli
Critica Sacra, vol. 11.) ’
3. Further, the language of the Sept. is the mould
in which the thoughts and expressions of the Apos-
tles and Evangelists are cast. In this version Divine
Truth has taken the Greek language as its shrine,
and adapted it to the things of Gop. Here the
peculiar idioms of the Hebrew are grafted upon the
stock of the Greek tongue; words and phrases take
a new sense. The terms of the Mosaic ritual in
the Greek Version are employed by the Apostles
to express the great truths of the Gospel, e.g.
ἀρχιερεὺς, θυσία, ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας. Hence the Sept.
is a treasury of illustration for the Greek Testa-
ment.
Many examples are given by Pearson (Praef. ad
LXX.), e.g. σὰρξ, πνεῦμα, δικαιόω, φρόνημα τῆς
σαρκὸς, “Fr ustra apud veteres Graecos quaeras
quid sit πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ, vel εἰς τὸν Θεὸν,
quid sit εἰς τὸν Κύριον, vel πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν πίστις,
quae toties in Novo Foedere inculcantur, et ex lec-
tione Seniorum facile intelliguntur.”
Valckenaer also (on Luke i. 51) speaks strongly
on this subject: ‘“‘Graecum Novi Testamenti con-
textum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius, quam
diligenter versasse Alexandvinam antiqui Foederis
interpretationem, e qua una plus peti poterit auxilii,
quam ex veteribus scriptoribus Graecis simul sumtis.
Centena reperieutur in N. Τὶ nusquam obvia in
scriptis Graecorum veterum, sed frequentata in Alex*.
Versione.”
FE. g. the sense of τὸ πάσχα in Deut. xvi. 2,
including the sacrifices of the Paschal week, throws
light on “the question as to the day on which our
Lord kept his last Passover, arising out of the
words in John xviii. 28, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φάγωσι τὸ
πάσχα.
4. The frequent citations of the LXX. by the
Greek Fathers and of the Latin Version of the LXX.
by the Fathers who wrote in Latin, form another
strong reason for the study of the Septuagint. Pear-
son cites the appellation of Scarabaeus bonus, applied
to CHRist by Ambrose and Augustine, as explained
by reference to the Sept. in Habak. ii. 11, κάνθαρος
ἐκ ξύλου.
5. On the value of the Sept. as a monument of
the Greek language in one of its most curious
phases, this is not the place to dwell. Our busi-
ness is with the use of this Version, as it bears on
SEPTUAGINT 1209
the criticism and interpretation of the Bible. And
we may safely urge the theological student who
wishes to be ““ thoroughly furnished,” to have
always at his side the Septuagint. Let the Hebrew,
if possible, be placed before him ; and at his right,
in the next place of honour, the Alexandrian Version ;
the close and careful study of this Version wiil be
more profitable than the most learned inquiry into
its origin; it will help him to a better knowledge
both of the Old Testament and the New.
OBJECTS TO BE ATTAINED BY THE CRITICAL
SCHOLAR.
1. A question of much interest still waits for a
solution. In many of the passages which show a
studied variation from the Hebrew (some of which
are above noted), the Septuagint and the Sama-
ritan Pentateuch agree together: e. 4. Gen. ii. 2;
Ex. xii. 40.
They also agree in many of the ages of the
Post-Diluvian Patriarchs, adding 100 years to the
age at which the first son of each was born, ac-
cording to the Hebrew. (See Cappelli Crit. Sacr.
‘ii. xx. vii.)
They agree in the addition of the words διέλθω-
μεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον, Gen. iv. 8, which we have seen
reason to think rightly added,
Various reasons have been conjectured for this
agreement; translation into Greek from a Sama-
ritan text, interpolation from the Samaritan into
the Greek, or vice versd; but the question does not
seem to have found a satisfactory answer.
2. For the critical scholar it would be a worthy
object of pursuit to ascertain, as nearly as possible,
the original text of the Septuagint as it stood in the
time of the Apostles and Philo. If this could be
accomplished with any tolerable completeness, it
would possess a strong interest, as being the first
translation of any writing into another tongue, and
the first repository of Divine truth to the great
colony of Hellenistic Jews at Alexandria.
The critic would probably take as his basis the
Roman edition, from the Codex Vaticanus, as repre-
senting most nearly the ancient (κοινὴ) texts.
The collection of fragments of Origen’s Hexapla,
by Montfaucon and “others, would help him to
eliminate the additions which have been made to
the LXX. from other sources, and to purge out
the glosses and double renderings ; the citations in
the New Testament and in Philo, in the early
Christian Fathers, both Greek and Latin, would
render assistance of the same kind; and perhaps
the most effective aid of all would be found in the
fragments of the Old Latin Version collected by
Sabatier in 3 vols. folio (Rheims, 1743).
3. Another work, of more practical and general
interest, still remains to be done, viz. to provide
a Greek version, accurate and faithful to the
Hebrew original, for the use of the Greek Church,
and of students reading the Scriptures in that
language for purposes of devotion or mental im-
provement. Mr. Field’s edition is as yet the best
edition of this kind; it originated in the desire to
supply the Greek Church with such a faithful
copy of the Scriptures; but as the editor has
followed the text of the Alexandrian MS., only
correcting, by the help of other MSS., the evident
errors of transcription (e.g. in Gen. ee) 15, cor-
recting τραφείς, in the Alex. MS. to ταφείς, the
e One of the most diligent students of the LXX., who
has devoted his life to the promotion of this branch of
Scripture study, and has lately founded a Lecture on the
LXX. in the University of Oxford.
1210 SEPTUAGINT
reading of the Complut. text), and as we have
seen above that the Alexandrian text is far from
being the nearest to the Hebrew, it is evident that
a more faithful and complete copy of the Old
Testament in Greek might yet be provided.
We may here remark, in conclusion, that such
an edition might prepare the way for the correction
of the blemishes which remain in our Authorised
English Version. Embracing the results of the
criticism of the last 250 years, it might .exhibit
several passages in their original purity; and the
corrections thus made, being approved by the judg-
ment of the best scholars, would probably, after a
time, find their way into the margin, at least, of
our English Bibles.
One example only can be here given, in a passage
which has caused no small perplexity and loads of
commentary. Isai. ix. 5 is thus rendered in the
LXX.: τὸ πλεῖστον τοῦ λαοῦ, ὃ κατήγαγες ἐν
εὐφροσύνῃ σου" καὶ εὐφρανθήσονται ἐνώπιόν σου,
ὡς οἱ εὐφραινόμενοι ἐν ἀμήτῳ, καὶ ὃν τρόπον οἱ
διωιρούμενοι σκῦλα.
It is easy to see how the faulty rendering of the
first part of this has arisen from the similarity of
Hebrew letters, M and 7, Tand “4, and from an
ancient error in the Hebrew text. The following
translation restores the whole passage to its original
clearness and force :—
ἐπλήθυνας τὴν ἀγαλλίασιν Gyan,
ἐμεγαλύνας τὴν εὐφροσύνην"
εὐφραίνονται ἐνώπιόν σου ὡς οἱ εὐφραινόμενοι
ἐν ἀμήτῳ,
ὃν τρόπον ἀγαλλιῶνται οἱ διαιρούμενοι σκῦλα.
Thou hast multiplied the gladness,
Thou hast increased {πράου ;
They rejoice before thee as with the joy of harvest ;
As men are glad when they divide the spoil.
Here ἀγαλλίασις and ἀγαλλιῶνται, in the first
and fourth lines, correspond to Oy and ao.
εὐφροσύνη and εὐφραίνονται, in the second and
third, to AMD and ANDY.
The fourfold introverted parallelism is complete,
and the connexion with the context of the prophecy |
perfect.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that in such
an edition the apocryphal additions to the Book
of Esther, and those to the Book of Daniel, which |
are not recognised by the Hebrew Canon, would |
be either omitted, or (perhaps more properly, since |
they appear to have been incorporated with the
Septuagint at an early date) would be placed sepa-
- rately, as in Mr. Field’s edition and our English
Version. [See APocrypHA; CANON; DANIEL;
ἌΡΟΟ. AppITIons; EStHER ; SAMARITAN PENT. |
LITERATURE.
Cappelli Critica Sacra, 1651.
Waltoni Proleg. ad Bibl. Polyglott., 1657.
Pearsoni Praef. Paraenetica ad LXX., 1655.
Voss I. de ΧΑ. Interp, Hag. 1661. App.
1665.
Moutfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae super-
sunt, Paris, 1710, ed. Bahrdt. Lips. 1740.
Hody, de Bibl. Text. Oriyinal. Vers. Graecis, et |
Latina Vulgata, 1705.
Hottinger, Thesaurus,
Owen, Dr. H., Lnquiry into the LXX., 1769
Brief Account, ¥c., 1787.
Kennicott’s Dissertations.
Holmes, Prolegg. ad LXX,, 1798.
SERAIAH
Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo Juduco,
1806.
Schleusner, Opusc. Crit. ad Verss. Gr. V. 7.,
1812.
Dahne,
1834,
Toépler, de Pentat. interp. Alex. indole crit. et
hermen., 1830,
Pliischke, Lectiones Alex, et Hebr., 1837.
Thiersch, de Pent. Vers. Alex., 1841.
Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, 1841 ;
Ueber den Einfluss der Paldastinischen Exegese auf
die Alex. Hermeneutih, 1851.
Grinfield, E. W., N. 7, Editio Hellenistica,
1843, and Apology for the Septuagint.
Selwyn, W., Notae Criticae in Ex. 1—xxiv.
Numeros, Deuteronomium, 1856, 7, 8 (comparing
LXX. with Hebrew, &c.) Hor. Hebr. on Isai. ix.
Churton, Hulsean Essay, 1861.
Journal of Sacred Lit., Papers (by G. Pearson’
on LXX. Vols. i. iv. vii., 3rd series.
Introduction to Old Test., Carpzov, Eichhorn,
Havernick, Davidson.
Concordances, Kircher, 1607; Trommius, 1718.
Lexica, Biel, 1780 ; Schleusner, 1820.
On the Language of the LXX,
Winer, Grammar.
Sturz, de Dialecto Macedonica.
Maltby, Ed., Zo Sermons before University
of Durham, 1843. [W.S.]
SEPULCHRE. [Burana
SE’RAH (MW: Σάρα in Gen., Sopé in 1 Chr. ;
Alex., Zadp in Gen., Sapat in 1 Chr.: Sara). The
daughter of Asher (Gen. xlvi. 17 ; 1 Chr. vii. 30) ;
called in Num. xxvi. 46, SARAH.
SERATAH (AY: acd; Alex. Σαραίας:
Saraias). 1. Seraiah, the king’s scribe or secretary
in the reign of David (2 Sam. viii. 17). In the
Vatican MS. of the LXX. Saca appears to be the
result of a confusion between Seraiah and Shisha,
whose sons were secretaries to Solomon (1 K. iv. 3).
2. (Bapatas; Alex. Sapatas: Saruias.) The
high-priest in the reign of Zedekiah. He was taken
captive to Babylon by Nebuzaradan, the captain of
Judisch - Alexandrinische Philosophie.
|the guard, and slain with others at Riblah (2 K.
xxv. 18; 1 Chr. vi. 14; Jer. lii. 24).
8. (Saraia, Sarea.) The son of Tanhumeth the
Netophathite, according to 2 K. xv. 23, who came
with Ishmael, Johanan, and Jaazaniah to Gedaliah,
and was persuaded by him to submit quietly to the
Chaldeans and settle in the land (Jer, xl. 8).
4. (Zapata: Saraia.) The son of Kenaz, brother
of Othniel, and father of Joab, the father or founder
of the valley of Charashim (1 Chr. iv. 13, 14).
5. (Σαραῦ; Alex. Sapaia.) Ancestor of Jehu,
a chief of one of the Simeonite families (1 Chr.
iv. 35).
6. (Sapatas.) One of the children of the pro-
vince who returned with Zerubbabel (zr. ii. 2).
In Neh. vii. 7 he is called AZARIAH, and in 1 Esd.
v. 8 ZACHARIAS, |
'7. One of the ancestors of Ezra the scribe (Ezr.
vii. 1), but whether or not the same as Seraiah the
high-priest seems uncertain. Called also SARATAS
(1 Esd. viii. 1; 2 Esd. i. 1),
8. (vids ’Apaia; Alex. υἱὸς Zapata.) A priest,
or priestly family, who signed the covenant with
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 2).
9. (Sapaia.) A priest, the son of Hilkiah (Neh.
xi. 11), who was ruler of the house of God after the
SERAPHIM
return from Babylon. In 1 Chr, ix. 11 he is called
AZARIAH,
10. (Sapaia.) The head of a priestly house
which went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel.
His representative in the days of Joiakim the high-
priest was Meraiah (Neh. xii. 1, 12).
11. The son of Neriah, and brother of Baruch
(Jer. 11. 59, 61). He went. with Zedekiah to Ba-
bylon in the 4th year of his reign, or, as the Targum
has it, ‘in the mission of Zedekiah,”’ and is de-
scribed as AMI WY, sar eae @it. “ prince
of rest; A. "Vv. a quiet prince ;” marg. “ or,
prince of Menucha, or, chief chamberlain”), a title
which is interpreted by Kimchi as that of the office
of chamberlain, ‘* for he was a friend of the king,
and was with the king at the time of his rest, to
talk and to delight himself with him.” The LXX.
and Targum read 1173/9, minchdh, “an offering,”
and so Rashi, who says, ‘‘under his hand were
those who saw the king’s face, who brought him a
present.” ‘The Peshito-Syriac renders “ chief of the
camp,” apparently reading MIMD, machdneh, un-
less the translator understood ménichah of the halt-
ing-place of an army, in which sense it occurs in Num.
x. 33. Gesenius adopts the latter view, and makes
Seraiah hold an office similar to that of “ quarter-
master-general ” in the Babylonian amy. It is
perfectly clear, however, that he was in attendance
upon Zedekiah, and an officer of the Jewish court.
The suggestion of Maurer, adopted by Hitzig, has
more to commend it, that he was an officer who
took charge of the royal caravan on its march, and
fixed the place where it should halt. Hiller ( Ono-
mast.) says Seraiah was prince of Menuchah, a
place on the borders of Judah and Dan, elsewhere
called Manahath. The rendering of the Vulgate is
unaccountable, princeps prophetiae.
Seraiah was commissioned by the prophet Jere-
miah to take with him on his journey the roll in
which he had written the doom of Babylon, and
sink it in the midst of the Euphrates, as a token
that Babylon should sink, never to rise again (Jer.
li. 60-64). - AS Wie}
SER'APHIM (DSW: Σεραφείμ.: Seraphim).
An order of celestial beings, whom Isaiah beheld in
vision standing above Jehovah (not as in A. V.,
“ above it,” 1. 6. the throne) as He sat upon his thr ane
(Is. vi. 2). They are described as having each of them
three pairs of wings, with one of which they covered
their faces (a token of humility; comp. Ex. iii. 6;
1K. xix. 13; Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 10); with the
second they covered their feet (a token of respect ;
see Lowth on Is. vi., who quotes Chardin in illustra-
tion) ; while with the third they flew. They seem
to have borne a general resemblance to the human
figure, for they are represented as having a face, a
voice, feet, and hands (ver. 6). Their occupation
was twofold—to celebrate the praises of Jehovah’s
holiness and power (ver. 3), and to act as the
medium of communication between heaven and
earth (ver. 6). From their antiphonal chant (‘ one
cried unto another”) we may conceive them to
have been ranged. in opposite rows on each side of
the throne. As the Seraphim are nowhere else
mentioned in the Bible, our conceptions of their ap-
pearance must be restricted to the above particulars,
aided by such uncertain light as etymology and
analogy will supply. We may observe that the
idea of a winged human figure was not peculiar to
the Hebrews: among the sculptures found at
SERGIUS PAULUS 1211
Mourghaub in Persia, we meet with a representa-
tion of a man with two pairs of wings, springing
from the shoulders, and extending, the one pair up-
wards, the other downwards, so as to admit of
covering the head and the feet (Vaux’s Nin. and
Persep. p. 322). The wings in this instance imply
deification ; for speed and ease of motion stand, in
man’s imagination, among the most prominent tokens
of Divinity. The meaning of the word ‘ seraph”’ is
extremely doubtful ; the only word which resembles
it in the currént Hebrew is sdraph,* “to burn,”
whence the idea of brilliancy has been extracted.
Such a sense would harmonise with other descrip-
tions of celestial beings (e.g. Ez. i. 13; Matt.
xxviii. 3) ; but it is objected that the Hebrew term
never bears this secondary sense. Gesenius (765.
p- 1341) connects it with an Arabic term signify-
ing high or exalted; and this may be regarded as
the generally received etymolory; but the absence
of any cognate Hebrew term is certainly worthy of
remark. The similarity between the names Sera-
phim and Sarapis, led Hitzig (in 75. vi. 2) to
identify the two, and to give to the former the
firure ¥, a winged serpent. But Sarapis was un-
known ™ the Egyptian Pantheon until the time of
Ptolemy Soter (Wilkinson’s Anc. Lg. iv. 360 ff.) ;
and, even had it been otherwise, we can hardly
conceive that the Hebrews would have borrowed
their imagery from such a source. Knobel’s con-
jecture that Seraphim is merely a false reading for
shardthim,» “ministers,” is ingenious, but the
latter word is not Hebrew. The relation subsisting
between the Cherubim and Seraphim presents an-
other difficulty: the “ living creatures ” described
in Rev. iv. 8 resemble the Seraphim in their occu-
pation and the number of the wings; and the
Cherubim in their ce al appearance and number,
as described in Ez. OL tie Loerie digerence
between the two ie not, therefore, be great, but
we cannot believe them to be identical so long as
the distinction of name holds good. [W. L. B.]
SER’ED (TD: Σερέδ in Gen, Sapéd in
Num.: Sared). The firstborn of Zebulon, and
ancestor of the family of the Sardites (Gen. xlvi.
14; Num. xxvi. 26).
SER'GIUS PAU’LUS oe Παῦλος : Ser-
gius Paulus) was the name of the proconsul of Cy-
prus when the Apostle Paul visited that island with
Barnabas on his first missionary tour (Acts xiii.
7 sq.). He is described as an intelligent man
(συνετός), truth-seeking, eager for information
from all sources within his reach. It was this trait
of his character which led him in the first instance
to admit to his society Elymas the Magian, and
afterwards to seek out the missionary strangers and
learn from them the nature of the Christian doctrine.
The strongest minds at that period were drawn
with a singular fascination to the occult studies of
the East ; and the ascendancy which Luke repre-
sents the “ sorcerer”? as having gained over Sergius
illustrates a characteristic feature of the times. For
other examples of a similar character, see Howson’s
Life and Epistles of Paul, vol. i. p. 177 sq. But
Sergius was not effectually or long deceived by the
arts of the impostor; for on becoming acquainted
with the Apostle he examined at once the claims of
the Gospel, and yielded his mind to the evidence of
its truth.
AW. » Ee,
1212 SERON
It is unfortunate that this officer is styled * de-
puty” in the Common Version, and not ‘ pro-
consul,” according to*the import of the Greek term
(ἀνθύπατος). Though Cyprus was originally an
imperial province (Dion Cassius, liii, 12-), and as such
governed by propraetors or legates (ἀντιστράτηγοι,
πρεσβευταί), it was afterwards transterred to the
Roman senate, and henceforth governed by pro-
consuls (kal οὕτως ἀνθύπατοι καὶ és ἐκεῖνα τὰ
ἔθνη πέμπεσθαι ἤρξαντο, Dion Cassius, liv. 4).
For the value of this attestation of Luke’s accuracy,
see Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History, vol.
i. p. 32sq. Coins too are still extant, on which
this very title, ascribed in the Acts to Sergius
Paulus, occurs as the title of the Roman governors
of Cyprus. (See Akerman’s Numismatic Iilustra-
tions, p. 41; and Howson’s Life and Lpistles of
Paul, vol. i. pp. 176, 187.) pe 13 ἘΠῚ
SE'RON (Σήρων: in Syr. and one Gk. MS.
Hpwy: Seron), a general of Antiochus Epiph.,
in chief command of the Syrian army (1 Mace. iii.
13, 6 ἄρχων τ. δυν. S.), who was deteated at Beth-
horon by Judas Maccabaeus (B.C. 166), as in the
day when Joshua pursued the five kings # in the
going down of Beth-horon”’ (1 Mace. iii. 24; Josh.
x. 11). According to Josephus, he was the governor
of Coele-Syria and fell in the battle (Jos. Ant. xii.
7, $1), uor is there any reason to suppose that his
statements are mere deductions from the language
of 1 Mace. [B. F. W.]
SERPENT. The ips Hebrew words de-
note serpents of some kind or other. ’Acshib,
pethen, tzepha or tziph’dni, shephiphon, nachash,
and epl’eh. There is great uncertainty with respect
to the identification of some of these terms, the
first four of which are noticed under the articles
ADDER and Asp (Appendix A): the two remaining
names we proceed to discuss.
1, Nachash (WN):
luber), the generic name of any serpent, occurs
frequently in the Ὁ, T. The following are the
principal Biblical allusions to this animal :—Its
subtilty is mentioned in Gen. iii. 1; its wisdom is
alluded to by our Lord in Matt. x. 16; the poi-
sonous properties of some species are often men-
tioned (see Ps. lviii. 4; Prov. xxiii. 32); the sharp
tongue of the serpent, which it would appear some
of the ancient Hebrews believed to be the instru-
ment of poison, is mentioned in Ps, exl. 3; Job
xx. 16, “the viper’s tongue shall slay him;”
although in other places, as in Prov. xxiii. 32,
Kecl. x. 8, 11, Num. xxi. 9, the venom is correctly
ascribed to the bite, while in Job xx. 14 the gall
is said to be the poison; the habit serpents have of
lying concealed in hedges is alluded to in Eccl. x. 8,
and in holes of walls, in Am. v. 19; their dwelling
in dry sandy places, in Deut. viii. 15; their won-
derful mode of progression did not escape the obser-
vation of the author of Prov. xxx, who expressly
mentions it as ‘‘ one of the three things which were
too wonderful for him” (19); the oviparous nature
of most of the order is alluded to in Is. lix. 5, where
the A. V., however, has the unfortunate rendering
of ““ cockatrice.” The art of taming and charming
serpents is of great antiquity, and is alluded to in
Ps. lviii. 5; Eccl. x. 11; Jer. viii. 17, and doubtless
intimated by St. James (iii. 7), who particularises
serpents among all other animals that “have been
tamed by man.” . [SERPENT-CHARMING. | _
It was under the form of a serpent that the devil
ὄφις, δράκων : serpens, co-
‘belonging tg it, “Be ye wise as serpents”
SERPENT
seduced Eve; hence in Scripture Satan is called “ the
old serpent” (Rev. xii. 9, and comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3).
The part which the serpent played in the
transaction of the Fall must not be passed over
without some brief comment, being full of deep
and curious interest. First of all, then, we have
to note the subtilty ascribed to this reptile, which
was the reason for its having been selected as the
instrument of Satan’s wiles, and to compare with
it the quality of wisdom mentioned by our Lord as
(Matt.
x. 16). It was an ancient belief, both amongst
Orientals and the people of the western world, that
the serpent was endued with a large share of
sagacity. The Hebrew word translated “ subtle,”
though frequently used in a good sense, implies,
it is probable, in this passage, ‘‘ mischievous and
malignant craftiness,” and is well rendered by
Aquila and Theodotion by πανοῦργος, and thus
commented upon by Jerome, ‘‘magis itaque hoe
verbo calliditas et versutia quam sapientia demon-
stratur ” (see Rosenmiiller, Schol. 7. c.). The
ancients give various reasons for regarding serpents
as being endued with wisdom, as that one species,
the Cerastes, hides itself in the sand and bites the
heels of animals as they pass, or that, as the head
was considered the only vulnerable part, the serpent
takes care to conceal it under the folds of the body.
Serpents have in all ages been regarded as emblems of
cunning craftiness. The particular wisdom alluded
to by our Lord refers, it is probable, to the sagacity
displayed by serpents in avoiding danger. The
disciples were warned to be as prudent in not in-
curring unnecessary persecution,
It has been supposed by many commentators that
the serpent, prior to the Fall, moved along in an
erect attitude, as Milton (Par. L. ix. 496) says—
“ Not with indented wave
Prone on the ground, as since, but on his rear,
Circular base of rising folds that tower’d
Fold above fold, a surging maze.’’
Compare also Josephus, Antiq. i. §4, who
believed that God now for the first time inserted
poison under the serpent’s tongue, and deprived
him of the use of feet, causing him to crawl low
on the ground by the undulating inflexions of the
body (κατὰ τῆς γῆς ἰλυσπώμενον). Patrick
(Comment. 1. 0.) entertained the extraordinary
notion that the serpent of the Fall was a winged
kind (Saraph).
It is quite clear that an erect mode of pro-
gression is utterly incompatible with the structure
of a serpent, whose motion on the ground is so
beautifully effected by the mechanism of the
vertebral column and the multitudinous ribs
which, forming as it were so many pairs of levers,
enable the animal to move its body from place to
place ; consequently, had the snakes before the
Fall moved in an erect attitude, they must have
been formed on a different plan altogether, It is
true that there are saurian reptiles, such as the
Saurophis tetradactylus and the Chamaesaura
anquina of S. Africa, which in external form are
very like serpents, but with quasi-feet ; indeed,
even in the boa-constrictor, underneath the skin
near the extremity, there exist rudimentary legs ;
some have been disposed to believe that the snakes
before the Fall were similar to the Saurophis.
Such an hypothesis, however, is untenable, for all
the fossil ophidia that have hitherto been found
differ in no @ssential respects from modern repre-
sentatives of that order: it is, moreover, beside
,
SERPENT
the mark, for the words of the curse, “ upon thy.
belly shalt thou go,” are as characteristic of the
progression of a saurophoid serpent before the Fall
as of a true ophidian after it. There is no reason
whatever to conclude from the language of Serip-
ture that the serpent underwent any change of
form on account of the part. it played in the his-
tory of the Fall. The sun and the moon were in
the heavens long before they were appointed “ for
signs and for seasons, and for days and for years.”
The typical form of the serpent and its mode of
progression were in all probability the same before
the Fall as after it; but subsequent to the Fall
its form and progression were to be regarded with
hatred and disgust by all mankind, and thus the
animal was cursed ‘above all cattle,” and a mark
of condemnation was for ever stamped upon it.
There can be no necessity to show how that part
of the curse is literally fulfilled which speaks of
the “enmity” that was henceforth to exist between
the serpent and mankind; and though, of course,
this has more especial allusion to the devil, whose
instrument the serpent was in his deceit, yet it is
perfectly true of the serpent. Few will be inclined
to ditier with Theocritus (Zd. xv. 58) :—
Tov ψυχρὸν ὄφιν ταμάλιστα δεδοίκω
Ἔκ παιδός.
Serpents are said in Scripture to “ eat dust” (sce
Gen. iii. 14; Is. Ixv. 25; Mic. vii. 17); these
animals, which for the most part take their food
on the ground, do consequently swallow with it
large portions of sand and dust.
“Almost throughout the East,” writes Dr.
Kalisch (Hist. and Crit. Comment. Gen, iii. 1),
‘the serpent was used as an emblem of the evil
principle, of the spirit of disobedience and con-
tumacy. <A few exceptions only can be discovered.
The Phoenicians adored that animal as a beneficent
genius; and the Chinese consider it as a symbol of
superior wisdom and power, and ascribe to the
kings of heaven (tien-hoangs) bodies of serpents.
Cneph Agathodaemon, denoting Immortality (see Horapollo, i. 1).
Some other nations fluctuated in their conceptions
regarding the serpent. The Egyptians represented
the eternal spirit Kneph, the author of all good,
under the mythic form of that reptile; they under-
stood the art of taming it, and embalmed it after
death ; but they applied the same symbol for the god
of revenge and punishment (Tithrambo), and for
Typhon, the author of ali moral and physical evil;
and in the Egyptian symbolical alphabet the serpent
represents subtlety and cunning, lust and sensual
pleasure. In Greek mythology it is certainly, on
SERPENT 1213
the one hand, the attribute of Ceres, of Mercury, and
of Aesculapius, in their most beneficent qualities ;
but it forms, on the other hand, a part of the terrible
Furies or Eumenides: it appears in the form of a
Python as a fearful monster, which the arrows of a
god only were able to destroy; and it is the most
hideous and most formidable part of the impious
giants who despise and blaspheme the power of
Agathodaemon. From Egyptian Monuments.
a. Sacred symbol of the winged globe and serpent. 6. Head of
hawk surmounted by globe and serpent.
Heaven. The Indians, like the savage tribes of Afvica
and America, suffer and nourish, indeed, serpents in
their temples, and even in their houses; they be-
lieve that they bring happiness to the places which
they inhabit ; they worship them as the symbols
of eternity; but they regard them also as evil
genii, or as the inimical powers of nature which is
gradually depraved by them, and as the enemies of
the gods, who either tear them to pieces or tread
their venomous head under their all-conquering
feet. So contradictory is all animal worship. Its
principle is, in some instances, gratitude, and in
others fear; but if a noxious animal is very dan-
gerous the fear may manifest itself in two ways,
either by the resolute desire of extirpating the
beast, or by the wish of averting the conflict
with its superior power; thus the same fear may,
on the one hand, cause fierce enmity, and on the
other submission and worship.” (See on the sub-
ject. of serpent-worship, Vossius, de Orig. Idol.
i. 5; Bryant’s Mythology, i. 420-490; it is well
illustrated in the apocryphal story of ‘ Bel and
the Dragon ;” comp. Steindorff, de ᾿Οφιολατρείᾳ ;
Winer’s Bib, Realwirt. ii. 488.) The subjoined
woodcut represents the horned cerastes, as very
frequently depicted on the Egyptian monuments.
From Egyptian Monuments.
Horned Cerastes.
The evil spirit in the form of a serpent appears
in the Ahriman or lord of evil who, according to
the doctrine of Zoroaster, first taught men to sin
under the guise of this reptile (Zendavesta, ed.
Kleuk, i. 25, iii. 84; see J. Reinh. Rus de ser-
pente seductore non naturalised diabolo, Jen.
1712, and Z. Grapius, de tentatione Evae et
Christi a diabolo in assumpto corpore facta,
Rostoch. 1712). But compare the opinion of
Dr. Kalisch, who (Comment, on Gen. iii. 14, 15)
says “the serpent is the reptile, not an evil
demon that had assumed its shape. .... If
the serpent represented Satan, it would be ex-
tremely surprising that the former only was cursed ;
and that the latter is not even mentioned . . . . it
1214 SERPENT
would be entirely at variance with the Divine
justice for ever to curse the animal whose shape
it had pleased the evil one to assume.’ <Ac-
cording to the Talmudists, the name of the evil
spirit that beguiled Eve was Samméael Sy) ;
“Ἐν Moses ben Majemon scribit in More lib. 2,
cap. 30, Sammaelem inequitasse serpenti antiquo
et seduxisse Evam. Dicit etiam nomen hoc abso-
lute usurpari de Satana, et Sammaelem nihil aliud
esse quam ipsum Satanam” (Buxtorf, Lex. Tal.
1495).
Much has been written on the question of the
“ fiery serpents” (ΒΨ O31) of Num.
xxi. 6, 8, with which it is usual erroneously to
identify the “fiery flying serpent” of Is. xxx. 6,
and xiv. 29. In the transaction recorded (Num.
ἰ. c.; Deut. viii. 15) as having occurred at the
time of the Exodus, when the rebellious Israelites
were visited with a plague of serpents, there is
not a word about their having been “ flying ”
creatures ; there is therefore no occasion to refer the
venomous snakes in question to the kind of which
Niebuhr (Descript. de l Arab. p. 156) speaks, and
which the Arabs,at Basra denominate Heie sur-
surie, or Heie thiare, ‘‘tlying serpents,” which
obtained that name from their habit of ‘ springing ”’
from branch to branch of the date trees they
inhabit. Besides these are tree-serpents (Den-
drophidae), a harmless family of the Colubrine
snakes, and therefore quite out of the question.
The Heb. term rendered. “ fiery’ by the A. V.
is by the Alexandrine edition of the LXX. repre-
sented by θανατοῦντες, “deadly ;’ Onkelos, the
Arabic version of Saadias, and the Vule. translate
the word ‘‘ burning,” in allusioh to the sensation
produced by the bite; other authorities understand
a reference to the bright colour of the serpents.
It is impossible to point out the species of poi-
sonous snake which destroyed the people in the
Arabian desert. Niebuhr says that the only truly
formidable kind is that called Baetan, a small
slender creature spotted black and white, whose
bite is instant death and whose poison causes the
dead body to swell in an extraordinary manner
(see Forskal, Descript. Animal. p- 15). What
the modern name of this serpent is we have been
unable to ascertain; it is obvious, however, that
either the Cerastes, or the Naia haje, or any other
venomous species frequenting Arabia, may denote
the ‘* serpent of the burning bite’? which destroyed
the children of Israel. The ‘fiery flying serpent”
of Isaiah (7. c.) can have no existence in’ nature,
though it is curious to notice that Herodotus (ii.
75, iii. 108) speaks ‘of serpents with wings whose
bones he imagined he had himself seen near Buto
in Arabia. Monstrous forms of snakes with birds’
wings occur on the Egyptian sculptures; it is
probable that some kind of flying lizard (Draco,
Dracocella, or Dracunculus) may have been the
“flying serpent”? of which Herodotus speaks; and
perhaps, as this animal, though harmless, is yet
calculated to inspire horror by its appearance, it
may denote the flying serpent of the prophet, and
have been regarded by the ancient Hebrews as
an animal as terrible as a venomous snake.
SERPENT, BRAZEN
2. Eph’ch (NYDN: ὄφις, ἀσπίς, βασίλισκος :
vipera, requlus) occurs in Job xx. 16, Is. xxx. 6,
and lix. 5, in all of which passages the A. V. has
“viper.” There is no Scriptural allusion by means
of which it is possible to determine the species of
serpent indicated by the Heb. term, which is de-
rived from a root which signifies “‘ to hiss.” Shaw
(Trav. p. 251) speaks of some poisonous snake
which the Arabs call Leffah (Z7 effah): “it 1s the
most malignant of the tribe, and rarely above a
foot long.” Jackson also (Jarocco, p. 110) men-
tions this serpent; from his description it would
seem to be the Algerine adder (Hcehidna arietans
var. Mauritanica). The snake (ἔχιδνα) that fastened
on St. Paul’s hand when he was at Melita (Acts
xxviii. 3) was probably the common viper of this
country (Pelias berus), which is widely distributed
throughout Europe and the islands of the Mediter-
ranean, or else the Vipera aspis, a not uncommon
species on the coasts of the same Sea. [W. H.]
SERPENT, BRAZEN. The familiar history
of the brazen serpent need not be repeated here,
The nature of the fiery snakes by which the
Israelites were attacked has been discussed under
SERPENT. The scene of the history, determined
by a comparison of Num. xxi. 3 and xxxili. 42,
must have been either Zalmonah or Punon. The
names of both places probably connect themselves
with it, Zalmonah as meaning ‘the place of the
image,’ Punon as probably identical with the
Φαινοί mentioned by Greek writers as famous for
its copper-mines, and therefore possibly supply-
ing the materials (Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 3, 13).
[Punon; ZALMonAH.] The chief interest of the
narrative lies in the thoughts which have at dif-
ferent times gathered round it. We meet with
these in three distinct stages. We have to ask
by what associations each was connected with the
others.
I. The truth of the history will, in this place,
be taken for granted. Those who prefer it may
choose among the hypotheses by which men halting
between two opinions have endeavoured to retain
the historical and to eliminate the supernatural
element.2 They may look on the cures as having
been effected by the force of imagination, which
the visible symbol served to heighten, or’ by
the rapid rushing of the serpent-bitten from all
parts of the camp to the standard thus erected,
curing them, as men are said to be cured by
dancing of the bite of the tarantula (Bauer, Heb.
Gesch. ii. 320; Paulus, Comm. LV. i. 198, in
Winer, Rwb.). They may see in the serpent the
emblematic sign-post, as it were, of the camp-
hospital to which the sufferers were brought for
special treatment, the form in this instance, as in
that of the rod of Aesculapius, being a symbol of
the art of healing (Hoffmann, in Scherer, Schrift.
Forsch. i. 576; Winer, Rwb.). Leaving ‘these
conjectures on one side, it remains for us to
inquire into the fitness of the symbol thus em-
ployed as the instrument of healing. To most of
the Israelites it must have seemed as strange then
as it did afterwards to the later Rabbis,» that any
such symbol should be employed. The Second
Commandment appeared to forbid the likeness of
4 The theory which ascribes the healing to mysterious
powers known to the astrologers or alchemists of Egypt
may be mentioned, but hardly calls for examination
(Marsham, Can. Chron. pp. 148, 149; R. ‘Tirza, in
Deyling, Hxercitt. Sacr. ii, 210),
b One of the Jewish interlocutors in the dialogue of
Justin Martyr with Trypho (p. 322) declares that he had
often asked his teachers to solve the difficulty, and had
never found one who explained it satisfactorily. Justin
himself, of course, explains it as a type of Christ.
SERPENT, BRAZEN
any living thing. The golden calf had been de-
stroyed as an abomination. Now the colossal
serpent (the narrative implies that it was visible
from all parts of the encampment), made, we may
conjecture, by the hands of Bezaleel or Aholiab,
was exposed to their gaze, and they were told to
look to it as gifted with a supernatural power.
What reason was there for the ditterence? In part,
of course, the answer may be, that the Second
Commandment forbade, not all symbolic forms as
such, but those that men made for themselves to
worship; but the question still remains, why was
this form chosen? It is hardly enough to say,
with Jewish commentators, that any. outward
means might have been chosen, like the lump of
figs in Hezekiah’s sickness, the salt which healed
the bitter waters, and that the brazen serpent
made the miracle vet more miraculous, inasmuch
as the glare of burnished brass, the gaze upon the
serpent form were, of all things, most likely to be
fatal to those who had been bitten (Gem. Bab.
Joma; Aben Ezra and others in Buxtorf, Hist.
Aen. Serp.c.5). The fact is doubtful, the reason
inadequate. It is hardly enough again to say,
with most Christian interpreters, that it was
intended to be a type of Christ. Some meaning
it must have had for those to whom it was
actually presented, and we have no grounds for
assuming, even in Moses himself, still less in the
multitude of Israelites slowly rising out of sen-
suality, unbelief, ‘rebellion, a knowledge of the
far-off mystery of redemption. If the words of
our Lord in John iii. 14, 15 point to the fulfilment
of the type, there must yet have been another
meaning for the symbol. Taking its part in the
education of the Israelites, it must have had its
starting-point in the associations previously con-
nected with it. Two views, very different from
each other, have been held as to the nature of
those associations. On the one side it has been
maintained that, either from its simply physical
effects or from the mysterious history of the
temptation in Gen. iii., the serpent was the repre-
sentative of evil. To present the serpent-form as
deprived of its power to hurt, impaled as the
trophy of a conqueror, was to assert that evil,
physical and spiritual, had been overcome, and thus
help to strengthen the weak faith of the Israelites
in a victory over both. The serpent, on this view,
expressed the same idea as the dragon in the
popular representations of the Archangel Michael
and St. George (Ewald, (Geschichte, ii. 228).¢
To some writers, as to Ewald, this has com-
mended itself as the simplest and most obvious
view. It has ‘been adopted by some orthodox
divines who have been unable to convince them-
selves that the same form could ever really have
been at once a type of Satan and of Christ (Jackson,
Humiliation uf the Son of God, ¢. 31; Patrick,
Comm. in loc.; Espagnaeus, Burmann, Vitringa,
in Deyling, Observatt. Sac. ii. 15). Others,
again, have started from a different ground. They
yaise the question whether Gen. iii. was then
written, or, if written, known to the great body
SERPENT, BRAZEN 1215
of the Israelites. They look to Egypt as the
starting-point for all the thoughts which the
serpent could suggest, and they find there that
it was worshipped as an agathodaemon, the symbol
of health and life.¢ This, for them, explains the
mystery.” It was as the known emblem of a
power to heal that it served as the sign and sacra-
ment on which the faith of the people might fasten
and sustain itself.
Contrasted as these views appear, they have, it
is believed, a point of contact. The idea primarily
connected with the serpent in the history of the
Fall, as throughout the proverbial language of Scrip-
ture, is that of wisdom (Gen. iii. 1; Matt. x. 16;
2 Cor. xi. 3). Wisdom, apart from obedience to a
divine order, allying itself to man’s lower nature,
passes into cunning. Man’s nature is envenomed
and degraded by it. But wisdom, the self-same
power of understanding, yielding to the divine law,
is the source of all healing and restoring influences,
and the serpent-form thus becomes a symbol of
deliverance and health. The Israelites were taught
that it would be so to them in proportion as they
ceased to be sensual and rebellious. There were
facts in the life of Moses himself which must have
connected themselves with this two-fold symbolism.
When he was to be taught that the Divine Wisdom
could work with any instruments, his rod became
a serpent (Ex. iv. 1-5). (Comp. Cyril. Alex. Schol.
15. Glaphyra in Ex, ii.)® When he and Aaron
were called to their great conflict with the per-
verted wisdom of Egypt, the many serpents of the
magicians were overcome by the one serpent of the
future high-priest. The conqueror and the conquered
were alike in outward form (Ex. vii. 10-12).
II. The next stage in the history of the brazen
serpent shows how easily even a legitimate symbol,
retained beyond its time, after it had done 105
work, might become the occasion of idolatry. It
appears in the reign of Hezekiah as having been,
for some undefined period, an object of worship.
The zeal of that king leads him to destroy it. It
receives trom him, or had borne before, the name
Nehushtan. [Comp. NrEHuSHTAN.| We are left to
conjecture when the worship began, or what was
its locality. It is hardly likely that it should have
been tolerated by the reforming zeal οἵ kings like
Asa and Jehoshaphat. It must, we may believe,
have received a fresh character and become more
conspicuous in the period which preceded its de-
struction. All that we know of the reign of Ahaz
makes it probable that it was under his auspices
that it received a new development,f that it thus
became the object of a marked aversion to the
iconoclastic party who were prominent among the
counsellors of Hezekiah. Intercourse with countries
in which Ophiolatry prevailed—Syria, Assyria,
possibly Egypt also—acting on the feeling which
led him to bring together the idolatries of all
neighbouring nations, might easily bring about this
perversion of the reverence felt for the time-
honoured relic, ἢ
Here we might expect the history of the mate-
rial object would cease, but the passion for relics
e Another view, verging almost on the ludicrous, has
been maintained by some Jewish writers. The serpent
was set up in terrorem, as a man who has chastised his
son hangs up the rod against the wall as a warning
(Otho, Lexic. Rabbin. 5. ν. Serpens).
ἃ Comp. SerPENT, and, in addition to the authorities
there referred to, Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians, ii. 134,
iv. 395, v. 64, 238; Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, iii.
348, Eng. transl.; Witsius, 2gyptiaca, in Ugolini, i. 852.
e The explanation given by Cyril is, as might be ex-
pected, more mystical than that in the text. -The rod
transformed into a serpent represents the Divine Word
taking on Himself the likeness of sinful flesh.
£ Ewald’s conjecture (Gesch. iv. 622) that, till then,
the serpent may have remained at Zalmonah, the object
of occasional pilgrimages, is probable enough.
1216 SERPENT, BRAZEN
has prevailed even against the history of the Bible.
The church of St. Ambrose, at Milan, has boasted,
for centuries, of possessing the brazen serpent
which Moses set up in the wilderness. The earlier
history of the relic, so called, is matter for con-
jecture. Our knowledge of it begins in the year
A.D. 971, when an envoy was sent by the Milanese
to the court of the Emperor John Zimisces, at
Constantinople. He was taken through the im-
perial cabinet of treasures and invited to make
his choice, and he chose this, which, the Greeks
assured him, was made of the same metal as the
original serpent (Sigonius, Hist. Regn. Ital. Ὁ. vii.).
On his return it was placed in the church of St.
Ambrose, and popularly identified with that which
it professed to represent. It is, at least, a possible
hypothesis that the Western Church has in this
way been led to venerate what was originally the
object of the worship of some Ophite sect.
III. When the material symbol had perished, its
history began to suggest deeper thoughts to the
minds of men. The writer of the Book of Wis-
dom, in the elaborate contrast which he draws
between true and false religions in their use of
outward signs, sees in it a σύμβολον σωτηρίας,
εἰς ἀνάμνησιν ἐντολῆς νόμου cov; “he that
turned himself was not saved by the thing that
he saw (διὰ τὸ θεωρούμενον), but by Thee that
art the Saviour of all” (Wisd. xvi. 6, 7). The
Targum of Jonathan paraphrases Num. xxi. 8,
‘He shall be healed if he direct his heart unto
the Name of the Word of the Lord.” Philo, with
his characteristic taste for an ethical, mystical
interpretation, represents the history as a parable
of man’s victory over his lower sensuous nature.
The metal, the symbol of permanence and strength,
has changed the meaning of the symbol, and that
which had before been the emblem of the will,
yielding to and poisoned by the serpent pleasure,
now represents σωφροσύνη, the ἀντιπαθὲς ἀκο-
λασίας φάρμακον (De Agricult.). The facts just
stated may help us to enter into the bearing of
the words of John iii. 14, 15. If the paraphrase
of Jonathan represents, as it does, the current
interpretation of the schools of Jerusalem, the
devout Rabbi to whom the words were spoken
could not have been ignorant of it. The new
teacher carried the lesson a step further. He led
him to identify the “Name of the Word of the
Lord” with that of the Son of Man. He prepared
him to see in the lifting-up of the Crucifixion that
which should answer in its power to heal and save
to the serpent in the wilderness,
IV. A full discussion of the typical meaning
here unfolded belongs to Exegesis rather than to a
Dictionary. It will be enough to note here that
which connects itself with facts or theories already
mentioned. On the one side the typical interpre-
tation has been extended to all the details. The
pole on which the serpent was placed was not only
a type of the cross, but was itself crucial in form
(Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. p. 322). The ser-
pent was nailed to it as Christ was nailed. As
the symbol of sin it represented His being made
sin for us. The very metal, like the fine brass of
Rey. i. 15, was an emblem of the might and glory
of the Son of Man (comp. Lampe, i /oc.), On the
other it has been maintained (Patrick and Jackson,
ut supra) that the serpent was from the beginning,
and remains still, exclusively the symbol of evil,
that the lifting-up of the Son of Man answered to
that of the serpent because on the cross the victory
SERPENT-OHARMING
over the serpent was accomplished. The point of
comparison lay not between the serpent and Christ,
but between the look of the Israelite to the out-
ward sign, the look of a justifying faith to the
cross of Christ. It will not surprise us to find
that, in the spiritual as in the historical interpreta-
tion, both theories have an element of truth. The
serpent here also is primarily the emblem of the
“knowledge of good and evil.” To man, as
having obtained that knowledge by doing evil, it
has-been as a venomous serpent, poisoning and
corrupting. In the nature of the Son of Man it
is once more in harmony with the Divine will,
and leaves the humanity pure and untainted.
The Crucifixion is the witness that the evil has
been overcome by the good. Those who are bitten
by the serpent find their deliverance in looking to
Him who knew evil only by subduing it, and who
is therefore mighty to save. Well would it have
been for the Church of Christ if it had been con-
tent to rest in this truth. Its history shows how
easy it was for the old perversion to reproduce
itself. The highest of all symbols might share the
fate of the lower. It was possible even for the
cross of Christ to pass into a Nehushtan. (Comp.
Stier, Words of the Lord Jesus, on John iii-, and
Kurtz, Hist. of the Old Covenant, iii. 344-358.
Eng. transl.) [E. H. P.]
SERPENT-CHARMING. Some few remarks
on this subject are made under Asp (Appendix A),
where it is shown that the pethen ({MB) probably.
denotes the Egyptian cobra. There can be no ques-
tion at all of the remarkable power which, from
time immemorial, has been exercised by certain
people in the East over poisonous serpents. The
art is most distinctly mentioned in the Bible,
and probably alluded to by St. James (iii. 7).
The usual species operated upon, both in Africa
and India, are the hooded snakes (Nadia tripudians,
and Naia haje) and the horned Cerastes. The skill
of the Italian Marsi and the Libyan Psylli in taming
serpents was celebrated throughout the world; and
to this day, as we are told by Sir G. Wilkinson
(Rawlinson’s Herodotus, iii. 124, note, ed. 1862),
the snake-players of the coast of Barbary are
worthy successors of the Psylli (see Pliny, viii. 25,
xi. 25, and especially Lucan’s account of the Psylh,
Pharsal. ix. 892). See numerous references cited
by Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 164, &c.) on the subject
of serpent-taming.
That the charmers frequentiy, and perhaps gene-
rally, take the precaution of extracting the poison
fangs before the snakes are subjected to their skill,
there is much probability for believing, but that
this operation is not always attended to is clear from
the testimony of Bruce and numerous other writers.
ἐς Some people,’ says the traveller just mentioned,
“have doubted that it was a trick, and that the
animals so handled had been first trained and then
disarmed of their power of hurting, and, fond of the
discovery, they have rested themselves upon it with-
out experiment, in the face of all antiquity. But I
will not hesitate to aver that I have seen at Cairo
aman... . who has taken a cerastes with his
naked hand from a number of others lying at the
bottom of the tub, has put it upon his bare head,
covered it with the common red cap he wears,
then taken it out, put it in his breast and tied it
about his neck like a necklace, after which it has
been applied to a hen and bit it, which has died
in a few minutes.” Dr. Davy, in his /nterior of
\
SERPENT-CHARMING
Ceylon, speaking of the snake charmers, says on this
subject :—‘ The ignorant vulgar believe that these
men really possess a charm by which they thus play
without dread, and with impunity from danger.
The more enlightened, laughing at this idea, con-
sider the men impostors, and that in playing their
tricks there is no danger to be avoided, it being
removed by the abstraction of the poison fangs.
The enlightened in this instance are mistaken, and
the vulgar are nearer the truth in their opinion.
I have examined the snakes I have seen exhibited,
and have found their poison fangs in and uninjured.
These men do possess a charm, though not a super-
natural one—viz. that of confidence and courage. ...
They will play their tricks with any hooded snakes
(Naja tripudians), whether just taken or long in
confinement, but with no other kind of poisonous
snake,” See also Tennent, Ceylon, i. 199, 3rd ed.
Some have supposed that the practice of taking
out or breaking off the poison fangs is alluded to
in Ps. Iviii. 6, “‘ Break their teeth, O God, in their
mouth.”
Serpent-charming.
The serpent-charmers usual instrument is a
flute. Shrill sounds, it would appear, are those
which serpents, with their imperfect sense of
hearing, are able most easily to discern; hence it
is that the Chinese summon their tame fish by
whistling or by ringing a bell.
The reader will find much interesting matter on
the art of serpent-charming, as practised by the
ancients, in Bochart ( Wieroz. iii. 161) in the dis-
sertation by Bohmer entitled De Psyllorwm, Mar-
sorum, et Ophiogenum adversus serpentes virtute,
Lips. 1745; and in Kaempfer’s Amoenitates Exo-
ticae, lil. 1x. 5653; see also Broderip’s Note Book
of a Naturalist, and Anecdotes of Serpents, pub-
lished by Chambers; Lane’s Modern Egyptians,
ii. 106. Those who professed the art of taming
serpents were called by the Hebrews méndchashim
(own), while the art itself was called lachash
(windy, Jer. viii. 17: Eccl. x. 11; but these terms
were not always used in this restricted sense.
[Divination ; ENCHANTMENT. | ie Jala]
5. But perhaps εἰκόνες and ἀνδρίαντες may here be used
of pictures.
b In many passages the correct reading would add con-
siderable force to the meaning, 6. 7. in Gen. ix. 25, ‘‘ Cursed
be Canaan ; a slave of slaves shall he be unto his brethren ;”
VOL. 11.
SERVANT 1207
SERU’G Οὐ: Σερούχ; N. T. Σαρούχ:
Saruq). Son of Reu, and great-grandfather of
Abraham. His age is given in the Hebrew Bible
as 230 years—30 years before he begat Nahor, and
200 years afterwards, But in the LXX. 130
years are assigned to him before he begat Nahor
(making his total age 330), being one of those
systematic variations in the ages of the patriarchs
between Shem and Terah, as given by the LXX.,
by which the interval between the Flood and
Abraham is lengthened from 292 (as in the Heb.
B.) to 1172 (or Alex. 1072) years. [CHRONO-
Loey, p. 319.] Bochart (Phal. ii. exiv.) con-
jectures that the town of Serwj,a day’s journey
from Charrae in Mesopotamia, was named from this
patriarch. Suidas and others ascribe to him the
deification of dead benefactors of mankind. Epi-
phanius (Adv, Haeres. i. 6, 8), who says that his
name signifies ‘‘ provocation,” states that, though
in his time idolatry took its rise, yet it was con-
fined to pictures; and that the deification of dead
men, as well as the making of idols, was subse-
quent. He characterises the religion of mankind
up to Serug’s days as Scythic; after Serug and
the building of the Tower of Babel, the Hellenic
or Greek form of religion was introduced, and
continued to the writer’s time (see Petavius, Anim.
adv. Epiph. Oper. ii. 13). The account given by
John of Antioch, is as follows :—Serug, of the race
of Japhet, taught the duty of honouring eminent
deceased men, either by images or statues,® of
worshipping them on certain anniversaries as
if still living, of preserving a record of their
actions in the sacred books of the priests, and of
calling them gods, as being benefactors of mankind.
Hence arose Polytheism and idolatry (see Fragm,
Historic. Graec. iv. 345, and the note). It is in
accordance with his being called of the race of
Japhet that Epiphanius sends Phaleg and Keu to
Thrace ( Lpist. ad Descr. Paul. §ii.). There is,
of course, little or no historical value in any of these
statements. [AC CNHs]
SERVANT (ὟΣ; nt). The Hebrew terms
naar and mesharéth, which:alone answer to our
“servant,” in as far as this implies the notions
of liberty and voluntariness, are of comparatively
rare occurrence. On the other hand, ‘ebed, which
is common and is equally rendered ‘“ servant” in
the A. V., properly means a s/ave.b Slavery .was
in point of fact the normal condition of the under-
ling in the Hebrew commonwealth [SLAVE], while
the terms above given refer to the exceptional cases
of young or confidential attendants. Joshua, for
instance, is described as at once the na’ar and me-
sharéth of Moses (Ex. xxxiii. 11); Elisha’s servant
sometimes as the former (2 K. iv. 12, v. 20), some-
times as the latter (2 Καὶ, iv. 43, vi. 15). Amnon’s
servant was a meshareéth (2 Sam. xiii. 17, 18), while
young Joseph was a naar to the sons of Bilhah
(Gen. xxxvii. 2, where instead of “the lad was
with,” we should read, “he was the servant-boy
to” the sons of Bilhah). The confidential designa-
tion mesharéth is applied to the priests and Levites,
in their relation to Jehovah (Ezr. viii. 17; Is. 1xi.
6; ΕΖ. xliv. 11), and the cognate verb to Joseph
after he found favour with Potiphar (Gen. xxxix..
in Deut. v. 15, “ Remember that thou wast a slave in the
land of Egypt;” in Job iii. 19, ‘‘ The slave is free from his
master ;” and particularly in passages where the speaker
uses the term of himself, as in Gen. xviii. 3, “Pass not
away, I pray thee, from thy slave.”
41
1218 SESIS
4), and to the nephews of Ahaziah (2 Chr. xxii, 8).
In 1 Κα. xx. 14, 15, we should substitute “ servants ”
(na’ar) for “ young men.” [We i. Bey]
SES'IS (Seais; Alex. Seooeis: om. in Vulz.).
SHASHAI (1 Esd. ix. 34; comp. Ezr. x. 40).
SES'THEL (Σεσθήλ : Beseel). BEZALEEL of
the sons of Pahath-Moab (1 Esd. ix. 31; Ezr. x.
30).
SETH (ny, i.e. Sheth: Σήθ: Seth), Gen. iv.
25,v.3; 1Chr.i. 1. The third son of Adam, and
father of Enos. The signification of his name (given
in Gen. iv. 25) is “ appointed” or “ put” in the
place of the murdered Abel, and Delitzsch speaks
of him as the second Abel; but Ewald (Gesch.
i. 353) thinks that another signification, which he
prefers, is indicated in the text, viz. “ seedling,” or
“germ.” The phrase, ‘children of Sheth” (Num.
xxiv. 17) has been understood as equivalent to all
mankind, or as denoting the tribe of some unknown
Moabitish chieftain; but later critics, among whom
are Rosenmiiller and Gesenius ( Thes. i. 346), bear-
ing in mind the parallel passage (Jer. xlviii. 45),
render the phrase, “ children of noise, tumultuous
ones,” 7. 6. hostile armies. [SHETH. ]
In the 4th century there existed in Egypt a sect
calling themselves Sethians, who are classed by
Neander ( Ch. Hist. ii, 115, ed. Bohn) among those
Gnostic sects which, in opposing Judaism, approxi-
mated to paganism. (See also Tillemont, Mémoires,
II. 318.) Ivenaeus (i. 30; comp. Massuet, Dissert.
- 1.3, $14) and Theodoret (Hueret. Fab. xiv. p. 306),
without distinguishing between them and the Oph-
ites, or worshippers of the serpent, say that in their
system Seth was regarded as a divine effluence or
virtue. Epiphanius, who devotes a chapter to
them (Adv. Haer. i. 3, §39), says that they iden-
tified Seth with our Lord. [Wena
SETHU’R (ND: Sabotp: Sthur). The
Asherite spy, son of Michael (Num. xiii. 13).
SEVEN. The frequent recurrence of certain
numbers in the sacred literature of the Hebrews is
obvious to the most superficial reader; and it is
almost equally obvious that these numbers are
associated with certain ideas, so as in some instances
to lose their numerical force, and to pass over into
the province of symbolic signs. This is more or
less true of the numbers three, four, seven, twelve,
and forty ; but seven so far surpasses the rest, both
in the frequency with which it recurs, and in the
importance of the objects with which it is associated,
that it may fairly be termed the representative
symbolic number. It has hence attracted con-
siderable attention, and may be said to be the key-
stone ou which the symbolism of numbers depends.
The origin of this symbolism is a question that
meets us at the threshold of any discussion as to
the number seven. Our limits will not permit us
to follow out this question to its legitimate extent,
but we may briefly state that the views of Biblical
critics may be ranged under two heads, according as
the symbolism is attributed to theoretical specula-
tions as to the internal properties of the number
itself, or to external associations of a physical or his-
torical character. According to the former of these
views, the symbolism of the number seven would
be traced back to the symbolism of its compo-
nent elemeuts three and four, the first of which
= Divinity, and the second = Humanity, whence’
seven = Divinity + Humanity, or, in other words,
the union between God and Man, as effected by
]
SEVEN
the manifestations of the Divinity in creation and
revelation. So again the symbolism of twelve
is explained as the symbolism of 3 x 4, 7.¢. or
a second combination of the same tavo elements,
though in different proportions, the representative
number of Humanity, as a multiplier, assuming a
more prominent position (Bihr’s Symbolik, i. 187,
201, 224). This theory is seductive from its in-
genuity, and its appeal to the imagination, but
there appears to be little foundation for it. For (1.)
we do not find any indication, in early times at all
events, that the number seven was resolved into
three and four, rather than into any other arith-
metical elements, such as two and five. Bengel
notes such a division as running through the
heptads of the Apocalypse (Gnomon, in Rev. xvi. 1),
and the remark undoubtedly holds good in certain
instances, 6. 7. the trumpets, the three latter being
distinguished from the four former by the triple
** woe” (Rev. viii. 13), but in other instances, e. g.
in reference to the promises (Gnom. in Rev. ii. 7),
the distinction is not so well established, and even
if it were, an explanation might be found in the
adaptation of such a division to the subject in hand.
The attempt to discover such a distinction in the
Mosaic writings—as, for instance, where an act is
to be done on the third day out of seven (Num.
xix. 12)—appears to be a failure. (2.) It would
be difficult to show that any associations of a sacred
nature were assigned to three and four previously to
the sanctity of seven. This latter number is so far
the sacred number κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν that we should be
less surprised if, by a process the reverse of the
one assumed, sanctity had been subsequently at-
tached to three and four as_the supposed elements
of seven. But (3.) all such speculations on mere
numbers are alien to the spirit of Hebrew thought ;
they belong to adifferent stage of society, in which
speculation is rife, and is systematized by the ex-
istence of schools of philosophy.
We turn to the second class of opinions which
attribute the symbolism of the number seven to
external associations. This class may be again sub-
divided into two, according as the symbolism is
supposed to have originated in the observation of
purely physical phenomena, or, on the other hand,
in the peculiar religious enactments of Mosaism.
The influence of the number seven was not re-
stricted to the Hebrews; it prevailed among the
Persians (Esth. i. 10, 14), among the ancient
Indians (Von Bohlen’s Alt. Zndien, ii. 224, seqq.),
among the Greeks and Romans to a certain extent,
and probably among all nations where the week of
seven days was established. as in China, Egypt,
Arabia, &c. (Ideler’s Chronol. i. 88, 178, ii. 473).
The wide range of the word seven is in this respect
an interesting and significant fact: with the ex-
ception of “ six,” it is the only numeral which the
Semitic languages have in common with the Indo-
European ; for the Hebrew sheba® is essentially the
same as ἑπτά, septem, seven, and the Sanscrit,
Persian, and Gothic names for this number ( Pott’s
Etym. Forsch. i. 129). In the countries above
enumerated, the institution of seven as a cyclical
number is attributed to the observation of the
changes of the moon, or to the supposed number of
the planets. The Hebrews are held by some writers
to have borrowed their notions of the sanctity of
seven from their heathen neighbours, either wholly
or partially (Von Bohlen’s Jntrod. to Gen. i. 216,
a yaw.
SEVEN
seqq.; Hengstenberg’s Balaam, p. 393, Clark’s
ed.); but the peculiarity of the Hebrew view con-
sists in the special dignity of the seventh, and hot
simply in that of seven. Whatever influence, there-
Tore, may be assigned to astronomical observation
or to prescriptive usage, in regard to the original
institution of the week, we cannot trace back the
peculiar associations of the Hebrews farther than to
the point when the seventh day was consecrated to
the purposes of religious rest.
Assuming this, therefore, as our starting-point,
the first idea associated with seven would be that
of religious periodicity. The Sabbath, being the
seventh day, suggested the adoption of seven as the
coefficient, so to say, for the appointment of’ all
sacred periods; and we thus find the 7th month
ushered in by the Feast of Trumpets, and signalised
by the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles and
the great Day of Atonement; 7 weeks as the in-
terval between the Passover and the Pentecost ; the
7th year as the Sabbatical year ; and the year suc-
ceeding 7 Χ 7 years as the Jubilee'year. From the
idea of periodicity, it passed by an easy transition
to the duration or repetition of religious proceed-
ings; and thus 7 days were appointed as the length
of the Feasts of Passover and Tabernacles; 7 days
for the ceremonies of the consecration of priests;
7 days for the interval to elapse between the occa-
sion and the remoyal of various kinds of legal un-
cleanness, as after childbirth, after contact with a
corpse, &c.; 7 times appointed for aspersion either
of the blood of the victim (e.g. Lev. iv. 6, xvi. 14)
or of the water of purification (Lev. xiv. 51; comp.
2K. v. 10, 14); 7 things to be offered in sacrifice
(oxen, sheep, goats, pigeons, wheat, oil, wine); 7
victims to be offered on any special occasion, as in
Balaam’s sacrifice (Num. xxiii. 1), and especially
at the ratification of a treaty, the notion of seven
being embodied in the very term? signifying to swear,
literally meaning to do seven times (Gen. xxi. 28;
comp. Herod. iii. 8, for a similar custom among
the Arabians). The same idea is further carried
out in the vessels and arrangements of the Taber-
nacle—in the seven arms of the golden candlestick,
and the seven chief utensils (altar of burnt-offerings,
laver, shewbread table, altar of incense, candlestick,
ark, mercy-seat).
The number seven, having thus been impressed
with the seal of sanctity as the symbol of all con-
nected with the Divinity, was adopted generally as
a cyclical number, with the subordinate notions
of perfection or completeness. It hence appears in
cases where the notion of satisfaction is required,
as in reference to punishment for wrongs (Gen. iv.
15; Lev. xxvi. 18, 28; Ps. Ixxix. 12; Prov. vi. 31),
or to forgiveness of them (Matt. xviii. 21). It is
again mentioned in a variety of passages too nu-
merous for quotation (e.g. Job v. 19; Jer. xv. 9;
Matt. xii. 45) in a sense analogous to that of a
“yound number,” but with the additional idea of
sufficiency and completeness. To the same head
we may refer the numerous instances in which per-
sons or things are mentioned by sevens in the his-
torical portions of the Bible—e. g. the 7 kine and
the 7 ears of corn in Pharaoh’s dream, the 7
daughters of the priest of Midian, the 7 sons of
Jesse, the 7 deacons, the 7 sons of Sceva, the twice
7 generations in the pedigree of Jesus (Matt. i. 17);
SHAALABBIN 1219
and again the still more numerous instances in
which periods of seven days or seven years, occa-
sionally combined with the repetition of an act
seven times ; as, in the taking of Jericho, the town
was surrounded for 7 days, and on the 7th day it
fell at the blast of 7 trumpets borne round the
town 7 times by 7 priests; or again at the flood,
an interval of 7 days elapsed between the notice to
enter the ark and the coming of the flood, the
beasts entered by sevens, 7 days elapsed between
the two missions of the dove, &c. So again‘in pri-
vate life, 7 years appear to have been the usual
period of a hiring (Gen. xxix. 18), 7 days for a
marriage-festival .(Gen. xxix. 27; Judg. xiv. 12), "
and the same, or in some cases 70 days, for mourn-
ing for the dead (Gen. 1]. 3,10; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13).
The foregoing applications of the number seven
become of great practical importance in connexion
with the interpretation of some of the prophetical
portions of the Bible, and particularly of the Apo-
calypse. For in this latter book the ever-recurring
number seven both serves as the mould which has
decided the external form of the work, and also to
a certain degree penetrates into the essence of it.
We have but to run over the chief subjects of that
book—the 7 churches, the 7 seals, the 7 trumpets,
the 7 vials, the 7 angels, the 7 spirits before the
throne, the 7 horns and 7 eyes of the Lamb, &e.—
in order to see the necessity of deciding whether the
number is to be accepted in a literal or a meta-
phorical sense—in other words, whether it represents
a number or a quality. The decision of this ques-
tion affects not only the number seven, but also
the number which stands in a relation of antagonism
to seven, viz. the half of seven, which appears under
the form of forty-two months, = 34 years (Rev.
xili. 5), twelve hundred and sixty days, also=34
years (xi. 3, xii. 6), and again a time, times, and
half a time=33 years (xii. 14). We find this
number frequently recurring in the Old Testament,
as in the forty-two stations of the wilderness (Num.
xxxili.), the three and a half years of the famine in
Elijah’s time (Luke iv. 25), the ‘time, times, and
the dividing of time,” during which the persecution
of Antiochus Epiphanes was to last (Dan. vii. 25),
the same period being again described as ‘the
midst of the week,” 7. e. the half of seven years
(Dan. ix. 27), “a time, times, and a halt” (Dan.
xii. 7), and again probably in the number of days
specified in Dan. viii. 14, xii. 11,12. If the num-
ber seven express the notion of completeness, then
the number half-seven = incompleteness and the
secondary ideas of suffering and disaster: if the one
represent divine agency, the other we may expect
to represent human agency. Mere numerical cal-
culations would thus, in regard to unfulfilled pro-
phecy, be either wholly superseded, or at all events
take a subordinate position to the general idea cou-
veyed. [W. L. B.]
SHAAL/ABBIN (}223¥, but in many MSS.
Ὁ ον»: Σαλαβείν ; Alex. Sarauew:© Selebin).
A town in the allotment of Dan, named between
IR-SHEMESH and AJALON (Josh. xix. 42). There
is some uncertainty about the form of the name.
The MSS. preponderate in favour of SHAALBIM,
in which form it is found in two other passages.
But there is also some ground for suspecting that
Ὁ yaw.
c A city called Σαλαμίν, or Sadauts, formerly lay
at the east end of the island of Cyprus, between which |
and Phoenicia, or Canaan, there was ἃ constant inter-
course and close connexion. Perhaps this also was a
Shaalabbin
412
.1220 SHAALBIM
it was Shaalbon. [See SHAALBIM and SHAAL-
BONITE. |
SHA'ALBIM (ον δ᾽: *OaraBew, Alex. αἱ
ἄλωπεκες ; in 1 K. Βηθαλαμεί, Alex. Σαλαβειμ:
Salabim, Sulebim). The commoner form of the name
of a town of Dan which in one passage is found as
Shaalabbin. It occurs in an ancient fragment of
history inserted in Judg. i. enumerating the towns
of which the original inhabitants of Canaan succeeded
in keeping possession after the general conquest.
Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim were held
against the Danites by the Amorites (ver. 35) till
the help of the great tribe of Ephraim being called
in, they were at last compelled to succumb. It is
mentioned with Aijalon again-in Josh. xix. 42
(Shaalabbin) and with Bethshemesh both there
and in 1 K. iv. 9, in the last passage as making up
one of Solomon’s commissariat districts. By Euse-
bius and Jerome it is mentioned in the Onomasticon
(‘‘Selab”’) as a large village in the district of Se-
baste (7. e. Samaria), and as then called Selaba. But
this is not very intelligible, for except in the state-
ment of Josephus (Ant. y. 1, §22), that the allotment
of the Danites extended as far north as Dor ( Zan-
tura), there is nothing to lead to the.belief that
any of their towns were at all near Samaria, while
the persistent enumeration of Shaalbim with Aijalon
and Bethshemesh, the sites of both which are knowu
with tolerable certainty as within a radius of 15
miles west of Jerusalem, is strongly against it. It
is also at variance with another notice of Jerome,
in his commentary on Ezek. xlviii. 22, where he
mentions the ‘‘ towers of Ailon and Selebi and
Emmaus-Nicopolis,’ in connexion with Joppa, as
three landmarks of the tribe of Dan. No trace
appears to have been yet discovered of any name
resembling Shaalbim, in the neighbourhood of Valo
or Ain-shems, or indeed anywhere else, unless
it be a place called ’Esalin, uses: mentioned in
the lists of Eli Smith and Robinson (2. #. Ist Ed.
iii. App. 120 δ) as lying next to Sirah, the ancient
Zorah, a position which is very suitable.
The Shala@bin, discovered by M. Renan’s expedi-
tion about 4 miles N.W. of Bint-Jebeil, in the
Belad Besharrah (see the Carte dressée par la
brigade topographique, &c., 1862), may be an
ancient Shaalbim, possibly so named by the northern
colony of Danites after the town of their original
dwelling-place. But it is obvious from the fore-
going description that it cannot be identical with
it. [G.]
SHAAL'BONITE, THE (45yvin: 6 Σαλα-
Bwveirns: de Salboni). Eliahba the Shaalbonite
was one of David’s thirty-seven heroes (2 Sam.
xxiii. 32; 1 Chr. xi. 33). He was the native of a
place named Shaalbon, which is unmentioned else-
where, unless it is identical with SHAALBIM or
SHAALABBIN of the tribe of Dan. In this case it
* This passage in the Vatican Codex (Mai’s Ed.) con-
tains a curious specimen of a double reading, each of the
two being a translation of the Hebrew proper names :—
ἐν τῷ Oper τῷ ὀστρακώδει ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἄρκοι καὶ ἐν ᾧ ai
ἀλώπεκες ἐν τῷ Μυρσινῶνι, καὶ ἐν Θαλαβείν. Here
ὀστρακώδης and Μυρσινών are both attempts to render
DM, reading it WIM and DTT respectively. The
ἀλώπεκες is due to the yyy in Shaalbin. ai ἄρκοι, “the she-
bears,” is for Ajalon, though that signifies deer or gazelles.
SHABBETHAT
becomes difficult to decide which of the three is the
original form of the name. [G.]
SHA’APH (YW: Σαγαέ; Alex. Σαγάφ:
Saaph). 1. The son of Jahdai (1 Chr. ii. 47).
2. The son of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel .
by his concubine Maachah. He is called the father,
that is, the founder, of the town Madmannah (1
Chr. ii. 49).
SHAARA'IM (δ ων’: τῶν πυλῶν in both
MSS.; Sewpetu: Sarim, Saarim). <A city in the
territory allotted to Judah (Josh. xv. 36; in A. V.
incorrectly Sharaim). It is one of the first group
of the towns of the Shefelah, or lowland district,
which contains also Zoreah, Jarmuth, Socoh, be-
sides others not yet recognised. It is mentioned
again in the account of the rout which followed the
fall of Goliath, where the wounded fell down on
the road to Shaaraim and as far as Gath and Ekron
(1 Sam. xvii. 52). These two notices are con-
sistent with each other. Goliath probably fell in
the Wady es-Sumt, on opposite sides of which stand
the representatives of Socoh and Jarmuth; Gath
was at or near Tell es-Safieh, a few miles west of
Socoh at the mouth of the same Wady ; whilst
Ekron (if ’Akir be Ekron) lies farther north, Shaa-
raim is therefore probably to be looked for some-
where west of Shwveikeh, on the lower slopes of
the hills, where they subside into the great plain.»
We find the name mentioned once more in-a list
of the towns of Simeon (1 Chr. iv. 31),° occupying
the same place with Sharuchen and Sansannah, in
the corresponding lists of Joshua. Lying as the
allotment of Simeon did in the lowest part of Judah,
many miles south of the region indicated above, it
is impossible that the same Shaaraim can be in-
tended, and indeed it is quite doubtful whether it be
not a mere corruption of one of the other two names.
Taken as Hebrew, the word is a dual, and means
“two gateways,’ as the LXX. have rendered it in
1 Sam. xvii. It is remarkable that the group in
which Shaaraim is included in Josh. xv. should
contain more names in dual form than all the rest
of the list put together ; viz. besides itself, Adithaim,
and Gederothaim, and probably also Enam and
Adullam. For the possible mention of Shaaraim
in 1 Mace. v. 66, see SAMARIA, 1101a. [G.]
SHAASH'GAZ (tiwyw: not found in the
LXX., who substitute Tat, Hegai, as in v. 8, 15:
Susagazus). The eunuch in the palace of Kerxes
who had the custody of the women in the second
house, 7. 6. of those who had been in to the king
(Esth. ii. 14). [Hecat.] [A. C. H.]
SHABBETHA'I (NAW: Σαββαθαΐ; Alex.
Καββαθαΐ: Sebethai in Ezr., Septhai in Neh.).
1. A Levite in the time of Ezra, who assisted
him in investigating the marriages with foreigners
which had taken place among the people (Ezr. x.
15). It is apparently the same who with Jeshua
and others instructed the people in the knowledge
b The word shaaraim means ‘‘ two gateways ;” and but
for the mention of the town in Joshua, and the consistency
of its position with 1 Sam. xvii. 52, it would be perhaps
more natural in that passage to take it as meaning the
gates of Gath and Ekron, as the LXX. have done. In that
case, however, it ought to have the article, which it has not.
© Here there is a slight difference in the vowels, due
to the pause—D)YU?—which is reflected in both LXX.
| and Vulgate (see above, at head of article).
SHACHIA
of the Law (Neh. viii. 7). He is called SABBATHEUS
(1 Esdr. ix. 14) and SaBaTEAs (1 Esdr, ix. 48).
2. (Om. in LXX.: Sabathai.) Shabbethai and
Jozabad, of the chief of the Levites, were over the
outward business of the house of God after the
return from Babylon (Neh. xi. 16). Possibly 1.
and 2. are identical, although Burrington (Geneal.
i. 167) regards Shabbethai, who is mentioned in
Neh. viii. 7, as a priest.
SHACH'TA (ay : ZaBia: Sechia). Pro-
perly “Shabiah,” a son of Shaharaim by his wife
Hodesh (1 Chr. viii. 10). This form of the name
is retained from the Geneva Version. The trans-
lators have followed the Vulgate in reading 3 for 5.
Seven of Kennicott’s MSS. read NU, and fifteen
mov.
SHADDA'T OW, in pause *7/). An ancient
name of God, rendered “* Almighty ’’ everywhere in
the A. V. In all passages of Genesis, except one
(xlix. 255), in Ex. vi. 3, and in Ez. x. 5, it is found
in connexion with 28, él, ‘ God,” ΕἸ Shaddai being
there rendered ‘‘God Almighty,” or ‘* the Almighty
God.” It occurs six times in Genesis, once in
Exodus (vi. 3), twice in Numbers (xxiv. 4, 16),
twice in Ruth (i, 20, 21), thirty-one times in Job,
twice in the Psalms (Ixviii. 14 [15], xci. 1), once
in Isaiah (xiii. 6), twice in Ezekiel (i. 24, x. 5),
and once in Joel (i. 15). In Genesis and Exodus it
is found in what are called the Elohistic portions of
those books, in Numbers in the Jehovistic portion,
and throughout Job the name Shaddai stands in
parallelism with Elohim, and never with Jehovah.
By the name or in the character of E] Shaddai, God
was known to the patriarchs—to Abraham (Gen.
_ xvii. 1), to Isaac (Gen. xxviii. 3), and to Jacob
(Gen. xliii. 14, xlviii. 3, xlix. 25), before the name
Jehovah, in its full significance, was revealed (Ex.
vi. 3). By this title He was known to the Midianite
Balaam (Num. xxiv. 4,16), as God the Giver of
Visions, the Most High (comp. Ps. xci. 1); and the
identity of Jehovah and Shaddai, who dealt bitterly
with her, was recognised by Naomi in her sorrow
(Ruth i. 20, 21). Shaddai, the Almighty, is the
God who chastens men (Job v. 17, vi. 4, xxiii. 16,
xxvii. 2); the just God (Job viii. 3, xxxiv. 10)
who hears prayer (Job viii. 5, xxii. 26, xxvii. 10);
the God of power who cannot be resisted (Job xv.
25), who punishes the wicked (Job xxi. 20, xxvii.
13), and rewards and protects those who trust in
Him (Job xxii, 23, 25, xxix. 5); the God of provi-
dence (Job xxii. 17, 23, xxvii. 11) and of fore-
knowledge (Job xxiv. 1), who gives to men under-
standing (Job xxxii. 8) and life (Job xxxiii, 4):
** excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty
of justice,” whom none can perfectly know (Job
xl. 7, xxxvil. 23). The prevalent idea attaching
to the name in all these passages is that of strength
and power, and our translators have probably given
to “ Shaddai”’ its true meaning when they rendered
it “ Almighty.”
In the Targum throughout, the Hebrew word is
retained, as in the Peshito-Syriac of Genesis and
Exodus and of Ruth i. 20. The LXX. gives ἱκανός,
ἰσχυρός, θεός, κύριος, παντοκράτωρ, κύριος παν-
τοκράτωρ, 6 τὰ πάντα ποιήσας (Job viii. 3),
ἐπουράνιος (Ps. Ixviii. 14[15]), 6 θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
(Ps. xci. 1), σαδδαΐ (Ez. x. 5), and ταλαιπωρία
a Even here some MSS. and the Samaritan Text read
bs él, for TIN, eth.
SHADRACH 1221
(Joel i. 15). In Job xxix, 5 we find the strange
rendering ὑλώδης. In Gen. and Ex. * ΕἸ Shaddai”
is translated 6 θεός μου, or σου, or αὐτῶν, as the
case may be. The Vulgate has omnipotens in all
cases, except Dominus (Job v. 17, vi. 4, 143 Is.
xili. 6), Deus (Job xxii, 3, xl. 2), Deus coeli (Ps.
xci. 1), sublimis Deus (Ez. i. 24), coelestis (Ps.
Ixviii. 14 [15]), potens (Joel i. 15), and diyne
(Job xxxvii. 23), The Veneto-Greek has κραταιός.
The Peshito-Syriac, in many passages, renders
“ Shaddai” simply “God,” in others LLagiu,
chasino, “strong, powerful” (Job v. 17, vi. 4,
&e.), and once bSs, ’eldyo, “ Most High” (Job
vi. 14). The Samaritan Version of Gen. xvii. 1
has for “ El Shaddai,” ‘ powerful, sufficient,”
though in the other passages of Genesis and Exodus
it simply retains the Hebrew word ; while in Num.
xxiv. 4, 16, the translator must have read 77,
sddeh, ‘‘a field,” for he renders ‘the vision of
Shaddai,” “ the vision of the field,” i. 6. the vision
seen in the open plain. Aben Ezra and Kimchi
render it “ powerful.”
The derivations assigned to Shaddai are various.
We may mention, only to reject, the Rabbinical
etymology which connects it with "J, da?, ““ suffi-
ciency,” given by Rashi (on Gen. xvii. 1), “I am
He in whose Godhead there is sufficiency for the
whole creation τ᾿ and in the Talmud (Chayiga, fol.
12, col. 1), “I am He who said to the world,
Enough !” According to this, "I= TWN, “ He
who is sufficient,” *‘ the all-sufficient One;’”’ and so
“He who is sufficient in himself,’ and therefore
self-existent. This is the origin of the ἱκανός of the
LXX., Theodoret, and Hesychius, and of the Arabic
ss. alkaft, of Saadias, which has the same
meaning. Gesenius (Gram, 886, and Jesaia, xiii. 6)
regards "SU, shaddat, as the plural of majesty,
from a singular noun, TW, shad, root IW, shadad,
of which the primary notion seems to be, ‘‘ to be
strong” (Fiirst, Handwb.). It is evident that this
derivation was present to the mind of the prophet
from the play of words in Is. xiii. 6. Ewald ( Lehrb,
§155c. 5te Ausg.) takes it from a root AWW =
TW, and compares it with ‘5, davedi, from
ΓΞ, davah, the older termination "- being retained.
He also refers to the proper names wir, Vishai
(Jesse), and “3, Bavvai (Neh. iii. 18). Roediger
(Ges. Thes. s. v.) disputes Ewald’s explanation, and
proposes, as one less open to objection, that Shaddai
originally signified ** my powerful ones,” and after-
wards became the name of God Almighty, like the
analogous form Adonai. In favour of this is the
fact that it is never found with the definite article,
but such would be equally the case if Shaddai were
regarded as a proper name. On the whole there
seems no reasonable objection to the view taken by
Gesenius, which Lee also adopts (Gram. §139, 6).
Shaddai is found as an element in the proper
names Ammishaddai, Zurishaddai, and possibly also
in Shedeur there may be a trace of it. [W. A. W.]
SHAD'RACH (F171: Sedpde: Sidrach: of
uncertain etymology). The Chaldee name of Hana-
niah [HANANIAH 7; SHESHBAZZAR], the chief
of the “three children,’ whose song, as given in
1222 SHADRACH
the apocryphal Daniel, forms part of the service
of the Church of England, under the name of “ Be-
nedicite, omnia opera.’ A long prayer in the
furnace is also ascribed to him in the LXX. and
Vulgate, but this is thought to be by a different
hand from that which added the song. The history
of Shadrach, or Hananiah, is briefly this. He was
taken captive with Daniel, Mishael, and Azariah,
at the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, in
the fourth, or, as Daniel (i. 1) reckons, in the third 3
year of Jehoialim, at the time when the Jewish king
himself was bound in fetters to be casried off to
Babylon. [JEHOIAKIM.] Being, with his three
conipanions, apparently of royal birth (Dan. i. 3),
of superior understanding, and of goodly person, he
was selected, with them, for the king’s immediate
service, and was for this end instructed in the lan-
guage and in all the learning and wisdom of the
Chaldeans, as taught in the college of the ma-
gicians. Like Daniel, he avoided the pollution of
the meat and wine which formed their daily provi-
sion at the king’s cost, and obtained permission to
live on pulse and water. When the time of his
probation was over, he and his three companions,
being found superior to all the other magicians,
were advanced to stand before the king, When the
decree for the slaughter of all the magicians went
forth from Nebuchadnezzar, we find Shadrach
uniting with his companions in prayer to God to
reveal the dream to Daniel; and when, in answer to
that prayer, Daniel had successfully interpreted the
dream, and been made ruler of the province of
Babylon, and head of the colleze of magicians, Sha-
drach was promoted to a high civil office. But the
penalty of Oriental greatness, especially when com-
bined with honesty and uprightness, soon had to be
paid by him, on the accusation of certain envious
Chaldeans. For refusing to worship the golden
image he was cast with Meshach and Abed-nego
into the burning furnace. But his faith stood firm ;
and his victory was complete when he came out of
the furnace, with his two companions, unhurt,
heard the king’s testimony to the glory of God, and
was ‘promoted in the province of Babylon.” We
hear no more of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego
in the Ὁ. T. after this; neither are they spoken of
in the N. T., except in the pointed allusion to
them in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as having
“through faith quenched the violence of fire” (Heb.
xi. 33,4). But there are repeated allusions to them
in the later apocryphal hooks, and the martyrs of
the Maccabaean period seem to have been much en-
couraged hy their example. See 1 Mace. ii. 59,
60; 3 Macc. vi. 6; 4 Macc. xiii, 9, xvi. 3, 21,
xvili. 12. Ewald (Geschichte, iv. 557) observes,
indeed, that next to the Pentateuch no book is so
often referred to in these times, in proportion, as the
Book of Daniel. The apocryphal additions to Daniel
contain, as usual, many supplementary _ parti-
culars about the furnace, the angel, and Nebuchad-
nezzar, besides the introduction of the prayer of
Shadrach, and the hymn. Theodore Parker observes
with truth, in opposition to Bertholdt, that these
additions of the Alexandrine prove that the Hebrew
was the original text, because they are obviously
inserted to introduce a better connexion into the
narrative (Joseph. Ant. x. 10; Prideaux, Connect.
i. 59, 60; Parker’s De Wette’s Introd. ii. 483-
* Keil explains the discrepancy by supposing that
Nebuchadnezzar may have set off from Babylon. to-
wards the end of the third year, but not have reached
SHALEM
510; Grimm, on 1 Mace. ii. 60; Hitzig (who takes
a thoroughly sceptical view), on Dan. iii.; Ewald, iv.
106-7, 557-9; Keil, Hinleit. Daniel), [A.C. H.]
SHA'GE (N30: Σωλά ; Alex. Sayh: Sage).
Father of Jonathan the Hararite, one of David’s
guard (1 Chr. xi. 34). In the parallel list of 2 Sam.
xxili, 33, he is called Shammah ; unless, as seems
probable, there is a confusion between Jonathan the
son of “‘Shage the Hararite,’ Jonathan the son of
Shammah, David’s brother, and “* Shammah the son
of Agee the Hararite.” [See SHAMMAH 5.]
SHAHARA'IM (D° NY: Σααρίν ; Alex. Sua-
piu: Saharaim). A Benjamite whose history and
descent are alike obscure in the present text (1 Chr.
viii. 8). It is more intelligible if we remove the
full stop from the end of ver. 7, and read on thus:
‘and begat Uzza and Ahihud, and Shaharaim he
begat in the field of Moab,” ὥς. This would make
Shaharaim the son of Gera. He had three wives
and nine children.
SHAHAZ'IMAH (719°¥MY: but in the orig.
text (Cethib) MINSNY, ἡ. ὁ. Shahatsiimah: Ξαλεὶμ
κατὰ Ὀθάλασσαν; Alex. Σασειμαθ: Seesima). One
of the towns of the allotment of Issachar, apparently
between Tabor and the Jordan (Josh. xix. 22 only).
The name is accurately Shahatsim, the termination ah
being the particle of motion‘ to Shahatsim.” [G.]
SHA’LEM ( Dee ; Samar, DISW: εἰς Σαλήμ:
in Salem), Gen. xxxiii. 18. It seems more than
probable that this word should not here be taken
as a proper name, but that the sentence should be
rendered, ‘* Jacob came safe to the city of Shechem.”
Our translators have followed the LXX., Peshito-
Syriac, and Vulgate, among ancient, and, Luther’s
among modern yersions, in all of which Shalem is
treated as a proper name, and considered as a town
dependent on or related to Shechem. And it is
certainly remarkable that there should be a modern
village bearing the name of Salim in a position
to a certain degree consistent with the require-
ments of the narrative when so interpreted :—viz.
3 miles east of Nablus (the ancient Shechem), and
therefore between it and the Jordan Valley, where
the preceding verse (ver. 17) leaves Jacob settled
(Rob. B. R. ii. 279; Wilson, Lands, ii, 72; Van
de Velde, Syr. & Pal. ii. 302, 334).
But there are several considerations which weigh
very much against this being more than a fortuitous
coincidence.
1. If Shalem was the city in front of which
Jacob pitched his tent, then it certainly was the
scene of the events of chap. xxxiv.; and the well of
Jacob and the tomb of Joseph must be removed
from the situation in which tradition has so appro-
priately placed them to some spot further eastward
and nearer to Salim. Eusebius and Jerome felt this,
and they accordingly make Sychem and Salem one
and the same (Onomast., under both these heads).
2. Though east of Nablus, Salim does not appear
to lie near any actual line of communication be-
tween it and the Jordan Valley. The road from
Sakit to Nablis would be either by Wady Maleh,
through Teyasir, Tubas, and the Wady Bidan, οὐ
by Kerawa, Yanin, and Beit-Furtk. The former
passes two miles to the north, the latter two miles
Judaea till the fourth (Hinleit. p. 387).
b Reading the final syllable as md", “to the sea.”
SHALIM, THE LAND OF
to the south of Salém, but neither approach it in
the direct way which the narrative of Gen, xxxiii. 18
seems to denote that Jacob’s route did.
3. With the exceptions already named, the una-
nimous voice of translators and scholars is in favour
of treating shalem as a mere appellative. Among
the ancients, Josephus (by his silence, Ané. i. 21,
§1), the Targums of Onkelos and Pseudojonathan,
the Samaritan Codex, the Arabic Version. Among
the moderns, the Veneto-Greek Version, Rashi,*
Junius and Tremellius, Meyer (Annot. on Seder
Olam), Ainsworth, Reland (Pal. and Dissert. Misc.),
Schumann, Rosenmiiller, J. D. Michaelis (Bibel fiir
Ungelehrt.), and the great Hebrew scholars of our
own day, Gesenius (7165. 1422), Zunz (24 Biicher,
and Handub.), De Wette, Luzzatto, Knobel, ἘΠῚ
Kalisch—all these take shalem to mean “ safe and
sound,” and the city before which Jacob pitched to
be the city of Shechem.
Salim does not appear to have been visited by
any traveller. It could be done without difficulty
from Nablus, and the investigation might be of
importance. The springs which are reported to
be there should not’ be overlooked, for their bearing
on its possible identity with the SALIM of St. John
the Baptist. [G.]
SHA’LIM, THE LAND OF covsye-yos,
ἡ. 9. Shaalim: τῆς γῆς Ἑασακέμ:" Alex. τ. ¥.
Σααλειμ : terra Salim). <A district through which
Saul passed on ‘his journey in quest of his father’s
asses (1 Sam. ix. 4 only). It appears to have lain
between the “land of Shalisha’”’ and the ‘land of
Yemini”’, (probably, but by no means certainly,
that of Benjamin).
In the complete uncertainty which attends the
route—its starting-point and termination, no less
than its whole course—it is very difficult to hazard
any conjecture on the position of Shalim. The
spelling of the name in the original shows that it
had no connexion with Shalem, or with the modern
Salim east of Nablus (though between these two
there is probably nothing in common except the
name).
“land of Shual,” ¢ the situation of which appears,
from some circumstances attending its mention, to
be almost necessarily fixed in the neighbour hood of
Taiyibeh, 7. e. nearly six miles north of Michmash,
and about nine from Gibeah of Saul. But this can
only be taken as a conjecture. [G.]
SHAL'ISHA,THE LAND OF (AwoU-yoy,
ἴ. 6. Shalishah: ἢ yh Seaxa; Alex. 7 γ. ἼΣαλισσα:
terra Salisa). One of the districts traversed by Saul
when in search of the asses of Kish (1 Sam. ix, 4,
only). It apparently lay between “Ὁ Mount Ephraim”
and the “land of Shaalim,” a specification which
with all its evident preciseness is irrecognisable,
because the extent of Mount Ephraim is so un-
certain ; and Shaalim, though probably near Zui-
yubeh, is not yet definitely fixed there. The diffi-
culty is increased by locating Shalisha at Saris or
Khirbet Saris, a village a fow miles west of Jeru-
salem, south of Abu Gosh (Tobler, 3tte Wand.
* The traditional explanation of the word among the
Jews, as stated by Rashi, is that Jacob arrived before
Shechem sound from his lameness (incurred at Peniel),
and with his wealth and his faith alike uninjured.
+ Many MSS. have Σεγαλιμ or Ξεγαλειμ (see Holmes
and Parsons), the reading followed by Tischendorf in his
text (1856). The reading of the Alex. is remarkable for
its suppression of the presence of the Ὁ in the Hebrew
word, usually rendered in Greek by y.
It is more possibly identical with the |;
SHALLUM 1223
178), which some have proposed. If the land of
Shalisha contained, as it not impossibly did, the
place called BAAL-SHALISHA (2 Ια, iv. 42), which,
according to the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome
(Onom. “ Beth Salisha’’), lay fifteen Roman (or
twelve English) miles north of Lydd, then the whole
disposition of Saul’s route would be changed.
The words Lglath Shalishiyah in Jey. xlviii. 34
(A. V. “a heifer of three years old”) are by some
translators rendered as if denoting a place named
Shalisha. But even if this be correct, it is obvious
that the Shalisha of the prophet was on the coast of
the Dead Sea, and therefore by no means appro-
priate for that of Saul. [G.]
SHALLECH'ETH, THE GATE (Φ
nade’: ἢ πυλὴ παστοφορίου : porta quae ducit).
One of the gates of the “house of Jehovah,” whether
by that expression be intended the sacred tent of
David or the Temple of Solomon. It is mentioned
only in 1 Chr. xxvi. 16, in what purports to be a
list of the staff of the sacred establishment as settled
by David (xxiii. 6, 25, xxiv. 51, xxv. 1, xxvi. 31,
32). It was the gate ‘“‘to the causeway of the
ascent,” that is to the long embankment which led
up from the central valley of the town to the sacied
enclosure. As the causeway is actually in exist-
ence, though very much concealed under the mass
of houses which fill the valley, the gate Shallecheth
can hardly fail to be identical with the Bab Silsileh,
or Sinsleh, which enters the west wall of the Haram
area opposite the south end of the platform of the
Dome of the Rock, about 600 feet from the south-
west corner of the Haram wall. For the bearing
of this position on the topography of the Temple,
see that article.
The signification of shalleceth is “ falling or
casting down.” ‘The LXX. however, appear te
have read maw, ἃ the word which they usually
This would point to the
[61
render by παστοφορίον.
“ chambers” of the Temple.
SHAL'LUM (pi>v: Σελλούμ: δοίη),
the fifteenth king of Israel, son of Jabesh,
conspired against Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II.,
killed him, and brought the dynasty of Jehu to
a close, B.C. 770, according to the prophecy in
2 Κι x. 50, where it is promised that Jehu’s
children should occupy the throne of Israel to the
fourth generation. In the English version of 2 K.
xv. 10, we read, “ And Shallum the son of Jabesh
conspired against him, and smote him before the
people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead.”
And so the Vulg. percussitque eum palam et inter-
?| fecit. But in the LXX. we find Κεβλαάμ instead
of before the people, i. e. Shallum and Keblaam killed
Zechariah. ‘The common editions read ἐν Κεβλαάμ,
meaning that Shallum killed Zechariah in Keblaam ;
but no place of such a name is known, and there is
nothing in the Heb. to answer to ἐν. The words
translated before the people, palam, Κεβλαάμ,
by bap. Ewald (Geschichte iii. 598)
maintains that 23p never occurs in prose,¢ and
are
¢ It will be seen that Shalim contains the in which is is
absent from Shalem. It is, however, present in Shual.
a At the same time omitting ΠΡΌ, “the causeway,”
or confounding it with the word before it.
e€ Is not the objection rather that the word is
ieee It occurs repeatedly in Daniel (ii. 31; iii. 3;
. 1, 5, 10), and also in the Chaldee Honea of Ezra
Gv. 163 vi. 13).
9
-_
1224 SHALLUM
that Dy would be DYN if the Latin and English
translations were correct, He also observes that
in ver. 14, 25, 30, where almost the same expres-
sion is used of the deaths of Shallum, Pekahiah,
and Pekah, the words before the people are omitted.
Hence he accepts the translation in the Vatican
MS. of the LXX., and considers that ἢ Qobolam or
Κεβλαάμ was a fellow-conspirator or rival of
Shallum, of whose subsequent fate we have no in-
formation. On the death of Zechariah, Shallum
was made king, but, after reigning in Samaria for
a month only, was in his turn dethroned and killed
by Menahem. To these events Ewald refers the
obscure passage in Zech. xi. 8:—Three shepherds
also I cut off in one month, and my soul abhorred
them—the three shepherds being Zechariah, Qobo-
lam, and Shallum, This is very ingenious: we
must remember, however, that Hwald, like cer-
tain English divines (Mede, Hammond, Newcome,
Secker, Pye Smith), thinks that the latter chapters
of the prophecies of Zechariah belong to an earlier
date than the rest of the book. [G. E. L. C.]
2. (ξελλήμ; Alex. Σελλούμ in 2 K.). The
husband (or son, according to the LXX. in 2 K.)
of Huldah the prophetess (2 K. xxii. 14; 2 Chr.
| xxxiv. 22) in the reign of Josiah. He appears to
have been keeper of the priestly vestments in the
Temple, though in the LXX. of 2 Chr. this office is
wrongly assigned to his wife.
3. (Sadrovm; Alex. Σαλλούμ). A descendant of
Sheshan (1 Chr. ii. 40, 41).
4. (Alex. SadAovu in 1 Chr., Ξελλήμ in Jer.).
The third son of Josiah king of Judah, known in
the Books of Kings and Chronicles as Jehoahaz
(1 Chr. iii. 15; Jer. xxii. 11). Hengstenberg
(Christology of the O. T. ii. p. 400, Eng. tr.)
regards the name as symbolical, ‘‘ the recompensed
one,” and given to Jehoahaz in token of his fate, as
one whom God recompensed according to his deserts.
This would be plausible enough if it were only found
in the prophecy ; but a genealogical table is the last
place where we should expect to find a symbolical
name, and Shallum is more probably the original
name of the king, which was changed to Jehoahaz
when he came to the crown. Upon a comparison of
the ages of Jehoiakim, Jehoahaz or Shallum, and
Zedekiah, it is evident that of the two last Zede-
kiah must have been the younger, and therefore
that Shallum was the third, not the fourth, son of
Josiah, as stated in 1 Chr. iii. 15.
5. (ξΣαλέμ.) Son of Shaul the son of Simeon
(1 Chr. iv. 25).
6. (Σαλώμ in Chr., Σελούμ in Ezr.; Alex.
Σελλούμ). A high-priest, son of Zadok and an-
eestor of Ezra (1 Chr. vi. 12, 13; Ezr. vii. 2).
Called also SALUM (1 Esdr. viii. 1), and SADA-
MIAS (2 ἔβαν, i. 1).
7. (Σελλούμ.) A son of Naphthali (1 Chr. vii.
13). He and his brethren are called ‘sons of
Bilhah,” but in the Vat. MS. of the LXX., Shallum
and the rest are the sons of Naphthali, and Balam
(not Bilhah) is the son of Shallum. Called also
SHILLEM. y
8. (Sard; Alex. Σαλλώμ in 1 Chr. ix. 17:
Σελλούμ in Ezy. 11.42: Σαλούμ ; Alex. Σελλούμ
in Neh. vii. 45). The chief of a family of porters
or gatekeepers of the east gate of the Temple, for
the camps of the sons of Levi. His descendants
were among those who returned with Zerubbabel.
ΓῺ is the best representative of the Hebrew 5.
SHALMAN
In 1 Esdr. v. 28 he is called SALUM, and in Neh.
xii. 25 MESHULLAM.
9. (ξελλούμ, Σαλώμ; Alex. Σαλλώμ in 1
Chr. ix. 19.) Son of Kore, a Korahite, who with
his brethren was keeper of the thresholds of the
tabernacle (1 Chr. ix. 19, 31), “and their fathers
(were) over the camp of Jehovah, keepers of the
entry.” On comparing this with the expression
in ver. 18, it would appear that Shallum the son
of Kore and his brethren were gatekeepers of a
higher rank than Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and
Ahiman, who were only ‘for the camp of the sons
of Levi.” With this Shallum we may identify Me-
shelemiah and Shelemiah (1 Chr, xxvi. 1, 2, 9,
14), but he seems to be different from the last-
mentioned Shallum.
10. (Σελλήμ.) Father of Jehizkiah, one of the
heads of the children of Ephraim (2 Chr, xxviii. 12).
11. (Ξολμήν ; Alex. SoAAju.) One of the porters
of the Temple who had married a foreign wife
(συ. x. 24).
12. (Σελλούμ.) Son of Bani, who put away
his foreign wife at the command of Ezra (Har.
x, 42),
18. (SaddAotu; FA. Σαλούμ). The son of Ha-
lohesh and ruler of a district of Jerusalem. With
his daughters he assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding
the wall of the city (Neh. iii. 12).
14. (Σαλώμ.) The uncle of Jeremiah (Jer.
| xxxii. 7); perhaps the same as’ Shallum the hus-
band of Huldah the prophetess.
i. p. 966. ]
15. (SeAdéu.) Father or ancestor of Maaseiah,
“keeper of the threshold” of the Temple in the
time of Jeremiah (Jer. xxxv. 4) ; perhaps the same
as 9.
SHAL'LUN (3) : Σαλωμών : Sellum). The
son of Col-hozeh, and ruler of a district of the
Mizpah. He assisted Nehemiah in repairing the
spring gate, and ““the wall of the pool of Has-
shelach” (A. V. “Siloah”) belonging to the king’s
garden, “even up to the stairs that go down from
the city of David” (Neh. iii. 15).
SHALMA'T οὗν, Keri ; mous in Ezr.,
moby in Neh.: SeAapl, SeApet; Alex. Σελαμεί,
Σελμεί : Semlai, Selma). The children of Shalmai
(or SHAMLAT, as in the margin of Ezr. ii. 46)
were among the Nethinim who returned with Ze-
rubbabel. (Ezr. ii. 46; Neh. vii. 48). In Neh.
the name is properly SaLMal. In 1 Esdr. v. 30
it is written SUBATI.
SHAL'MAN ow : Σαλαμάν : Salmana).
Shalmaneser, king of Assyria (Hos. x. 14). The
versions differ in a remarkable manner in their ren-
dering of this verse. The LXX. read WW, sar
(ἄρχων), for 4, shéd (in which they are followed
by the Arabic of the Polyglot), and ‘* Jeroboam δ
(Alex. “ Jerubbaal”) for * Arbel.” The Vulgate,
reading ‘‘ Jerubbaal,” appears to have confounded
Shalman with Zalmunna, and renders the clause,
sicut vastatus est Salmana a domo ejus qui judicavit
Baal in die praelii. The Targum of Jonathan and
Peshito-Syriac both give ‘ Shalma ;” the former for
ONDIN ΓΞ, reading 38122, “‘by an ambush,”
the latter, ON n'a, “ Beth-el.” The Chaldee
translator seems to have caught only the first letters
of the word “ Arbel,” while the Syrian only saw
[ JEREMIAH, vol.
the last two. The Targum possibly regards ‘* Shal-
SHALMANESER
man” as an appellative, “the peaceable,” following
in this the traditional interpretation of the verse
recorded by Rashi, whose note is as follows: ‘ As
spoilers that come upon a people dwelling in peace,
suddenly by means of an ambush, who haye not
been warned against them to flee before them, and
destroy all.”
SHALMANE'SER (Tey de): Σαλαμα-
vaoodp; Joseph. Σαλμανασσάρης : Salmanasar)
was the Assyrian king who reigned immediately
before Sargon, and probably immediately after
Tiglath-pileser. Very little is known of him,
since Sargon, his successor, who was of a different
family, and most likely a rebel against his autho-
rity [SARGoN ], seems to have destroyed his monu-
ments. He can scarcely have ascended the throne
earlier than &.c. 730, and may possibly not have
done so til a few years later. [TIGLATH-PILE-
SER.] It must have been soon after his accession
that he led the forces of Assyria into Palestine,
where Hoshea, the last king of Israel, had revolted
against his authority (2 K. xvii. 3). No sooner
was he come than Hoshea submitted, acknowledged
himself a “servant” of the Great King, and con-
sented to pay him a fixed tribute annually. Shal-
maneser upon this returned home; but soon after-
wards he ‘* found conspiracy in Hoshea,” who had
concluded an alliance with the king of Egypt, and
withheld his tribute in consequence. In B.c. 723
Shalmaneser invaded Palestine for the second time,
and, as Hoshea refused to submit, laid siege to
Samaria. The siege lasted to the third year (B.C.
721), when the Assyrian arms prevailed ; Samaria
fell; Hoshea was taken captive and shut up in
prison, and the bulk of the Samaritans were trans-
ported from their own country to Upper Mesopo-
tamia (2 K. xvii. 4-6, xviii. 9-11). It is uncertain
whether Shalmaneser conducted the siege to its
close, or whether he did not lose his crown to
Sargon before the city was taken. Sargon claims
the capture as his own exploit in his first year ;
and Scripture, it will be found, avoids saying that
Shalmaneser took the place.* Perhaps Shalmaneser
died before Samaria, or perhaps, hearing of Sargon’s
revolt, he left his troops, or a part of them, to con-
tinue the siege, and returned to Assyria, where he
was defeated and deposed (or murdered) by his
enemy.
According to Josephus, who professes to follow
the Phoenician history of Menander of Ephesus,
Shalmaneser engaged in an important war with
Phoenicia in defence of Cyprus (Ant. ix. 14,
§2). It is possible that he may have done so,
though we have no other evidence of the fact; but
it is perhaps more probable that Josephus, or
Menander, made some confusion between him and
Sargon, who certainly warred with Phoenicia, and
set up a memorial in Cyprus. [Sarcon.] [G. R.]
SHA'MA ΟΦ: Σαμαθά: Alex. Σαμμά:
Samma). One of David’s guard, son of Hothan of
Aroer (1 Chr. xi. 44), and brother of Jehiel. Pro-
bably a Reubenite (see 1 Chr. vy. 8).
SHAMARI'AH (ΠΡ δ᾽: Sauopia; Alex.
Σαμαρία: Somoria). Son of Rehoboam by Abihail
the daughter of Eliab (2 Chr. xi. 10}
SHAMHUTH 1225
SHA'MED (08 : Zeuunp: Samad). Pro
perly SHAMER, or Shemer; one of the sons of
Elpaal the Benjamite, who built Ono and Lod, with
the towns thereof (1 Chr. viii. 12). ΤΠ Ve
has followed the Vulg., as in the case of Shachia,
and retains the reading of the Geneva Version.
Thirteen of Kennicott’s MSS. have ΙΝ.
SHA'MER (WO: Σεμήρ; Alex. Seuuhp :
Somer). 1. A Merarite Levite, ancestor of Ethan
(1 Chr. vi. 46). Ἶ
2. (Seuunp; Alex. Σωμήρ.) Suomer the son of
Heber an Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 34). His four sons
are mentioned by name. [W. A. W.]
SHAM'GAR (7312W : Σαμεγάρ: Samgar: of
uncertain etymology ; compare Samgar-nebo). Son
ot Anath, judge of Israel after Ehud, and before
Barak, though possibly contemporary with the
latter, since he seems to be spoken of in Judg,
v. 6 as a contemporary of Jael, if the reading
is correct.b It is not improbable from his
patronymic that Shamgar may have been of the
tribe of Naphtali, since Beth-anath is in that tribe
(Judg. i. 33). Ewald conjectures that he was
of Dan—an opinion in which Bertheau (On Judy.
iii. 31) does not coincide. And since the tribe
of Naphtali bore a chief part in the war against
Jabin and Sisera (Judg. iv. 6, 10, v. 18), we
seem to have a point of contact between Shamgar
and Barak. Anyhow, in the days of Shamgar,
Israel was in a most depressed condition; the tri-
butary Canaanites (Judg. i. 33), in league appa-
rently with their independent kinsmen, the Philis-
tines, rose against their Israelite masters, and the
country became so unsafe, that the highways were
deserted, and Hebrew travellers were obliged to creep
unobserved by cross-roads and by-ways. The open
villages were deserted, the wells were inaccessible, and.
the people hid themselves in the mountains. Their
arms were apparently taken from them, by the same
policy as was adopted later by the same people (Judg.
iii, 31, v. 8; comp. with 1 Sam. xiii. 19-22), and
the whole nation was cowed. -At this conjuncture
Shamgar was raised up to be a deliverer. With no
arms in his hand but an ox-goad (Judg. iii. 31;
comp. 1 Sam.+xiii. 21), he made a desperate assault
upon the Philistines, and slew 600 of them; an act
ot valour by which he procured a temporary respite
for his people, and struck terror into the hearts of
the Canaanites and their Philistine allies. But it
was reserved for Deborah and Barak to complete
the deliverance; and whether Shamgar lived to
witness or participate in it we have no certain in-
formation. From the position of “ the Philistines ”
in 1 Sam. xii. 9, between “ Moab” and “ Hazor,”
the allusion seems to be to the time of Shamgar.
Ewald observes with truth that the way in which
Shamgar is mentioned in Deborah’s song indicates
that his career was very recent. The resemblance
to Samson, pointed out by him, does not seem to
lead to anything. ΚΑ ΤΟΣ ἘΠῚ
SHAM'HUTH (Mini: Σαμαώθ: Samaoth).
The fifth captain for the fifth month in David’s
arrangement of his army (1 Chr. xxvii. 8). His
designation nai, hayyizrach, i.e. the Yizrach,
* In 2 K. xvii. 6, the expression is simply “the king
of Assyria took it.” In 2 K. xviii. 9, 10, we find, still
more remarkably, “ Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, came
up against Samaria, and besieged it; and at the end of
three years they tuok it.’
Ὁ The mention of Jael seems scarcely natural. It has
occurred to the writer to conjecture for DY? 995,
Seng, asin ver. 7. Dr. Donaldson (Jashar, p. 271-2)
conjectures May), “and previously.”
1226 SHAMIR
SHAMMOTH
is probably for YN, hazzarchi, the Zarhite, or | piece of ground full of lentiles against the Philis-
descendant of Zerah the son of Judah. From a
comparison of the lists in 1 Chr. xi., xxvii., it would |
seem that Shamhuth is the same as SHAMMOTH
the Harorite. [W. A. W.]
SHA'MIR (WNW: Sauelp; Alex. in Josh.
Σαφειρ, in Judg. Sauapea: Samir). The name
of two places in the Holy Land.
1. A town in the mountain district of Judah |
(Josh. xv. 48, only). It is the first in this division of |
the catalogue, and occurs in company with JATTIR |
in the group containing Socuo and ΞΗΤΈΜΟΗ.
It therefore probably lay some eight or ten miles
south of Hebron, in the neighbourhood of the three
places just named, all of which have been identified
with tolerable certainty. But it has not itself been
yet discovered.
2. A place in Mount Ephraim, the residence and |
burial-place of Tola the judge (Judg. x. 1, 2). It |
is singular that this judge, a man of Issachar, should
have taken up his official residence out of his own |
tribe.
We may account for it by supposing that |
the plain of Esdraelon, which formed the greater |
part of the territory of Issachar, was overrun, as in
Gideon’s time, by the Canaanites or other ma-
rauders, of whose incursions nothing whatever is
“told us—though their existence is certain—driving
Tola to the more secure mountains of Ephraim.
Or, as Manasseh had certain cities out of Issachar
allotted to him, so Issachar on the other hand may
have possessed some towns in the mountains of
Ephraim. Both these suppositions, however, are
but conjecture, and have no corroboration in any
statement of the records.
Shamir is not mentioned by the ancient topogra-
phers. Schwarz (151) proposes to identify it with
Sanir, a place of great natural strength (which
has some claims to be Bethulia), situated in the
mountains, half-way between Samaria and Jenin,
about eight miles from each. Van de Velde (Mém.
348) proposes Khirbet Sammer, a ruined site in
the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, ten
miles E.S.E. of Nablus. There is no connexion
between the names Shamir and Samaria, as pro-
posed in the Alex. LXX. (see above), beyond the
accidental one which arises from the inaccurate
form of the latter in that Version, and in our own,
it being correctly Shomron. [6.]
SHA'MIR (WY ; Keri, WOW: Sayhp: Sa-
mir). A Kohathite, son of Micah, or Michah, the
firstborn of Uzziel (1 Chr. xxiy. 24).
SHAM'MA (NOW: Baud; Alex. Saupe :
Samma). One of the sons of Zophar, an Asherite
(1 Chr. vii. 37).
SHAM MAH (πὸ: Σομέ: Alex. Σομμέ in
ΟἹ Chr. 1. 57: Samma). 1. The son of Reuel the
son of Esau, and one of the chieftains of his tribe
(Gen, xxxvi. 13, 17; 1 Chr. i. 37).
2. (Sawa; Alex. Σαμμά: Samma.) The third
son of Jesse, and brother of David (1 Sam. xvi. 9,
xvii. 13). Called also SHIMEA, SHIMEAH, and
Suimma. He was present when Samuel anointed
David, and with his two elder brothers joined the
Hebrew army in the valley of Elah to fight with
the Philistines.
3. (Σαμαΐα; Alex. Soupeds: Semma.) One of
the three greatest of David’s mighty men. He was
with him during his outlaw life in the cave of
| tines on one of their marauding incursions. This
achievement gave him a place among the first three
heroes, who on another occasion cut their way
through the Philistine garrison, and brought David
water from the well of Bethlehem (2 Sam. xxiii.
11-17). The text of Chronicles at this part is
| clearly very fragmentary, and what is there attri-
| buted to Eleazar the son of Dodo properly belongs
to Shammah. There is still, however, a dis-
crepancy in the two narratives. The scene of
Shammah’s exploit is said in Samuel to be a
field of lentiles (DIY), and in 1 Chron. a field
of barley (ἡ). Kennicott proposes in both
| cases to read ‘ barley,” the words being in Hebrew
so similar that one is produced trom the other
| by a very slight change and transposition of the
| letters (Diss. p. 144). It is more likely, too, that
|the Philistines should attack and the Isiaelites
| defend a field of barley than a field of lentiles.
In the Peshito-Syriac, instead of being called ‘ the
| Hararite,” he is said to be ‘ from the king’s
mountain ” (ass δ ὁ <>), and the same
| is repeated at ver. 25. The Vat. MS. of the LXX.
makes him the son of Asa (υἱὸς Ασα 6 ᾿Αρουχαῖος,
where *Apovdaios was perhaps the original reading).
Josephus (Ant. vii. 12, §4) calls him Cesabaeus the
son of Illus (Ἴλοῦ μὲν υἱὸς KnoaBatos δὲ ὄνομα).
4. (Sama; Alex. Saupat: Semma.) The Ha-
rodite, one of David’s mighties (2 Sam. xxiii. 25).
He is called “ SHammoru the Harorite” in 1 Chr.
xi, 27, and in 1 Chr. xxvii. 8 “SHamMHUTH the
Izrahite.”’ Kennicott maintained the true reading in
both to be “Shamhoth the Harodite” (Diss. p. 181).
5. (Sauvav; Alex. Sauvds.) In the list of
David’s mighty men in 2 Sam, xxiii. 92, 33, we
find “ Jonathan, Shammah the Hararite ;’ while in
the corresponding verse of 1 Chr. xi. 34, it
is ‘‘Jonathan, the son of Shage the Hararite.”
Combining the two, Kennicott proposes to read
‘Jonathan, the son of Shamha, the Hararite,”’
David’s nephew who slew the giant in Gath (2 Sam.
xxi. 21). Instead of ‘the Hararite,” the Peshito-
Syriac has of the Mount of Olives” GQ) 9
JAXp>» in 2 Sam. xxiii. 33, and in 1 Chr. xi. 34,
“of Mount Camel” (P+9 304 99);
but the origin of both these interpretations is
obscure. [W. A. W.]
SHAMMA’T Cre : Saat; Alex. Σαμμαΐ:
Semei). 1. The son of Onam, and byother of
Jada (1 Chr. ii. 28, 32). In the last-quoted verse
the LXX. give ᾿Αχισαμάς for “ the brother of Sham-
mai.
2. (Sammai.) Son of Rekem, and father or
founder of Maon (1 Chr. ii. 44, 45).
8. (Senet; Alex. Seupat.) The brother of Mi-
riam and Ishbah the founder of Eshtemoa, in an
obscure genealogy of the descendants of Judah (1
Chr. iv. 17). Rabbi D. Kimchi conjectures that
these were the children of Mered by his Egyptian
wife Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh. [MERED. ]
The LXX. makes Jether the father of all three.
The tradition in the Quaest. in Libr. Paral. iden-
tifies Shammai with Moses, and Ishbah with Aaron.
SHAM'MOTH (ni: Sauadd; Alex. Σα-
Adullam, and signalised himself by defending ἃ μώθ: Sammoth). The Harorite, one of David’s
|
SHAMMUA
guard (1 Chr, xi. 27), He is apparently the same
with ‘* Shammah the Harodite” (2 Sam. xxiii. 25),
and with “ Shamhuth” (1 Chr. xxvii. 8).
SHAMMU'A (piu : Alex, Za-
μαλιήλ: Sammua). 1. The son of Zaccur (Num.
xiii. 4) and the spy selected from the tribe of Reuben.
2. (Samad; Alex. Σαμμαού: Sumua.) Son of
David, by his wife Bathsheba, born to him in Jeru-
salem (1 Chr. xiv. 4). In the A. V. of 2 Sam. v.
14 he is called SHAMMUAH, and in 1 Chr, iii. 5
SHIMEA.
8. (Ξαμουί; FA. Samovel.) A Levite, the father
of Abda (Neh. xi. 17). He is the same as SHE-
MAIAH the father of Obadiah (1 Chr. ix. 16).
4. (Σαμουέ :᾿ Sammua.) The representative of
the priestly family of Bilgah, or Bilgai, i in the days
of the high-priest Joiakim (Neh. xii. 18).
SHAMMU'AH (piu: Σαμμούς ; Alex. Σαμ-
μουέ: Samua). Son of David (2 Sam. ν. 14);
elsewhere called SHAMMUA, and SHIMEA.
SHAMSHERA'T (Wi: Σαμσαρί ; Alex.
Σαμσαρία: Samsari). One of the sons of Jeroham,
a Benj: amite, whose family lived in Jerusalem (1
Chr. viii. 26).
SHA'PHAM (DEL : Σαφάμ: Saphan). A
Gadite who dwelt in Bashan (1 Chr. v. 12). He
was second in authority in his tribe.
SHA’PHAN (j5t?: Zarpdv; Alex. Σαφφάν
in 2 K. xxii., but elsewhere both MSS. have Ξαφάν :
Saphan). The seribe or secretary of King Josiah.
He was the son of Azaliah (2 K. xxii. 3; 2 Chr.
xxxiv. 8), father of Ahikam (2 Καὶ. xxii. 12; 2 Chr.
xxxiv. 20), Elasah (Jer. xxix. 3), and Gemariah
(Jer. xxxvi. 10, 11, 12), and Ξ αι μα μος ot Geda-
1188 (dex. xxxix. 14; xl. 5, 9, 11,)xli. 2,, xiii. 6),
Michaiah (Jer, xxxvi. 11); and probably of Jaaza-
niah (Ez. viii. 11). There seems to be no sufhi-
cient reason for supposing that Shaphan the father
of Ahikam, and Shaphan the scribe, were different
persons. The history of Shaphan brings out some
points with regard to the office of scribe which he
held. He appears on an equality with the governor
of the city and the royal recorder, with whom he
was sent by the king to Hilkiah to take an account
of the money which had been collected by the
Levites for the repair ΟΝ the Temple and to pay the
workmen (2 K. xxii. 4; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9; comp.
2 Ix. xii. 10). Ewald calls him Minister of Finance
(Gesch. iii. 697). It was on this occasion that
Hilkiah communicated his discovery of a copy of
the Law, which he had probably found while
making preparations for the repair of the Temple.
{HILKIAH, vol. i. p. 814.] Shaphan was entrusted
to deliver it to the king. Whatever may have been
the portion of the Pentateuch thus discov ered, the
manner of its discovery, and the conduct of the king
upon hearing it read by Shaphan, prove that for
many years it must haye been lost and its contents
forgotten. The part read was apparently from Deu-
teronomy, and when Shaphan ended, the king sent
him with the high-priest Hilkiah, and other men of
high rank, to consult Huldah the prophetess. Her
answer moved Josiah deeply, and the work which
began with the restoration of the decayed fabric of
the Temple, quickly took the form of a thorough
reformation of religion and revival of the Levitical
services, while all traces of idolatry were for a time
swept away. Shaphan was then probably an old
Σαμουήλ ;
SHAREZER 1227
man, for his son Ahikam must have been in a posi-
tion of importance, and his grandson Gedaliah was
already born, as we may infer from the fact that
thirty-five years afterwards he is made governor of
the country by the Chaldeans, an office. which
would hardly be given to a very young man. Be
this as it may, Shaphan disappears from the scene,
and probably died before the fitth year of Jehoiakim,
eighteen years later, when we find Elishama was
scribe (Jer. xxxvi. 12). There is just one point in
the narrative of the burning of the roll of Jere-
miah’s prophecies by the order of the king, which
seems to identify Shaphan the father of Ahikam with
Shaphan the scribe. It is well known that Ahikam
was Jeremiah’s great friend and protector at court,
and it was therefore consistent with this friendship
of his brother for the prophet that Gemariah the
sou of Shaphan should warn Jeremiah and Baruch
to hide themselves, and should intercede with the
king for the preservation of the roll (Jer. xxxvi.
12, 19, 25). [Wee AoW, ij}
SHA'PHAT (ΒΨ): Σαφάτ: Saphat). 1. The
son of Hori, selected from the tribe of Simeon to
spy out the land of Canaan (Num. xiii. 5).
2. The father of the prophet Elisha (1 Kk. xix.
1G. 19. Sake ΤΠ 1, γι: 911):
8. (Sapad; Alex. Sapar.) One of the six sons of
Shemaiah in the royal line of Judah (1 Chr. iii. 22).
4. (6 γραμματεύς.) One of the chiefs of the
Gadites in Bashan (1 Chr. v. 12).
5. (ξωφάτ.) The son of Adlai, who was over
David’s oxen in the valleys (1 Chr. xxvii. 29).
SHA'PHER, MOUNT (Taw : Sapap :
Num. xxxiii. 23). The name of a desert station
where the Israelites encamped, of which no other
mention occurs. The name probably means ‘‘ mount
of pleasantness,’ but no site has been suggested
for it. [H. H.]
SHARA'T (CW: Sapiov; FA. Sapove: Sarai).
One of the sons of Bani who put away his foreign
wite at the command of Ezra (Ezr. x. 40). He is
called Esrin in 1 ἔβαν, ix. 34.
SHARA'IM (Dv, ἡ. ὁ. Shaaraim: Σακα-
pelu; Alex. *Zapyapem: Sarim and Saraim). An
imperfect version (Josh. xv. 36 only) of the name
which is elsewhere more accurately given SHAA-
RAIM. The discrepancy does not exist in the ori-
ginal, and doubtless arose in the A. V. from ad-
herence to the Vulgate. [G.]
SHA'RAR (Ww: *Apat; Alex. ᾿Αράδ: Sarar).
The father of Ahiam the Hararite, one of David’s
guard (2 Sam, xxiii. 33). In 1 Chr. 35 he is
called SACAR, which Kennicott (Diss, p- 203)
thinks the true reading.
SHARE'ZER CYS: Sapacap: Sarasar)
was ason of Sennacherib, whom, in conjunction with
his brother Adrammelech, he murdered (2 K. xix.
37). Moses of Chorene calls him Sanasar, and says
that he was favourably received by the Armenian
king to whom he fled, and given a tract, of country
on the Assyrian frontier, where his descendants be-
came very numerous (Hist. Armen. i. 22). He is
not mentioned as engaged in the murder, either by
Polyhistor or Abydenus, who both speak of Adram-
melech, [G. R.]
4 Codex A here retains the y as the equivalent for the
Δ), which has disappeared from the name in Codex Β. The
first p, however, is unusual. (Comp. TmpAt.]
1228 SHARON
SHARUHEN
SHA'RON (Awa, with the def. article: | the spot. May it not be a token that the original
6 Σαρών; *6 δρυμός ; τὸ πεδίον : Saron, cam-
pestria, campus). A district of the Holy Land
occasionally referred to in the Bible» (1 Chr. ν. 16,
xxvil. 29 Is. xxxiii. 9, xxxv. 2, xv. 10; Cant. ii.
1; Acts ix. 35, A. V. SARON). The name has on
each occurrence, with one exception only, the de-
finite article—/as-Sharén—as is the case also with
other districts—the Arabah, the Shefelah, the
Ciccar ; and on that single occasion (1 Chr. v. 16),
it is obvious that a different spot must be intended
to that referred to in the other passages. This will
be noticed further on. It would therefore appear
that “ the Sharon” was some well-defined region fa-
miliar to the Israelites, though its omission in the
formal topographical documents of the nation shows
that it was not a recognised division of the country,
as the Shefelah for example. [SEPHELA.] From
the passages above cited we gather, that it was a
place of pasture for cattle, where the royal herds of
David grazed (1 Chr. xxvii. 29); the beauty of
which was as generally recognised as that of Carmel
itself (Is. xxxy. 2); and the desolation of which
would be indeed a calamity (xxxiii. 9), and its re-
establishment a symbol of the highest prosperity
(Ixv. 10). The rose of Sharon (possibly the tall
graceful and striking squill), was a simile for all
that a lover would express (Cant. ii. 1). Add to
these slight traits the indications contained in the ren-
derings of the LXX., τὸ πεδίον, ‘the plain,” and ὁ
δρυμός, “the wood,” and we have exhausted all
that we can gather trom the Bible of the charac-
teristics of Sharon.
The only guide to its locality furnished by
Scripture is its mention with Lydda in Acts ix.
35. There is, however, no doubt of the identifica-
tion of Sharon. It is that broad rich tract of land
which lies between the mountains of the central
part of the Holy Land and the Mediterranean—the
northern continuation of the SHEFELAH. Josephus
but rarely alludes to it, and then so obscurely that
it is impossible to pronounce with certainty, from
his words alone, that he does refer to it. He em-
ploys the same term as the LXX., “ woodland,”
Apupol τὸ χωρίον καλεῖται. says he (Ant. xiv.
13, §3; and comp. B. J, i. 13, §2), but beyond its
connexion with Carmel there is no clue to be gained
from either passage. The same may be said of
Strabo (xvi. 28), who applies the same name, and
at the same time mentions Carmel.
Sharon is derived by Gesenius (7168. 642) from
w, to be straight or even—the root also of
aor,
Mishor, the name of a district east of Jordan.
The application to it, however, by the LXX.,
by Josephus, and hy Strabo, of the name Δρυμός
or Apupot—* woodland,” is singular. It does not
seem certain that that term implies the existence of
wood on the plain of Sharon. Reland has pointed
out (Pal. 190) that the Saronicus Sinus, or Bay of
Saron, in Greece, was so called (Pliny, WV. H. iv. 5)
because of its woods, σάρωνις meaning an oak,
Thus it is not impossible that Δρυμός was used as
an equivalent of the name Sharon, and was not
intended to denote the presence of oaks or woods on
a Two singular variations of this are found in the Vat.
MS. (Mai), viz. 1 Chr. v. 16, Τεριάμ; and xxvii. 29,
᾿Ασειδῶν, where the A is a remnant of the Hebrew def,
article. It is worthy of remark that a more decided trace
of the Heb. article appears in Acts ix. 35, where some
MSS. have agcapwva.
meaning of Saron, or Sharon, is not that which
its received Hebrew root would imply, and that
it has perished except in this one instance? The
Alexandrine Jews who translated the LXX. are
not likely to have known much either of the
Saronic gulf, or of its connexion with a rare
Greek word.—Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast.
‘*Saron”’), under the name of Saronas, specify it
as the region extending from Caesarea to Joppa.
And this is corroborated by Jerome in his com-
ments on the three passages in Isaiah, in one of
which (on Ixy. 10) he appears to extend it as far
south as Jamnia. There are occasional allusions to
wood in the description of the events which oc-
curred in this district in later times. Thus, in the
Chronicles of the Crusades, the “‘ Forest of Saron”
was the scene of one of the most romantic adventures
of Richard (Michaud, Histoire, viii.), the “ forest
of Assur” (7. ¢. Arsuf) is mentioned by Vinisaut’
(iv. 16). To the S.E. of Kaisariych there is still
“ἃ dreary wood of (natural) dwarf pines and en-
tangled bushes’? (Thomson, Land and Book, ch.
33). The orchards and palm-groves round Jimzu,
Lydd, and Ramleh, and the dense thickets of dém
in the neighbourhood of the two last—as well as
the mulberry plantations in the valley of the Aujeh
a few miles trom Jaffa—an industry happily in-
creasing every day—show how easily wood might
be maintained by care and cultivation (see Stanley,
S. & P. 260 note).
A general sketch of the district is given under
the head of PALESTINE (pp. 672, 673). Jerome
(Comm, on Is. xxxv. 2) characterises it in words
which admirably portray its aspects even at the
present :—‘‘ Omnis igitur candor (the white sand-
hills of the coast), cultus Dei (the wide crops of
the finest corn), et civcumcisionis scientia (the well
trimmed plantations) et loca uberrima et campestria
(the long gentle swells of righ red and black earth)
quae appellantur Saron.”
2. (FI: Tepidu; Alex. Sapwy: Saron). The
SHARON of 1 Chr. v. 16, to which allusion has
already been made, is distinguished from the western
plain by not having the article attached to its name
as the other invariably has. It is also apparent
from the passage itself that it was some district on
the east of Jordan in the neighbourhood of Gilead
and Bashan, The expression ‘* suburbs” (*W7319),
is in itself remarkable. The name has not been met
with in that direction, and the only approach to an
explanation of it is that of Prof. Stanley (S. & P.
App. §7), that Sharon may here be a synonym for
the Mishor—a word probably derived from the same
root, describing a region with some of the same
characteristics, and attached to the pastoral plains
east of the Jordan. [G.]
SHA'RONITE, THE (WN: ὁ Σαρω-.
νείτης : Alex. Σαρωνιτης : Saronites). Shitrai,
who had charge of the royal herds pastured in
Sharon (1 Chr. xxvii. 29), is the only Sharonite
mentioned in the Bible. [G.]
SHAR'UHEN (JW: of ἀγροὶς αὐτῶν, in
‘| both MSS.: Sareon). A town, named in Josh, xix. 6
Ὁ The Lasharon of Josh. xii. 18, which some scholars
consider to be Sharon with a preposition prefixed, appears.
to the writer more probably correctly given in the A. V.
[LasHaRron.]
¢ Probably reading yw, as Reland conjectures.
SHASHAT
only, amongst those which were allotted within
Judah to Simeon. Sharuhen does not appear in
the catalogue of the cities of Judah; but instead of
it, and occupying the same position with regard to
the other names, we find SHILHIM (xv. 32). In the
list of 1 Chr. on the other hand, the same position is
occupied by SHAARATM (iv. 31). Whether these are
different places, or different names of the same place,
or mere variations of careless copyists; and, in the
last case, which is the original form, it is perhaps
impossible now to determine. Of the three, Shaa-
raim would seem to have the strongest claim,
since we know that it was the name of a place
in another direction, while Shilhim and Sharuhen
are found once only. If so, then the Ava which
exists in Shaaraim has disappeared in the others.
Knobel (ἴσου. Handb.’ on Josh. xv. 32) calls
attention to Zell Sheri’ah, about 10 miles West of
Bir es-Seba, at the head* of Wady Sheri’ah (the
‘“‘watering-place”’). The position is not unsuit-
able, but as to its identity with Shaaraim or Sha-
ruhen we can say nothing. [G.]
SHASHA'I (WW: Secret: Sisai). One of the
sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife and
put-her away in the time of Ezra (Kzr. x. 40).
SHA'SHAK (PUY: Σωσήκ: Sesac). A Ben-
jamite, one of the sons of Beriah (1 Chr. viii. 14, 25).
SHA'UL (Orne: Σαούλ : Alex. Σαμουήλ in
Gen.: Saiil). 1. The son of Simeon by a Ca-
naanitish woman (Gen. xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15; Num.
xxvi. 13; 1 Chr. iv. 24), and founder of the family
of the SHAULITES. The Jewish traditions identify
him with Zimri, “ whe did the work of the Canaan-
ites in Shittim ’’ (Targ. Pseudojon. on Gen. xlvi.).
2. Shaul of Rehoboth by the river was one of
the kings of Edom, and successor of Samlah (1 Chr.
i. 48, 49). In the A. V. of Gen. xxxvi, 37 he is
less accurately called SAUL.
3. A Kohathite, son of Uzziah (1 Chr. vi. 24).
SHA'VEH, THE VALLEY OF (mw Pray;
the Samar. Cod. adds the article, MIWA ry, Sam.
Vers. TIDD*: τὴν Κοιλάδα ay bSav7; Alex.
τ. κι τ. ἴξανην : vallis Save quae est vallis regis).
A name found only in Gen, xiv. It is one of those
archaic names with which this venerable chapter
abounds—such as Bela, En-Mishpat, Ham, Ha-
zezon-tamar—so archaic, that many of them have
been elucidated by the insertion of their more mo-
dern* equivalents in the body of the document, by
a later but still very ancient hand. In the present
case the explanation does not throw any light upon
the locality of Shaveh:—“The valley of Shaveh,
that is the Valley of the King” (ver.17). True,
the ‘* Valley of the King” is mentioned again in
2 Sam. xviii. 18, as the site of a pillar set up by
Absalom ; but this passage again conveys no indi-
cation of its position, and it is by no means certain
that the two passages refer to the same spot.
extreme obscurity in which the whole account of
The |
SHAWM 1229
Abram’s route from Damascus is involved, has been
already noticed under SALEM. A notion has been
long prevalent that the pillar of Absalom is the
well-known pyramidal structure which forms the
northern member of the group of monuments at the
western foot of Olivet. This is perhaps originally
founded on the statement of Josephus (Ant. vii.
10, §3) that Absalom erected (ἕστηκε) a column
(στήλη) of marble (λίθου μαρμαρίνου) at a dis-
tance of two stadia from Jerusalem. But neither
the spot nor the structure of the so-called ‘‘ Ab-
salom’s tomb ”’ agree either with this description, or
with the terms of 2 Sam. xviii. 18. The “ Valley of
the King” was an Emek, that is a broad open
valley, having few or no features in common with
the deep rugged ravine of the Kedron. [VALLEY. il
The pillar of Absalom—which went by the name of
“* Absalom’s hand ”—was set up, erected (23°),
according to Josephus in marble—while the lower
existing part of the monument (which alone has
any pretension to great antiquity) is a monolith not
erected, but excavated out of the ordinary limestone
of the hill, and almost exactly similar to the so-
called “tomb of Zechariah,’ the second from it on
the south. And even this cannot claim any very
great age, since its Ionic capitals and the ornaments of
the frieze speak with unfaltering voice of Roman art.
Shaveh occurs also in conjunction with another
ancient word in the name
SHA'VEH KIRIATHA'IM (Don me :
ev Σαυῇ τῇ πόλει: Save Car tathaim) ‘mentioned
in the same early document (Gen. xiv. 5) as the
residence of the Emim at the time of Chedorlao-
mer’s incursion, Kiriathaim is named in the later
history, and, though it has not been identified, is
known to have been a town on the east of the
Jordan; and Shaveh Kiriathaim, which was also in
the same region, was (if Shaveh mean “ Valley 7)
| probably the valley in or by which the town
[G.]
SHAV'SHA (NLAY : Σουσά: FA. Sods:
Susa). The royal secretary in the reign of David
(1 Chr. xviii. 16). He is apparently the same with
SERAIAH (2 Sam. viii. 17), who is called Σεισά by
Josephus (Ant. vii. 5, 84), and Σασά in the Vat.
MS. of the LXX. Suiswa is the reading of two
MSS. and of the Targum in 1 Chr. xviii. 16. In
2 Sam. xx. 25 he is called Seva, and in 1 K.
iv. 3 SHISHA.
SHAWM. In the Prayer-book version of Ps.
xevill. 7, “* with trumpets also and shawms” is the
rendering of what stands in the A. VY. “ with trum-
pets and sound of cornet.’ The Hebrew word
translated “* cornet”? will be found treated under
that head. The “ shawm” was a musical instru-
ment resembling the clarionet. The word occurs
in the forms shalm, shalinie, and is connected with
the Germ. schalmeie, a reed-pipe.
lay.
“ With shawmes and trompets and with clarions sweet.”
SPENSER, F. Q. i. 12, Mus:
a The Targum of Onkelos gives the same equivalent,
but with a curious addition, “ the plain of Mefana, which
is the king’s place of racing;” recalling the ἱππόδρομος
so strangely inserted by the LXX. in Gen. xlviii. 7.
b This is one of the numerous instances in which
the Vatican Cod. (Mai) agrees with the Alex., and dis-
agrees with the ordinary text, which in this case has
Tov Σαβύ.
¢ If the signification of Shaveh be “ valley,” as Gesenius
in the very expression “ the Emek- Shave τῆν a He figot
that the word had ceased to be intelligible to the writer,
who added to it a modern word of the same meaning with
itself. It is equivalent to such names as “ Puente d’Al-
cantara,” “the Greesen Steps,’’ &c., where the one part
of the name is a mere repetiticn or translation of the other,
and which cannot exist till the meaning of the older term
is obsolete.
ἃ Perhaps first mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela (A.D.
and Fiirst assert, then its extreme antiquity is involved | 1160), and next by Manndeville (1323).
1230 SHEAL
«Even from the shrillest skawm unto the cornamute.”
Drayton, Polyolb. iv. 366.
Mr. Chappell says (Pop. Mus. i. 35, note δ), “ The
modern clarionet is an improvement upon the
shawm, which was played with a reed like the
wayte, or hautboy, but, being a bass instrument,
with about the compass of an octave, had probably
more the tone of a bassoon.’ In the same note he
quotes cne of the “ proverbis’’ written about the
time of Henry VII. on the walls of the Manor House
at Leckingfield near Beverley, Yorkshire :—
“ A shawme maketh ἃ swete sounde, for he tunythe the
basse ;
It mountithe not to hye, but kepith rule and space.
Yet yf it be blowne with to vehement a wynde,
It makithe it to mysgoverne out of his kinde.”
From a passage quoted by Nares (Glossary) it ap-
pears that the shawm had a mournful sound :—
“ He—
That never wants a Gilead full of balm
For his elect, shall turn thy woftil shalm
Into the merry pipe.”
G. Took, Belides, p.18. [w. A.W,]
SHEA'L On: Σαλουία : Alex. Said: Saal).
One of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign
wife (Hzr. x. 29). In 1 Esd. ix. 30 he is called
JASAEL.
SHEAL'TIEL (Syonbyvy, but three times in
Hageai Sximbys: Σαλαθιήλ : Salathiel). Father
of Zerubbabel, the leader of the Return from Cap-
tivity (Ezr. 111. 2, 8, v. 2; Neh. xii. 1; Hage. i.
1, 12, 14, ii. 2, 23). The name occurs also in the
original of 1 Chr. iii. 17, though there rendered in
the A. V. SALATHIEL. That is its equivalent in
the books of the Apocrypha and the N. T.; and
under that head the curious questions connected
with his person are examined.
SHEARI'AH (A Ye: Σαραΐα : Alex. Sapla
in 1 Chr. ix. 44: Saria), One of the six sons of
Azel, a descendant of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 38, ix. 44).
SHEARING-HOUSE, THE (py na
=p yon :Βαιθακάθ τῶν ποιμένων ; Alex. Βαιθακαδ
Τ. π.: camera pastorum). A place on the road
between Jezreel and Samaria, at which Jehu, on his
way to the latter, encountered forty-two members
of the royal family of Judah, whom he slaughtered at
the well or pit attached to the place (2 K. x. 12, 14).
The translators of our version have given in the mar-
gin the literal meaning of the name—* house of bind-
ing of the shepherds,’ and in the text an interpre-
tation perhaps adopted from Jos. Kimchi. Binding,
however, is but a subordinate part of the operation
of shearing, and the word akad is not anywhere
used in the Bible in connexion therewith. The
interpretation of the Targum and Arabic version,
adopted by Rashi, viz. ‘‘ house of the meeting of
shepherds,” is accepted by Simonis (Onom. 186)
and Gesenius (Thes. 1956). Other renderings are
given by Aquila and Symmachus. None of them,
however, seem satisfactory, and it is probable that
the original meaning has escaped. By the LXX.,
Kusebius, and Jerome, it is treated as ‘a proper
name, as they also treat the “ carden-house’” of
ix. 27. Eusebius (Oxom.) mentions it as a village
of Samaria “in the great plain [of Esdraelon] 15
miles from Legeon.” It is remarkable, that at a dis-
« The last word of the three is omitted in ver. 14 in the
original, and in both the Versions.
SHEBA
tance of precisely 15 Roman miles from Lejjin the
name of beth-Kad appears in Van de Velde’s map
(see also Rob. B.R. ii. 316); but this place, though
coincident in point of distance, is not on the plain,
nor can it either belong to Samaria, or be on the
road from Jezreel thither, being behind (south of)
mount Gilboa. The slaughter at the well recals the
massacre of the pilgrims by Ishmael ben-Nethaniah at
Mizpah, and the recent tragedy at Cawnpore. [G.]
SHEH’AR-JA’SHUB (ae TINY : 6 κατα-
λειφθεὶς Ἰασούβ : qui derelictus est Jasub). The
son of Isaiah the prophet, who accompanied him
when he went to meet Ahaz in the causeway of the
fuller’s field (Is. vii. 3). The name, like that of
the prophet’s other son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, had
a mystical significance, and appears to have been
given with mixed feelings of sorrow and hope—
sorrow for the captivity of the people, and hope
that in the end a remnant should return to the
land of their fathers (comp. Is. x. 20-22).
SHE'BA (yaw : SaBeé; Joseph. SaBaios :
Seba). The son of Bichri, a Benjamite from the
mountains of Ephraim (2 Sam, xx. 1-22), the last
chief of the Absalom insurrection. He is described
as a “man of Belial,’ which seems [comp. SHIMET |
to have been the usual term of invective cast to
and fro between the two parties. But he must
have been a person of some consequence, from the
immense effect produced by his appearance. It
was in fact all but an anticipation of the revolt of
Jeroboam. It was not, as in the case of Absalom,
a mere conflict between two factions in the court
of Judah, but a struggle, arising out of that con-
flict, on the part of the tribe of Benjamin to recover
its lost ascendancy; a struggle of which some
indications had been already manifested in the
excessive bitterness of the Benjamite Shimei. The
occasion seized by Sheba was the emulation, as
if from loyalty, between the northern and southern
tribes on David’s return. Through the ancient
custom, he summoned all the tribes “to their
tents ;” and then, and afterwards, Judah alone re-
mained faithful to the house of David (2 Sam. xx.
1, 2). The king might well say, “ Sheba the son
of Bichri shall do us more harm than did Absalom ”
(2b. 6). What he feared was Sheba’s occupation
of the fortified cities. This fear was justified by
the result. Sheba traversed the whole of Pales-
tine, apparently rousing the population, Joab fol-
lowing him in full pursuit, and so deeply impressed
with the gravity of the occasion, that the murder
even of the great Amasa was but a passing in-
cident in the campaign. He stayed but for the
moment of the deed, and ‘* pursued after Sheba the
son of Bichri.” The mass of the army halted for
an instant by the bloody corpse, and then they also
“ went on after Joab to pursue after Sheba the son
of Bichri.” It seems to have been his intentior
to establish himself in the fortress of Abel-Beth-
maacah—in the northmost, extremity 01 Palestine—
possibly allied to the cause of Absalom through his
mother Maacah, and famous for the prudence of
its inhabitants (2 Sam. xx. 18). ‘That prudence
was put to the test on the present occasion. Joab’s
terms were—the head of the insurgent chief. A
woman of the place undertook the mission to her
city, and propesed the execution to her fellow-
citizens. The head of Sheba was thrown over the
wall, and’ the insurrection ended,
2. (SeBeé; Alex. SoBabé: Scbe.) A Gadite,
SHEBA
one of the Ge of his tribe, who dwelt in Bashan
(1 Chr. v. 13). fA. P. 8.]
SHE'BA (Naw: SaBd: Saba). The name
of three fathers of tribes in the early genealogies
of Genesis, often referred to in the sacred books.
They are :—
i Ν son of Raamah, son of Cush (Gen, x. 7;
1 Chr. i. 9).
2. (aes Σαβεύ, SaBdv.) Asonof Joktan (Gen.
x. 28; 1 Chr. i.22); the tenth in order of his sons.
3) (SaBd, ΞΕ ΠΩΣ ; Alex. Σαβάν, Σαβά.) A
son of Jokshan, son of Keturah (Gen. xxv. 3;
1 Chr. i. 32).
We shall consider, first, the history of the Jok-
tanite Sheba ; and, secondly, the Cushite Sheba and
the Keturahite Sheba together.
I. It has been shown, in ARABIA and other
articles, that the Joktanites were among the early
colonists of southern Arabia, and that the kingdom
which they there founded was, for many centuries,
talled the kingdom of Sheba, after one of the sons
of Joktan. They appear to have been preceded by
an aboriginal race, which the Arabian historians
describe as a people of gigantic stature, who culti-
vated the land and peopled the deserts alike, living
with the Jinn in the ‘deserted quarter,” or, AE
the tribe of Thamood, dwelling in caves. This
people correspond, in their traditions, to the abori-
ginal races of whom remains are found wherever a
civilized nation has supplanted and dispossessed the
ruder race. But besides these extinct tribes, there
are the evidences of Cushite settlers, who appear to
have passed along the sonth coast from west to east,
and who probably preceded the Joktanites, and mixed
with them when they arrived in the country.
Sheba seems to have been the name of the great
south Arabian kingdom and the peoples which
composed it, until that of Himyer took its place in
later times. On this point much obscurity remains ;
but the Sabaeans are mentioned by Diod. Sic., who
refers to the historical books of the kings of Egypt
in the Alexandrian Library, and by Eratosthenes, as
well as Artemidorus, or Agatharchides (iii. 38, 46),
who is Strabo’s chief authority ; and the Homeritae
or Himyerites are first mentioned by Strabo, in the
expedition of Aelius Gallus (B.c. 24). Nowhere
earlier, in sacred or profane records, are the latter
people mentioned. except by the Arabian historians
themselves, who place Himyer very high in their list,
and ascribe importance to his family from that early
date. We have endeavoured, in other articles, to
show reasons for supposing that in this very name
of Himyer we have the Red Man, and the origin of
Erythrus, Erythraean Sea, Phoenicians, ἕο. [See
ARABIA; RED SEA.] The apparent difficulties of
the case are reconciled by supposing, as M. Caussin
de Perceval (Hssai, i. 54-5) has done, that the
kingdom and its people received the name of Sheba
(Arabic, Seba), but that its chief and sometimes
reigning family or tribe was that of Himyer; and
that an old name was thus preserved until the
foundation of the modern kingdom of Himyer or
the Tubbaas, which M. Caussin is inclined to place
(but there is much uncertainty about this date)
about a century before our era, when the two great
rival families of Himyer and Kahlan, together with
smaller tribes, were united under the former. In
support of the view that the name of Sheba applied
to the kingdom and its people as a generic or national
name, we find in the Aamoos * the name of Seba
comprises the tribes of the Yemen in common”
SHEBA 1231
(s.v, Seba); and this was written long after the
later kingdom of Himyer had flourished and fallen.
And further, as Himyer meant the ‘ Red Man,’ so
probably did Seba. In Arabic, the verb Seba,
ies
Law, said of the sun, or of a journey, or of a
fever, means “ it altered” a man, 7. 6. by turning
him red; the noun seba, as well as sib& and
sebee-ah, signifies ‘‘ wine” (Td el-’ Aroos MS.).
The Arabian wine was red; for we read “" kumeyt
is a name of wine, because there is in it blackness
and redness” (Sihah MS.). It appears, then, that
in Seba we very possibly have the oldest name of
the Red Man, whence came φοῖνιξ, Himyer, and
Erythrus.
We haye assumed the identity of the Arabic Seba,
--
Law, with Sheba (SI). The pl. form DN
corresponds with the Greek Σαβαῖος and the Latin
Sabaei. Gesenius* compares the Heb. with Eth.
aa ater “man.” The Hebrew shin is, in by far
the greater number of instances, sin in Arabic (see
G esenitus) ; and the historical, ethnological, and
geographical circumstances of the case, all require
the identification.
In the Bible, the Joktanite Sheba, mentioned
genealogically in Gen. x. 28, recurs, as a kingdom,
in the account of the visit of the queen of Sheba to
king Solomon, when she heard of his fame con-
cerning the name of the Lord, and came to prove
him with hard questions (1 K. x. 1); “and she
came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with
camels that bare spices, and very much gold, and
precious stones” (2). And, again, “she gave the
king an hundred and twenty talents of gold, and of
spices very great store, and precious stones: there
came no more such’ abundance of spices as these
which the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon”
(10). She was attracted by the fame of Solomon’s
wisdom, which she had heard in her own land ;
but the dedication of the Temple had recently been
solemnized, and, no doubt, the people of Arabia
were desirous to see this famous house. That the
queen was of Sheba in Arabia, and not of Seba the
Cushite kingdom of Ethiopia, is unquestionable ;
Josephus and some of the rabbinical writers * per-
versely, as usual, refer her to the latter; and the
Ethiopian (or Abyssinian) church has a convenient
tradition to the same effect (comp. Joseph. Aut. viii.
6, §5; Ludolf, Hist. Aethiop. ii. 3; Harris’ Abys-
sinia, iil. J05). The Arabs call her Bilkees (or
Yelkamah or Balkamah; Ibn Khaldoon), a queen
of the later Himyerites, who, if M. Caussin’s
chronological adjustments of the early history of
the Yemen be correct, reigned in the first century of
our era (Essai, i. 75, &c.); and an edifice at
Ma-rib (Mariaba) still bears her name, while
M. Fresnel read the name of ‘ Almacah” or
** Balmacah,’ in many of the Himyeritic inscrip-
tions. The Arab story of this queen is, in the present
state of our knowledge, altogether unhistorical and
unworthy of credit; but the attempt to make her
Solomon’s queen of Sheba probably arose (as
M. Caussin conjectures) from the latter being men-
tioned in the Kur-dn without any name, and the
commentators adopting Bilkees as the most ancient
queen of Sheba in the lists of the Yemen. The
Wur-dn, as usual, contains a very poor version of
queen of Sheba came from the Yemen, for she spoke an
Ishmaelite (or rather a Shemitic) language.
1232 SHEBA
the Biblical narrative, diluted with nonsense and
encumbered with fables (ch. xxvii. ver. 24, &c.).
The other passages in the Bible which seem to
refer to the Joktanite Sheba occur in Is. lx. 6,
where we read, “all they from Sheba shall come:
they shall bring gold and incense,” in conjunction
with Midian, Ephab, Kedar, and Nebaioth. Here
reference is made to the commerce that took the
road from Sheba along the western borders of
Arabia (unless, as is possible, the Cushite or
Keturahite Sheba be meant); and again in Jer.
vi. 20, it is written, “ΤῸ what purpose cometh
there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane
from a far country ?”” (but compare Ezek. xxvii. 22,
23, and see below). On the other hand, in Ps. lxxii.
10, the Joktanite Sheba is undoubtedly meant ; for
the kingdoms of Sheba and Seba are named together,
and in ver. 15 the gold of Sheba is mentioned.
The kingdom of Sheba embraced the greater part
of the Yemen, or Arabia Felix. Its chief cities,
and probably successive capitals, were Seba, San’&
(UzaL), and Zafiir (SEPHAR). Seba was probably
the name of the city, and generally of the country
and nation; but the statements of the Arabian
writers are conflicting on this point, and they are
not made clearer by the accounts of the classical
geographers. Ma-rib was another name of the city,
or of the fortress or royal palace in it :—‘‘ Seba is a
city known by the name of Ma-rib, three nights’
journey from San’&” (Ez-Zejjaj, in the Zaj-el-
’Aroos MS.). Again, ‘Seba was the city of Ma-
rib (Mushtarak, s.v.), or the country in the Yemen,
of which the city was Ma-rib” (Mardsid, in voc.).
Near Seba was the famous Dyke of El-’Arim, said
by tradition to have been built by Lukman the
_’Adite, to store water for the inhabitants of the
place, and to avert the descent of the mountain tor-
rents. The catastrophe of the rupture of this dyke
is an important point in Arab history, and marks
the.dispersion in the 2nd century of the Joktanite
tribes. This, like all we know of Seba, points irre-
sistibly to the great importance of the city as the
ancient centre of Joktanite power. Although Uzal
(which is said to be the existing San’a) has been
supposed to be of earlier foundation, and Zafar
(SEPHAR) was a royal residence, we cannot doubt
that Seb’ was the most important of these chief
towns of the Yemen. Its value in the eyes of the
old dynasties is shown by their struggles to obtain
and hold it ; and it is narrated that it passed several
times into the hands alternately of the so-called
Himyerites and the people of Hadramawt (HAZAR-
MAVETH). Eratosthenes, Artemidorus, Strabo, and
Pliny, speak of Mariaba ; Diodorus, Agatharchides,
Steph. Byzant., of Saba. SaBat (Steph. Byzant.).
Σαβᾶς (Agath.). Ptol. (vi. 7, 850, 42), and Plin.
(vi. 23, §34) mention 3¢8n. But the former all
say that Mariaba was the metropolis of the Sabaei ;
and we may conclude that both names applied to
the same place, one the city, the other its palace or
fortress (though probably these writers were not
aware of this fact): unless indeed the form Sabota
(with the variants Sabatha, Sobatale, &c.) of Pliny
(NV. ΗΠ. vi. 28, §32), have reference to Shibam,
capital of Hadramawt, and the name also of an-
other celebrated city, of which the Arabian writers
(Marasid, 5. v.) give curious accounts. The classics
are generally agreed in ascribing to the Sabaei the
chiet’ riches, the best territory, and the greatest
numbers, of the four principal peoples of the Arabs
which they name: the Sabaei, Atramitae (= Ha-
dramiwt, Katabeni (= Kahtan=Joktan), and Mi-
xix. 2).
SHEBA
naei (for which see DikLAI)., See Bochart (Phaleg,
xxvi.), and Miiller’s Geog. Min. p. 186, sqq.
The history of the Sabaeans has been examined
by M. Caussin de Perceval (Lssai sur [ Hist. des
Arabes), but much remains to be adjusted before
its details can be received as trustworthy, the
earliest safe chronological point being about the
commencement of our era. An examination of the
existing remains of Sabaean and Himyerite cities
and buildings will, it cannot be doubted, add more
facts to our present knowledge; and a further ac-
quaintance with the language, from inscriptions,
aided as M. Fresnel believes, by an existing dialect,
will probably give us some safe grounds for placing
the Building, or Era, of the Dyke. In the art.
ARABIA, (vol. i. 966), it is stated that there are
dates on the ruins of the dyke, and the conclusions
which De Sacy and Caussin have drawn from those
dates and other indications respecting the date of the
Rupture of the Dyke, which forms then an important
point in Arabian history; but it must be placed in
the 2nd century of our era, and the older era of the
Building is altogether unfixed, or indeed any date
before the expedition of Aelius Gallus. The ancient
buildings are of massive masonry, and evidently of
Cushite workmanship, or origin. Later temples, and
palace-temples, of which the Arabs give us descrip-
tions, were probably of less massive character ; but
Sabaean art is an almost unknown and interesting
subject of inquiry. The religion celebrated in those
temples was cosmic ; but this subject is too obscure
and too little known to admit of discussion in this
place. It may be necessary to observe that whatever
connexion there was in religion between the Sabeaus
and the Sabians, there was none in name or in race.
Respecting the latter, the reader may consult Chwol-
son’s Ssabier, a work that may be recommended
with more confidence than the same author’s Na-
bathaean Agriculture. [See NEBAIOTH.| Some
curious papers have also appeared in the Journal of
the German Oriental Society of Leipsic, by Dr.
Osiander.
Il. Sheba, son of Raamah son of Cush, settled
somewhere on the shores of the Persian Gulf, In
the Mardsid (s. v.) the writer has found an identi-
fication which appears to be satisfactory—that on
the island of Awal (one of the “ Bahreyn Islands ’’),
are the ruins of an ancient city called Seba. Viewed
in connexion with RAAMAH, and the other facts
which we know respecting Sheba, traces of his
settlements ought to be found on or near the shores
of the gulf. It was this Sheba that carried on the
great Indian traffic with Palestine, in conjunction
with, as we hold, the other Sheba, son of Jokshan
son of Keturah, who like DEDAN, appears to have
formed with the Cushite of the same name, one
tribe: the Cushites dwelling on the shores of the
Persian Gulf, and carrying on the desert trade
thence to Palestine in conjunction with the nomade
Keturahite tribes, whose pasturages were mostly on
the western frontier. The trade is mentioned by
Ezek. xxvii. 22, 23, in an unmistakeable manner ;
and possibly by Isa. Ix. 6, and Jer. vi. 20, but these
latter, we think, rather refer to the Joktanite Sheba.
The predatory bands of the Keturahites are men-
tioned in Job i. 15, and vi. 19, in a manner that
recalls the forays of modern Bedawees. [Comp.
ARABIA, DEDAN, &c. | [E. S: Ps]
SHE'BA (pay : Σαμαα; Alex. SuBee: Sabee).
One of the towns of the allotment of Simeon (Josh.
It occurs between Beersheba and Moladah.
SHEBAH
In the list of the cities of the south of Judah, out of
which those of Simeon were selected, no Sheba ap-
pears apart from Beersheba; but there is a Shema
(αν. 26) which stands next to Moladah, and which
is probably the Sheba in question. This suggestion
is supported by the reading of the Vatican LXX.
The change from 6 to m is an easy one both in
speaking and in writing, and in their other letters
the words are identical. Some have supposed that
the name Sheba is a mere repetition of the latter
portion of the preceding name, Beersheba,—by the
common error called homoioteleuton,—and this is
supported by the facts that the: number of names
given in xix. 2-6 is, including Sheba, fourteen, though
the number stated is thirteen, and that in the list
of Simeon of 1 Chron, (iv. 28) Sheba is entirely
omitted, Gesenius suggests that the words in xix. 2
may be rendered ‘“‘ Beersheba, the town, with Sheba,
the well;” but this seems forced, and is besides
inconsistent with the fact that the list is a list of
“cities.” 7705. 1355 a, where other suggestions
are cited. [G.]
SHE'BAH (Aya, Shibeth : ὅρκος :
Abundantia). The ‘famous well which gave its name
to the city of Beersheba (Gen. xxvi. 33). Accord-
ing to this version of the occurrence, Shebah, or
more accurately Shibeah, was the fourth of the
series of wells dug by Isaac’s people, and received
its name from him, apparently in allusion to the
oaths (31, saws, yisshdbe’t) which had passed be-
tween himself and the Philistine chieftains the day
before. It should not be overlooked that according
to the narrative of an earlier chapter the well owed
its existence and its name to Isaac’s father (xxi. 32).
Indeed its previous existence may be said to be
implied in the narrative now directly under conside-
ration (xxvi. 23). The two transactions are, curi-
ously identical in many of their cireumstances—the
rank and names of the Philistine chieftains, the strife
between the subordinates on either side, the cove-
nant, the adjurations, the city that took its name
from the well. They differ alone in the fact that
the chief figure in the one case is Abraham, in the
other Isaac. Some commentators, as Kalisch (Gen.
500), looking to the fact that there are two large
wells at Bir es Seba, propose to consider the two
transactions as distinct, and as belonging the one to
the one well, the other to the other. Others see in
the two narratives merely two versions of the cir-
cumstances under which this renowned well was
first dug. And certainly in the analogy of the
early history of other nations, and in the very close
correspondence between the details of the two ac-
counts, there is much to support this. The various
plays on the meaning of the name YY, inter-
preting it as ‘ seven as an * oath”? —as “ abun-
dance ” —as ‘a lion” b— are all so many direct
testimonies to the remote date and archaic form of
this most venerable of names, and to the fact that
the narratives of the early history of the Hebrews
are under the control of the same laws which regu-
late the early history of other nations. [G. ]
SHEBA'M ( nav Y, 1.6. Sebim: Ξεβαμά: Saban).
One of the towns in the pastoral district on the east
Ce
a This is Jerome’s (Quaest. in Genesim and Vulgate); as
if the word was nyay, as in Ez. xvi. 49.
Ὁ The modern Lene Bir es-Seba’.
VOL. 11.
SHEBNA 1233
of Jordan—the “land of Jazer and the land of
Gilead ” —demanded, and finally ceded to the tribes
of Reuben and Gad (Num. xxxii. 3, only). It is
named between Etealeh and Nebo, and is probably
the same which in a subsequent verse of the chap-
ter, and on later occasions, appears in the altered
forms of SHIBMAH and SismaH, The change from
Sebam to Sibmah, is perhaps due to the difference
between the Amorite or Moabite and Hebrew lan-
guages. [G. ]
SHEBANT’AH (MIA : Σεχενία; Alex. Sa-
xavia in Neh. ix., Safavia in Neh. x.:
Sebnia in Neh. ix., Sebenia in Neh. x.).
1. A Levite in the time of Ezra, one of those
who stood upon the steps of the Levites and sang
the psalm of thanksgiving and confession, which is
one of the last efforts of Hebrew psalmody (Neh.
ix. 4, 5). He sealed the covenant with Nehemiah
(Neh. x. 10). In the LXX. of Neh. ix. 4 he is
made the son of Sherebiah.
2. (Σεβανί in Neh. x., Σεχενία in.Neh. xii. 14:
Sebenia.) A priest, or priestly family, who sealed
the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 4, xii, 14).
Called SHECHANTAH in Neh. xii. 3.
8. (SeBavid: Sabania.) Another Levite who
sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 12).
4. παν: Souvia; Alex. SwBevia: Se-
benias.) One of the priests appointed by David to
blow with the trumpets before the ark of God
(1 Chr. xv. 24). [W. A. W.]
SHEB'ARIM (oa, with the def. article:
συνέτριψαν : Sabarim). A place named in Josh.
vii. 5 only, as one of the points in the flight from Ai.
The root of the word has the force of “ dividing”
or “breaking,” and it is therefore suggested that
the name was attached to a spot where there were
fissures or rents in the soil, gradually deepening till
they ended in a sheer descent or precipice to the
ravine by which the Israelites had come trom Gilgal
—“ the going down”’ ( THAT ; see verse 5 ad
the margin of the A. V a The ground around
the site of Ai, on any hypothesis cf its locality, was
very much of this character. No trace of the name
has, however , been yet remarked,
Keil (Josua, ad loc.) interprets Shebarim by
“stone quarries ;” but this does not appear to be
supported by other commentators or by lexico-
graphers. The ancient inter preters usually discard
it as a pr oper name, and render it “ till they were
broken up,” &c. [G.]
SHEB’'ER Qa: Σαβέρ; Alex. Σεβέρ: Saber).
Son of Caleb ben-Hezron by his concubine Maachah
(1 Chr. ii. 48).
SHEB NA (Naw: Zouvds: Sobnas). A person
of high position ‘in Hezekiah’s court, holding at
one time the office of prefect of the palace (15. xxii.
15), but subsequently the subordinate office of
secretary (Is. xxxvi. 3; 2 K. xix. 2). This change
appears to have been effected by Isaiah’s inter
position ; for Shebna had incurred the prophet’s
extreme displeasure, partly on account of his pride
(Is. xxii. 16), his luxury (ver. 18), and his tyranny
(as implied in the title of “ father? ” bestowed on
his successor, ver. 21), and partly (as appears from
his successor being termed a ‘‘ servant of Jehovah,”
ver. 20) on account of his belonging to the political
party which was opposed to the theocracy, and in
4k
Sabania,
1234 SHEBUEL
favour of the Egyptian alliance. From the omission,
of the usual notice of his father’s name, it has been
conjectured that he was a novus homo. [W. L. B.]
SHEB'UEL Oxia: SovBahrA: Subuel, Su-
baél). 1, A descendant of Gershom (1 Chr. xxiii.
xxvi. 24), who was ruler of the treasures of the
house of God; called also SHUBAEL (1 Chr. xxiv.
20), The Targum of 1 Chr. xxvi. 24 has a strange
piece of confusion: ‘¢ And Shebuel, that is, Jona-
than the son of Gershom the son of Moses, returned
to the fear of Jehovah, and when David saw that
he was skilful in money matters he appointed him
chief over the treasures.’ He is the last descendant
of Moses of whom there is any trace.
2. One of the fourteen sons of Heman the min-
strel (1 Chr. xxv. 4) ; called also SHUBAEL (1 Chr.
xxv. 20), which was the reading of the LXX. and
Vulgate. He was chief of the thirteenth band of
twelve in the Temple choir.
SHECANT'AH (47°30: Σεχενίας : Seche-
nia). 1. The tenth in order of the priests who
were appointed by lot in the reign of David (1 Chr.
ΧΧΙ 11).
2. (Sexovias: Sechenias.) A priest in the reign
of Hezekiah, one of those appointed in the cities of
the priests to distribute to their brethren their
daily portion for their service (2 Chr. xxxi. 15).
SHECHANT’AH (MI2: Σεχενίας : Seche-
nias). 1. A descendant of Zerubbabel of the line
royal of Judah (1 Chr. iii. 21, 22). ?
2. (Saxavias.) Some descendants of Shechaniah
appear to have returned with ἔνα (Εν. viii. 3).
He is called SECHENTAS in 1 Esd. viii. 29.
3. (Sexevias.) The sons of Shechaniah were
another family who returned with Ezra, three hun-
dred strong, with the son of Jahaziel at their head
(Ezr, viii. 5). In this verse some name appears to
have been omitted. The LXX. has “ of- the sons
of Zathoe, Sechenias the son of Aziel,’’ and in this
it is followed by 1 Esd. viii. 32, “of the sons of
Zathoe, Sechenias the son of Jezelus.” Perhaps the
reading should be: “ of the sons of Zattu, Shecha-
niah, the son of Jahaziel.”
4. The son of Jehiel of the sons of Elam, who
proposed to Iizra to put an end to the foreign mar-
riages which had been contracted after the return
from Babylon (Ezr. x. 2).
5. The father of Shemaiah the keeper of the
east gate of Jerusalem (Neh, iii. 29).
6. The son of Arah, and father-in-law to Tobiah
the Ammonite (Neh. vi. 18). ;
7. (Sexevia: Sebenias.) The head of a priestly
family who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 3).
He is also called SHEBANIAH, and SHECANIAH,
and was tenth in order of the priests in the reign
of David.
SHECH'EM (O3 _, “shoulder,” * ridge,” like
dorsum in Latin: Συχέμ. in most passages, but also
ἡ Σίκιμα in 1 K. xii, 25, and τὰ Σίκιμα, as in
Josh. xxiy. 32, the form used by Josephus and Euse-
bius, with still other variations: Sichem). ‘There
may be some doubt respecting the origin of the
name. It has been made a question whether the
place was so called from Shechem, the son of Hamor,
κι From the foot of the mountains on either side of the
town can be discerned on the one hand the range beyond
Jordan Vailey, and on the other the blue waters of the
SHECHEM
head of their tribe in the time of Jacob (Gen.
xxxiii, 18, sq.), or whether he received his name
from the city. The import. of the name favours,
certainly, the latter supposition, since the position -
of the place on the “saddle” or * shoulder” of the
heights which divide the waters there that flow to
the Mediterranean on the west and the Jordan on
the *east, would naturally originate such a name ;
and the name, having been thus introduced, would
be likely to appear again and again in the family of
the hereditary rulers of the ctiy or region. The
name, too, if first given to the city in the time of
Hamor, would have been taken, according to histo-
rical analogy, from the father rather than the son.
Some interpret Gen. xxii. 18, 19 as showing that
Shechem in that passage may have been called also
Shalem. But this opinion has no support except
from that passage; and the meaning even there
more naturally is, that Jacob came in safety to
Shechem (ney, as an adjective, safe; comp. Gen.
xviii. 21); or (as recognised in the Eng. Bible)
that Shalem belonged to Shechem as a dependent
tributary village. [SHALEM.] The name is also
given in the Auth. Version in the form of SICHEM,
and SYCHEM, to which, as well as SycHAR, the
reader is referred.”
The etymology of the Hebrew word shecém indi-
cates, at the outset, that the place was situated on
some mountain or hill-side; and that presumption
agrees with Josh. xx. 7, which places it in Mount
Ephraim (see, also, 1 K. xii. 25), and with Judg.
ix. 9, which represents it as under the summit of
Gerizim, which belonged to the Ephraim range.
The other Biblical intimations in regard to its
situation are only indirect. They are worth
noticing, though no great stress be laid on them.
Thus, for example, Shechem must have been not
far from Shiloh, since Shiloh is said (Judg. xxi. 1)
to be a little to the east of “the highway ” which
led from Bethel to Shechem. Again, if Shalem
in Gen. xxxiii. 18 be a proper name, as our version
assumes, and identical with the present Salim on
the left of the plain of the Mukkna, then Shechem,
which is said to be east of Shalim, must have been
among the hills on the opposite side. Further,
Shechem, as we learn from Joseph’s history (Gen.
xxxvii. 12, &c.), must have been near Dothan ; and,
assuming Dothan to be the place of that name a
few miles north-east of Nabulus, Shechem must
have been among the same mountains, not far dis-
tant. So, too, as the Sychar in John iv. 5 was
probably the ancient Shechem, that town must
have been near Mount Gerizim, to which the Sa-
maritan woman pointed or glanced as she stood by
the well at its foot.
But the historical and traditional data which
exist outside of the Bible are abundant and decisive.
Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, §44) describes Shechem as
between Gerizim and Ebal: τῆς Σικίμων πόλεως
μεταξὺ δυοῖν ὀροῖν, Tapi(atov μὲν τοῦ ἐκ δεξιῶν
κειμένου, τοῦ δ᾽ ἐκ λαιῷῶν Γιβάλου προσαγορευο-
μένους The present Ndabulus is a corruption
merely of Neapolis; and Neapolis succeeded the
more ancient Shechem. All the early writers who
touch on the topography of Palestine, testify to
this identity of the two. Josephus usually retains
the old name, but has Neapolis in B. J. iy. 8, §1.
Mediterranean. The latter appears in the illustration to
this article.
SHECH EM
The Valley and Town of Nablus, the ancient Shechem, from the South-western flank of Mount Ebal, looking Westward.
The Mediterranean is discernible in the distance.
on the left is Gerizim
Epiphbanius says (Adv. Haer. iii. 1055): ἐν Σικί-
fois, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἐν TH νυνὶ Νεάπολει. Jerome
says in the Epit. Paulae: “ Tyransivit Sichem, quae
nune Neapolis appellatur.” The city received its
new name (Νεάπολις -- Nabulus) from Vespasian,
and on coins still extant (Eckhel, Doctr. Numm. iii.
433) is called Flavia Neapolis. It had been laid
waste, in all probability, ete the Jewish war;
and the overthrow had been so ‘complete that, con-
trary to what is generally true in such instances,
of the substitution of a foreign name for the native
one, the original appellation of Shechem never
regained its currency among the people of the
country. Its situation accounts for another name
which it bore among the natives, while it was
known chiefly as Neapolis to foreigners. It is
nearly midway between Judaea and Galilee; and,
it being customary to make four stages of the
journey between those provinces, the second day’s
halt occurs most conveniently at this place. Being
thus a ‘ thoroughfare” (=NAIAYID) on this im-~
portant route, it was called> also Μαβορθά or
Μαβαρθά, as Josephus states (B. J. iv. 8, 81).
He says there that Vespasian marched from Am-
matis, διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ mapa τὴν Ned-
πολιν καλουμένην, Μαβορθὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπι-
χωρίων. Pliny (H. N. ν. 15) writes the same
name “ Mamortha.’’ Others would restrict the
term somewhat, aad understand it rather of the
“pass” or “ gorge” through the mountains where
the town was situated (Ritter’s Erdkunde, Pal.
646).
The ancient town, in its most flourishing age,
Ὁ This happy conjecture, in explanation of a name
which baffled even the ingenious Reland, is due to Ols-
hausen (Ritter, as above).
The mountain
From a sketch by W. Tipping, Esq.
may have filled a wider circuit than its modern
representative. It could easily have extended
further up the side of Gerizim, and eastward nearer
to the opening into the valley from the plain.
But any great change in this respect, certainly the
idea of an altogether different position, the natural
conditions of the locality render doubtful. That
the suburbs of the town, in the age of Christ,
approached nearer than at present to the entrance
into the valley between Gerizim and Ebal, may
be inferred from the implied vicinity of Jacob's
well to Sychar, in John’s narrative (iv. 1, sq.).
The impression made there on the reader is, that
the people could he readily seen as they came forth
from the town to repair to Jesus at the well;
whereas Nabulus is more than a mile distant, and
not visible from that point. The present in-
habitants have a belief or tradition that Shechem
occupied a portion of the valley on the east beyond
the limits of the modern town; and certain tra-
vellers speak of ruins there, which they regard as
evidence of the same fact. The statement of
Eusebius that Sychar lay east of Neapolis, may
be explained by the circumstance, that the part
of Neapolis in that quarter had fallen into such
a state of ruin when he lived, as to be mistaken
for the site of a separate town (see Reland’s
Palaest. 1004). The portion of the town on the
edge of the plain was more exposed than that in
the recess of the valley, and, in the natural course
of things, would be destroyed first, or be left to
desertion ‘and decay. Josephus says that more than
ten thousand Samaritans (inhabitants of Shechem
are meant) were destroyed by the Romans on one
occasion (5. J. iii. 7, §32). The population, there-
fore, must have been much greater than Nabulus
with its present dimensions w ala contain,
«Κι
1236 SHECHEM
The situation of the town is one of surpassing
beauty. “The land of Syria,” said Mohammed,
“is beloved by Allah beyond all lands, and the part
of Syria which He loveth most is the district of
Jerusalem, and the place which He loveth most in
the district of Jerusalem is the mountain of
Nablus” (Fundgr.. des Orients, ii. 139). Its ap-
pearance has called forth the admiration of all tra-
vellers who have any sensibility to the charms of
nature. It lies in a sheltered valley, protected by
Gerizim on the south, and Ebal on the north. The
feet of these mountains, where they rise from the
town, are not more than five hundred yards apart.
The bottom of the valley is about 1800 feet above
the level of the sea, and the top of Gerizim 800 feet
higher still. Those who have been at Heidelberg
will assent to O. von Richter’s remark, that the
scenery, as viewed from the foot of the hills, is not
unlike that of the beautiful German town. The
site of the present city, which we believe to have been
also that of the Hebrew city, occurs exactly on the
water-summit; and streams issuing from the nu-
merous springs there, flow down the opposite slopes
of the valley, spreading verdure and fertility in every
direction. Travellers vie with each other in the lan-
guage which they employ to describe the scene that
bursts here so suddenly upon them on arriving in
spring or early summer at this paradise of the Holy
Land. The somewhat sterile aspect of the adjacent
mountains becomes itself a foil, as it were, to set off
the effect of the verdant fields and orchards which
fill up the valley. ‘* There is nothing finer in all
Palestine,” says Dr. Clarke, “ than a view of Vabulus
from the heights around it. As the traveller descends
towards it from the hills, it appears luxuriantly
embosomed in the most delightful and fragrant
bowers, half concealed by rich gardens and by
stately trees collected into groves, all around the
bold and beautiful valley in which it stands.”
“The whole valley,” says Dr. Robinson, “ was
filled with gardens of vegetables, and orchards of
all kinds of fruits, watered by fountains, which
burst forth in various parts and flow westwards in
refreshing streams. It came upon us suddenly like
a scene of fairy enchantment. We saw nothing to
compare with it in all Palestine. Here, beneath
the shadow of an immense mulberry-tree, by the
side of a purling rill, we pitched our tent for the
remainder of the day and the night. . . . We rose
early, awakened by the songs of nightingales and
other birds, of which the gardens around us were
full.” ‘There is no wilderness here,” says Van
de Velde (i. 386), “there are no wild thickets,
yet there is always verdure, always shade, not of
the oak, the terebinth, and the caroub-tree, but of
the olive-grove, so soft in colour, so picturesque in
form, that, for its sake, we can willingly dispense
with all other wood. There is a singularity about
the vale of Shechem, and that is the peculiar
colouring which objects assume in it. You know
that wherever there is water the air becomes
charged with watery particles, and that distant
objects beheld through that medium seem to be
enveloped in a pale blue or gray mist, such as
contributes not a little to give a charm to the land-
scape. But it is precisely those atmospheric tints
SHECHEM
that we miss so much in Palestine. Fiery tints are
to be seen both in the morning and the evening,
and glittering violet or purple coloured hues where
the light falls next to the long, deep shadows; but
there is an absence of colouring, and of that charm-
ing dusky hue in which objects assume such softly
blended forms, and in which also the transition in
colour from the foreground to the farthest distance
loses the hardness of outline peculiar to the perfect
transparency of an eastern sky. It is otherwise in
the vale of Shechem, at least in the morning and
the evening. Here the exhalations remain hovering
among the branches and leaves of the olive-trees,
and hence that lovely bluish haze. The valley is
far from broad, not exceeding in some places a few
hundred feet. This you find generally enclosed on
all sides; here, likewise, the vapours are condensed.
And so you advance under the shade of the foliage,
along the living waters, and charmed by the melody
ofa host of singing birds—for they, too, know where
to find their best quarters—while the perspective
fades away and is lost in the damp, vapoury atmo-
sphere.” Apart entirely from the historic interest of
the place, such are the natural attractions of this
favourite resort of the patriarchs of old, such the
beauty of the scenery, and the indescribable air of
tranquillity and repose which hangs over the scene,
that the traveller, anxious as he may be to hasten
forward in his journey, feels that he would gladly
linger, and could pass here days and weeks without
impatience.
The allusions to Shechem in the Bible are
numerous, and show how important the place was
in Jewish history. Abraham, on his first migva-
tion to the Land of Promise, pitched his tent and
built an altar under the ¢Oak (or Terebinth) of
Moreh at Shechem. “The Canaanite was then in
the land :᾿ and it is evident. that the region, if not
the city, was already in possession of the aboriginal
race (see Gen. xii. 6). Some have inferred from
the expression, “ place of Shechem,” (DD? Dip),
that it was not inhabited as a city in the time of
Abraham. But we have the same expression used
of cities or towns in other instances (Gen. xviii. 24,
xix. 12, xxix. 22); and it may have been inter-
changed here, without any difference of meaning,
with the phrase, “ city of Shechem,” which occurs
in xxxiii. 18. A position affording such natural ad-
vantages would hardly fail to be occupied, as soon
as any population existed in the country. The
narrative shows incontestably that at the time of
Jacob’s arrival here, after his sojourn in Meso-
potamia (Gen. xxxiii. 18, xxxiv.), Shechem was a
Hivite city, of which Hamor, the father of
Shechem, was the head-man. It was at this time
that the patriarch purchased from that chieftain
“the parcel of the field,’ which he subsequently
bequeathed, as a special patrimony, to his son
Joseph (Gen. xliii. 22; Josh. xxiv, 32; John iv. 5).
The field lay undoubtedly on the rich plain of the
Muthna, and its value was the greater on account
of the well which Jacob had dug there, so as not to
be dependent on his neighbours for a supply of
water. The defilement of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter,
and the capture of Shechem and massacre of all
e The rendering ‘ plains of Moreh” in the Auth. Vers.
t
is incorrect. The Samaritan Pentateuch translates TN
in Gen. xxxv. 4 “bow” or “arch;” and on the basis of
that error the Samaritans at Vdabulus show a structure
of that sort under an acclivity of Gerizim, which they
say was the spot where Jacob buried the Mesopotamian
idols.
SHECHEM
the male inhabitants by Simeon and Levi, are
events that belong to this period (Gen. xxxiv. 1 sq.).
As this bloody act, which Jacob so entirely con-
demned (Gen. xxxiv, 950) and reprobated with his
dying breath (Gen. xlix. 5-7), is ascribed to two
persons, some urge that as evidence of the very
insignificant character of the town at the time of
that transaction. But the argument is by no
means decisive. Those sons of Jacob were already
at the head of households of their own, and may
have had the support, in that achievement, of their
numerous slaves and retainers. We speak, in like
manner, of a commander as taking this or that
city, when we mean that it was done under his
leadership. ‘The oak under which Abraham had
worshipped, survived to Jacob’s time; and the
latter, as he was about to remove to Bethel, col-
lected the images and amulets which some of his
family had brought with them from Padan-aram,
and buried them ‘under the oak which was by
Shechem ” (Gen. xxxv. 1-4). The “oak of the
monument” (if we adopt that rendering of tis
a3) in Judg. ix. 6), where the Shechemites made
Abimelech king, marked, perhaps, the veneration
with which the Hebrews looked back to these
earliest footsteps (the imcunabula gentis) of the
patriarchs in the Holy Land.4 During Jacob’s
sojourn at Hebron, his sons, in the course of their
pastoral wanderings, drove their flocks to Shechem,
and at Dothan, in that neighbourhood, Joseph, who
had been sent to look after their welfare, was seized
and sold to the Ishmaelites (Gen. xxxvii. 12, 28).
In the distribution of the land after its conquest by
the Hebrews, Shechem fell to the lot of Ephraim
(Josh. xx. 7), but was assigned to the Levites, and
became a city of refuge (Josh. xxi. 20, 21). It
acquired new importance as the scene of the re-
newed promulgation of the Law, when its blessings
were heard from Gerizim and its curses from Ebal,
and the people bowed their heads and acknowledged
Jehovah as their king and ruler (Deut. xxvii. 11;
and Josh. ix. 33-35). It was here Joshua as-
sembled the people, shortly before his death, and
delivered to them his last counsels (Josh. xxiv.
1, 25). After the death of Gideon, Abimelech, his
bastard son, induced the Shechemites to revolt
from the Hebrew commonwealth and elect him as
king (Judge. ix.). It was to denounce this act of
usurpation and treason that Jotham delivered his
pavable of the trees to the men of Shechem from
the top of Gerizim, as recorded at length in Judg.
ix. 22 sq. The picturesque traits of the allegory, as
Prof. Stanley suggests (S. & P. 236; Jewish Church,
348), are strikingly appropriate to the diversified
foliage of the region. In revenge for his expulsion,
after a reign of three years, Abimelech destroyed the
city, and, as an emblem of the fate to which he would
consign it, sowed the ground with salt (Jude. ix.
34-45). It was soon restored, however, for we
are told in 1 K. xii. that all Israel assembled at
Shechem, and Rehoboam, Solomon’s successor, went
thither to be inaugurated as king. Its central
position made it convenient for such assemblies ;
its history was fraught with recollections which
SHECHEM 1237
would give the sanctions of religion as well as of
patriotism to the vows of sovereign and people.
The new king’s obstinacy made him insensible to
such influences. Here, at this same place, the ten
tribes renounced the house of David, and transferred
their allegiance to Jeroboam (1 K. xii. 16), under
whom Shechem became for a time the capital of
his kingdom. We come next to the epoch of the
exile. The people of Shechem doubtless shared
the fute of the other inhabitants, and were, most of
them at least, carried into captivity (2 K. xvii.
5, 6, xviii. 9 sq.). But Shalmaneser, the con-
queror, sent colonies from Babylonia to occupy the
place of the exiles (2 K. xvii. 24). It would seem
that there was another influx of strangers, at a
later period, under Esar-haddon (Ezr. iv. 2). The
“6 certain men from Shechem,” mentioned in Jer.
xli. 5, who were slain on their way to Jeru-
salem, were possibly Cuthites, 1. 6. Babylonian
immigrants who had become proselytes or wor-
shippers of Jehovah (see Hitzig, Der Proph. Jer.
p- 331). These Babylonian settlers in the land,
intermixed no doubt to some extent with the old
inhabitants, were the Samaritans, who erected at
length a rival temple on Gerizim (8.6. 300), and
between whom and the Jews a bitter hostility existed
for so many ages (Jos. Ant. xii. 1, 81, xiii. 3, $4).
The Son-of Sirach (1. 26) says, that ‘a foolish
people,” ¢. 6. the Samaritans, “dwelt at Shechem”
(τὰ Σίκιμα). From its vicinity to their place of
worship, it became the principal city of the Sama-
ritans, a rank which it maintained at least till
the destruction of their temple, about B.c. 129,
a period of nearly two hundred years (Jos. Ant.
xiii, 9, §1; B.J. i. 2, 6). It is unnecessary
to pursue this sketch further. From the time
of the origin of the Samaritans, the history of
Shechem blends itself with that of this people
and of their sacred mount, Gerizim; and the
reader will find the proper information on this
part of the subject under those heads (see Herzog,
Reul-Encyk, xiii. 362.) [SAMARIA, SAMARITAN
PENT. |
As intimated already, Shechem reappears in the
New Testament. It is the Sychar of John iv. 5,
near which the Saviour conversed with the Samaritan
woman at Jacob’s Well. Suxap, as the place is
termed there (Sixdp in Rec. Text is incorrect), found
only in that passage, was, no doubt, current among
the Jews in the age of Christ, and was either a term
of reproach (Ape, ‘a lie”) with reference to the
Samaritan faith and worship, or, possibly, a pro-
vincial mispronunciation of that period (see Liicke’s
Comm. tb. Johan. i. 577). The Saviour, with His
disciples, remained two days at Sychar on His
journey from Judaea to Galilee. He preached the
Word there, and many of the people believed on
Him (John iy. 39, 40). In. Acts vii. 16, Stephen
reminds his hearers that certain of the patriarchs
(meaning Joseph, as we see in Josh, xxiv. 32, and
following, perhaps, some tradition as to Jacob’s
other sons) were buried at Sychem. Jerome, who
lived so long hardly more than a day’s journey
from Shechem, says that the tombs of the twelve
4 Here again the Auth. Vers., which renders “ the plain
of the pillar,’ is certainly wrong. It will not answer to
insist on the explanation suggested in the text of the
article. The Hebrew expression may refer to “ the stone”
which Joshua erected at Shechem as a witness of the
covenant between God and His people (Josh. xxiv, 26) ;
or may mean “ the oak of the garrison,” ἵ, 6. the one
where a military post was established. (See Gesen,
Heb. Lex.s.v.) [Prutar, Pray OF THE, p. 877 α.}
1238 SHECHEM
patriarchs were to be seen® there in his day. The
anonymous city in Acts viii. 5, where Philip
preached with such effect, may have been Sychem,
though many would refer that narrative to Samaria,
the capital of the province. It is interesting to
remember that Justin Martyr, who follows so soon
after the age of the Apostles, was born at Shechem.
It only remains to add a few words relating
more especially to MNdbulus, the heir, under a
different name, of the site and honours of the
ancient Shechem. It would be inexcusable not to
avail ourselves here of some recent observations of
Dr. Rosen, in the Zeitschr. der D. M. Gesellschaft
for 1860 (pp. 622-639). He has inserted in
that journal a careful plan of Nabulus and the
environs, with various accompanying remarks.
The population consists of about five thousand,
among whom are five hundred Greek Christians, one
hundred and fifty Samaritans, and a few Jews.
The enmity between the Samaritans and Jews is as
inveterate still, as it was in the days of Christ.
The Mohammedans, of course, make up the bulk of
the population. The main street follows the line
of the valley from east to west, and contains a well-
stocked bazaar. Most of the other streets cross
this: here are the smaller shops and the workstands
of the artisans. Most of the streets are narrow and
dark, as the houses hang over them on arches, very
much as in the closest parts of Cairo. The houses
are of stone, and of the most ordinary style, with
the exception of those of the wealthy sheikhs of
Samaria who. live here. There are no public build-
ings of any note. The Keniseh or synagocue of the
Samaritans is a small edifice, in the interior of
which there is nothing remarkable, unless it be an
alcove, screened by a curtain, in which their sacred
writings are kept. The structure may be three
or four centuries old. A description and sketch
plan of it is given in Mr. Grove’s paper On the
modern Samaritans in Vacation Tourists for 1861.
Na@bulus has five mosks, two of which, according to
a tradition in which Mohammedans, Christians, and
Samaritans agree, were originally churches. One of
them, it is said, was dedicated to John the Baptist ;
its eastern portal, still well preserved, shows the
European taste of its founders. The domes of the
houses and the minarets, as they show themselves
above the sea of luxuriant vegetation which sur-
rounds them, present a striking view to the traveller
approaching from the east or the west.
Dr. Rosen says that the inhabitants boast of the
existence of not less than eighty springs of water
within and around the city. He gives the names of
twenty-seven of the principal of them. One of the
most remarkable among them is Aim el-Kerun,
which rises in the town under a vaulted dome, to
which a long flight of steps Jeads down, from which
the abundant water is conveyed by canals-to two of
the mosks and many of the private houses, and
after that serves to water the gardens on the north
side of the city. The various streams derived from
this and other fountains, after being distributed
thus amony the gardens, fall at length into a single
channel and turn a mill, kept going summer and
winter. Of the fountains out of the city, three
SHECHEM
only belong to the eastern water-shed. One of
them, ’Ain Baldta, close to the hamlet of that
name, rises in a partly subterranean chamber sup-
ported by three pillars, hardly a stone’s throw from
Jacob's Well, and is so large, that Dr. Rosen ob-
served small fish in it. Another, ’Ain ’ Askar,
issues from an arched passage which leads into
the base of Ebal, and flows thence into a tank en-
closed by hewn stone, the workmanship of which,
as well as the archway, indicates an ancient origin.
The third, ’ Ain Defna, which comes from the same
mountain, reminds us, by its name (Δάφνη), of the
time when Shechem was called Neapolis. Some of
the gardens are watered from the fountains, while
others have a soil so moist as not to need such
irrigation. The olive, as in the days when Jotham
delivered his famous parable, is still the principal
tree. Figs, almonds, walnuts, mulberries, grapes,
oranges, apricots, pomegranates, are abundant. ‘The
valley of the Nile itself hardly surpasses Vabulus in
the production of vegetables of every sort.
Being, as it is, the gateway of the trade between
Jaffa and Beirit on the one side, and the trans-
Jordanic districts on the other, and the centre also of
a province so rich in wool, grain, and oil, Nabulus
becomes, necessarily, the seat of an active com-
merce, and of a comparative luxtiry to he found in
very few of the inland Oriental cities. It produces,
in its own manutactories, many of the coarser
woollen fabrics, delicate silk goods, cloth of camel’s
hair, and especially soap, of which last commodity
large quantities, after supplying the immediate
country, are sent to Egypt and other parts of the
East. The ashes and other sediments thrown out
of the city, as the result of the soap manufacture,
have grown to the size of hills, and give to the
environs of the town a peculiar aspect.
Rosen, during his stay at Nabulus, examined
anew the Samaritan inscriptions found there, sup-
posed to be among the oldest written monuments in
Palestine. He has furnished, as Professor Rédiger
admits, the best copy of them that has been taken
(see a fac-simile in Zeitschrift, as above, p. 621).
The inscriptions on stone-tablets, distinguished in
his account as No. 1 and No. 2, belonged originally to
a Samaritan synagogue which stood just out of the
city, near the Samaritan quarter, of which syna-
gogcue a few remains only are now left. They are
thought to be as old at least as the age of Justinian,
who (A.D. 529) destroyed so many of the Samaritan
places of worship. Some, with less reason, think
they may have been saved from the temple on
Gerizim, having been transferred afterwards to a
later synagozue. One of the tablets is now inserted
in the wall of a minaret; the other was discovered
not long ago in a heap of rubbish not far from it.
The inscriptions consist of brief extracts from the
Samaritan Pentateuch, probably valuable as palaeo-
graphic documents.
Similar slabs are to be found built into the walls
of several of the sanctuaries in the neighbourhood
of Nabulus ; as at the tombs of Eleazar, Phinehas,
and Ithamar at Awertah. -
This account would be incomplete without some
mention of the two spots in the neighbourhood of
e Probably at the Rejel el Amid, a wely at the foot of
Gerizim, east of the city, which is still believed to contain
the remains of forty eminent Jewish saints (Rosen, as
above). Dr. Stanley appears to bave been the first to
notice the possible connexion between the name Amid,
“pillar,” attached to this wely, as well as to one on the
west end of Ebal, and the old Hebrew locality the “ oak
of the Pillar.”
f The Auth. Vers. inaccurately adds the article. It is
simply “a city of Samaria.”
SHECHEM
SHECHEM 1239
Nabulus which bear the names of the Well of Jacob | travellers, both of that age and later, speak of the
and the Tomb of Joseph.
is the more remarkable. It lies about a mile and
a half east of the city, close to the lower road,
and just beyond the wretched hamlet of Baldta.
Among the Mohammedans and Samaritans it is
known as Bir el- Yak, or? Ain- Yakib; the Chris-
tians sometimes call it Bir es-Samariyeh—* the
well of the Samaritan woman.” ‘ A low spur pro-
jects from the base of Gerizim in a north eastern
direction, between the plain and the opening of the
valley. On the point of this spur is a tittle mound
of shapeless ruins, with several fragments of granite
columns. Beside these is the well. Formerly there
was a square hole opening into a carefully-built
vaulted chamber, about 10 feet square, in the floor
of which was the true mouth of the well. Nowa
portion of the vault has fallen in and completely
covered up the mouth, so that nothing can be seen
above but a shallow pit half filled with stones and
rubbish. The well is deep—75 ft. when last
measured—and there was probably a considerable
accumulation of rubbish at the bottom. Sometimes
it contains a few feet of water, but at others it is
quite dry. It is entirely excavated in the solid rock,
perfectly round, 9 ft. in diameter, with the sides
hewn smooth and regular” (Porter, Handbook,
340). “It has every claim to be considered the
original well, sunk deep into the rocky ground by
‘our father Jacob.’”? This at least was, the tradition
of the place in the last days of the Jewish people
(John iv. 6,12). And its position adds probability
to the conclusion, indicating, as has been well ob-
served, that it was there dug by one who could not
trust to the springs so near in the adjacent vale—
the springs of *Ain Baldta and’ Ain Defneh—which
still belonged to the Canaanites. Of all the special
localities of our Lord’s life, this is almost the only
one absolutely undisputed. “The tradition, in
which by a singular coincidence Jews and Sama-
ritans, Christians and Mohammedans, all agree, goes
back,” says Dr. Robinson (B. R. ii. 284), “ at
least to the time of Eusebius, in the early part of
the 4th century. That writer indeed speaks only
of the. sepulchre; but the Bourdeaux Pilgrim in
A.D. 333, mentions also the well; and neither of
these writers has any allusion to a church. But
Jerome in Epitaphium Paulae, which is referred
to A.D, 404, makes her visit the church erected
at the side of Mount Gerizim around the well of
Jacob, where our Lord met the Samaritan woman.
The church would seem therefore to have been
built during the 4th century; though not by
Helena, as is reported in modern times. It was
visited and is mentioned, as around the well, by
Antoninus Martyr near the close of the 6th cen-
tury ; by Arculfus a century later, who describes it
as built in the form of a cross; and again by St.
Willibald in the 8th century. Yet Saewulf about
A.D. 1108, and Phocas in 1185, who speak of the
well, make no mention of the church; whence we
may conclude that the latter had been destroyed |
before the period of the crusades, Brocardus speaks
of ruins around the well, blocks of marble and co-
lumns, which he held to be the ruins of a town,
the ancient Thebez; they were probably those of
the church, to which he makes no allusion. Other
Of these the former | church only as destroyed, and the well as already de-
serted. Before the days of Eusebius, there seems to
be no historical testimony to show the identity of
this well with that which our Saviour visited; and
the proof must therefore rest, so far as it can be
made out at all, on circumstantial evidence. I am
not aware of anything, in the nature of the case,
that goes to contradict the common tradition ; but,
on the other hand, I see much jin the circumstances,
tending to confirm the supposition that this is
actually the spot where our Lord held his conversa-
tion with the Samaritan woman. Jesus was jour-
neying from Jerusalem to Galilee, and rested at the
well, while ‘his disciples were gone away into the
city to buy meat.’ The well therefore lay appa-
rently before the city, and at some distance trom it.
In passing along the eastern plain, Jesus had halted
at the well, and sent his disciples to the city situated
in the narrow valley, intending on their return to
proceed along the plain on his way to Galilee, with-
out himself visiting the city. All this corresponds
exactly to the present character of the ground. The
well too was Jacob’s well, of high antiquity, a known
and venerated spot; which, after having already
lived for so many ages in tradition, would not be
likely to be forgotten in the two and a half centuries,
intervening between St. John and Eusebius.”
It is understood that the well, and the site around
it, have been lately purchased by the Russian Church,
not, it is to be hoped, with the intention of erecting
a church over it, and thus for ever destroying the
reality and the sentiment of the place.
The second of the spots alluded to is the Tomb ,
of Joseph. It lies about a quarter of a mile north
of the well, exactly in the centre of the opening of
the valley between Gerizim and Ebal. It is a small
square enclosure of high whitewashed walls, sur-
rounding a tomb of the ordinary kind, but with
the peculiarity that it is placed diagonally to the
walls, instead of parallel, as usual. A rough pillar
used as an altar, and black with the traces of fire,
is at the head, and another at the foot of the tomb.
In the left-hand corner as you enter is a vine,
whose branches “run over the wall,’ recalling
exactly the metaphor of Jacob’s blessing (Gen. xlix.
22). In the walls are two slabs with Hebrew in-
scriptions,» and the interior is almost covered with
the names of pilgrims in Hebrew, Arabic, and Sama-
ritan. Beyond this there is nothing to remark in
the structure itself. It purports to cover the tomb
of Joseph, buried there in the ‘‘ parcel of ground ”
which his father bequeathed especially to him his
favourite son, and in which his bones were deposited
after the conquest of the country was completed
(Josh. xxiv. 32).
The local tradition of the Tomb, like that of the
well, is as old as the beginning of the 4th cent.
Both Eusebius (Onomast. Συχέμ) and the Bour-
deaux Pilgrim mention its existence. So do Ben-
jamin of Tudela (1160-79), and Maundeville (1322),
and so—to pass over intermediate travellers—does
Maundrell (1697). All that is wanting in these
accounts is to fix the tomb which they mention to
the present spot. But this is difficult—Maundrell
describes it as on his right hand, in leaving Nablus
for Jerusalem; “ just without the city ’’—a small
5 The well is fast filling up with the stones thrown in
by travellers and others. At Maundrell’s visit (1697) it
was 105 ft. deep, and the same measurement is given by
Dr. Robinson as having been taken in May 1838. But,
five years later, when Dr. Wilson recovered Mr, A. Bonar’s
| Bible from it, the depth had decreased to “exactly 75”
Maundrell (March 24) found 15
It appears now to be
(Wilson’s Lands, ii. 57).
ft. of water standing in the well.
always dry.
h One of these is given by Dr. Wilson (Lands, &c., ii. 61).
’
1240 SHECHEM
mosk, ‘built over the sepulchre of Joseph ”
(March 25). Some time after passing it he arrives
at the well. This description is quite inapplicable
to the tomb just described, but perfectly suits the
Wely at the north-east foot of Gerizim, which also
bears (among the Moslems) the name of Joseph.
And when the expressions of the two oldest autho-
rities! cited above are examined, it will be seen
that they are quite as suitable, if not more so, to
this latter spot as to the tomb on the open plain.
On the other hand, the Jewish travellers,* from
hap-Parchi (cir. 1320) downwards, specify the tomb
as in the immediate neighbourhood of the village e-
Balata™
In this conflict. of testimony, and in the absence
of any information on the date and nature of the
Moslem® tomb, it is impossible to come to a
definite conclusion, There is some force, and that
in favour of the received site, in the remarks of a
learned and intelligent Jewish traveller (Loewe, in
Allg. Zeitung des Judenthums, Leipzig, 1839, No.
50) on the peculiar form and nature of the ground
surrounding the tomb near the well: the more so
because they are suggested by the natural features
of the spot, as reflected in the curiously minute, the
almost technical language, of the ancient record,
and not based on any mere traditional or artificial
considerations. ‘The thought,” says he, ‘ forced
itself upon me, how impossible it is to under-
stand the details of the Bible without examining
them on the spot. This’ place is called in the
Seripture, neither emek (‘ valley”) nor shefela
(‘plain’), but by the individual name of Chelkat
has-Sade; aud in the whole of Palestine there is
not such another plot to be found,—a dead level,
without the least hollow or swelling in a circuit of
two hours. In addition to this it is the loveliest
and most fertile spot I have ever seen.” [H.B.H.]
SHEC'HEM. The names of three persons in
the annals of Israel.
1. (nS: Συχέμ : Sichem). The son of Hamor
the chieftain of the Hivite settlement of Shechem
at the time of Jacob’s arrival (Gen. xxxiii, 19,
xxxiv. 2-26; Josh. xxiv. 32; Judg. ix. 28).
2. (DIY: Συχέμ : Sechem). A man of Ma-
nasseh, of the clan of Gilead, and head of the family
of the Shechemites (Num. xxvi. 31). His family
are again mentioned as the Beni-Shechem (Josh.
xvii. 2).
3. (DIY: Συχέμ: Sechem). In the lists of
1 Chr. another Shechem is named amongst the
Gileadites as a son of Shemida, the younger brother
of the foregoing (vii. 19). It must have been the
recollection of one of these two Gileadites which led
Cyril of Alexandria into his strange fancy (quoted
by Reland, Pal. 1007, from his Comm. on Hosea)
of placing the city of Shechem on the eastern side
of the Jordan. [ἢ]
SHECH’EMITES, THE ΟΞ ὉΠ: Συχεμεί:
SHECHINAH
Sechemitae). The family of Shechem, son of Gilead :
one of the minor clans of the Eastern Manasseh
(Num. xxvi. 31; comp. Josh. xvii. 2).
SHECHI'NAH (in Chaldee and neo-Hebrew,
mov, majestas Dei, praesentia Det, Spiritus
Sanctus, Buxtorf, from yw and 13, “to rest”
“settle,” “* dwell,” whence qown, τὴς tent,’” the
Tabernacle; comp. σκηνή). This term is not found
in the Bible. It was used by the later Jews, and
borrowed by Christians from them, to express the
visible majesty of the Divine Presence, especially
when resting, or dwelling, between the Cherubim
on the mercy-seat in the Tabernacle, and in the
temple of Solomon ; but not in Zerubbabel’s temple,
for it was one of the five particulars which the
Jews reckon to have been wanting in the second
temple® (Castell, Leaic. s. v.; Prideaux, Connect.
i. p. 188). The use of the term is first found in
the Targums, where it forms a frequent periphrasis
for God, considered as dwelling amongst the chil-
dren of Israel, and is thus used, especially by On-
kelos, to avoid ascribing corporeity » to God Himself,
as Castell tells us, and may be compared to the
analogous periphrasis so frequent in the Targum of
Jonathan * the Word of the Lord.” Many Chris-
tian writers have thought that this threefold ex-
pression for the Deity—the Lord, the word of the
Lord, and the Shechinah—indicates the knowledge
of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, and accord-
ingly, following some Rabbinical writers, identify
the Shechinah with the Holy Spirit. Others, how-
ever, deny this (Calmet’s Dict. of the Bib.; Joh.
Saubert, On the Logos, ὃ xix. in Critic. Sacr. ;
Glass. Philolog. Sacr. lib. v. 1, vii. &c.).
Without stopping to discuss this question, it will
most conduce to give an accurate knowledge of the
use of the term Shechinah by the Jews themselves,
if we produce a few of the most striking passages in
the Targums where it occurs. In Ex, xxv. 8)
where the Hebrew has “ Let them make me a sanc-
tuary that I may dwell OFID0) among them,”
Onkelos has, “I will make my Shechinah to dwell
among them.” In xxix. 45, 46, for the Hebrew “I
will dwell among the children of Israel,” Onkelos
has, “I will make my Shechinah to dwell, &c.”
In Ps. Ixxiv. 2, for “this Mount Zion wherein thou
hast dwelt,” the Targum has “ wherein thy Shechi-
nah hath dwelt.”. In the description of the dedication
of Solomon’s Temple (1 K. viii. 12, 13), the Targum
of Jonathan runs thus: “The Lord is pleased to
make His Shechinah dwell in Jerusalem. I have
built the house of the sanctuary for the house of
thy Shechinah for ever,” where it should be noticed
that in ver. 13 the Hebrew 1D, is not used, but
55}, and 3. And in 1 K. vi. 13, for the Heb.
«1 will dwell among the children of Israel,” Jo-
nathan has “1 will make my Shechinah dwell,
1 Eusebius :—év προαστείοις Νέας médews, ἔνθα Kat ὃ
τάφος δείκνυται τοῦ ᾿Ιωσήφ.
Bourdeaux Pilgrim :—* Ad pedem montis locus est cui
nomen est Sechim : ibi positum est monumentum ubi posi-
tus est Joseph. Inde passus mille . . . ubi puteum,” &c.
k Benjamin of Tudela (cir, 1165) says, “ The Samaritans
are in possession of the tomb of Joseph the righteous ;”
but does not define its position.
m See the Itineraries entitled Jichus hat-tsadikim
(A.D. 1561), and Jichus ha-Aboth (1537), in Carmoly’s
Ttineraires dela Terre Sainte.
n It appears from a note in Prof. Stanley’s Sinai & Γαΐ.
241, that a later Joseph is also commemorated in this
sanctuary.
a Dr. Bernard, in his notes on Josephus, tries to prove
that these five things were all in the second 'Pcmple,
becanse Josephus says the Urim and Thummim were,
See Wotton’s Traditions, &c., p. ΧΙ.
Ὁ See, 6. g., Ps. Ixix. 17, and Kalisch on Ex. xxiv.
10.
SHECHINAH
&e.” In Is. vi. 5 he has the combination,¢ ‘ the
glory of the Shechinah of the King of ages, the
Lord of Hosts ;’ and in the next verse he para-
phrases ‘‘ from off the altar,” by ‘‘ from before His
Shechinah on the throne of glory in the lofty hea-
vens that are above the altar.’ Compare also Num.
v. 3, xxxv. 84; Ps. Ixvili. 17, 18, cxxxv. 21 ; Is.
xxxiii. 5, lvii. 15; Joel iii. 17, 21, and numerous
other passages. On the other hand, it should be
noticed that the Targums never render ὁ’ the cloud”
or ** the glory”? by Shechinah, but by IY and
ΠΡ, and that even in such passages as Ex, xxiv.
16, 17; Num. ix. 17, 18, 22, x. 12, neither: the
mention of the cloud, nor the constant use of the
verb Ἰ2 4 in the Hebrew provoke any reference to
the Shechinah. Hence, as regards the use of the
word Shechinah in the Targums, it may be defined
as a periphrasis for God whenever He is said to
dwell on Zion, amongst Israel, or between the Che-
rubims, and so on, in order, as before said, to avoid
the slightest approach to materialism. Far most
frequently this term is introduced when the verb
yw occurs in the Heb. text; but occasionally, as
in some of the above cited instances, where it does
not, but where the Paraphrast wished to interpose
an abstraction, corresponding to Presence, to break
the bolder anthropopathy of the Hebrew writer.
Our view of the Targumistic notion of the She-
chinah would not be complete if we did not add,
that though, as we have seen, the Jews reckoned
the Shechinah among the marks of the Divine
favour which were wanting to the second Temple,
they manifestly expected the return of the Shechi-
nah in the days of the Messiah. Thus Hage.
i. 8, ‘‘ build the house, and I will take pleasure in
it, and 1 will be glorified, saith the Lord,” is para-
phrased by Jonathan, “1 will cause my Shechinah
to dwell in it in glory.” Zech. ‘ii. 10, “Lo I
come, and 1 will dwell in the midst of thee, saith
the Lord,’ is paraphrased “I will be revealed,
and will cause my Shechinah to dwell in the midst
of thee τ: and viii. 3, “1 am returned unto Zion,
and will dwell! in the midst of Jerusalem,” is para-
phrased “I will make my Shechinah dwell in the
midst of Jerusalem ;” and lastly, in Ezek. xliii. 7,
9, in the vision of the return of the Glory of God
to the Temple, Jonathan paraphrases thus, ‘* Son of
man, this is the place of the house of the throne
ef my glory, and this is the place of the house of
the dwelling of my Shechinah, where I will make
my Shechinah dwell in the midst of the children of
Israel for ever. . . . Now let them cast away their
idols . . . and I will make my Shechinah dwell in
the midst of them for ever.”’ Compare Is. iv. 5,
where the return of the pillar of cloud by day, and
fire by night is foretold, as to take place in the days
of the Messiah.
As regards the visible manifestation of the Divine
Presence dwelling amongst the Israelites, to which
the term Shechinah has attached itself, the’ idea
which the different accounts in Scripture convey is
that of a most brilliant and glorious light,? enve-
loped in a cloud, and usually concealed by the
cloud, so that the cloud itself was for the most part
alone visible ; but on particular occasions the glory f
SHECHINAH 1241
appeared. Thus at the Exodus, ‘‘ the Lord went
before”? the Israelites ‘‘ by day in a pillar of cloud
. and by night in a pillar of fire to give them
light.’ And again we read, that this pillar “ was
a cloud and darkness”’ to the Egyptians, ‘‘ but it
gave light by night’’ to the Israelites. But in the
morning watch ‘ the Lord looked unto the host of
the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the
cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians :”
7, e. as Philo (quoted by Patrick) explains it, ‘“ the
fiery appearance of the Deity shone forth from the
cloud,” and by its amazing brightness confounded
them. So too in the Pirke Eliezer it is said,
‘*The Blessed God appeared in His glory upon the
sea, and it fled back ;’’ with which Patrick compares
Ps. lxxvii. 16, ‘‘ The waters saw thee, Ὁ God, the
waters saw thee; they were afraid: where the
Targum has, ‘They saw thy Shechinah in the
midst of the waters.” In Ex. xix. 9, “the Lord
said to Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick
cloud,” and accordingly in ver. 16, we read that
“a thick cloud” rested ‘ upon the mount,” and in
ver. 18, that ‘* Mount Sinai was altogether on a
smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire.”
And this is further explained, Ex. xxiv. 16, where
| we read that “ the glory of the Lord abode upon
Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it (7. 6. as Aben
Ezra explains it, the glory) six days.” But upon
the seventh day, when the Lord called “ unto
Moses out of the midst of the cloud,” there was a
breaking forth of the glory through the cloud, for
“the sight of the glory of the Lord was like de-
vouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of
the children of Israel,’ ver. 17. So again when
God as it were took possession of the tabernacle at
its first completion (Ex. xl. 34, 35), ‘the cloud
,,covered the tent of the congregation (externally), and
the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (within),
and Moses was not able to enter into the tent of
the congregation” (rather, of meeting); just as at
the dedication of Solomon’s Temple (1 K. viii. 10,
11), ‘‘the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so
that the priests could not stand to minister because
of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord had filled the
house of the Lord.’ In the tabernacle, however,
as in the Temple, this was only a temporary state
of things; for throughout the Books of Leviticus
and Numbers we find Moses constantly entering
into the tabernacle. And when he did so, the cloud
which rested over it externally, dark by day, and
luminous at night (Num. ix. 15, 16), came down
and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the
Lord talked with Moses inside, ‘‘ face to face, as a
man talketh with his friend”? (Ex. xxxili. 7-11).
It was’ on such occasions that Moses ‘heard the
voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy-
seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from
between the two cherubims” (Num. vii, 89), in
accordance with Ex. xxv. 223; Lev. xvi. 2. But it
does not appear that the glory was habitually seen
either by Moses or the people. Occasionally, how-
ever, it flashed forth fiom the cloud which con-
cealed it; as Ex. xvi. 7, 10; Lev. ix. 6, 23, when
“the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the
people,” according to a. previous promise; or as
Num. xiv. 10, xvi. 19, 42, xx. 6, suddenly, to
strike terror in the people in their rebellion. The
¢ In Ps. Ixviii. 17 (16, A. V-), the Targum has “the Word
of the Lord has desired to place His Shechinah upon Zion.”
᾿ὰ Always (as far as I have observed) rendered by the
Chaldee my.
e The Arabic expression, corresponding to the Skechinah
of the Targums, is a word signifying light.
f In Hebrew, "? 1933; in Chaldee, "* 7°,
1242 SHECHINAH
last occasion on which the glory of the Lord ap-
peared was that mentioned in Num. xx. 6, when
they were in Kadesh in the 40th year of the Exodus,
and murmured for want of water; and the last
express mention of the cloud as visibly present over
the tabernacle is in Deut. xxxi. 15, just before the
death of Moses. The cloud had not been men-
tioned before since the second year of the Exodus
(Num. x. 11, 34, xii. 5, 10); but as the descrip-
tion in Num. ix, 15-23; Ex. xl, 38, relates to the
whole time of*their wanderings in the wilderness,
we may conclude that at all events the cloud visibly
accompanied them through all the migrations men-
tioned in Num. xxxiii., till they reached the plains
of Moab, and till Moses died. From this time we
have no mention whatever in the history either of
the cloud, or of the glory, or of the voice from be-
tween the cherubim, “till the dedication of Solomon’s
Temple. But since it is certain that the Ark was
still the a symbol of God’s presence and power
(Josh. iii., iv., vi.; 1 Sam. iv.; Ps. Ixviii. 1 sqq. ;
compared ὦ Num. x. 35; Ps. exxxii. 8, lxxx. 1,
xcix. 1), and since such passages as 1 Sam. iv. 4,
21, 22; 2 Sam. vi. 2; Ps. xcix. 7; 2 K. xix. 15,
seem to imply the continued manifestation of God’s
Presence in the cloud between the cherubims, and
that Lev. xvi. 2 seemed to promise so much, and that
more general expressions, such as Ps, ix. 11, cxxxil.
7, 8, 13, 14, Ixxvi. 2; Is. viii. 18, &c., thus acquire
much more point, we may perhaps conclude that
the cloud did continue, though with shorter or longer
interruptions, to dwell between “ the cherubims of
glory shadowing the mercy-seat,” until the destruc-
tion of the Tempie by Nebuchadnezzar. [OLIVEs,
Mount OF, p. 629, a. |
The allusions in the N. T. to the Shechinah are not
unfrequent. Thus in the account of the Nativity, th
words, ‘‘ Lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them,
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them”
(Luke ii. 9), followed by the apparition of “ the
multitude of the Heavenly host,’’ recall the appear-
ance of the Divine glory on Sinai, when “ He shined
forth from Paran, and came with ten thousands of
saints” (Deut. xxxiii. 2; comp. Ps. lxviii. 17; Acts
vii. 53; Heb. ii. 2; Ezek. xliii. 2). The “‘ God of
glory”’ (Acts vii. 2, 55), ““ the cherubims of glory ”
(Heb. ix. 5), “ the glory” (Rom. ix. 4), and other
like passages, are distinct references to the mani-
festations of the glory in the O. T. When we read
in John 1. 14, that ‘* the Word was made flesh, and
dwelt among us (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν iuiv), and we be-
held his glory;” or in 2 Cor. xii. 9, ‘‘that the
power of Christ may rest upon me& (ἐπισκηνώσῃ
em ἐμέ) ; or in Rey. xxi. 3, “ Behold the taber-
nacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with
them” (4 σκηνὴ τοῦ Ocod... Kal σκηνώσει μετ᾽
αὐτῶν) we have not only references to the She-
chinah, but are distinctly taught to connect it with
the incarnation and future coming of Messiah, as
type with antitype. Nor can it be doubted that
the constant connexion of the second advent with a
cloud, or clouds, and attendant angels, points in the
same direction (Matt. xxvi. 64; Luke xxi,
Acts i. 9, 11;'2 Thess. i. 7, 8; Rev. i. 7
It should also be specially noticed that the at-
tendance of angels is usually associated with the
275
SHEEP
Shechinah. These are most frequently called (Ez.
x., xi.) cherubim; but sometimes, as in Is. vi.,
seraphim (comp. Rev. iv. 7, 8). In Ex. xiv. 19,
“the angel of God” is spoken of in connexion with
the cloud, and in Deut, xxxiii. 2, the descent upon
Sinai is described as being ‘‘ with ten thousands of
saints” (comp. Ps. Ixviii. 17; Zech. xiv. 5). ‘The
predominant association, however, is with the che-
rubim, of which the golden cherubim on the merey-
seat were the representation. And this gives force to
the interpretation that has been put upon Gen. iii.
24,4 as being the earliest notice of the Shechinah,
under the symbol of a pointed flame, dwelling
between the cherubim, and constituting that local
Presence of the Lord from which Cain went forth,
and before which the worship of Adam and suc-
ceeding patriarchs was performed (see Hale’s Chro-
nol. ii. 94; Smith’s Sacr. Annal. i. 173, 176-7).
Parkhurst went so far as to imagine a tabernacle
containing the cherubim and the glory all the time
from Adam to Moses (Heb. Lex. p. 623). It is,
however, pretty certain that the various appear-
ances to Abraham, and that to Moses in the bush,
were manifestations of the Divine Majesty similar
to those later ones to which the term Shechinah is
applied (see especially Acts vii. 2). For further
information the reader is referred, besides the works
quoted above, to the articles CLouD, ARK, CHE-
RUB, to Winer, Realwb. Cherubim ; to Bishop
Patrick's Commentary ; to Buxtorf, Hist. Arc.
Foed. cap. xi.; and to Lowman, On the She-
chinah. ΓΑ ΟΣ]
SHED'EUR (ANY: Sediodp: Alex. ᾿Ἐδιούρ
in Num. i. 5, ii. 10: Sedeiir). The father of
Elizur, chief of the tribe of Reuben at the time
of the Exodus (Num. i. 5, ii. 10, vii. 30, 35, x. 18).
It has been conjectured (Zeitschr. d. Deut. Morg.
Ges. xv. 809) that the name is compounded of
Shaddai.
SHEEP. The well-known domestic animal
which'from the earliest period has contributed to
the wants of mankind. Sheep were an important
part of the possessions of the ancient Hebrews and
of Eastern nations generally. The first mention of
sheep occurs in Gen. iv. 2. The following are the
principal Biblical allusions to these animals. They
were used in the sacrificial offerings, both the adult
animal (Ex. xx. 24; 1 K. viii. 63 ; 2 Chr. xxix. 33)
and the lamb, was, i
three years old,” but young lambs of the first year
were more generally used in the offerings (see Ex,
xxix. 88; Ley. ix. 3, xii.°6; Num. xxviii. 9, &.).
No lamb under eight days old was allowed to be
killed (Lev. xxii. 27). A very young lamb was
called nd, taleh (see 1 Sam. vii. 9; Is. Ixv. 25).
Sheep and lambs formed an important article of
food (Sam. ‘xxv. 18. Kim.) 19, ἀντ ΡῈ.
xliv. 11, &c.). The wool was used as clothing
(Lev. xiii. 47; Deut. xxii. 11; Prov. xxxi. 13;
Job xxxi, 20, &c.) [Woou.] Trumpets may have
been made of the horns of rams (Josh. vi. 4),
though the rendering of the A. Y. in this passage
is generally thought to -be incorrect, ‘ Rams’
e. a male from one to
8 This expression of St. Paul’s has a singular resem-
blance to the Rabbinical saying, that of eighty pupils of
Hillel the elder, thirty were worthy that the Shechinah
should rest wpon them; and of these Jonathan (author of
the Targum) was the first (Wolf. Bib. Heb. ii. 1159),
i
h “ He drove out the man, and stationed his Shechinah
of old between the two cherubim” (Jerusal. Targum) ;
DYAIDA-NN JDL) (Heb. Bib.). See Patrick On Gen.
111. 24.
SHEEP
skins dyed red’’ were used as a covering for
the tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 5).
were sometimes paid as tribute (2 K. iii. 4).
very striking to notice the immense numbers of
sheep that were reared in Palestine in Biblical
times: see for instance 1 Chr. vy. 21; 2 Chr. xv.
11, xxx. 24; 2 K. iii. 4; Job xlii. 12. Especial
mention is made of the sheep of Bozrah (Mic. ii.
12; Is. xxxiv. 6) in the land of Edom, a district
well suited for pasturing sheep. ‘ Bashan and
Gilead” ave also mentioned as pastures (Mic. vii.
14). ‘ Large parts of Carmel, Bashan, and Gilead,”
says Thomson (Zhe Land and the Book, p. 205),
“are at their proper seasons alive with countless
flocks’ (see also p. 331). ‘ The flocks of Kedar”
and ‘‘ the rams of Nebaioth,” two sons of Ishmael
(Gen. xxv. 13) that settled in Arabia, are referred
to in Is. Ix. 7. Sheep-shearing is alluded to Gen.
xxxi. 19, xxxviii. 13; Deut. xv. 19; 1 Sam. xxv. 4;
Is. liii. 7, &e. Sheep-dogs were employed in Biblical
times, as is evident from Job xxx. 1, “ the dogs of
my flock,” From the manner in which they are
spoken of by the patriarch it is clear, as Thomson
(The Land and the Book, p. 202) well observes,
that the Oriental shepherd-dogs were very different
animals from the sheep-dogs of our own land,
The existing breed are described as being ‘‘a
mean, sinister, ill-conditioned generation, which are
kept at a distance, kicked about, and half-starved,
with nothing noble or attractive about them.”
They were, however, without doubt useful to the
shepherds, more especially at night, in keeping off
the wild beasts that prowled about the hills and
valleys (comp. Theoc. 7d. ν. 106). Shepherds in
Palestine and the East generally go before their
flocks, which they induce to follow by calling to
them (comp. John x. 4; Ps. Ixxvii. 20, Ixxx. 1),
though they also drove them (Gen, xxxiii. 13).
[SHEPHERD.| It was usual amongst the ancient
Jews to give names to sheep and goats, as in
England we do to our dairy cattle (see John x. 3).
This practice prevailed amongst the ancient Greeks
(see Theoc. Jd. v. 103) :—
Οὐκ ἀπὸ τᾶς δρυὸς οὗτος ὁ Kévapos, & τε Κυναίδα ;
The following quotation from Hartley’s Researches
mm Greece and the Levant, p. 321, is so strikingly
illustrative of the allusions in John x. 1-16, that
we cannot do better than quote it: ‘ Having had
my attention directed last night to the words in
John x. 3, I asked my man if it was usual in Greece
to give names to the sheep. He informed me that
it was, and that the sheep obeyed the shepherd
when he called them by their names. This morn-
ing I had an opportunity of verifying the truth of
this remark. Passing by a flock of sheep, I asked
the shepherd the same question which I had put to
the servant, and he gave me the same answer.
1 then bade him call one of his sheep, He did so,
and it instantly left its pasturage and its com-
panions and ran up to the hands’of the shepherd
with signs of pleasure and with a prompt obedience
which I had never before observed in any other
animal. It is also true in this country that ‘a
stranger will they not follow, but will flee from
him.’ The shepherd told me that many of his
sheep were still wild, that they had not yet learned
their names, but that by teaching them they would
all learn them.” See also Thomson (p. 203) :—
“The shepherd calls sharply from time to time to
remind the sheep of his presence; they know his
voice and follow on; but if a stranger call they
SHEEP 1243
stop short, lift up their heads in alarm, and if it is
Sheep and lambs | repeated they turn and flee, because they know not
It is | the voice of a stranger.”
Broad-tailed Sheep.
The common sheep of Syria and Palestine are the
broad-tail (Ovis laticaudatus), and a variety of the
common sheep of this country ( Ovis aries) called the
Bidoween according to Russell (A/eppo, ii. p. 147).
The broad-tailed kind has long been reared in Syria.
Aristotle, who lived more than 2000 years ago,
expressly mentions Syrian sheep with tails a cubit
wide. This or another variety of the species is
also noticed by Herodotus (iii. 113) as occurring
in Arabia. The fat tail of the sheep is probably
alluded to in Lev. iii. 9, vii. 3, &c., as the fat and
the whole rump that was to be taken off hard by
the back-bone, and was to be’ consumed on the
altar. The cooks in Syria use this mass of fat
instead of Arab butter, which is often rancid (see
Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 97).
The whole passage in Gen, xxx. which bears on
the subject of Jacob’s stratagem with Laban’s sheep
is involved in considerable perplexity, and Jacob’s
conduct in this matter has been severely and un-
compromisingly condemned by some writers. We
touch upon the question briefly in its zoological
bearing. It is altogether impossible to account
for the complete success which attended Jacob’s
device of setting peeled rods before the ewes and
she-goats as they came to drink in the watering
troughs, on natural grounds. The Greek fathers
for the most part ascribe the result to the direct
operation of the Deity, whereas Jerome and the
Latin fathers regard it as a mere natural opera-
tion of the imagination, adducing as illustrations
in point various devices that have been resorted
to by the ancients in the cases of mares, asses,
ὅσο. (see Oppian, Cyneg.i. 327, 357; Pliny, W. A.
vii. 10, and the passages from Quintilian, Hippo-
crates, and Galen, as cited by Jerome, Grotius,
and Bochart). Even granting the general truth of
these instances, and acknowledging the curious effect
which peculiar sights by the power of the imagi-
nation do occasionally produce in the fetus of many
animals, yet we must agree with the Greek fathers
and ascribe the production of Jacob’s spotted sheep
and goats to Divine agency. The whole question
has been carefully considered by Nitschmann (De
.. 1244 SHEEP
Corylo Jacobi, in Thes. Nov. Theol. Phil. i. 202-
206), from whom we quote the following passage :
**Fatemur itaque, cum Vossio aliisque piis viris,
illam pecudum imaginutionem tantum Juisse causam
adjuvantem, ac plus in hoc negotio divinae tribu-
endum esse virtuti, quae suo concursu sic debilem
causae secundae vim adauxit ut quod ea sola secun-
dum naturam praestare non valeret id divina bene-
dictione supra naturam praestaret ;” and then
Nitschmann cites the passage-in Gen. xxxi. 5-15,
where Jacob expressly states that his success was |
due to Divine interference; for it is hard to be-
lieve that Jacob is here uttering nothing but a
tissue of falsehoods, which appears to be the opinion |
| and His members, is beautifully compared to that
of Kalisch (Hist. and Crit. Comment. Gen. xxx.
and xxxi.), who represents the patriarch as “ un- |
blushingly executing frauds suggested by his fertile |
| and the Book, p. 203).
invention, and then abusing the authority of God
in covering or justifying them.” We are aware
that a still graver difficulty in the minds of some
persons remains, if the above explanation be adopted ;
but we have no other alternative, for, as Patrick
has observed, ‘ let any shepherd now try this
device, and he will not find it do what it did then
by a Divine operation.”# The greater difficulty
alluded to is the supposing that God would have
directly interfered to help Jacob to act fraudu-
lently towards his uncle. But are we quite sure
that there was any fraud fairly called such in
the matter? Had Jacob not been thus aided, he
might have remained the dupe of Laban’s nig-
gardly conduct all his days. He had served his
money-loving uncle faithfully for fourteen years;
Laban confesses his cattle had increased considerably
under Jacob’s management; but all the return he
got was unfair treatment and a constant desire on
the part of Laban to strike a hard bargain with
him (Gen. xxxi. 7). God vouchsafed to deliver
Jacob out of the hands of his hard master, and to
punish Laban for his cruelty, which He did by
pointing out to Jacob how he could secure to him-
self large flocks and abundant cattle. God was only
helping Jacob to obtain that which justly belonged
to him, but which Laban’s rapacity refused to
grant. ‘ Were it lawful,” says Stackhouse, “ for
any private person to make reprisals, the injurious
treatment Jacob had received from Laban, both in
imposing a wife upon him and prolonging his servi-
tude without wages, was enough to give him both
the provocation and the privilege to do so. God
Almighty, however, was pleased to take the deter-
mination of the whole matter into his own hands.”
This seems to us the best way of understanding this
disputed subject.b
The following Hebrew words occur as the names
of sheep NY, fRy, No’, or my, a collective
noun to denote “a flock of sheep or goats,” to
which is opposed the noun of unity, NW, “a
sheep”? or “a goat,” joined to a masc, where
‘‘rams”’ or ‘‘he-goats”’ are signified, and with a
SHEHARIAH
7
fem. when ‘‘ewes” or “ she-goats” are meant,
though even in this case sometimes to a masc. (as
in Gen, xxxi. 10): Oy, ‘Ca yam;” ὉΠ, “a ewe ;”
wap or aw, “a lamb,” or rather “a sheep of a
year old or above,” opposed to mp, “a sucking or
very young lamb ;” ἽΞ is another term applied to
a lamb as it skips (13) in the pastures.
As the sheep is an emblem of meekness, patience,
and submission, it is expressly mentioned as typi-
fying these qualities in the person of our Blessed
Lord (ls. lili. 7; Acts viii. 32, &c.). The relation
that exists between Christ, ‘the chief Shepherd,”
which in the Kast is so strikingly exhibited by the
shepherds to their flocks (see Thomson, The Land
[We EW
SHEEPGATE, THE (JN87 "YY: ἡ πύλη
ἢ προβατική : porta gregis). One of the gates of
Jerusalem as rebuilt by Nehemiah (Neh. iii, 1, 32;
xil. 59). It stood between the tower of Meah and
the chamber of the corner (iii. 32, 1) or gate of the
guard-house (xii. 89, A. V. “prison-gate”). The
latter seems to have been at the angle formed by
the junction of the wall of the city of David
with that of the city of Jerusalem proper, having
the sheep-gate on the north of it. (See the diagram
in p. 1027, vol. i.) According to the view taken
in the article JERUSALEM, the city of David oc-
cupied a space on the mount Moriah about coin-
ciding with that-between the south wall of the
platform of the Dome of the Rock and the south
wall of the Haram es Sherif. The position of the
sheep-gate may therefore have been on or near that
of the Bab el-Kattanin, Bertheau (ἴσος. Hand-
buch, on Nehemiah, 144) is right in placing it on
the east side of the city and on the north of the
corner ; but is wrong in placing it at the present
St. Stephen’s Gate, since no wall existed nearly so
far to the east as that, till after the death of Christ.
[ JERUSALEM. ]
‘The pool which was near the sheep-gate (John
v. 2; A. V. inaccurately “ market”) was probably
the present Hammam esh Shefa. [G.]
SHEEP-MARKET, THE (John v. 2). The
word “ market” is an interpolation of our trans-
lators, possibly after Luther, who has Schafhaus.
The words of the original are ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ,
to which should probably be supplied not market,
but gate, wvAy, as in the LXX. version of the pas-
sages in Nehemiah quoted in the foregoing article.
The Vulgate connects the προβατική with the κο-
λυμβήθρα, and reads Probatica piscina; while the
Syriac omits all mention of the sheep, and names
only a “ place of baptism,” [αν
SHEHARI'AH (ANY: Saapias; Alex.
Σααρία : Sohoria). A Benjamite, son of Jeroham
(1 Chr. viii. 26),
* None of the instances cited by Jerome and others
are exact parallels with that in question. The quotations
adduced, with the exception of those which speak of
painted images set before Spartan women inter concip:-
endum, refer to cases in which living animals themselves,
and not reflections of inanimate objects, were the cause
of some marked peculiarity in the fetus. Rosenmiiller,
however (Schol. in loc.), cites Hastfeer (De Re oviaria,
' German version, Ὁ. 17, 30, 43, 46, 47) as a writer by
whom the contrary opinion is confirmed. We have been
unable to gain access to this work.
b We have considered this perplexing question in ac-
cordance with the generally received opinion that the
whole account is the work of one and the same author ;
at the same time we must allow that there is strong pro-
bability that those portions of the narrative which relate
to Jacob’s stratagem with the “ peeled rods,” are attribut-
able, not to the Elohistic or ancient source, but to the
supplementary Jehovistic writer.
SHEKEL
SHEKEL. In a former article [Monry] a
full account has been given of the coins called
shekels, which are found with inscriptions m the
Samaritan® character; so that the present article
will only contain notices of a few particulars relat-
ing to the Jewish coinage which did not fall within
the plan of the former,
It may, in the first place, be desirable to
mention, that although some shekels ave found with
Hebrew letters instead of Samaritan, these are un-
doubtedly all forgeries. It is the more needful to
make this statement, as in some books of high
reputation, 6. 4. Walton’s Polyglot, these shekels
are engraved as if they were genuine. It is hardly.
necessary to suggest the reasons which may have
led to this series of forgeries. But the difference
between the two is not confined to the letters only ;
the Hebrew shekels are much larger and thinner
than the Samaritan, so that a person might distin-
guish them merely by the touch, even under a
covering.
Our attention is, in the next place, directed to the
early notices of these shekels in Rabbinical writers.
It might be supposed that in the Mishna, where one
of the treatises bears the title of ‘* Shekalim,’ or
Shekels, we should find some information on the
subject. But this treatise, being devoted to the
consideration of the laws relating to the payment
of the half-shekel for the Temple, is of course use-
less for our purpose.
Some references are given to the works of Rashi
and Maimonides (contemporary writers of the 12th
century) for information relative to shekels and the
forms of Hebrew letters in ancient times ; but the
most important Rabbinical quotation given by Bayer
is that from Ramban, i. 6. Rabbi-Moses-Bar-
Nachinan, who lived about the commencement of the
15th century. He describes a shekel which he had
seen, and of which the Cuthaeans read the inscrip-
tion with ease. The explanation which they gave
of the inscription was, on one side: Shekel ha-She-
kalim, ““ the shekel of shekels,” and on the other
“ Jerusalem the Holy.” The former was doubtless
a misinterpretation of the usual inscription ‘“‘ the
shekel of Israel; but the latter corresponds with
the inscription on our shekels (Bayer, De Numis.
p- 11). In the 16th century R. Azarias de Rossi
states that R. Moses Basula had arranged a Cuthaean,
7, e, Samaritan, alphabet from coins, and R. Moses
Alaskar (of whom little is known) is quoted by Bayer
as having read in some Samaritan coins, “ in such a
year of the consolation of Israel, in such a year of
such a king.’ And the same R. Azarias de Rossi
(or de Adumim, as he is called by Bartolocci, Bibi.
Rabb. vol. iv. p. 158), in his DY WN, “ The
Light of the Byes” (not Fons Oculorum, as Bayer
translates it, which would require 1) 2, not MND),
discusses the Transfluvial or Samaritan letters, and
describes a shekel of Israel which he had seen. But
the most important passage of all is that in which
this writer quotes the description of a shekel seen
by Ramban at St. Jean d’Acre, A.D. 1210. He
gives the ea as above, “the Shekel of |
Shekels,” and ‘ Jerusalem the Holy :” but he also
SHEKEL 1245
determines the weight, which he makes about half
an ounce.
We find, therefore, that in early times shekels
were known to the Jewish Rabbis with Samaritan in-
scriptions, corresponding with those now found
(except in one point, which is probably an error),
and corresponding with them in weight. These
are important considerations in tracing the his-
tory of this coinage, and we pass on now to the
earliest mention of these shekels by Christian writers.
We believe that W. Postell is the first Christian
writer who saw and described a shekel. He was a
Parisian traveller who visited Jerusalem early in
the 16th century. In a curious work published by
him in 1538, entitled A/phabetum Duodecim Lin-
guarum, the following passage occurs. After stating
that the Samaritan alphabet was the original form
of the Hebrew, he proceeds thus :—
“1 draw this inference from silver coins of great
antiquity, which I found among the Jews. They
set such store by them that I could not get one of
them (not otherwise worth a quincunx) for two
gold pieces. The Jews say they are of the time of
Solomon, and they added that, hating the Sama-
ritans as they do, worse than dogs, and never
speaking to them, nothing endears these coins so
mueh to them as the consideration that these cha-
racters were once in their common usage, nature, as
it were, yearning after the things of old. They say
that at Jerusalem, now called Chus or Chussem-
barich, in the masonry and in the deepest part of
the ruins, these coins are dug up daily.” Ὁ
Postell gives a very bad woodcut of one of these
shekels, but the inscription is correct. He was un-
able to explain the letters over the vase, which
soon became the subject of a discussion among the
learned men of Europe, which lasted for nearly two
centuries. Their attempts to explain them are enu-
merated by Bayer in his Treatise De Numis He-
braeo-Samaritanis, which may be considered as the
first work which placed the explanation of these
coins on a satisfactory basis. But it would obvi-
ously be useless here to record so many unsuc-
cessful guesses as Bayer enumerates. The work of
Bayer, although some of the authors nearly solved
the problem, called forth an antagonist in Professor
Tychsen of Rostock, a learned Orientalist of that
period. Several publications passed between them
which it is unnecessary to enumerate, as Tychsen
gave a summary of his.objections in a small pam-
phlet, entitled O. G. Tychsen, De Numis He-
braicis Diatribe, qua simul ad Nuperas ill. F. P.
Bayerii Objectiones respondetur (Rostochii, 1791).
His first position is— That either (1) all ‘the
coins, whether with Hebrew or Samaritan inscrip-
tions, are false, or (2) if any are genuine, they
belong to Barcoceba—p. 6. This he modifies
slightly in a subsequent part of the treatise, p.
92-55, where he states it to be his conclusion (1)
that the Jews had no coined money before the time
of our Saviour; (2) that during the rebellion of
Barcoceba (or Barcoziba’, Samaritan money was
coined either by the Samaritans to please the Jews,
or by the Jews to please the Samaritans, and that
the Samaritan letters were used in order to make
ἃ The character nearly resembles that of Samaritan
MSS., although it is not quite identical with it. The
Hebrew and Samaritan alphabets appear to be divergent
representatives of some older form, as may be inferred
from several of the letters. Thus the Beth and several
other letters are evidently identical in their origin. And
the YY (Shin) of the Hebrew alphabet is the same as
that of the Samaritan; for if we make the two middle
strokes of the Samaritan letter coalvsce, it takes the
Hebrew form.
Ὁ Postell appears to have arranged his Samaritan al-
phabet from these coins.
1246 SHEKEL
the coins desirable as amulets! and (3) that the
coins attributed to Simon Maccabaeus belong to this |
period. ‘Tychsen has quoted some curious passages,°
but his arguments are wholly untenable. In the
first place, no numismatist can doubt the genuine-
ness of the shekels attributed to Simon Maccabaeus,
or believe that they belong to the same epoch as
the coins of Barcoceba. But as Tychsen never saw
a shekel, he was not a competent judge. There is
another consideration, which, if further demonstra-
tion were needed, would supply a very strong argu-
ment. These coins were first made known to
Kurope through Postell, who does not appear to
have been aware of the description given of them in
Rabbinical writers. The correspondence of the newly-
found coins with the earlier description is almost
demonstrative. But they bear such undoubted
marks of genuineness, that no judge of ancient coins
could doubt them fora moment. On the contrary,
to a practical eye, those with Hebrew inscriptions
bear undoubted marks of spuriousness.4
Among the symbols found on this series of coins
is one which is considered to represent that which
was called Lulab by the Jews. This term was
applied (see Maimon. om the section of the Mishna
called Rosh Hashanah, or Commencement of the
Year, ch. vii. 1, and the Mishna itself in Succah,
MDD, or Booths, ch. iii. 1, both of which passages
are quoted by Bayer, De Num. p. 129) to the
branches of the three trees mentioned in Ley. xxiii.
40, which are thought to be the Palm, the Myrtle,
and the Willow. ‘These, which were to be carried
by the Israelites at the Feast of Tabernacles, were
usually accompanied by the fruit of the Citron, which
is also found in this representation. Sometimes two
of these Lulabs ave found together. At least such
is the explanation given by some authorities of the
symbols called in the article MoNnY by the name of
Sheaves. The subject is involved in much diffi-
culty and obscurity, and we speak therefore with
some hesitation and diffidence, especially as expe-
rienced numismatists differ in their explanations.
This explanation is, however, adopted by Bayer
(De Num. p. 128, 219, &e.), and by Cavedoni
(Bibl. Num, p. 31-32 of the German translation,
who adds references to 1 Mace. iv. 59; John.x. 22),
as he considers that the Zu/ab was in use at the Feast
of the Dedication on the 25th day of the 9th month
as well as at that of Tabernacles. He also refers to
2 Mace, i. 18, x. 6,7, where the celebration of the
Feast of Tabernacles is described, and the branches
carried by the worshippers are specified.
The symbol on the Reverse of the shekels, repre-
senting a twig with three buds, appears to bear
more resemblance to the buds of the pomegranate
than to any other plant.
SHEKEL
The following list is given by Cavedoni (p. 11 of
the German translation) as an enumeration of all
the coins which can be attributed with any cer-
tainty to Simon Maccabaeus.
I. Shekels of three years, with the inscription
Shekel Israel on the Obverse with a Vase, over
which appears (1) an Aleph; (2) the letter Shin
with a Beth; (3) the letter Shin with a Gimel.
R. On the Reverse is the twig with three buds,
and the inscription Jerusalem Kedushah or Hak-
kedushah.&
II. The same as the above, only half the weight,
which is indicated by the word 9¥M, chatsi, “a
half.” These occur only in the first and second
years.
The above are silver,
Ill. OYA YBIN ΓΦ, Shénath Arba Chatsi.
The fourth year—a half. A Citron between twe
Lulabs.
R. wy mbx35, Legeullath Tsion, «OF the Li-
beration of Zion.” A Palm-tiree between two baskets
of truit
IV. YIN YIN Nsw, Shkénath Arb’a, Redi'a.
The fourth year—a fourth. Two Ludabs.
Ros nbsib—as before, Citron-fruit.
V. YOUN MSY, Shénath Arba.
year. Lulab between two Citrons.
R. pS nibs, Legeullath Tsion, as before.
The Vase as on the shekel and half-shekel.
These are of copper.
The fourth
The other coins which belong to this series have
been sufficiently illustrated in the article MONEY.
In the course of 1862 a work of considerable
importance was published at Breslau by Dr. M. A.
Levy, entitled Geschichte der Jtidischen Miinzen.!
It appears likely to be useful in the elucidation
of the questions relating to the Jewish coinage
which have been touched upon in the present
volume. There are one or two points on which
it is desirable to state the views of the author,
especially as he quotes coins which have only
become known lately. Some coins have been de-
scribed in the Revue Numismatique (1860, p.
260 seq.), to which the name of Eleazar coins has
been given. A coin was published some time ago
by De Sauley which is supposed by that author to
be a counterfeit coin. It is scarcely legible, but it
appears to contain the name Eleazar on one side,
and that of Simon on the other. During the
troubles which preceded the final destruction of
Jerusalem, Eleazar (the son of Simon), who was a
priest, and Simon Ben Giora, were at the head of
large factions. It is suggested by Dr. Levy that
¢ He quotes, e.g., the following passage from the Je-
msalen. Talmud: 33 25 (Dw) ὙΦ yay
bry) Ἵ9Π)2 NS MAD; “Revolution (Samaritan)
money, like that of Ben Cuziba, does not defile.’ The mean-
ing of this is not very obvious, nor does Tychsen’s explana-
tion appear quite satisfactory. He adds, “ does not defile,
if used as an amulet.” We should rather inquire whether
the expression may not have some relation to that of
“defiling the hands,’ as applied to the canonical books
of the O.'T. See Ginsburg, Commentary on the Song of
Songs, p. 3. ‘The word for polluting is different, but the
expressions may be analogous. But, on the other hand,
these coins are often perforated, which gives countenance
to the notion that they were used as amulets. ‘The passage
is from the division of the Jerusalem Talmud entitled
YY WWD, Maaser Sheni, or “The Second Tithe.”
ἃ The statement here made will not be disputed by any
practical numismatist. lt is made on the authority of the
late Mr. T. Burgon, of the British Museum, whose know-
ledge and skill in these questions was known throughout
Europe.
© The spelling varies with the year. The shekel of the
Jirst year has only HYIP nowy ; while those of the
second and third years have the fuller form, [D949
NWT. The 9 of the Jerusalem is important as show-
ing that both modes of spelling were in use at the same
time.
f From the time of its publication, it was not available
for the article Monry; but I am indebted to the author
of that article for calling my attention to this book. I
was, however, unable to procure it until the article SHEKEL
was in type.—H. J. RB.
SHELAH
money may have been struck which bore the names
of both these leaders; but it seems scarcely pro-
bable, as they do not appear to have acted in con-
cert. But a copper coin has been published in
the Revue Numismatique which undoubtedly bears
the inscription of ‘‘ Eleazar the priest.’ Its types
are—
I, A vase with one handle and the inscription
{37 aos, ‘* Eleazar the priest,” in Sama-
ritan letters.
R. A bunch of grapes with the inscription
Coste nds vn xno, “year one of the
redemption of Israel.”
Some silver coins also, first published by Reichardt,
bear the same inscription on the obverse, under a
palm-tree, but the letters run from left’ to right.
The reverse bears the same type and inscription as
the copper coins,
These coins are attributed, as well as some that
bear the name of Simon or Simeon, to the period
of this first rebellion, by Dr. Levy. It is, however,
quite clear that some of the coins bearing similar
inscriptions belong to the period of Bar-cocab’s
rebellion (or Barcoceba’s, as the name is often
spelt) under Hadrian, because they are stamped
upon denarii of Trajan, his predecessor. The work
of Dr. Levy will be found very useful as collecting
together notices of all these coins, and throwing
out very useful suggestions as to their attribution ;
but we must still look to further researches and
fresh collections of these coins for full satisfaction
on many points. The attribution of the shekels
and half-shekels to Simon Maccabaeus may be con-
sidered as well established, and several of the other
coins described in the article Monry offer no
grounds for hesitation or doubt. But still this
series is very much isolated from other classes of
coins, and the nature of the work hardly corresponds
‘in some cases with the periods to which we are
constrained from the existing evidence to attribute
the coins. We must therefore still look for further
light from future inquiries. Drawings of shekels
are given in the article MONEY. Bel Vo ἢ -
SHE'LAH (nov: Σηλώμ: Sela). 1. The
youngest son of Judah by the daughter of Shuah
the Canaanite, and ancestor of the family of the
SHELANITES (Gen, xxxviii. 5, 11, 14, 26, xlvi. 12;
Num. xxvi. 20; 1 Chr. ii. 3, iv. 21), Some of his
descendants are enumerated in a remarkable passage,
1 Chr. iv. 21-23.
2. (noe : Σαλά: Sale.) The proper form of
the name of SaLAu the son of Arphaxad (1 Chr.
i, 18, 24), ;
SHE'LANITES, THE Οὐ ἢ Π: ὁ Ξηλωνί:
Selaitae). The descendants of SHELAH 1 (Num.
xxvi. 20).
SHELEMI'AH (n'0Y: Σελεμία : Alex.
Σελεμίας : Salmias). 1. One of the sons of Bani
who had married a foreign wife in the time of Ezra
(Ezr. x. 39). Called SELEMIAS in 1 Esd. ix, 34.
2. (Σελεμίας ; Alex. Seeula: Selemias.) The
father of Hananiah (Neh. iii. 30), who assisted in
restoring the wall of Jerusalem. If this Hananiah
SHELEPH 1247
be the same as is mentioned in Neh. iii. 8, Shele-
miah was one of the priests who made the sacred
perfumes and incense.
8. A priest in the time of Nehemiah, who was
made one of the treasurers over the treasuries of
the Levitical tithes (Neh. xiii. 13).
4. The father of Jehucal, or Jucal, in the time
of Zedekiah (Jer. xxxvii. 3).
5. The father of Ivijah, the captain of the ward
who arrested Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvii. 13). In Jer.
ΧΧΧΥ ΤΙ, 1, his name appeais in the lengthened form,
like the following.
6. (πυροῦ: Σελεμία.) Thesame as MESHE-
LEMIAH and SHALLUM 8 (1 Chr. xxvi. 14),
7. (Selemiaii.) Another of the sons of Bani who
had married a foreign wife in the time of Ezra
(ζει. x. 41).
8. (Sereulas; Alex. Σαλαμίας : Selemia.) An-
cestor of Jehudi in the time of Jehoiakim (Jer.
xxxvi. 14).
9. (Om. in LXX.) Son of Abdeel; one of those
who received the orders of Jehoiakim to take Baruch
and Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvi. 26).
SHELEPH (Πρ: Σαλέφ; Alex. Σαλέφ ;
Saleph), Gen. x. 26; 1 Chr. i. 20. The second
in order of the sons of Joktan. The tribe which
sprang from him has been satisfactorily identi-
fied; both in modern and classical times: as well
as the district of the Yemen named after him.
It has been shown in other articles ARABIA; JOK-
TAN, &c.] that the evidence of Joktan’s coloniza-
tion of Southern Arabia is indisputably proved, and
that it has received the assent of critics. Sheleph
is found where we should expect to meet with him,
in the district (ikhlaf, as the ancient divisions of
as
the Yemen are called by the Arabs) of Sulaf (hw
Mardasid, s.v.), which appears to be the same as
Niebuhr’s Siilfie (Deser. p. 215), written in his
map Selfia. He gives the Arabic carl, with the
vowels probably Sulafeeyeh. Niebuhr says of it,
“grande étendue de pays gouvernée par sept
Schechs:” it is situate in N. lat. 14° 80’, and
about 60 miles nearly south of San’a.
Besides this geographical trace of Sheleph, we
have the tribe of Shelif or Shulaf, of which the
first notice appeared in the Zeitschrift d. Deutschen
-Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft, xi. 153, by Dt.
Osiander, and to which we are indebted for the fol-
lowing information. Yakoot in the Moajam, s. v.,
says, “ Hs-Selif or Es-Sulaf they are twd ancient
tribes of the tribes of Yemen; Hisham Ibn-Moham-
med says they are the children of Yuktén Joktan ;
and Yuktan was the son of Eber the son of Salah the
son of Arphaxad the son of Shem the son of Noah
ro nes oes And a district in El-Yemen is named after
the Sulaf.” El-Kalkasander (in the British Museum
library) says, “ El-Sulaf, called also Beni-s-Silfan,
a tribe of the descendants of Kahtan (Joktan}. .. .
The name of their father has remained with them,
and they are called Es-Sulaf: they are children of
Es-Sulaf son of Yuktén who is Kahtan. . . . Es-
Sulaf originally signifies one of the little ones of the
partridge, and Es-Silfan is its plural: the tribe was
named after that on account of translation.” Yakoot
g The passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, quoted in
a former note, is considered by Dr. Levy (p. 127), and a
different explanation given, The word translated by
Tychsen ‘to pollute,” is translated by him “ to pay” or
“yedeem the tithe,’ which seems better.
1248 SHELESH
_ also says (s. v. Muntabik) that El-Muntabik was
an idol belonging to Es-Sulaf. Finally, according
to the Aamcaos (and the Lubb-el-Lubab, cited in the
Mardsid, s. v.), Sulaf was a branch-tribe of Dhu-l-
Kiléa; [a Himyerite family or tribe (Caussin,
Essai i. 113), not to be confounded with the later
king, or Tubbaa of that name].
This identification is conclusively satisfactory,
especially when we recollect that Hazarmaveth
(Hadramawt), Sheba (Seba), and other Joktanite
names are in the immediate neighbourhood. It is
strengthened, if further evidence were required, by
the classical mention of the Sadamnvol, Salapeni,
also written ᾿Αλαπηνοί, Alapeni (Ptol. vi. 7).
Bochart puts forward this people, with rare brevity.
The more’recent researches in Arabic MSS. have, as
we have shown, confirmed in this instance his
theory ; for we do not lay much stress on the point
that Ptolemy’s Salapeni are placed by him in N.
lat. 22°. [E. S. P.]
SHE'LESH (Wu: Σελλής : Seles). One of
the sons of Helem the brother of Shamer (1 Chr.
vii. 35).
SHEL'OMI ρον: Σελεμί : Salomi). Father
of Ahihud, the prince of the tribe of Asher (Num.
xxxiv. 27),
SHEL'OMITH (nibe: Σαλωμείθ: Salu-
mith), 1. The daughter of Dibri of the tribe of
Dan (Lev. xxiv. 11). She had married an Egyptian,
and their son was stoned for blasphemy.
2. (ξαλωμεθί : Salomith.) The daughter of
Zerubbabel (1 Chr. iii. 19). d
3. (ξαλωμώθ; Alex. Σαλουμώθ.) Chief of the
Izharites, one of the four families of the sons of
Kohath (1 Chr, xxiii. 18). He is called Sueno-
MOTH in 1 Chr. xxiv. 22.
4. nish; Keri mow in 1 Chr. xxvi. 25;
niu in 1 Chr. xxvi. 26 ; nous in 1 Chr. xxvi.
28. Selemith\). A descendant of Eliezer the son of
Moses. who with his brethren had charge of the
treasures dedicated for the Temple in the reign of
David.
5. cnisbe : Keri nosy: Sarwuid; Alex.
Σαλωμείθ : Salomith). A Gershonite, son of Shimei
(1 Chr. xxiii. 9). “ Shimei ” is probably a mistake, as
Shelomith and his brothers are afterwards described
as chiet of the fathers of Laadan, who was the brother
of Shimei, and the sons of Shimei are then enume-
rated.
6. cnsbe Σελιμούθ: Alex. Saremovd :
Selomith). According to the present text, the sons
of Shelomith, with the son of Josiphiah at their
head, returned from Babylon with Hzra (Ezr. viii.
10). There appears, however, to be an omission,
which may be supplied from the LXX., and the
true reading is probably, “Of the sons of Bani,
Shelomith the son of Josiphiah.’’ See also 1 Ksdr.
viii. 36, where he is called ‘* ASSALIMOTH son of
Josaphias.”
SHELIOMOTH (Misow: Σαλωμώθ - Sale-
moth). The same as SHELOMITH 3 (1 Chr. xxiy,
22).
SHELU'MIBL (5y125w: Σαλαμιήλ - Sala-
micl). The son of Zurishaddai, and prince of the
SHEM
tribe of Simeon at the time of the Exodus. He had
59,300 men under him (Num. i. 6, ii. 12, vii. 36,
41, x. 19). In Judith (viii. 1) he is called
SAMAEL.
SHEM (NY: Σήμ: Sem). The eldest son of
Noah, born (Gen, vy. 32) when his father had at-
tained the age of 500 years. He was 98 years
old, married, and childless, at the time of the Flood.
After it, he, with his father, brothers, sisters-in-
law, and wife, received the blessing of God (ix. 1),
and entered into the covenant. ‘lwo years after-
wards he became the father of Arphaxad (xi. 10),
and other children were born to him subsequently.
With the help of his brother Japheth, he covered
the nakedness of their father, which Canaan and
Ham did not care to hide. In the prophecy of
Noah which is connected with this incident (ix.
25-27), the first blessing falls on Shem. He died
at the age of 600 years.
Assuming that the years ascribed to the patri-
archs in the present copies of the Hebrew Bible are
correct, it appears that Methuselah, whe in his first,
243 years was contemporary with Adam, had still
nearly 100 years of his long life to run after Shem
was born. And when Shem died, Abraham was
148 years old, and Isaac had been 9 years married.
There are, therefore, but two links—Methuselah
and Shem—between Adam and Isaac. So that the
early records of the Creation and the Fall of Man,
which came down to Isaac, would challenge (apart
from their inspiration) the same confidence which
is readily yielded to a talejthat reaches the hearer
through two well-known persons between himself
and the original chief actor in the events related.
There is no chronological improbability in that an-
cient Jewish tradition which brings Shem and Abra-
ham into personal conference. [ MBLCHIZEDEK. |
A mistake in translating x. 21, which is admitted
into the Septuagint, and is followed by the A. V..
and Luther, has suggested the supposition that
Shem was younger than Japheth (see A. Pfeifferi
Opera, p.30). There can be, however, no doubt (see
Rosenmiiller, a Joc., with whom Gesenius, The-
saumus, p. 1433, seems to agree) that the translation
ought to be, according to grammatical rule, “ the
elder brother of Japheth.’”’ In the six places (v. 32,
vi. 10, vii. 13, ix..18, x. 1; 1 Chr. i. 4) where the
three sons of Noah are named together, precedence is
uniformly assigned to Shem. In ch, x. the descend-
ants of Ham and Japheth are enumerated first,
possibly because the sacred historian, regarding the
Shemitic people as his proper subject, took the ear-
liest opportunity to disencumber his narrative of a
digression. The verse y. 32 compared with xi. 10
may be fairly understood to mean that the three
sons of Noah were born after their father had at-
tained the age of 500 years; but it cannot be rea-
sonably inferred from thence either that Shem was
the second son, or that they were all born in one
year.
The portion of the earth occupied by the
descendants of Shem (x. 21-31) intersects the por-
tions of Japheth and Ham, and stretches in an un-
interrupted line from the Mediterranean Sea to the
Indian Ocean, Beginning as its north-western ex-
tremity with Lydia (according to all ancient autho-
rities, though doubted by Michaelis; see Gesen.
Thes. p. 745), it includes Syria (Aram), Chaldaea
(Arphaxad), pacts of Assyria (Asshur), of Persia
(Elam), and of the Arabian Peninsula (Joktan).
The various questions connected with the disper-
ee
SHEMA
sion of the Shemitic people are discussed in the
article SHEMITIC LANGUAGES.
The servitude of Canaan under Shem, predicted by
Noah (ix. 26), was fulfilled primarily in the sub-
jugation of the people of Palestine (Josh. xxiii. 4,
and 2 Chr. viii. 7, 8). It is doubtful whether in
verse 27 God or Japheth is mentioned as the
dweller in the tents of Shem: in the former sense
the verse may refer to the special presence of God
with the Jews, and to the descent of Christ from
them; or, in the latter sense, to the occupation of
Palestine and adjacent countries by the Romans,
and (spiritually understood) to the accession of the
Gentiles to the Church of God (Eph. iii. 6). See A.
Pfeifleri Opera, p. 40; Newton, On the Prophecies,
Diss. i. [AWiew ls]
SHEM'A (prow : Saruda; Alex. Σαμαα:
Same). One of fe towns of Judah. It lay in the
region of the south, and is named between AMAM
and MonapaH (Josh, xv. 26). In the list of the
towns of Simeon selected from those in the south
of Judah, Sheba takes the place of Shema, probably
by an error of transcription or a change of pro-
nunciation, The genealogical lists of 1 Chr. (ii.
43, 4) inform us that Shema originally proceeded
from Hebron, and in its turn colonized Maon, [G.]
SHEM’A (YW: Saud: Samma), 1. A Reu-
benite, ancestor of Bela (1 Chr. v. 8).
2. (Suma.) Son of Elpaal, and one of the heads
of the fathers of the inhabitants of Aijalon who
drove out the inhabitants of Gath (1 Chr. viii. 13).
Probably the same as SHIMHI,
3. (Sapatas: Semcti.) One of those who stood
at Hzra’s right hand when he read theLaw to the
people (Neh. viii. 4). Called Sammus, 1 Esdr. ix. 43.
SHEM'AAH (nyo : ᾿Ασμά; FA. Aud:
Samaa). A Benjamite of Gibeah, and father of
Ahiezer and Joash, two warriors of their tribe who
joined David at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 3). His name
is written with the ar icles and is properly ‘ Has-
shemaah.” The margin of A.V. gives “ Hasmaah,”
SHEMAI'AH (myn: Σαμαίας - Semetas).
1. A prophet in the reign of Rehoboam. When
the king had assembled 180 000 men of Benjamin
and Judah to reconquer the northern kingdom atter
its revolt, Shemaiah was commissioned to charge
them to return to their homes, and not to war
against their brethren (1 K. xii. 22; 2 Chr. xi. 2).
His second and last appearance upon the stage was
upon the occasion of the invasion of Judah and
siege of Jerusalem by Shishak king of Egypt.
His message was then one of comfort, to assure the
princes of Judah that the punishment of their
idolatry should not come by the hand of Shishak
(2 Chr, xii. 5, 7). This event is in the order of
narrative subsequent to the first, but from some
circumstances it would seem to have occurred before
the disruption of the two kingdoms. Compare xii.
1, where the people of Rehoboam are called “ Israel,”’
and xii. 5, 6 where the princes are called indiffer-
ently « of Judah” and ‘of Israel”? He wrote a
chronicle containing the events of sabe hea 5. reign
Ὁ Chr. xii. 15). In 1 Chr. xi. 2 his name is
given in the lengthened form my
2. (Σαμαΐα: Semeia, Semaia.) The son of
Shechaniah, among the descendants of Zerubbabel
(1 Chr. iii. 22). He was keeper of the east gate of
the city, and assisted Nehemiah in restoring the
wall (Neh. iii. 29). Lord A. Hervey (Geneal.
VOL. II,
SHEMATAH 1249
p- 107) proposes to omit the words at the begin-
ning of 1 Chr. ii. 22 as spurious, and to consider
Shemaiah identical with SHIMET 5 , the brother of
Zerubbabel.
3. (Σαμαιάς: Samaia.) Ancestor of Ziza, a
prince of the tribe of Simeon (1 Chr. iv. 37). Per-
haps the same as SHIMEI 6.
4. (Σεμεΐ: Samia.) Son of Joel a Reubenite ;
perhaps the same as SHEMA (1 Chr. v. 4).
JOEL 5.
5. (Σαμαΐα: Semcia.) Son of Hasshub, a Me-
yarite Levite who lived in Jerusalem after the
Captivity (1 Chr. ix, 14; Neh. xi. 15), and had
oversight of the outward business of the house of
God.
6. (Sapia.) Father of Obadiah, or Abda, a
Levite who returned to Jerusalem after the Captivity
(1 Chr. ix. 16). He is elsewhere called SHAMMUA
(Neh. xi. 17),
7. (Senet, Sewala; Alex. "Ocuata, Seuela:
Semetas.) Son of Klizaphan, and chief of his house
in the reign of David (1 Chr. xv. 8,11). He took
part in the ceremonial with which the king brought
the Ark from the house of Obed-edom.
8. (Sapatas; Alex. Saupatas.) A Levite, son
of Nethaneel, and also a scribe in the time of David.
He registered the divisions of the priests by lot into
twenty-four orders (1 Chr. xxiv. 6).
9. (Sauatas; Alex. Sauetas.) The eldest son of
Obed-edom the Gittite. He and his brethren and
his sons were gatekeepers of the Temple (1 Chr.
xxv. 4, 6, 7).
10. (Alex. Sapetas.) A descendant of Jedu-
thun i singer who lived in the reign of Hezekiah
(2 Chr. xxix. 14). He assisted in the purification
of the Temple and the reformation of the service,
and with Uzziel represented his family on that
occasion.
11. (Σαμαΐα; Alex. Σαμαεία : Samaias.)» One
of the sons of Adonikam who returned in the second
caravan with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 13), Called SAMAIAS
in 1 Esdr, viii. 39.
12. (Σεμεΐας : Semeias.) One of the ‘ heads”
whom Ezra sent for to his camp by the river of
Ahava, for the purpose of obtaining Levites and
ministers for the Temple from ‘* the place Casiphia ”
(Ezr. viii. 16). Called MasmAN in 1 Esdr. vii. 43.
13. (Σαμαΐα: Semeia.) <A priest of the family
of Harim, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s
bidding (Ezr. x. 21). He is called SaAME1US in
1 Hsdr. ix. 21.
14. (Σαμαΐας : Semeias.) A layman of Israel,
son of another Harim, who also had married a
foreigner (Ezr. x. 31). Called SasBeus in 1 Esdr.
be 32.
15. (Sewet.) Son of Delaiah the son of Mehe-
tabeel, a prophet in the time of Nehemiah, who was
bribed by Sanballat and his confederates to frighten
the Jews from their task of rebuilding the wall,
and to put Nehemiah in fear (Neh. vi. 10). In his
assumed terror he appears to have shut up his
house and to have proposed that all should retire
into the Temple and close the doors.
16. (Sauata, Seulas; Alex. Seuetas in Neh.
xii.: Semeia.) The head of a priestly house who
signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 8).
His family went up with Zerubbabel, nae were re-
presented in the time of Joiakim by Jehonathan (Neh.
xii. 6, 18). Probably the same who is mentioned
again in Neh. xii. 35.
17. (Sauatas; Alex. Saopatas.) One of the
princes of Judah who went in procession with Ezra,
41,
See
1250 SHEMARIAH
in the right hand of the two thankseiving~ com-
panies who celebrated the solemn dedication of the
wall of Jerusalem (Neh. xii. 54).
18. (ὩΣαμαΐα.) One of the choir who took part
in the procession with which the dedication of the
new wall of Jerusalem by Ezra was accompanied
(Neh. xii. 36). He appears to have been a Gershon-
ite Levite, and descendant of Asaph, for reasons
which are given under MATTANIAH 2.
19. (Om. in Vat. MS. ; Alex. Seuetas.) A priest
who blew a trumpet on the same occasion (Neh.
xii. 42).
20. (Sapatas: Semeias.) Shemaiah the Ne-
helamite, a false prophet in the time of Jeremiah.
He prophesied to the people of the Captivity in the
name of Jehovah, and attempted to counteract the
influence of Jeremiah’s advice that they should
settle quietly in the land of their exile, build houses,
plant vineyards, and wait patiently for the period
of their return at the end of seventy years. His
animosity to Jeremiah exhibited itself in the more
active form of a letter to the high-priest Zepha-
niah, urging him to exercise the functions of his
office, and lay the prophet in prison and in the
stocks. The letter was read by Zephaniah to Jere-
miah, who instantly pronounced the message of
doom against Shemaiah for his presumption, that
he should have none of his family to dwell among
the people, and that himself should not live to see
their return from captivity (Jer. xxix. 24-32). His
name is written in ver. 24 in the lensthened form
ΠΟ.
Ὁ1. (Sapaias.) A Levite in the third year of
Jehoshaphat, who was sent with other Levites, ac-
companied by two priests and some of the princes
of Judali, to teach the people the book of the Law
(2 Chr. xvii. 8).
22. (Senet: Semeias.) One of the Levites in
the reign of Hezekiah, who were placed in the cities
of the priests to distribute the tithes among their
brethren (2 Chr. xxxi. 15).
23. (Sauaias.) A Levite in the reign of Josiah,
who assisted at the solemn passover (2 Chr. xxxv. 9).
He is called the brother of Conaniah, and in 2 Chr.
xxxi. 12 we find Cononiah and Shimei his brother
mentioned in the reign of Hezekiah as chief Levites ;
but if Cononiah and Conaniah are the names of
persons and not of families, they cannot be identical,
nor can Shemaiah be the same as Shimei, who lived
at least eighty-five years before him.
24. (Semei.) The father of Urijah of Kirjath-
jearim (Jer. xxvi. 20).
25. (Σελεμίας ; FA. Σεδεκίας : Semeias.) The
father of Delaiah (Jer. xxxvi. 12). [W. A. W.]
SHEMARIAH Gm : Σαμαραΐα ; Alex.
Σαμαρία: Samaria). 1. One of the Benjamite
warriors, “ helpers of the battle,’ who came to David
at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 5),
ο. (πον): Σαμαρία : Samarias). One of the
family of Harim, a layman of Israel, who put away
his foreign wife in the time of Ezra (Ezr, x. 32).
8. (Semeri ia.) One of the family of Bani, under
the same circumstances as the preceding (zr.
x. 41).
SHEME'BER δον): SupoBdp: Semebver).
King of Zeboim, and ally of the king of Sodom
when he was attacked by the nor th-eastern invaders
under Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 2). The Sam. Text
and Version give ‘* Shemebel.”
SHEMINITH |
SHEM'ER (ον: Seuhp: Somer), The owner
of the hill on which the city of Samaria was built .
(1 K. xvi. 24), and after whom it was called Sho- -
meron by its founder Omri, who bought the site for
two silver talents. We should rather have expected
that the name of the city would have been Shimron,
from Shemer; for Shomeron would have beer the
name given after an owner Shomer. This latter
form, which occurs 1 Chr. vii. 32, appears to be
that adopted by the Vulgate and Syriac, who read
Somer and Shomir respectively ; ; but the Vat. Ms
of the LXX. retains the present form “ Shemer,’
and changes the name of the city to Σεμερών or
Σεμηρών. τ AW
SHEM'IDA (YI: Συμαέρ, Sumapiu; Alex.
Σεμιραέ in Josh.: Semida). A son of Gilead, and
ancestor of the family of the Shemidaites (Num.
xxvi. 92 ; Josh. xvii. 2). Called SHEMIDAH in the
A. Vi. of 1 ‘Chr, vii. 19.
SHEM'IDAH (IW : Σεμιρά : Semida).
The same as Shemida the son of Gilead (1 Chr.
vil. 19).
SHEMIDA'ITES, THE Op TOWN : ὁ Συ-
μαερί : Semidaitae). The descendants ‘of Shemida
the son of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 32). They obtained
their Jot among the male children of Manasseh
(Josh. xvii. 2).
SHEM'INITH (MwA). The title of Ps.
vi. contains a direction to the leader of the stringed
instruments of the Temple choir concerning the
manner in which the Psalm was to be sung. “ΤῸ
the chief Musician on Neginoth upon Sheminith,”
or “ the eighth,” as the margin of the A. V. has it.
A similar direction is found in the title of Ps, xii. The
LXX. in both passages venders ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης,
and the Vulgate pro octava, _ The Geneva Version
gives ‘‘ upon the eighth tune.” Referring to 1 Chr.
xv. 21, we find certain Levites were appointed by
David to play “with harps on the Sheminith,”
which the Vulgate renders as above, and the LXX.
by ἀμασενίθ, which is merely a corruption of
the Hebrew. The Geneva Version explains in the
margin, ‘‘ which was the eighth tune, over the
which he that was the most excellent had charge.”
As we know nothing whatever of the music of the
Hebrews, all conjectures as to the meaning of their
musical terms are necessarily vague and contra-
dictory. With respect to Sheminith, most Rab-
binical writers, as Rashi and Aben Ezra, follow the
Targum on the Psalms in regarding it as a harp
with eight strings; but this has no foundation, and
depends upon a misconstruction of 1 Chr. xv. 21.
Gesenius ( Thes. s. v. MNJ) says it denotes the bass,
in opposition to Alamoth (1 Chr. xv. 20), which
signifies the treble. But as the meaning of Alamoth
itself is very obscure, we cannot make use of it for
determining the meaning of a term which, though
distinct from, is not necessarily contrasted with it.
Others, with the author of Shilte. Haggibborim,
interpret ὁ“ the sheminith” as the octave; but there
is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews were 80-
quainted with the octave as understood by our-
selves. On comparing the manner in which the
word occurs in the titles of the two Psalms already
mentioned, with the position of the terms Aijeleth
Shahar, Gittith, Jonath-elem-rechokim, ὅσο, in
other Psalms, which are generally regarded as in-
dicating the melody to be employed by the singers,
SHEMIRAMOTH
it seems most probable that Sheminith is of the
same kind, and denotes a certain air known as the
eighth. or a certain key in which the Psalm was to
be sung. Maurer (Comm, in Ps. vi.) regards
Sheminith as an instrument of deep tone like the
violoncello, while Alamoth he compares with the
violin; and such also appears to be the view taken
by Junius and Tremellius. It is impossible in such
a case todo more than point to the most probable
conjecture. [w. A. W.]
SHEMI’RAMOTH (now > Σεμιραμώθ ;
Alex. Ξεμιραμώθ, 1 Chr. xv. 18; FA. Σεμειραμώθ.
1 Chr. xv. 18, 20, Σαμαριμώθ, 1 Chr. xvi. 5:
Semiramoth). 1. A Levite of the second degree,
appointed to play with a psaltery “on Alamoth,”
in the choir formed by David. He was in the divi-
sion which Asaph led with cymbals (1 Chr. xv. 18,
20, xvi. 5).
Q. (Seuipaudd.) A Levite in the reign of Je-
hoshaphat, who was sent with others through the
cities of Judah to teach the book of the Law to the
people (2 Chr. xvii. 8).
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES and WRIT-
ING. Inrropucrion, §§1-5.—1. The expres-
sions, ‘‘ Shemitic family,’ and “ Shemitic lan-
guages,” are based, as is well known, on a reference
to Gen. x. 21 seqq. [See SHEM.] Subsequently,
‘the obvious inaccuracy of the expression has led to
an attempt to substitute others, such as Western
Asiatic, or Syro-Arabic—this last a happily chosen
designation, as bringing at once before us the two
geooraphical extremes of this family of languages.
But the earlier, though incorrect one, has maintained
its ground: and for purposes of convenience we
shall continue to use it.2 ἡ
2. It is impossible to lay down with accuracy
the boundaries of the area, occupied by the tribes
employing so-called Shemitic dialects. Various dis-
turbing causes led to fluctuations, especially (as on the
» Northern side) in the neighbourhood of'restless Aryan
tribes. For general purposes, the highlands of Ar-
menia may be taken as the Northern boundary—the
river Tigris and the ranges beyond it as the Eastern
—and the Red Sea, the Levant, and certain portions
of Asia Minor as the Western. Within these limits
lies the proper home of the Shemitie family, which
has exercised so mighty an influence on the history of
the world. The area named may seem small, in
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES 1251
comparison with the wider regions occupied by the
Aryan stock. But its geographical position in
respect of so much of the old world—its two noble
rivers, alike facilitating foreign and internal inter-
course—the extent of seaboard and desert, present~
ing long lines of protection against foreign invasion
—have proved eminently favourable to the undis-
turbed growth and development of this family of
languages, as well as investing some branches (at
certain periods of their history) with very consider-
able influence abroad.»
3. Varieties of the great Shemitic language-family
are to be found in use in the following localities
within the area named. [ἢ those ordinarily known
as Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Assyria,
there prevailed Aramaic dialects of different kinds,
e.g. Biblical Chaldaic—that of the Targums and
of the Syriac versions of Scripture—to which may
be added other varieties of the same stock—such
as that of the Palmyrene inscriptions—and of dif-
ferent Sabian fragments. Along the Mediterranean
seaboard, and among the tribes settled in Canaan,
must be placed the home of the language of the
canonical books of the Old Testament, among which
were interspersed some relics of that of the Phoe-
nicians. In the south, amid the seclusion of Arabia,
was preserved the dialect destined at a subsequent
period so-widely to surpass its sisters in the extent
of territory over which it is spoken. A variety,
allied to this last, is found to have been domiciliated
for a long time in Abyssinia.
In addition to the singular tenacity and exclu-
|siveness of the Shemitic character, as tending to
preserve unaltered the main features of their lan-
guage, we may allow a good deal for the tolerably
uniform climate of their geographical locations.
But (as compared with variations from the parent
stock in the Japhetian family), in the case of the
Shemitic, the adherence to the original type is very
remarkable. Turn where we will, from whatever
causes springing, the same tenacity is discernible—
whether we look to the simple pastoral tribes of the
wilderness—the fierce and rapacious inhabitants of
mountain regions—the craftsmen of cities, the tillers
of the soil, or the traffickers in distant marts and
havens.°¢
The following table is taken from Professor M.
Miiller’s late volume On the Science of Language
(p. 381)—a volume equally remarkable for re-
search, fidelity, and graphic description :—
GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE SHEMITIC FAMILY OF LANGUAGES.
Living Languages.
Dialects of Arabic .
Amharic .
Ethiopic . a as
Himyaritic Inscriptions
Biblical Hebrew τι
The Jews 5 {Samaritan Pentateuch . Se sch Oa Fey
Carthaginian-Phoenician Inscriptions . .
Neo-Syriac Syriac (Peshito, 2nd cent. A.D.) .
Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylon
Few enquiries would be more interesting, were
sufficiently trustworthy means at hand, than that
into the original Shemitic dialect, and as to whether
or not the Aramaic was—not only in the first in-
Dead Languages.
ἜΤΟΣ, Masora, Talmud, Targum, Biblical Chaldee é : F ac
Classes.
Arabic, or
Southern.
: eon
a
Shemitic Family.
or
Middle.
or
Northern. /
and Nineveh -
stance, but more long and widely than we ordinarily
suppose—the principal means of intercommunication
among all tribes of Shemitic origin, with the excep-
tion perhaps of those of the Arabian peninsula. The
a « La dénomination de sémitiques ne peut avoir d’in-
convénient, du moment qu’on la prend comme une simple
appellation conventionnelle et que Von s’est expliqué
sur ce qu’elle renferme de profondément inexact”’ (Renan,
Hist. Gen. des Langues Sémitiques, i. 2). English scholars
have lately adopted, from the French, the form
“Semitic;” but there is no reason why we should
abandon the Hebrew sound because the French find the
pronunciation difficult.
b Bertheau, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopddie, v. 609,
613; Fiirst, Lehrgebdude der Aramdischen Idiome, §1.
© Scholz, Hinleitung in das A. T., Coln, 1833, 21-26;
First, Lehrgeb. §§1, 20, 22.
4L 2
1252
historical books of the Old Testament show plainly,
that between the occupation of Canaan, and the vic-
tories of Nebuchadnezzar, many causes led to the
extension of the Aramaic, to the restriction of pure
Hebrew. But there is much that is probable in
the notion held by more than one scholar, that the
spoken dialect of the Shemitic tribes external to
Ayabia (in the earliest periods of their history)
closely resembled, or was in fact a better variety of
Aramaic. This notion is corroborated by the traces
still discernible in the Scriptures of Aramaisms, where
the language (as in poetical fragments) would seem
to have been preserved in a form most nearly re-
sembling its original one:4 and also from the re-
semblances which may be detected between the
Ayvamaic and the earliest monument of Arabic
speech—the Himyaritic fragments.€
4, The history of the Shemitic people tells us of
various movements undertaken by them, but sup-
plies no remarkable instances of their assimilating.
Though carrying with them their language, insti-
tutions, and habits, they are not found to have
struck root, but remained strangers and exotics in
several instances, passing away without traces of
their occupancy. So late as the times of Augustine,
a dialect, derived from the old Phoenician settlers,
was spoken in some of the more remote districts of
Roman Africa. But no traces remained of the
power, or arts of the former lords of sea and
land, from whom these fragments were inherited.
Equally striking is the absence of results, from
the occupation of a vast aggregate of countries by
the victorious armies of Islam. The centuries since
elapsed proVe in the clearest manner, that the vo-
cation of the Arab branch of the Shemitic family was
not to leaven the nations whom their first onset
laid prostrate. They brought nothing with them
but their own stern, subjective, unsocial religion.
They borrowed many intellectual treasures trom
the conquered nations, yet were these never fully
engrafted upon the alien Shemitic nature, but re-
mained, under the most favourable circumstances,
only external adjuncts and ornaments. And the
same inveterate isolation still characterizes tribes of
the race, when on new soil.
5. The peculiar elements of the Shemitic character
will be found to have exercised considerable. in-
fluence on thei‘ literature. Indeed, accordance is
seldom more close, than in the,case of the Shemitic
race (where not checked by external causes) between
the generic type of thought, and its outward ex-
pression. Like other languages, this one is mainly
resolvable into monosyllabic primitives. These, as
far as they may be traced by research and analysis,
carry us back to the early times, when the broad
line of separation, to which we have been so long
accustomed, was not yet drawn between the
Japhetian and the Shemitic languages. Instances of
this will be brought forward in the sequel, but
subsequent researches have amply confirmed the
substance of Halhed’s prediction of the ultimate re-
ἃ “ Un autre fait, nom moins digne de remarque, c'est
Tanalogie frappante qu’ont toutes ces irréguiarités pro-
vinciales avec l’Araméen. Il semble que, méme avant la
captivité, le patois populaire se rapprochait beaucoup de
cette langue, en sorte qu’il nous est maintenant impos-
sible de séparer bien nettement, dans le style de certains
écrits, ce qui appartient au dialecte populaire, ou au patois
du royaume d’lsraél, ou ἃ l'influence des temps de la
captivite.”
sémitiques différent moins dans la bouche du peuple que
dans les livres’? (Renan, i. 141, 142; and also Fiirst,
“ἢ est ἃ remarquer, du reste, que les langues |
|
. ͵
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING ᾿ '
cognition of the affinities between Sanscrit (=the
Indo-Germanic family) and Arabic (=the Shemitic)
“in the main groundwork of language, in mono-
syllables, in the names of numbers, and the ap-
pellations of such things, as would be first dis-
criminated on the immediate dawn of civilization.’’f
These monosyllabic primitives may still be traced
in particles, and words least exposed to the ordinary
causes of variation. But differences are observable
in the principal parts of speech—the verb and the
noun. Secondary notions, and those of relation, are
grouped round the primary ones of meaning in a
single word, susceptible of various internal changes
according to the particular requirement. Hence,
in the Shemitic family, the prominence of formation,
and that mainly internal (or contained within the
root form). By such instrumentality are expressed
the differences between noun and verb, adjective
and substantive. This mechanism, within certain
limits, invests the Shemitic languages with consi-
derable freshness and sharpness ; but, as will be seen
in the sequel, this language-family does not (for
higher purposes) possess distinct powers of expression
equal to those possessed by the Japhetian family.
Another leading peculiarity of this branch of lan-
guages, is the absence (save in the case of proper
names) of compound words—to which the sister
family is indebted for so much life and variety. In
the Shemitic family—agglutination, not logical se-
quence—independent roots, not compound appro-
priate derivations from the same root, are used to
express respectively a train of thought, or different
modifications of a particular notion. Logical se-
quence is replaced by simple material sequence.
Both language-families are full of life; but the
life of the Japhetian is organic—of the Shenae: an
aggregate of units. The one looks around to be
taught, and pauses to gather up its lessons into
form and shape: the other contains a lore within
itself, and pours out its thoughts and fancies as
they arise.8
§§ 6-13.— HEBREW LANGUAGE.—PERIOD OF
GROWTH.
6. The Hebrew language is a branch of the so-
called Shemitic family, extending over a large por-
tion of South-Western Asia. The development and
culture of this latter will be found to have been
considerably influenced by the situation or fortunes
of its different districts. In the north (or Aram,
under which designation are comprehended Syria, -
Mesopotamia, Babylonia), and under a climate par-
tially cold and ungenial—in the close proximity of
tribes of a different origin, not unfrequently masters
by conquest—the Shemitic dialect became in places
harsher, and its general character less pure and dis-
tinct. Towards the south, opposite causes contri-
buted to maintain the language in its purity. In
Arabia, preserved by many causes from foreign in-
vasion, the language maintained more euphony
and delicacy, and exhibited greater variety of
Lehrgeb. §§ 3, 4, 3, 11).
e Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. Ὁ. 5-6; Scholz, i. p. 41, 3,
p. 8-9; Gesenius, Lehrgebdude (1817), p. 194-6; Fiirst,
+ Lehrgeb. §§4, 14 ; Rawlinson, Journal of Asiatic Society,
XV. 233.
f Halhed’s Grammar of the Bengal Language, 1778,
quoted in Delitzsch, Jesurwn, p. 113; Fiirst, Lehrgeb.
Zweiter Haupttheil.
g¢ Ewald, Gramm. d. A. T, 1833, 4-8; Bertheau, in
| Herzog, v. 611, 12; Reuss, Zbid. 598, 600; Franck, Btudes
Orientales, 387.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
A reference to the map | corded in Scripture, in its second stage of pro-
words and construction.
will serve to explain this—lying as did Judaea be-
tween Aram and Arabia, and chiefly inhabited by
the Hebrew race, with the exception of Canaanite
and Phoenician tribes. Of the language of these last
few distinctive remains have hitherto been brought
to light.» But its general resemblance to that of
the Terachite settlers is beyond all doubt, both in
the case of the Hamite tribes, and of the Philistine
tribes, another branch of the same stock.
Originally, the language of the Hebrews pre-
sented more affinities with the Aramaic, in accord-
ance with their own family accounts, which bring
the Patriarchs from the N.E.,—more directly from
northern Mesopotamia. In consequence of vicinity,
as was to be anticipated, many features of resem-
blance to the Arabic may be traced; but subse-
quently, the Hebrew language will be found to
have followed an independent course of growth and
development.
7. Two questions, in direct connexion with the
early movements of the ancestors of the subsequent
Hebrew nation, have been discussed with great
earnestness by many writers—the first bearing on
the causes which set the Terachite family in motion
towards the south and west; the second, on the
origin and language of the tribes in possession of
Canaan at the arrival of Abraham.
In Gen. x. and xi. we are told of five sons of
Shem—Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram.
The last of these (or rather the peoples descended
from him) will be considered subsequently. The
fourth has been supposed to be either the progenitor
(or the collective appellation) of the tribes which
originally occupied Canaan and the so.called Shemitic
regions to the south. Of the remaining three, the
tribes descended from Elam and called by his name
were pyobably subjugated at an early period, for in
Gen. xiv. mention is made of the headship of an
anti-Terachite league being vested in the king of
Elam, Chedorlaomer, whose name points to a
Cushite origin. Whether Shemitic occupation was
succeeded at once (in the case of Klami) by
Aryan, or whether a Cushite (Hamite) domination
intervened, cannot now be decided. But in the
case of the second, Asshur, there can be little doubt,
on the showing of Scripture (Gen. x. 11), that
his descendants were disturbed in their home by
the advance of the clearly traceable Cushite streani
of population flowing upwards on a return course
through Arabia, where plain marks are to be found
of its presence. When we bear in mind the
strongly marked differences existing between the
Shemitic and Cushite (=Hamite) races in habits
and thought,™ and the manifestation of God’s wrath
left on record, we can well understand an uneasiness
and a desire of removal among the Shemitic popula-
tion of the plains by the river. Scripture only tells
us that, led in a way which they knew not, chosen
Shemitie wanderers οἵ the lineage of Arphaxad
set forth on the journey fraught with such enduring
consequences to the history of the world, as re-
h “The name of their country, nvdp = the land of
immigration,—points to the fact that the Philistines dia
not reach the line of coast from the interior at all events”
(Quart. Rev. \xxviii. 172).
i The word Elam is simply the pronunciation, accord-
ing to the organs of Western Asia, of Iran = Airyama =
Airjana. Renan, i. 41, on the authority of Burnouf and
M. Miiller; J. G. Miiller, R. FE. xiv. 233; Rawlinson,
Journal of Asiatic Society, xv. 222.
1253
gress. There is at least nothing unreasonable in
the thought, that the movement of Terah from Ur
of the Chaldees (if modern scholarship is right in
the locality selected) was caused by Divine sugges-
tion, acting on a mind ill at ease in the neighbour-
hood of Cushite thought and habits. It may be
that the active cause of the movement recorded in
Gen. xi. 31 was a renewed manifestation of the
One True God, the influences of which were to be
stamped on all that was of Israel, and not least
palpably on its language in its purity and proper
development. 'The leading particulars of that me-
morable journey are preserved to us in Scripture,
which is also distinct upon the fact, that the new
comers and the earlier settlers in Canaan found
no difficulty in conversing. Indeed, neither at the
first entrance of Terachites, nor at the return of
their descendants after their long sojourn in Egypt,
does: there appear to have been any difficulty in
this respect in the case of any of the numerous
tribes of either Shemitic or Hamitic origin of which
mention.is made in Scripture. But, as was to be
expected, very great difference of opinion is to be
found, and very much learned discussion has taken
place, as to whether the Terachités adopted the
language of the earlier settlers, or established
their own in its place. The latter alternative is
hardly probable, although for a long time, and
among the earlier writers on Biblical subjects, it
was maintained with great earnestness—Walton,
for example, holding the advanced knowledge and
civilization of the Terachite immigration in all im-
portant particulars. It may be doubted, with a
writer of the present day," whether this is a sound
line of reasoning, and whether “this contrast be-
tween the inferiority of the chosen people in all
secular advantages, and their pre-eminence in re-
ligious privileges,’ is not “an argument which
cannot be too strongly insisted on by a Christian
advocate.”’ The whole history of the Jewish people
anterior to the advent of Christ would seem to
indicate that any great early amount of civilization,
being built necessarily on closer intercourse with
the surrounding peoples, would have tended to
retard rather than promote the object for which
that people was chosen. The probability is, that a
great original similarity existing between the dia-
lects of the actual possessors of the country in their
various localities, and that of the immigrants, the
latter were less likely to impart than to borrow
from their more advanced neighbours.
On what grounds is the undoubted similarity of
the dialect of the Terachites, to that of the occu-
pants at the time of their immigration, to be ex-
plained? Of the origin of its earliest occupants,
known to us in the sacred records by the mys-
terious and boding names of Nephilim, Zamzum-
mim, and the like, and of whose probable Titanic
size traces have been brought to light by recent
travellers, history records nothing certain. Some
assert that no reliable traces of Shemitic language
k Renan, i. 34, 312, 315; Spiegel, in Herzog, x. 365-6.
m Compare Gen. xi. 5 with Gen. xviii. 20, and note 1,
Rawlinson, J. A. S. xv. 231. Does the cuneiform orthe-
graphy Bab-Il=“ the gate of God,’ point to the act of
Titanic audacity recorded in Gen.? and is the punish-
mept recorded in the confusion expressed in a Shemitic
word of kindred sound? Quatremére, Mélanges d’ Histoire,
113, 164.
» Bishop of St. Davids’ Letter to the Rev. R. Williams,
D.D., p. 65.
1254
are to be found north of Mount Taurus, and
claim for the early inhabitants of Asia Minor a
Japhetian origin.
early tribes from Lud, the fourth son of Shem, and
their migration from ‘‘ Lydia to Arabia Petraea and
the southern borders of Palestine.’”’® But these
must have disappeared at an early period, no men-
tion being made of tnem in Gen. x., and their
remains being only alluded to in references to the
tribes which, under a well-known designation, we
find in occupation of Palestine on the return from
Egypt. ;
8. Another view is that put forward by our coun-
tryman Rawlinson, and shared by other scholars.
“Either from ancient monuments, or from tra-
dition, or from the dialects now spoken by their
descendants, we are authorised to infer that at some
very remote period, before the rise of the Shemitic
or Arian nations, a great Scythic”’ (= Hamitic)
‘population must have overspread Europe, Asia,
and Africa, speaking languages all more or less
dissimilar in their vocabulary, but possessing in
common certain organic characteristics of grammar
and construction.” P
And this statement would appear, in its lead-
ing features, to be historically sound. As was to
be anticipated, both from its importance and from
its extreme obscurity, few subjects connected with
Biblical antiquities have been more warmly dis-
cussed than the origin of the Canaanitish occupants
of Palestine. Looking to the authoritative records
(Gen. ix. 18, x. 6, 15-20) there would seem to be
no reason for doubt as to the Hamitic origin of
these tribes.4 Nor can the singular accordances dis-
cernible between the language of these Canaanitish
(=Hamitic) occupants, and the Shemitie family
be justly pleaded in bar of this view of the origin
of the former. “If we examine the invaluable
ethnography of the Book of Genesis we shall find
that, while Ham is the brother of Shem, and
therefore a relationship between his descendants and
the Shemitic nations fully recognised, the Hamites
are described as those who previously occupied the
different countries into which the Aramaean race
afterwards forced their way. Thus Scripture (Gen.
x. seqq.) attributes to the race of Ham not only the
aboriginal population of Canaan, with its wealthy
and civilised communities on the coast, but also the
mighty empires of Babylon and Nineveh, the rich
kingdoms of Sheba and Havilah in Arabia Felix,
and the wonderful realm of Egypt. There is every
reason to believe—indeed in some cases the proof
amounts to demonstration—that all these Hamitic
nations spoke languages which differed only dialec-
tically from those of the Syro-Arabic family.” τ
9, Connected with this subject. of the relation-
ship discernible among the early Noachidae is that
of the origin and extension of the art of writing
among the Shemites, the branch with which we are
at present concerned. Our limits preclude a dis-
cussion upon the many theories by which the stu-
dent is still bewildered: the question would seem
to be, in the case of the Terachite branch ot the
Others affirm the descent of these |
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
Shemitie stock, did they acquire the art of writing
from the Phoenicians, or Egyptians, or Assyrians
—or was it evolved from given elements among
themselves ?
But while the truth with respect to the origin
of Shemitic writing is as yet involved in obscurity,
there can be no doubt that an indelible influ-
ence was exercised by Egypt. upon the Terachite
branch in this particular. The language of Egypt
cannot be considered as a bar to this theory, for, in
the opinion of most who have studied the subject,
the Egyptian language may claim an Asiatic, and
indeed a Shemitic origin. Nor can the changes
wrought be justly attributed to the Hyksos, instead
ofthe Egyptians. These people, when scattered atter
their long sojourn, doubtless carried with them many
traces and vesults of the superior culture of Egypt;
but there is no evidence to show that they can be
considered in any way as instructors of the Te-
rachites. The claim, so long acquiesced in, of the
Phoenicians in this respect, has been set aside on
distinct grounds. What was the precise amount of
cultivation, in respect of the art of writing, pos-
sessed by the Terachites at the immigration or at
their removal to Egypt, we cannot now tell—pro-
bably but limited, when estimated by their social
position. But the Exodus found them possessed of
that priceless treasure, the germ of the alphabet of
the civilised world, built on a pure Shemitic basis,
but modified by Egyptian culture. ‘ There can be
no doubt that the phonetic signs are subsequent to
the objective and determinative hieroglyphics, and
showing as they do a much higher power of ab-
straction, they must be considered as infinitely more
valuable contributions to the art of writing. But
the Egyptians have conferred a still greater boon
on the world, if their hieroglyphics were to any
extent the origin of the Shemitic, which has es
the basis of almost every known system of letters.
The long continuance of a pictorial and figurative
system of writing among the Egyptians, and their
low, and, after all, imperfect syllabarium, must be
referred to the same source as their pictorial and
figurative representation of their idea of the Deity ;
just as, on the contrary, the early adoption by the
people of Israel of an alphabet properly so called
must be regarded as one among many proofs which
they gave of their powers of abstraction, and con-
sequently of their fitness for a more spiritual wor-
ship.” §
10. Between the dialects of Aram and Arabia, that
of the Terachites occupied a middle place—superior
to the first, as being the language in which are
preserved to us the inspired outpourings of so many
great prophets and poets—wise, learned, and elo-
quent—and difierent from the second (which does
not appear in history until a comparatively recent
period) in its antique simplicity and majesty.
The dialect, which we are now considering, has
been ordinarily designated as that of the Hebrews,
rather than of the Israelites, apparently for the fol-
lowing reasons. The appellation Hebrew is of old
standing, but has no reference to the history of the
o Renan, i. 45, 107; Arnold, in Herzog, viii.
Graham, Cambridge Essays, 1858.
P Rawlinson, J. of A. 5. xv. 230, 232.
a “ All the Canaanites were, I am satisfied, Scyths; and
the inhabitants of Syria retained their distinctive ethnic
character until quite a late period of history. According
to the inscriptions, the Khetta or Hittites were the domi-
nant Scythian race from the earliest times.” Kawlinson,
J, A. S. XV. 230.
310, 11;
| Schrift, §§6, 17,1385
τ Quarterly Rev. |xxviii. 173. See a quotation in J. A. S.
Xv. 238, on the corruption of manners flowing from the
advanced civilization of the Hamites.
s Q. R. Ixxviii. 156; Ewald, Gesch. i. 472-4745; Hoff-
mann, Gramm. Syriac. pp. 60-62; Leyrer, Herzog, xiv.
358, 3593 Lepsius, Zwei Abhandlungen, 39, 40, 56, 65;
J. α. Miiller, in Herzog, xiv. 232; Rawlinson, J. A. 8. xv.
222, 226, 230; Saalschiitz, Zur Geschichte d. Puchstaben-
Vaihinger, in Herzog, xi. 302.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
people, as connected with its glories or eminence,
while that of Israel is bound up with its historical
grandeur. The people is addressed as 7βγαοί by
their priests and prophets, on solemn occasions,
while by foreigners they are designated as Hebrews
(Gen. xl. 15), and indeed by some of their own
early writers, where no point is raised in connec-
tion with their religion (Gen. xliii. 32; Ex. xxi. 25
1 Sam. xiii. 3, 7, xiv. 21). It was long assumed that
their designation (D2) = of περάται) had reference
to Eber, the ancestor of Abraham. More probably
it should be regarded as designating all the Shemitic-
speaking tribes, which had migrated to the south
from the other side of the Euphrates; and in that
ease, might have been applied by the earlier inha-
bitants of Canaan. But in either case, the term
«ς Hebrews’’ would comprise all the descendants of
Abraham, and their language therefore should be
designated as the Hebrew, in accordance with the
more usual name of the people. ‘The language
of Canaan” is used instead (Is. xix. 18), but in
this passage the country of Canaan is contrasted
with that of Egypt. The expression ‘ the Jews’
language” (Is. xxxvi. 11, 13) applies merely to
the dialect of the kingdom of Judah, in all proba-
bility, more widely used after the fall of Samaria.
11. Many causes, all obvious and intelligible,
combine to make difficult, if not impossible, any
formal or detached account of the Hebrew language,
anterior to its assuming a written shape. But
various reasons occur to render difficult, even within
this latter period, such a reliable history of the
Hebrew language as befits the exceeding interest of
the subject. In the first place, very little has come
down to us, of what appears to have been an ex-
tensive and diversified literature. Where the facts
requisite for a judgment are so limited, any attempt
of the kind is likely to mislead, as being built on
speculations, erecting into characteristics of an entire
period what may be simply the peculiarities of the
author, or incidental to his subject or style. Again,
attempts at a philological history of the Hebrew
language will be much impeded by the fact—that
the chronological order of the extant Scriptures is
not in all instances clear—and that the history of
the Hebrew nation from its settlement to the 7th
century B.C. is without changes or progress of the
marked and prominent nature required for a satis-
factory critical judgment. Unlike languages of the
Japhetian stock, such as the Greek or German,
the Hebrew language, like all her Shemitic sisters,
is firm and hard as from a mould—not suscep-
tible of change. In addition to these characteristics
of their language, the people by whom it was spoken
were of a retired and exclusive cast, and, for a long
time, exempt from foreign sway. The dialects also
of the few conterminous tribes, with whom they
had any intercourse, were allied closely with their
own.
The extant remains of Hebrew literature are des-
titute of any important changes in language, during
the period from Moses to the Captivity. A certain
and intelligible amount of progress, but no con-
siderable or remarkable difference (according to one
school), is really observable in the language of the
Pentateuch, the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
Samuel, the Kings, the Psalms, or the prophecies of
1255
Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Habak-
kuk, and Jeremiah—widely separated from each
other by time as are many of these writings.
Grammars and lexicons are confidently referred
fo, as supplying abundant evidence of unchanged
materials and fashioning; apd foreign words, when
occurring, are easily to be recognized under their
Shemitic dress, or their introduction as easily to be
explained.
At the first sight, and to modern judgment,
much of this appears strange, and possibly untenable.
But an explanation of the difficulty is sought in
the unbroken residence of the Hebrew people, with-
out removal or molestation—a feature of history
not unexpected or surprising in the case of a people,
preserved by Providence simply as the guardians of
a sacred deposit of truth, not yet ripe for publica-
tion. An additional illustration of the immunity
from change, is to be drawn from the history of
the other branches of the Shemitic stock. The
Aramaic dialect, as used by various writers for
eleven hundred years, although inferior to the
Hebrew in many respects, is almost without
change, and not essentially different from the lan-
guage of Daniel and Ezra, And the Arabic language,
subsequently to its second birth, in connexion with
Mahometanism, will be found to present the same
phenomena.
12. Moreover, is it altogether a wild conjecture,
to assume as not impossible, the formation of a
sacred language among the chosen people, at so
marked a period of their history as that of Moses?
Every argument leads to a belief, that the popular
dialect, of the Hebrews from a very early period was
deeply tinged with Aramaic, and that it continued
so. But there is surely nothing unlikely or incon-
sistent in the notion that he who was “learned in
all the wisdom of the Egyptians”’ should have been
taught to introduce a sacred language, akin, but
superior to the every-day dialect of his people—
the property of the rulers, and which subsequent
writers should be guided to copy. Such a lan-
guage would be the sacred and learned one—that
of the few,—and no clearer proof of the limited hold
exercised by this classical Hebrew on the ordinary
language of the people can be required than its
rapid withdrawal, after the Captivity, before a
language composed of dialects hitherto disregarded,
but still living in popular use. It has been well
said that “literary dialects, or what are commonly
called classical languages, pay for their temporary
greatness by inevitable decay.” ‘If later in history
we meet with a new body of stationary language
forming or formed, we may be sure that its tribu-
taries were those rivulets which for a time were
almost lost to our sight.”
13. A few remarks may not be out of place here
with reference to some leading linguistic pecu-
liarities in different books of the O. 'T. For ordi-
nary purposes the old division into the golden and
silver ages is sufficient. A detailed list of peculi-
arities observable in the Pentateuch (without, how-
ever, destroying its close similarity to other O. T.
writings) is given by Scholz, divided under lexical,
grammatical, and syntactical heads, With the style
of the Pentateuch (as might be expected) that of
Joshua very closely corresponds. The feeling of
hostility to the neighbouring peoples of mixed de-
t M. Miiller, Science of Language, 57-59: a most in-
structive passage. Forster, Voice of Israel, 77. “ Vieles
auch, was uns jetzf zum ersten mal in den Denkmiilern
der macedonischen Weltzeit begegnet, mag wohl alter
seyn, aber damals zuerst aus dem Dunkel der Volks-
sprache, die ja tiberall reicher ist als die der classischen
Legitimitit.” Reuss, in Herzog, v. 707.
1256
scent, so prevalent at the time of the restoration,
makes strongly against the asserted late origin of
the Book of Ruth, in which it cannot be traced.
But (with which we are at present concerned) the
style points to an earlier date, the asserted Ara-
maisms being probably relics of the popular dia-
lect.2 The same linguistic peculiarities are observ-
able (among other merits of style) in the Books of
Samuel.*
The Books of Job and Ecclesiastes contain many
asserted Aramaisms, which have been pleaded in
support of a late origin of these two poems. In
the case of the first, it is argued (on the other side)
that these peculiarities are not to be considered so
much poetical ornaments as ordinary expressions
and usages of the early Hebrew language, affected
necessarily to a certain extent by intercourse with
neighbouring tribes. And the asserted want of
study and polish, in the diction of this book, leads
to the same conclusion. As respects the Book of
Ecclesiastes the case is more obscure, as in many
instances the peculiarities of style seem rather re-
ferable to the secondary Hebrew of a late period
of Hebrew history, than to an Aramaic origin. But
our acquaintance with Hebrew literature is too
limited to allow the formation of a positive opinion
on the subject, in opposition to that of ecclesiastical
antiquity. In addition to roughnesses of diction,
growing probably out of the same cause—close in-
tercourse with the people—so-ealled Aramaisms are
to be found in the remains of Jonah and Hosea, and
expressions closely allied in those of Amos.? This
is not the case in the writings of Nahum, Zepha-
niah, and Habakkuk, and in the still later ones of
the minor prophets; the treasures of past times,
which filled their hearts, served as models of style.®
As with respect to the Book of Ecclesiastes (at
the hands of modern critics), so, in the case of
Ezekiel, Jewish critics have sought to assign its
peculiarities of style and expression to a secondary
Hebrew origin. Bnt the references above given
may serve to aid the consideration of a most in-
teresting question, as to the extent to which Ara-
maic elements entered into the ordinary dialect of
the Hebrew people, from early times to the Cap-
tivity.
The peculiarities of ianguage in Daniel belong
to another field of inquiry ; and under impartial
consideration more difficulties may be found to dis-
appear, as in the case of those with regard to the
asserted Greek words. The language and subject-
matter of Daniel (especially the latter), in the
opinion of scholars, led Ezra and Nehemiah to place
this book elsewhere than among the prophetical
writings. To their minds, the apocalyptic character
of the book might seem to assign it rather to the
Hagiographa than the roll of prophecy, properly so
called. Inquiries, with respect to the closing of the
canon, tend to shake the comparatively recent date
which it has been so customary to assign to this
book.¢ ᾿
With these exceptions (if so to be considered)
« Scholz, Hinl. 313, and note; Nigelsbach, in Herzog,
xiii. 188.
x Niigelsbach, ibid. 412.
y Scholz, δ γι. sii. 65-67, 180, 181; Ewald, Hiob, 65.
z Scholz, ibid. 581, 537, 549.
Ὁ Scholz, ibid. 595, 600, 606; Ewald, Gesch. iii. t. 2,
215.
: Ὁ Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge der Juden, 162.
.¢ See also Rawlinson, J. A. S. xv. 247; Delitzsch, in
Herzog, iii. 274; Vaihinger, Stud. τι. Krit. 1857, 93-99.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
few traces of dialects are discernible in the small
remains still extant, for the most part compdsed in
Judah and Jerusalem. The dialects of the northern
districts probably were influenced by their Aramaic
neighbours; and local expressions are to be detected
in Judg. v. and xii. 6. At a later period Philistine
dialects are alluded to (Neh. xiii. 23, 24), and that
of Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 73).
As has been remarked, the Aramaic elements
above alluded to, are most plainly observable in the
remains of some of the less educated writers. The
general style of Hebrew prose literature is plain
and simple, but lively and pictorial, and rising with
the subject, at times, to considerable elevation. But
the strength of the Hebrew language lies in its
poetical and prophetical remains. For simple and
historical narrative, ordinary words and formations
sufficed. But the requisite elevation of poetical
composition, and the necessity (growing out οὗ the
general use of parallelism) for enlarging the supply
of striking words and expressions at command, led
to the introduction of many expressions which we
do not commonly find in Hebrew prose literature.4
For the origin€ and existence of these we must
look especially to the Aramaic, from which expres-
sions were borrowed, whose force and peculiarities
might give an additional ornament and point not
otherwise attainable. Closely resembling that of
the poetical books, in its general character, is the
style of the prophetical writings, but, as might
be anticipated, more oratorical, and running inte
longer sentences. Nor should it be forgotten, by
the side of so much that is uniform in language
and construction throughout so long a period, that
diversities of individual dispositions and standing are
strongly marked, in the instances of several writers.
But from the earliest period of the existence of a
literature among the Hebrew people to B.c. 600,
the Hebrew language continued singularly exempt
from change, in all leading and general features,
and in, the general laws of its expressions, forms,
and combinations.
From that period the Hebrew dialect will be
found to give way before the Aramaic, in what has
been preserved to us of its literature, although, as
is not unfrequently the case, some later writers
copy, with almost regretful accuracy, the classical
and consecrated language of a. brighter period.
§$14-19, ARAMAIC LANGUAGE.—SCHOLASTIC
PERIOD.
14. The language ordinarily called Aramaic is a
dialect of the great Shemitic family, deriving its
name from the district over which it was spoken,
Aram =the high or hill country (as Canaan =the
low country). But the name is applied, both by
Biblical and other writers, in a wider and a more
restricted sense. The designation—Aram—was
imperfectly known to the Greeks and Romans, by
whom the country was called Syria, an abbrevia-
tion of Assyria, according to Herodotus (vii. 63).f
In general practice Aram was divided into Eastern
a “J’importance du verset dans le style des Sémites
est la meilleure preuve du manque absolu de construction
intérieure qui caractérise leur phrase. Le verset n’a rien
de commun avec la période grecque et latine, puisqu’il
n’offre pas une suite de membres dépendants les uns des
autres: c’est une coupe ἃ peu pres arbitraire dans une série
de propositions séparées par des virgules.” Renan, i. 21.
e Reuss, in Herzog, v. 606-8; Bleek, Hinleitung, 80-9.
f Other derivations are given and refuted by Quatre-
mere, Mélanges d’ Histoire, 122.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
and Western. The dialects of these two districts
were severally called Cnaldaic and Syriac—designa-
tions not happily chosen, but, as in the case of
Shemitic, of too long currency to be changed with-
out great inconvenience. No traces remain of the
numerous dialects which must have existed in so
large an aggregate of many very populous districts.
Nothing can be more erroneous, than the applica-
tion of the word “ Chaldaic” to, the East Aramaic
dialect. It seems probable that the Chaldaeans
were a people of Japhetian extraction, who probably
took the name of the Shemitic tribe whom they dis-
lodged before their connexion with Babylon, so long,
so varied, and so full of interest, But it would be
an error to attribute to these conquerors any great
or early amount of cultivation. The origin of the
peculiar and advanced civilization to be traced in the
basin of Mesopotamia must be assigned to another
cause — the influences of Cushite immigration.
The colossal scientific and industrial characteristics
of Assyrian civilization are not reasonably deducible
from Japhetian influences—that race, in those early
times, having evinced no remarkable tendency for
construction or the study of the applied sciences.
Accordingly, it would seem not unreasonable to
place on the two rivers a population of Cushite
(Hamite) accomplishments, if not origin, subsequent
to the Shemitic occupation, which established its
own language as the ordinary one of these districts ;
and thirdly, a body of warriors and influential men
—of Japhetian origin—the true Chaldeans, whose
name has been applied to a Shemitic district and
dialect.§
The eastern boundary of the Shemitic languages
is obscure; but this much may be safely assumed,
that this family had its earliest settlement on the
upper basin of the Tigris, from which extensions
were doubtless made to the south. And (as has
been before said) history points to another stream,
flowing northward (at a subsequent but equally
ante-historic period), of Cushite population, with
its distinctive accomplishments. ‘l'hese settlements
would seem to comprise the wide extent of country
extending from the ranges bounding the watershed
of the Tigris to the N. and E., to the plains in the
S. and W. towards the lower course of the “ great
river,’ = Assyria (to a great extent), Mesopotamia
and Babylonia, with its southern district, Chaldea.
There are few more interesting linguistic questions,
than the nature of the vernacular language of this
last-named region, at the period of the Jewish de-
portation by Nebuchadnezzar. It was, mainly and
incontestably, Shemitic; but by the side of it an
Aryan one, chiefly official, is said to be discern-
ible. [CHALDEA; CHALDEANS.] The passages
ordinarily relied on (Dan. i. 4, ii. 4) are not very
conclusive in support of this latter theory, which
derives more aid from the fact, that many proper
names of ordinary occurrence (Belshazzar, Merodach-
Baladan, Nabonassar, Nabopolassar, Nebo, Nebu-
chadnezzar) are certainly not Shemitic. As little,
perhaps, are they Aryan—but in any case they may
be naturalised relics of the Assyrian supremacy.
The same question has been raised as to the
Shemitic or Aryan origin of the vernacular language
of Assyria—z. e. the country to the E. of the
Euphrates. As in the case of Babylonia, the lan-
guage appears to have been, ordinarily, that of a
blended Shemitic and Cushite population—and a
g Renan, p. 211. Quatremeére, Melanges d’ Histoire, pp.
58-190, and especially 113-164.
1257
similar difficulty to be connected with the ordinary
proper names—Nibchaz, Pul, Salmanassar, Sarda-
napalus, Sennacherib, Tartak, and Tiglath-Pileser.
15. xxxili. 19, and Jer, v. 15, have been referred
to as establishing the difference of the vernacular
language of Assyria from the Shemitic. Our
knowledge of the so-called Cushite stock in the
basins of the two rivers-is but limited ; but in any
case a strong Shemitic if not Cushite element is
so clearly discernible in many old local and proper
names, as to make an Aryan or other vernacular
janguage unlikely, although incorporations may be
found to have taken place, from some other Jan-
guage, probably that of a conquering race.
Until recently, the literature of these wide dis-
tricts was a blank, Yet ‘ there must have heen
a Babylonian literature, as the wisdom of the
Chaldeans had acquired a reputation, which could
hardly have been sustained without a literature.
If we are ever to recover a knowledge of that
ancient Babylonian literature, it must be from the
cuneiform inscriptions lately brought home from
Babylon and Nineveh. They are clearly written
in a Shemitic language” (M. Miiller, S. of Z. 263).
As has been before remarked [BABYLONIA, 810]
the civilization of Assyria was derived from Baby-
lonia in its leading features—Assyrian art, however,
being progressive, and marked by local features,
such as the substitution of alabaster for bricks as a
material for sculpture. With regard to the dialects
used for the class of inscriptions with which we are
concerned, namely, the Assyrian—as distinguished
from the Zend (or Persian) and Tartar (?) families of
cuneiform memorials—the opinion of scholars is all
but unanimous—Lassen, Burnouf (as far as he pro-
nounces an opinion), Layard, Spiegel, all agree with
the great authority above cited. Renan differs, un-
willingly, from them.
From what source, then, does it seem most pro-
bable that future scholars will find this peculiar
form of writing deducible? One of the latest
writers on the subject, Oppert, divides the family,
instead of three, into two large classes—the Aryan
or Old Persian, and another large class containing
various subdivisions of which the Assyrian forms
one, The character itself he asserts to be neither
Aryan nor Shemitic in its origin, but ancient
Central Asiatic, and applied with difficulty, as
extraneous and exotic, to the languages of totally
different races. But it is quite as likely that the
true origin may be found in an exactly different
direction—the S.W.—for this peculiar system of
characters, which, besides occupying the great river
basins of which we have spoken, may be traced
westward as far as Beyrout and Cyprus, and east-
ward, although less plainly, to Bactra. Scholars,
including Oppert, incline to the judgment, that (as
Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic writers all show) from
a Cushite stock (Gen. x. 8-12) there grew up
Babylon and Nineveh, and other great homes of
civilization, extending from the level plains of
Chaldaea far away to the N. and E. of Assyria.
In these districts, far anterior to the deportation of
the Jews, but down to that period, flourished the
schools of learning, that gave birth to results,
material and intellectual, stamped with affinity to
those of Egypt. It may well be, that in the pro-
gress of discovery, from Shemitic—Cushite records
—akin to the Himyaritic and Ethiopic—scholars
may carry back these researches to Shemitie —
Cushite imitations of kindred writing from southern
lands. Already the notion has obtained currency
1258
that the so-called primitive Shemitic alphabet, of
Assyrian or Babylonian origin, is transitional, built
on the older formal and syllabic one, preserved in
cuneiform remains. To this fact we shall in the
sequel recur—passing now to the condition of the
Avamaic Janguage at the time of the Captivity.
Little weight can be attributed to the argument,
that the ancient literature of the district being
called ‘* Chaldean,” an Aryan origin is implied.
The word “ Chaldean” naturally drove out ‘‘ Baby-
lonian,”’ after the establishment of Chaldean ascen-
dancy, in the latter country ; but as in the case of
Greece and Rome, intellectual ascendancy held its
ground after the loss of material power and rule.»
15. Without entering into the discussions re-
specting the exact propriety of the expressions, it
will be sufficient to follow the ordinary division of
the Aramaic into the Chaldaic or Eastern, and the
Western or Syriac dialects.
The term ‘‘ Chaldaic” is now (like “ Shemitic’’)
firmly established, but Babylonian would appear
more suitable. We know that.it was a spoken lan-
guage at the time of the Captivity.
A valuable outline of the ditlerent ages and styles
observable in the Aramaic branch of the Shemitic
family has been given by both Delitzsch and Fiirst,
which (with some additions) is here reproduced for
the veader.i
(1.) The earliest extant fragments are the well-
known ones to be found at Dan. ii. 4-vii. 28; Ezr.
iv. 8-vi. 18; vii. 12-26. Affinities are to be traced,
without difficulty, between these fragments, which
differ again in some very marked particulars from
the earliest Targums.*
To those who in the course of travel have ob-
served the ease, almost the unconsciousness—with
which persons, living on the confines of cognate
dialects, pass from the use of one to another—or who
are aware, how close is the connexion, and how very
slight the difference between conterminous dialec-
tical varieties of one common stock, there can be
nothing strange in this juxtaposition of Hebrew and
Aramaic portions. The prophet Daniel, we may
be sure, cherished with true Israelite affection the
holy language of his early home, while his high
official position must have involved a thorough
acquaintance not only with the ordinary Baby-
Jonish-Aramaic, but with the Chaldaic (properly so
called). Accordingly, we may understand how the
prophet might pass without remark from the use of
one dialect to the other. Again, in the case of Ezra,
although writing at a later period, when the holy
language had again been adopted as a standard of
style and means of expression by Jewish writers,—
there is nothing diflicuit to be understood in his
incorporating with his own composition accounts
written by an eye-witness in Aramaic, of events
which took place before his own arrival.™
(2.) The Syro-Chaldaic originals of several of
the Apocryphal books are lost; many Hebraisms
were engrafted on the Aramaic as spoken by the
Jews, but the dialect of the earlier ‘largums con-
tains a perceptibly smaller amount of such admix-
tive than later compilations.
h Lepsius, Zwei Abhandlungen, p. 58. Quatremere,
Etudes Historiques, as quoted above. Renan, 56-79.
Herzog’s Real-Enc., vol. i. Babel, Babylonien (Ruetschi).
—vol. ii. Chaldiia (Arnold).—vol. x. Ninive (Spiegel),
363, 379, 381. Bleek, Hinl. i. ἃ. A. 1. 43-48.
i Delitzsch, Jeswrun, pp. 65-70; Fiirst, Lehigeb. Ὁ 19.
k Hengstenberg, Daniel, pp. 302-306.
m Hengstenberg, ibid. 298. Hence in our own time,
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
(3.) The language of the Gemaras is extremely
composite—that of the Jerusalem Gemara being
less pure than that of Babylon. Still lower in the
scale, according to the same authority, are those
of the fast-expiring Samaritan dialect, and that of
Galilee.
(4.) The curious book Zohar—an adaptation of
Aramaic expressions to Judaizing Gnosticism—
among its foreign additions contains very many
from the Arabic, indicative (according to Delitzsch)
of a Spanish origin,
(5.) The Masora, brief and symbolical, is chiefly
remarkable for what may be called vernacular pe-
culiarities.
(6.) The Christian or ecclesiastical Aramaic is
that ordinarily known as Syriac—the language of
early Christianity, as Hebrew and Arabic, respec-
tively, of the Jewish religion and Mahometanism.
The above classification may be useful as a guide
to the two great divisions of the Aramaic dialect
with which a Biblical student is directly concerned.
For that, ordinarily called the Samaritan, contains
very little calculated to afford illustration among its
scanty remains; and future discoveries in that
branch of pagan Aramaic known as the dialect of
the Nabathaeans, Mendaites, or Zabians of Meso-
potamia (not the Sabeans of Southern Arabia), can
only exercise a remote or secondary influence on
the study of Aramaic as connected with the Scrip-
tures.
The following sketch of the three leading varieties
of the West-Aramaic dialect, is built on the account
given by Fiirst.®
a. What is known of the condition of Galilee
corroborates the disparaging statements given by
the Talmudists of the sub-dialect (for it is no more)
of this district. Close and constant communication
with the tribes to the north, and a large admixture
of heathens among the inhabitants would necessar ily
contribute to this. The dialect of Galilee appears
to have been marked by confusion of letters— and
2, 3 with P (as in various European dialects)—and
aphaeresis of the guttural—a habit of connecting
words otherwise separate (also not uncommon in
rude dialects)—carelessness about vowel- sounds,—
and the substitution of ἢ final for 4.
ὃ. The Samaritan dialect appears to have been a
compound of the vulgar Hebrew with Aramaic,
as might have been anticipated’ from the elements
of which the population was composed, remains of
the ““ Ephraimite ” occupiers, and Aramaic immi-
grants. A confusion of the mute letters, and also
of the gutturals, with a predilection for the letter
δ), has been noticed.
c. The dialect called that of Jerusalem or Judea,
between which and the purer one of the Babylonish
Jews so many invidious distinctions ‘have been
drawn, seems to have been variable, from frequent
changes among the inhabitants—and also to have
contained a large amount of words different from
those in use in Babylonia—besides being somewhat
incorrect, in its orthography.
Each dialect, it will be seen, was directly influ-
Latin and Welsh, and Latin and Saxon passages, are to be
found in the same juxtaposition in chartularies and histo-
vical records ; but the instances are more apposite (given
in Delitzsch, Wissenschaft, Kunst, Judenthwum, 256, seqq.)
of the simultaneous use of Hebrew, Rabbinic, and Arabic,
among Jewish writers after the so-called revival of lite-
rature under Mahometan influence.
n Lehrgeb, §§ 15-19.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
eaced by the circumstances—physical or social—of
its locality. For instance, in the remote and un-
lettered Galilee, peculiarities and words could not
fail to be engrafted from the neighbouring fribes.
The bitter hatred which existed between the Sa-
maritans and the Jews, effectually precluded the
admission of any leayening influences from the latter
source. A dialect originally impure—the Samaritan
became in course of time largely interspersed with
Avamaic words. That of Judea, alone being spoken
by Jews to whom nationality was most precious,
was preserved in tolerable immunity from corre-
sponding degradation, until overpowered by Greek
and Roman heathenism.
The small amount of real difference between the
two branches of Aramaic has been often urged as an
argument for making any division superfluous. But
it has been well observed by Fiirst,° that each is
animated by a very different spirit. The chief relics
οἵ Chaldaic, or Eastern Aramaic—the Targums—
are filled with traditional faith in the varied pages
of Jewish history: they combine much of the better
Pharisaism—nourished as it was on lively concep-
tions of hallowed, national lore, with warm, ear-
nest, longings for the kingdom of the Messiah.
Western Aramaic, or Syriac literature, on the other
hand, is essentially Christian, with a new termin-
ology especially framed for its necessities. Ac-
cordingly, the tendency and linguistic character of
the first is essentially Hebrew, that of the second
Hellenic. One is full of Hebraisms, the other of
Hellenisms.
16. Perhaps few lines of demarcation are traced
with greater difficulty, than those by which one
age of a language is separated from another. This
is remarkably the case in respect of the cessation
of the Hebrew, and the ascendancy of the Aramaic,
or, as it may be put, in respect of the date at which
the period of growth terminates, and that of expo-
sition and scholasticism begins, in the literature of
the chosen people.
Much unnecessary discussion has been roused
with respect to the introduction of interpretation.
Not only in any missionary station among the
heathen, but in Europe at the Reformation, we can
find substantially the germ of Targums. During
the 16th century, in the eastern districts of the
present kingdom of Prussia, the desire to bring the
Gospel home to the humbler classes, hitherto but
little touched by its doctrines, opened a new field
of activity among the non-German inhabitants of
those provinces, at that time a very numerous body.
Assistants were appointed, under the name of
Tolken (interpreters), who rendered the sermon,
sentence by sentence, into the vernacular old Prussian
dialect.P Just so in Palestine, on the return, an
eager desire to bring their own Scriptures within
the reach of the people, led to measures such as that
described in Nehemiah viii. 8, a passage of difficult
interpretation. It is possible, that the apparent
vagueness of this passage may represent the two
methods, which would be naturally adopted for such
different purposes, as rendering’ Biblical Hebrew in-
telligible to the common people, who only spoke a
1259
dialect of Aramaic-—and supplying a commentary
after such deliberate reading.
Of the several Targums which are preserved, the
dates, style, character, and vaiue are exceedingly
different. An account of them is given under
VERSIONS (CHALDAIC).
17. In the scholastic period, of which we now treat,
the schools of the prophets were succeeded by
“honses of enquiry,” - 2. For with
Vitringa, in preference to Rabbinical writers, we
prefer considering the first named institutions as
pastoral and devotional seminaries, if not monastic
retreats—rather than schools of law and dialectics,
as some would explain them. It was not until the
scholastic period that all Jewish studies were so
employed. ‘Two ways only of extending the bless-
ings hence derivable, seem to have presented them-
selves to the national mind, by commentary— DJF}
and enquiry —W/7. In the first of these —Tar-
gumic literature, but limited openings occurred for
critical studies; in the second, stillfewer.4 The
vast storehouse of Hebrew thought reaching
through so many centuries—known by the name
of the Talmud—and the colle@tions of a similar
nature called the Midrashim, extending in the
case of the first, dimly but tangibly, from the
period of the Captivity to the times of Rabbi
Asher—the closer of the Talmud (A.D. 426),
contain comparatively few accessions to linguistic
knowledge. The terms by which serious or philo-
sophical inquiry is described, with the names of
its subordinate branches—Halacha (rule)—Hagada
(what is said or preached)—Tosiphta (addition )—
Boraitha (statements not in the Mishna)—Mechilta
(measure, form) —the successive designations of
learned dignitaries—Sopherim (scribes )}—Chacamim
(sages) —Tannaim (=Shonim, teachers)—Amoraim
(speakers)—Seburaim (disputants)—Geonim (emin-
ences )-—all bear reference to the study and exposi-
tion of the rules and bearing of the Mosaic law,
with none, or very little to the critical study of
their own prized language—the vehicle of the law.
The two component parts of the Talmud, the
Mishna and the Gemara—republication and final
explanation—are conceived in the same spirit. The
style and composite nature of these works belong
to the history of Rabbinical literature.
18. Of the other main division of the Aramaic
language — the Western or Syriac dialect — the
earliest existing document is the Peshito version
of the Scriptures, which not improbably belongs to
the middle of the second century. Various sub-
dialects probably existed within the wide area over
which this Western one was current: but there are
no means now attainable for pursuing the inquiry
—what we know of the Palmyrene being only de-
rivable from inscriptions ranging from A.D. 49 to
the middle of the third century. The Syriac dialect
is thickly studded with foreign words, Arabic, Per-
‘sian, Greek, and Latin, especially with the third.
A comparison of this dialect with the Eastern branch
will show that they are closely allied in all the
most important peculiarities of grammar and syn-
ο Lehrgeb. § 14.
Pp Ranke, D. G. im Zeitalter d. Reformation, Ὁ. iv. cap. v.
p- 476; Barthélemy St. Hilaire, Le Bouwddha et sa Religion,
Paris, 1860, p. 385. ‘ Ordinairement on ne récite que le
texte Pali tout seul, et alors le peuple n’en comprend
pas un mot; mais quelquefois aussi, quand le texte Pali
a été récité, un prétre en doune une interprétation en
Singhalais pour le vulgaire.”
4 Vitringa, De Synagogd, 1696, p. 1, cap. v. Vi. Vii.,
p. 11, cap. v.-viii—no scholar should be without this
storehouse of learning; Cassel, in Herzog, 1x. 526-529;
Franck, Etudes Orientales, 127 ; Oehler, in Herzog, xii. 215,
225; Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge der Juden, cap. 10.
This last volume is most valuable as a guiding summary,
in a little known and bewildering field.
1260
tax, as well as in their store of original words—the
true standard in linguistic researches.
A few lines may be here allowable on the fortunes
of a dialect which (as will be shown hereafter) has
been so conspicuous an instrument in extending a
knowledge of the truths originally given, and so
long preserved in the sacred language of the He-
brews. Subsequently to the fall of Jerusalem its
chief seat of learning and literature was at Edessa—
from A.D. 440, at Nisibis. Before the 8th and 9th
centuries its decline had commenced, in spite of the
protests made by James of Edessa in favour of its
own classical writers. But, as of old the Hebrew
language had given way to the Aramaic, so in her
turn, the Western Aramaic was driven out by the
advances of the Arabic during the 10th and 11th
centuries. Somewhat later it may be said to have
died out—its last writer of mark, Barhebraeus (or
Abulpharagius) composing in Arabic as well as
Syriac
19. The Chaldaic paraphrases of Scripture are
exceedingly valuable for the light which they throw
on Jewish manners and customs, and the meaning
of passages otherwise obscure, as likewise for many
happy renderings of the original text. But they
are valuable also on higher reasons—the Christian
interpretation put by their authors on controverted
passages. Their testimony is of the greatest value,
as showing that Messianic interpretations of many
important passages must have been current among
the Jews of the period. Walton, alluding to Jewish
attempts to evade their own orthodox traditions,
says that “many such passages,” 7. 6. of the later
and evasive kind, “ might be produced which find
no sanction among the Jews. Those very passages,
which were applied by their own teachers to the
Messiah, and are incapable of any other fair appli-
cation save to Him in whom they all centre, are
not unfrequently warped into meanings irreconcile-
able alike with the truth, and the judgment of their
own most valued writers.” §
A comparative estimate is not yet attainable, as
to what in Targumic literature is the pure expres-
sion and development of the Jewish mind, and what
is of foreign growth. But, as has been said, the
Targums and kindred writings are of considerable
dogmatica] and exegetical value; and a similar good
work has been etiected by means of the cognate
dialect, Western Aramaic or Syriac. From the
3rd to the 9th century, Syriac was to a great part
of Asia—what in their spheres Hellenic Greek and
mediaeval Latin have respectively been—the one
ecclesiastical language of the district named. Be-
tween the literally preserved records of Holy Scrip-
ture, as delivered to the Terachites in the infancy
of the world, and the understandings and hearts of
Aryan peoples, who were intended to share in those
treasures fully and to their latest posterity, some
connecting medium was necessary. This was
supplied by the dialect in question—neither so spe-
cific, nor so clear, nor so sharply subjective as the
pure Hebrew, but for those very reasons (while in
itself essentially Shemitic) open to impressions and
thoughts as well as words from without, and there-
fore well calculated to act as the pioneer and intro-
{
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
ducer of Biblical thoughts and Biblical truths
among minds, to whom these treasures would other-
wise long have remained obscure and unintelligible.
s§20B4. ARABIC LANGUAGE.—PERIOD OF RE-
VIVAL.
20. The early population of Arabia, its antiqui-
ties and peculiarities, have been described under
ARABIA.* We find Arabia occupied by a confluence
of tribes, the leading one of undoubted Ishmaelitish
descent—the others of the seed or lineage of Abra-
ham, and blended by alliance, language, neighbour-
hood, and habits. Before these any aboriginal in-
habitants must have disappeared, as the Canaanitish
nations before their brethren, the children of the
greater promise—as the Edomites and Ishmaelites
were of a lesser, but equally certain one.
We have seen [ARABIA] that the peninsula of
Arabia lay in the track of Cushite civilization, in
its supposed return-course towards the north-east.
As in the basin of Mesopotamia, so in Arabia it has
left traces of its constructive tendencies, and predi-
lections for grand and colossal undertakings. Modern
research has brought to light in addition many
valuable remains, full of philological interest. There
may now be found abundant illustration of the
relationship of the Himyaritic with the early Shemi-
tic before adverted to; and the language of the
Ehkili (or Mahrah), on which so much light has
recently been thrown, presents us with the singular
phenomenon, not merely of a specimen of what the
Himyaritic (or language of Yemen) must have been
before its expulsion by the Koreishite, but of a
dialect less Arabic than Hebrew, and possessing
close affinity with the Ghez, or Ethiopian.¥
21. The affinity of the Ghez (Cush? the sacred
language of Ethiopia) with the Shemitic has been
long remarked. Walton supposes its introduction
to have been consequent on that of Christianity.
But the tradition is probably correct, according to
which Ethiopia was colonized from S. W. Arabia,
and according to which this language should be
considered a relic of the Himyaritic. In the O. T.,
Cush, in addition to Ethiopia in Africa, comprises
S. Arabia (Gen. x. 7, 8; 2 Chr. xiv. 95 xxi. 16;
Hab. iii. 7), and by many the stream of Hamite
civilization is supposed to have flowed in a northerly
course from that point into Egypt. In its lexical
peculiarities, the Ghez is said to resemble the Ara-
maic, in its grammatical the Arabic. The alphabet
is very curious, differing from Shemitic alphabets in
the number, order, and name and form of the
letters, by the direction of the writing, and espe-
cially by the form of vowel notation, This is ex-
tremely singular. Each consonant contains a short
r—the vowels are expressed by additions to the
cousonants. The alphabet is, by this means, con-
verted into a “ syllabarium” of 202 signs. Various
points of resemblance have been traced between this
alphabet and the Samaritan ; but recent discoveries
establish its kindred (almost its identity) with that
of the Himyaritic inscriptions. The language and
character of which we have spoken briefly, have
now been succeeded for general purposes by the
Amharic —probably in the first instance a kindred
x Bleek, Hinleitung, 51-57.
5 Walton, Prol. xii. 18, 19. See also Delitzsch, Wis-
senschaft, Kunst, Judenthum, p. 173, seqq. (in respect of
Christian anticipations in the Targums and Synagogal
devotional poetry), and also p. 190, note (in respect of
moderate tone of Talmud); Oehler, in Herzog, ix. 431-441 ;
and Westcott, Introduction, 110-115.
t Comp, for the early history of the Arabic language the
recent work by Freytag (Bonn, 1861), alike remarkable for
interest and research, Hinleitung in das Studium der
Arabischen Sprache bis Mohammed und zum Theil spater
ἃ Renan, i. 302-317.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
dialect with the Ghez, but now altered by subse-
quent extraneous additions.*
22. Internal evidence demonstrates, that the
Arabic language, at the time when it first appears
on the field of history, was being gradually developed
in its remote and barren peninsular home. Not to
dwell on its broken (or internal) plurals, and its
system of cases, there are peculiarities in the earliest
extant remains, which evince progress made in the
cultivation of the language, at a date long anterior
to the period of which we speak.
A well-known legend speaks of the present
Arabic language as, being a fusion of different
dialects, effected by the tribe of Koreish settled
round Mecca, and the reputed wardens of the
Caaba. In any case, the paramount purity of the
Koreishite dialect is asserted by Arabic writers on
grammar, in whose judgment the quality of the
spoken dialects appears to have declined, in propor-
tion to their distance from Mecca. It is also
asserted, that the stores of the Koreishite dialect
were increased by a sort of philological eclecticism—
all striking elegancies of construction or expression,
observable in the dialects of the many different tribes
visiting Mecca, being engrafted upon the one in ques-
tion.’ But the recognition of the Koran, as the ulti-
mate standard in linguistic as in religious matters,
established in Arabic judgment the superior purity
of the Koreishite dialect.
That the Arabs possessed a literature anterior to
the birth of Mohammed, and expressed in a language
marked with many grammatical peculiarities, is
beyond doubt. There is no satisfactory proof of
the assertion, that all early Arabic literature was
destroyed by the jealous disciples of Islam. “Οἵ
old, the Arab gloried in nothing but his sword, his
hospitality, and his fluent speech.”? The last gift,
if we may judge from what has been preserved to
us of the history of those early times, seems to
have been held in especial honour. A zealous
purism, strange as it sounds amid the rude and
uneducated children of the desert, seems, as in
later times, to have kept almost Masoretic watch
over the exactitude of the transmission of these
early outpourings.® 8
Even in our own times, scholars have seemed
unwilling altogether to abandon the legend—how at
the fair of Ocadh (the mart of proud rivalry’’>)
goods and traffic—wants and profit—were alike ne-
elected, while bards contended amid their listening
countrymen, anxious for such a verdict as should
entitle their lays to a place among the Moallakat,
the ἀναθήματα of the Caaba, or national temple at
Mecca. But the appearance of Mohammed put an
end for a season to commerce and bardic contests ;
nor was it until the work of conquest was done,
that the faithful resumed the pursuits of peace.
And enough remains to show that poetry was
not alone cultivated. among the ante-Mohammedan
Arabians. ‘ Seeds of moral truth appear to have
been embodied in sentences and aphorisms, a form
of instruction peculiarly congenial to the temper of
Orientals, and proverbially cultivated by the inha-
bitants of the Arabian peninsula.’¢ Poetry and
romance, as might be expected from the degree of
1261
Arab civilization, would seem to have been the
chief objects of attention.
Against these views it has been urged, that
although of such compositions as the Moallakat,
and others less generally known, the substance may
be considered as undoubtedly very ancient, and il-
lustrative accordingly of manners and customs—
yet the same antiquity, according to competent
judges, cannot reasonably be assigned to their pre-
sent form. Granting (what is borne out from
analogy and from references in the Hebrew Scrip-
tures) the existence of philosophical compositions
among the Arabs at an early period, still no traces
of these remain. The earliest reliable relics of
Arabic literature are only fragments, to be found in
what has come down to us of pre-Islamite composi-
tions. And, as has been said already, various argu-
ments have been put forward against the probability
of the present form of these remains being their
original one. Their obscurities, it is contended, are
less those of age than of individual style, while their
uniformity of language is at variaice with the de-
monstrably late cultivation and ascendancy of the
Koreishite dialect. Another, and not a feeble argu-
ment, is the utter absence of allusion to the early
religion of the Arabs. Most just is Renan’s remark
that, sceptical or voluptuaries as were most of
their poets, still such a silence would be inexpli-
cable, but on the supposition of a systematic re-
moval of all traces of former paganism. No great
critical value, accordingly, can fairly be assigned to
any Arabic remains anterior to the publication of
the Koran.@
It is not within the scope of this sketch to touch
upon the theological teaching’ of the Koran, its objects,
sources, merits, or deficiencies. But its style is very
peculiar. Assuming that it represents the best forms
of the Koreishite dialect about the middle of the
7th century, we may say of the Koran, that its
linguistic approached its religious supremacy. The
Koran may be characterized as marking the transi-
tion from versification to prose, from poetry to elo-
quence. Mohammed himself has adverted to his
want of poetical skill—a blemish which required
explanation in the judgment of his countrymen—
but of the effect of his forcible language and
powers of address (we can hardly call it oratory)
there can be no doubt. The Koran itself contains
distinct traces of the change (to which allusion has
been made) then in progress in Arabic literature.
The balance of proof inclines to the conclusion, that
the Suras of the Koran, which are placed last in
order, are earliest in point of composition—out-
pourings bearing some faint resemblance to those of
Hebrew prophecy.®
23. It would lead to discussions foreign to the
present subject, were we to attempt to follow the
thoughts respecting the future, suggested by the
almost universal prevalence of the Arabic idiom
over so wide a portion of the globe. A comparison
of some leading features of the Arabic language,
with its two sisters, is reserved for the next division
of this sketch. With regard to its value in illus-
tration two different judgments obtain. Accord-
ing to one, all the lexical riches and grammatical
x Walton, Prol. ii. 585; Jones, Comm. 1774, p. 18;
Lepsius, Zwei Abh. 78, 79; Renan, i. 317-330; Prichard,
Physical Hist. of Mankind, ii. 169, quoted by Forster.
y Pococke (ed. White, Oxford), 157-158,
2 Pococke, 166-168.
a Umbreit in Theologische Stud. u. Kritiken, 1841, pp.
223, 221: Ewald, Gesch. i. 24, 25.
Ὁ Fresnel, 1¢ Lettre sur les Arabes, p. 36.
e Forster, ii. 298, 319.
4 Renan, Lang. Sém. 1. iv. c. 11, a lucid summary of,
recent researches on this subject.
e Renan, 358-360; Umbreit, Stud. τι. Krit. 1841, 233,
5664.
1262
varieties of the Shemitic family are to be found com-
bined in the Arabic. What elsewhere is imperfect
or exceptional is here said to be fully developed—
forms elsewhere rare or anomalous, are here found in
regular use. Great faults of style cannot be denied,
but its superiority in lexical riches and grammatical
precision and variety is incontestable. Without this
means of illustration, the position of the Hebrew
student may be likened to that of the geologist,
who should have nothing whereon to found a judg-
ment, beyond the scattered and imperfect remains
of some few primeval creatuves. But the Arabic,
it is maintained, for purposes of illustration, is to
the Hebrew precisely what, to such an inquirer,
would be the discovery of an imbedded multitude
of kindred creatures in all their fulness and com-
pleteness—even more, for the Arabic (it is urged)
—as a means of comparison and illustration—is a
living breathing reality.
24, Another school maintains very different
opinions with respect to the value of Arabic in
illustration. The comparatively recent date (in
their present form at least) and limited amount
of Arabic remains are pleaded against its claims, as
a standard of reference in respect of the Hebrew.
Its verbal copiousness, elaborate mechanism, subtlety
of thought, wide and diversified fields of literature,
cannot be called in question. But it is urged (and
colourably) that its riches are not all pure metal,
and that no great attention to etymology has been
evinced by native writers on the language. Nor
should the follies and perversions of scholasticism
(in the case of Rabbinical writers) blind us to the
superior purity of the spirit by which the Hebrew
language is animated, and the reflected influences,
for elevation of tone and character, from the sub-
jects on which it was so long exclusively employed.
** My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech
shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the
tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass.”
No more fitting description of the spirit and power
of the holy language can be found than these words
of the Lawgiver’s last address to his people. The
Arabic language, on the other hand, is first, that of
wandering robbers and herdsmen, destitute of reli-
gion, or filled with second-hand superstitions; in
its more cultivated state, that of a self-satisfied,
luxurious, licentious people, the vehicle of a bor-
rowed philosophy, and a dogmatism of the most
wearisome and captious kind.£
Undoubtedly schools such as that of Albert
Schultens (d. 1730) have unduly exalted the value
of Arabic in illustration; but in what may be
designated as the field of lower criticism its im-
portance cannot be disputed. The total extent of
the canonical writings of the Old Testament is so
very limited as in this respect to make the assist-
ance of the Arabic at once welcome, trustworthy,
and copious. Nor can the proposed substitute be
accepted without demur—the later Hebrew, which
has found an advocate so learned and able as
Delitzsch.¢ That its claims and usefulness have
been undeservedly overlooked few will dispute or
deny ; but it would seem to be recent, uncertain,
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
and heterogeneous, to a degree which lays it open
to many objections taken by the admirers of the
Arabic, as a trustworthy means of illustration.
§§25-33. STRUCTURE OF THE SHEMITIC LAN-
GUAGES.,
25. The question, as to whether any large amount
of primitives in the Shemitic languages is fairly de-
ducible trom imitation of sounds, has been answered
very differently by high authorities. Gesenius
thought instances of onomatopoeia very rare in
extant remains, although probably more numerous
at an early period. Hofimann’s judgment is the
same, in respect of Western Aramaic. On the other
hand, Renan qualifies his admission of the identity
of numerous Shemitic and Japhetian primitives by a
suggestion, that these, for the most part, may be
assigned to biliteral words, originating in the imi-
tation of the simplest and most obvious sounds.
Scholz also has an interesting passage in which he
maintains the same proposition with considerable
force, and attempts to follow, in some particular
cases, the analogy between the simple original sign
and its distant derivatives. But on a careful
examination, it is not unlikely that, although many
are lost, or overlaid, or no longer as appreciable by
our organs as by the keener ones of earlier races,
yet the truth is, as the case has been put by a
great living comparative philologist— The 400 or
500 roots which remain as the constituent elements
in different families of languages are not interjec-
tions, nor are they imitations. They are phonetic
types, produced by a power inherent in human
nature,’’B
26. The deeply curious inquiry, as to the extent of
affinity still discernible between Shemitic and Japhe-
tian roots, belongs to another article. ['TONGUEs. }
Nothing in the Scripture which bears upon the sub-
ject, can be fairly pleaded against such an aflinity
being possible. A literal belief of Biblical records
does not at all call upon us to suppose an entire
abrogation, by Divine interference, of all existing
elements of what must have been the common lan-
guage of the early Noachidaet That such resem-
blance is not dimly to be traced cannot be denied—
although the means used for establishing instances,
by Delitzsch and the analytical school, cannot be
admitted without great reserve.* But in treating
the Shemitic languages in connexion with Scripture,
it is most prudent to turn away fiom this tempting
field of inquiry to the consideration of the simple
elements—the primitives—the true base of every
language, in that these rather than the mechanism
of grammar, are to be regarded as exponents of
internal spirit and character. It is not denied,
that these apparently inorganic bodies may very
frequently be found resolvable into constituent parts,
and that kindred instances may be easily found in
conterminous Japhetian dialects.”
27. Humboldt has named two very remarkable
points of difference between the Japhetian and
Shemitic language-families—the latter of which he
also, for the second reason about to be named,
assigns to the number of those which have deviated
f Delitzsch, Jesurun, 76-89.
& Ibid., pp. 89-108.
h Gesenius, Lelirgebadude, pp. 183-185; Hoffmann, G7.
Sy. 7; Renan, 449, 454; Scholz, Hinl. i. 31, 32, 37;
M. Miiller, Sc. of Lang. 358, 369, 370.
i Walton, Prol. (ed. Wrangham), i. 121. “ Hoc rationi
minime consentaneum est, ut Deus in illo loco linguam
primam servaret, ubi linguarum diversitatem immiserat,
ne coepto opere progrederentur. Probabilius itaque est,
linguas alias in eos Deum infudisse, qui ibi commorati
sunt, ne se mutuo intelligerent, et ab insana structura
desisterent.” M. Miiller, Se. of Lang. 269.
k Comparative tables are to be found in Delitzsch,
Jesurun, Ὁ. 113.5 Renan, 451-4543; Scholz, i. 37.
™ Merian, Principes de VEtude Comparative des
Langues, Paris, 1828, pp. 10, 14, 19, 20.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
from the regular course of development. The first
peculiarity is the triliteral root (as the language is
at present known)—the second the expression. of
significations by consonants, and relations by vowels
both forming part of the flexions within words,
so remarkable in the Shemitie family. Widely dif
ferent from the Japhetian primitive, a fully formed
and independent word—the Shemitie one (even in its
present triliteral state) appears to have consisted
of three separate articulations, aided by an indefinite
sound like the Shéva of the Hebrews, and to have
varied in the shades of its meaning according to the
vowels assigned to it. In the opinion of the same
scholar, the prevalent triliteral root was substituted
for an earlier or biliteral, as being found imprac-
ticable and obscure in use.”
Traces of this survive in the rudest, or Aramaic,
branch, where what is pronounced as one syllable,
in the Hebrew forms two, and in the more elaborate
Arabic three—e. g. ktal, katal, katala. It is need-
less to say, that much has been written on the
question of this peculiarity being original or
secondary. A writer among ourselves has thus
stated the case :—‘ An uniform root-formation by
three letters or two syllables developed itself’ out of
the original monosyllabic state by the addition of a
third letter. This tendency to enlargement pre-
sents itself in the Indo-Germanic also: but there is
this difference, that in the latter monosyllabic roots
remain besides those that have been enlarged, while
in the other they have almost disappeared.”’® In
this judgment most will agree. Many now tri-
literal root-words (especially those expressive of the
primary relations of life) were at first. biliteral
only. Thus 28 is not really from FIN, nor ON
from DYN. In many cases a third (assumed) root-
letter has been obviously added by repetition, or
by the use of a weak or moveable letter, or by
prefixing the letter Nun. Additional instances may
be found in connexion with the biliterals 3, ahi
and J, and many others. Illustrations may also
be drawn from another quarter nearer home—in the
Japhetian languages of Europe. Fear is variously
expressed by φρέω or φρίσσω, pavere, peur,
paura, pavor (Span.), fear, furcht, frykt (Scandin.),
and braw (Old Celtic). In ail these cognate
words, the common rudimentary idea is expressed
by the same two sounds, the third correspond-
ing with the various non-essential additions, by
which apparent triliteral uniformity is secured
in Shemitic dialects. Again, in the Shemitic family
many primitives may be found, having the same
two letters in common in the first and second
places, with a different one in the third, yet all
expressive of different modifications of the same
idea, as 1, Δ and its family; 2. N=, &e. ;
3. W=yy, ἕο, ; 4. γ.- 05, &.—each with
a similar train of cognate words, containing the
same two consonants of the biliteral form, but with
a third active consonant added.P
28. We now approach a question of great in-
terest. Was the art of writing invented by Moses
and his contemporaries, or from what source did
the Hebrew nation acquire it? It can hardly be
doubted, that the art of writing was known to the
Israelites in the time of Moses. An art, such as
1265
that of writing, is neither acquired nor invented at
once. No trustworthy evidence can be alleged of
such an exception to the ordinary course. The
writing on the two tables of the law (Ix. xxiv. 4)—
the list of stations attributed to the hand of Moses
himself (Num. xxxiii. 2)—the prohibition of print-
ing on the body (Lev. xix. 28)—the writing of
“6 the curses in a book” by the priest, in the trial of
jealousy (Num. v. 25)—the description of the land
(literally, the writing) required by Joshua (Josh.
xviii. 6)—all point to the probability of the art of
writing being an accomplishment already possessed
by the Hebrews at that period. So complex a system,
as alphabetic writing, could hardly have been invented
in the haste and excitement of the desert pilgrimage.
Great difference of opinion has prevailed, as to
which of the Shemitic peoples may justly claim the
invention of letters. As has been said, the award
to the Phoenicians, so long unchallenged, is now
practically set aside. The so-called Phoenician al-
phabet bears no distinctive traces of a Phoenician
origin. None of the selected objects, whose initial
letters were to rule the sounds of the several pho-
netic characters, ave in keeping with the habits and
occupations of the Phoenicians. On the contrary,
while no references to the sea and commerce are to
be found, the majority of the objects selected are
such as would suggest themselves to an inland and
nomadic people, e. 4. Aleph=an ox, Gimel=a
camel, Teth=a snake, Lamed =an ox-goad.
A more probable theory would seem that, which
represents letters as having passed from the Egyp-
tians to the Phoenicians and Hebrews. Either
people may have acquired this accomplishment
from the same source, at the same time and in-
dependently—or one may have preceded the other,
and subsequently imparted the acquisition. Kither
case is quite possible on the assumption, that the
Egyptian alphabet consisted of only such characters
as were equivalent to those used by the Hebrews
and Phoenicians—that is, that the multiplicity of
signs, which is found to exist in the Egyptian
alphabet, was only introduced at a later period.
But the contrary would seem to be the case—
namely, that the Egyptian alphabet existed at a
very early period in its present form, And it is
hardly likely that two tribes would separately have
made the same selection from a larger amount of
signs than they required. But as the Hebrew and
Phoenician alphabets do correspond, and (as has been
said) the character is less Phoenician than Hebrew
—the latter people would seem to have been the
first possessors of this accomplishment, and to have
imparted it subsequently to the Phoenicians.
The theory (now almost passed into a general
belief) of an early uniform language overspreading
the range of countries comprehended in Gen. x.
serves to illustrate this question. There can be no
doubt as to the fact of the Hamite occupants of
Egypt having migrated thither from Asia; nor (on
this hypothesis) can there be any difficulty in
admitting, in a certain degree, the correspondence
of their written character with the Hebrew. That
ehanges should subsequently have been introduced
in the Egyptian characters, is perfectly intelligible,
when their advances in civilization are considered
—so different from the nomadic, unlettered con-
dition of the Hebrew people. On such a primary,
2 Humboldt, iiber die Verschiedenheit d. menschlichen
Sprachbaues, 307-311.
© Davidson, Biblical Criticism, i. 11.
P Gesenius, Lehrgebiude, p. 181; Renan, Lang. Sem,
p. 100, 412, 450. M. Miiller, Sc. of Lang. 371.
1264
generic agreement as this between the advanced
language of Egypt, and that of the Hebrews—
inferior from necessary causes at the time, the
mighty intellect of Moses, divinely guided for such
a task (as has been before suggested), would find
little difficulty in grafting improvements. The
theory that the Hyksos built a syllabic alphabet on
the Egyptian, is full of ditficulties.4
According to the elaborate analysis of Lepsius,
the original alphabet of the language-tamily, of
which the Shemitic formed a part, stood as follows:
Weal: Gutturals. Labiuls. Gutturals. Dentals.
Aleph =A Beth + Gimel + Daleth= Media
He=E+i Vav + Heth + eth = Aspirates
Ghain=O+u Pe + Kuph+ Tau = Tenues
As the processes of enunciation became more de-
licate, the liquids Lamed, Mem, Nun, were appa-
yently interposed as the third row, with the original
S, Samech, from which were derived Zain, Tsaddi,
and Shin—Caph (soft 1), from its limited functions,
is apparently of later growth ; and the separate ex-
the kindred sound Lamed, In this manner (accord-
ing to Lepsius), and by such Shemite equivalents,
may be traced the progress of the parent alphabet.
In the one letter yet to be mentioned—Yod—as in
Kuph and Lamed, the same scholar finds remains of
the ancient vowel strokes, which carry us back to
the early syllabaria, whose existence he maintains,
with great force and learning.
Apparently, in the case of all Indo-Germanic and
Shemitic alphabets, a parent alphabet may be traced,
in which each letter possessed a combined vowel
and consonant sound—each in fact forming a distinct,
well understood syllable. It is curious to mark the
different processes, by which (in the instances given
by Lepsius), these early syllabaria have been affected
by the course of enunciation in different families.
What has been said above (§ 21), may serve to
show how far the system is still in force in the
Ethicpic. In the Indo-Germanic languages of Eu-
yope, where a strong tendency existed to draw a line |
of demarcation between vowels and consonants, the
primary syllables aleph, he, gho=a, 7, uv, were
soon stripped of their weak guttural (or consonant)
element, to be treated simply as the vowel sounds
named, in combination with the more obvious con-
sonant sounds. A very similar course was followed
by the Shemitic family, the vowel element being in
most letters disregarded; but the guttural one in
the breath-syllables was apparently too congenial,
and too firmly fixed to allow of these being con-
verted (as in the case of the Indo-Germanic family)
into simple vowels. Aleph, the weakest, for that
reason forms the exception. As apparently contain-
ing (like the Dévanagari) traces of its people's
syllabarium, as well for its majestic forms, befitting
Babylonian learning, Lepsius with others attributes
a very high antiquity to the square Hebrew cha-
yacter. But this is difficult to be maintained.t
29. Passing from the growth of the alphabet, to
the history of the formation of their written cha-
racters among the three leading branches of the
Shemitic family, that ot the Hebrews has been thus
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
sketched. ‘In its oldest, though not its original
state, it exists in Phoenician monuments, both
stones and coins. It consists of 22 letters, written
from right to left, and is characterized generally by
stiff straight down strokes, without regularity and
beauty, and by closed heads round or pointed.
We have also a twofold memorial of it, viz., the
inscriptions on Jewish coins, struck under the Mac-
cabean princes, where it is evident that its cha-
yacters resemble the Phoenician, and the Samaritan
character, in which the Pentateuch of the Sama-
ritans is written.”* This latter differs from the
first named, merely by a few freer and finer strokes.
The development of the written character in the
Aramaic branch of the Shemitic family illustrates the
passage from the stiff early character, spoken of
above, to the more fully formed angular one of later
times in the case of the Hebrew family, and in that
of the Arabic, to the Cufic and Neshki. Aramaic
writing may be divided into two principal families
—1. ancient Aramaic, and 2. Syriac, more properly
| so called. Of the first, the most early specimen
istence of Kesh, in many languages, is demonstrably | : ae
of comparatively recent date, as distinguished from | served at that place in France, since the end of the
extant is the well-known Carpentras stone, pre-
17th century.t Its date is very doubtful, but an-
terior to those of the inscriptions from Palmyra,
which extend from A.D. 49 to the Srd century.
The first very closely resembles the Phoenician
character—the tops of the letters being but slightly
opened ; in the second, these are more fully opened, ἡ
and many horizontal strokes of union added, showing
its cursive character. From these remains may be
fairly deduced the transitional nature of the written
character of the period preceding the mvention (or
according to others the revival) of the square
character.
Hupfeld, Fiirst, and all leading writers on the
subject, concur in designating this last as a gradual
development from the sources mentioned above.
A reference to these authors will show, how con-
fused were eyen Jewish notions at an early period
as to its origin, from the different explanations of the
word ΠΛ Δ δὲ (Assyriaca), substituted by the Rab-
bins for yan (“square”), by which this character
| was distinguished from their own —)3 ans—
“round writing,” as it was called. But assuming
with Hupteld and First, the presence of two active
principles—a wish to write quickly, and to write
pictorially—the growth of the square Hebrew
character from the old Phcenician is easily dis-
cernible through the Carpentras and Palmyrene
yelics. ‘ Thus we find in it the points of the letters
blunted off, the horizontal union-strokes enlarged,
figures that had been divided rounded and closed,
‘ the position and length of many cross lines altered,
and final letters introduced agreeably to tachy-
graphy. On the other hand, the caligraphical
principle is seen in the extraordinary uniformity
and symmetry of the letters, their separation from
one another, and in the peculiar taste which adorns
them with a stiff and angular form.” ἃ
Few important changes are to be found from the
period of Ezra, until the close of the 5th century
of our era. During this period, the written
_ character of the text (as well as the text itself). was
a “Sont-ce les Hyksos, ainsi que le suppose M. Ewald, |
qui firent passer l’écriture égyptienne de l’état phonétique |
ἃ V’état syllabique ou alphabétique, comme les Japonais |
et les Coréens lont fait pour l’écritnre Chinoise” (Renan,
p. 112). Saalschiitz, Zur Geschichte der Buchstabenschrift,
KOnigsberg, 183%, §§ 16, 17, 18. Comp. also Leyrer,
in Herzog, xiv. 9.
r Lepsius, Zwer Abhandlungen, 9-29.
* Davidson, Biblical Criticism, i. 23.
t A copy of it is given in Fiirst, Lehrgeb. 23.
u Davidson, Biblic. Criticism, i. 29; Hoffmann, Gramm.
| Syriaca, §6, 1-6; and Fiirst, Lehrg. i. δῷ 22-27.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
settled as at present, and likewise, to a great
extent, the reading and divisions of the text. During
this period, the groundwork of very much contained
in the subsequent Masora was laid, but as yet only
in an unwritten, traditional shape. The old cha-
racter gave way to the square, or Assyrian cha-
racter—not at once and by the authority of Ezra,
but (as has been proved with much clearness)
by gradual transitions* The square character is,
demonstrably, not an exact copy of any existing
Aramaic style, but grew by decrees out of the
earlier one, although greatly modified by Aramaic
influence. No exact date can be assigned to the
actual change, which probably was very gradual ;
but that the new character had become generally
adopted by the first century of our era, may be
inferred from the Gospels (Matt. v. 18). It. is,
moreover, alluded to in the Mishna as the Assyrian
character, and by Origen as settled by long usage,
and was obviously well-known to Jerome and the
Talmudists. The latter writers, aided powerfully
by the ceremonious (not to say superstitious) tone
engendered among the Jews by the fall of Jeru-
salem, secured the exclusive use of its square cha-
yacter for sacred purposes. All that external care
and serupulous veneration could accomplish for the
exact transmission of the received text, in the con-
secrated character, was seeured. It is true that
much of a secondary, much of an erroneous kind
was included among the objects of this devout
veneration; but in the absence of sound princi-
ples of criticism, not only in those early, but
many subsequent generations, this is the less to
be deplored. The character called Rabbinic is
best described as an attempt at Hebrew cursive
writing.
The history of the characters, ordinarily used in
the Syriac (or Western) branch of the Aramaic
family, is blended with that of those used in Judea.
Like the square characters, they were derived from
the old Phoenician, but passed through some inter-
mediate stages. The first variety is that known
by the name of Estrangelo—a heavy cumbrous cha-
racter said to be derived from the Greek adj.
στρογγύλος, but more probably from two Arabic
words signifying the writing of the Gospel. It is
to be found in use in the very oldest documents.
Concurrently with this, are traces of the existence
of a smaller and more cursive character, very much
resembling it. The character called the “ double ”
(a large, hollow variety), is almost identical. There
are also other varieties, slightly differing—the Nes-
torian for example—but that in ordinary use, is the
Peshito=simple (or lineal according to some). Its
origin is somewhat uncertain, but probably may be
assigned to the 7th century of our era. It is a
modification of the Estrangelo, sloped for writing,
and in some measure altered by use. This variety
of written characters in the Aramaic family is pro-
bably attributable to the fact, that literature was
more extensively cultivated among them than among
kindred tribes. Although not spared to us, an ex-
tensive literature probably existed among them
anterior to the Christian era ; and subsequently, for
a long period, they were the sole imparters of know-
ledge and learning to Western Asia.
The history of the Arabic language has another
x Leyrer, in Herzog, xiv. 12.
y Another etymology of this word is given by Lepsius,
Niwwo, from Kiw, “India.”
VOL. Il.
1265
peculiar feature, beyond its excessive purism, which
has been alluded to, at first sight, so singular
among the dwellers in the desert. Until a compa-
ratively short time before the days of Mohammed,
the art of writing appears to have been practically
unknown, For the Himyarites guarded with jealous
care their own peculiar character-—the ‘musnad,”
or elevated ;¥ in itself unfitted for general use. Pos-
sibly different tribes might have possessed approaches
to written characters; but about the beginning of
the 7th century, the heavy cumbrous Cufic cha-
racter (so called from Cufa, the city where it was
most early used) appears to have been generally
adopted. It was said to have been invented by
Muramar-Ibn Murrat, a native of Babylonian Irak.
But the shapes and arrangement of the letters in-
dicate their derivation from the Estrangelo; and
the name assigned to their introducer—containing
the title ordinarily borne by Syrian ecclesiastics—is
also indicative of their real origin. But it is now
only to be found in the documents of the early ages
of Islamism.
The well-known division of ‘‘the people of the
book’ = Christians, who were educated, and “ the
common people’? who could not read=the tribes
round Mecca, and the summary way in which
an authoritative text of the Koran was established
(in the Caliphate of Othman), alike indicate a very
rude state of society. It is generally asserted that
Mohammed was unable to write: and this would at
first sight appear to be borne out by his description
of himself as an illiterate prophet. Modern writers,
however, generally are averse to a literal interpre-
tation of these and kindred statements. In any case,
about the 10th century (the fourth of the Hegira),
a smaller and more flowing character, the Nishki,
was introduced by Jbn Moklah, which, with con-
siderable alterations and improvements, is that
ordinarily in present use.?
30. As in the Hebrew and Aramaic branches, so
in the Arab branch of the Shemitie family, various
causes rendered desirable the introduction of dia-
critical signs and vowel points, which took place
towards the close of the 7th century of our era—
not however without considerable opposition at the
outset, from Shemitic dislike of innovation, and ad-
dition to the roll of instruction already complete in
itself. But the system obtained general recognition
after some modifications in deference to popular
opinion, though not carried out with the fulness of
the Masoretes.®
Ewald, with great probability, assumes the ex-
istence and adoption of certain attempts at vowel
marks at a very early period, and is inclined to
divide their history into three stages.
At first a simple mark or stroke, like the dia-
critical line in the Samaritan MSS., was adopted to
mark unusual significations as 73°T, “a pestilence,”
as distinguished from 724, ‘to speak,’ or “a
word.” A further and more advanced stage, like the
diacritical points of the Aramaic, was the employ-
ment (in order to express generally the diflerence
of sounds) of a point above the line to express sounds
of a high kind, like a and o—one below for feebler
and lower ones like 7 and e—and a third in the
centre of the letters for those of a harsher kind, as
distinguished from the other two.
x A much earlier existence is claimed for this character
by Forster, One Prim. Lang. i. 167.
« Pococke, Abulfeda, ed. White; Walton, Proll. De
Lingua Arabica; Leyrer, Herzog, xiv. 12.
Ὁ Ewald, Grammatik (1835), p. 62. ἡ τῇ
1266
Originally, the number of vowel sounds among
the Shemitic races (as distinguished from vowel |
points) was only three, andapparently used in com-
bination with the consonants.
were alike ignorant of vowel points, in the ordinary
acceptation. Many readings in the LXX. indicate
the want of some such system—a want to which
some directions in the Talmud are said to refer. |
But until a later period, a regular system of punc-
tuation remained unknown; and the number of |
vowel sounds limited. The case is thus put by
Walton. “The modern points were not either from
Adam, or affixed by Moses, or the Prophets that
were before the captivity, nor afier the captivity,
devised either by Ezra, or by any other before the
completing of the Talmud, but after five hundred
years after Christ, invented by some learned Jews for
the help of those who were ignorant of the Hebrew
tongue.” “ We neither affirm that the vowels and
accents were invented by the Masoretes, but that
the Hebrew tongue did always consist of vowels
and consonants. Aleph, Vau, and Yod were the
vowels before the points were invented, as they
were also in the Syriac, Arabic, and other Eastern
tongues.’ ¢
We will add one more quotation from the same
author, with reference to the alleged uncertainty
introduced into the rendering of the text, by any
doubts on the antiquity of the system of vowel-
points, a question which divided the scholars of his
day. ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch, Chaldean Para-
phrase of the Pentateuch and Prophets, and the Syriac
translation of the Bible, continued above a thousand
years before they were pointed.” “That the true
reading might be preserved above a thousand years,
is not against all reason, since we see the same done
in the Samaritan, Syriac, and Chaldee, for a longer
time ; and the same may be said of the Arabic,
though not for so long a time after the Alcoran was
written.” ἃ
31. The reverence of the Jews, for their sacred
writings, would have been outraged by any
attempts to introduce an authoritative system of
interpretation at variance with existing ones. ΤῸ
reduce the reading of the Scriptures to authoritative
and intelligible uniformity was the object of the
Masoretes, by means of a system of vowels and
accents.
What would have suggested itself to scholars,
not of Shemitic origin, was at utter variance with
Hebrew notions, which looked upon the established
written characters as sacred. No other plan was
possible than the addition of different external marks.
And, in fact, this plan was adopted by the three
great divisions of the Shemitic family ; probably
being copied to a certain extent by the Hebrew and
Ay abic branches from the Syriac, among whom there
existed schools of some repute during ‘the first cen-
turies of our era. Of the names of the inventors,
or the exact time of their introduction, nothing
can be stated with certainty. Their use probably
began about the sixth century, and appears to have
been completed about the tenth. The system has
been carried out with far greater minuteness in the
Hebrew, than in the two sister dialects. The Arabic
erammarians did not proceed beyond three signs for
a, 7, uw; the Syriac added e and 0, which they repre-
sented by figures borrowed from the Greek alphabet,
not very much altered. In both these cases all the
Walton, Considerator Considered, ii. 229, 210.
ἃ Walton, ibid, 222, 223.
Origen and Jerome |
(
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
vowels are, strictly speaking, to be considered as
short ; while the Hebrew has five long as well as five
short, and a half-vowel, and other auxiliary signs.
Connected with this is the system of accents, which
is involved in the same obscurity of origin, But
‘it bears rather on the relation of words and the
members of sentences, than on the construction of
individual words.
The chief agents in this laborious and peculiar
undertaking were the compilers of the Masora,
as it is called=“ tradition,’ as distinguished from
the word to be read. As the Talmud has its pro-
vince of interpreting legal distinctions and regula-
tions, under the sanction of the sacred text, and
'the Kabbala its peculiar function of dealing with
theological and esoteric tradition, so the object of
the Masora (TDN, ** tradition”), and its com-
pilers the Masoretes (or miD1 ya, “ masters of
tradition”), was to deal critically, grammatically,
and lexically, with a vast amount of tradition bear-
ing on the text of Scripture, and to reduce this to
a consistent form. Little is known with accuracy
of the authors, or the growth of this remarkable
collection. Tradition assigns the commencement (as
usual) to Ezra and the great synagogue ; but other
authorities—Jewish and Christian—to the learned
members of the school of Tiberias, about the begin-
ning of the sixth century. These learned collections,
comprising some very early fragments, were pro-
bably in progress until the eleventh century, and are
divided into a greater and less Masora, the second
a compendium of the former. ‘ The masters of the
Masora,” in the well-known quotation of Elias
Levita, ‘‘ were innumerable, and followed each other
in successive generations for many years; nor is the
beginning of them known to us, nor the end thereof.”
Walton, who was by no means blind to its deficiencies, _
has left on record a very just judgment on the
real merits of the Masora.e It is in truth a very
striking and meritorious instance of the devotion
of the Jewish mind to the text of Scripture—of the
earnestness of its authors to add the only proof in
their power of their zeal for its preservation and
elucidation.f
32. A comparison of the Shemitic languages, as
known to us, presents them as very unevenly de-
veloped. In their present form the Arabic is un-
doubtedly the richest: but it would have been
rivalled by the Hebrew had a career been vouch-
safed equally long and favourable to this latter.
The cramping and perverting conditions of its
labours depressed the Rabbinic dialect (child of the
old age of the Hebrew) into bewildering confusion
in many instances, but there are many valuable
signs of life about it. Ancient Hebrew, as has been
truly said, possesses in the bud almost all the
mechanisms which constitute the riches of the
Arabic. In the preface to his great work (Lehr-
gebdude, p. vii.) Gesenius has pointed out various
instances, which will repay the labour of com-
parison. It is true that to the Aramaic has been
extended a longer duration than to the. Hebrew ;
but for various causes its inferiority is remar ible
as regards its poverty—lexical and grammatical—
its wank of harmony and flexibility, and the con-
sequent necessary frequency of periphrases and
particles in aid.
A brief comparison of some leading grammatical
© Prot. viii. 17.
f Arnold, in Herzog, ix. s.v.; Leyrer, in Herzog, xiv. 15.
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND WRITING
and syntactical peculiarities, in the three main dia-
lects of the Shemitic family, will not be out of place
at the end of this sketeh. To scholars it will neces-
sarily appear meagre; but, brief as it is, it may not
be without interest to the general reader. The
1267
root-forms with the consonants and vowels have
been already considered.
Conjugations or their equivalent verb-forms.—
| The following is the tabulated form given by Ewald
| for the ordinary Hebrew verb :—
1. (Simple form) Kal.
(Forms extremely augmented)
|
ive form)
2. (Causative form) 3. (Reflex 4. (Intensive form)
Hiphil. w. Niphal. Piel. w.
Passive Hophal. pass. | Pual.
5. (Reflexive and intensive form)
In the Aramaic the first, third, and fourth of
these appear, with another (=Hithpael), all with
passives, marked by a syllable prefixed. In the
Arabic the verb-forms, at the lowest computation,
are nine, but are ordinarily reckoned at thirteen,
and sometimes fifteen. . Of these, the ninth and
eleventh forms are comparatively rare, and serve
to express colours and defects. As may be seen
from the table given, the third and fourth forms in
Hebrew alone have passives.
Equivalents to Conjunctive Moods, §c.—One of
the most remarkable features of the Arabic language
is what is ordinarily described as the ‘ futurum
figuratum.” As in almost all Shemitic grammars
imperfect is now substituted for future, this may
be explained, by stating. that in Arabic there are
four forms of the imperfect, strongly marked, by
which the absence of moods is almost compensated.
The germs of this mechanism are to be found in
the common imperfect, the jussive, and the cohor-
tative of the Hebrew, but not in the Aramaic.
Again, a curious conditional and subjunctive usage
(at first sight almost amounting to an inversion)
applied to the perfect and imperfect tenses by the
addition of a portion, or the whole, of the sub-
stantive verb is to be found in both Hebrew and
Arabic, although very differently developed.
Nouns.—The dual number, very uncommon in
the Syriac, is less so in Hebrew—chiefly limited,
᾿ however, to really dual nouns—while in the Arabic
its usage may be described as general. What is
called the “status emphaticus,” 7. 6. the rendering
a word definite by appending the article, is found
constantly recurring in the Aramaic (at some loss
to clearness in the singular). This usage brings to
mind the addition of the definite article as a post-
positive in Swedish—shib, ship; skibet, the ship.
In the Arabic it is lost in the inflexions of cases,
while in the Hebrew it may be considered as un-
important. As regards nouns of abstraction, also,
the Aramaic is fuller than the Hebrew; but in this
last particular, as in the whole family of nouns,
the Arabic is rich to excess. It is in this last only
that we find not only a regular system of cases,
and of comparison, but especially the numerous
plural formations called-broken or internal, which
form so singular a part of the language. As re-
gards their meaning, the broken plurals are totally
different trom the regular (or, as they are techni-
cally; called, sound) plurals—the latter denoting
several individuals of a genus, the former a
number of individuals viewed collectively, the
idea of individuality being wholly suppressed.
5 Wright’s Arabic Grammar, part i. p. 189. “ Cette
partie de la grammaire Arabe est celle ou il regne le plus
Hithpael.
| Broken plurals accordingly are singulars with a
collective meaning, and are closely akin to abstract
nouns.&
33. To the scholar, as before remarked, this re-
capitulation of some leading peculiarities may appear
unnecessary, while to those unacquainted with the
Shemitic languages, it is feared, these instances must
unavoidably appear like fragments or specimens,
possibly new and peculiar, but conveying no very
definite instruction. But in any case some of the
chief grammatical features of the family have been
enumerated—all, moreover, illustrative of the in-
ternal self-contained type so peculiarly Shemitic.
In this respect—as with its formal, so with its
syntactical peculiarities. Of one fertile parent of
new words in the Japhetian language-family—the
power of creating compound words—the Shemitic is
destitute. Different meanings are, it is true, ex-
pressed by different primitives, but these stand
necessarily divided by impassable barriers from each
other; and we look in vain for the shades and gra-
dations of meaning in a word in the Shemitic lan-
guages which give such copiousness and charm to
the sister-family. It is so with regard to the
whole range of privative and negative words. The
prefixes of the other family, in conjunction with
nouns, give far more life and clearness than do the
collective verbals of the Shemitic. Even the pregnant
and curiously jointed verb-forms, spreading out
from the sharply defined root, with pronominal
adjuncts of obvious meaning, and the aid of a deli-
cate vowel-system, have an artificial appearance.
The Japhetian, whose spiritual fulness would pre-
bably never have reached him, but that its sub-
stance was long preserved in these very forms, will
gratefully acknowledge the wisdom of that Almighty
Being who framed for the preservation of the know-
ledge of Himself—the One True God—so fitting a
cradle as the language of the Old Testament. Of
other families, the Japhetian was not ripe for such a
trust. Of those allied with the Shemitic, the Aramaic
was too coarse and indefinite, however widely and
early spread, or useful at a later period as a means
of extension and explanation, and (as has been
before observed) the Arabic in its origin was essen-
tially of the earth, earthy. The Japhetian cannot
then but recognise the wisdom, cannot but thank
the goodness of God, in thus giving and preserving
His lessons concerning Himself in a form so fitting
and so removed from treachery. He will do all
this, but he will see at the same time in his own
languages, so flexible, so varied, so logical, drawing
man out of himself to bind him to his neighbour,
d’arbitraire, et ot les régles générales sont sujettes ἃ un
plus grand nombre d’exceptions.” De Sacy, i. 279 (ed. 1810),
4M 2
1268 SHEMUEL
means far more likely to spread the treasures
of the holy language than even its general adoption.
It is Humboldt who has said, in reference to the
wonderful mechanism discernible in the consonant
and vowel systems of the Shemitic languages—
that, admitting all this, there is more energy and
weight, more truth to nature, when the elements |
of language can be recognised independently and in
order, than when fused in such a combination, how- |
ever remarkable. |
And from this rigid self-contained character the |
Shemitic language-family finds difficulty. in depart- |
ing. The more recent Syriac has added various |
auxiliary forms, and repeated pronouns, to the cha- |
racteristic words by which the meaning is chiefly |
conveyed. But the general effect is cumbrous and
confused, and brings to mind some features of the
ordinary Welsh version of the Epistles. In Arabic,
again, certain prefixes are found to be added for the
sake of giving definiteness to portions of the verb,
and prepositions more frequently employed. But
the character of the language remains unaltered— |
the additions stand out as something distinct from
the original elements of the sentence.
In what consists the most marked point of dif
ference between the Indo-European family of lan- |
guages and the Shemitic family as known to us?
The first has lived two lives, as it were: in its case
a period of synthesis and complexity has been suc-
ceeded by another of analysis and decomposition.
The second family has been developed (if the word
may be used) in’ one way only. No other instance
of a language-family can probably be found cast. in
a mould equally unalterable. Compared with the
living branches of the Indo-European family, those
of the Shemitic may be almost designated as in-
organic: they have not vegetated, have not grown;
they have simply existed. h NS ds Od)
SHEM’UEL Oxiny: Σαλαμιήλ : Samuel).
1. Son of Ammihud, appointed from the tribe of |
Simeon to divide the land of Canaan among the
tribes (Num. xxxiv. 20).
2. (Σαμουήλ.) SamMuEL the prophet (1 Chr.
vi. 33).
3. Son of Tola, and one of the chiefs of the tribe
of Issachar (1 Chr. vii. 2).
SHEN wn, with the def. article: τῆς ma-
λαιᾶς : Sen). A place mentioned only in 1 Sam.
vil. 12, defining the spot at which Samuel set up
the stone Eben-ezer to commemorate the rout of
the Philistines. The pursuit had extended to “ below
Beth-car,” and the stone was erected “ between the
Mizpah and between the Shen.” Nothing is known
of it. The Targum has Shinna. ‘The Peshito-
Syriac and Arabic Versions render both Beth-car
and Shen by Beit-Jasan, but the writer has not
succeeded in identifying the name with any place
in the lists of Dr. Robinson (1st edit. App. to
vol. iii.) The LXX, read JW ydshdn, old. [G.]
SHEN'AZAR (WYNIW: Saveodp: Senneser).
Son of Salathiel, or Shealtiel (1 Chr. iii. 18). Ac-
cording to the Vulgate he is reckoned as a son of
Jechoniah,
SHEPHERD
{TAYWID: Σανείρ: Sanir). This name occurs in
Deut. iii. 9, Cant. iv. ὃ. It is an inaccurate equi-
valent for the Hebrew Senir, the Amorite name for
Mount Hermon, and, like Shibmah (for Sibmah), has
found its way into the Authorised Version without
any apparent authority. The correct form is found
in 1 Chr. v. 23 and Ez. xxvii. 5. [Srnir.] [G.]
SHEPHA'M (DDY: Sempayap®: Sephama).
A place mentioned only in the specification by
Moses of the eastern boundary of the Promised
Land (Num. xxxiv. 10, 11), the first landmark trom
Hatser-enan, at which the northern boundary termi-
nated, and lying between it and Riblah. The an-
cient interpreters (Targ. Pseudojon.; Saadiah) render
the name by Apameia»; but it seems uncertain
whether by this they intend the Greek city of that
hame on the Orontes, 50 miles below Antioch, or
whether they use it as a synonym of Banias or
Dan, as Schwarz affirms (Deser. Geogr. 27). No
trace of the name appears, however, in that direc-
tion. Mr. Porter would fix Hatser-enan at Ku-
ryetein, 70 miles E.N.E. of Damascus, which
would remove Shepham into a totally different
region, in which there is equally little trace of it.
The writer ventures to disagree with this and
similar attempts to enlarge the bounds of the Holy
Land to an extent for which, in his opinion, there
is no warrant in Scripture. [G.]
SHEPHATHI'AH (MOEY: Σαφατία : Sa-
phatia). A Benjamite, father of MesHuLLAM 6
(1 Chr. ix. 8). The name is properly SHEPHA-
TIAH,
SHEPHATI'AH (MODY: Σαφατία : Alex,
Σαφαθία, Σαφατίας : Saphathia, Saphatias). 1.
The fifth son of David by his wife Abital (2 Sam.
iii. 45 1 Chr. iii. 3).
2. (Σαφατία: Sephatia, Saphatia.) The family
of Shephatiah, 372 in number, returned with Ze-
rubbabel (Ezr. ii. 4; Neh. vii. 9). A second de-
tachment of eighty, with Zebadiah at their head,
came up with Ezra (Ezr, viii. 8). The name is
written SAPHAT (1 Esdr. ν. 9), and SAPHATIAS
(1 βάν. viii. 34).
3. (Saphatia.) The family of another Shepha- i
tiah were among the children of Solomon’s servants,
who came up with Zerubbabel (zr. ii. 57; Neh.
vii. 59).
4. A descendant of Perez, cr Pharez, the son
of Judah, and ancestor of Athaiah (Neh. xi. 4)
5. (Sapavias: Suphatias.) The son of Mattan;
one of the princes of Judah who counselled Zedekiah
to put Jeremiah in the dungeon (Jer, xxxviii. 1).
6. (MDBW: Σαφατίας ; Alex. Σαφατία; FA,
Ζαφατεία. Saphatia.) The Haruphite, or Hariphite,
one of the Benjamite warriors who joined David in
his retreat at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. δ). Ὶ
7. (Σαφατία: Saphatias.) Son of Maachah, and
chief of the Simeonites in the reign of David (1 Chr.
xxvii. 16).
8. (Saparids; Alex. Sapartas.) Son of Jeho-
shaphat (2 Chr. xxi. 2).
SHEPHERD (AY; pia, Am. vii. 14;
43, Am. i. 1). Inanomadic state of society every
a The ar at the end of the LXX. version of the name is
partly due to the ah (particle of motion) which is afflxed
to it in the original of ver. 10, and partty derived from
the commencement of Riblaa, which follows it in ver, 11,
and which they have given without its 7, as ByAa.
TNDEN : xcols : Sam. Vers. ΠΣ.
SHEPHERD
man, from the sheikh down to the slave, is more or
less a shepherd. As many regions in the Kast are
adapted solely to pastoral pursuits, the institution
of the nomad life, with its appliances of tents and
camp equipage, was regarded as one of the most
memorable inventions (Gen. iv. 20). The proge-
nitors of the Jews in the patriarchal age were
nomads, and their history is rich in scenes of pas-
toral life. The occupation of tending the flocks
was undertaken, not only by the sons of wealthy
chiets (Gen. xxx, 29 ff., xxvii. 12 ff), but even by
their daughters (Gen. xxix. 6 ff. ; Ex. ii. 19). The
Egyptian captivity did much to implant a love of
settled abode, and consequently we find the tribes
which still retained a taste for shepherd life select-
ing their own quarters apart from their brethren in
the Transjordanic district (Num. xxxii. 1 ff.), Hence-
forward in Palestine Proper the shepherd held a
subordinate position ; the increase of agriculture in-
volved the decrease of pasturage ; and though large
flocks were still maintained in certain parts, parti-
cularly on the borders of the wilderness of Judah,
as about Carmel] (1 Sam, xxv, 2), Bethlehem (1 Sam.
xvi. 11; Luke ii. 8), Tekoah (Am. i. 1), and more
to the south, at Gedor, (1 Chr. iv. 39), the nomad
life was practically extinct, and the shepherd be-
came one out of many classes of the labouring popu-
lation. The completeness of the transition from
the pastoral to the agricultural state is strongly
exhibited in those passages which allude to the pre-
sence of the shepherd’s tent as a token of desolation
(e. g.. Ez, xxv. 4; Zeph. ii. 5). The humble posi-
tion of the shepherd at the same period is implied
in the notices of David’s wondrous elevation (2 Sam.
vii. 8; Ps. Ixxviii. 70), and again in the self-depre-
ciating confession of Amos (vii. 14). The frequent
and beautiful allusions to the shepherd’s office in
the poetical portions of the Bible (e. g. Ps. xxiii. ;
Is, xl. 11,xlix. 9,10; Jer. xxiii. 3,4; Hz. xxxiv. 11,
12, 23), rather bespeak a period when the shepherd
had become an ideal character, such as the Roman
poets painted the pastors of Arcadia.
The office of the Eastern shepherd, as described
in the Bible, was attended with much hardship, and
even danger. He.was exposed to the extremes of
heat and cold (Gen, xxxi. 40); his food frequently
consisted of the precarious supplies afforded by
nature, such as the fruit of the ‘‘sycomore,” or
Egyptian fig (Am, vii. 14), the “ husks” of the
carob-tree (Luke xv. 16), and perchance the locusts
and wild honey which supported the Baptist (Matt.
iti. 4); he had to encounter the attacks of wild
beasts, occasionally of the larger species, such as
lions, wolves, panthers, and bears (1 Sam, xvii. 94;
Is. xxxi. 45 Jer. v. 6; Am. iii. 12); nor was he
free from the risk of robbers or predatory hordes
(Gen. xxxi. 39), To meet these various foes the
shepherd’s equipment consisted of the following
articles :—a mantle, made probably of sheep’s-skin
with the fleece on, which he turned inside out in
cold weather, as implied in the comparison in Jer.
xliii, 12 (cf. Juv. xiv. 187); a scrip or wallet, con-
taining a small amount of food (1 Sam. xvii. 40;
Porter’s Damascus, ii. 100); a sling, which is still
the favourite weapon of the Bedouin shepherd (1
Sam. xvii. 40; Burckhardt’s WNotes, i. 57); and,
lastly, a staff, which served the double purpose of a
weapon against foes, and a crook for the manage-
ment of the flock (1 Sam. xvii. 40; Ps. xxiii. 4;
Zech. xi. 7). If the shepherd was at a distance
trom his home, he was provided with a light tent
‘Cant. i. 8; Jer. xxxv. 7), the removal of which
SHEPHERD 1269
was “easily efiected (Is. xxxviii. 12). In certain
localities, moreover, towers were erected for the
double purpose of spying an enemy at a distance,
and protecting the flock: such towers were erected
by Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chr. xxvi. 10, xxvii. 4),
while their existence in earlier times is testified by
the name Migdal-Kder (Gen. xxxv. 21, A. V.
“ tower of Edar ;”’ Mic. iv. 8, A. V. “ tower of the
flock”).
‘The routine of the shepherd’s duties appears to
have been as follows :—in the morning he led forth
his flock from the fold (John x. 4), which he did
by going before them and calling to them, as is still
usual in the Kast; arrived at the pasturage, he
watched the flock with the assistance of dogs (Job
xxx. 1), and, should any sheep stray, he had to
search for it until he found it (Kz. xxxiv. 12 ; Luke
xv. 4); he supplied them with water, either at a
running stream or at troughs attached to wells (Gen.
xxix. 7, xxx. 38; Ex. ii. 16; Ps. xxiii. 2) ; at evening
he brought them back to the fold, and reckoned
them to see that none were missing, by passing them
“ under the rod” as they entered the door of the en-
closure (Lev. xxvii. 32; Ez. xx. 37), checking each
sheep as it passed, by a motion of the hand (Jer. xxxiii.
15); and, finally, he watched the entrance of the
fold throughout the night, acting as porter (John
x. 3). We need not assume that the same person
was on duty both by night and by day; Jacob,
indeed, asserts this of himself (Gen. xxxi. 40), but
it would be more probable that the shepherds took
it by turns, or that they kept watch for a portion
only of the night, as may possibly be implied in
the expression in Luke ii. 8, rendered in the A. V.
“keeping watch,” rather “keeping the watches ”
(φυλάσσοντες φυλακάς). The shepherd’s office
thus required great watchfulness, particularly by
night (Luke ii. 8; cf. Nah. iii. 18). It also re-
quired .tenderness towards the young and feeble (Is.
xl, 11), particularly in driving them to and from
the pasturage (Gen. xxxiii. 13). In large establish-
ments there were various grades of shepherds, the
highest being styled “rulers” (Gen. xlvii. 6), or
“ chief shepherds”’ (1 Pet. v. 4): in a royal house-
hold the title of abbir,® “ mighty,’ was bestowed on
the person who held the post (1 Sam. xxi. 7).
Great responsibility attached to the office; for
the chief shepherd had to make good all losses
(Gen. xxxi. 39); at the same time he had a per-
sonal interest in the flock, inasmuch as he was not
paid in money, but received a certain amount of
the produce (Gen. xxx. 32; 1 Cor. ix. 7). The
life of the shepherd was a monotonous one; he
may perhaps have wiled away an hour in playing
on some instrument (1 Sam. xvi. 18; Job xxi. 12,
xxx. 31), as his modern representative still occa-
sionally does (Wortabet’s Syria, i. 234), He also
had his periodical entertainments at the shearing-
time, which was celebrated by a general gathering
of the neighbourhood for festivities (Gen. xxxi. 19,
xxxvili, 12; 2 Sam. xiii. 23); but, generally speak-
ing, the life must have been but dull. Nor did it
conduce to gentleness of manners; rival shepherds
contended for the possession or the use of water
with great acrimony (Gen, xxi. 25, xxvi. 20 if. 5
Ex. ii. 17); nor perhaps is this a matter of surprise,
as those who come late to a well frequently have to
wait a long time until their turn comes (Burck-
hardt’s Syria, p. 63). :
The hatred of the Egyptians towards shepherds
a AN.
1270 SHEPHI
(Gen, xlvi. 34) may have been .nainly due to their
contempt for the sheep itself, which appears to have
been valued neither for food (Plutarch. De 15. 72),
nor generally for sacrifice (Herod. ii..42), the only
district where they were offered being about the
Natron lakes (Strab. xvii. p. 803). It may have
been increased by the memory of the Shepherd
invasion (Herod. 11. 128). Abundant confirmation
of the fact of this hatred is supplied by the low po-
sition which all herdsmen held in the castes of
Egypt, and by the caricatures of them in Egyptian
paintings (Wilkinson, ii. 169).
The term “shepherd” is applied in a metapho-
rical sense to princes (Is. xliv. 28 ; Jer. ii. 8, ili.
15, xxii. 22; Ez. xxxiv. 2 &e.), prophets (Zech. xi.
5, 8, 16), teachers (Heel. xii. 11), and to Jehovah
himself (Gen. xlix. 24; Ps. xxiii. 1, Ixxx. 1): to the
same effect are the references to ‘‘ feeding” in Gen.
xlviii. 15; Ps. xxviii. 9; Hos. iv.16. [W. L. B.]
SHEPHI' (HY: Σωφί; Alex. Swpdp: Sephi).
Son of Shobal, of the sons of Seir (1 Chr. i. 40).
Called also SHEPHO (Gen. xxxvi. 23) ; which Bur-
rington concludes to be the true reading (Geneal.
i, 49.
SHE'PHO (Βιδ᾽ : Σωφάρ: Sepho). The same
as SHEPHI (Gen. xxxvi. 23).
SHEPH' UPHAN (JDIBL : Σεφουφάμ ; Alex.
Swpdv: Sephuphan). One of the sons of Bela the
firstborn of Benjamin (1 Chr. viii. 5). His name
is also written SHEPHUPHAM (A, V. “ Shupham,”
Num. xxvi. 39), Suuppim (1 Chr. vii. 12, 15),
and Muppim (Gen. xlvi. 21). Lord A. Hervey
conjectures that Shephuphan may have been a son
of Benjamin, whose family was reckoned with those
of Ivi the son of Bela. [Muppim.]
SHE'RAH (TINY, i.e. Sheérah: Sapad ; Alex.
Σααρά: Sara). Daughter of Ephraim (1 Chr. vii.
24), and foundress of the two Beth-horons, and of
a town which was called after her UZZEN-SHERAH.
SHEREBI'AH (27: Σαραΐα, Ezr.viii. 24;
ZapaBias, Neh. viii. 7, ix. 4; Σαραβία, Neh. x. 12,
xii. 8 24; Alex. Σαραβία, Neh. viii. 7; Σαραβαΐα,
Neh. x. 4: Sarabias, Ezr.; Serebia, Neh. viii. 7,
x. 12, xii. 24; Sarebias, Neh. ix. 4; Sarebia, Neh.
xii. 8). A Levite in the time of Ezra, of the family
of Mahli the son of Merari (Ezr. viii. 18, 24). He
was one of the first of the ministers of the Temple
to join Ezra at the river of Ahava, and with Hasha-
biah and ten of their brethren® had the charge of
the vessels and gifts which the king and his court,
and the people of Israel had contributed for the
service of the Temple. When Ezra read the Law
to the people, Sherebiah was among the Levites
who assisted him (Neh. viii. 7). He took part in
the psalm of confession and thanksgiving which was
sung at the solemn fast after the Feast of Taber-
nacles (Neh. ix. 4, 5), and signed the covenant
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 12). He is again men-
tioned as among the chief of the Levites who be-
longed to the choir (Neh. xii. 8, 24). In 1 ἔβαν.
viii. 54 he is called ESEBRIAS.
SHER’ESH (way in pause: Sodpos; Alex.
by his wife Maachah (1 Chr. vii. 16).
SHERE'ZER OSNW: Σαρασάρ: Sarasar)
ἃ They are called “ priests;” but the term is used
loosely, as in Josh. iii. 3.
SHESHBAZZAR
Properly ‘ Sharezer ;” one of the messengers sent
in the fourth year of Darius by the people who had
returned from the Captivity to inquire concerning
fasting in the fifth month (Zech. vii. 2). [See
REGEMMELECH. |
SHE'SHACH (qvU?: Sesach) is a term which
occurs only in Jeremiah (xxv. 26, li. 41), who evi-
dently uses it as a synonym either for Babylon or
for Babylonia. According to some commentators,
it represents ‘¢ Babel” on a principle well known to
the later Jews—the substitution of letters according
to their position in the alphabet, counting back-
wards from the last letter, for those which hold the
same numerical position, counting in the ordinary
way. Thus NM represents δὲ, & represents 3,
7 represents J, and so on. It is the fact that in
this way ποῦν would represent ba5. It may
well be doubted, however, if this fanciful practice
is as old as Jeremiah. At any rate, this explana-
tion does not seem to be so satisfactory as to make
any other superfluous. Now Sir H. Rawlinson has
observed that the name of the moon-god, which was
identical, or nearly so, with that of the city of
Abraham, Ur (or Hur), “‘ might have been read in
one of the ancient dialects of Babylon as Shishaki,”
and that consequently “a possible explanation is
thus obtained of the Sheshach of Scripture” (Raw-
linson’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 616). Sheshach may
stand for Ur, Ur itself, the old capital, being taken
(as Babel, the new capital, was constantly) to re-
present the country. [Gaya
SHESHA’T CY : Seoot, Num. and Judg. ;
Σουσί, Josh.; Alex. Σεμεί, Sovoai, Τεθθί: Sisai,
Num.; Sesaé). One of the three scns of Anak who
dwelt in Hebron (Num. xiii. 22) and were driven
thence and slain by Caleb at the head of the chil-
dren of Judah (Josh. xv. 14; Judg. i. 10).
SHESHA'N (we: Swody: Sesan). A de-
scendant of Jerahmeel the son of Hezron, and repre-
sentative of one of the chief families of Judah. In
consequence of the failure of male issue, he gave his
daughter in marriage to Jarha, his Egyptian slave,
and through this union the line was perpetuated
(1 Chr. ii. 31, 34, 55).
SHESHBAZ'ZAR (BUY: SacaBacdp ;
Alex. Σασαβασσάρ: Sassabasar: of uncertain
meaning and etymology). The Chaldean or Persian
name given to Zerubbabel, in Ezr. i. 8, 11, v. 14,
16; 1 Esdr. ii. 12, 15, after the analogy of Sha-
drach, Meshach, Abednego, Belteshazzar, and Esther.
In like manner also Joseph received the name of
Zaphnath-Paaneah, and we learn from Manetho, as
quoted by Josephus (6. Apion. i. 28), that Moses’
Egyptian name was Osarsiph. The change of name
in the case of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (2 K. xxiii.
34, xxiv. 17) may also be compared. That Shesh-
bazzar means Zerubbabel is proved by his being
called the prince of Judah (swan), and governor
GMB), the former term marking him as the head
of the tribe in the Jewish sense (Num. vii. 2, 10,
11, &c.), and the latter as the Persian governor ap-
oT | pointed by Cyrus, both which Zerubbabel was ; and
Σόρος: Sares). Son of Machir the son of Manassen |
yet more distinctly, by: the assertion (zr. v. 16)
that “* Sheshbazzar laid the foundation of the House
of God which is in Jerusalem,” compared with the
promise to Zerubbabel (Zech. iv. 9), ‘¢ The hands
of Zevubbabel have laid the foundation of this house,
his hands shall also finish it.” It is also apparent,
ΤᾺ
SHETH
from the mere comparison of Ezr. i, 11 with ii. 1,
2, and the whole history of the retur a exiles. ‘The
Jewish tradition that Sheshbazzar is Daniel, is utterly
without weight. [ZERUBBABEL. | (A.C. H.}
SHETH (ne: Σήθ: Seth). 1. The patriarch
Seru (1 Chr. i. 1).
2. In Res V. of Num. xxiv. 17, ny i is ren-
dered as a proper name, but there is reason to regard
it as an appellative, and to translate, instead of “the
sons of Sheth,” “the sons of tumult,” the wild
warriors of Moab, for in the parallel passage, Jer.
xlviii. 45, PNY, shadn, “ tumult,” occupies the
place of shéth. nv, shéth, is thus equivalent to
nN, shéth, as in Lam. iii. 47, Ewald proposes,
very unnecessarily, to read ny, sth = Nv, and
to translate ‘the sons of haughtiness ” (ochmuths-
séhne). Rashi takes the word as a proper name,
and refers it to Seth the son of Adam, and this
seems to have been the view taken by Onkelos, who
renders ‘*he shall rule all the sons of men.” The
Jerusalem Targum gives “all the sons of the East ;”’
the Targum of Jonathan ben-Uzziel retains the He-
brew word Sheth, and explains it of the armies of
Gog who were to set themselves in battle array
against Israel. [W. A. W.]
SHETHA'R cane: Σαρσαθαῖος ; Σαρεσθαῖος,
Cod. Alex.: Sethar: “ἃ star,’ Pers.). One of the
seven princes of Persia and Media, who had access
to the king’s presence, and were the first men in
the kingdom, in the third year of Xerxes (Esth. i
14). Compare Ezr. vii, 14 and the ἑπτὰ τῶν
Περσῶν ἐπίσημοι of Ctesias (14), and the state-
ment of Herodotus with regard to the seven noble
Persians who slew Smerdis, that it was granted to
them as a privilege to have access to the king’s
presence at all times, without being sent for,
except when he was with the women ; and that the
king might only take a wife from one of these seven
families, iii, 84, and Gesen. s.v. [CARSHENA ;
ESTHER. | [A. C. H.]
SHETHA'R-BOZNA'T (93713 WNY: Σαθαρ-
BovCavai—ns, Cod. Alex. : Stharbuzani: “ stay of
splendour’), A Persian officer of rank, having
a command in the province “‘on this side the
river” under Tatnai the satrap (5), in the reign
of Darius Hystaspis (Ezr. v. 3, 6, vi. 6,13). He
joined with Tatnai and the Apharsachites in trying
of Zerubbabel, and in writing a letter to Darius, of
which a copy is preserved in Ezr. v., in which
they reported that ‘‘the house of the great God”’
in Judaea was being builded with great stones, and
that the work was going on fast, on the alleged au-
thority of a decree from Cyrus. They requested
that search might be made in the rolls court whe-
ther such a decree was ever given, and asked for
the king’s pleasure in the matter. The decree was
found at Egbatana, and a letter was sent to Tatnai
and Shethar-boznai from Darius, ordering them no
more to obstruct, but, on the contrary, to aid the
elders of the Jews in rebuilding the Temple, by
supplying them both with money and with beasts,
corn, salt, wine, and oil, for the sacrifices. Shethar-
boznai after the receipt of this decree offered no
further obstruction to the Jews.
dicate that the Persian governors acted fully up to
fhe spirit of their instructions from the binge
The account of |
the Jewish prosperity in Ezr. vi. 14-22, would in-
SHEW BREAD
As regards the name Shethar-boznai,
be certainly Persian, The first element of it appears
as the name Shethar, one of the seven Persian
princes in Esth, i. 14. It is perhaps also contained
in the name Pharna-zathres (Herod. vii. 65); and
the whole name is not unlike Sati-barzanes, a Per-
sian in the time of Artaxerxes Mnemon (Ctesias, 57).
If the names of the Persian officers mentioned in
the Book of Ezra could be identified in any inscrip-
tions or other records of the reigns of Darius,
Xerxes, and Artaxerxes, it would be of immense
value in clearing up the difficulties of that book.
[A. Ὁ. H.]
SHE'VA (ον, Keri ; Nv, 2 Sam.:
Alex. Ἰσούς : Siva). a The scribe or royal secre-
tary of David (2 Sam. xx. 25). He is called else-
where SERAIAH (2 Sam. viii, 17), SHISHA (1 K, iv.
3), and SHAVSHA (1 Chr. xvi. 18).
2. (Saov; Alex. Σαούλ: Sue.) Son of Caleb
ben-Hezron by his concubine Maachah, and founder
or chief of Machbena and Gibea (1 Chr. ii. 49).
SHEW BREAD. (D5 ond, or DYHN ny
(Ex. xxv. 30, xxxv. 13, xxxix. 36, &c.), literal
“*bread of the face”’ or “‘faces.’’ Onk., ΠΣ ΜΠ "
D'DN ond, “bread set in order.’’ 1 Chr. ix. 32,
xxiii, 29, 2 Chr. xxix. 18, Neh. x. 34, NID:
In Num. iv. 7, we find DOAN rib ‘* the perpetual
bread.” In 1Sam. xxi. 4-6, it is called TP ih “holy
bread.” = Syr. μα: 9 sHokas rows
“bread of the Table of the Lord’? The LXX.
give us ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι, Ex. xxv. 303; ἄρτοι τῆς
προσφορᾶς, 1 K. vii. 48. N.T.: ἄρτοι ris προ-
θέσεως, Matt. xii. 4, Luke vi. 4; ἡ προθέσις τῶν
ἄρτων, Heb. ix. 2. The Vulg. panes propositionis.
Wiclit, ‘‘ loaves of proposition.” Luther, Schau-
brode ; from which our subsequent English versions
have adopted the title SHEW-BREAD.
Within the Ark it was directed that there should
be a table of shittim wood, i. e. acacia, two cubits
in length, a cubit in breadth, and a cubit and a hait
in height, overlaid with pure gold, and having “a
golden crown to the border thereof round about, ἣν
ἧ. 6. a border or list, in order, as we may suppose, to
hinder that which was placed on it from by any
accident falling off. The further description of
this table will be found in Ex. xxv. 23-30, and a
1271
it seems to
Σουσά;
| representation of it as it existed in the Herodian
to obstruct the progress of the Temple in the time |
Temple forms an interesting feature in the bas-
reliefs within the Arch of Titus. The accuracy of
this may, as is obvious, be trusted. It exhibits one
striking correspondence with the prescriptions in
Exodus. We there find the following words: ‘and
thou shalt make unto it a border of a handbreadth
round about.” In the sculpture of the Arch the
hand of one of the slaves who is carrying the
Table, and the border, are of about equal breadth.*
This table is itself called ὩΣ ΘΠ mb, “the Table
of the Faces,” in Num. iv. 7, and ἽΠΩΠ imbuy,
“the pure table” in Ley. xxiv. 6; and 2 Chr.
xiii, 11. This latter epithet is generally referred
by commentators to the unalloy ed gold with which
so much of it was covered. It mz Ly; however, mean
somewhat more than this, and bear something of the
foree which it has in Malachi i. 11.
a ‘Taking, ὃ. 6., the four fingers, when ἘΠῚ together,
as the measure of a handbreadth, as we are instructed to
do by a comparison of 1 Κα. vii. 26 and Jer. Iii. 21.
1272 SHEW BREAD
It was thought by Philo and Clement of Alex-
andria that the Table was a symbol of the world,
its four sides or legs typifying the four seasons. In
the utter absence of any argument in their support,
we may feel warranted in neglecting such fanciful
conjectures, without calling in the aid of Bihr’s
arguments against them.
In 2 Chr. iv. 19 we have mention of “the tables
whereon the shewbread was set,” and at ver. 8
we read of Solomon making ten tables. This is pro-
bably explained by the statement of Josephus (Ant.
viii. 3, §7), that the king made a number of tables,
and one great golden one on which they placed the
loaves of God. [See TEMPLE. ]
The table of the second Temple was carried away
by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mace. 1. 22), and anew
one made at the refurnishing of the sanctuary under
Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mace. iv. 49). Afterwards
Ptolemy Philadelphus presented a magnificent table
(Joseph. Ant. xii. 2, §8, 9).
The Table stood in the sanctuary together with
the seven-branched candlestick and the altar of in-
cense. Every Sabbath twelve newly-baked loaves
were put on it in two rows, six in each, and sprinkled
with incense (the LXX. add salt), where they
remained till the following Sabbath. Then they
were replaced by twelve new ones, the incense was
burned, and they were eaten by the priests in the
Holy Place, out of which they might not be re-
moved. Besides these, the Shewbread Table was
adorned with dishes, spoons, bowls, &c., which were
of pure gold (Ex. xxv. 29). These, however, were
manifestly subsidiary to the loaves, the preparation,
presentation, and subsequent treatment of which
manifestly constituted the ordinance of the shew-
bread, whose probable purport and significance must
now be considered.
The number of the loaves (twelve) is considered
by Philo and Josephus to represent the twelve
months. If there was such a reference, it must
surely have been quite subordinate to that. which is
obvious at once. The twelve loaves plainly answer
to the twelve tribes (compare Rev. xxii. 2). But,
taking this for granted, we have still to ascertain
the meaning of the rite, and there is none which is
left in Scripture so wholly unexplained. Though
it is mentioned, as we have seen, in other parts of
the O. T. besides the Pentateuch, it is never more
than mentioned. ‘The narrative of David and his
companions being permitted to eat the shew-
bread, does but illustrate the sanctity which was
ascribed to it; and besides our Saviour’s appeal to
that narrative, the ordinance is only once referred
to in the N. T. (Heb. ix. 2), and there it is merely
named among the other appurtenances of the first
sanctuary,
But although unexplained, it is referred to as
one of the leading and most solemn appointments of
the sanctuary. Foy example, the appeal of Abijam
to the revolted tribes (2 Chr. xiii. 10, 11) runs
thus—‘ but as for us, the Lorp is our God, and
we have not forsaken Him; and the priests, which
minister unto the Lord, are the sons of Aaron, and
the Levites wait upon their business ; and they burn
unto the Lord every morning and every evening
burnt-sacrifices and sweet incense; the shewbread
also set they in order upon the pure table,” ἄς, &e,
In this absence of explanation of that which is
yet regarded as so solemn, we have but to seek
whether the names bestowed on and the rites con-
nected with the shewbread will lead us to some
apprehension of its meaning.
SHEW BREAD
The first name we find given it is obviously the
dominant one, 0°35 ond, “bread of the face,
or faces.” This is explained by some of the
Rabbis, ever by Maimonides, as referring to the
four sides of each loaf. It is difficult to believe
that the title was given on a ground which in no
way distinguished them from other loaves. Besides,
it is applied in Num. iv. 7, simply to the Table,
oun smu, not, as in the English version, the
“table of shewbread,’ but the ‘shew table,’ the
ἐς table of the face, or faces.”
We: have used the words face or faces, for 0935,
it needs scarcely be said, exists only in the plural,
and is therefore applied equally to the face of one
person and of many. In connexion with this mean-
ing, it continually bears the secondary one of pre-
sence. It would be superfluous to cite any of the
countless passages in which it does so. But whose
face or presence is denoted? ‘That of the people?
The rite of the shewbread, according to some, was
performed in acknowledgment of God’s being the
giver of all our bread and sustenance, and the loaves
lay always on the Table as a memorial and monitor
of this. But against this, besides other reasons,
there is the powerful objection that the shewbread
was unseen by the people; it Jay in the sanctuary,
and was eaten there by the priests alone. So that
the first condition of symbolic instrection was want-
ing to the rite, had this been its meaning.
The 0955, therefore, or Presence, is that not of
the people but of God. The ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι and
the ἄρτοι τῆς προσφορᾶς of the LXX. seem to
indicate as much. To say nothing of 1 Sam. xxi, 6,
where the words Mm 83a DDN AN”
seem decisive of the whole question. But in what
sense? Spencer and others consider it bread offered
to God as was the Minchah, a symbolical meal for
God somewhat answering to a heathen Lectister-
nium. But it is not easy to find this meaning in
the recorded appointments. The incense is no doubt
to be burnt on the appointed altar, but the bread,
on the Sabbath following that- of its presentation,
is to be eaten in the Holy Place by the priests.
There remains, then, the view which has been
brought out with such singular force and beauty
by Bahr—a view broad and clear in itself, and
not disturbed by those fanciful theories of numbers
which tend to abate confidence in some parts of
his admirable Symbolik.
He remarks, and justly, that the phrase 0°35 is
applied solely to the table and the bread, not to the
other furniture of the sanctuary, the altar of in-
cense, or the golden candlestick, There is some-
thing therefore peculiar to the former which is
denoted by the title. Taking D357 as equivalent
to the Presence (of God subaud.), he views the
application of it to the table and the bread as ana-
logous to its application to the angel, O95 ἼΝΟΡ
(Is. lxiii, 9, compared with Ex. xxxiiil, 14, 15 ;
Deut. iv. 37). Of the Angel of God’s Presence it
is said that. God’s “ Name is in Him” (Ex. xxiii.
20). The Presence and the Name may therefore be
taken as equivalent. Both, in reference to their
context, indicate the manifestaticn of God to His
creatures. ‘The Name of God,” he remarks, ** is
Himself, but that, in so far as He reveals Himself,
the face is that wherein the being of a man pro-
claims itself, and makes known its individual per-
sonality. Hence, as Name stands for He or Himself,
so Face for Person: to see the Face, for, to see the
Person. ‘Lhe Bread of the Face is therefore that
SHIBBOLETH
bread through which God is seen, that is, with
the participation of which the seeing of God is
bound up, or through the participation of which
man attains the sight of God. Whence it follows
that we have not to think of bread merely as such,
5 ats ane ΠῚ
as the means of nourishing the bodily life, but as
spiritual food, as a means of appropriating and
retaining that life which consists in seeing the face
of God. Bread is therefore here a symbol, and
stands, as it so generally does in all languages, both
for life and life’s nourishment; but by being entitled
the Bread of the Face it becomes a symbol of a
life higher than the physical; it is, since it lies on
the table placed in the symbolic heaven, heavenly
bread; they who eat of it and satisfy themselves
with it see the face of God” (Bahr, Symbolik,
book i. c. 6, 82). It is to be remembered that the
shewbread was “taken from the children of’ Israel
‘by an everlasting covenant” (Lev. xxiv. 8), and
may therefore be well expected to bear the most
solemn meaning. Bihr proceeds to show very beau-
tifully the connexion in Scripture between seeing
God and being nourished by God, and points, as the
coping-stone of his argument, to Christ being at
ouce the perfect Image of God and the Bread of
Life. The references to a table prepared for the
righteous man, such as Ps. xxili. 5, Luke xxii. 30,
should also be considered. [F. G.]
SHIB'BOLETH (Nay: Scibboleth), Jud.
xii. 6. The Hebrew word which the Gileadites
under Jephthah made use of at the passages of the
Jordan, after a victory over the Ephraimites, to
test the pronunciation of the sound sh by those
who wished to cross over the river. The Ephraim-
ites, if would appear, in their dialect substituted
for sh the simple sound s; and the Gileadites, re-
garding every one who failed to pronounce sh as an
Ephraimite and therefore an enemy, put him to
death accordingly.
The word “Shibboleth,” which has now a
second life in the English language in a new signi-
fication, has two meanings in Hebrew: 150, an ear
of corn; 2ndly, a stream or flood: and it was,
perhaps, in the latter sense that this particular
word suggested itself to the Gileadites, the Jordan
being a rapid river. The word, in the ΠῚ sense,
is used twice in the 69th Psalm, in verses 2 and
15, where the translation of the A. V. is “the
floods overflow me,” and “let not the water-flood
overflow me.” If in English the word retained
its original meaning, the latter passage might be
translated ‘ Let not a shibboleth of waters drown
me.” There is no mystery in this particular word.
Any word beginning with the sound sh would have
answered equally well as a test.
Before the introduction of vowel points (which
took place not earlier than the 6th century A.D.)
there was nothing in Hebrew to distinguish the
letters Shin and Sin, so it could not be known by
the eye in reading when was to be sounded
after s, just as now in English there is nothing to
show that it should be sounded in the words sugar,
Asia, Persia; or in German, according to the most
common pronunciation, after sin the words Sprache
Spiel, Sturm, Stiefel, and a large class of similar
words. It is to be noted that the sound sh is
SHIELD 1273
unknown to the Greek language, as the English th
is unknown to so many modern languages. | Hence
in the Septuagint proper names commence simply
with s, which in Hebrew commence with sh; and
one result has been that, through the Septuagint and
the Vulgate, some of fies names, such as Samuel,
Samson, Simeon, and Solomon, having become
naturalized in the Greek form in the English
lancuage, have been retained in this form in the
English version of the O. T. Hence, likewise, it
is a singularity of the Septuagint version that, in
the passage in Judg. xii. 6, the translator could
not introduce the word ‘Shibboleth,’ and has
substituted one of its translations, στάχυς, ‘an ear
of corn,” which tells the original story by analogy.
It is not impossible that this word may have been
ingeniously preferred to any Greek word signifying
“stream,” or “ flood,” from its first letters being
rather harsh-sounding, independently of its contain-
ing a cuttural. [E. T.]
SHIB'MAH (nIDIY, 7. ὁ. Sibmah: Σεβαμᾶ:
Sabama). One of the places on the east of Jor-
dan which were taken possession of and rebuilt
by the tribe of Reuben (Num. xxxii. 38). It is
probably the same with Shebam (7. e. Sebam)
named in the list at the beginning of the chapter,
and is certainly identical with Sibmah, so celebrated
at a later date for its vines. Indeed, the two names
are precisely the same in Hebrew, though our trans-
lators have chosen to introduce a difference, Sib-
mah, and not Shibmah, is the accurate representative
of the Hebrew original. [6.1
SHIC'RON (3 : Borys; Alex. ᾿Ακκα-
pwva: Sechrona). One of the landmarks at the
western end of the north boundary of Judah (Josh.
xv. 11, only). It lay between Ekron (Ahir) and
Jabneel (Yebna), the port at which the boundary
ran to the sea. No trace of the name has been disco-
vered between these two places, which are barely
four miles apart. The Alex. LXX. (with an un-
usual independence of the Hebrew text) has evi-
dently taken Shicron as a repetition of Ekron, but
the two names are too essentially different to allow
of this, which is not supported by any other ver-
sion. The Targum gives it Shicaron, and with this
agrees Eusebius (Onom. Saxwpay), though no know-
ledge of the locality of the place is to be gained
from his notice. [G.]
SHIELD (73¥; 429; pide ; Mb). The
three first of the Hebrew terms quoted have been
already noticed under the head of ARMs, where it
is stated that the ¢zinnah was a large oblong shield
or target, covering the whole body; that the magén
was a small rourid or oval shield ; and that the term
shelet is of doubtful import, applying to some orna-
mental piece of armour. To these we may add
sochérah, a poetical term occurring’ only in Ps.
xci, 4. The ordinary shield consisted of a frame-
work of wood covered with leather ; it thus admitted
of being burnt (Ez. xxxix. 9). The mayén was
frequently cased with metal, either brass or copper ;
its appearance in this case resembleca gold,’ w hen
the sun shone on it (1 Mace. vi. 39), and to this,
rather than to the practice of smearing blood on the
2 In proper names not naturalized in English through
the LXX., the Hebrew form is retained, as in Mephi-
bosheth, Ishbosheth. ‘The latter name is melted down in
the LXX. to Ἰεβοσέθ: as, with the é fermé, the French
have softened many Latin words beginning with s¢, such
as Studium—ftude, Strenae—Etrennes, &c. &o.
b In the passage quoted, the shields carried by the
soldiers of Antiochus are said to have been actually of
gold. This, however, must have been a mistake, as even
silver shields were very rare (Diod. Sic. xvii. 57).
1274 SHIGGAION
shield, we may refer the redness noticed by Nahum
(ii. 3). The surface of the shield was kept bright by
the application of oil, as implied in Is. xxi. 5; hence
Saul’s shield is described as “not anointed with oil”
ἢ. 6. dusty and gory (2Sam. i. 21). Oil would be
as useful for the metal as for the leather shield. In
order to preserve it from the effects of weather, the
shield was kept covered, except in actual contlict (Is.
xxii. 6 ; comp. Caes. B.G. ii. 21 ; Cic. Nat. Deor. ii.
14). The shield was worn on the left arm, to which
it was attached by a strap. It was used not only
in the field, but also in besieging towns, when it
served for the protection of the head, the combined
shields of the besiegers forming a kind of testudo
(Ez. xxvi. 8). Shields of state were covered with
beaten gold. Solomon made such for use in reli-
gious processions (1 K. x. 16, 17); when these were
carried off, they were replaced by shields of brass,
which, as being less valuable, were kept in the
guard-room (1 K. xiv. 27), while the former had
been suspended in the palace fer ornament. A large
golden shield was sent as a present to the Romans,
when the treaty with them was renewed by Simon
Maccabaeus (1 Mace. xiv. 24, xv. 18); it was in-
tended as a token of alliance (σύμβολον τῆς συμ-
μαχίας, Joseph. Ant. xiv. 8, §5), but whether any
symbolic significance was attached to the shield in
particular as being the weapon of protection, is un-
certain. Other instances of a similar present occur
(Suet. Calig. 16), as well as of complimentary pre-
sents of a different kind on the part of allies (Cie.
Verr. 2 Act. iv. 29, 867). Shields were suspended
about public buildings for ornamental purposes (1 Κα.
x. 17; 1 Mace. iv. 57, vi. 2); this was particularly
the case with the shields (assuming shelet to have
this meaning) which David took from Hadadezer
(2 Sam. viii. 7; Cant. iv. 4), and which were
afterwards turned to practical account (2 K. xi. 10;
2 Chr. xxiii, 9): the Gammadim similarly sus-
pended them about their towers (Kz. xxvii. 11; see
GAMMADIMS), In the metaphorical language of the
Bible the shield generally represents the protection
of God (e.g. Ps. iii. 3, xxviii. 7); but in Ps. xlvii.
9 it is applied to earthly rulers, and in Eph, vi. 16,
to faith. ΕἾ 85
SHIGGAI'ON (ἡ): Ψαλμός : Psalmus),
Ps. vii. 1. A particular kind of Psalm ; the specific
character of which is now not known.
In the singular number the word occurs no-
where in Hebrew, except in the inscription of the
7th Psalm, and there seems to be nothing peculiar
in that psalm to distinguish it from numerous
others, in which the author gives utterance to his
feelings against his enemies, and implores the
assistance of Jehovah against them; so that the
contents of the psalm justify mo conclusive in-
ference as to the meaning of the word. In the
inscription to the Ode of the Prophet Habakkuk
iii. 1, the word occurs in the plural number; but
the phrase in which it stands ‘*’al shigyonéth”’ is
deemed almost unanimously, as it would seem, by
modern Hebrew scholars to mean ‘ after the man-
ner of the Shiggaion,” and to be merely a direction
as to the kind of musical measures by which the
ode was to be accompanied. This being so, the
ode is no real help in ascertaining the meaning of
Shiggaion; for the ode itself is not so called,
though it is directed to be sung according to the
measures of the shiggaion. ‘And, indeed, if it
were called a shiggaion, the difficulty would not
be diminished ;
for, independently of the inserip-
SHIHON
tion, no one would have ever thought that the ode
and the psalm belonged to the same species of
sacred poem; and even since their possible simi-
larity has been suggested, no one has definitely
gees out in what that similarity consists, so as
justify a distinct classification. In this state of
uncertainty it is natural to endeavour to form a
conjecture as to the meaning of shiggaion from its
etymology; but unfortunately there are no less
than three rival etymologies, each with plausible
claims to attention. Gesenius and Fiirst, s. v.,
concur in deriving it from maw (the Piel of
mw), in the sense of magnifying or extolling
with praises; and they justify this derivation by
kindred Syriac words. Shiggaion would thus mean
a hymn or psalm; but its specific meaning, if it
has any, as applicable to the 7th Psalm, would
continue unknown. Ewald, Die Poetischen Biicher
des alten Bundes, i. 293; Rodiger, s. Ὁ. in his
continuation of Gesenius’s Thesaurus; and Delitzsch,
Commentar εἶδον den Psalter, i. 51, derive it from
my, in the sense of reeling, as from wine, and
consider the word to be somewhat equivalent to a
dithyrambus; while De Wette, Die Psalmen, p.
34; Lee, s. v.; and Hitzig, Die Zwélf kleinen
Propheten, p. 26, interpret the word as a psalm
of lamentation, or a psalm in distress, as derived
from Arabic. Hupfeld, on the other hand, Die
Psalmen, i. 109, 199, conjectures that shiggaion is
identical with higgaion Ps. ix. 16, in the sense of
poem or song, from (4M, to meditate or compose ;
but even‘so, no information would be conveyed as
to the specific nature of the poem.
As to the inscription of Habakkuk’s ode, *’al
shigyonoth,” the translation of the LXX. is μετὰ
φδῆς, which conveys no definite meaning. The
Vulgate translates ‘pro ignorantiis,’ as if the
word had been shegayéth, transgressions through
ignorance (Lev. iv. 2, 27; Num. xv. 27; Eccl.
v. 6), or shegidth (Ps. xix. 13), which seems to
have nearly the same meaning. Perhaps the
Vulgate was influenced by the ‘Targum of Jona-
than, where shigydéndth seems to be translated
ΓΞ. In the A. V. of Hab. iii. 1, the rendering
is ‘upon shigionoth,” as if shigionoth were some
musical instrument. But under any circumstances
’al (2Y) must not be translated “upon” in the
sense of playing upon an instrument. Of this use
there is not a single undoubted example in prose,
although playing on musical instruments is fre-
quently referred to; and in poetry, although there
is one passage, Ps. xcii. 5, where the word might
be so translated, it might equally well be ren-
dered there ‘‘ to the accompaniment of”’ the musical
instruments therein specitied—and this translation
is preferable. It seems likewise a mistake that
’al is translated ‘* upon” when preceding the sup-
posed musical instruments, Gittith, Machalath,
Neginath, Nechiléth, Shfishan, Shoshannim (Ps.
Will. Lon dxxxas 1, Uxcxsciyes 1: 1110 Ἰχχ τι elon
eee 4, ibe 1 ΕΣ Ἰχίχ, 1, Ixxx. 1): Indeed,
all ΡΞ words are regarded by Ewald (Poct.
Bich. i. 177) as meaning musical keys, and b
Fiirst ἐν vv.) as meaning “musical bands, What-
ever may be thought of the proposed substitutes, it
is very singular, ‘if those six words signify musical
instr uments, that not one of them should be men-
tioned elsewhere in the whole Bible. eae bs
SHI'HON Ginw, i.¢. Shion: Swova: Seon).
A town of Issachar, named only in Josh, xix, 19.
SHIHOR OF EGYPT
It occurs between Haphraim and Anaharath. Eu-
sebius and Jerome (Onomast.) mention it as then
existing “near Mount Tabor.” The only name at
all resembling it at present in that neighbourhood
is the Chirbet Schi’in of Dr. Schulz (Zimmermann’s
Map of Galilee, 1861) 13 mile N.W. of Deburieh.
This is probably the place mentioned by Schwarz
(166) as “ Sam between Duberich and Jafa.” The
identification is, however, very uncertain, since
Sch’ in appears to contain the Ain, while the He-
brew name does not.
The redundant / in the A. V. is an error of the
recent editions. In that of 1611 the name is
Shion. [αὐ
SHI'HOR OF EGYPT (ΟΝ Ὁ WNW:
Αἰγύπτου : Sihor Acgypti, 1 Chr. xiii. 5) is spoken
of as one limit of the kingdom of Israel in David’s
time, the entering in of Hamath being the other.
It must correspond to “ Shihor,” ‘ the Shihor which
[is] before Egypt’ (Josh. xiii. 2, 3), A. V. “ Sihor,”’
sometimes, at least, a name of the Nile, occurring
in other passages, one of which (where it has the
article) is parallel to this. The use of the article
indicates that the word is or has been an appella-
tive, rather the former if we judge only from the
complete phrase. It must also be remembered that
Shihor Mizraim is used interchangeably with Nahal
Mizraim, and that the name SHIHOR-LIBNATH,
in the north of Palestine, unless derived from the
Egyptians or the Phoenician colonists of Egypt, as
we are disposed to think possible, from the connec-
tion of that country with the ancient manufacture
of glass, shows that the word Shihor is not re-
stricted to a great river. It would appear there-
fore that Shihor of Egypt and “ the Shihor which
[is] before Egypt”? might designate the stream of
the Wadi-l-’Areesh: Shihor alone would still be
the Nile. On the other hand, both Shihor, and
even Nahal, alone, are names of the Nile, while
Nahal Mizraim is used interchangeably with the
river (773, not bmp) of Mizraim. We therefore
are disposed to hold that all the names designate
the Nile. The fitness of the name Shihor to the
Nile must be remembered. [NILE; RIVER OF
Eaypr ; Srsor. | ΕΣ ΞΡ
SHT'HOR. LIB'NATH ( ni? TIM : τῷ
Σειὼν καὶ Λαβανάθ: Alex. Seip x. A.: Sichor et
Labanath), Named only in Josh. xix. 26 as one of
the landmarks of the boundary of Asher. Nothing
is known of it. By the ancient translators and
commentators (as Peshito-Syriac, and Eusebius and
Jerome in the Onomasticon) the names are taken as
belonging to two distinct places. But modern com-
mentators, beginning perhaps with Masius, have
inclined to consider Shihor as identical with the
name of the Nile, and Shihor-Libnath to be a river.
Led by the meaning of Libnath as “ white,” they
interpret the Shihor-Libnath as the glass river,
which they then naturally identify with the Belus®
ot Pliny (WV. H. v. 19), the present Nahr Naman,
which drains part of the plain of Akka, and enters
the Mediterranean a short distance below that city.
It is a pity to disturb a theory at once so ingenious
and so consistent, and supported by the great name
of Michaelis (Suppl. No. 2462), but it is surely
very far-fetched. There is nothing to indicate that
ὅρια
Tun with an irregular intermittent action,
SHILOAH, THE WATERS OF 1275
Shihor-Libnath is a stream at all, except the agree-
ment of the first portion of the name with a rare
word used for the Nile—a river which can have
nothing in common with an insignificant streamlet
like the Naman. And even if it be a river, the
position of the Naman is unsuitable, since, as far as
can be gathered from the very obscure list in which
the name occurs, Shihor-Libnath was the south
pivot of the territory of Asher, below Mount Carmel.
Reland’s conjecture of the Crocodeilon river, pro-
bably, the Moieh et Temsch, close to Kaisariyeh, is
too far south. [G.]
SHIL'HI ὑπο: Σαλαΐ, Σαλί; Alex. Sadada,
Σαλεί: Salai, Salah). The father of Azubah, Je-
hoshaphat’s mother (1 K. xxii. 42; 2 Ghr. xx. 31).
SHIL'HIM (ΠΟ): Σαλή; Alex. Σελεειμ:
Silim). One of the cities in the southern portion
of the tribe of Judah. Its place in the list is
between Lebaoth and Ain, or Ain-Rimmon (Josh,
xv. 32), and it is not elsewhere mentioned. It is
not even named by Eusebius and Jerome. No
trace of it has yet been discovered. In the list of
Simeon’s cities in Josh. xix. SHARUHEN (ver. 6)
occupies the place of Shilhim, and in 1 Chr. iv. 31
this is still further changed to SHAARAIM. It is
difficult to say if these are mere corruptions, or denote
any actual variations of name.
The juxtaposition of Shilhim and Ain has led to
the conjecture that they are identical with the
Salim and Aenon of St. John the Baptist ; but their
position in the south of Judah, so remote from the
scene of St. John’s labours and the other events of
the Gospel history, seems to forbid this. [G.]
SHIL'LEM (ὩΣ: Σολλήμ, Σελλήμ; Alex.
Συλλήμ in Gen.: Sallem, Scllem). Son of Naphtali,
and ancestor of the family of the Shillemites (Gen.
xlvi. 24; Num, xxvi. 49). The same as SHALLUM 7.
SHIL'LEMITES, THE (15vin: 5 Seaaqul:
Sellemitae). The descendants of Shillem the son of
Naphtali (Num. xxvi. 49),
SHILO'AH, THE WATERS OF (vin sp:
τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Σειλωάμ; Alex. Σιλωαμ: Saad.
essa ons” Ain Selvdn: aquas Siloe). A cer-
tain soft-flowing stream employed by the prophet
Isaiah (viii. 6) to point his comparison between
the quiet confidence in Jehovah which he was
urging on the people, and the overwhelming vio-
lence of the king of Assyria, for whose alliance
they were clamouring.
There is no reason to doubt that the waters in
question were the same which are better known
under their later name of SILOAM—the only per-
ennial spring of Jerusalem. Objection has been
taken to the fact that the “waters of Siloam”
and
therefore could hardly be appealed to as flowing
“softly.” But the testimony of careful investigators
(Rob. B. R. i. 341, 2; Barclay, City, 516). esta-
blishes the fact that the disturbance only takes place,
at the oftenest, two or three times a day, say three
to four hours out of the twenty-four, the flow being
“perfectly quiescent” during the rest of the time.
In summer the disturbance only occurs once in two
or three days. Such interruptions to the quiet flow
a It is singular,
there was a monument of Memon standing close to the
Belus (B. J. ii. 10, §2).
too, that Josephus should state that
|
b The Targum Jonathan, Peshito, and Arabic Ver-
sions of 1 K. i. 33, read Shiloah for the Gihon of the
Hebrew.
1276 SHILOH
of the stream would therefore not interfere with
the contrast enforced in the prophet’s metaphor.
The form ‘of the name employed by Isaiah is
midway between the has-Shelach of Nehemiah
(A. V. SitoAn) and the Siloam of the N.T. A
similar change is noticed under SHTLONT.
The spring and pool of SiLoAM are treated of
under that head. [G.]
SHILOH (i ἵν): τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ : Gui
mittendus est). In the A. Y. of the Bible, Shiloh
is once used as the name of a person, in a very
difficult passage, in the 10th verse of the 49th
chapter of Genesis. Supposing that the translation
is correct, the meaning of the word is Peaceable, or
Pacific, andthe allusion is either to Solomon, whose
name has a similar signification, or to the expected
Messiah, who in Is. ix. 6 is expressly called the
Prince of Peace. This was once the translation
of Gesenius, though he afterwards saw reason to
abandon it (see his Lewicon, s. y.), and it is at
present the translation of Hengstenberg in his
Christologie des Alten Testaments, p. 69, and of the
Grand Rabbin Wogue, in his Translation of Genesis,
a work which is approved aud recommended by the
Grand Rabbins of France (Le Pentateuque, ou les
Cing Livres de Moise, Paris, 1860). Both these
writers regard the passage as a Messianic prophecy,
and it is so accepted by the writer of the article
ΜΈΒΒΙΑΗ in this work (p. 340).
But, on the other hand, if the original Hebrew text
is correct as it stands, there are three objections to
this translation, which, taken collectively, seem fatal
to it. Ist. The word Shiloh occurs nowhere else
in Hebrew as the name or appellation of a person.
2ndly. The only other Hebrew word, apparently,
of the same form, is Giloh (Josh. xv. 515 2 Sam.
xv. 12); and this is the name of a city, and not
of a,person. 3rdly. By translating the word as it
is translated everywhere else in the Bible, viz. as
the name of the city in Ephraim where the Ark of
the Covenant remained during such a long period,
a sufficiently good meaning is given to the passage
without any violence to the Hebrew language, and,
indeed, with a precise grammatical parallel else-
where (compare now N24, 1 Samay. 12)... the
simple translation is, “ The sceptre shall not depart
from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his
feet, till he shall go to Shiloh.” And, in this case,
the allusion would be to the primacy of Judah in
Meds: 1 1. 2 exx. aS cp ΠΤα: 115 ou bee ΠΕ
which was to continue until the Promised Land
was conquered, and the Ark of the Covenant was
solemnly deposited at Shiloh. Some Jewish writers
had previously maintained that Shiloh, the city of
Ephraim, was referred to in this passage; and Ser-
vetus had propounded the same opinion in a fanciful
dissertation, in which he attributed a double mean-
ing to the words (De Trinitate, lib. ii. p. 61, ed.
of 155% A.D.). But the above translation and
explanation, as proposed and defended on critical
grounds of reasonable validity, was first suggested
in modern days by Teller (Notae Criticae et Exege-
ticae in Gen. xlix., Dent. xxxiii., Hx. xv., Judy. v.,
Halae et Helmstadii, 1766), and it has since, with
modifications, found favour with numerous learned
men belonging to various schools of theology, such
as Eichhorn, Hitzig, Tuch, Bleek, Ewald, Delitzsch,
Rédiger, Kalisch, Luzzatto, and Davidson.
The objections to this interpretation are set forth
at length by Hengstenberg (/. c.), and the reasons
in its favour, with an account of the various inter-
SHILOH
pretations which have been suggested by others,
are well given by Davidson (Jntroduction to the
Old Testament, i. 199-210). Supposing always that
the existing text is correct, the reasons in favour of
Teller’s interpretation seem much to preponderate.
It may be observed that the main obstacle to inter-
preting the word Shiloh in its simple and obvious
meaning seems to arise from an imaginative view
of the prophecy respecting the Twelve Tribes, which
finds in it more than is justified by a sober exami-
nation of it. Thus Hengstenberg says :—‘‘ The
temporal limit which is here placed to the pre-
eminence of Judah would be in glaring contradic-
tion to verses 8 and 9, in which Judah, without
any temporal limitation, is raised to be the Lion of
God.” But the allusion to a lion is simply the fol-
lowing :—“ Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey,
my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he
couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall
rouse him up?” Now, bearing in mind the general
colouring of Oriental imagery, there is nothing in
this passage which makes a reference to the city
Shiloh improbable. Again, Hengstenberg says that
the visions of Jacob never go into what is special, but
always have regard to the future as a whole and on
a great scale (im ganzen und grossen). If this
is so, it is nevertheless compatible with the follow-
ing geographical statement respecting Zebulun :—
“6 Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea, and
he shall be for an haven of ships, and his border
shall be unto Zidon.” It is likewise compatible
with prophecies respecting some of the other tribes,
which to any one who examined Jacob’s blessing
minutely with lofty expectations would be disap-
pointing. Thus of Benjamin, within whose territory
the glorious Temple of Solomon was atterwards
built, it is merely said, “‘ Benjamin shall ravin as a
wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and
at night he shall divide the spoil.” Of Gad it is
said, “ A troop shall overcome him, but he shall
overcome at the last.” Of Asher, “ Out of Asher
his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal
dainties.” And of Naphtali, “ Naphtali is a hind
let loose; he giveth goodly words” (vy. 19, 20,
21,27}. Indeed the difference (except in the bless-
ing of Joseph, in whose territory Shiloh was situ-
ated) between the reality of the prophecies and the
demands of an imaginative mind, explains, perhaps,
the strange statement of St. Isidore of Pelusium,
quoted by Teller, that, when Jacob was about to
announce to his sons the future mystery of the
Incarnation, he was restrained by the finger of God;
silence was enjoined him : and he was seized with loss
of memory. See the letter of St. Isidore, Lib. i. Epist.
365, in Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, vii. 570.
2. The next best translation of Shiloh is perhaps
that of ““ Rest.” The passage would then run thus:
“«The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. . . till
rest come, and the nations obey him”—and the
reference would be to the Messiah, who was to
spring from the tribe of Judah. This translation
deserves respectful consideration, as having been
ultimately adopted by Gesenins. It was preferred
by Vater, and is defended by Knobel in the Lxege-
tisches Handbuch, Gen, xlix. 10. There is one
objection less to it than to the use of Shiloh as a
person, and it is not without some probability.
Still it remains subject to the objection that Shiloh
occurs nowhere else in the Bible except as the name
of a city, and that by translating the word here as
the name of a city a reasonably good meaning may
be given to the passage.
SHILOH
3. A third explanation of Shiloh, on the assump-
tion that it is not the name ofa person, is a translation
by various learned Jews, apparently countenanced
by the Targum of Jonathan, that Sht/oh merely means
“his son,” 7. 6. the son of Judah (in the sense of
the Messiah), from a supposed word Sh#/, “a son.”
There is, however, no such word in known Hebrew,
and as a plea for its possible existence veference is
made to an Arabic word, shali/, with the same sig-
nification, This meaning of ‘his son” owes, per-
haps, its principal interest to its having been sub-
stantially adopted by two such theologians as Luther
and Calvin. (See the Commentaries of each on
Gen. xlix. 10.) Luther connected the word with
Schilyah in Deut. xxviii. 57, but this would not
now be deemed permissible,
The translation, then, of Shiloh as the name of a
city is to be regarded as the soundest, if the present
Hebrew text is correct. It is proper, however, to
bear in mind the possibility of there being some
error in that text. When Jerome translated the
word “ qui missus est,’’ we may be certain that he
did not read it as Shiloh, but as some form of
πὸ, “to send,” as if the, word 6 ἀπεσταλμένος
might have been used in Greek. We may likewise
be certain that the translator in the Septuagint did
not read the word as it stands in our Bibles, He
read it as iby = tei, precisely corresponding to
Ἢ WN, and translated it well by the phrase τὰ
ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ ; so that the meaning would be,
“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah . . . till
the things reserved for him come.” It is most pro-
bable that Ezekiel read the word in the same way
when he wrote the words Dewan YW δ 3 ΠΝ
(iz. xxi. 82, in the A. V. verse 27); and it seems
likely, though not certain, that the author of the
Paraphrase of Jacob’s last words in the Targum of
Onkelos followed the reading of Ezekiel and the
Septuagint, substituting the word ΕΙΣ for the
DED of Ezekiel. It is not meant by these re-
marks that nbyi is more likely to have been correct
than Shiloh, though one main argument against
προ, that vw occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch
as an equivalent to TWN, is inconclusive, as it
occurs in the Song of Deborah, which, on any
hypothesis, must be regarded as a poem of great
antiquity. But the fact that there were different
readings, in former times, of this very difficult pas-
sage, necessarily tends to suggest the possibility that
the correct reading may have been lost.
Whatever interpretation of the present reading
may be adopted, the one which must be pronounced
entitled to the least consideration is that which sup-
poses the prophecy relates to the birth of Christ as
occurring in the reign of Herod just before Judaea
became a Roman province. There is no such inter-
pretation in the Bible, and however ancient this
mode of regarding the passage may be, it must sub-
mit to the ordeal of a dispassionate scrutiny. In the
first place, it is impossible reasonably to regard the
dependent rule of King Herod the Idumaean as an
instance of the sceptre being still borne by Judah.
In order to appreciate the precise position of Herod,
it may be enough to quote the unsuspicious testi-
SHILOH 1277
mony of Jerome, who, in his Commentaries on
Matthew, lib. iii. c. 22, writes as follows :—* Caesar
Augustus Herodem filium Antipatris alienigenam et
proselytum regzem Judaeis constituerat, qui tributis
proeesset, et Romano pareret imperio.” Secondly,
it must be remembered that about 588 years before
Christ, Jerusalem had been taken, its Temple de-
stroyed, and its inhabitants led away into captivity
by Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldees, and during
the next fifty years the Jews were subjects of the
Chaldaean Empire. | Afterwards, during a period
of somewhat above 200 years, from the taking of
Babylon by Cyrus to the defeat of Darius by Alex-
ander the Great αὖ Arbela, Judaea was a province of
the Persian Empire. Subsequently, during a period
of 163 years, from the death of Alexander to the
rising of the Maccabees, the Jews were ruled by the
successors of Alexander. Hence for a period of
more than 400 years from the destruction of the
Temple by Nebuchadnezzar the Jews were deprived
of their independence; and, as a plain undeniable
matter of fact, the sceptre had already departed
from Judah. Without pursuing this subject farther
through the rule of the Maccabees (a family of the
tribe of Levi, and not of the tribe of Judah) down
to the capture of Jerusalem and the conquest ot
Palestine by Pompey (B.C. 63), it is sufficient to
observe that a supposed fulfilment of a prophecy
which ignores the dependent state of Judaea during
400 years after the destruction of the first Temple
cannot be regarded as based upon sound principles
of interpretation. [E. T.]
SHI'LOH, as the name of a place, stands in
Hebrew as πον (Josh. xviii. 1-10), τον ᾳ
Sam. i. 24, iii. 21; Judg. xxi. 19), προ (1 Ke
ii, 27), OW (Indg. xxi. 215 Jer. vii. 12), and
perhaps also iby, whence the gentile δὰ}
(1 K. xi. 29, xii. 15); in the Sept. as Sad,
Σηλώμ, Boras, Συλώ (Jos. Ant. viii. 7, §7;
11, §1L; and 3SiAw, Birovy, v. 1, §19; ii.
§12); and in the Vulg. as Silo, and more rarely
Selo. ‘The name was derived probably from new 5
by “to rest,” and represented the idea that the
nation attained at this place to a state of rest, or
that the Lord Himself would here rest among His
people. ‘TAANATH-SHILOH may be another name
of the same place, or of a different place near it,
through which it was customary to pass on the
way to Shiloh (as the obscure etymology may indi-
cate). [TAANATH-SHILOH.] (See also Kurtz’s
Gesch. des A. Bund. ii. p. 569).
The principal conditions for identifying with con-
fidence the site of a place mentioned in the Bible,
are: (1) that the modern name should bear a
proper resemblance to the ancient one; (2) that
its situation accord with the geographical notices
of the Scriptures; and (3) that the statements of
early writers and travellers point to a coincident
conclusion. Shiloh affords a striking instance of
the combination of these testimonies. The de-
scription in Judg. xxi. 19 is singularly explicit.
Shiloh, it is said there, is “on the north side of
Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth
up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of
a
175
8. This writer, however, was so fanciful, that no reliance
can be placed on his judgment on any point where it was
possible for him to go wrong. Thus his paraphrase of the
prophecy respecting Benjamin is: “ ‘The shechinah shall
abide in the land of Benjamin; and in his possession a
sanctuary shall be built. Morning and evening the priests
shall offer oblations ; and in the evening they shall divide
the residue of their portion.”
1278 SHILOH
Lebonah.” In agreement with this the traveller at
the present day (the writer quotes here his own
note-book), going north from Jerusalem, lodges the
first night at Beitin, the ancient Bethel; the next
day, at the distance of a few hours, turns aside to
the right, in order to visit Seid, the Arabic for
Shiloh ; and then passing through the narrow Wady,
which brings him to the main road, leaves e/-Leb-
ban, the Lebonah of Scripture, on the left, as he
pursues “the highway” to Nablus, the ancient
Shechem, [SHEcHEM.] Its present name is suffi-
ciently like the more familiar Hebrew name, while
it is identical with Shzlon (see above), on which
it is evidently founded. Again, Jerome (ad Zeph.
i. 14), and Eusebius (Onomast. art. ‘¢ Silo”) cer-
tainly have Seilfin in view when they speak of
the situation of Shiloh with reference to Neapolis
or Nablus. It discovers a strange oversight of the
data which control the question, that some of the
older travellers have placed Shiloh at Neby Samui,
about two hours north-west of Jerusalem.
Shiloh was one of the earliest and most sacred of
the Hebrew sanctuaries. The ark of the covenant,
which had been kept at Gilgal, during the progress
of the Conquest (Josh. xviii. 1 sq.) was removed
thence on the subjugation of the country, and
kept at Shiloh fiom the last days of Joshua to
the time of Samuel (Josh. xviii. 10; Judg. xviii.
31; 1Sam. iv. 3). It was here the Hebrew con-
queror divided among the tribes the portion of the
west Jordan-region, which had not been already
allotted (Josh. xviii. 10, xix. 51). In this distri-
bution, or an earlier one, Shiloh fell within the
limits of Ephraim (Josh. xvi. 5). The seizure
here of the “daughters of Shiloh’? by the Ben-
jamites, is recorded as an event which preserved
one of the tribes from extinction (Judg. xxi. 19-23).
The annual “ feast of the Lord”’ was observed at Shi-
loh, and on one of these occasions, the men lay in wait
in the vineyards, and when the women went forth
“¢ to dance in dances,” the men took them captive
and carried them home as wives. Here Eli
judged Israel, and at last died of grief on hearing
that the ark of the Lord was taken by the enemy
(1 Sam. iv. 12-18). The story of Hannah and
her vow, which belongs to oar recollections of
Shiloh, transmits to us a characteristic incident in
the life of the Hebrews (1 Sam. i. 1 &c.); Samuel,
the child of her prayers and hopes, was here brought
up in the sanctuary, and called to the prophetic office
(1 Sam. ii. 26, iii. 1). The ungodly conduct of the
sons of Eli occasioned the loss of the ark of the
covenant, which had been carried into battle against
the Philistines, and Shiloh from that time sank into
insignificance, It stands forth in the Jewish history
as a striking example of the Divine indignation. ‘Go
ye now,’ says the prophet, ‘‘ unto my place which
which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the
first, and see what I did to it, for the wickedness
of my people Israel” (Jer. vii. 12). Some have
inferred from Judg. xviii. 31 (comp. Ps. lxxviii.
60 sq.) that a permanent structure or temple had
been built for the tabernacle at Shiloh, and that it
continued there (as it were sine numine) for a long
time after the tabernacle was removed to other
places. But the language in 2 Sam. vii. 6 is too
explicit to admit of that conclusion, God says there
to David through the mouth of Nathan the prophet,
“1 have not dwelt in any house since the time that
I brought ‘up the children of Israel out of Egypt,
even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in
a tabernacle.” So in 1K. iii. 2, it is said expressly
SHILOH
that no “house” had been built for the worship of
God till the erection of Solumon’s Temple at Je-
rusalem. It must be in a spiritual sense, there-
fore, that the tabernacle is called a ‘‘ house” or
“temple” in those passages which refer to Shiloh.
God is said to dwell where He is pleased to manifest
his presence or is worshipped; and the place thus
honoured becomes His abode or temple, whether it
bea tent ora structure of wood or stone, or even the
sanctuary of the heart alone. Ahijah the prophet
had his abode at Shiloh in the time of Jeroboam I.,
and was visited there by the messengers of Jero-
boam’s wife to ascertain the issue of the sickness of
their child (1 K. xi. 29, xii. 15, xiv. 1, &.). The
people there after the time of the exile (Jer. xli.
5) appear to have been Cuthites (2 K. xvii. 30)
who had adopted some of the forms of Jewish wor-
ship. (See Hitzig, Zu Jerem. p. 331.) Jerome, who
surveyed the ruins in the 4th century, says: “ Vix
ruinarum parva vestigia, vix altaris fundamenta
monstrantur.”
The contour of the region, as the traveller views
it on the ground, indicates very closely where the
ancient town must have stood. <A Tell, or mo-
derate hill, rises from an uneven plain, surrounded
by other higher hills, except a narrow valley on the
south, which hill would naturally be chosen as the
principal site of the town. The tabernacle may
have been pitched on this eminence, where it would
be a conspicuous object on every side. The ruins
found there at present are very inconsiderable. ‘they
consist chiefly of the remains of a comparatively
modern village, with which some large stones and
fragments of columns are intermixed, evidently
from much earlier times. Near a ruined mosk
flourishes an immense oak, the branches of which
the winds of centuries have swayed. Just beyond
the precincts of the hill stands a dilapidated edifice,
which combines some of the architectural properties
of a fortress and a church. Three columns with
Corinthian capitals lie prostrate on the floor. An
amphora between two chaplets, perhaps a work of
Roman sculpture, adorns a stone over the doorway.
The natives call this ruin the ‘* Mosk of Seilin.” ἃ
At the distance of about fifteen minutes from the
main site, is a fountain, which is approached
through a narrow dale. Its water is abundant,
and, according to a practice very common in the
East, flows first into a pool or well, and thence into
a larger reservoir, from which flocks and herds are
watered: This fountain, which would be so na-
tural a resort for a festal party, may have been the
place where the “ daughters of Shiloh’? were dan-
cing, when they were surprised and borne off by
their captors. In this vicinity are rock-hewn se-
pulchres, in which the bodies of some of the unfor-
tunate house of Eli may have been laid to rest.
There was a Jewish tradition (Asher’s Benj. of
Tud. ii. 435) that Eliand his sons were buried here,
It is certamly true, as some travellers remark, that
the scenery of Shiloh is not specially attractive ; it
presents no feature of grandeur or beauty adapted to
impress the mind, and awaken thoughts in harmony
with the memories of the place. At the same time,
it deserves to be mentioned that, for the objects to
which Shiloh was devoted, it was not unwisely
chosen. Jt was secluded, and therefore favourable
to acts of worship and religious study, in which
® This is on the authority of Dr. Robinson. Dr. Wilson
understood it was called “ Mosk of the Sixty” (Sititx)
(Lands of the Bible, ii. 294).
es
a ἀν ο οναν
SHILONI
the youth of scholars and devotees, like Samuel,
was to be spent. Yearly festivals were celebrated
there, and brought together assemblages which
would need the supplies of water and pasturage so
easily obtained in such a place. Terraces are still
visible on the sides of the rocky hills, which show
that every foot and inch of the soil once teemed
with verdure and fertility. The ceremonies of such
occasions consisted largely of processions and dances,
and the place afforded ample scope for such move-
ments. The surrounding hills served as an amphi-
theatre, whence the spectators could look, and have
the entire scene under their eyes. The position
too, in times of sudden danger, admitted of an easy
defence, as it was a hill itself, and the neighbour-
ing hills could be turned into’ bulwarks. To
its other advantages we should add that of its
central position for the Hebrews on the west of
the Jordan. An air of oppressive stillness hangs
now over all the scene, and adds force to the re-
flection that truly the “oracles” so long consulted
there “fare dumb;” they had fulfilled their pur-
pose, and given place to “ἃ more sure word of
prophecy.” <A visit to Shiloh requires a détour of
several miles from the ordinary track, and it has
been less frequently described than other more ac-
cessible places. (The reader may consult Reland’s
Palaestina, 1016; Bachiene’s Beschreibung, ii.
$582; Raumer’s Palaest. 201; Ritter’s Hrdk. xv.
631 sq®; Robinson’s Bib. Res. ii. 269-276 ; Wilson’s
Lands of the Bible, ii. 294; Stanley, Sin. and Pal.
p- 231-3; Porter’s Handb. of Syria, ii. 328; and
Herzog’s Real-Encyk. xiv. 369.) ΕΞ B. H.]
SHILO'NI (32 Π, i. δ. ‘ the Shilonite:” τοῦ
Δηλωνέ : Silonites). This word occurs in the A. V.
only in Neh. xi. 5, where it should be rendered—as
it is in other cases— the Shilonite,” that is, the
descendant of Shelah the youngest son of Judah.
The passage is giving an account (like 1 Chr. ix.
5-6) of the families of Judah who lived in Jeru-
salem at the date to which it refers, and (like that)
it divides them into the great houses of Pharez and
Shelah.
The change of Shelani to Shiloni is the same
which seems to have occurred in the name of
Sifoam—Shelach in Nehemiah, and Shiloach in
Isaiah. [G.]
SHI'LONITE, THE Οὐ} ΠῸ in Chron.,
dyin and movin: 6 Snrwveitns ; Alex. Sy-
Awvitns: Silonites); that is, the native or resident
of Shiloh :—a title ascribed only to Ahijah, the pro-
phet who foretold to Jeroboam the disruption of
the northern and southern kingdoms (1 K. xi. 29,
xi. 15, xv. 295 2 Chr. ix. 29, x. 15): Its‘ con-
nexion with Shiloh is fixed by 1 K. xiv. 2, 4, which
shows that that sacred spot was still the residence
of the prophet. The word is therefore entirely
distinct from that examined in the following article
and under SHILONT. [G.]
SHI'LONITES, THE (wn: τῶν Ση-
Awvet: Siloni) ave mentioned among the descendants
of Judah dwelling in Jerusalem at a date difficult
to fix (1 Chr. ix. 5), They are doubtless the mem-
bers of the house of SHELAH, who in the Penta-
teuch are more accurately designated SHELANITES.
This is supported by the reading of the Targum
Joseph on the passage—* the tribe of Shelah,” and
is allowed by Gesenius. The word occurs again in
Neh. xi., a document which exhibits a certain cor-
SHIMEI 1279
respondence with 1 Chr. ix. It is identical in the
original except a slight contraction, but in the A. V.
it is given as SHILONI,
SHIL'SHAH (Mwy: Sard: Alex. Σα-
λεισά: Sulusa). Son of Zophah of the tribe of
Asher (1 Chr. vii. 37).
SHIM'EA (NYY: Σαμαά: Simmaa). 1. Son
of David by Bathsheba (1 Chr. iii. 5). Called also
SHAMMUA, and SHAMMUAH,
2. (Alex. Saud.) A Merarite Levite (1 Chr. vi.
80. [167
3. (Samaa.) A Gershonite Levite, ancestor of
Asaph the minstrel (1 Chr. vi. 39 [24]).
4. (Alex. Sauads.) The brother of David (1
Chr. xx. 7), elsewhere called SHAMMAH, SHIMMA,
and SHIMEAH.
SHIMEAH Οὐ; Keri, NYOW: Σεμεΐ;
Alex. Σεμεεί : Samaa). 1. Brother of David, and
father cf Jonathan and Jonadab (2 Sam. xxi. 21):
called also SHAMMAH, SHIMEA, and SHIMMA. In
2 Sam, xiii. 3, 32, his name is wiitten ΠΟ
(Samad; Alex. Saud in ver. 32: Samma). Σ
2. (προ: Σαμαά; Alex. Σαμεά: ϑαπιαα).
A descendant of Jehiel the father or founder of
-Gibeon (1 Chr. viii. 32).
SHIM'EAM (ONY: Σαμαά; Alex. Saud:
Samaan). A descendant of Jehiel, the founder or
prince of Gibeon (1 Chr. ix. 38). Called Samar
in 1 Chr. viii. 32.
SHIM'EATH (ΠΡ): Ἰεμουάθ, Sauadd ;
Alex. Σαμάθ in Chr.: Semaath, Semmaath). An
Ammonitess, mother of Jozachar, or Zabad, one of
the murderers of King Joash (2 K. xii. 21 [22];
2 Chr. xxiv. 26).
SHIM'EI ΟἾΟΝ : Σεμεΐ: Semei). 1. Son of
Gershom the son of Levi (Num, iii. 18; 1 Chr.
vi. 17, 29, xxiii. 7, 9, 10; Zech. xii. 13); called
Sari in Ex. vi. 17. In 1 Chr. vi. 29, according
to the present text, he is called the son of Libni, and
both are reckoned as sons of Merari, but there is
reason to suppose that there is something omitted in
this verse. [See Lipnt 2; Maur 1.1 [W. A. W.]
2. (Alex. Σεμεεί.) Shimei the son of Gera, a
Benjamite of the house of Saul, who lived at
Bahurim. His residence there agrees with the
other notices of the place, as if a marked spot on
the way to and from the Jordan Valley to Jeru-
salem, and just within the border of Benjamin
[Bauurtm.] He may have received the unfortu-
nate Phaltiel after his separation from Michal
(2 Sam. iii. 16).
When David and his suite were seen descending
the long defile, on his flight from Absalom (2 Sam.
xvi. 5-13), the whole feeling of the clan of Benjamin
burst forth without restraint in the person of Shimei.
His house apparently was separated from the road
by a deep valley, yet not so far as that anything
that he did or said could not be distinctly heard. He
ran along the ridge, cursing, throwing stones at the
King and his companions, and when he came to a
patch of dust on the dry hill-side, taking it up, and
throwing it over them. Abishai was so irritated,
that, but for David’s remonstrance, he would have
darted across the ravine (2 Sam. xvi. 9) and torn
or cut off his head. The whole conveisation is
remarkable, as showing what may almost be called
LSD eK SHIMEI
the slang terms of abuse prevalent in the two rival
courts. The cant name for David in Shimei’s mouth
is “ the man of blood,” twice emphatically repeated :
“Come out, come out, thou man of blood” —“ A man
of blood art thou” (2 Sam. xvi. 7, 8). It seems to
have been derived from the slaughter of the sons of
Saul (2 Sam. xxi.), or generally perhaps trom Da-
vid’s predatory, warlike life (comp. 1 Chr. xxii. 8).
The cant name for a Benjamite in Abishai’s mouth
was “a dead dog ” (2 Sam. xvi. 9 ; compare Abner’s
expression, ‘*‘ Am I a dog’s head,’ 2 Sam. iii. 8).
‘“*Man of Belial’ also appears to have been a fa-
vourite term on both sides (2 Sam. xvi. 7, xx. 1).
The royal party passed on; Shimei following them
with his stones and curses as long as they were in
sight.
The next meeting was very different. The king
was now returning from his successful campaign.
Just as he was crossing the Jordan, in the ferry-
boat or on the bridge (2 Sam. xix. 18; LXX. δια-
βαίνοντος; Jos. Ant. vii. 2, §4, ἐπὶ τὴν γεφύραν),
the first person to welcome him on the western,
or perhaps even on the eastern side, was Shimei,
who may have seen him approaching from the
heights above. He threw himself at David’s feet in
abject penitence. “δ was the first,” he said, “ of
all the house of Joseph,” thus indicating the close
political alliance between Benjamin and Ephraim.
Another altercation ensued between. David and
Abishai, which ended in David’s guaranteeing
Shimei’s life with an oath (2 Sam. xix. 18-23), in
consideration of the general jubilee and amnesty
of the return.
But the king’s suspicions were not set to rest by
this submission ; and on his deathbed he recalls the
whole scene to the recollection of his son Solomon.
Shimei’s head was now white with age (1 K. ii. 9),
and he was living in the favour of the court at
Jerusalem (ib. 8). Solomon gave him notice
that from henceforth he must consider himself con-
fined to the walls of Jerusalem on pain of death.
The Kidron, which divided him from the road to
his old residence at Bahurim, was not to be crossed.
He was to build a house in Jerusalem (1 Κα. ii. 36,37).
For three years the engagement was kept. At the
end of that time, for the purpose of capturing two
slaves who had escaped to Gath, he went out on his
ass, and made his journey successfully (ib. 1i. 40).
On his return, the king took him at his word, and
he was slain by Benaiah (ib. ii. 41-46). In the
sacred historian, and still more in Josephus (Ant.
viii. 1, §5), great stress is laid on Shimei’s having
broken his oath to remain at home; so that his death
is regarded as a judgment, not only for his. previous
treason, but for his recent sacrilege. fASPSS.]
3. One of the adherents of Solomon at the time
of Adonijah’s usurpation (1 K. i. 8). Unless he is
the same as Shimei the son of Elah (1 K. iv. 18),
Solomon’s commissariat officer, or with Shimeah,
or Shammah, David’s brother, as Ewald (Gesch.
iii, 266) suggests, it is impossible to identify him.
From the mention which is made of “ the mighty
men” in the same verse, one might be tempted to
conclude that Shimei is the same with Shammah
the Hararite (2 Sam. xxiii. 11); for the difference
in the Hebrew names of Shimei and Shammah is
not greater than that between those of Shimeah and
Shammah, which are both applied to David’s brother
4. Solomon’s commissariat officer in Benjamin
(1 K. iv. 18); son of Elah.
5. Son of Pedaiah, and brother of Zerubbabel
(1 Chr. iii. 19).
SHIMRATH
6. A Simeonite, son of Zacchur (1 Chr. iv. 26,
27). 116 had sixteen sons and six daughters, Per-
haps the same as SHEMATAH 3.
7. (Alex. Seuely.) Son of Gog, a Reubenite (1
Chr. v. 4). Perhaps the same as SHEMA 1.
8. A Gershonite Levite, son of Jahath (1 Chr.
vi. 42),
9. (Seueta; Alex. Σεμεΐ: Semeias.) Son of Je-
duthun, and chief of the tenth division of the
singers (1 Chr, xxv. 17). His name is omitted from
the list of the sons of Jeduthun in ver. 3, but is
evidently wanted there.
10. (Σεμεΐ: Semeias.) The Ramathite who was
over Davia’s vineyards (1 Chr. xxvii. 27). In the
Vat. MS. of the LXX. he is described as 6 é ‘Pana.
11. (Alex. Sapetas: Semei.) A Levite of the
sons of Heman, who took part in the purification
of the Temple under Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 14).
12. The brother of Cononiah the Levite in the
reign of Hezekiah, who had charge of the offerings,
the tithes, and the dedicated things (2 Chr. xxxi.
12, 13). Perhaps the same as the preceding.
13. (Σαμού: FA. Σαμούδ.) A Levite in the
time of Ezra who had married a foreign wife (Ezr.
x. 23). Called also Sis.
14. (Σεμεΐ; FA. Σεμεεί.) One of the family of
Hashum, who put away his foreign wife at Kzra’s
command (Ezr. x. 33%. Called SEMET in 1 Esdr,
ix. 33.
15. A son of Bani, who had also mafried a
foreion wife and put her away (Ezr. x. 38). Called
SAMIs in 1 Esdr, ix, 34.
16. (Sewelas; Alex. Sapeeias.) Son of Kish
a Benjamite, and ancestor of Mordecai (Ksth.
1. δὴ: ΓΕΑ ΤΥ
SHIM'EON (ἡ νον): Σεμεών : Simeon). A
layman of Israel, of the family of Harim, who had
married a foreign wite and divorced her in the time
of Ezra (Ezr. x. 31), The name is thé same as
SIMEON.
SHIM'HI (pw: Sauaid; Alex. Σαμαΐ :
Semci). A Benjamite, apparently the same as
SupMA the son of Elpaal (1 Chr. viii. 21). The
name is the same as SHIMEI.
SHIM (yw: Seuet: Semet = Sumer],
Bx τῆς 17a
SHIMITES, THE (12Wit: ὁ Semel: Se-
meitica, sc. familia). The descendants of Shimei
the son of Gershom (Num. iii. 21). They are again
mentioned in Zech. xii. 13, where the LXX. have
Συμεών.
SHIM'MA (NYY : Σαμαά; Alex. Sauala:
Simmaa). he third son of Jesse, and brother of
David (1 Chr. ii. 13). He is called also SHAM-
MAH, SHIMEA, and SHIMEAH. Josephus calls him
Bduaros (Ant. vi. 8, 81), and Saya (Ant. vii.
12,82),
SHIMON ΟἿ) :- Seudy; Alex. Σεμειών:
Simon). The four sons of Shimon are enumerated
in an obscure genealogy of the tribe of Judah (1
Chr. iv. 20). There is uo trace of the name else-
where in the Hebrew, but in the Alex. MS. of the
LXX. there is mention made of ‘‘Someion the
father of Joman” in 1 Chr. iv. 19, which was pos-
sibly the same as Shimon,
SHIM'RATH (Nv: Σαμαράθ: Samarathy.
A Benjamite, of the sons of Shimhi (1 Chr, viii. 21).
SHIMRI SHINAR 1281
SHIM'RI (WU: Seupi: Alex. Sapapias :
Semri). 1. A Simeonite, son of Shemaiah (1 Chr.
iv. 37).
2. (Σαμερί ; Alex. Sawapi: Samri.) The father
of Jediael, one of David’s guard (1 Chr. xi. 45).
3. (ZauBpi; Alex. SauBpi.) A Kohathite Levite
in the reign of Hezekiah, of the sons of Elizaphan
(2 Chr. xxix. 13). He assisted in the purification
of the Temple.
SHIM'RITH (nD: Sauapnd: Alex. Sa-
papid: Semarith). A Moabitess, mother of Je-
hozabad, one of the assassins of King Joash (2 Chr.
xxiv. 26). In 2 K. xii. 21, she is called SHOMER.
The Peshito-Syriac gives Neturuth, which appears
to be a kind of attempt to translate the name.
SHIM'ROM (ἡ 2: Σεμερών ; Alex. Saupdu:
Simeron). SwiMRoN the son of Issachar (1 Chr.
vii, 1). The name is correctly given “ Shimron”
in the A. V. of 1611.
SHIM'RON (ον : Συμοών ; Alex. Souepwv,
Zeupwv: Semeron, Semron). A city of Zebulun
(Josh. xix. 15). It is previously named in the list
of the places whose kings were called by Jabin, king
of Hazor, to his assistance against Joshua (xi. 1).
Its full appellation was perhaps SHIMRON-MERON.
Schwarz (172) proposes to identify it with the
Simonias of Josephus ( Vita, §24), now Siminiyeh,
a village a few miles W. of Nazareth, which is
mentioned in the well known list of the Talmud
(Jerus. Megillah, cap. 1) as the ancient Shimron.
This has in its fayour its proximity to Bethlehem
(comp. xix. 15). The Vat. LXX., like the Talmud,
omits the r in the name. [G.]
SHIM'RON (}71)W: in Gen. Ζαμβράμ; in
Num. Sauapdu; Alex. Αμβραν : Simron, Semron).
The fourth son of Issachar according to the lists of
Genesis (xlvi. 13) and Numbers (xxvi. 24), and the
head of the family of the SHmmronires. In the
catalogues of Chronicles his name is given as
SHIMROM. [G.]
SHIM'RONITES, THE (J0DW7: 6 Σαμα-
puvel ; Alex. o AuBpaui: Semronitae). The family
of SHIMRON, son of Issachar (Num, xxvi. 24).
SHIM'RON-ME'RON (j\N11D ; the
Keri omits the ἐξ: Zuudwy... MaupdO; Alex.
Zaupwyv .. *bacya.. Mapwy: Simeron Maron).
The king of Shimron-meron is mentioned as one of
the thirty-one kings vanquished by Joshua (Josh.
xii. 20). It is probably (though not certainly) the
complete name of the place elsewhere called SHiM-
RON. Both are mentioned in proximity to Achshaph
(xi. 1, xii. 20). It will be observed that the LXX.
treat the two words as belonging to two distinct
places, and it is certainly worth notice that Madon
—in Hebrew so easily substituted for Meron, and
in fact so read by the LXX., Peshito, and Arabic—
occurs next to Shimron in Josh. xi. 1.
There are two claimants to identity with Shim-
yon-meron. The old Jewish traveller hap-Parchi
fixes it at two hours east of Engannim (Jenin),
south of the mountains of Gilboa, at a village called
in his day Dar Meron (Asher’s Benjamin, ii. 434).
No modern traveller appears to have explored that
district, and it is consequently a blank on the maps.
The other is the village of Simuniyeh, west of Naza-
veth, which the Talmud asserts to be the same with
Shimron. [G.]
SHIMSHA‘T Own : Σαμψά; Alex. Σαμσαί:
Samsai). The scribe or secretary of Rehum, who
was a kind of satrap of the conquered province of
Judea, and of the colony at Samaria, supported by
the Persian court (Ezr. iv. 8, 9, 17, 23). He was
apparently an Aramean, for the letter which he
wrote to Artaxerxes was in Syriac (Ezr. iv. 7), and
the form of his name is in favonr of this supposition,
In 1 Esdr, ii. he is called SEMELLIUS, and by Jose-
phus Σεμέλιος (Ant. xi. 2, 81). The Samaritans
were jealous of the return of the Jews, and for a
long time plotted against them without effect. They
appear ultimately, however, to have prejudiced the
royal officers, and to have prevailed upon them to
address to the king a letter which set forth the
turbulent character of the Jews and the dangerous
character of their undertaking, the effect of which
was that the rebuilding of the Temple ceased for
a time.
SHIN'AB (νυν: Σενναάρ: Sennaab). The
king of Admah in the time of Abraham: one of the
five kings attacked by the invading army of Che-
dorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 2). Josephus (Ant. i. 9) calls
him SevaBapns.
SHI’NAR (paw : Bevadp, Sevvadp : Sennaar)
seems to have been the ancient name of the creat
alluvial tract through which the Tigris and Eu-
phrates pass before reaching the sea—the tract
known in later times as Chaldaea or Babylonia. It
was a plain*countiry, where brick had to be used for
stone, and slime (mud?) for mortar (Gen, xi. 3).
Among its cities were Babel (Babylon), Erech. or
Orech (Orchoé), Calneh or Calno (probably Niffer),
and Accad, the site of which is unknown. These
notices are quite enough to fix the situation. It
may, however, be remarked further, that the LXX.
render the word by ‘ Babylonia” (Βαβυλωνίαλ in
one place (Is. xi. 11), and by “ the land of Babylon”
(γῆ Βαβυλῶνος) in another (Zech. v. 11).
The native inscriptions contain no trace of the
term, which seems to be purely Jewish, and un-
known to any other people. At least it is extremely
doubtful whether there is really any connexion be-~
tween Shinar and Singara or Sinjar, Singara was
the name of a town in Central Mesopotamia, well
known to the Romans (Dion Cass. Ixviii. 22; Amm.
Mare. xviii. 5, &c.), and still existing (Layard,
Nin. and Bab. p. 249). ΤῈ is from this place that
the mountains which run across Mesopotamia from
Mosul to Rakkeh receive their title of “ the Sinjar
range” (Svyydpas ὅρος, Ptol. v.18). As this name
first appears in central Mesopotamia, to which the
term Shinar is never applied, about the time of the
Antonines, it is very unlikely that it can represent
the old Shinar, which ceased practically to be a
geographic title soon after the time of Moses.»
It may be suspected that Shinar was the name
by which the Hebrews originally knew the lower
Mesopotamian country, where they so long dwelt,
and which Abraham brought with him from “ Ur of
the Chaldees ” (Mugheir). Possibly it means “ the
country of the Two Rivers,” being derived from
‘UY, “two” and αν», which was used in Baby-
lonia, as well as nahr or nahdr (793), for * a river.”
* This addition, especially in the Alex. MS.—usually
so close to the Hebrew—is remarkable, ‘l'here is nothing
in the original text to suggest it.
VOL. II.
Ὁ In Isaiah and Zechariah, Shinar, once used by each
writer, is an archaism.
4N
1282 (SEO UE
(Compare the ** Ar-malchar”’ of Pliny, H. N, vi. 26,
and ‘* Ar-macales”’ of Abydenus, Fr. 9, with the
Naar-malcha of Ammianus, xxiv. 6, called Nap-
μάχα by Isidore, p. 5, which is translated as “ the
Royal River ;’’ and compare again the ** Narragam ”
of Pliny, H. NV. vi. 30, with the “ Aracanus”’ of
Abydenus, 7. 8. c.) [G. R.]
SHIP. No one writer in the whole range of
Greek and Roman literature has supplied us (it may
be doubted whether all put together have supplied
us) with so much information concerning the mer-
chant-ships of the ancients as St. Luke in the nar-
rative of St. Paul’s voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii.
xxviii.). In illustrating the Biblical side of this
question, it will be best to arrange in order the
various particulars which we learn from this nar-
rative, and to use them as a basis for elucidating
whatever else occurs, in reference to the subject, in
the Gospels and other parts of the N. T., in the
O. T. and the Apocrypha. As regards the earlier
Scriptures, the Septuagintal thread will be fol-
lowed. This will be the easiest way to secure the
mutual illustration of the Old and New Testaments
in regard to this subject. The merchant-ships of
various dates in the Levant did not differ in any
essential principle; and the Greek of Alexandria
contains the nautical phraseology which supplies
our best linguistic information. Two preliminary
remarks may be made at the outset.
As regards St. Paul’s voyage, it is important to
remember that he accomplished it in three ships:
first the Adramyttian vessel [ADRAMYTTIUM]
which took him from CAESAREA to Myra, and
which was probably a coasting vessel of no great
size (xxvii. 1-6); secondly, the large Alexandrian
corn-ship, in which he was wrecked on the coast of
Malta (xxvii. 6-xxviii. 1) [Menira]; and thirdly,
another large Alexandrian corn-ship, in which he
sailed from Malta by SYRACUSE and RHEGIUM to
PUTEOLI (xxviii. 11-13),
Again, the word employed by St. Luke, of each
of these ships, is, with one single exception, when
he uses ναῦς (xxvii. 41), the generic term πλοῖον
(xxvii. 2, 6, 10, 15, 22, 30, 37, 38, 39, 44, xxviii.
11). ‘he same general usage prevails throughout.
Elsewhere in the Acts (xx. 13, 38, xxi. 2, 3, 6) we
have πλοῖον. So in St. James (iii. 4) and in the
Revelations (viii. 9, xviii. 17, 19). In the Gospels
we have πλοῖον (passim) or πλοιάριον (Mark iv.
36; John xxi. 8). In the LXX. we find πλοῖον
used twenty-eight times, and ναῦς nine times. Both
words generally correspond to the Hebrew IN or
MIN. In Jon. i. 5, πλοῖον is used to represent
the Heb. MIOD séphindh, which, from its etymo-
logy, appears to mean a vessel covered with a
deck or with hatches, in opposition to an open
boat. The senses in which σκάφος (2 Mace. xii.
3, 6) and σκάφη (Acts xxvii. 16, 32) are employed
we shall notice as we proceed. The use of τριήρης
is limited to a single passage in the Apocrypha
(2 Mace. iv. 20).
(1.) Size of Ancient Ships. —The narrative
which we take as our chief guide attords a good
standard for estimating this. The ship in which
St. Pauliwas wrecked had 276 persons on board (Acts
xxvii. 37), besides a cargo (φορτίον) of wheat. (ib.
10, 38); and all these passengers seem to have been
4 Dr. Wordsworth gives a very interesting illustration
from Hippolytus, bishop of Portus (de Antichr. 9), where,
in a detailed allegorical comparison of the Church to a
SHIP
taken on to Puteoli in another ship (xxviii. 11)
which had its own crew and its own cargo: nor
is there a trace of any difficulty in the matter,
though the emergency was unexpected. Now
in English transport-ships, prepared for carrying
troops, it is a common estimate to allow a ton and
a half per man: thus we see that it would be a
mistake to suppose that these Alexandrian corn-ships
were very much smaller than modern trading vessels.
What is here stated is quite in harmony with other
instances. The ship in which Josephus was wrecked
(Vit. c. 3), in the same part of the Levant, had
600 souls on board. The Alexandrian corn-ship
described by Lucian (Navig. 8. vota) as driven
into the Piraeus by stress of weather, and as ex-
citing general attention from its great size, would
appear (from a consideration of the measurements,
which are explicitly given) to have measured 1100
or 1200 tons. As to the ship of Ptolemy Phila-
delphus, described by Athenaeus (v. 204), this must
have been much larger; but it would be no more
fair to take that as a standard than to take the
“Great Eastern” as a type of a modern steamer.
On the whole, if we say that an ancient merchant-
ship might range from 500 to L000 tons, we are
clearly within the mark.
(2.) Steering Apparatus.—Some commentators
have fallen into strange perplexities from observing
that in Acts xxvii. 40 (τὰς ζευκτηρίας τῶν πηδα-
λίων “the fastenings of the rudders’) St. Luke uses
πηδάλιον in the plural. One even suggests that the
ship had one rudder fastened at the bow and another
fastened at the stern. We may say of him, as a
modern writer says in reference to a similar comment
on a passage of Cicero, “It is hardly possible that
he can have seen a ship.” The sacred writer’s use
of πηδάλια is just like Pliny’s use of gubernacula
(NV. H. xi. 37, 88), or Lucretius’s of guberna (iv.
440), Ancient.ships were in truth not steered at all
by rudders fastened or hinged to the stern, but by
means of two paddle-rudders, one on each quarter,
acting in a rowlock or through a port-hole, as the
vessel might be small or large.* This fact is made
familiar to us in classical works of art, as on coins, and
the sculptures of Trajan’s Column. The same thing
is true, not only of the Mediterranean, but of the
early ships of the Northmen, as may be seen in the
Bayeux tapestry. Traces of the “two rudders”
are found in the time of Louis IX.. The hinged
rudder first. appears on the coins of our King Ed-
ward III. There is nothing out of harmony with
this early system of steering in Jam. iii. 4, where
πηδάλιον occurs in the singular; for ‘ the go-
vernor”’ or steersman (6 εὐθύνων) would only use
one paddle-rudder at a time. In a case like that
described in Acts xxvii. 40, where four anchors
were let go at the stern, it would of course be ne-
cessary to lash or trice up both paddles, lest they
should interfere with the ground tackle. When it
became necessary to steer the ship again, and the
anchor-ropes were cut, the lashings of the paddles
would of course be unfastened.
(3.) Build and Ornaments of the Hull.—It is
probable, from what has been said about the mode
of steering (and indeed it is nearly evident from
ancient works of art), that there was no very
marked difference between the bow (ποώρα, ““ fore-
ship,” ver. 30, ‘ fore part,”’ ver. 41) and the stern
ship, he says “ her two rudders are the two Testaments,
by which she steers her course.”
it
SHIP
(πρύμνα, “hinder part,” ver. 41; see Mark iv. 38).
The “hold” (κοίλη, ‘the sides of the ship,” Jonah
1.5) would present no special peculiarities. One
characteristic ornament (the χηνίσιος, or aplustre),
vising in a lofty curve at the stern or the bow, is
familiar to us in works of art, but no allusion to it
occurs in Scripture, Of two other customary orna-
ments, however, one is probably implied, and the
second is distinctly mentioned in the account of St.
Paul’s voyage. ‘That personification of ships, which
seems to be instinctive, led the ancients to paint an
eye on each side of the bow. Such is the custom
still in the Mediterranean, and indeed our own sailors
speak of ‘* the eyes” of a ship. This gives vivid-
ness to the word ἀντοφθαλμεῖν, which is used
(Acts xxvii. 15) where it is said that the vessel
could not “ bear up into” (literally ‘* look αὖ)
the wind. ‘This was the vessel in which St. Paul
was wrecked. An ornament of that which took him
on from Malta to Pozzuoli is more explicitly re-
ferred to. The “sign” of that ship (παράσημον,
Acts xxviii. 11) was Castor AND POLLUX; and
the symbols of these heroes (probably in the form
yepresented in the coin engraved under that article)
were doubtless painted or sculptured on each side of
the bow, as was the case with the goddess Isis on
Lucian’s ship (ἡ mpdpa τὴν ἐπώνυμον τῆς νεὼς
θεὸν ἔχουσα τὴν "low ἑκατέρωθεν, Navig. c. 5).
(4.) Undergirders.— The imperfection of the
build, and still more (see below, 6) the peculiarity of
the rig, in ancient ships, resulted in a greater ten-
dency than in our times to the starting of the planks,
and consequently to leaking and foundering. We
see this taking place alike in the voyages of Jonah,
St. Paul, and Josephus; and the loss of the fleet
of Aeneas in Virgil ( laxis laterum compagibus
omnes,” Aen. i. 122) may be adduced in illustra~
tion. Hence it was customary to take on board
peculiar contrivances, suitably called ‘* helps”
(βοηθείαις, Acts xxvii. 17), as precautions against
such dangers. These were simply cables or chains,
which in case of necessity could be passed round
the frame of the ship, at right angles to its length,
and made tight. The process is in the English
navy called frapping, and many instances could be
given where it has been found necessary in modern
experience. Ptolemy’s great ship, in Athenaeus (J.c.),
carried twelve of these undergirders (ὑποζώματα).
Various allusions to the practice are to be found in
the ordinary classical writers. See, for instance,
Thucyd. i. 29; Plat. Rep. x. 3, 616; Hor. Od. i.
14,6. But it is most to our purpose to refer to
the inscriptions, containing a complete inventory of
the Athenian navy, as published by Boeckh ( Ur-
kunden tiber dis Seewesen des Attischen Staates,
Berl. 1840). ‘The editor, however, is quite mis-
taken in supposing (pp. 133-138) that these under-
girders were passed round the body of the ship trom
stem to stern.
(5.) Anchors.—It is probable that the ground
tackle of Greek and Roman sailors was quite as
good as our own, (On the taking of soundings,
see below, 12.) Ancient anchors were similar in
form (as may be seen on coins) to those which we
use now, except that they were without flukes.
Two allusions to anchoring are found in the N. T.,
one in a very impressive metaphor concerning
Christian hope (Heb. vi. 19): <A saying of
Socrates, quoted here by Kypke (οὔτε ναῦν ἐξ
ἑνὸς ἀγκυρίου οὔτε βίον ἐκ μιᾶς ἐλπίδος ὁρμί-
σασθαι), may serve to carry our thoughts to the
other passage, which is part of the literal narrative
SHIP 1283
of St. Paul’s voyage at its most critical point. The
ship in which he was sailing had four anchors on
board, and these were all employed in the night,
when the danger of falling on breakers was immi-
nent. The sailors on this occasion anchored by
the stern (ἐκ πρύμνης ῥίψαντες ἀγκύρας τέσ-
capas, Acts xxvii. 29). In this there is nothing
remarkable, if there has been time for due prepara-
tion.” Our own ships of war anchored by the stern
at Copenhagen and Algiers. It is clear, too, that
this was the right course for the sailors with whom
St. Paul was concerned, for their plan was to run
the ship aground at daybreak. The only motives
for surprise are that they should have been able so
to anchor without preparation in a gale of wind, ἃ
and that the anchors should have held on such a
night. The answer to the first question thus sug-
gested is that ancient ships, like their modern suc-
cessors, the small craft among the Greek islands,
were in the habit of anchoring by the stern, and
therefore prepared for doing so. We have a proof
of this in one of the paintings of Heiculaneum,
which illustrates another point already mentioned,
viz. the necessity of tricing up the moveable rud-
ders in case of anchoring by the stern (see ver. 40).
The other question, which we have supposed to
arise, relates rather to the holding-ground than
to the mode of anchoring; and it is very inte-
resting here to quote what an English sailing book
says of St. Paul’s Bay in Malta:—** While the
cables hold, there is no danger, as the anchors will
never start” (Purdy’s Sailing Directions, p. 180).
(6.) Masts, Sails, Ropes, and Yards.—These were
collectively called σκεύη or σκευή, or gear (τὰ δὲ
σύμπαντα σκευὴ καλεῖται, Jul. Poll.). We find
this word twice used for parts of the rigging in the
narrative of the Acts (xxvii. 17,19). The rig of an
ancient ship was more simple and clumsy than that
employed in modern times. Its great feature was
one large mast, with one large square sail fastened
to a yard of great length. Such was the rig also of
the ships of the Northmen at a later period. Hence
Ancient ship.
From a painting at Pompeii.
the strain upon the hull, and the danger of starting
tne planks, were greater than under the present
system, which distributes the mechanical pressure
more evenly over the whole ship. Not that there
were never more masts than one, or more sails than
one on the same mast, in an ancient merchantman.
But these were repetitions, so to speak, of the same
general unit of rig. In the account of St. Paul’s
shipwreck very explicit mention is made of the
apteudy (xxvii. 40), which is undoubtedly the
ἐς foresail”” (not “ mainsail,” as in the A. V.). Such
a sail would be almost necessary in putting a large
4N 2
the Roman senate
1284 SHIP
ship about. On that occasion it was used in the
process of running the vessel aground. Nor is it
out of place here to quote a Crimean letter in the
Times (Dec. 5, 1855) :—“ The ‘ Lord Raglan’
(merchant-ship) is on shore, but taken there in a
most sailorlike manner. Direct] y her captain found
he could not save her, he cut away his mainmast
and mizen, and setting a topsail on her foremast,
ran her ashore stem on.’ Such a mast may be
seen,
ships in Roman coins. In the O. T. the mast (iorés)
is mentioned (Is. xxxiii. 23) ; and from another pro-
phet (Ez. xxvii. 5) we learn that cedar-wood from
Lebanon was sometimes used for this part of ships.
There is a third passage (Prov. xxiii. 34, WNT
bam) where the top of a ship’s mast is probably
intended, though there is some slight doubt on the
subject, and the LXX. take the phrase differently.
Both ropes (σχοινία, Acts xxxvii, 32) and sails
(ἱστία) are mentioned in the above-quoted passage
of Isaiah; and from Ezekiel (xxvii. 7) we learn
that the latter were often made of Egyptian linen (if
such is the meaning of στρωμνή). There the word
χαλάω (which we find also in Acts xxvii. 17, 30)
is used for lowering the sail from the yard. It is
interesting here to notice that the word ὑποστέλ-
Aomat, the technical term for fur ling a sail, is twice
used by St. Paul, and that in an address delivered
in a seaport in the course of a voyage (Acts xx. 20,
27). It is one of the very few cases in which the
Apostle employs a nautical metaphor.
This seems the best place for noticing two other
points of detail. Though we must not suppose that
merchant-ships were habitually propelled by rowing,
yet sweeps must sometimes have been employed. In
ΕΖ. xxvii. 29, oars (DIL) are distinctly mentioned ;
and it seems that oak-wood from Bashan was used
in making them (ἐκ τῆς Βασανίτιδος ἐποίησαν
τὰς κώπας σου, ib. 6), Again, in Is. xxxiii, 21,
Dw ‘28 literally means ‘a ship of oar,” ἡ, 6. an
oared πεσε. Rowing, too, is probably implied in
Jon. 1. 15, where the. ἸΧΧ. have simply παρεβιά-
ζοντο. The other feature of the ancient, as of the
modern ship, is the flaz or σημεῖον at the top of
the mast (Is. 7. c., and xxx. 17). Here perhaps, as
in some other respects, the early Egyptian paintings
supply our best illustration.
(7.) Rate of Sailing.—St. Paul’s voyages furnish
excellent data for approximately estimating this ;
and they are quite in harmony with what we learn
from other sources. We must notice here, however
(what commentators sometimes curiously forget),
that winds are variable. ‘Thus the voyage between
Troas and PHILIPPI, accomplished on one occasion
(Acts xvi. 11, 12) in two days, occupied on another
occasion (Acts xx. 6) five days. Such a variation
might be illustrated by what took place almost any
week between Dublin and Holyhead before the
application of steam to seafaring. With a fair wind
an ancient ship would sail fully seven knots an hour.
Two very good instances are again supplied by
St. Paul’s experience: in the voyages from Caesarea
to Sidon (Acts xxvii. 2, 3), and from Rhegium to
Puteoli (Acts xxviii. 13). The result given by
comparing in these cases the measurements of time
and distance corresponds with what we gather from
Greek and Latin authors generally; 6. g., from
Pliny’s story of the fresh fig produced by Cato in
before the third Punic war:
raking over the bow, in representations of
SHIP
“ This fruit was “gathered fresh at Carthage three
days age: that is the distance of the enemy from
your walls” (Plin. #. Ν. xv. 20).
(8.) Sailing before the wind, and near the wind.
—The rig which has been described is, like the rig
of Chinese junks, peculiarly favourable to a quick
run before the wind. We have in the N. T. (Acts
xvi. 11, xxvii. 16) the technical term εὐθυδρομέω
for voyages made under such advantageous condi-
tions.> It would, however, be a great mistake to
suppose that ancient ships could not work to wind-
ward. Pliny distinctly says: ‘* lisdem ventis in
contrarium navigatur prolatis pedibus” (H. N, ii.
48). The superior rig and build, however, of mo-
dern ships enable them to sail nearer to the wind
than was the case in classical times. At one very
critical point of St. Paul’s voyage to Rome (Acts
xxvii. 7) we are told that the ship could not hold
on her course (which was W. by S., from Cnidus
by the north side of Crete) against a violent wind
(μὴ προσεῶντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἀνέμου) blowing from
the N.W., and that consequently she ran down to
the east end of CRETE [SALMONE], and worked
up under the shelter of the south side of the island
(vers. 7,8). [FArR HAvens.] Here the technical
terms of our sailors have been employed, whose
custom is to divide the whole circle of the compass-
card into thirty-two equal parts, called points. A
modern ship, if the weather is not very boisterous,
will sail within six points of the wind. To an
ancient vessel, of which the hull was more clumsy,
and the yards could not be braced so tight, it would
be safe to assign seven points as the limit. This
will enable us, so far as we know the direction of
the wind (and we can really ascertain it in each case
very exactly), to lay down the tacks of the ships
in which St. Paul sailed, beating against the wind,
on the voyages from Philippi to Troas (ἄχρις jue-
ρῶν πέντε, Acts xx. 6), from Sidon to Myra (διὰ
τὸ τοὺς ἀνέμους εἶναι ἐναντίους, XXVii. 3-5), from
Myra to Cnidus (ἐν ἱκαναῖς ἡμέραις βραδυπλο-
οὔντες, xxvii. 6, 7), from Salmone to Fair Havens
(μόλις mapaNeyéuevol, xxvii. 7, 8), and from
Syracuse to Rhegium (περιελθόντες, xxviii. KY, 13):
(9.) Lying-to. —This topic arises naturally out
of what has preceded, and it is so important in
reference to the main questions connected with the
shipwreck at Malta, that it is here made the subject
of a separate section. A ship that could make pro-
gress on her proper course, in moderate weather,
when sailing within seven points of the wind, would
lie-to in a gale, with her length making about the
same angle with the direction of the wind: This ©
is done when the object is, not to make progress at
all hazards, but to ride out a gale in safety 3 and
this is what was done in St. Paul’s ship when she
was undergirded and the boat taken on board (Acts
xxvii. 14-17) under the lee of CLaupA. It is here
that St. Luke uses the vivid term ἀντοφθαλμεῖν,
mentioned above. Had the gale been less violent,
the ship could easily have held on her course. ΤῸ
anchor was out of the question ; and to have drifted
before the wind would have been to run into the
fatal Syrtis on the African coast. [QUICKSANDS. ]
Hence the vessel was /aid-to (“ close-hauled,”’ as the
sailors say) “on the starboard tack,” τ. 6. with her
right side towards the storm. The wind was E.N.E.
[EurocLypon ], the ship’s how would point N. by
b With this compare τὸν ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας δρόμον in an inte-
resting passage of Philo concerning the Alexandrian ships
(in Flacc. p. 968, ed. Frankf, 1691).
SHIP
SHIP 1285
W., the direction of drift (six points being added | τὴν νηστείαν ἤδη παρεληλυθέναι, ib. 9). Certain
for ‘‘lee-way ’) would be W. by N., and the rate
of drift about’a mile and a half an hour. It is
from these materials that we easily come to the
conclusion that the shipwreck must have taken place
on the coast of Malta. [ADRIA. ]
(10.) Ship’s Boat.— This is perhaps the best place
for noticing separately the σκάφη, which appears
prominently in the narrative of the voyage (Acts
xxvii. 16, 92). Every large merchant-ship must
have had one or more boats. It is evident that the
Alexandrian corn-ship in which St. Paul was sailing
from Fair Havens, and in which the sailors, appre-
hending no danger, hoped to reach PHENICE, had
her boat towing behind. When the gale came, one
of their first desires must have been to take the
boat on board, and this was done under the lee of
Clauda, when the ship was undergirded, and brought
round to the wind for the purpose of lying-to; but
it was done with difficulty, and it would seem that
the passengers gave assistance in the task (μόλις
ἰσχύσαμεν περικρατεῖς γενέσθαι τῆς σκάφης,
Acts xxvii. 16). The sea by this time must have
been furiously rough, and the boat must have been
filled with water. It is with this very boat that
one of the most lively passages of the whole narra-
tive is connected. When the ship was at anchor
in the night before she was run aground, the sailors
lowered the boat from the davits with the selfish
desire of escaping, on which St. Paul spoke to the
soldiers, and they cut the ropes (τὰ σχοίνια) and
the boat fell off (Acts xxvii. 30-32).
(11.) Officers and Crew.—In Acts xxvii. 11 we
have both κυβερνήτης and vavKAnpos. The latter
is the owner (in part or in whole) of the ship or the
cargo, receiving also (possibly) the fares of the pas-
sengers. The former has the charge of the steering.
The same word occurs also in Rey. xviii. 17;
Prov. xxiii. 34; Ez, xxvii. 8, and is equivalent to
mpwpevs in Ez. xxvii. 29; Jon.i.6. In Jamesiii. 4
6 εὐθύνων, “the governor,” is simply the steers-
man for the moment. The word for “shipmen”’
(Acts xxvii. 27, 50) and “sailors” (Rev. xviii. 17)
is simply the usual term ναῦται. In the latter
passage ὅμιλος occurs for the crew, but the text is
doubttul. In Ez. xxvii. 8, 9, 26, 27, 29, 34, we
have κωπηλάται for “ those who handle the oar,’
and in the same chapter (ver. 29) ἐπιβάται, which
may mean either passengers or mariners. The only
other passages which.need be noticed here are 1 K.
ix. 27, and 2 Chr. viii. 18, in the account of Solo-
mon’s ships. The former has τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ
ἄνδρες ναυτικοὶ ἐλαύνειν εἰδότες θάλασσαν ; the
latter, παῖδες εἰδότες θάλασσαν.
(12.) Storms and Shipwrecks.—The first cen-
tury of the Christian era was a time of immense
traffic in the Mediterranean; and there must have
been many vessels lost there every year by ship-
wreck, and (perhaps) as many by foundering. This
last danger would be much increased by the form
of rig described above. Besides this, we must
remember that the ancients had no compass, and
very imperfect charts and instruments, if any at
all; and though it would be a great mistake to
suppose that they never ventured out of sight of
land, yet, dependent as they were on the heavenly
bodies, the danger was much greater than now in
bad weather, when the sky was overcast, and
“neither sun nor stars in many days appeared”
(Acts xxvii. 20). Hence also the winter season
was considered dangerous, and, if possible, avoided
(ὄντος ἤδη ἐπισφαλοῦς τοῦ πλούς, διὰ τὸ καὶ
coasts too were much dreaded, especially the Afiican
Syrtis (ib. 17). The danger indicated by breakers
(ib. 29), and the fear of falling on rocks (τραχεῖς
τόποι), are matters of course. St. Paul's expe-
rience seems to have been full of illustrations of all
these perils. We learn from 2 Cor 25 that,
before the voyage described in detail by St. Luke,
he had been “three times wrecked,” and further,
that he had once been *‘a night and a day in the
deep” probably floating on a spar, as was the case
with Josephus. These circumstances give peculiar
force to his using the metaphor of a shipwreck
(ἐναυάγησαν, 1 Tim. i. 19) in speaking of those
who had apostatized from the faith. In connexion
with this general subject we may notice the caution
with which, on the voyage from Troas to Patava
(Acts xx. 13-16, xxi. 1), the sailors anchored for
the night during the period of dark moon, in the
intricate passages between the islands and the main
[MiryLENE; Samos; TrRoGyLLIuM], the evident
acquaintance which, on the voyage to Rome, the
sailors of the Adramyttian ship had with the cur-
rents on the coasts of Syria and Asia Minor (Acts
xxvii. 2-5) [ADRAMYTTIUM], and the provision
for taking soundings in case of danger, as clearly
indicated in the narrative of the shipwreck at.
Malta, the measurements being apparently the same
as those which are customary with us (βολίσαν-
τες εὗρον ὀργυιὰς εἴκοσι" βραχὺ δὲ διαστήσαντες,
καὶ πάλιν βολίσαντες, εὗρον ὀργυιὰς δεκαπέντε,
Acts xxvii. 28).
(13.) Boats on the Sea of Galilee—There is a
melancholy interest in that passage of Dr. Robin-
son’s Researches (iii. 253), in which he says, that on
his approach to the Sea of Tiberias, he saw a single
white sail. This was the sail of the one rickety
boat which, as we learn from other travellers (see
especially Thomson, Zhe Land and the Book, 401-
404), alone remains on a scene represented to us in
the Gospels and in Josephus as full of life from the
multitude of its fishing-boats. In the narratives of
the call of the disciples to be “fishers of men”
(Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20; Luke ν. 1-11),
there is no special information concerning the cha-
racteristics of these boats. In the account of the
storm and the miracle on the lake (Matt. viii. 25-27 ;
Mark iv. 35-41; Luke viii. 22-25), it is for every
reason instructive to compare the three narra-
tives; and we should observe that Luke is more
technical in his language than Matthew, and Mark
than Luke. Thus, instead of σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο
ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ (Matt. viii. 24), we have κατέβη
λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου εἰς τὴν λίμνην (Luke viii. 29), and
again τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος (ver, 24) ; and instead
ot ὥστε τὸ πλοῖον καλύπτεσθαι We have συνε-
πληροῦντο. In Mark (iv. 37) we have τὰ κύματα
ἐπέβαλλεν cis τὸ πλοῖον, ὥστε αὐτὸ ἤδη yeul-
ζεσθαι. This Evangelist also mentions the προσκε-
φάλαιον, or boatman’s cushion,* on which our Blessed
Saviour was sleeping ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ; and he uses the
technical term ἐκόπασεν for the lulling of the storm.
See more on this subject in Smith, Dissertation on
the Gospels (Lond. 1853). We may turn now to
St. John. In the account he gives of what fol-
lowed the miracle of walking on the sea (vi. 16-25),
πλοῖον and πλοιάριον seem to be used indifferently,
and we have mention of other rAoidpia. There
πο τ eee
e The word in Pollux is ὑπηρέσιον, but Hesychius
gives προσκεφάλαιον as the equivalent. See Kiihn’s note
on Jul, Poll. Onom. i. p. 59. (Ed. Amstel. 1706.)
rab.
1286 SHIP
would of course be boats of various sizes on the lake.
The reading, however, is doubtful. Finally, in the
solemn scene after the resurrection (John xxi. 1-8),
we have the terms αἰγιαλός and τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τοῦ
πλοίου, which should be noticed as technical. Here
again πλοῖον and πλοιάριον appear to be synony-
mous. If we compare all these passages with Jose-
phus, we easily come to the conclusion that, with
the large population round the Lake of Tiberias,
there must. have been a vast number both of fishing-
boats and pleasure-boats, and that boat-building
must have been an active trade on its shores (see
Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 367). The term used by
Josephus is sometimes πλοῖον, sometimes σκάφος.
There are two passages in the Jewish historian to
which we should carefully refer, one in which he
describes his own taking of Tiberias by an expe-
dition of boats from Tarichaea (Vit. 32, 33, δ J.
li. 21, 888-10). Here he says that he collected
all the boats on the lake, amounting to 230 in
number, with four men in each. He states also
incidentally that each boat had a “ pilot” and an
“anchor.” The other passage describes the opera-
tions of Vespasian at a later period in the same neigh-
bourhood (B. J. iii. 10, $§1, 5, 6,9). These opera-
tions amounted to a recular Roman sea-fight: and
large rafts (σχεδίαι) are mentioned besides the
boats or σκάφη.
(14.) Merchant-Ships in the Old Testament.—
The earliest passages where seafaring is alluded to
in the O. T. are the following in order, Gen, xlix.
13, in the prophecy of Jacob concerning Zebulun
(κατοικήσει παρ᾽ ὅρμον πλοίων) ; Num. xxiv. 24,
in Balaam’s prophecy (where, however, ships are not
mentioned in the LXX.¢); Deut. xxviii. 68, in one
of the warnings of Moses (ἀποστρέψει σε Κύριος
eis Αἴγυπτον ἐν mAolos); Judg. v. 17, in Debo-
rah’s Song (Δὰν eis τί παροικεῖ πλοίοις 3). Next
after these it is natural to mention the illustrations
and descriptions connected with this subject in Job
(ix, 26, ἢ καί ἐστι ναυσὶν ἴχνος 6500); and in
the Psalms (xlvii. [xlviii.] 7, ἐν πνεύματι βιαίῳϊ,
συντρίψεις πλοῖα Θαρσίς, ciii. [civ.] 26, ἐκεῖ
πλοῖα διαπορεύονται, cvi. 23, of καταβαίνοντες
εἰς θάλασσαν ἐν πλοίοις). Proy. xxiii. 34 has
already been quoted. To this add xxx. 19 (τρίβους
vhos TovToTopovans), xxxi. 14 (ναῦς ἐμπορευομένη
μακρόθεν). Solomon's own ships, which may have
suggested some of these illustrations (1 K. ix. 26;
2 Chr, viii. 18, ix. 21), have previously been men-
tioned. We must notice the disastrous expedition
of Jehoshaphat’s ships from the same port of Ezion-
geber (1 K. xxii. 48,49; 2 Chr. xx. 36, 37). The
passages which remain are in the prophets. Some
have been already adduced from Isaiah and Eze-
kiel. In the former prophet the general term
“ships of Tarshish”’ is variously given in the
LXX., πλοῖον θαλάσσης & (ii. 16), πλοῖα Kapxn-
ddvos (xxiii. 1, 14), πλοῖα Θαρσίς (Ix. 9). For
another allusion to seafaring see xliii. 14. The
celebrated 27th chapter of Ezekiel ought to be care- |
fully studied in all its detail; and in Jonah i. 3-16,
the following technical phrases (besides what has
been already adduced) should be noticed: ναῦλον
(3), συντριβῆναι (4), ἐκβολὴν ἐποιήσαντο τῶν
4 So in Mark iv. 36, “ little ships,” the true reading |
appears to be πλοῖα, not πλοιάρια.
© So in Dan. xi. 30, where the same phrase “ ships of
Chittim ” occurs, there is no strictly corresponding phrase
in the LXX. The translators appear to have read NS")
SHIP
σκευῶν, τοῦ κουφισθῆναι (5), κοπάσει ἣ θάλασσα
(11, 12). In Dan. xi. 40 (συναχθήσεται Βασιλ-
evs τοῦ Boppa ἐν ἅρμασι καὶ ἐν ἱππεῦσι καὶ ἐν
ναυσὶ πολλαῖς) we touch the subject of ships of war.
(15.) Ships of War in the Apocrypha.—Military
operations both by land and water (ἐν τῇ θα-
λάσσῃ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ξηρᾶς, 1 Mace. viii. 23, 32)
are prominent subjects in-the Books of Maccabees.
Thus in the contract between Judas Maccabaeus
and the Romans it is agreed (ib. 26, 28) that no
supplies are to be afforded to the enemies of either,
whether otros, ὅπλα, ἀργύριον, or πλοῖα. Ina
later passage (xv. 3) we have more explicitly, in
the letter of King Antiochus, πλοῖα πολεμικά (see
v. 14), while in 2 Mace. iv. 20 (as observed above)
the word τριήρεις, “ galleys,” occurs in the account
| of the proceedings of the infamous Jason. Here we
must not forget the monument erected by Simon
Maccabaeus on his father’s grave, on which, with
other ornaments and military symbols, were πλοῖα
ἐπιγεγλυμμένα, εἰς τὸ θεωρεῖσθαι ὑπὸ πάντων
τῶν πλεόντων τὴν θάλασσαν (1 Mace. xiii. 29).
Finally must be mentioned the noyade at Joppa,
when the resident Jews, with wives and children,
200 in number, were induced to go into boats and
were drowned (2 Mace. xii. 3, 4), with the venge-
ance taken by Judas (τὸν μὲν λιμένα νύκτωρ ἐνέ-
πρησε καὶ τὰ σκάφη κατέφλεξε, ver. 6). It seems
sufficient simply to enumerate the other passages in
the Apoerypha where some allusion to sea-faring is
made. They are the following: Wisd. v. 10, xiv.
1; KEcclus, xxxiii. 2, xliii. 245; 1 Esd. iv. 23.
(16.) Nautical Terms.—The great repertory of
such terms, as used by those who spoke the Greek lan-
guage, is the Onomasticon of Julius Pollux; and it
may he useful to conclude this article by mention-
ing a few out of many which are found there, and
also in the N, T. or LXX. First, to quote some which
have been mentioned above. We find the following
both in Pollux and the Scriptures: σχοινία, σκευή,
κλυδών, χειμών, φόρτιον, ἐκβολή, σύρτις, οὐδὲν
ὑποστέλλεσθαι, οὐκ ἦν τὸν ἥλιον ἰδεῖν, σκάφη,
σκάφος, ναῦλον, συντριβῆναι, ὀφθαλμὸς ὅπου
καὶ τοὔνομα τῆς νεὼς ἐπιγράφουσι (compared
with Acts xxvii. 15, xxviii. τ), τραχεῖς αἰγιαλοί
(compared with Acts xxvii, 29,40). The following
are some which have not been mentioned in this
article: —avdyeoOa1 and κατάγεσθαι (e.g. Acts
xxviii. 11, 12), σανίδες (Ezek. xxvii. 5), τρόπις
(Wisd. v. 10), ἀναβαίνω (Jon. i. 3; Mark vi. 51),
γαλήνη (Matt. viii. 26), ἀμφίβληστρον (Matt. iv.
18, Mark i. 16), ἀποφορτίσασθαι (Acts xxi. 4),
ὑποπνέω (xxvii. 13), τυφών (ἄνεμος τυφωνικός,
xxvii. 14), ἀγκύρας κατατείνειν (ἀγκύρας ἐκτεί-
νειν, ib. 30), ὑβριστὴς ἄνεμος (ὕβρεως, 10, ὕβριν,
21), προσοκέλλω (ἐποκέλλω, ib. 41), κολυμβᾷν
(ib. 42), διαλυθείσης τῆς νεώς (ἣ πρύμνα ἐλύετο,
ib, 41). This is an imperfect list of the whole
number; but it may serve to show how rich the
N.T. and LXX. are in the nautical phraseology of
the Greek Levant. ‘To this must be added a notice
of the peculiar variety and accuracy of St. Luke’s
| ordinary phrases for sailing under different cireum-
stances, πλέω, ἀποπλέω, βραδυπλοέω, διαπλέω,
ἐκπλέω, καταπλέω, ὑποπλέω, παραπλέω, εὐθυ-
and wy} for OY¥) and OY in these passages respec-
tively. ἢ :
f The LXX. here read ΟἾΔ}, katén, “ small,” for
Tr
op kadim, “ east.”
s This is perhaps a mistake of the copyist, who tran-
| scribed from dictation, and mistook Θαρσίς for Θαλάσσης.
SHIPHI
δρομέω, ὑποτρέχω, παραλέγομαι, φέρομαι, δια-
φέρομαι, διαπεράω.
(17.) Authorities—The preceding list of St.
Luke’s nautical verbs is from Mr. Smith’s work
on the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (London,
Ist ed, 1848, 2nd ed, 1856). No other book need
be mentioned here, since it has for some time been
recognised, both in England and on the Continent,
as the standard work on ancient ships, and it con-
tains a complete list of previous books on the
subject. Reference, however, may be made to the
memoranda of Admiral Penrose, incorporated in the
notes to the 27th chap. of Conybeare and Howson’s
The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (London, 2nd
ed. 1856). Waszie|:
SHIPH'I (YAW: Sapat; Alex. Σεφείν :
Sephei). A Simeonite, father of Ziza, a prince of
the tribe in the time of Hezekiah (1 Chr. iv. 37).
SHIPH'MITE, THE (57: 6 τοῦ Σεφνεί;
Alex. 6 τ. Sepvi; Saphonites). Probably, though
not certainly, the native of SHEPHAM. Zabdi, the
officer in David’s household who had charge of the
wine-making (1 Chr. xxvii. 27), is the only person
so distinguished. [G.]
SHIPH'RAH (775: Σεπφώρα: Sephora,
Ex. i. 15). The name of one of the two midwives of
the Hebrews who disobeyed the command of Pharaoh,
the first oppressor, to kill the male children, and
were therefore blessed (vers. 15-21). It is not
certain that they were Hebrews: if they were, the
name Shiphrah would signify ‘ brightness” or
“beauty.” It has also an Egyptian sound, the last
syllable resembling that of Potiphar, Poti-phra,
SHISHAK 1287
and Hophra, in all which we recognize the word
PH-RA, P-RA, “the sun,” or “ Pharaoh,” in com-
position, when alone written in Heb. ny : in these
cases, however, the Δ) is usual, as we should expect
from the Egyptian spelling. [PuAH.] [R.S. P.]
SHIPH'TAN ({QBY: Σαβαθᾶν : Sephthan).
Father of Kemuel, a prince of the tribe of Ephraim
(Num. xxxiv. 24).
SHISHA (εν: Σηβά; Alex. Σεισά: δ5α).
Father of Elihoreph and Ahiah, the royal secretaries
in the reign of Solomon (1 K. iv. 3). He is appar-
ently the same as SHAVSHA, who held the same
position under David.
. SHI'SHAK (pw: Σουσακίμ : Sesac), king
of Egypt, the Sheshenk I. of the monnments, first
sovereign of the Bubastite
a
xxiind dynasty. His name
r=)
O ile
POA
LLP
va)
is thus written in hiero-
glyphics.
Chronology.—The reign
of Shishak offers the first
determined synchronisms of
Egyptian and Hebrew his-
tory. Its chronology must
therefore be examined. We
first give a table with the
Egyptian and Hebrew data
for the chronology of the
diymasty,) contimued: asi tal cue πιο ἢ
as the time of Zerah, who was probably a successor
ot Shishak, in order to avoid repetition in treating of
the latter. [ZERAH.]
TABLE OF FIRST SIX REIGNS OF DYNASTY XXII.
Eeyptran Data.
Hesrew Data.
Manetho. Monuments, Kings. Events.
Africanus, Eusebius. Order. Highest Solomon, 40 Years. Jeroboam flees to
Wir Shishak.
Yrs. Yrs. Judah, Yrs. Israel. Yra.
1, Ses6nchis. . 21 | 1. Ses6nchdésis . 21 | 1. SHESHENK [I.] XXI. | 1. Rehoboam , 17 | 1. Jeroboam. . 22 | Shishak 90 (7) in-
vades Judah,
2. Osorthén, . 15 | 2. Osorthén .. 15 | 2. USARKEN [I.] Rehoboam, 5,
2. Abijah ... 3
ϑ- 8. TEKERUT [I.] & Asa ....- 41
Three others,
4. 4. USARKEN [111 | XXIII. 2. Nadab 22
25 1, 2972
5. SHESHENK [II.] 8. Baasha .
4. Elah 2
5. Zimri
6. Omri. . . . . 12
6. Takeléthis . 13 | Takeléthis . . 13 6, TEKERUT [II.] XIV.
Respecting the Egyptian columns of this table,
it is only necessary to observe that, as a date of the
23rd year of Usarken II. occurs on the monuments,
it is reasonable to suppose that the sum of the
third, fourth, and fifth reigns should be 29 years
instead of 25, ΚΘ being easily changed to ΚΕ
(Lepsius, Kénigsbuch, p. 85). We follow Lepsius’s
arrangement, our Tekerut I., for instance, being the
same as his.
correction should be made in one of the data. We
there mentioned, on the authority of Champollion,
that an inscription bore the date of the 22nd year
of Shishak (i. p. 327). Lepsius, however, states
that it is of the 21st year, correcting Champollion,
who had been followed by Bunsen and others
(xxii Aeg. Kénigsdyn. p. 272 and note 1). It
must, therefore, be supposed, that the invasion of
Judah took place in the 20th, and not in the 21st
The synchronism of Shishak and Solomon, and
that of Shishak and Rehoboam may bé nearly fixed,
as shown in article CHRONOLOGY, where a slight
a The text in 1 K. xiv. 25 has pure’, but the Keri
proposes UY.
1288 SHISHAK
year of Shishak. The first year of Shishak would
thus about correspond to the 26th of Solomon, and
the 20th to the 5th of Rehoboam.
The synchronism of Zerah and Asa is more diffi-
cult to determine. It seems, from the narrative jn
Chronicles, that the battle between Asa and Zerah
took place early in the reign of the king of Judah.
It is mentioned before an event of the 15th year of
his reign, and afterwards we read that there was
no [more] war unto the five and thirtieth year of the
reign of Αβα (2 Chr. xv. 19). This is immediately
followed by the account of Baasha’s coming up against
Judah ‘in the six and thirtieth year of the reign of
Asa” (xvi. 1). The latter two dates may perhaps
be reckoned from the division of the kingdom, unless
we can read the 15th and 16th,» for Baasha began
to reign in the 3rd year of Asa, and died, after a
reisn of 24 years, and was succeeded by Elah, in
the 26th year of Asa. It seems, therefore, most
probable that the war with Zerah took place early
in Asa’s reign, betore his 15th year, ‘and thus also
early in the reign of Usarken 11. The probable
identitication of Zerah is considered under that name
[ZERAH. |
The chronological place of these synchronisms
may be calculated on the Egyptian as well as the
Biblical side. The Egyptian data enable us to cal-
culate the accession of Shishak approximatively,
reckoning downwards from the xixth dynasty, and
upwards from the xxvith. The first 60 years of
the Sothie Cycle commencing B.c. 1322 ¢ appear to
have extended from the latter part of the reign of
Rameses II. to a year after the 12th of Rameses III.
The intervening reigns are Men-ptah 19,° Sethee
Il. z, Seth-nekht x, which added to Rameses II. x
and Rameses III. 12, probably represent little less
than 50 years. The second 60 years of the same
Cycle extended from the reign of one of the sons of
Rameses 1Π|., Rameses VI., separated from his
father by two reigns, certainly short, one of at least
5 years, to the reign of Rameses XI., the reigns in-
tervening between Rameses VI. and XI. giving two
dates, which make a sum of 18 years. We can
thus very nearly fix the accession of the xxth
dynasty. In the order of the kings we follow M. de
Rougé (Etude, pp. 183, seqq.).
xix. 2. Rameses IT.
. Men-ptah
. methee Tie. τὺ ς Sra |
. Seth-nekht
. Rameses II. .
. Rameses IV. .
. Rameses V.
. Rameses VI. .
. Rameses VIL.
Rameses Ὑ 111.
. Rameses IX. .
. Rameses X.
. Rameses XI. .
xx,
| 1262
. “3 ole
ἐῷ οὐ οὐ δὺ σὺ Ὁ ὦ "Ὁ μὸ σὰ μα (Ὁ
2)
The commencement of the xxth dynasty would,
on this evidence, fall about B.c. 1280. The dura-
tion of the dynasty, according to. Manetho, was 178
(Eus.) or 135 (Afr.) years. The highest dates
found give us a sum of 99 years, and the Sothic
data and the circumstance that there were five if
not six kings after Rameses XI., show that the
Ὁ The 25th and 26th are out of the question, unless
the cessation of war referred to relate to that with Zerah,
for it is said that Asa and Baasha warred against each other
“all their days’ (1 K. xv. 16, 32).
© We prefer the date B.c. 1322 to M. Biot’s B.c. cir. 1300,
for reasons we cannot here explain.
4 In a previous article (CHRONOLOGY, i. 326a@) we dated
the first year of ‘Tirhakah’s reign over Egypt B.v. 689. |
|
SHISHAK
length cannot have been less than 120 years. Ma-
netho’s numbers would bring us to B.c. 1102 or
1145, for the end of this dynasty. The monuments
do not throw any clear light upon the chronology
of the succeeding dynasty, the xxist: the only indi-
cations upon which we can found a conjecture are
those of Manetho’s lists, according to which it ruled
for 130 years. This number, supposing that the
dynasty overlapped neither the xxth nor the xxiind,
would bring the commencement of the xxiind and
accession of Shishak to B.c. 972 or 1015.
Reckoning upwards, the highest certain date is
that of the accession of Psammitichus I., B.c. 664.
He was preceded, probably with a short interval, by
Tirhakah, whose accession was B.C. cir. 695.2 The
beginning of Tirhakah’s dynasty, the xxvth, was
probably 719. For the xxivth and xxiiird dy-
nasties we have only the authority of Manetho’s
lists, in which they are allowed a sum of 95 (Afr.
6+89) or 88 (Eus. 44444) years. This carries
us up to B.c. 814 or 807, supposing that the dy-
nasties, as here stated, were wholly consecutive.
To the xxiind dynasty the lists allow 120 (Af?.) or
49 (Eus.) years. The latter sum may be discarded
at once as merely that of the three reigns mentioned.
The monuments show that the former needs correc-
tion, for the highest dates of the individual kings
and the length of the reign of one of them, She-
shenk III., determined by the Apis tablets, oblige us
to raise its sum to at least 166 years. This may
be thus shown :—1. SesOnchis 21. (1 Sheshenk I.
21). 2. Osorthén 15. (2. Usarken I.) 3, 4, 5.
Three others, 25(29?). (3. Tekerut 1, 4. Usar-
ken II. 23. 5, Sheshenk II.) 6. Takeléthis 13.
(6. Tekerut 11. 14.) 7, 8, 9. Three others, 42.
(7. Sheshenk IJ]. date 28 reign 51. 8. Peshee 2.
9. Sheshenk IV. 37). (21+15+29+413-+-51+
1+36=166.) It seems impossible to trace the
mistake that has occasioned the difference. The
most reasonable conjectures seem to be either that
the first letter of the sum of the reign of She-
shenk III. fell out in some copy of Manetho, and
51 thus was changed to 1, or that this reign fell
out altogether, and that there was another king not
mentioned on the monuments, The sum would
thus be 166+-2, or 169, which, added to our last
number, place the accession of Sheshenk I. B.c. 980
or 983, or else seven years later than each of these
dates.
The results thus obtained from approximative
data are sufficiently near the Biblical date to make
it certain that Sheshenk I. is the Shishak of Solo-
mon and /Rehoboam, and to confirm the Bible chro-
nology.
The Biblical date of Sheshenk’s conquest of Judah
has been computed in a previous article to be B.C.
cir. 969 [CHRONOLOGY, i. p. 327], and this having
taken place in his 20th year, his accession would
have been B.C. cir. 988. The progress of Assyrian
discovery has, however, induced some writers to
propose to shorten the chronology by taking 35
years as the length of Manasseh’s reign, in which
case all earlier dates would have to be lowered 20
years. It would be premature to express a positive
This date is founded upon an interpretation of an Apis-
tablet, which is not certain. “It concludes with the words
“done” or “made in year 21?” which we formerly read,
as had been previously done, “ completing 21 years,”
referring the number to the life of the bull, not to the year
of the king in which the tablet was executed or completed.
(See the text in Lepsius, Konigsbuch, p.95.) ον,
»
sian
SHISHAK
opinion on this matter, but it must be remarked that,
save ouly the taking of Samaria by Sargon, although
this is a most important exception, the Assyrian
chronolozy appears rather to favour the reduction,
and that the Kgyptian chronology, as it is found,
does not seem readily reconcileable with the re-
ceived dates, but to require some small reduction.
The proposed reduction would place the accession of
Sheshenk I. B.c. cir. 968, and this date is certainly
more in accordance with those derived from the
Keyptian data than the higher date, but these data
are too approximative for us to lay any stress upon
minute results from them. Dr. Hincks has drawn
attention to what appears to be the record, already
noticed by Brugsch, in an inscription of Lepsius’s
Tekerut IL., of an eclipse of the moon on the 24th
Mesori (4th Apr.) Β.6. 945, in the 15th year of
his father... The latter king must be Usarken L., if
these data be correct, and the date of Sheshenk I.’s
accession would be B.C. 980 or 981. But it does
not seem certain that the king of the record must
be Tekerut I. Nor, indeed, are we convinced that
the eclipse was lunar, (See Journ, Sac. Lit. Jan.
1863; Lepsius, Denkméiler, iii. bl. 256, a).
History.—In order to render the following obser-
vations clear, it will be necessary to say a few
words on the history of Egypt before the accession
of Sheshenk I. On the decline of the Theban line
or Rameses family (the xxth dynasty), two royal
houses appear to have arisen. At Thebes, the
high-priests of Amen, atter a virtual usurpation, at
last took the regal title, and in Lower Egypt a
Tanite dynasty (Manetho’s xxist)) seems to have
gained royal power. But it is possible that there
was but one line between the xxth and xxiind dy-
nasties, and that the high-priest kings belonged to
the xxist. The origin of the royal line of which
Sheshenk I. was the head is extremely obscure.
Mr. Birch’s discovery that several of the names of
the family are Shemitic has led to the supposition
that it was of Assyrian or Babylonian origin. Shi-
shak, PW%Y, may be compared with Sheshak,
IV, a name of Babylon (rashly thought to be for
Babel by Atbash’), Usarken has been compared with
Sargon, and Tekerut, with Tiglath in Tiglath-Pileser.
If there were any doubt as to these identifications,
some of which, as the second and third cited, are
certainly conjectural, the name Namuret, Nimrod,
which occurs as that of princes of this line, would
afford conclusive evidence, and it is needless here to
compare other names, though those occurring in the
genealogies of the dynasty, given by Lepsius, well
merit the attention of Semitic students («xxii
Acg. Kénigsdyn. and Kénigsbuch). +It is worthy
of notice that the name Nimrod, and the designa-
tion of Zerah (perhaps a king of this line, otherwise
a general in its service), as ‘‘ the Cushite,” seem to
indicate that the family sprang from a Cushite
origin. They may possibly have been connected
* with the MASHUWASHA, a Shemitic nation, appa-
rently of Libyans, for Tekerut II. as Prince is called
“oveat chief of the MASHUWASHA,” and also
“creat chief of the MATU,’” or mercenaries; but
they can scarcely have been of this people. Whether
eastern or western Cushites, there does not seem to
be any evidence in favour of their having been Nigri-
tians, and as there is no trace of any connexion be-
tween them and the xxvth dynasty of Ethiopians,
they must rather be supposed to be of the eastern
branch. Their names, when not Egyptian, are trace-
able to Shemitic roots. which is not the case, as far as
SHISHAK 1289
we know, with the ancient kings of Ethiopia, whose
civilization is the same as that of Egypt. We find
these foreign Shemitic names in the tamily of the
high-priest-king Her-har, three of whose sons are
called, respectively, MASAHARATA, MASAKA-
HARATA, and MATEN-NEB, although the names
of most of his other sons and those of his line
appear to be Egyptian. This is not a parallel case
to the preponderance of Shemitic names in the line of
the xxiind dynasty, but it warns us against too
positive a conclusion. M. de Rougé, instead ot
seeing in those names of the xxiind dynasty a Shem-
itic or Asiatic origin, is disposed to trace the line
to that of the high-priest-kings. Manetho calls the
xxiind a dynasty of Bubastites, and an ancestor of the
priest-king dynasty bears the name Meree-bast, ‘* be-
loved of Bubastis.”” Both lines used Shemitic names,
and both held the high-priesthood of Amen (comp.
Etude sur une Stéle Egyptienne, pp. 203, 204).
This evidence does not seem to us conclusive, for
policy may have induced the line of the xxiind
dynasty to effect intermarriages with the family of
the priest-kings, and to assume their functions.
The occurrence of Shemitic names at an earlier time
may indicate nothing more than Shemitic alliances,
but those alliances might not improbably end in
usurpation. Lepsius gives a genealogy of Sheshenk I.
from the tablet of Har-p-sen from the Serapeum,
which, if correct, decides the question (xii Aénigs-
dyn. pp. 267-269). In this, Sheshenk I. is the
son of a chief Namuret, whose ancestors, excepting
his mother, who is-called ‘‘ royal mother,” not as
Lepsius gives it, “royal daughter” (tude, &c.,
p- 203, note 2), are all untitled persons, and, all
but the princess, bear foreign, apparently Shemitic
names. But, as M. de Rougé observes, this gene-
alogy cannot be conclusively made out from the
tablet, though we think it more probable than he
does (Htude, p. 203, and note 2).
Sheshenk I., on his accession, must have found
the state weakened by internal strife and deprived
of much of its foreign influence. In the time of the
later kings of the Rameses family, two, if not three,
sovereicns had a real or titular authority; but
before the accession of Sheshenk it is probable that
their lines had been united: certainly towards the
close of the xxist dynasty a Pharaoh was powerful
enough to lead an expedition into Palestine and cap-
tuye Gezer (1 K. ix. 16). Sheshenk took as the title
of his.standard, ‘‘ He who attains royalty by uniting
the two regions [of Egypt].” (De Rouge, Mtude,
&e., p. 204; Lepsius, AGnigsbuch, xliv. 567 A, a).
He himself probably married the heiress of the Ra-
meses family, while his son and successor Usarken
appears to have taken to wife the daughter, and
perhaps heiress, of the Tanite xxist dynasty. -Pro-
bably it was not until late in his reign that he was
able to carry on the foreign wars of the earlier king
who captured Gezer. It is observable that we
trace a change of dynasty in the policy that induced
Sheshenk at the beginning of his reign to receive
the fugitive Jeroboam (1 K. xi. 40). Although it
was probably a constant practice tor the kings of
Egypt to show hospitality to fugitives of import-
ance, Jeroboam would scarcely have been included
in their class. Probably, it is expressly related
that he fled to Shishak because he was well received
as an enemy of Solomon.
We do not venture to lay any stress upon the
LXX. additional portion of 1 K. xii., as the narra-
| tive there given seems irreconcileable with that of the
\
1290 SHISHAK
previous chapter, which agrees with the Mas. text.
In the latter chapter Hadad (LXX. Ader) the
Edomite flees from the slaughter of his people by
Joab and David to Egypt, and marries the elder
sister of Tahpenes (LXX. Thekemina), Pharaoh’s
queen, returning to Idumaea after the death of
David and Joab. In the additional portion of the
former chapter, Jeroboam—already said to have
fled to Shishak (LXX. Susacim)—is married after
Solomon’s death to And, elder sister of Thekemina
the queen. Between Hadad’s return and Solomon’s
death, probably more than thirty years elapsed, cer-
tainly twenty. Besides, how are we to account for
the two elder sisters? Moreover, Shishak’s queen,
his only or principal. wife, is called KARAAMA,
which is remote from Tahpenes or Thekemina.
[TAHPENES. |
The king of Egypt does not seem to have com-
menced hostilities during the powerful reign of So-
lomon. It was not until the division of the tribes,
that, probably at the instigation of Jeroboam, he
attacked Rehoboam. ‘The following particulars of
this war are related in the Bible: ‘In the fifth
year of king Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt
came up against Jerusalem, because they had trans-
gressed against the Lorp, with twelve hundred
chariots, and threescore thousand horsemen: and
the people [were] without number that came with
him out of Egypt; the Lubim, the Sukkiim, and
the Cushim. And he took the fenced cities which
[pertained] to Judah, and came to Jerusalem”
(2 Chr, xii, 2-4). Shishak did not pillage Jeru-
salem, but exacted all the treasures of his city from
Rehoboam, and apparently made him tributary
(5, 9-12, esp. 8). The narrative in Kings men-
tions only the invasion and the exaction (1 K. xiv.
25, 26). The strong cities of Rehoboam are thus
enumerated in an earlier passage: ‘* And Rehoboam
dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in
SHISHAK
Judah. He built» even Beth-lehem, and Etam,
and Tekoa, and Beth-zur, and Shoco, and Adullam,
and Gath, and Mareshah, and Ziph, and Adoraim,
and Lachish, and Azekah, and Zorah, and Aijalon,
and Hebron, which [are*] in Judah and in Benjamin
fenced cities ’’ (2 Chr. xi. 5-10).
Shishak has left a record of this expedition,
sculptured on the wall of the great temple of Ε]-
Karnak. It is a list of the countries, cities, and
tribes, conquered or ruled by him, or tributary to
him. In this list Champollion recognized a name
which he translated, as we shall see, incorrectly,
“the kingdom of Judah,” and was thus led to trace
the names of certain cities of Palestine. The docu-
ment has since been more carefully studied by Dr.
Brugsch, and with less success by Dr. Blau. On
account of its great importance as a geographical
record, we give a full transcription of it.
There are two modes of transcribing Hebrew or
cognate names written in hieroglyphics. ‘They can
either be rendered by the English letters to which
the hieroglyphics correspond, or by the Hebrew
letters for which they are known from other in-
stances to be used. The former mode is perhaps
more scientific; the latter is more useful for the
present investigation. It is certain that the Egyp-
tians employed one sign in preference for 1, and
another for M, but we cannot prove that these signs
had any difference when used for native words,
though in other cases it seems clear that there
was such a difference. We give the list transcribed
by both methods, the first as a check upon the
second, for which we are indebted to M. de Rougé’s
comparative alphabet, by far the most satisfactory
yet published, though in some parts it may be
questioned (Revue Archéologique, N.S. xi. 351-354).
These transcriptions occupy the first two columns of
the table, the third contains Dr, Brugsch’s identifi-
cation, and the fourth, our own.
THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIST OF SHESHENK I.
No.|Transer. in Eng. Let®.}Transcr. in Heb. Lets.| Brugsch’s Identification. Our Identification.
13 | ReBATA ΝΙΝ | Rabbith. Rabbith?
14 | TAANKAU SNDIVNRW | Taanach. Taanach,
15 | SHeNeMA-AA NNO Shunem. Shunem.
16 | BAT-SHeNRAA NNW MND | Beth-shan.
17 | ReHeBAA wand. |’ Rehob. Rehob.
18 | HePURMAA ΜΝΟΊΣΙΠ | Haphraim. Haphraim.
19 | ATeRMA xpois Adoraim, Adoraim.
21 | SHUATEE. TINY
22 | MAHANMA YOINAYO | Mahanaim. Mahanaim.
23 | KeBAANA NIYIAP | Gibeon. Gibeon.
24 | BAT-HUAReN join nxa | Beth-horon. Beth-horon.
25 | KATMeT ΓΝ | Kedemoth. Kedemoth.
26 | AYUReN oy Aijalon. Aijalon.
27 | MAKeTAU INTDYD | Megiddo. Megiddo.
23 | ATEERA ΝΥΝ Edrei ?
29 | YUTeH-MARK sbyn ath Kingdom of Judah?
31 | HAANeM DINNN 3 Anem?
32 | AARANA NIN | Hglon.
33 | BARMA xpoxa | Bileam, Ibleam. Bileam, Ibleam.
e The list of Shishak in the original hieroglyphics is | Geogr. Inschr. ii. taf. xxiv.; and commented upon by
published by Rosellini, Monumenti Reali, no. cxlvili.; | Brugsch (Id. pp. 56 seqq.) and Dr. Blau (Zeitschrift ἃ,
Lepsius, Denkméler, Abth. iii. bl. 252; and Brugsch, | Deutsch. Morgenlind. Gesellsch. xv. pp. 233 seqq.).
νων ποι διυνουυνΝνδμννουννυνννν.. ὦ... ...
101
102
./Transcr. in Eng. Lets.
TATPeTeR
A. H. M.
BAT-AARMeT
KAKAREE
SHAUKA
BAT-TePU
ABARAA
BAT-TAB..
NUPAR
. PeTSHAT
Pe-KeleT ?
ATMAA
TARMEM
SRR ΤΑΙ
.. RTAA
. APeN
PeAAMAK
AA-AATeMAA
ANARA
PeHAKRAA
FeT YUSHAA
ARAHeReR
PeHeKRAA
MeRSARAMA
SHEBPeReT
NeKBeREE
SHeBPeRet
WARAKEET
PeHeKRAA
NAABAYT
AATeTMAA
TePKeKA
MA.A..
TRAY tare
KANAA
PeNAKBU
ATeM-KeTeT-HeT
TASHTNAU
PeHKARA
SHNAYAA
HAKA
PeNAKBU
WAHTURKA
PeNAKBU
ASH-HeTA
PeHeKREE
HANEENYAU
PeHeKRAU
| ARKAT
MERTMAM
HANANYEE
MERTRA-AA
PeHeKeR
TRUAN
SHISHAK
Transcr. in Heb. Let*.| Brugsch’s Identification.
ὈΠΕῚΝΙ
DON
ρον ns
SONPND
NDINV
YO AND
NNONIN
ONT ΠΝ
ΝΘ.)
ΓΝ.
ΠΣ
NNDIN
ΟΝ
ebb...
nerd...
JON --
ΝΒ
NNDINNY
ΜΌΝΟΝ
ΝΝΌΡΝΠΕ
Nevins
bors
xedpnp
YONINDID
noaw
3)
noaw
ΓΝ ΝῚ
xxdpnp.
Mmxay
XNDTIY
NPPDr
SYD
ooo NY
NNINI
ΔΝ
ἘΠΠΌΣ ΙΝ
INITWNY
xOxpnp
NNN
NPNT
ΝΒ
sodinas
1UINID
NNN
Son
IWIN
yan
ἼΝΡΟΝ
OXDTID
NINN
SNNTD
snp
ΤΩΝ
Alemeth.
Shoco.
Beth-Tappuah.
Abel.
Edom.
Zalmonah ?
Tirzah?
Azem.
Hagarites.
Hagarites.
Shephelah ?
Shephelah ?
Hagarites,
Hagarites,
Negeb.
Negeb.
Hagarites.
Hagarites.
Hagarites.
Our Identification,
Alemeth, Almon.
Ha-kikkar (Circle of Jordan).
Shoco.
Beth-Tappuah,
Edom?
Azem, or Ezem?
Hagarites,
Letushim ?
Hagarites.
Cf. Salma ?
Shephelah ?
Shephelah ἢ
Hagarites.
Nebaioth.
Tema?
Kenites?
Negeb.
Azem, or Ezem
Hagarites.
Negeb.
Negeb.
Hagarites.
Hagarites.
Duma?
Cf. Eddara?
Hagarites.
1291
1292
SHISHAK
Arad,
Beth-anoth.
Sharuhen ?
Golan?
Transcr. in Heb. Lets, Brugsch’s Identification,
Beth-lebaoth, Lebaoth.
Our Identification.
Adbeel?
Adbeel?
Rekem (Petra) ?
Eldaah ?
Beth-lebaoth, Lebaoth? Rabbah?
Eldaah ?
Jerahmeelites ?
Cf. Eddara?
Maachah ?
4
Beth-anoth, or Beth-anath?
No. |'Transer, in Eng. Lets.
103 | HEETBAA δ ΝΠ
104 | SHeRNeRAM onbdsbyi
105 | HEETBAA NS27N
106 | TEEWATEE ΓΝ
107 | HAKeRMA or yodpyn )
HAReKMA yoposn j
108 | AARATAA ΝΙΝ ον
109 | RABAT nxaxd
110 | AARATAAY ssacndy
111 | NeBPTeBeT inajaaiy
112 | YURAHMA YOANN
116 | MeREE. M ἘΠ ἈΠΕ
117 | MeRTRA-AA NNN1V779
118 | PeBYAA δ Δ 5
119 | MAHKAA. ΝΠ
120" ARYUK JIN -
121 | FeRTMA-AA ΝΘ
122 | MeRBARA ΠΝ
123 | BPAR-RATA xmas
124 | BAT-A-AAT nyy ΤᾺΣ
125 | SHeRHATAU ΝΙΝ ΠῚ
126 | ARMATeN {NYAS
127 | KeRNAA ΝΣ
128 | MeRMA.. τῷ ND1WD
129 | .. RHeT ΠΝ
130 | ... RAA NN...
ΠΑ =. -- YD
132 | AR. Macks ὃν
155) VAIN 46 - 2 dy
The following identifications are so evident that
it is not necessary to discuss them, and they may
be made the basis of our whole investigation :—Nos.
14, 22, 24, 26, 27, 38, 39. It might appear at
first sight that there was some geographical order,
but a closer examination of these few names shows
that this is not the case, and all that we can infer
is, that the cities of each kingdom or nation are in
general grouped together. The forms of the names
show that irregularity of the vowels that charac-
terizes the Egyptian language, as may be seen in
the different modes in which a repeated name is
written (Nos. 68, 71, 77, 87, 94, 96, 101). The
consonants are used very nearly in accordance with
the system upon which we have transcribed in the
second column, save in the case of the Egyptian R,
which seems to be indifferently used for Ἵ and.
There are several similar geographical lists, dating
for the most part during the period of the Empire,
but they differ from this in presenting few, if any,
repetitions, and only one of them contains names
certainly the same as some in the present. They
are lists of countries, cities, and tribes, forming the
Egyptian Empire, and so far records of conquest that
any cities previously taken by the Pharaoh to whose
reign they belong are mentioned. The list which
contains some of the names in Sheshenk’s is
ot Thothmes III., sixth sovereign of the xviiith
dynasty, and comprises many names of cities of
A
Palestine mainly in the outskirts of the Israelite
territory. It is important, in reference to this
list, to state that Thothmes I1I., in his 23rd year,
had fought a battle with confederate nations near
Megiddo, whose territories the list enumerates. The
narrative of the expedition fully establishes the
identity of this and other towns in the list of
Shishak. It is given in the document known as the
Statistical Tablet of El-Karnak (Birch, ‘¢ Annals of
Thothmes IIL.,’’ Archaeologia, 1853; De Rougé,
Rec. Arch. N.S. xi. 347 seqq.; Brugsch, Geogr.
Inschr. ii. pp. 32 seqq.). The only general result
of the comparison of the two lists is, that in the
later one the Egyptian article is in two cases pre-
fixed to foreign names, No. 56, NEKBU, of the list
of Thothmes III., being the same as Nos. 84, 90,
92, PeNAKBU of the list of Shishak; and No.
105, AAMeKU, of the former, being the same as
No. 65, PeAAMAK, of the latter.
We may now commence a detailed examination
of the list of Shishak. No. 18 may correspond to
Rabbith in Issachar. No, 14 is certainly Taanach,
a Levitical city in the same tribe, noticed in the
inscription of Thothmes commemorating the cam-
paign above mentioned, in some connexion with the
route to Megiddo: it is there written TAANAKA,
No. 15 is probably Shunem, a town of Issachar:
the form of the hieroglyphic name seems to indicate
a dual (comp. Nos. 18, 19, 22), and it is remark-
character for the second letter.
SHISHAK
able that Shunem has been thought to be originally
a dual, DIY for DU? (Ges. Thes. 5. ν.). No. 16
_1s supposed by Dr. Brugsch to be Beth-shan; but
the final letter of the Ezyptian name is wanting in
the Hebrew. It was a city of Manasseh, but in the
tribe of Issachar. No. 17 is evidently Rehob, a
Levitical city in Asher; and No. 18 Haphraim, a
town in Issachar. No. 19 seems to be Adoraim,
one of Rehoboam’s strong cities, in the tribe of
Judah: Adullam is out of the question, as it com-
mences with Y, and is not a dual. No. 21 we can-
not explain. No. 22 is Mahanaim, a Levitical city in
Gad. No. 23 is Gibeon, a Levitical city in Benja-
min. No. 24 is Beth-horon, which, though counted
to Ephraim, was on the boundary of Benjamin. It
was assigned to the Levites. he place consisted
of two towns or villages, both of which we may
suppose are here intended. No. 25 is evidently the
Levitical city Kedemoth in Reuben, and No. 26,
Aijalon, also Levitical, in Dan. No. 27 is the
famous Megiddo, which in the Statistical Tablet of
Thothmes III. is written MAKeTA, and in the same
king’s list MAKeTEE, but in the introductory title
MAKeTA. It was a city of the western division of
Manasseh. No. 28 may perhaps be Edrei, in trans-
Jordanite Manasseh, though the sign usually em-
ployed for ἢ) is wanting. No. 29 is the famous
name which Champollion read “the kingdom of
Judah.” To this Dr. Brugsch objects, (1) that the
name is out of place as following some names of
towns in the kingdom of Judah as well as in that of
Israel, and preceding others of both kingdoms ; (2)
that the supposed equivalent of kingdom (MARK,
]oY15) does not satisfactorily represent the Hebrew
nino0, but corresponds to ΤΡ; and (3) that the
supposed construction is inadmissible. He proposes
to read spon ‘Ti? as the name of a town, which
he does not find in ancient Palestine. The position
does not seem to us of much consequence, as the
list is evidently irregular in its order, and the form
might not be Hebrew, and neither Arabic nor
Syriac requires the final letter. The kingdom of
Judah cannot be discovered in the name without
disregard of grammar; but if we are to read
** Judah the king,” to which Judah does the name
point? There was no Jewish king of that name
before Judas-Aristobulus. It seems useless to look
for a city, although there was a place called Jehud
in the tribe of Dan. The only suggestion we can
propose is, that the second word is “ kingdom,” and
was placed after the first in the manner of an
Egyptian determinative. No. 31 may be compared
with Anem in Issachar ( D3), occurring, however,
only in 1 Chr. vi. 73 (Heb. 58), but it is not cer-
tain that the Egyptian H ever represents Y. No.
32 has been identified by Dr. Brugsch with Eglon,
but evidence as to its position shows that he is in
error. In the Statistical Tablet of El-Karnak it is
placed in a mountain-district apparently southward
of Megiddo, a half-day’s march trom the plain of that
city. There can be little doubt that M. de Rougé
is correct in supposmg that the Hebrew original
signifed an ascent (comp. PY ; Rev. Arch. p.
390). This name also occurs in the list of Thothmes
(Id. p. 360); there differing only in having another
No. 33 has been
identified by Dr. Brugsch with Bileam or Ibleam,
a Levitical city in the western division of Manasseh,
For No. 34 we can make no suggestion, and No, 35
SHISHAK 1293
is too much effaced for any conjecture to be hazarded.
No. 36 Dr. Brugseh identifies with Alemeth, a
Levitical city in Benjamin, also called Almon, the
first being probably either the later or a correct
form. [ALEMETH; ALMON.] No. 37 we think
may be the Circle of Jordan, in the A. V. Plain of
Jordan. No. 38 is Shoco, one of Rehoboam’s strong
cities, and 39, Beth-Tappuah, in the mountainous
part of Judah. No. 40 has been supposed by Dr.
Brugsch to be an Abel, and of the towns of that
name he chooses Abel-shittim, the Abila of Josephus,
in the Bible generally called Shittim. No. 45,
though greatly effaced, is sufficiently preserved for
us to conclude that it does not correspond to any
known name in ancient Palestine beginning with
Beth: the second part of the name commences with
ANY, as though it were “the house of the wolf or
Zeeb,” whieh would agree with the south-eastern
part of Palestine, or indicate, which is far less likely,
a place named atter the Midianitish prince Zeeb, or
some chief of that name. No. 53 is uncertain in its
third letter, which is indistinct, and we offer no con-
jecture. No. 54 commences with an erased sign,
followed by one that is indistinct. No. 55 is doubt-
ful as to reading: probably it is Pe-KETET. Pe
can be the Egyptian article, as in the name: of the
| Hagarites, the second sign in Egyptian signifies
“ little,’ and the remaining part corresponds to the
Hebrew ny, Kattath, ‘small,’ the name of a town
in Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15), apparently the same as
Kitron (Judg. i. 30). The word KET is found in an-
cient Egyptian with the sense “ little” (comp. Copt.
KOCXYI, De Rouge, Etude, p- 66). Itseems, how-
ever, rare, and may be Shemitic. No. 56 is held by
Dr. Brugsch to be Edom, and there is no objection to
this identification but that we have no other names
positively Edomite in the list. No. 57 Dr. Brugsch
compares with Zalmonah, a station of the Israelites
in the desert. If it be admissible to read the first
letter as a Hebrew %, this name does not seem
remote from Telem and Telaim, which are probably
the names of one place in the tribe of Judah. Nos.
58, 59, and 64 are not sufticiently preserved for us
to venture upon any conjecture. No. 65 has been
well supposed by Dr. Brugsch to be the Hebrew
Pry, “a valley,” with the Egyptian article pre-
fixed, but what valley is intended it seems hopeless
to conjecture: it may be a town named after a
valley, like the Beth-emek mentioned in the account
of the border of Asher (Josh. xix. 27). No. 66
has been reasonably identified by Dr. Brugsch with
Azem, which was in the southernmost part of
Judah, and is supposed to have been afterwards
allotted to Simeon, in whose list an Ezem occurs.
No. 85 reads ATeM-AE T-HeT? the second part
being the sign for “ little” (comp. No. 55). This
suggests that the use of the sign for “ great” as
the first character of the present name is not
without significance, and that there was a great
and little Azem or Ezem, perhaps distinguished
in the Hebrew text by different orthography.
No. 67 we cannot explain. No. 68 is unques-
tionably “the Hagarites,” the Egyptian article being
prefixed. The same name recurs Nos. {1 ΠΝ
87, 94, 96, and 101. In the Bible we find the
Hagarites to the east of Palestine, and in the classical
writers they are placed along the north of Arabia.
The Hagaranu or Hagar are mentioned as conquered
by Sennacherib (Rawlinson’s Hdt. i. p. 476 ; Oppert,
Sargonides, p. 42). No. 69, FeTYUSHAA, seems,
1294 SHISHAK
from the termination, to be a gentile name, and in
form resembles Letushim, a Keturahite tribe. But
this resemblance seems to be more than superficial,
for Letushim, “the hammered or sharpened,” comes
from vind, “he hammered, forged,” and woe
(unused) signifies “he bent or hammered.” From
the occurrence of this name near that of the
Hagarites, this identification seems deserving of
attention. No. 70 may perhaps be Aroer, but the
correspondence of Hebrew and Egyptian scarcely
allows this supposition, No. 72 commences with
a sign that is frequently an initial in the rest
of the list. If here syllabic, it must read MEB ;
if alphabetic, and its alphabetic use is possible
at this period, M. In the terms used for Egyp-
tian towns we find MER, written with the same
sign, as the designation of the second town in a
nome, therefore not a capital, but a town of im-
portance. That this sign is here similarly em-
ployed seems certain from its being once followed by
a geographical determinative (No. 122). We there-
fore read this name SARAMA, or, according to
Lepsius, BARAMA. The final syllable seems to
indicate a dual. We may compare the name Salma,
which occurs in Ptolemy’s list of the towns of
Ayvabia Deserta, and his list οὐ those of the interior.f
No. 73, repeated at 75, has been compared by
Dr. Brugsch with the Shephelah, or maritime plain
of the Philistines. ‘The word seems nearer to Shib-
boleth, “a stream,” but it is unlikely that two
places should have been so called, and the names
amoug which it occurs favour the other explana-
tion. No. 74 seems cognate to No. 87, though it
is too different for us to venture upon supposing it
to be another form of the same name. No. 76 has
been compared by Dr. Brugsch with Berecah, “a
pool,’ but it seems more probably the name of a
tribe. No. 78 reads NAABAYT, and is unques-
tionably Nebaioth. There was a people or tribe of
Nebaioth in Isaiah’s time (Is. lx. 7), and this
second occurrence of the name in the form of that
of Ishmael’s son is to be considered in reference to
the supposed Chaldaean origin of the Nabathaeans.
In Lepsius’s copy the name is N. TAY'’, the
second character being unknown, and no doubt, as
well as the third, incorrectly copied. The occurrence
of the name immediately after that of the Hagarites
is sufficient evidence in favour of Dr. Brugsch’s read-
ing, which in most. cases of difference in this list is
to be preferred to Lepsius’s.6 No. 79, AATeTMAA,
may perhaps be compared with Tema the son of
Ishmael, if we may read AATTeMAA. No. 80
we cannot explain, Nos. 81 and 82 are too much
effaced for any conjecture. No. 83 we compare
with the Kenites: here it is a tribe. No. 84 is
also found in the list of Thothmes: here it has the
Egyptian article, PeNAKBU, there it is written
NeKBU (Kev. Arch. pp. 364, 365). It evidently
corresponds to the Hebrew 33, “ the south,” some-
times specially applied to the southern district of
Palestine. No. 85 reads ATeM-Ae7-HeT? ‘The
second part of the name is “ little” (comp. No. 55).
We have already shown that it is probably a
“little” town, corresponding to the “ great”? town
No, 66. But the final path of No. 85 remains
f We were disposed to think that this might be Jeru-
salem, especially on account of the dual termination ; but
the impossibility of reading the first character ATUR or
AUR (7&5), as an ideographic sign for “river,” to say
nothing of the doubt as to the second character, makes us
SHISHAK
unexplained. No. 86 we cannot explain. No. 87
differs from the other occurrences of the name of
the Hagarites in being followed by the sign for
MER: we therefore suppose it to be a city of this
nation. No. 88 may be compared with Shen (1
Sam. vii. 12), which, however, may not be the name
of a town or village, or with the two Ashnahs
(Josh. xv. 33, 43). Nos. 89, 91, and 93 we cannot
explain. No. 95 presents a name, repeated with
slight variation in No. 99, which is evidently that
of a tribe, but we cannot recognize it. No. 97
equally bafiles us. No. 98 is a town TeMAM,
possibly the town of Dumah in the north of
Arabia or that in Judah. No. 100 is a town
TRA-AA, which we may compare with Eddara
in Arabia Deserta. No. 102 may mean a resting-
place, from the root 1. No. 103, repeated at
105, is apparently the name of a tribe. It may ke
Adbeel, the name of a son of Ishmael, but the form
is not close enough for us to offer this as more than
a conjecture. Nos. 104 and 106 we cannot explain.
No. 107 is either HAKeRMA or HAReKMA. It
may be compared with Rekem or Arekeme, the old
name of Petra according to Josephus (A. J. iv. 7),
but the form is probably dual. No. 108 has been
compared with Arad by Dr. Brugsch: it is a coun-
try or place, and the variation in No. 110 appears
to be the name of the people. No. 109 may be
Beth-lebaoth in Simeon, evidently the same as
Lebaoth originally in-Judah, or else Rabbah in
Judah. No. 111 we cannot explain. No. 112
is most like the Jerahmeelites in the south of Judah.
No. 116 is partly effaced. No. 117 is the same
name as No. 100. No. 118 is probably the name
of an unknown tribe. No, 119 may be Maachah,
if the geographical direction is changed. No, 120
is partly effaced. No. 121 we cannot explain. No.
122 appears to be a town of BARA or BALA.
No. 123 seems to read BAR-RATA, (tN DY),
but we know no place of that name. No. 124
reads BAT-AAT, but there can be little doubt
that it is really BAT-ANAT. In this case it
might be either Beth-anath in Naphtali or Beth-
anoth in Judah. No, 125 we cannot explain. No.
126 appears to commence with Aram, but the rest
does not correspond to any distinctive word known
to follow this name. No. 127 has been identified
by Dr. Brugsch with Golan, a Levitical city in
Bashan. ‘The remaining names are more or less
effaced.
It will be perceived that the list contains three
classes of names mainly grouped together—(1) Le-
vitical and Canaanite cities of Israel; (2) cities of
Judah ; and (3) Arab tribes to the south of Pales-
tine. The occurrence together of Levitical cities
was observed by Dr. Brugsch. It is evident that
Jeroboam was not at once firmly established, and
that the Levites especially held to Rehoboam.
Therefore it may have been the policy of Jeroboam
to employ Shishak to capture their cities. Other
cities in his territory were perhaps still garrisoned
by Rehoboam’s forces, or held by the Canaanites,
who may have somewhat recovered their inde-
pendence at this period. The small number of
cities identified in the actual territory of Reho-
reject this reading ; and the position in the list is unsuit-
able. The Rev. D. Haigh has learnedly supported this
view, at which he independently arrived, in a corre-
spondence.
8 Lepsius’s copy presents many errors of carelessness.
ee ΎΥΎῚ
— ee a
SHITRAL
boam is explained by the erasure of fourteen names
of the part of the list where they occur. The
identification of some names of Arab tribes is of
great interest and historical value, though it is to
be feared that further progress can scarcely be
made in their part of the list.
The Pharaohs of the Empire passed through
northern Palestine to push their conquests to the
Euphrates and Mesopotamia. Shishak, probably
unable to attack the Assyrians, attempted the
subjugation of Palestine and the tracts of Arabia
which border Egypt, knowing that the Arabs would
interpose an effectual resistance to any invader of
Egypt. He seems to have succeeded in consolidating
his power in Arabia, and we accordingly find Zerah in
alliance with the people of Gerar, if we may infer
this from their sharing his overthrow. [[R.5. P.]
SHITRA'T ("OC ; Keri, OI: Σατραΐ:
Setrai). A Sharonite who was over David’s herds
that fed in Sharon (1 Chr, xxvii. 29).
SHITTAH-TREE, SHITTIM (πον, shit-
tah: ξύλον ἄσηπτον : ligna setim, spina) is with-
out doubt correctly referred to some species of
Acacia, of which three or four kinds occur in the
Bible lands. ‘The wood of this tree—perhaps the
A, Seyal is more definitely signitied—was exten-
sively employed in the construction of the taber-
Acacia Seyal.
nacle, the boards and pillars of which were made
of it; the ark of the covenant and the staves for
carrying it, the table of shew-bread with its
staves, the altar of burnt-offerings and the altar
‘of incense with their respective staves were also
constructed out of this wood (see Ex. xxy., xxvi.,
MAMVIsg) EXXVI-, XXAVI.). In [5- ΣΙ 199 ithe
SHITTAH-TREE 1295
Acacia tree is mentioned with the “ cedar, the
myrtle, and the oil-tree,” as one which God would
plant in the wilderness. The Egyptian name of
the Acacia is sont, sant, or santh: see Jablonski,
Opuse. i. p. 2613 Rossius, Htymol. Aegyp. p. 273 ;
and Prosper Alpinus (Plant. Aegypt. p. 6), who
thus speaks of this tree: “" The acacia, which the
Egyptians call Sant, grows in localities in Egypt
remote from the seag and large quantities of this
tree are produced on the mountains of Sinai, over-
hanging the Red Sea, That this tree is, without
doubt, the true acacia of the ancients, or the
Egyptian thorn, is clear from several indications,
especially from the fact that no other spinous tree
occurs in Egypt which so well answers to the
required characters. These trees grow to the
size of a mulberry tree, and spread their branches
aloft.” “The wild acacia (Mimosa Nilotica),
under the name of Sint,” says Prof. Stanley (S.
gy P. p. 20), “everywhere represents the ‘ seneh’
or ‘senna’ of the Burning Bush,” The Heb.
term (π is, by Jablonski, Celsius, and many
other authors, derived from the Egyptian word,
the } being dropped; and, from an Arabic MSs,
cited by Celsius, it appears that the Arabic term
also comes from the Egyptian, the true Arabic name
for the acacia being Karadh (Hierob. i. p. 508).
The Shittah tree of Scripture is by some writers
thought to refer more especially to the Acacia
Seyal, though perhaps the Acacia Nilotica and A.
Arabica may be included under the term. The
A, Seyal is very common in some parts of the
peninsula of Sinai (M. Bové, Voyage du Caire au
Mont Sinai, Ann. des Scienc. Nat. 1834, i., sec.
ser. p. 166; Stanley, S.g¢ P. pp. 20, 69, 298).
These trees are more common in Arabia than in
Palestine, though there is a valley on the west side
of the Dead Sea, the Wady Seydal, which derives its
name from a few acacia trees there. The Acacia
Seyal, like the A. arabica, yields the well-known
substance called gum arabie which is obtained by.
incisions in the bark, but it is impossible to say
whether the ancient Jews were acquainted with its
use, From the tangled thickets into which the
stem of this tree expands, Stanley well remarks that
hence is to be traced the use of the plural form of
the Heb. noun, Siattim, the sing. number occurring
but once only in the Bible.* Besides the Acacia
Seyal, there is another species, the A. tortilis,
common on Mt. Sinai. Although none of the
above-named trees are sufficiently large to yield
plants 10 cubits long by 13 cubit wide, which we
are told was the size of the boards that formed the
tabernacle (Ex. xxxvi. 21), yet there is an acacia
that grows near Cairo, viz. the A. Serissa, which
would supply boards of the required size. There is,
however, no evidence to show that this tree ever
grew in the peninsula of Sinai. And though it
would be unfair to draw any conclusion from such
negative evidence, still it is probable that “ the
boards ”” (DPT) were supplied by one of the
other acacias. There is, however, no necessity to
limit the meaning of the Hebrew wap (keresh) to
“a single plank.” In Ez. xxvii. 6 the same word,
in the singular number, is applied in a collective
sense to ‘* the deck”? of a ship (comp. our “ on
board”’), The keresh of the tabernacle, therefore,
8 Livingstone (Trav. in S. Africa, abridged ed., p. 77)
thinks the Acacia giraffa (Camel-thorn) supplied the
wood for the Tabernacle, &c. ‘It is,” he adds, ‘an im-
| perishable wood, while that which is usually supposed to
be the Shittim (Acacia Nilotica) wants beauty and soon
decays.”
1296 SHITTIM
may denote “ two or more boards joined together,’
which, from being thus united, may have been
expressed by a singular noun. These acacias, which
are for the most part tropical plants, must not
be confounded with the tree (Robinia pseudo-
acacia) popularly known by this name in England,
which is a North American plant, and belongs to
a different genus and sub-order. The true acacias,
most of which possess hard and durable wood
(comp. Pliny, H. N. xiii. 19; Josephus, Ant. iii.
6. 81), belong to the order Leguminosae, sub-order
Mimoseae. [W. ἘΠῚ
SHIT'TIM (Dw, with the def. article:
Σαττείν ; in the Prophets, τὰ σχοίνα: Settim, Abel-
satim). The place of Israel’s encampment between
the conquest of the Transjordanic highlands and the
psssage of the Jordan (Num. xxxiii. 49, xxv. 1; Josh.
ii. 1, 111. 1; Mic. vi. 5). Its full name appears to
be given in the first of these passages—Abel has-
Shittim—*“ the meadow, or moist place, of the
acacias.” It was “ἴῃ the Arboth-Moab, by Jordan-
Jericho:” such is the ancient formula repeated over
and over again (Num. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, xxxi. 12,
xxxili. 48, 49). That is to say, it was in the Ara-
bah or Jordan Valley, opposite Jericho, at that part
of the Arabah which belonged to and bore the name
of Moab, where the streams which descend fiom
the eastern mountains and force their winding way
through the sandy soil of the plain, nourished a vast
growth of the Seyal, Sunt, and Sidr trees, such as
is nourished by the streams of the Wady Kelt and
the Ain Sultan on the opposite side of the river.
It was in the shade and the tropical heat of these
acacia-groves that the people were seduced to the
licentious rites of Baal-Peor by the Midianites; bat
it was from the same spot that Moses sent forth
the army, under the fierce Phinehas, which worked
so fearful a retribution for that licence (xxxi. 1-12).
It was from the camp at Shittim that Joshua sent
out the spies across the river to Jericho (Josh. ii. 1).
The Nachal-Shittim, or Wady-Sunt, as it would
now be called, of Joel (iii. 18), can hardly be the
same spot as that described above, but there is
nothing to give a clue to its. position. [G.]
SHI'ZA (NW: Sud; Alex. Ed: Siza).
A Reubenite, father of Adina, one of David's mighty
men ,1 Chr, xi. 42),
SHO'A (YW: Σονέ; Alex. Sods: tyranni).
A proper name which occurs only in Ez. xxiii. 23,
in connexion with Pekod and Koa. The three appa-
rently designate districts of Assyria with which
the southern kingdom of Judah had been intimately
connected, and which were to be arrayed against it
for punishment. ‘The Peshito-Syriac has Lid, that
is Lydia; while the Arabic of the London Polyglott
has Sat, and Lud occupies the place of Koa. Rashi
remarks on the three words, ‘‘ The interpreters say
that they signify officers, princes, and rulers.” This
rendering must have been traditional at the time of
Aquila (ἐπισκέπτης καὶ τύραννος καὶ κορυφαῖος)
and Jerome (nobiles tyranni et principes). Gese-
nius ( Tes. p. 1208 α) maintains that the context
requires the words to be taken as appellatives, and
not as proper names; and Fiirst, on the same
ground, maintains the contrary (Handwb. s. v.
yp). Those who take Shoa as an appellative refer
to the usage of the word in Job xxxiv. 19 (A. V,
“rich”?) and Is, xxx. 5 (A. V. “ bountiful’’),
where it signifies rich, liberal, and stands in the
latter passage in parallelism with 14), nddib, by
SHOBI
which Kimchi explains it, and which is elsewhere
rendered in the A. V. ‘ prince” (Prov. xvii. 7) and
noble” (Prov. viii. 16). But a consideration of
the latter part of the verse Ez. xxiii. 23, where the
captains and rulers of the Assyrians are distinctly
mentioned, and the fondness which Ezekiel else-
where shows for playing upon the sound of proper
names (as in xxvii. 10, xxx. 5), lead to the conclu-
sion that in this case Pekod, Shoa, and Koa are
proper names also; but nothing ‘further can be
said. The only name which has been found at all
resembling Shoa is that of a town in Assyria men-
tioned by Pliny, “ Sue in rupibus,” near Gangamela,
and west of the Orontes mountain chain. Bochart
(Phaleg, iv. 9) derives Sue from the Chaldee δὴ),
shwa,arock. - [W. A. W.]
SHO'BAB (anv: Σωβάβ ; Alex. Σωβᾳδάν in
Sam.: Sobab). 1. Son of David by Bathsheba (2
Sam. v. 14; 1 Chr. iii. 5, xiv. 4).
2. (SovBaB; Alex. SwBaB). Apparently the
son of Caleb the son of Hezron by his wife Azubah
(1 Chr. ii. 18). But the passage is corrupt.
SHO'BACH (421: Sede; Alex. Σαβάχ,
2 Sam. x. 16: Sobach). The general of Hadarezer
king of the Syrians of Zoba, who was in command
of the army which was summoned from beyond the
Euphrates against the Hebrews, after the defeat ot
the combined forces of Syria and the Ammonites
before the gates of Rabbah. He was met by David
in person, who crossed the Jordan and attacked him
at Helam. The battle resulted in the total defeat
of the Syrians. Shobach was wounded, and died
on the field (2 Sam. x. 15-18). In 1 Chr. xix.
16, 18 he is called SHOPHACH, and by Josephus
(Ant. vii. 6, §3) Ξάβεκος.
SHOBA'I (AY: Swat, Σαβί ; Alex. Σαβαιΐ
in Neh.: Sohai, Sobat). The children of Shohai
were a family of the doorkeepers of the Temple,
who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 42; Neh.
vii. 45). Called Samz in 1 Esdr. v. 28.
SHO'BAL (S31: Σωβάλ :- Sobal). 1. The
second son of Seir the Horite (Gen. xxxvi. 20:
1 Chr. i. 38), and one of the “Ἅ dukes” or phylarchs
of the Horites (Gen. xxxvi. 29). [E. S. P.]
2. Son of Caleb the son of Hur, and founder or
prince of Kirjath-jearim (1 Chr. ii. 50, 52).
3. (SovAda.) In 1 Chr. iv. 1, 2, Shobal appears
with Hur among the sons of Judah, and as the
father of Reaiah. He is possibly the same as the
preceding, in which case Reaiah may be identical
with Haroeh, the two names in Hebrew being not
very unlike.
SHO'BEK (paiv’ : Σωβήκ: Sobec). One of the
heads of the people who sealed the covenant with
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 24).
SHO'BI aw: Οὐεσβί: Alex. Οὐεσβεί : Sobi).
Son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon
(2 Sam. xvii. 27). He was one of the first to meet
David at Mahanaim on his flight from Absalom,
and to offer him the hospitality of a powerful and
wealthy chief, for he was the son of David’s old
friend Nahash, and the bond between them was
strong enough to survive on the one hand the
insalts of Hanun, and on the other the conquest and
destruction of Rabbah. Josephus calls him Siphar
(Ant. vii. 9, 88), “chief (Suvaorns) of the Am-
monite country.”
SHOCO
SHO'CO (Di: τὴν Σοκχώθ; and so Alex.:
Socho), 2 Chr. xi. 7. A variation of the name
Socou, unnecessarily increased in the A. V. by the
substitution of SA for the S of the original.
SHO'CHO (δ᾽ : τὴν Σωχώ: Socho), 2 Chr.
xxviii. 18. One of the four varieties of the name
Socou. In this case also the discrepancies in the
A. V. are needlessly multiplied by SA being substi-
tuted for S and ch for ὁ of the original.
SHO’'CHOH (mdi: Σοκχώθ; Alex. oxxw
and goxrxw: Soccho), 1 Sam. xvii. 1. This, like
SHocno, Socuou, and SHoco, is an incorrect vari-
ation of the name SOcOH.
SHO'HAM (DAW: Ἰσοάμ; Alex. Ἰσσοάμ:
Soam). A Meravite Levite, son of Jaaziah (1 Chr.
xxiv. 27).
SHOE. [SanpAt.]
SHO'MER (Hi: Σωμήρ: Somer). 1. A
man of the tribe of Asher (1 Chr. vii, 32), who is
also called Shamer (ver. 34).
2. The father of Jehozabad, who slew King Joash
(2 K. xii. 21): in the parallel passage in 2 Chr, xxiv.
26, the name is converted into the feminine form
Shimrith, who is further described as a Moabitess.
This variation may have originated in the dubious
gender of the preceding name Shimeath, which is
also made feminine by the Chronicler. [W. L. B.]
SHO'PHACH (qbIw: Σωφάθ; Alex. Swpdxs
Σωβάχ : Sophach). SHOBACH, the general of Ha-
darezer (1 Chr. xix. 16, 18).
SHO’/PHAN (TDW ; Samar. DSW: τὴν So-
pap: Sophan). One of the fortified towns on the
east of Jordan which were taken possession of and
rebuilt by the tribe of Gad (Num, xxxii. 95). It
is probably an athx to the second Atroth, to distin-
guish it. from the former one, not an independent
place. No name resembling it has yet been met
with in that locality. [G.]
SHOSHAN'NIM. “To the chief musician
upon Shoshannim” is a musical direction to the
leader of the Temple-choir which occurs in Pss.
xlv., lxix., and most probably indicates the melody
“after” or “in the manner of ” ὦν, cals HAS Vis
‘upon ”’) which the Psalms were to be sung. As
‘¢ Shoshannim ”’ literally signifies “lilies,” it has
been suggested that the word denotes lily-shaped
instruments of music (Simonis, Lex. s. v.), perhaps
cymbals, and this view appears to be adopted by
De Wette (Die Psalmen, p. 34). Hengstenberg
gives to it an enigmatical interpretation, as indi-
cating “ the subject or subjects treated, as Jilies
figuratively for bride in xly.; the delightful con-
solations and deliverances experienced in lIxix., etc.”
(Davidson, Introd. ii. 246); which Dr. Davidson
very truly characterises as “a most improbable
fancy.’ The LXX. and Vulgate have in both
Psalms ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων and pro iis
qui immutabuntiir respectively, reading apparently
own Sy for pws Sy. Ben Zeb (Otsar
Hashshor. 5. v.) regards it as an instrument of
psalmody, and Junius ς᾽ and Tremellius, after Kimchi,
render it ““ hexachorda,” an instrument with six
strings, referring it to the root shésh, “ six,” and
this is approved by Eichhorn in his ἘΠῚ of
Simonis. [W. A. W.]
SHOSHAN'NIM-E'DUTH. In the title of
Ps. lxxx. is found the direction ‘‘ to the chief mu-
VOL, II.
SHUBAEL 1297
sician upon Shoshannim-eduth ” (ny Dwy),
which appears, according to the most probable con-
jecture, to denote the melody or air “ after” or
“in the manner of” which the Psalm was to be
sung. As the words now stand they signify “lilies,
a testimony,” and the two are separated by a large
distinctive accent. In themselves they have no
meaning in the present text, and must therefore be
regarded as probably a fragment of the beginning
of an solder Psalm with which the choir were
familiar. Ewald gives what he considers the
original meaning —‘* ‘lilies,’ that is, pure, innocent
is ‘ the Law ;’” but the words will not bear this
interpretation, nor is it possible in their present
position to assign to them any intelligible sense.
For the conjectures of those who regard the words
as the names of musical instruments, see the articles
SHOSHANNIM, SHUSHAN-EDUTH. [W. A. W.]
SHU’A (ie : Sava: Suc). A Canaanite of
Adullam, father of Judah’s wife (1 Chr. ii. 3), who
was hence called Bath-Shua. In the LXX. of Gen.
xxxviii. 2, Shua is wrongly made to be the name of
the daughter. [BATH-SHUA. |
SHU'AH (Mi: Said, Σωέ; Alex. Swvé: Sue).
1. Son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2 ;
1 Chr. i. 32).
2. (AM: *Aoxd: Sua.) Properly “Shuchah.”
The name Shuah occurs among the descendants of
Judah as that of the brother of Chelub (1 Chr. iv.
11). For ‘ Chelub the brother of Shuah,” the LXX.
read ‘* Caleb the father of Achsah.” In ten of
Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s MSS. Shuah is made the
son of Chelub.
3. (δὴ: Sava: Sue). The father of Judah’s
wife, the Canaanitess (Gen. xxxviii. 2, 12); also
called SHUA in the A. V. The LXX. make Shuah
the name of the woman in both instances.
SHU'AL μην: Σουλά; Alex. Sovar: Sual,.
Son of Zophah, an Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 36).
SHU'AL, THE LAND OF Opi YAS: γῆ
Σωγάλ ; Alex. is lost: terra Sual). A district
named only in 1 Sam. xiii. 17, to denote the direc-
tion taken by one of the three parties of marauders
who issued from the Philistine camp at Michmash.
Its connexion with Ophrah (probably Taiyibeh) and
the direction of the two other routes named in the
passage make it pretty certain that the land of
Shual lay north of Michmash. If therefore it be
identical with the “land of Shalim” (1 Sam. ix.
4)—as is not impossible—we obtain the first and
only clue yet obtained to Saul’s journey in quest of
the asses. The name S/ual has not yet been iden-
tified in the neighbourhood of Tazyibeh or elsewhere.
It may have originated in the Hebrew signification
of the word—* jackal ;”” in which case it would be
appropriate enough to the wild desolate region east
of Taiyibeh ; a region containing a valley or ravine
at no great distance from Taiyibeh which bore and
perhaps still bears the name of “ Hyaenas.” [ZE-
BOIM, VALLEY OF.] Others (as Thenius, in Hxeg.
Handb.) derive the name from a different root, and
interpret it as ‘* hollow land.” [G.]
SHU'BAEL (ON3IY: Σωβαήλ ; Alex. Xov-
Baha: Subaél). 1. SHEBUEL the son of Gershom
(1 Chr. xxiv. 20).
2. (ξουβαήλ.) SHEBUEL the son of Heman
the minstrel (1 Chr. xxv. 20). e
4
1298 SHUHAM
SHU'HAM (BMW : Σαμέ; Alex. Saperd7 :
Suham). Son of Dan, and ancestor of the SHU-
HAMITES (Num. xxvi. 42). In Gen. xlvi. 23 he
is called HUSHIM.
SHU'HAMITES, THE ΟΠ ΦΠ : 6 Σαμεῖΐ;
Alex. Σαμειδηί, Sauel: Suhamitae, Suamitae).
The descendants of Shuham, or Hushim, the son of
Dan (Num. xxvi. 42, 45). In the census taken in
the plains of Moab they numbered 4460. |
SHU'HITE (MW: Σαυχεύς : Suhites). This
ethnic appellative “ Shuhite ” is frequent in the Book
of Job, but only as the epithet of one person, Bildad.
The local indications of the Book of Job point to a
region on the western side of Chaldaea, bordering on
Arabia; and exactly in this locality, above Hit and
on both sides of the Euphrates, are found, in the
Assyrian inscriptions, the Tsukht, a powerful people.
It is probable that these were the Shuhites, and that,
having been conquered by the Babylonian kings,
they were counted by Ezekiel among the tribes of
the Chaldaeans. Having lost their independence,
shey ceased to be noticed ; but it was no doubt from
them that the country on the Euphrates immedi-
ately above Babylonia came to be designated as
Sohene, a term applied to it in the Peutingerian
Tables. The Shuhites appear to have been descend-
ants of Abraham by Keturah. [Suuan, 1.] [G.R.]
SHU'LAMITE, THE (ΠΡ ΝΠ, i.e. the
Shulammite: ἡ Sovpaveiris; Alex. ἢ Σουλαμῖτις:
Sulamitis and Sunamitis). One of the personages in
the poem of Solomon’s Song, who, although named
only in one passage (vi. 13), is, according to some
interpreters, the most prominent of all the charac-
ters. The name—after the analogy of Shunammite
—denotes a woman belonging to a place called
Shulem. The only place bearing that name, of which
we have any knowledge, is Shunem itself, which,
as far back as the 4th century, was so called ( Euse-
bius, quoted under SHUNEM). In fact there is good
ground for believing that the two were identical.
Since, then, Shulammite and Shunammite are equi-
valent, there is nothing surely extravagant in sup-
posing that the Shunammite who was the object of
Solomon’s passion was Abishag,—the most lovely
girl of her day, and at the time of David’s death
one of the most prominent persons at the court of
Jerusalem. This would be equally appropriate,
whether Solomon was himself the author of the
Song, or it were written by another person whose
object was to personate him accurately. For the
light which it throws on the circumstances of Solo-
mon’s accession, see SOLOMON. [G.]
SHU'MATHITES, THE (NWN, ὁ. e. the
Shumathite: Ἡσαμαθείμ : Semathet). One of the
four families who sprang from Kirjath-jearim (1 Chr.
ii. 53). They probably colonised a village named
Shumah somewhere in that neighbourhood, But
no trace of such a name has been discovered. [G.]
SHU'NAMMITE, THE (MONw: ἡ Σω-
μανεῖτις ; Alex. Σουμανιτις : Sunamitis), 7. e. the
native of Shunem, as is plain from 2 K. iv. 1. It
is applied to two persons :—Abishag, the nurse of
King David (1 K. i. ®5, 15, ii. 17, 21, 22), and the
nameless hostess of Elisha (2 K. iv. 12, 25, 36),
The modern representative of Shunem being
ἃ In 1K. ii. 21, 22, the shorter form of mw
is used. :
b The A. V. is here incorrect in omitting the definite
article.
SHUPPIM
Solam, some have suggested (as Gesenius, Thes.
1379), or positively aftirmed (as Fiirst, Handwb.
ii. 422), that Shunammite is identical with Shu-
lammite (Cant. vi. 13). Of this all that can be
said is, that though highly probable, it is not abso-
lutely certain. [G.]
SHU'NEM (O31We: Sovvay4: Sunem, Sunam).
One of the cities allotted to the tribe of Issachar
(Josh. xix. 18). It occurs in the list between
Chesulloth and Haphraim. It is mentioned on
two occasions. First as the place of the Philis-
tines’ first encampment before tne battle of Gilboa
(1 Sam. xxviii. 4). Here it occurs in connexion with
Mount Gilboa and En-dor, and also probably with
Jezreel (xxix. 1). Secondly, as the scene of Klisha’s
intercourse with the Shunammite woman and her
son (2 Κα. iv. 8). Here it is connected with adjacent
corn-fields, and, more remotely, with Mount Carmel.
It was besides the native place of Abishag, the at-
tendant on King David (1 K.i. 3), and possibly the
heroine of the poem or drama of ‘“ Solomon’s Song.”
By Eusebius and Jerome (Qnom.) it is mentioned
twice: under Σουβήμ and ‘*Sunem,” as 5 miles
south of Mount Tabor, and then known as Sulem:
and, under “‘ Sonam,” as a village in Acrabattine,
in the territory of Sebaste called Sanim. The latter
of these two identifications probably refers to Sanur,
a well-known fortress some 7 miles from Sebastiyeh
and 4 from Arrabeh—a spot completely out of the
circle of the associations which connect themselves
with Shunem. ‘The other has more in its favour,
since—except for the distance from Mount Tabor,
which is nearer 8 Roman miles than 5—it agrees
with the position of the present Solam, a village
on the S.W. flank of Jebel Duhy (the so-called
“Little Hermon”), 3 miles N. of Jezreel, 5 from
Gilboa (J. Fukua), full in view of the sacred spot
on Mount Carmel, and situated in the midst of the
finest corn-fields in the world.
It is named, as Salem, by the Jewish traveller
hap-Parchi (Asher’s Benjamin, ii. 481). It had
then its spring, without which the Philistines would
certainly not have chosen it for their encampment.
Now, according to the notice of Dr. Robinson (i.
324), the spring of the village is but a poor one.
The change of the n in the ancient name to / in the
modern one, is the reverse of that which has taken
place in Zerin (Jezreel) and Beitin (Bethel). [G.]
SHU'NI ὁ: Savvis, Sovvi; Alex. Savvis in
Gen.: Suni). Son of Gad, and founder of the family
of the Shunites (Gen. xlvi. 16; Num, xxvi. 15).
SHU'NITES, THE 2} Π: 6 Sourt: Sunitae).
Descendants of Shuni the son of Gad (Num. xxvi, 15).
SHU'PHAM. [Suupprm.]
SHU’PHAMITES, THE CDE : 6 Σω-
φανί : Suphamitae). The descendants of Shupham,
or Shephupham, the Benjamite (Num, xxvi. 39).
SHUP’PIM (DY, DAY: Sampiv; Alex.
Σοαφείμ, Σεφφείμ: Sepham, Saphan). In the genea-
logy of Benjamin ‘‘Shuppim and Huppim, the
children of Ir,’’ are reckoned in 1 Chr. vii. 12. Ir
is the same as Iri the son of Bela the son of Ben-
jamin, so that Shuppim was the great-grandson of
Benjamin. In Num. xxvi. 39, he and his brother
¢ Perhaps contracted from Ὁ) (Gesenius, Ties. 1379 b.)
ἃ Jt is given differently on each occurrence in each
of the two great Codices:—Vat. (Mai), Sovvav, Ξωμάν,
Σουμάν ; Alex., Ξουναμ, Tovayav, Ξιωμαμ.
ae ae
SHUR
are called Shupham, and Hupham, while in 1 Chr.
viii. 5 they appear as Shephuphan and Huram,
sons of Bela, and in Gen, xlvi. 21 as Muppim and
Huppim, sons of Benjamin. To avoid the difficulty
of supposing that Benjamin had a great-grandson
at the time he went down to Egypt, Lord A. Hervey
conjectures that Shuppim or Shephuphan was a
son of Benjamin, whose family was reckoned with
that of Ir or Iri. [Mupprim.]
SHUR (i: Σούρ, Γελαμψούρ : Sur), a place
just without the eastern border of Egypt. Its name, |
if Hebrew or Arabic, signifies ‘a wall,’ and there
can be little doubt that it is of Shemitic origin from
the position of the place. The LXX. seems to have
thus interpreted it, if we may judge from the ob-
secure rendering of 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, where it must
be remarked the extraordinary form Γελαμψούρ is
found. This word is evidently a transcription of
the words FMW... peiyn, the former, save
the initial particle, not being translated.
Shur is first mentioned in the narrative of Hagar’s
flight from Sarah, Abraham was then in southern-
most Palestine, and when Hagar fled she was found
by an angel ‘‘ by the fountain in the way to Shur”
(Gen, xvi. 7). Probably she was endeavouring to
return to Egypt, the country of her birth—she may
not have been a pure Egyptian—and had reached a
well in the inland caravan route. Abraham after-
wards <‘ dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and so-
journed in Gerar”’ (xx. 1). From this it would
seem either that Shur lay in the territory of the
Philistines of Gerar, or that this pastoral tribe
wandered in a region extending from Kadesh to
Shur. [GERAR.] In neitlier case can we ascertain
the position of Shur. The first clear indication of
this occurs in the account of Ishmael’s posterity.
“And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that
[is] before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria”
(xxv. 18). With this should be compared the men-
tion of the extent of the Amalekite territory, given
in this passage, “ And Saul smote the Amalekites
from Havilah [until] thou comest to Shur, that [is]
over against Ecypt” (1 Sam. xv. 7). It is also
important to notice that the Geshurites, Gezrites,
and Amalekites, whom David smote, are described
as ‘ from an ancient period the inhabitants of the
land, as thou comest to Shur, even unto the land
of Egypt” (xxvii. 8). The Wilderness of Shur
was entered by the Israelites after they had crossed
the Red Sea (Ex. xv. 22, 23). It was also called
the Wilderness of Etham (Num. xxxiii. 8). The
first passage presents one difficulty, upon which the
LXX. and Vulg. throw no light, in the mention of
Assyria. 1, however, we compare it with later
places, we find THN DNB here, remarkably
like WWW ANID in 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, and WW IND
in xv. 7, as though the same phrase had been ori-
ginally found in the first as a gloss, but it may
have been there transposed, and have originally fol-
lowed the mention of Havilah. In the notices of
the Amalekite and: Ishmaelite region, in which the
latter succeeded the former, there can be no question
that a strip of northern Arabia is intended, stretching
from the Isthmus of Suez towards and probably to
the Persian Gulf. The name of the wilderness may
perhaps indicate a somewhat southern position.
Shur may thus have been a fortified town east of
the ancient head of the Red Sea, but in the hands
SHUSHAN 1299
of the Arabs, or at one time the Philistines, not
of the Egyptians. From its being spoken of as a
limit, it was probably the last Arabian town before
entering Egypt. The hieroglyphic inscriptions have
not been found to throw any light upon this ques-
tion. The SHARA or SHALA mentioned in them
is an important country, perhaps Syria. [R.S. P.]
SHUSHAN (δὴ : Σοῦσα: Susa) is said to
have received its name from the abundance of the
lily (Shuishan or Shishanah) in its neighbourhood
(Athen. xii. 513). It was one of the most im-
portant towns m the whole East, and reqnires to
be described at some length.
1. History.—Susa was originally the capital of
the country called in Scripture Elam, and by the
classical writers, sometimes Cissia (Κισσία), some-
times Susis or Susiana. [ELAM.] Its foundation
is thought to date from a time anterior to Chedor-
laomer, as the remains found on the site have often
a character of very high antiquity. The first dis-
tinct mention of the town that has been as yet
found is in the inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal, the
son and successor of Esar-Haddon, who states that
he took the place, and exhibits a ground-plan of it
upon his sculptures (Layard, Nin. and Bab. pp.
452,453). The date of this monument is about
B.C. 660. We next find Susa in the possession of
the Babylonians, to whom Elam had probably
passed at the division of the Assyrian empire made
by Cyaxares and Nabopolassar, In the last year
of Belshazzar (B.C. 538), Daniel, while still a Baby-
lonian subject, is there on the king’s business, and
“at Shushan in the palace” sees his famous vision
of the ram and he-goat (Dan. viii. 2). The con-
quest of Babylon by Cyrus transferred Susa to the
Persian dominion ; and it was not long betore the
Achaemenian princes determined to make it the
capital of their whole empire, and the chief place
of their own residence. According to some writers
(Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6, §22; Strab. xv. 3, 82), the
change was made by Cyrus; according to others
(Ctes. Hac. Pers. §9; Herod. iii. 30, 65, 70), it
had at any rate taken place before the death of
Cambyses ; but, according to the evidence of the
place itself’ and of the other Achaemenian monu-
ments, it would seem most probable that the trans-
fer was really the work of Darius Hystaspis, who
is found to have been (as Pliny said, H. WN. vi. 27)
the founder of the great palace there—the building
so graphically described in the book of Esther
(i, 5, 6). The reasons which induced the change
are tolerably apparent. After the conquest of
Babylonia and Egypt, the western provinces of the
empire were become by far the most important,
and the Court could no Jonger be conveniently fixed
east of Zagros, either at Ecbatana (Hamadan) or
at Pasargadae (Murgaub), which were cut off from
the Mesopotamian plain by the difficulty of the
passes for fully one half of the year.* It was neces-
sary to find a capital west of the mountains, and
here Babylon and Susa presented themselves, each
with its peculiar advantages. Darius probably pre-
ferred Susa, first, on account of its vicinity to
Persia (Strab. xv. 3, §2); secondly, because it was
cooler than Babylon, being nearer the mountain-
chain; and thirdly, because of the excellence of the
water there (Geograph. Journ. ix. 70). Susa ac-
cordingly became the metropolis of Persia, and is
recognised as such by Aeschylus (Pers. 16,124, &c.),
* Not only were the passes difficult, but they were in
the possession of semi-independent tribes, who levied a
toll on all passengers, even the Persian kings themselves
(Strab. xy. 3, §4). :
40 2
1300 SHUSHAN
Herodotus (v. 25, 49, &c.), Ctesias (Pers. Exc.
passim), Strabo (xv. 3, §2), and almost all the best
writers. The Court must have resided there during
the greater pait of the year, only quitting it regu-
larly for Ecbatana or Persepolis in the height of
summer, and perhaps sometimes leaving it for
Babylon in the depth of winter (see Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, iii. 256). Susa retained its pre-eminence
to the period of the Macedonian conquest, when
Alexander found there above twelve millions ster- |
ling, and all the regalia of the Great King (Arvian,
Exp. Alex. iii. 16). After this it declined. The |
preference of Alexander for Babylon caused the
neglect of Susa by his successors, none of whom
ever made it their capital city. We hear of it once
only in their wars, when it falls into the power
of Antigonus (B.C. 315), who obtains treasure there
to the amount of three millions and a half of our
money (Diod. Sic. xix. 48, §7). Nearly a century
later (B.C. 221) Susa was attacked by Molo in his
rebellion against Antiochus the Great; he took
the town, but failed in his attempt upon the citadel
(Polyb. v. 48, 814). We hear of it again at the,
time of the Arabian conquest of Persia, when it was
bravely defended by Hormuzan (Loftus, Chaldaea
and Susiana, p. 344).
2. Position, §¢.—A good deal of uncertainty has |
existed concerning the position of Susa. While most
historians and comparative geographers have in-
clined to identify it with the modern Sus or Shusn,
which is in lat. 32° 10', long. 48° 26' E. from |
Greenwich, between the Shapur and the river of |
Dizful, there have not been wanting some to main- |
tain the rival claims of Shuster, which is situated Ὁ
on the left bank of the Kuran, more than half a
degree further to the eastward. A third candidate |
for the honour has even been started, and it has
been maintained with much learning and ingenuity
that Susan, on the right bank of the same stream,
50 or 60 miles above Shuster, is, if not the Susa
SHUSHAN
of the Greeks and Romans, at any rate the Shushan
of Scripture (Geogr. Journ. ix. 85). But a careful
examination of these several spots has finally caused
a general acquiescence in the belief that Sus alone
is entitled to the honour of representing at once the
Scriptural Shushan and the Susa of the classical
writers (see Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 338 ;
Smith, Dictionary of Geography, sub voc.; Raw-
linson, Herodotus, iii. 254). The difficulties caused
by the seemingly confused accounts of the ancient
writers, of whom some place Susa on the Choaspes
(Herod. v. 49, 52; Strab. xv. 3, §4; Q. Cut. v.
2), some on the Eulaeus (Arr. Lup. Al. vii. 7;
Ptol. vi. 3; Plin. H. N. vi. 27), have been removed
by a careful survey of the ground, from which it
appears that the Choaspes (Kerkhah) originally
bifarcated at Pai Pul, 20 miles above Susa, the
right arm keeping its present course, while the left
flowed a little to the east of Sus, and, absorbing
the Shapur about 12 miles below the ruins, flowed
on somewhat east of south, and joined the Karun
(Pasitigris) at Ahwaz. The lett branch of the
Choaspes was sometimes called by that name, but
more properly bore the appellation of Eulaeus
(Ulai of Daniel). Susa thus lay between the two
streams of the Eulaeus and the Shapur, the latter
of which, being probably joined to the Eulaeus by
canals, was reckoned a part of it; and hence Pliny
said that the Eulaeus surrounded the citadel of
Susa (/. s.c.). At the distance of a few miles
east and west of the city were two other streams—
the Coprates or river of Dizful, and the right am
of the Choaspes (the modern Kerkhah). Thus the
country about Susa was most abundantly watered ;
and hence the luxuriance and fertility remarked
alike by ancient and modern authors (Athen. xii.
513; Geograph. Journ. ix. 71). The Kerkhah
water was moreover regarded as of peculiar excel-
lence; it was the only water drunk by the Great
King, and was always carried with him on his
EG
0 8060 =: 400
Ze
WY,
NY
A
Scale of feet.
css
" ΟΝ SS
Ht any (νὼ
[iy DAs Hl
RY
LTT)
Milt SN
if Mtn nes
Up ny
ify
))
NY
= ONS
- Ruins of Susa.
. The high mound or citadel (?)
. The palace.
. The great platform.
. Ruins of the city.
No. 1. Plan of the
Ruins of Susa.
SHUSHAN
journeys and foreign expeditions (Herod. i. 188 ;
Plut. de Ezil. ii. 601, D; Athen. Deipn. ii. 171,
&c.). Even at the present day it is celebrated for
lightness and purity, and the natives prize it above
that of almost all other streams (Geogr. Journ. ix.
70, 89).
3. General Description of the Ruins.—The ruins
of Susa cover a space about 6000 feet long from
east to west, by 4500 feet broad from north to
south. The circumference of the whole, exclusive
of outlying and comparatively insignificant mounds,
is about three miles. According to Mr. Loftus,
“the principal existing remains consist of four
spacious artificial platforms, distinctly separate from
each other. Of these the western mound is the
smallest in superficial extent, but considerably the
most lofty and important. ... Its highest point is
119 feet above the level of the Shaour (Shapur).
In form it is an irregular, obtuse-angled triangle,
with its corners rounded off, and its base facing
nearly due east. It is apparently constructed of
earth, gravel, and sun-dried brick, sections being
exposed in numerous ravines produced by the rains
of winter. The sides are so perpendicular as to be
inaccessible to a horseman except at three places.
The measurement round the summit is about 2850
feet. In the centre is a deep circular depression,
probably a large court, surrounded by elevated piles
of buildings, the fall of which has given the present
configuration to the surface. “Here and there are
exposed in the ravines traces of brick walls, which
show that the present elevation of the mound has
been attained by much subsequent superposition ”’
(Chaldaea and Susiana, p. 343). Mr. Loftus
regards this mound as indubitably the remains δ
of the famous citadel (ἄκρα or ἀκρόπολις) of
Susa, so frequently mentioned by the ancient
writers (Herod. iii. 68; Polyb. v. 48, 814;
Strab. xv. 3, 82; Arr. Exp. Al. iii. 16, &c.).
“ Separated from the citadel on the west by a
channel or ravine, the bottom of which is on
a level with the external desert, is the great
central platform, covering upwards of sixty
acres (No. 3 on the Plan). The highest point
is on the south side, where it presents generally
a perpendicular escarpment to the plain, and
rises’ to an elevation of about 70 feet ; on the
east and north it does not exceed 40 or 50 feet.
The east face measures 3000 feet in length.
Enormous ravines penetrate to the very heart
of the mound” (Loftus, p. 345). The third
platform (No. 2 on the Plan) lies towards the
north, and is “a considerable square mass,’
about a thousand feet each way. It abuts on
the central platform at its north-western ex-
tremity, but is separated from it by “a slight
hollow,” which ‘ was perhaps an ancient road-
way ”’ (Loftus, 23.). These three mounds form
together a lozenge-shaped mass, 4500 feet long and ὦ
nearly 3000 feet broad, pointing in its longer direc- |
tion a little west of north. East of them is the
fourth platform, which is very extensive but of much
lower elevation than the rest (No. 4 on the Plan).
Its plan is very irregular: in its dimensions it |
about equals all the rest of the ruins put together.
Beyond this eastern platform a number of low
mounds are traceable, extending nearly to the Dizful |
river; but there are no remains of walls in any |
direction, and no marks of any buildings west of
the Shapur. All the ruins are contained within a
circumference of about seven miles (Geograph.
Journ, ix. 71). [G. R.]
I S00 ff Ι
ΒΗΠΒΗΑΝ᾽ 1301
ARCHITECTURE.—The explorations undertaken
by General, now Sir Fenwick Williams of Kars, in
the mounds at Susa, in the year 1851, resulted in
the discovery of the bases of three columns, marked
5, 6, and 7 on the accompanying plan (woodcut
No, 2). These were found to be 27 feet 6 inches apart
from centre to centre, and as they were very similar
to the bases of the great hall known popularly as the
Chel Minar at Persepolis, it was assumed that an-
other row would be found at a like distance inwards.
Holes were accordingly dug, and afterwards trenches
driven, without any successful result, as it hap-
pened to be on the spot where the walls originally
stood, and where no columns, consequently, could
have existed. Had any trustworthy restoration of
the Persepolitan hall been published at that time
the mistake would have been avoided, but as none
then existed the opportunity was nearly lost for our
becoming acquainted with one of the most interesting
ruins connected with Bible history which now exist
out of Syria. Fortunately in the following year Mr.
Loftus resumed the excavations with more success,
and ascertained the position of all the 72 columns
of which the original building was composed. Only
one base had been entirely removed, and as that
was in the midst of the central phalanx, its absence
threw no doubt on any part of the arrangement,
On the bases of four of the columns thus uncovered
(shaded darker on the plan, and numbered 1, 2,
3, 4) were found trilingual inscriptions. in the
languages adopted by the Achaemenian kings at
Behistun and elsewhere, but all were so much
injured by the fall of the superincumbent mass that
OO
O
Θ
[
1
4
ΕΊ. ΕἸ © Be BSN
ΓΙ Π ΠῚ BS Be
jal ἘΠ ΠΣ |B
ὩΣ πὸ τε ἔπ τ΄ τ
fe eee ΕΓ
ak doh jet oe fe teal
©1600 OnonO
Oo (OF Ol Chee
Oo
SLE FE Ate
No. 2. Plan of the Great Palace at Susa.
f00 f* !
not one was complete, and unfortunately the Persian
text, which could have been read with most cer-
tainty, was the least perfect of any. Notwithstand-
ing this, Mr. Edwin Norris, with his usual ingenuity,
by a careful comparison of the whole, made out the
meaning of the first part certaifily, of the latter half
with very tolerable precision. As this inscription
contains nearly all we know of the history of this
building we quote it entire from Journ. As. Soc., vol.
xy. 162:—*Says Artaxerxes (Mnemon), the Great
King, the King of Kings, the King of the Country,
the King of the Earth, the son of King Darius—
Darius was the son of King Artaxerxes—Artaxerxes
was the son of Xerxes —Xerxes was the son of King
1302 SHUSHAN
SHUSHAN
Darius—Darius was the son of Hystaspes the Achae- | which enclosed these pillars was detected at Susa,
menian—Darius my ancestor anciently built this
temple, and afterwards it was repaired by Artaxerxes
my grandfather. By the aid of Ormazd I placed
the effigies of Tanaites and Mithra in this temple.
May Ormazd, Tanaites, and Mithra protect me, with
the other Gods, and all that I have done...”
The bases uncovered by Mr. Loftus were arranged
as on the woodcut No. 2, reduced from that given
at page 366 of his Chaldaea and Susiana, and most
fortunately it is found on examination that the build-
ing was an exact counterpart of the celebrated Chel
Minar at Persepolis. They are in fact more like one
another than almost any other two buildings of an-
tiquity, and consequently what is wanting in the
one may safely be supplied from the other, if it
exists there. j
Their age is nearly the same, that at Susa having
been commenced by Darius Hystaspis, that at Perse-
polis—if one may trust the inscription on its stair-
case (J. A. S. x.326)—was built entirely by Xerxes.
Their dimensions are practically identical, the width
of that at Susa, according to Mr. Loftus, being
345 feet, the depth N. and 8, 244. The correspond-
ing dimensions at Persepolis, according to Flandin
and Coste’s survey, are 357°6 by 254°6, or from
10 to 12 feet in excess; but the difference may
arise as much from imperfect surveying as from
any real discrepancy.
The number of columns and their arrangement
are identical in the two buildings, and the details
of the architecture are
practically the same so
far as they can be made
out. But as no pillar
is standing at Susa, and
no capital was found
entire or nearly so, it is
not easy to feel quite
sure that the annexed
restoration (woodcut
No. 3) is in all respects
correct. It is reduced
from one made by Mr.
Churchill, who accom-
panied Mr. Loftus in his
explorations. If it is
so, it appears that the
great ditlerence between
the two buildings was
that double bull capitals
were used in the inte-
rior of the central square
hall at Susa, while their
use was appropriately
confined to the porticoes
at Persepolis. In other
respects the height of
the capital, which mea-
sures 28 feet, is very
nearly the same, but it
is fuller, and looks some-
what too heavy for the
shaft that supports it
This defect was to a
great extent corrected at Persepolis, and may have
arisen from those at Susa being the first transla-
tion of the Ninevite wooden original into stone
architecture.
The pillars at Persepolis vary from 60 to 67 feet
in height, and we may therefore assume that those
at Susa were nearly the same. No trace of the walls
. Restored elevation of
capital at Susa. *
from which Mr. Loftus assumes, somewhat too
hastily, that none existed. As, however, he could
not make out the traces of the walls of any other
of the numerous buildings which he admits once
existed in these mounds, we ought not to be sur-
prised at his not finding them in this instance.
Fortunately at Persepolis sufficient remains still
exist to enable us to supply this hiatus, though
there also sun-burnt brick was too much used for
the walls, and if it were not that the jambs of the
doors and windows were generally of stone, we
should be as much at a loss there as at Susa. The
annexed woodcut (No. 4), representing the plan of
the hall at Persepolis, is restored from data so com-
plete as scarcely to admit of doubt with regard to
any part, and will suffice to explain the arrange-
ment of both.*
Both buildings consisted of a central hall, as
nearly as may be 200 feet square, and consequently,
so far as we know, the largest interior of the ancient
world, with the single exception of the great hall
at Karnac, which covers 58,300 square feet, while
this only extends to 40,000. Both the Persian halls
are supported by 36 columns, upwards of 60 feet
in height, and spaced equidistant from one another
at about 27. feet 6 inches from centre to centre.
On the exterior of this, separated from it by
walls 18 feet in thickness, were three great porches,
each measuring 200 feet in width by 65 in depth,
and supported by 12 columns whose axes were
coincident with those of the interior. These were
beyond doubt the great audience halls of the palace,
and served the same purposes as the House of the
Forest of Lebanon in Solomon’s palace, though its
dimensions were somewhat different, 150 feet by
75. These porches were also identical, as far as
use and arrangement go, with the throne-rooms in
the palaces of Delhi or Agra, or those which are
used at this day in the palace at Ispahan.
The western porch would be appropriate to
morning ceremonials, the eastern to those of the
afternoon. There was no porch, as we might expect
in that climate, to the south, but the principal one,
both at Susa and Persepolis, was that which faced
the north with a slight inclination towards the east.
It was the throne-room, par excellence, of the
palace, and an inspection of the plan will show how
easily, by the arrangement of the stairs, a whole
army of courtiers or of tribute-bearers could file
before the king without confusion or inconvenience.
The bassi relievi in the stairs at Persepolis in fact
represent permanently the procession that on great
festivals took place upon their steps; and a similar
arrangement of stairs was no doubt to be found at
Susa when the palace was entire.
It is by no means so clear to what use the central
hall was appropriated. The inscription quoted above
would lead us to suppose that it was a temple, pro-
perly so called, but the sacred and the secular func-
tions of the Persian kings were so intimately blended
together that it is impossible for us to draw a line
anywhere, or say how far “ temple cella” or
“palace hall’? would be a correct designation for
this part of the building. It probably was used
for all great semi-religious ceremonies, such as the
coronation or enthronization of the king—at such
ceremonies as returning thanks or making offerings
a For details of this restoration, see The Palaces of
Nineveh and Persepolis Restored. Ly Jas. Fergusson,
Published in 1851.
” ~
SHUSHAN
to the gods for victories—for any purpose in fact
requiring more than usual state or solemnity; but
there seems no reason to suppose it ever was used
for purely festal or convivial purposes, for which it
is singularly ill suited. }
me
> WY VN ΓΞῚ ΓΞ
(Θ᾽ (©) a @, [9] @
Θ Ee
6 ww Ω oO [δ
© 72 8 ἃ
ΕΠ
baad
® 11 oO Β
SHUSHAN 1303
From what we know of the buildings at Per-
sepolis, we may assert, almost with certainty, that
the “ King’s Gate,” where Mordecai sat (βίῃ. ii.
21), and where so many of the transactions of
the Book of Esther took place, was a square hall
aA Pe
es
ao a © Ὁ
5. αὶ αἃ., Boe
wel
Ooo oe Γ 6 6
asa OB BW 9 6
Qa 5 8 ® 6
-
No. 4, Restored plan of Great Hall of Xerxes at Persepolis. Scale 100 feet to an inch,
(woodcut: No. 5), measuring probably a little more
than 100 feet each way, and with its roof supported
by four pillars in the centre, and that this stood at
a distance of about 150 or 200 feet from the front
of the northern portico, where its remains will
probably now be found when looked for. We may
also be tolerably certain
1 that the inner court,
} where Esther appeared
7, to implore the king’s
4 favour (Esth. v. 1),
jj, was the space between
1 the northern portico
and this square build-
| ing, the outer court
being the space be-
| tween the “ King’s
A Gate” and the northern
terrace wall. We may
also predicate with to-
lerable certainty that
the ‘ Royal House ”
(i. 9) and the ‘* House of the Women” (ii. 9, 11)
were situated behind this great hall to the south-
ward, or between it and the citadel, and having a
direct communication with it either by means of a
bridge over the ravine, or a covered way under
ground, most probably the former.
There seems also no reasonable doubt but that it
was in front of one of the lateral porticoes of this
building that King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) “made a
)
I |
No. 5. Restored plan of the “ King’s
Gate” at palace of Persepolis.
Scale 100 ft. to an inch.
feast unto all the people that were present in Shu-
shan the palace, both unto great and small, seven
days in the court of the garden of the king’s palace ;
where were white, green, and blue hangings, fastened
with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings
and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and
silver upon a pavement of red and blue and white
and black marble” (Esth. i. 5, 6). From this
it is evident that the feast took place, not in the
interior of any hall, but out of doors, in tents
erected in one of the courts of the palace, such as
we may easily fancy existed in front of either the
eastern or western porches of the great central
building.
The whole of this great group of buildings was
raised on an artificial mound, nearly square in plan,
measuring about 1000 feet each way, and rising to
a height apparently of 50 or 60 feet above the
plain. As the principal building must, like those
at Persepolis, have had a talar or raised platform
[TEMPLE] above its roof, its height could not have
been less than 100 or 120 feet, and its elevation
above the plain must consequently have been 170
or 200 feet.
It would be difficult to conceive anything much
grander in an architectural point of view than such
a building, rising to such a height out of a group
of subordinate palace-buildings, interspersed with
trees and shrubs, and the whole based on such a
terrace, rising from the flat but fertile plains that
are watered by the Eulaeus at its base. [.ὄ F.]
1304- SHUSHAN-EDUTH
SHU'SHAN-E'DUTH. “lo the chief musi-
cian upon Shushan-Eduth” (ΓΝ) Wav) is plainly
a musical direction, whatever else may be obscure
about it (Ps. Ix.). In Ps. lxxx. we have the fuller
phrase ‘* Shoshannim-eduth,” of which Roediger
regards Shushan-eduth as an abbreviation (Gesen.
Thes. Ὁ. 1385). As it now stands it denotes “ the
lily of testimony,” and possibly contains the first
words of some Psalm to the melody of which that
to which it was prefixed was sung; and the pre-
position Sy, ’al (A. V. * upon”) would then signify
‘‘after, in the manner of,” indicating to the con-
ductor of the Temple-choir the air which he was to
follow. If, however, Roediger is correct in his con-
jecture that Shushan-eduth is merely an abbrevia-
tion for Shoshannim-eduth, the translation of the
words above given would be incorrect. The LXX.
and Vulgate appear to have read p»syiron-by, for
they render τοῖς ἀλλοιωθησομένοις and pro his qui
immutabuntur respectively. Ir. the LXX., ΤΣ Δ,
édith, becomes Ih), dd, ἔτι. There does not appear
to be much support for the view taken by some
(as by Joel Bril) that Shushan-eduth is a musical
instrument, so called from its resemblance to a lily
in shape (Simonis), or from having lily-shaped
ornaments upon it, or from its six (shésh) strings.
Fiirst, in consistency with his theory with respect
to the titles of the Psalms, regards Shushan-eduth
as the name of one of the twenty-four divisions of
singers appointed by David, so called after a band-
master, Shushan, and having its head-quarters at
Eduth, which he conjectures may be the same as
Adithaim in Josh. xv. 36 (Handwb. 5. v.). As a
conjecture this is certainly ingenious, but it has the
disadvantage of introducing as many difficulties as
it removes. Simonis (Lex. s. v.) connects *édith
SS)
with the Arabic Δ 9.5 "ad, a lute,® or kind of
guitar played with a plectrum, and considers it
to be the melody produced by this instrument ; so
that in his view Shushan-eduth indicates that the
lily-shaped cymbals were to be accompanied with
playing on the lute. Gesenius proposes to render
*édiith a “ yevelation,’ and hence a psalm or song
revealed ; but there seems no reason why we should
depart from the usual meaning as above given, and
we may therefore regard the words in question as a
fragment of an old psalm or melody, the same in cha-
racter as Aijeleth Shahar and others, which contained
a direction to the leader of the choir. [W.A.W.]
SHU THALHITES, THE (ndnwn: ὅξου-
θαλαΐ: Suthalaitae). The descendants of Shuthelah
the son of Ephraim (Num. xxvi, 35).
SHUTHE'LAH (nbmiw: Σουθαλά; @ov-
σαλά, Cod. Alex.: Suthala). Head of an Ephraimite
family, called after him Shuthalhites (Num. xxvi.
35), and lineal ancestor of Joshua, the son of Nun
(1 Chr. vii. 20-27). Shuthelah appears from the
former passage to be a son of Ephraim, and the
father of Eran, from whom sprung a family of
Eranites (ver. 36). He appears also to have had
two brothers, Becher, father of the Bachrites, aud
Tahan, father of the Tahanites. But in 1 Chr.
vii. we have a further notice of Shuthelah, where
SHUTHELAH
he appears first of all, as in Num., as the son
of Ephraim ; but in ver. 21, he is placed six gene-
rations later, Instead, too, of Becher and Tahan,
as Shuthelah’s brothers, we find Bered and Tahath,
and the latter twice over; and instead of Evan,
we find Eladah; and there is this strange ano-
maly, that Ephraim appears to be alive, and to
mourn for the destruction of his descendants in the
eighth generation, and to have other children born
after their death. And then again at ver. 25, the
genealogy is resumed with two personages, Rephah
and Resheph, whose parentage is not distinctly
stated, and is conducted through Telah, and another
Tahan, and Laadan, to Joshua the son of Nun, who
thus appears to be placed in the twelfth generation
from Joseph, or, as some reckon, in the eighteenth.
Obviously, therefore, the text in 1 Chr, vii. is cor-
rupt. The following observations will perhaps assist
us to restore it.
1. The names that are repeated over and over
again, either in identical or in slightly varied forms,
represent probably only ONE person. Hence, Ela-
dah, ver. 20; Elead, ver. 21; and Laadan, ver.
26, are the names of one and the same person. And
a comparison of the last name with Num. xxvi. 36,
where we have “ of Evan,” will further show that
Eran is also the same person, whether Eran” or
Laadan be the true form of the name. So again,
the two Tahaths in ver. 20, and Zahan in ver. 25,
are the same person as Zahan in Num. xxvi. 35;
and Shuthelah in vers. 20 and 21,and Telah in ver.
25, are the same as the Shuthelah of Num. xxvi,
35, 36; and the Bered of ver. 20, and Zabad of
ver. 21, are the same as the Becher of Num. xxvi.
35. The names written in Hebrew are subjoined to
make this clearer.
mpd, of Eran.
ry. Laadan.
moybs, Eleadah.
“νὸν, Elead.
noni, Shuthelah.
mbm), and Telah.
2. The words “his son”’ are improperly added
after Bered and Tahath in 1 Chr. vii. 20.
3. Tahan is improperly inserted in 1 Chr. vii.
25 as a son of Shuthelah, as appears from Num.
xxvi, 35, 36. The result is that Shuthelah’s line
may be thus restored: (1) Joseph. (2) Ephraim.
(3) Shuthelah. (4) Eran, or Laadan. (5) Ammi-
hud. (6) Elishama, captain of the host of Ephraim
(Num. i. 10, ii. 18, vii. 48). (7) Nun. (8) Joshua ;
a number which agrees well with all the genealogies
in which we can identify individuals who were living
at the entrance into Canaan; as Phinehas, who was
sixth from Levi; Salmon, who was seventh from
Judah; Bezaleel, who was seventh; Achan, who
was sixth; Zelophehad’s daughter, seventh, ἕο.
As regards the interesting story of the destruc-
tion of Ephraim’s sons by the men of Gath, which
Ewald (Gesch. i. 491), Bunsen (Egypt, vol. i.
p. 177), Lepsius (Letters from Egypt, p. 460),
and others have variously explained [EPHRAIM ;
BeriaH], it is impossible in the confused state of
the text to speak positively as to the part borne in
it by the house of Shuthelah. But it seems not
nnn, Tahath.
jan, Tahan.
"D3, Becher.
473), and Bered.
3}, Zabad.
* With the article, el ad is the origin of the Ital. lito,
Fr. luth, and English lute.
b The Samaritan text, followed by the LXX. and the
Syriac, and two or three Heb. MSS., read Zdan; and one
Heb. MS. reads Edan for Laadan at 1 Chr. vii. 26 (Bur-
rington, Geneal. Tables).
ἷ
4
’
SHUTHELAH
unlikely that the repetition of the names in 1 Chr.
vii. 20, 21, if it was not merely caused by vitiated
MSS. like 2 Sam. v. 14-16 (LXX, ) arose trom their
having been really repeated in the MS., not as ad-
ditional links in the genealogy, but as having borne
part, either personally or in the persons of their
descendants, in the transaction with the men of
Gath. If so, we have mention first in ver. 20
of the four families of Ephraim reckoned in Num.
xxvi., viz., Shuthelah, Bered or Becher, Tahath or
Tahan, and Eladah or Evan, the son of Shuthelah ;
and we are then, perhaps, told how Tahath, Bered,
and Shuthelah, or the clans called after them, went
to help (V7tY) Laadan (or Eran), Shuthelah’s son,
and were killed by the men of Gath, and how their
father mourned them. This leads to an account of
another branch of the tribe of Ephraim, of which
Beriah was the head, and whose daughter or sister
(for it is not clear which was meant) was Sherah
(TINY ),© who built the upper and lower Beth-
horon ‘(on the border of Benjamin and Ephraim),
and Uzzen-Sherah, a town evidently so called from
her (Sherah’s) earring, The writer then returns
to his genealogy, beginning, according to the LXX.,
with Laadan. But the fragment of Shuthelah’s
name in ver. 25, clearly shows that the genealogy of
Joshua, which is here given, is taken up from that
name in ver. 20.4 The-clause probably began,
“the sons of Shuthelah, Laadan (or, of Evan) his
son,’ &c. But the question remains whether the
transaction which was so fatal to the Ephraimites,
occurred really in Ephraim’s lifetime, and that of
his sons and grandson, or whether it belongs to the
times after the entrance into Canaan; or, in other
words, whether we are to understand, by Ephraim,
Shuthelah, &c., the individuals who bore those
names, or the tribe and the families which sprung
from them. Ewald and Bunsen, understanding
the names personally, of course refer the transaction
to the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in
Goshen, while Lepsius merely points out the con-
fusion and inconsistencies in the narrative, though
he apparently suspects that the event occurred in
Palestine after the Exodus. In the Geneal. of our
Lord Jesus Christ, p. 365, the writer of this article
had suggested that it was the men of Gath who
had come down into Goshen to steal the cattle of
the Israelites, in order to obviate the objection from
the word ‘‘came down.” [See too EPHRATAH. | But
subsequent consideration has suggested another pos-
sible way of understanding the passage, which is
also advocated by Bertheau, in the Aurzg. exeget.
Handb. z. A. 1. According to this view the
slaughter of the Ephraimites took place after the
settlement in Canaan, and the event related in 1
Chr. viii. 13, in which Beriah also took part, had a
close connexion with it. The names therefore of
the patriarch, and fathers of families, must be un-
derstood of the families which sprung from them
[NeHEMIAH, p. 490 α], and Bertheau well com-
pares Judg. xxi. 6. By Ephraim (1 Chr. vii. 22, 23),
we must in this case understand the then head of
the tribe, who was probably Joshua, and this would
go far to justify the conjecture in Genealog. p. 364,
that Sherah (=f1D) was the daughter of Joshua,
SIBBOLETH 1305
arrived at by comparison of Josh. xix. 49, 50;
1 Chr. vii. 30, and by observing that the atta
passage is Joshua’s genealogy. Beriah would seem
from 1 Chr, viii. 13, to have obtained an inherit-
ance in Benjamin, and also in Asher, where we find
him and “ his sister Serah” (nw) in 1 Chr. vii.
30. It is, however, impossible to speak with cer-
tainty where we have such scanty information.
Bertheau’s suggestion that Beriah was adopted into
the family of the Ephraimites, is inconsistent with
the precision of the statement (1 Chr. vii. 23), and
therefore inadmissible. Still, putting together the
insuperable difficulties in understanding the passage
of the literal Ephraim, and his literal sons and
daughter, with the fact that the settlements of the
Ephraimites in the mountainous district, where
Beth-horon, Gezer, Timnath-Serah, &c., lay, were
exactly suited for a descent upon the plains of the
Philistine country where the men of Gath fed their
cattle, and with the further facts that the Ephraim-
ites encountered a successful opposition from tke
Canaanites in Gezer (Josh. xvi. 10; Judg. i. 29),
and that they apparently called in later the Ben-
jamites to help them in driving away the men of
Gath (1 Chr. viii. 13), it seems best to understand
the narrative as of the times after the entrance into
Canaan. [A. C. H.]
SIA (Ὁ: ᾿Ασουία; Alex. Σιαΐα: δῖαα).
‘<The children of Sia” were a family of Nethinim
who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 47). The
name is written SIAHA in Ezr, ii. 44, and SuD in
1 Esd. ν. 29.
SAHA (SIMD: iad; Alex. "Acad :+Siaa)
=S1a (Ezr. ii. 44),
SIBBECA'T (33D: Σεβοχά in Sam., SoBoxar
in Chr.; Alex. Σεβοχαεί, Σοβοχαί : Sobochai).
SIBBECHAI the Hushathjte Gs Sam. xxi. 18; 1 Chr.
xxvii, 11).
SIBBECHA'T (33D: Σοβοχαί ; Alex. Σοβ-
βοχαί in 1 Chr. xx. 4: Sobbochai, Sobochai). One
of Dayid’s guard, and eighth captain for the eighth
month of 24,000 men of the king’s army (1 Chr.
xi. 29, xxvii. 11). He belonged to one of the prin-
cipal families of Judah, the Zarhites, or descendants
of Zerah, and is called ‘‘ the Hushathite,” probably
from the place of his birth. Josephus (Ané. vii.
12, §2) calls him “the Hittite,’ but this is no
doubt an error. Sibbechai’s great exploit, which
gave him a place among the mighty men of David’s
army, was his single combat with Saph, or Sippai,
the Philistine giant, in the battle at Gezer, or Gob
(2 Sam. xxi. 18; 1 Chr. xx. 4). In 2 Sam. xaiii.
27 his name is ’ written MEBUNNAL by a mistake
of the copyist. Josephus says that he slew “many ”
who boasted that they were of the descent of the
giants, apparently reading 0935 for 95D in 1 Chr.
xx. 4.
SIB'BOLETH (nbaD: Zibbolcth). The Eph-
raimite (or, according to the text, the Ephrathite)
pronunciation of the word Shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6).
The LXX. do not represent Sibboleth at all, [See
SHIBBOLETH. | [693]
α Τὸ seems highly improbable, not to say impossible,
that a literal daughter or granddaughter of Ephraim should
have built these cities, which must have been built after
the entrance into Canaan.
ἃ Ti does not appear who Rephah and Resheph are.
Tahan seems to be repeated out of its place, as in the
Alex. LXX. It is after Laadan, there corrupted into
Galaada.
© There is no mention elsewhere of any posterity of
Joshua. The Jewish tradition assigned him a wife and
children. [RAHAB.]
1306 SIBMAH
SIB'MAH (Π23}: Σεβαμᾶ, in Jer. wrepnua:
Sibama, Sabama). A town on the east of the Jordan,
one of those which were taken and occupied by the
tribe of Reuben (Josh. xiii. 19). In the original
catalorue of those places it appears as SHEBAM
and SHIBMAH (the latter merely an inaccurate va-
riation of the Auth. Version). Like most of the
Transjordanic places, Sibmah disappears from view
during the main part of the Jewish history. We,
however, gain a parting glimpse of it in the lament
over Moab pronounced by Isaiah and by Jeremiah
(Is. xvi. 8,9; Jer. xlviii. 32). It was then a Moab-
ite place, famed for the abundance and excellence
of its grapes. They must have been remarkably
good to have been thought worthy of notice by
those who, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, lived close to
and were familiar with the renowned vineyards of
Sorek (Is. v. 2, where ‘choicest vine” is * vine of
Sorek.”) Its vineyards were devastated, and the
town doubtless destroyed by the “ lords of the hea-
then,’ who at some time unknown appear to have
laid waste the whole of that once smiling and fertile
district.
Sibmah seems to have been known to Eusebius
(Onomasticon, “ Sabama”),* and Jerome (Com-
ment. in Isaiam, lib. v.) states that it was hardly
500 paces distant from Heshbon. He also speaks
of it as one of the very strong cities ( Urbes validis-
simae) of that region, No trace of the name has
been discovered more recently, and nothing resem-
bling it is found in the excellent lists of Dr. Eli
Smith (Robinson, B. R. ed. 1, App. 169,170). [G.]
SIBRA'TM (O%3D: θηρὰ]ς Ἑ βραμηΪλιάμ :
Sabarim). One of the landmarks on the northern
boundary of the Holy Land as stated by Ezekiel
(xlvii. 16). It occurs between Berothah and Hazar-
hatticon, and is described in the same passage as
lying between the boundary of Damascus and that
of Hamath. It has not been identified—and in the
great obscurity of the specification of this boun-
dary it is impossible to say where it should be
sought. [G.]
SI'CHEM (DDY, i.e. Shechem: Συχέμ:
Sichem). The same well-known name—identical in
the Hebrew—with that which in all other places in
the Ὁ. T. is accurately rendered by our translators
SHECHEM. Here (Gen. xii. 6), its present form
arises from a too close adherence to the Vulgate, or
rather perhaps from its non-correspondence with
the Hebrew having been overlooked in the revision
of 1611.
The unusual expression “the place of Sichem ἢ
may perhaps indicate that at that early age the
city did not exist. The ‘‘oaks of Moreh” were
there, but the town of Shechem as yet was not,
its “ place” only was visited by the great patriarch.
2. (ἐν Σικίμοις: in Sichimis). Ecclus. 1. 26.
The Greek original here is in the form which is
occasionally found in the O. 'T. as the equivalent of
SHecHEM. If there could be any doubt that the
son of Sirach was alluding in this passage to the
Samaritans, who lived as they still live at, Shechem,
it would be disproved by the characteristic pun which
he has perpetrated on the word Moreh, the ancient
SICYON
name of Shechem:—‘ that foolish people (λαὸς
μὼρ ὁ 5) that dwell in Sichem.” [G.]
SIC'YON (Σικυών). <A city mentioned with
several others [see PHASELIS] in 1 Macc. xv. 23.
The name is derived from a Punic root (sak, stk, or .
sok), which always implies a periodical market ;
and the original settlement was probably one to
which the inhabitants of the narrow strip of highly
fertile soil between the mountains and the southern
shore of the Corinthian Gulf brought their produce
for exportation. The oldest name of the town on
the coast (the Sicyon of the times before Alex-
ander) was said to have been Αἰγιάλη, or Αἰγιαλοί.
This was perhaps the common native name, and
Sicyon that given to it by the Phoenician traders,
which would not unnaturally extrude the other as
the place acquired commercial importance. It is
this Sicyon, on the shore, which was the seat of
the government of the Orthagorids, to which the
Cleisthenes celebrated by Herodotus (v. 67) be-
longed.b But the Sicyon referred to in the Book
of Maccabees is a more recent city, built on the
site which served as an acropolis to the old one,
and distant from the shore from twelve to twenty
stades. Demetrius Poliorcetes, in the year 303 B.C.,
surprised the garrison which Ptolemy had five years
before placed there, and made himself master of the
harbour and the lower town. The acropolis was
surrendered to him, and he then persuaded the
population, whom he restored to independence, to
destroy the whole of the buildings adjacent to the
harbour, and remove thither; the site being one
much more easily defensible, especially against any
enemy who might attack from the sea. Diodorus
describes the new town as including a large space
so surrounded on every side by precipices as to be
unapproachable by the machines which at that
time were employed in sieges, and as possessing the
great advantage of a plentiful supply of water
within its circuit. Modern travellers completely
confirm his account. Mr. Clark, who, in 1857,
descended upon Sicyon from “a ridge of hills
running east and west, and commanding a splendid
prospect of both the [Corinthian and Saronic] gulfs
and the isthmus between,” after two hours anda
half of riding from the highest point, came to a
ruined bridge, probably ancient, at the bottom of
a ravine, and then ascended the right bank by a
steep path. Along the crest of this hill he traced
fragments of the western wall of Sicyon. The moun-
tain which he had descended did not fall towards
the sea in a continuous slope, but presented a suc-
cession of abrupt descents and level terraces, severed
at intervals by deep rents and gorges, down which
the mountain-torrents make their way to the sea,
spreading alluvium over the plain, about two miles
in breadth, which lies between the lowest. cliffs
and the shore. ‘‘ Between two such gorges, on a
smooth expanse of table-land overlooking the
plain,” stood the city of Demetrius. ‘On every
side are abrupt cliffs, and even at the southern
extremity there is a lucky transverse rent sepa-
rating this from the next plateau. The ancient
walls may be seen at intervals along the edge of
the cliff on all sides.” It is easy to conceive how
these advantages of position must at once have
a The statement of this passage that Sibmah was “in
Gilead,’’ coupled with its distance from Heshbon as given
by Jerome, supports the local tradition which places
Mount Gilead south of the Jabbok, if the Wady Zerka be
the Jabbok.
b The commercial connexion of the Sicyon of the Ortha-
gorids with Phoenicia, is shown by the quantity of Tar-
tessian brass in the treasury of the Orthagorid Myron at
Olympia. The Phoenician (Carthaginian) treasury was
next to it (Pausanias, vi. 19, 91).
~~ ml
SICYON
fixed the attention of the great engineer of an-
tiquity—the Besieger.
Demetrius established the forms of republican
government in his new city; but republican go-
vernment had by that time become an impossibility
in Hellas. In the next half-century a number of
tyrants succeeded one another, maintaining them-
selves by the aid of mercenaries, and by tempo-
rising with the rival sovereigns, who each endea-
voured to secure the hegemony of the Grecian
race.
check by the efforts of Aratus, himself a native
of Sicyon, of which his father Cleinias for a time
became dynast. In his twentieth year, being at
the time in exile, he contrived to recover possession
of the city and to unite it with the Achaean league.
This was in the year 251 B.c., and it appears
that at this time the Dorian population was so
preponderant as to make the addition of the town
to a confederation of Achaeans a matter of remark.
For the half-century before the foundation of the
new city, Sicyon had favoured the anti-Lacedae-
monian party in Peloponnese, taking active part
with the Messenians and Argives in support of
Megalopolis, which Epaminondas had founded as a
counter-check to Sparta.
The Sicyonian territory is described as one of
singular fertility, which was probably increased by
artificial irrigation. In the changeful times which
preceded the final absorption of European Hellas
by the Romans it was subject to plunder by
whoever had the command of the sea; and in the
year 208 B.c. the Roman general Sulpicius, who
had a squadron at Naupactus, landed between
Sicyon and Corinth (probably at the mouth of the
little river Nemea, which was the boundary of the
two states), and was proceeding to harass the
neighbourhood, when Philip king of Macedonia,
who was then at Corinth, attacked him and drove
him back to his ships. But very soon after this
Roman influence began to prevail in the cities of
the Achaean league, which were instigated by dread
of Nabis the dynast of Lacedaemon to seek Roman
protection. One congress of the league was held
at Sicyon under the presidency of the Romans in
198 B.C., and another at the same place six years
later. From this time Sicyon always appears to
have adhered to the Roman side, and on the de-
struction of Corinth by Mummius (B.c. 146) was
rewarded by the victors not only with a large
portion of the Corinthian domain, but with the
management of the Isthmian games. This dis-
tinction was again lost when Julius Caesar re-
founded Corinth and made it a Roman colony; but
in the mean while Sicyon enjoyed for a century all
the advantages of an entrepOt which had before
accrued to Corinth from her position between the
two seas. Even in the days of the Antonines the
pleasure-grounds (τέμενος) of the Sicyonian tyrant
Cleon continued appropriated to the Roman go-
vernors of Achaia$ and at the time to which
reference is made in the Maccabees, it was probably
the most important position of all over which the
Romans exercised influence in Greece.
(Diodorus Siculus, xv. 70, xx. 37, 102; Polybius,
ii. 43; Strabo, viii. 7, 825 ; Livy, xxxii. 15, 19, xxxv.
This state of things received a temporary |
SIDDIM, THE VALE OF 1307
25; Pausanias, ii. 8, v. 14, 9, vi. 19, §1-6, x. 11, §1;
Clark, Peloponnesus, pp. 338, seqq.) [J.W.B.]
SID'DIM, THE VALE OF (Own poye:
ἡ φάραγξ ἡ ἁλυκή, and ἣ κοιλὰς ἣ ἁλυκή: Vallis
Silvestris). A place named only in one passage of
Genesis (xiv. 3, 8,10); a document pronounced by
Ewald and other eminent Hebrew scholars to be one
of the oldest, it not the oldest, of the fragments of
historical record of which the early portion of the
book is composed.
The meaning of the name is very doubtful.
Gesenius says truly (7768. 1321 a) that every one
of the ancient interpreters has tried his hand at it,
and the results are so various as to compel the
belief that nothing is really known of it, certainly
not enough to allow of any trustworthy inferences
being drawn therefrom as to the nature of the spot.
Gesenius expresses his conviction (by inference
from the Arabic Qww., an obstacle) that the real
meaning of the words Himek has-Siddim is ‘a plain
cut up by stony channels which render it difficult
of.transit ;” and with this agree Fiirst (Handwb. ii.
41156) and Kalisch (Genesis, 355).
Prof. Stanley conjectures (S. g¢ P.) that Siddim
is connected with Sddeh,» and thus that the signi-
fication of the name was the “ valley of the fields,”
so called from the high state of cultivation in which
it was maintained before the destruction of Sodom
and the other cities. This, however, is to identify
it with the Ciccar, the “circle (A. V. “ plain’) οὖν
Jordan,” which there does not appear to be any
warrant for doing.
As to the spot itself:—
1. It was one of that class of valleys which the
Hebrews designated by the word Emek. This term
appears to have been assigned to a broad flattish
tract, sometimes of considerable width, enclosed on
each side by a definite range of hills. [ VALLEY. ]
The only Hmek which we can identify with any
approach to certainty is that of Jezreel, viz. the
valley or plain which lies between Gilboa and Little
Hermon.
2. It was so far a suitable spot for the combat
between the four and five kings (ver. 8); but,
3. It contained a multitude of bitumen-pits
sufficient materially to atfect the issue of the battle.
4, In this valley the kings of the five allied
cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and
Bela, seem to have awaited the approach of the in-
vaders. It is therefore probable that it was in the
neighbourhood of the “ plain, or circle, of Jordan ἢ
in which those cities stood. But this we can only
infer; it is not stated, and scarcely implied.
5. So much may be gathered from the passage
as it appears originally to have stood. But the
words which more especially bear on the subject of
this article (ver. 3) do not form part of the original
document. That venerable record has—with a care
which shows how greatly it was valued at a very
early date—been annotated throughout by a later,
though still very ancient, chronicler, who has added
what in his day were believed to be the equivalents
for names of places that had become obsolete. Bela
is explained to be Zoar; En-Mishpat to be Kadesh ;
ἃ The following are the equivalents of the name given
in the ancient versions :—Sam, Vers., mpon wd;
Onkelos, ntopn WD; Arabic, merj al hakél ; Peshito,
LAO .c09 fasas: Aquila, K. τῶν περιπε-
δίνων ; Symm, and 'Theod., K. τῶν ἀλσῶν (=A WN);
Josephus, Φρεάτα ἀσφάλτου : Jerome (Quaest. ἔπ, Gen.)
Vallis Salinarum.
Ὁ Perhaps more accurately with Sdédad, “to harrow.”
See Kalisch (Gen. 355 a); who, however, disapproves of
such a derivation, and adheres to that of Gesenius.
1308 SIDDIM, THE VALE OF
the Emek-Shaveh to be the Valley of the King
the Emek has-Siddim to be the Salt Sea, that is, Sh
modern phraseolory, the Dead Sea. ‘And when we
remember how persistently the notion has been en-
tertained for the last eighteen centuries, that the
Dead Sea covers a district which before its submer-
sion was not only the Valley of Siddim but also the
Plain of the Jordan, and what an elaborate account
of the catastrophe of its submersion has been con-
structed even very recently by one of the most able
scholars of our day, we can hardly be surprised
that a chronicler in an age far less able to interpret
natural phenomena, and at the same time long sub-
sequent to the date of the actual event, should
have shared in the belief. Recent investigation,
however, of the geological evidence furnished by the
aspect of the spot itself, has not hitherto lent any
support to this view. On the contrary, it seems to
contradict it. The northern and deeper portion of
the lake unquestionably belongs to a geological era
of very much older date than the time of Abraham ;
and as to even the southern and shallower portion,
if it has undergone any material change in historic
times, such change would seem to be one rather of
gradual elevation than of submersion.4
If we could venture, as some have done, to in-
terpret the latter clause of verse 3, ‘* which is near,”
or “which is at, or by, the Salt Sea,” then we
might agree with Dr. Robinson and others in iden-
tifying the Valley of Siddim with the enclosed plain
which intervenes between the south end of the lake
*and the range of heights which terminate the Ghdr
and commence the Wady Arabah. This is a dis-
trict in many respects suitable. In the ditches and
drains of the Sabkhah are the impassable channels
of Gesenius. In the thickly wooded Ghér es Safieh
are ample conditions for the fertility of Prof. Stan-
ley. The general aspect and formation of the plain
answers fully to the idea of an emek.e But the
original of the passage will not bear even this slight
accommodation, and it is evident that in the mind
of the author of the words, no less than of the
learned and eloquent divine and historian of our
own time already alluded to, the Salt Sea covers
the actual space formerly occupied by the Vale of
Siddim. It should be remembered that if the
cities of the plain were, as there is much reason to
believe they were, at the north end of the Dead
Sea, it is hardly probable that the five kings would
have gone so far from home as to the other end of
the lake, a distance of more than forty miles, espe-
cially as on their road they must have passed
Hazezon-Tamar, the modern Ain Jidy, where the
Assyrians were then actually encamped (ver. 7).
The course of the invaders at this time was appa-
rently northwards, and it seems most probable—
though after all nothing but conjecture on such
a point is possible—that the scene of the engage-
ment was somewhere to the north of the lake,
perhaps on the plain at its north-west corner. This
plain is in many of its characteristics not unlike the
Sabkhah already mentioned, and it is a proper and
natural spot for the inhabitants of the plain of
Jericho to attack a hostile force descending from
the passes of Ain Jidy. [G.]
SIDE
ΒΤ (Σίδη: Side). A city on the coast of
1 parte in lat. 36° 46’, long. 31° 27', ten or
twelve miles to the east of the river Eurymedon.
It is mentioned in 1 Macc. xv. 23, among the list
of places to which the Roman senate sent letters
in favour of the Jews [see PHASELIS]. It was a
colony of Cumaeans. In the time of Strabo a
temple of Athené stood there, and the name of
that goddess associated with Apollo appears in an
inscription of undoubtedly late times found on the
spot by Admiral Beaufort. Side was closely con-
nected with Aradus in Phoenicia by commerce,
even if there was not a considerable Phoenician
element in the population; for not only are
the towns placed in juxtaposition in the passage
of the Maccabees quoted above, but Antiochus’s
ambassador to the Achaean league (Livy, xxxv.
48), when boasting of his master’s navy, told
his hearers that the left division was made up
of men of Side and of Aradus, as the right was
of those of Tyre and of Sidon, quas gentes nullae
unquam nec arte nec virtute navali aequassent.
It is possible that the name has the same root as
that of Sidon, and that it (as well as the Sidé on
the southern coast of the Euxine, Strabo, xii. 3)
was originally a Phoenician settlement, and that
the Cumaean colony was something subsequent.
In the times in which Sidé appears in history it
had become a place of considerable importance. 10
was the station of Antiochus’s navy on the eve of
the battle with the Rhodian fleet described by Livy
(xxxvii. 23, 24). The remains, too, which still
exist are an evidence of its former wealth, They
stand on a low peninsula running from N.E. to
S.W., and the maritime character of the former
inhabitants appears from the circumstance that the
walls towards the sea were but slightly built, while
the one which faces the land is of excellent workman-
ship, and remains, in a considerable portion, perfect
even to this time.
rently to the Roman times) is one of the largest
and best preserved in Asia Minor, and is calculated
to have been capable of containing more than
15,000 spectators. This is so prominent an object
that, to persons approaching the shore, it appears
like an acropolis of the city, and in fact, during the
middle ages, was actually occupied as a fort. The
suburbs of Sid@ extend to some distance, but the
greatest length within the walls does not exceed
1300 yards. Three gates led into the town from
the sea, and one, on the north-eastern side, into
the country. From this last a paved street with
high curbstones conducts to an agora, 180 feet in
diameter, and formerly surrounded with a double
row of columns, of which only the bases remain.
In the centre is a large ruined pedestal, as if for a
colossal statue, and on the southern side the ruins
of a temple, probably the one spoken of by Strabo.
Opposite to this a street ran to the principal water-
gate, and on the fourth side of the agora the
avenue from the land-gate was continued to the
front of the theatre. Of this last the lower half is,
after the manner of Roman architects whenever
the site permitted, excavated from the native rock,
the upper half built up of excellent masonry. ‘The
e Josephus states it emphatically. His words (Ant. i.
9) are, ‘They encamped in the valley called the Wells of
Asphalt; for at that time there were wells in that spot ;
but now that the city of the Sodomites has disappeared,
that valley has become a lake which is called As-
phaltites.” See also Strabo, xvi, 764.
ἃ The grounds of this conclusion are stated under SEA,
THE SALT.
© This is the plain which Dr. Robinson and others would
identify with the Valley of Salt, ge melach, It is hardly
possible that it can be both an emek and a ge.
A theatre (belonging appa- .
— μεν νι
SIDON
seats for the spectators, most of which remain, are
of white marble beautifully wrought.
The two principal harbours, which at first seem to
have been united in one, were at the extremity of the
peninsula: they were closed, and together contained
a surface of nearly 500 yards by 200. Besides
these, the principal water-gate on the N.W. side
was connected with two small piers of 150 feet
long, so that it is plain that vessels used to lie
here to discharge their cargoes. And the account
which Livy gives of the sea-fight with Antiochus
above referred to, shows that shelter could also be
found on the other (or S.E.) side of the peninsula
whenever a strong west wind was blowing.
The country by which Sid@ is backed is a
broad swampy plain, stretching out for some miles
beyond the belt of sand-hills which fringe the sea-
shore. Low hills succeed, and behind these, far
inland, are the mountains which, at Mount Climax
40 miles to the west, and again about the same
distance to the east, come down to the coast.
These mountains were the habitation of the
Pisidians, against whom Antiochus, in the spring
of the vear 192 B.c., made an expedition; and as
Sid® was in the interest of Antiochus, until, at
the conclusion of the war, it passed into the hands
of the Romans, it is reasonable to presume that
hostility was the normal relation between its inha-
bitants and the highlanders, to whom they were
probably objects of the same jealousy that the
Spanish settlements on the African seaboard inspire
in the Kabyles round about them. This would not
prevent a large amount of traffic, to the mutual
interest of both parties, but would hinder the
people of Sidé from extending their sway into the
interior, and also render the construction of effective
fortifications on the land side a necessity. (Strabo,
xii, xiv.; Livy, xxsv., xxxvii.; Beaufort, Aara-
mania; Cicero, Hpp. ad Fam. iii. 6.) [J.W.B.]
SI'DON. ‘The Greek form of the Phoenician
name Zidon, or (more accurately) Tsidon, As such
it occurs naturally in the N. T. and Apocrypha of
the Auth. Version (Σιδών: Sidon: 2 Esd. i. 11,
Judg. ii. 28: 1 Macc. v. 15; Matt. xi. 21, 22; xv.
21; Mark iii. 8, vii. 24, 31; Luke iv.* 26, vi. 17,
x. 13, 14; Acts xii. 20,> xxviii. 3). It is thus a
parallel to Ston.
But we also find it in the Ὁ, T., where it imper-
fectly represents the Hebrew word elsewhere pre-
sented as ZipON (Gen. x. 15, 19; ΚΝ : Σιδών,
Σειδών : Sidon). [Zrwon. | [G.]
SIDO'NIANS (DY ; inJudg. TY: Se-
δώνιοι ; in Deut. Φοίνικες ; in Judg. Σιδώνιος :
Sidonii, Sidonius). The Greek form of the word
ZIDONIANS, usually so exhibited in the Auth. Vers.
of the O. T. It occurs Deut. iii. 9; Josh. xiii. 4,
6; Judg. iii. 3; 1K. v. 6. [G.]
SI'HON (Ὁ, and ἡ ΠῚ. : Samar. ἡ :
Snév; Joseph. Σιχών: Sehon). King of the Amor-
ites when Israel arrived on the borders of the Pro-
mised Land (Num. xxi. 21). He was evidently a man
of great courage and audacity. Shortly before the
time of Israel’s arrival he had dispossessed the Moab-
ites of a splendid territory, driving them south of the
4 Tn this passage the form Σιδωνία is used.
b Here the adjective is employed—X.dSeHrr018.
SIHOR 1309
natural bulwark of the Arnon with great slaughter
and the loss of a great number of captives (xxi. 26-
29). When the Israelite host appears, he does not
hesitate or temporise like Balak, but at once gathers
his people together and attacks them. But the
battle was his last. He and all his host were de-
stroyed, and their district from Arnon to Jabbok
became at once the possession of the conqueror.
Josephus (Ant. iv. 5, §2) has preserved some
singular details of the battle, which have not sur-
vived in the text either of the Hebrew or LXX.
He represents the Amorite army as containing
every man in the nation fit to bear arms. He states
that they were unable to fight when away from the
shelter of their cities, and -that being especially
galled by the slings and arrows of the Hebrews, and
at last suffering severely from thirst, they rushed
to the stream and to the shelter of the recesses of
the ravine of the Arnon. Into these recesses they
were pursued by their active enemy and slaughtered
in vast numbers.
Whether we accept these details or not, it is plain,
from the manner in which the name of Sihon®@ fixed
itself in the national mind, and the space which his
image occupies in the official records, and in the
later poetry of Israel, that he was a truly formi-
dable chieftain. [G.]
SI'HOR, accurately SHI'HOR, once THE
SHIHOR (Tiny, TINY, TINY: nav, ἡ
ἀοίκητος ἣ κατὰ πρόσωπον Αἰγύπτου : Nilus,
fluvius turbidus, (aqua) turbida: or SHTHOR OF
EGYPT (DY) WNW: ὅρια Αἰγύπτου : Sihor
Aegypti), when unqualified, a name of the Nile. It
is held to signify ‘‘ the black” or “ turbid,” from
WY, “ he or it was or became black ;” a word used
in a wide sense for different degrees of dark colour,
as of hair, a face tanned by the sun, a skin black
through disease, and extreme blackness. [ NILE,
p- 599 α.1 Several names of the Nile may be com-
pared. Νεῖλος itself, if it be, as is generally sup-
posed, of Iranian origin, signifies “the blue,” that is
‘“‘the dark” rather than the turbid ; for we must then
compare the Sanskrit Ne: Nilah, ‘‘ blue,” pro-
bably especially ‘* dark blue,” also even “ black,” as
NaH: “black mud.” The Arabic azrak,
“blue,” signifies “dark” in the name Bahr el-
Azrak, or Blue River, applied to the eastern of
the two great confluents of the Nile. Still nearer
is the Latin Melo, from μέλας, a name of the Nile,
according to Festus and Servius (Georg. iv. 291;
Aen. i. 745, iv. 246); but little stress can be laid
upon such a word resting on no better authority.
With the classical writers, it is the soil of Egypt
that is black vather than its river. So too in hiero-
glyphies, the name of the country, KEM, means
“the black;’’ but there is no name of the Nile of
like signification. In the ancient painted sculptures,
however, the figure of the Nile-god is coloured dif-
ferently according as it represents the river during
the time of the inundation, and during the rest of
the year, in the former case red, in the latter blue.
There are but three occurrences of Shihor in the
Num, xxi. 27, 29.
4 It is possible that a trace of the name may still
e This form is found frequently, though not exclusively, | remain in the Jebel Shihhan, a lofty and conspicuous
in the books subsequent to the Pentateuch. In the Pent. | mountain just to the south of the Wady Mojeb.
itself it occurs four times, two of which are in the song,
1310 SILAS
Bible, and but one of Shihor of Egypt, or Shihor-
Mizraim. It is spoken of as one of the limits of
territory which was still unconquered when Joshua
was old. “This [is] the land that yet remaineth :
all the regions of the Philistines, and all Geshuri,
from the Shihor (WL), which [is] before Exypt,
even unto the borders of Ekron northward, is
counted to the Canaanite” (Josh. xiii. 2,3). The
enumeration of the Philistines follows. Here, there-
fore, a district lying between Egypt and the most
northern Philistine city seems to be intended. With
this passage must be compared that in which Shihor-
Mizraim occurs. David is related to have “ ga-
thered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt
even unto the entering of Hamath”’ (1 Chr. xiii. 5).
There is no other evidence that the Israelites ever
spread westward beyond Gaza; it may seem strange
that the actual territory dwelt in by them in David’s
time should thus appear to be spoken of as extend-
ing as far as the easternmost branch of the Nile,
but it must be recollected that more than one tribe
at a later time had spread beyond even its first
boundaries, and also that the limits may be those of
David’s dominion vather than of the land actually
fully inhabited by the Israelites. The stream may
therefore be that of the Wddi-l-’Areesh. That the
stream intended by Shihor unqualified was a navi-
gable river is evident from a passage in Isaiah,
where it is said of Tyre, “ And by great waters,
the sowing of Shihor, the harvest of the river
(Yeor, WN), [is] her revenue” (xxiii. 3). Here
Shihor is either the same as, or compared with,
Yeor, generally thought to be the Nile [NILE],
but in this work suggested to be the extension of
the Red Sea. [Rep SEA.] In Jeremiah the iden-
tity of Shihor with the Nile seems distinctly stated
where it is said of Israel, “" And now what hast thou
to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of
Shihor? or what hast thou to do in the way of
Assyria, to drink the waters of the river?” 7. ὁ.
Euphrates (ii. 18). In considering these passages
it is important to distinguish between ‘ the Shihor
which [is] before Egypt,” and Shihor of Egypt, on
the one hand, and Shihor alone, on the other, In
articles NILE and River or EGYPT it is maintained
too strongly that Shihor, however qualified, is always
the Nile. The later opinion of the writer is expressed
here under SutHOR OF Eaypr. The latter is, he
thinks, unquestionably the Nile, the former two
probably, but not certainly, the same. [R. S. P.]
SILAS (Σίλας : Silas). An eminent member
of the early Christian Church, described under that
name in the Acts, but as Silvanus in St. Paul’s
_ Epistles. He first appears as one of the leaders (ἡγού-
μενοι) of the Church at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 22),
holding the office of an inspired teacher (προφήτης,
xv. 32). His name, derived from the Latin silva,
“‘wood,” betokens him a Hellenistic Jew, and he
appears to have been a Roman citizen (Acts xvi.
37). He was appointed as a delegate to accom-
pany Paul and Barnabas on their return to Antioch
with the decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts
xv, 22, 32). Having accomplished this mission,
he returned to Jerusalem (Acts xv. 33; the follow-
ing verse, ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ SlAa ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ, is de-
cidedly an interpolation introduced to harmonise
the passage with xv. 40). He must, however,
a The Alexandrine writers adopted somewhat bold ab-
breviations of proper names, such as Zenas for Zenodorus,
Apollos for Apollonius, Hermas for Hermodorus. The
method by which they arrived at these forms is not very
apparent.
SILK
have immediately revisited Antioch, for we find
him selected by St. Paul as the companion οἱ his
second missionafy journey (Acts xv. 40-xvii. 40).
At Beroea he was left behind with Timothy while
St. Paul proceeded to Athens (Acts xvii. 14), and
we hear nothing more of his movements until he
rejoined the Apostle at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5).
Whether he had followed Paul to Athens in obe-
dience to the injunction to do so (Acts xvii. 15), and
had been sent thence with ‘Timothy to Thessalonica
(1 Thess. iii. 2), or whether his movements were
wholly independent of ‘Timothy’s, is uncertain
(Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, i. 458, note 3). His
presence at Corinth is several times noticed (2 Cor.
i. 19; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1). He probably
returned to Jerusalem with St. Paul, and from that
time the connexion between them appears to have
terminated. Whether he was the Silvanus who
conveyed St. Peter’s First Epistle to Asia Minor
(1 Pet. v. 12), is doubtful; the probabilities are in
favour of the identity ; the question is chiefly inte-
resting as bearing upon the Pauline character of St.
Peter’s Epistles (De Wette, Hinleit. §4). A tra-
dition of very slight authority represents Silas to
have become bishop of Corinth. We have finally
to notice, for the purpose of rejecting, the theories
which identify Silas with Tertius (Rom. xvi.
22) through a Hebrew explanation of the name
(WW), and again with Luke, or at all events with
the author of the Acts (Alford’s Prolegom. in Acts,
i. §1). ΒΗ
SILK (σηρικόν). The only undoubted notice
of silk in the Bible occurs in Rev. xviii. 12, where
it is mentioned among the treasures of the typical
Babylon. It is, however, in the highest degree
probable that the texture was known to the Hebrews
trom the time that their commercial relations were
extended by Solomon. For, though we have no
historical evidence of the importation of the raw
material to the shores of the Mediterranean earlier
than that of Aristotle (H. A. v. 19) in the 4th
century B.C., yet that notice, referring as it does to
the island of Cos, would justify the assumption that
it had been known at a far earlier period in Western
Asia. The commercial routes of that continent are
of the highest antiquity, and an indirect testimony
to the existence of a trade with China in the age of
Isaiah, is probably afforded us in his reference to the
Sinim. [Sryr.] The well-known classical name
of the substance (σηρικόν, sericum) does not occur
in the Hebrew language,» but this may be accounted
for, partly on the ground that the Hebrews were
acquainted only with the texture and not with the
raw material, and partiy on the supposition that
the name sericum reached the Greeks by another
channel, viz. through Armenia. The Hebrew terms
which have been supposed to refer to silk are meshi©
and demeshek.4 The former occurs only in Ez.
xvi. 10, 13 (A. V. “silk”) and is probably con-
nected with the root mdshdh, ‘‘to draw out,” as
though it were made of the finest drawn silk in the
manner described by Pliny (vi. 20, xi. 26): the
equivalent term in the LXX. (τρίχαπτον), though
connected in point of etymology with hair as its
material, is nevertheless explained by Hesychius
and Suidas as referring to silk, which may well
have been described as resembling hair. The other
» Calmet conjectured that MIP"W (is. xix. 9, A. V.
“ fine’) was connected with seriewm.
© WD. 4 ῬΙΝῚ.
SILLA
term demeshek occurs in Am. iii. 12 (A. V.
“ Damascus’’), and has been supposed to refer to
silk from the resemblance of the word to our
“damask,” and of this again to ““ Damascus,” as
the place where the manufacture of silken textures
was carried on. It appears, however, that ‘‘ da-
mask” is a corruption of dimakso, a term applied
by the Arabs to the raw material alone, and not to
the manufactured article (Pusey’s Min. Proph.
p- 183). We must, therefore, consider the reference
to silk as extremely dubious. We have notice of
silk under its classical name in the Mishna (A7. 9,
§2), where Chinese silk is distinguished from floss-
silk. The value set upon silk by the Romans, as
implied in Rev. xviii. 12, is noticed by Josephus
(B. J. vii. 5, §4), as well as by classical writers
(e.g. Sueton. Calig. 52; Mart. xi. 9). [W. L. B.]
SIL'LA (NOD: Γαάλλα; Alex. Γαλααδ: Sela).
“ The house of Millo which goeth down to Silla,’
was the scene of the murder of King Joash (2 K.
xii. 20). What or where Silla was is entirely
matter of conjecture. Millo seems most probably
to have been the citadel of the town, and situated
‘on Mount Zion, [See p, 567 α.1] Silla must have
been in the valley below, overlooked by that part
of the citadel which was used as a residence. The
situation of the present so-called Pool of Siloam
would be appropriate, and the agreement between
the two names is tempting ; but the likeness exists
in the Greek and English versions only, and in the
original is too slight to admit of any inference.
Gesenius, with less than his usual caution, affirms
Silla to be a town in the neighbourhood of Jeru-
salem. Others (as Thenius, in Kurzg. exeg.
Handb. on the passage), refer it to a place on
or connected with the causeway or flight of steps
(nD) which led from the central valley of the
city up to the court of the Temple. To indulge in
such confident statements on either side is an
entire mistake. Neither in the parallel passage of
Chronicles,* in the lists of Nehemiah iii. and xii.,
the Jewish Commentator, the LXX., in Josephus,
nor in Jerome, do we find the smallest clue; and
there is therefore no alternative but to remain for
the present in ignorance. [G.]
SILO'AH, THE POOL OF (novia ΠΞῚΞ :
κολυμβήθρα τῶν κωδίων : FA. k. των Geena
Σιλωαμ: Piscina Siloe). This name is not accu-
rately represented in the A. V. of Neh. iii. 15—
the only passage in which this particular form
occurs. It should be Shelach, or rather has-She-
lach, since it is given with the definite article.
This was possibly a corrupt form of the name
which is first presented as Shiloach, then as
Siloam, and is now Selwan. The meaning of She-
lach taken as Hebrew is “ dart.” This cannot be a
name given to the stream on account of its swiftness,
SILOAM 131]
because it is not now, nor was it in the days of
Isaiah, anything but a very soft and gentle stream.
(Is. viii. 6). It is probably an accommodation to the
popular mouth, of the same nature as that exempli-
fied in the name Dart, which is now borne by more
than one river in England, and which has nothing
whatever to do with swiftness, but is merely a cor-
ruption of the ancient word which also appears in
the various forms of Derwent,¢ Darent, Trent. The
last of these was at one time supposed to mean
‘thirty ;’ and the river Trent was believed to have
30 tributaries, 30 sorts of fish, 30 convents on its
banks, &c.: a notion preserved from oblivion by
Milton in his lines—
“ And Trent that like some earth-born giant spreads
His thirty arms along the indented meads.”
For the fountain and pool, see SItoAM. [6.]
6; ova,
SILO'AM (ΡΠ, Shiloach, Is. viii.
Shelach, Neh. iii. 15; the change in the Masoretic
punctuation indicating merely perhaps a change in
the pronunciation or in the spelling of the word,
sometime during the three centuries between Isaiah
and Nehemiah. Rabbinical writers, and, following
them, Jewish travellers, both ancient and modern,
from Benjamin of Tudela to Schwarz, retain the
earlier Shiloach in preference to the later Shelach.
The Rabbis give it with the article, as in the Bible
(mown, Dach’s Codex Talmudicus, p. 367). The
Sept. gives Σιλωὰμ in Isaiah; but in Nehemiah κο-
λυμβήθρα τῶν κωδίων, the pool of the sheep-skins,
or “ fleece-pool ;”’ perhaps because, in their day,
it was used for washing the fleeces.of the victims.4
The Vulgate has uniformly, both in Old and New
Testaments, Siloe; in the Old calling it piscina,
and in the New natatoria. The Latin Fathers, led
by the Vulgate, have always Si/oe ; the old pilgrims,
who knew nothing but the Vulgate, Si/oe or hese
The Greek Fathers, adhering to the Sept., have
Siloam. The word does not occur in the Apocrypha.
Josephus gives both Siloam and Siloas, generally
the former.)
Siloam is one of the few undisputed localities
(though Reland and some others misplaced it) in the
topography of Jerusalem ; still retaining its old name
(with Arabic modification, Silvan), while every
other pool has lost its Bible-designation. This is
the more remarkable as it is a mere suburban tank
of no great size, and for many an age not particu-
larly good or plentiful in its waters, though Jo-
sephus tells us that in his day they were both
“sweet and abundant” (B. J. v. 4, 81). Apart
from the identity of name, there is an unbroken
chain of exterior testimony, during eighteen cen-
turies, connecting the present Birket Silwdn with
the Shiloah of Isaiah and the Siloam of St. John.
There are difficulties in identifying the Bir Lyub
(the well of Salah-ed-din, Jon Hyub, the great
digger of wells, Jalal-Addin, p. 239), but none iv
e ‘The A. V. confounds WY with silk in Prov. xxxi. 22.
8 2 Chr. xxiv. 25, a passage tinged with the usual colour
of the narrative of Chronicles, and containing some curious
variations from that of the Kings, but passing over the
place of the murder sub silentio,
b The reading of the two great MSS. of the LXX.—
agreeing in the I’ as the commencement of the name—is
remarkable ; and prompts the suggestion that the Hebrew
name may originally have begun with Nd, a ravine (as
Ge-hinnom). The καταμενοντα of the Alex. is doubtless
ἃ corruption of καταβαινοντα.
e Derwent appears to be the oldest of these forms, and
to be derived from derwyn, an ancient Britis word,
meaning “ to wind about.” On the Continent the name
is found in the following forms :—Fr. Durance; Germ.
Drewenz; It. Trento; Russ. Duna (Ferguson’s River
Names, &c.).
ἃ In Talmudical Hebrew Shelach signifies “a skin”
(Levi’s Lingua Sacra); and the Alexandrian translators
attached this meaning to it; they and the earlier Rabbis
considering Nehemiah’s Shelach as a different pool from
Siloam; probably the same as Bethesda, by the sheep-
gate (John v. 2), the προβατικὴ κολυμβήθρα of Eusebius,
the probatica piscina of Jerome. If so, then it is Beth-
esda, and not Siloam, that is mentioned by Nehemiah.
1312 SILOAM
fixing Siloam. Josephus mentions it frequently in
his Jewish War, and his references indicate that it
was a somewhat noted place, a sort of city land-
mark. From him we learn that it was without
the city (ἔξω τοῦ ἄστεως, B. J. v. 9, 84); that
it was at this pool that the ““ old wall”’ took a bend
and shot out eastward (ἀνακάμπτον εἰς ἀνατολήν,
ib. v. 6, §1); that there was a valley under it
(τὴν ὑπὸ Σιλωὰμ φάραγγα, ib. vi. 8, §5), and one
beside it (τῇ κατὰ τὴν Σιλωὰμ φάραγγι, ib. v. 12,
§2); a hill (λόφος) right opposite, apparently on
the other side of the Kedron, hard by a cliff or rock
called Peristereon (ib.); that .t was at the ter-
mination or mouth of the Tyropaeon (ib. v. 4, 81);
that close beside it, apparently eastward, was an-
other pool, called Solomon’s pool, to which the
“old wall” came after leaving Siloam, and past
which it went on to Oph/as, where, bending north-
Ward, it was united to the eastern arcade of the
Temple. In the Antonine Itinerary (A.D. 335) it
is set down in the same locality, but it is said to
be “ juxta murum,” as Josephus implies; whereas
now it is a considerable distance—upwards of 1200
feet—from the nearest angle of the present wall,
and nearly 1900 feet from the southern wall of the
Haram. Jerome, towards the beginning of the 5th
century, describes it as ‘‘ ad radices montis Moriah ”
(in Matt. x.), and tells (though without endorsing
the fable) that the stones sprinkled with the blood
(vubra saxa) of the prophet Zechariah were still
pointed out (im Matt. xxiii.). He speaks of it as
being in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, as
Josephus does of its being at the mouth of the
Tyropaeon (2m Jer. ii.) ; and it is noticeable that he
(like the Rabbis) never mentions the Tyropaeon,
while he, times without number, speaks of the
Valley of the Son of Hinnom. He speaks of Hin-
nom, Tophet, with their groves and gardens, as
watered by Siloam (in Jer. xix. 6, and xxxii. 35).
“«Tophet, quae est in valle filii Ennom, illum locum
significat qui Siloe fontibus irrigatur, et est amoenus
atque nemorosus, hodieque hortorum praebet deli-
cias”’ (in Jer. viii.). He speaks of Siloam as de-
pendent on the rains, and as the only fountain used
in his day :—*‘ Uno fonte Siloe et hoc non perpetuo
utitur civitas; et usque in praesentem diem steri-
litas pluviarum, non solum frugum sed et bibendi
inopiam facit” (in Jer. xiv.). Now, though Jerome
ought to have known well the water-supplies of
Jerusalem, seeing he lived the greater part of his
life within six miles of it, yet other authorities, and
the modern water-provision of the city, show us
that it never could have been wholly dependent on
its pools. Its innumerable bottle-necked private cis-
terns kept up a supply at all times, and hence it
often happened that it was the beséegers, not the
besieged, that suffered most; though Josephus re-
cords a memorable instance to the contrary, when
—relating a speech he made to the Jews standing,
beyond their darts, on a part of the south-eastern
wall which the Romans had carried—he speaks of
Siloam as overflowing since the Romans had got
access to it, whereas before, when the Jews held it,
it was dry (B. J. v. 9, §4). And we may here
notice, in passing, that Jerusalem is, except perhaps
in the very heat of the year, a well-watered city.
Dr. Barclay says that ‘ within a circuit swept by a
SILOAM
radius of seven or eight miles there are no less than
thirty or forty natural springs” (City of the Great
King, p. 295); and a letter from Consul Finn to
the writer adds, ‘‘ This I believe to be under the
truth; but they are almost all found to the 8. and
S.W.: in those directions there does not appear to
be a village without springs,” 6
In the 7th century Antoninus Martyr mentions
Siloam, as both fountain and pool. Bernhard the
monk speaks of it in the 9th, and the annalists of the
Crusades mention its site, in the fork of two valleys,
as we find it. Benjamin of Tudela (A.p. 1173)
speaks of “the great spring of Shiloach which runs
into the brook Kedron ’’ (Asher’s οἷ, vol. i.
p- 71); and he mentions “a large building wpon
it” (339), which he says was erected in the days of
his fathers. Is it of this building that the present
ruined pillars are the relics ἢ Caumont (A.D, 1418)
speaks of the Valley of Siloah, ‘ou est le fonteyne
ou le (510) vierge Marie lavoit les drapellez de son
enfant,” and of the fountain of Siloam, as close at
hand (Voyage doultremer en Jherusalem, &c.,
Paris edition, p. 68). Felix Fabri (A.D. 1484)
describes Siloam at some length, and seems to have
attempted to enter the subterraneous passage; but
failed, and retreated in dismay after filling his
flasks with its eye-healing water. Arnold von
Harff (A.D. 1496) also’ identities the spot (Die
Pilgerfahrt, p. 186, Col. ed.). After this, the re-
ferences to Siloam are innumerable; nor do they,
with one or two exceptions, vary in their location
of it. We hardly needed these testimonies to enable
us to fix the site, though some topographers have
rested on these entirely. Scripture, if it does not
actually set it down in the mouth of the Tyropaeon
as Josephus does, brings us very near it, both in
Nehemiah and St. John. The reader who compares
Neh. iii. 15 with Neh. xii. 37, will find that the
pool of Siloah, the fountain-gate, the stairs of the
city of David, the wall above the house of David,
the water-gate, and the king’s gardens, were all
near each other. The Evangelist’s narrative 1e-
garding the blind man, whose eyes the Lord mira-
culously opened, when carefully examined, leads us
to the conclusion that Siloam was somewhere in the
neighbourhood of the Temple. The Rabbinical tra-
ditions, or Aistories as they doubtless are in many
cases, frequently refer to Siloam in connexion with
the Temple service. It was to Siloam that the
Levite was sent with the golden pitcher on the
“last and’ great day of the feast’ of Tabernacles ;
it was from Siloam that he brought the water
which was then poured over the sacrifice, in me-
mory of the water from the rock of Rephidim; and
it was to this Siloam water that the Lord pointed
when He stood in the Temple on that day and cried,
“Tf any man thirst, let him come unto me and
drink.”
The Lord sent the blind man to wash, not zn, as
our version has it, but at (eis) the pool of Siloam;
for it was the clay from his eyes that was to be
washed off; and the Evangelist is careful to throw
in a remark, not for the purpose of telling us that
Siloam meant an “aqueduct,” as some think, but to
give higher significance to the miracle. ‘* Go wash
at Siloam,’ was the command; the Evangelist
adds, “ which is by interpretation, seNT.” On the
© Strabo’s statement is that Jerusalem itself was rocky
but well watered (evudpov), but all the region around was
barren and waterless (λυπρὰν καὶ ἄνυδρον), Ὁ. xvi. ch. 2,
sect. 36.
{See Wolfii Curae, &c. Or eis gets its force from
ὕπαγε, νίψαι coming between the verb and its preposi-
tion, parenthetically, “Go to the pool and wash thine
eyes there.”
ee
—
SILOAM
inner meaning here—the parallelism between ‘ the |
Sent One” (Luke iv. 18; John x. 36) and “ the
Sent water,” the missioned One and the missioned
pool, we say nothing farther than what St. Basil
said well, in his exposition of the 8th of Isaiah,
τίς οὖν ὁ ἀπεσταλμένος καὶ ἀψοφητὶ ῥέων; ἢ
περὶ οὗ εἴρηται, κύριος ἀπέσταλκέ ME ‘eal πάλιν,
οὐκ ἐρίσει οὐδὲ κραυγάσει. That “Sent” is the
natural interpretation is evident, not simply from
the word itself, but from other passages where
noe i is used in connexion with water, as Job iii,
10, ἷω he sendeth waters upon the fields :Ὁ᾿ and Ezek.
xxxi. 4, “she sent out her little rivers unto all the
SILOAM 1313
trees of the field.’ The Talmudists coincide with
the Evangelist, and say that Shiloach was so called
because it sent forth its waters to water the gardens
(Levi’s Lingua Sacra). We may add Homer’s line—
ἐννῆμαρ δ᾽ és τεῖχος ἵει ῥόον (II. xii. 25).
A little way below the Jewish burying ground,
but: on the opposite side of the valley, where the
Kedron turns slightly westward, and πλθξες itself
considerably, is the fountain of the Vi irgin or Um-
ed-Deraj, near the beginning of that, saddle-shaped
projection of the Temple-hill supposed to be the
OPHEL of the Bible, and the Ορλίαβ of Josephus,
[EN RocEx.] At the back part of this fountain a
Pool of Siloam, looking north.
subterraneous passage begins, through which the |
water flows, and through which a man may make his
way, as did Robinson and Barclay, sometimes walk-
ing erect, sometimes stooping, sometimes kneeling,
and sometimes crawling, to Siloam. This rocky
conduit, which twists considerably, but keeps, in
general, a south-westerly direction, is according to |
Robinson, 1750 feet long, while the direct distance
between Stlwdn and Um-ed-Deraj is only a little
above 1200 feet. In former days this passage was
evidently deeper, as its bed is sand of some depth,
which has been accumulating for ages, This con-
duit has had tributaries, which have formerly sent |
From a sketch by Rey.
VOL. Il.
S. C. Malan.
their waters down from the city pools or Temple-
wells to swell Siloam. Barclay writes, ‘‘ In ex-
ploring the subterraneous channel conveying the
water from the Virgin’s ‘fount to Siloam, I disco-
vered a similar channel entering from the north, a
few yards from its commencement; and on tracing
it up near the Mugrabin gate, ἘΠΕῚ e it became so
choked with rubbish that it “could be traversed no
farther, I there found it turn to the west, in the
direction of the south end of the cleft or saddle of
Zion; and if this channel was not constructed for
the purpose of conveying ,to Siloam the surplus
waters of Hezekiah’s aqueduct I am unable to sug-
P
1314 SILOAM
gest any purpose to which it could have been
applied” (City of the Great King, p. 309). In an-
other place he tells us something more: ‘ Having
loitered in the pool [ Virgin’s fount] till the coming
down of the waters, I soon found several widely
separated places where it gained admittance, besides
the opening under the steps, where alone it had for-
merly been supposed to enter. I then observed a
large opening entering the rock-hewn channel, just
below the pool, which, though once a copious tri-
butary, is now dry. Being too much choked with
tesserae and rubbish to be penetrated far, I care-
fully noted its position and bearing, and, on search-~
ing for it above, soon identified it on the exterior,
where it assumed an upward direction towards the
Temple, and, entering through a breach, traversed it
for nearly a thousand feet, sometimes erect, some-
times bending, sometimes inching my way snake-
fashion, till at last I reached a point near the wall
where I heard the donkeys tripping along over my
head. I was satisfied, on subsequently locating our
course above ground with the theodolite, that this
canal derived its former supply of water, not from
Moriah, but from Zion” (City, 523).
This conduit enters Siloam at the north-west
angle; or rather enters a small rock-cut chamber
which forms the vestibule of Siloam, about tive or
six feet broad. To this you descend by a few rude
steps, under which the water pours itself into the
main pool (Narrative of Mission to the Jews,
vol. i. p. 207). This pool is oblong; eighteen
paces in length according to Lafti ( Viaggio al Santo
Sepolcro, A.D. 1678); fifty feet according to Bar-
clay ; and fifty-three according to Robinson. It is
eighteen feet, broad, and nineteen feet deep, ac-
cording to Robinson; but Barclay gives a more
minute measurement, “‘ fourteen and a half at the
lower (eastern) end, and seventeen at the upper;
its western end side being somewhat bent; it is
eighteen and a half in depth, but never filled ; the
water either passing directly through, or being main-
tained at adepth of three or four feet ; this is effected
by leaving open or closing (with a few handfuls of
weeds at the present day, but formerly by a food-
gate) an aperture at the bottom; at a height of
three or four feet from the bottom, its dimensions
become enlarged a few feet, and the water, attain-
ing this level, falls through an aperture at its lower
end, into an educt, subterranean at first, but soon
appearing in a deep ditch under the perpendicular
clitf of Ophel, and is received into a few small reser-
voirs and troughs”’ (City, 524).
The small basin at the west end, which we have
described, is what some old travellers call ‘* the
fountain of Siloe” (F. Fabri, vol. i. p. 420). «In
front of this,’ Fabri goes on, “ there is a bath sur-
rounded by walls and buttresses, like a cloister, and
the arches of these buttresses are supported by
marble pillars,” which pillars he attirms to be the
remains of a monastery built sabove the pool. The
present pool is a ruin, with no moss or ivy to make
it romantic; its sides falling in; its pillars broken;
its stair a fragment; its walls giving way; the
edge of every stone worn round or sharp by time;
in some parts mere débris; once Siloam, now,
like the city which overhung it, a heap; though
around its edges, ‘ wild flowers, and, among other
plants, the caper-tree, grow luxuriantly ” (Narra-
tive of Mission, vol. i. p. 207). The grey crum-
bling limestone of the stone (as well as of the
surrounding rocks, which are almost verdureless)
gives a poor and worn-gut aspect to this venerable
SILOAM
relic. The present pool is not the original build-
ing; the work of crusaders it may be; perhaps
even improved by Saladin, whose affection for wells
and pools led him to care for all these things;
perhaps the work of later days. Yet the spot is
the same., Above it rises the high rock, and beyond
it the city wall; while eastward and southward
the verdure of gardens relieves the grey monotony
of the scene, and beyond these the Kedron vale,
overshadowed by the third of the three heights of
Olivet, ‘the mount of corruption” (1 K. x. 7;
xxiii. 13), with the village of Silwdn jutting out
over its lower slope, and looking into the pool from
which it takes its name and draws its water.
This pool, which we may call the second, seems
anciently to have poured its waters into a third,
before it proceeded to water the royal gardens.
This third is perhaps that which Josephus calls
«ὁ Solomon’s pool” (B. J. v. 4, §2), and which
Nehemiah calls ‘ the King’s pool” (ii. 14); for -
this must have been somewhere about “ the King’s
garden” (Josephus’s βασιλικὸς παράδεισος, Ant.
vii. 14, 84); and we know that this was by ‘‘ the
wall of the pool of Siloah” (iii. 15). The Anto-
nine Itinerary speaks of it in connexion with
Stloa, as “alia piscina grandis foras.” It is now
known as the Birket-el-Hamra, and may be perhaps
some five times the size of Birket-es-Silwan. Bar-
clay speaks of it merely as a “" depressed fig-yard ;””
but one would like to see it cleared out.
Siloam is in Scripture always called @ pool. It
is not an DAN, that is, a marsh-pool (Is. xxxv. 7) 5
nor a (74, a natural hollow or pit (Is. xxx. 14) ;
nor a MP, a natural gathering of water (Gen. i.
10; Is. xxii. 11); nor a ἽΝ, a well (Gen. xvi.
14); nora 3, a pit (Lev. xi. 36); nor an PY,
a spring (Gen. iii. 17); buta ΠΞ 3, a recularly-
built pool or tank (2 K. xx. 20; Neh. iii. 15; Eccl.
ii. 6). This last word is still retained in the Arabic,
as any traveller or reader of travels knows. While
Nehemiah calls it a pool, Isaiah merely speaks of it
as “ the waters of Shiloah ;” while the New Testa-
ment gives κολυμβήθρα, and Josephus πηγή. The
Rabbis and Jewish travellers call it a fountain; in
which they are sometimes followed by the Euro-
pean travellers of all ages, though more generally
they give us piscina, natatoria, and stagnum.
It is the least of all the Jerusalem pools; hardly
the sixth part of the Birket el-Mamilla; hardly the
tenth of the Birket-es-Sultan, or of the lowest of
the three pools of Solomon at L/-Burak. Yet it
is a sacred spot, even to the Moslem; much more
to the Jew; for not only from it was the water
taken at the Feast of Tabernacles, but the water
for the ashes of the red heifer (Dach’s Talm. Babyl.
380). Jewish tradition makes Gihon and Siloam
one (Lightfoot, Cent. Chor. in Matt. p. 51;
Schwarz, p. 265), as if Gihon were ‘the burst-
ing forth” (M3, to break out), and Siloam the
receptacle of the waters “sent.” If this were the
case, it might be into Siloam, through one of the
many subterranean aqueducts with which Jerusa-
lem abounds, and one of which probably went down
the Tyropoeon, that Hezekiah turned the waters on
the other side of the city, when he ‘‘ stopped the
upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight
down to the west side of the city of David” (2
Chr. xxxii. 30).
The rush of water down these conduits is referred
SILOAM
1315
The Village of Silwan (Siloam), and the lower part of the Valley of the Kedron, shewing the δ" King’s gardens,” which are watered
by the Pool. The background is the highlands of Judah. The view is from a Photograph by James Graham, Esq., taken from
beneath the S, wall of the Haram.
to by Jerome (“per terrarum concava et antra
saxi durissimi cum magno sonitu venit,’” Jn. fs.
viii. 6), as heard in his day, showing that the
water was more abundant then than now. The
intermittent character of Siloam is also noticed by
him; but in a locality perforated by so many
aqueducts, and supplied by so many large wells
and secret springs (not to speak of the discharge of
the great city-baths), this irregular flow is easily
accounted for, both by the direct and the siphonic
action of the water. How this natural intermit-
tency of Siloam could be made identical with the
miraculous troubling of Bethesda (John v. 4) one
does not see. The lack of water in the pool now
is no proof that there was not the great abundance
of which Josephus speaks (Δ, J. v. 4, §1); and as
to the ‘‘ sweetness” he speaks of, {πὸ {πὸ “* aquae
dulces”’ of Virgil (Georg. iv. 61), or the Old Test-
ament PMMt> (Ex. xv. 25), which is used both in
reference to the sweetness of the Marah waters (Ex.
xy. 25), and of the “stolen waters” of the foolish
woman (Prov. ix. 17); it simply means fresh or
pleasant in opposition to bitter (W3; πικρὸ).
The expression in Isaiah, ‘‘ waters of Shiloah
that go softly,’ seems to point to the slender
rivulet, flowing gently, though once very profusely,
out of Siloam into the lower breadth of level,
where the king’s gardens, or ‘royal paradise,”
stood, and which is still the greenest spot about |
the Holy City, reclaimed from sterility into a fair
oasis of olive-groves fig-trees, pomegranates, &c.,
by the tiny rill which flows out of Siloam. A
winter-torrent, like the Kedron, or a swelling river
like the Euphrates, carries havoc with it, by
sweeping off soil, trees, and terraces; but this |
Siloam-fed rill flows softly, fertilizing and beanti-
fying the region through which it passes. As the
Euphrates is used by the prophet as the symbol of
the wasting sweep of the Assyrian king, so Siloam
is taken as the type of the calm prosperity of Israel
under Messianic rule, when “ the desert rejoices and
blossoms as the rose.” The word softly or
secretly cond) does not seem to refer to the seeret
transmission of the waters through the tributary
viaducts, but, like Ovid’s ‘‘molles aquae,’’
‘‘blandae aquae,” and Catullus’ “ molle fiumen,”’
to the quiet gentleness with which the rivulet
steals on its mission of beneficence, through the
gardens of the king, Thus “ Siloah’s brook ”’ of
Milton, and ‘cool Siloam’s shady rill,” are not
mere poetical fancies. The ‘‘ fountain”? and the
“pool,” and the “rill”? of Siloam, are all visible
to this day, each doing its old work beneath tie
high rock of Moriah, and almost beneath the shadow
of the Temple wall.
East of the Kedron, right opposite the rough
grey slope extending between Deraj and Silwan,
above the kitchen-gardens watered by Siloam which
supply Jerusalem with vegetables, is the village
which takes its name from the pool,—Kefr-Silwan,
At Deraj the Kedron is narrow, and the village is
very near the fountain. Hence it is to it rather
than to the pool that the villagers generally betake
themselves for water. For as the Kedron widens con-
siderably in its progress southward, the Afr is at
some little distance from the Birkehk. This village
is unmentioned in ancient times; perhaps it did
not exist. It i8 a wretched place for filth and
irregularity ; its square hovels all huddled together
like the lairs of wild beasts, or rather like the
4P2
1316 SILOAM, TOWER IN
tombs and caves in which savages or demoniacs
may be supposed to dwell. It lies near the foot
of the third or southern height of Olivet; and in
all likelihood marks the spot of the idoJ-shrines
which Solomon built to Chemosh, and Ashtoreth
and Mileom. This was ‘the mount of corrup-
tion” (2 Κα, xxiii, 13), the hill that is before (east ;
before in Hebrew geography means east) Jerusalem
(1 K. xi. 7); and these “abominations of the
Moabites, Zidonians, and Ammonites” were built
on “the right hand of the mount,’ that is, the
southern part of it. This is the “ opprobrious
hill” of Milton (Par. L. Ὁ. i. 403); the ‘ mons
offensionis ”’ of the Vulgate and of early travellers ;
the Μοσθάθ of the Sept. (see Keil On Kings) ;
and the Berg des Aergernisses of German maps.
In Ramboux’ singular volume of lithographs (Col.
1858) of Jerusalem and its Holy Places, in imi-
tation of the antique, there is a sketch of an old
monolith tomb in the village of Silwdan, which few
travellers have noticed, but of which De Saulcy
has given us both a cut and a description (vol. ii.
p- 214); setting it down as a relic of Jebusite
workmanship. One would like to know more
about this village, and about the pedigree of its
inhabitants. [H. B.]
SILO’AM, TOWER IN. (Ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ
Σιλωάμ, Luke xiii. 4.) Of this we know nothing
definitely beyond these words of the Lord. Of
the tower or its fall no historian gives us any
account ; and whether it was a tower in connexion
with the pool, or whether “in Siloam” refers to
the valley near, we cannot say. There were forti-
fications hard by, for of Jotham we read, ‘‘ on the
wall of Ophel he built much” (2 Chr. xxvii. 3) ;
and of Manasseh that “ he compassed about Ophel”’
(ib. xxxiii, 14); and, in connexion with Ophel,
there is mention made of “a tower that lieth out”
(Neh. iii. 26); and there is no unlikelihood in
connecting this projecting tower with the tower in
Siloam, while one may be almost excused for the
conjecture that its projection was the cause of its
ultimate fall. [H. B.j
SILVA'NUS. [Sivas.]
SILVER (5)D3, ceseph). In very early times,
according to the Bible, silver was used for ornaments
(Gen. xxiv. 53), for cups (Gen. xliv. 2), for the
sockets of the pillars of the tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 19,
&c.), their hooks and fillets, or rods (Ex. xxvii. 10),
and their capitals (ἔχ. xxviii. 17); for dishes, or
chargers, and bowls (Num. vii. 13), trumpets
(Num. x. 2), candlesticks (1 Chr. xxviii. 15),
tables (1 Chr. xxviii. 16), basins (1 Chr. xxviii. 17),
chains (Is. xl. 19), the settings of ornaments (Prov.
xxv. 11), studs (Cant. i. 11), and crowns (Zech.
vi.11). Images for idolatrous worship were made of
silver or overlaid with it (Ex. xx. 23; Hos. xiii. 2 ;
Hab. ii. 19; Bar. vi. 39), and the manufacture
of silver shrines for Diana was a trade in Ephesus
(Acts xix. 24). [DEMETRIUS.] But its chief use
was as a medium of exchange, and throughout the
O. T. we find ceseph, “silver,” used for money,
like the Fr. argent. To this general usage there
is but one exception. (See Mrvats, p. 342 δ.)
Vessels and ornaments of gold and silver were com-
mon in Egypt in the times of Osirtasen I. and
Thothmes III., the contemporaries of Joseph and
Moses (Wilkinson, Anc. Ey. iii. 225). In the Ho-
meric poems we find indications of the constant
application of silyer to purposes of ornament and
SIMALCUE
luxury. It was used for basins (Od. i. 137, iv.
53), goblets (Z7. xxiii. 741), baskets (Od. iv. 125),
cotfers (74. xviii. 413), sword-hilts (Z/. i. 219; Od.
viii. 404), door-handles (Od. i. 442), and clasps for
the greaves (//. iii. 331). Door-posts (Od. vii. 89)
and lintels (Od. vii. 90) glittered with silver orna-
ments ; baths (Od. iv. 128), tables (Od. x. 355),
bows (Jl. i. 49, xxiv. 605), scabbards (J/. xi. 31),
sword-belts (Z7. xviii. 598), belts for the shield
(Zl. xviii. 480), chariot-poles (Z/. ν. 729) and the
naves of wheels (//. v. 729) were adorned with
silver ; women braided their hair with silver-thread
(14. xvii. 52), and cords appear to have been made
of it (Od. x. 24); while we constantly find that
swords (Z/. ii. 45, xxiii. 807) and sword-belts (Z/.
xi. 237), thrones, or chairs of state (Od. viii. 65),
and bedsteads (Od. xxiii. 200) were studded with
silver. Thetis of the silver feet was probably so
called from the silver ornaments on her sandals (/7.
i. 538). The practice of overlaying silver with
gold, reterred to in Homer (Od. vi. 232, xxiii. 159),
is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, though inferior
materials were covered with silver (Prov. xxvi. 23).
Silver was brought to Solomon from Arabia
(2 Chr. ix. 14) and from Tarshish (2 Chr. ix. 21),
which supplied the markets of Tyre (Ez. xxvii.
12). From Tarshish it came in the form of plates
(Jer. x. 9), like those on which the sacred books of
the Singhalese are written to this day (Tennent’s
Ceylon, ii. 102). The silver bowl given as a prize
by Achilles was the work of Sidonian artists (Z/.
xxiii. 743; comp. Od. iv. 618). In Homer (//. ii.
857), Alybe is called the birthplace of silver, and was
probably celebrated for its mines. But Spain appears
to have been the chief source whence silver was ob-
tained by the ancients. [MmNEs, p. 369.| Possibly
the hills of Palestine may have afforded some supply
of this metal. “When Volney was among the
Druses, it was mentioned to him that an ore afford-
ing silver and lead had been discovered on the de-
clivity of a hill in Lebanon” (Kitto, Phys. Hist.
of Palestine, p. 73).
For an account of the knowledge of obtaining
and refining silver possessed by the ancient Hebrews
see the articles LEAD and Mines. The whole
operation of mining is vividly depicted in Job
xxviii. 1-11; and the process of purifying metals is
frequently alluded to (Ps. xii. 6; Prov. xxv. 4),
while it is described with some minuteness in Ez.
xxii. 20-22. Silver mixed with alloy is referred to
in Jer. vi. 30, and a finer kind, either purer in
itself, or more thoroughly purified, is mentioned in
Proy. viii. 19. [W. A. W.]
SILVERLINGS (DD: σίκλος : argenteus,
siclus understood), a word used once only in the
A. V. Cis. vii. 23), as a translation of the Hebrew
word ceseph, elsewhere rendered *“ silver’ or
“ money.’’ [PIECE OF SILVER. | [8 5.51
SIMALCUE (Σινμαλκουή, Εἰμαλκουαί : Επιαί-
chuel, Malchus: Μάλχος, Joseph.), an Arabian
chief who had charge of Antiochus, the young son
of Alexander Balas before he was put forward by
Tryphon as a claimant to the Syrian throne (1 Mace.
xi. 99). [Anriocuus VL, vol. i. p. 76.] Accord-
ing to Diodorus (Helog. xxxii. 1) the name of the
chief was Diocles, though in another place ( Frag. xxi.
Miiller) he calls him Jamblichus. The name evi-
dently contains the element JZelek, “‘king,” but
the original form is uncertain (comp, Grotius and
Grimm on 1 Mace. J. ¢.). {B. F. W.]
SIMEON
SIM'EON (j)YOW: Συμεών: Simeon). The
second of Jacob’s sons by Leah. His birth is re-
“ corded in Gen. xxix. 33, and in the explanation there
given of the name, it is derived from the root
shama’, to *hear—* ‘Jehovah hath heard (shdma’)
that I was hated.’. . . and she called his name
Shime’on.”’> This metaphor is not carried on (as in
the case of some of the other names) in Jacob’s
blessing ; and in that of Moses all mention of
Simeon is omitted.
The first group of Jacob’s children consists,
besides Simeon, of the three other sons of Leah—
Reuben, Levi, Judah, With each of these Simeon
is mentioned in some connexion. ‘* As Reuben and
Simeon are mine,” says Jacob, ‘so shall Joseph’s
sons Ephraim and Manasseh be mine” (Gen. xlviii. 5).
With Levi, Simeon was associated in the massacre
of the Shechemites (xxxiv. 25)—a deed which drew
on them the remonstrance of their father (ver. 30),
and perhaps “ also his dying curse (xlix. 5-7). With
Judah the connexion was drawn still closer. He
and Simeon not only ““ went up” together, side
by side, in the forefront of the nation, to the con-
quest of the south of the Holy Land (Judg. i. 3, 17),
but their allotments lay together in a more special
manner than those of the other tribes, something in
the same manner as Benjamin and Ephraim. Be-
sides the massacre of Shechem—a deed not to be
judged of by the standards of a more civilized and
less violent age, and, when fairly estimated, not
altogether discreditable to its perpetrators—the only
personal incident related of Simeon is the fact of his
being selected by Joseph, without any reason given
or implied, as the hostage for the appearance of
Benjamin (Gen. xlii. 19, 24,36; xliii. 23).
These slight traits are characteristically amplified
in the Jewish traditions. In the Targum Pseudo-
jonathan it is Simeon and Levi who are the ene-
mies of the lad Joseph. It is they who counsel his
being killed, and Simeon binds him before he is
lowered into the well at Dothan. (See’ further
details in Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. 535.) Hence
Joseph’s selection of him as the hostage, his binding
and incarceration. In the Midrash the strength of
Simeon is so prodigious that the Egyptians are
anable to cope with him, and his binding is only
accomplished at length by the intervention of Ma-
nasseh, who acts as the house steward and interpreter
of Joseph. His powers are so great that at the mere
roar of his voice 70 valiant Eeyptians fall at his feet
and break their teeth (Weil, Bib. Leg. 88). In the
“Testament of Simeon” his fierceness and impla-
cability are put prominently forward, and he dies
warning his children against the indulgence of such
‘passions (Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. 533-543),
The chief families of the tribe are mentioned in
the lists of Gen. xlvi. (19), in which one of them,
bearing the name of Shaul (Saul), is specified as
“the sou of the Canaanitess”—Num. xxvi. (12-14),
* Fiirst (Handwb. ii. 472) inclines to the interpretation
“famous” (rulimreicher). Redslob (Alttest. Namen, 93),
--=-
on the other hand, adopting the Arabic root 5
considers the name to mean “sons of bondage” or
“Dbondmen.”
b The name is given in this its more correct form in
the A.V. in connexion with a later Israelite in Ezr. x. 31.
¢ It is by no means certain that Jacob’s words allude to
the transaction at Shechem, They appear rather to refer 1
to some other act of the brothers which has escaped direct
record.
SIMEON 1317
and 1 Chr. iv. (24-43). In the latter passage (ver.
27) it is mentioned that the family of one of the
heads of the tribe “ had not many children, neither
did they multiply like to the children of Judah,”
This appears to have been the case not only with
one family but with the whole tribe. At the
census at Sinai Simeon numbered 59,300 fighting
men (Num. i. 23). It was then the most nume-
rous but two, Judah and Dan alone exceeding it;
but when the second census was taken, at Shittim,
the numbers had fallen to 22,200, and it was the
weakest of all the tribes. This was no doubt partly
due to the recent mortality following the idolatry
of Peor, in which the tribe of Simeon appears to
have taken a prominent share, but there must have
been other causes which have escaped mention.
The connexion between Simeon and Levi implied
in the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 5-7) has been
already adverted to. The passage relating to them
is thus rendered :—
Shimeon and Levi are brethren,4
Instruments of violence are their machinations (or,
their swords).
Into their secret council come not my soul!
Unto their assembly join not mine honour!
For in their wrath they slew a man,
And in their self-will they, houghed anf ox.
Cursed be their wrath, for it is fierce,
And their anger, for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.
The terms of this denunciation seem to imply a
closer bond of union between Simeon and Levi, and
more violent and continued exploits performed under
that bond, than now remain on record. The ex-
pressions of the closing lines also seem to necessitate
a more advanced condition of the nation of Israel
than it could have attained at the time of the death
of the father of the individual patriarchs. Taking
it however to be what it purports, an actual predic-
tion by the individual Jacob (and, in the present
state of our knowledge, however doubtful this may
be, no other conclusion can be safely arrived at), it
has been often pointed out how differently the same
sentence was accomplished in the cases of the two
tribes. Both were ‘divided’ and “scattered.”
But how differently! The dispersion of the Levites
arose from their holding the post of honour in the
nation, and being spread, for the purposes of educa-
tion and worship, broadcast over the face ot the
country. In the case of Simeon the dispersion
seems to have arisen from some corrupting element
in the tribe itself? which first reduced its numbers,
and at last drove it from its allotted seat in the
country—not, as Dan, because it could not, but be-
cause it would not stay—and thus in the end
caused it to dwindle and disappear entirely.
The non-appearance of Simeon’s name in the
Blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 68) may be ex-
4 The word is DXNN, meaning “brothers” in the
fullest, strictest sense. In the Targ. Pseudojon. #% is
rendered achin telamin, ‘‘ brothers of the womb.”
© Identified by some (Jerome, Talmud, &c.) with the
Greek μάχαιρα. The “habitations’’ of the A.V. is
derived from Kimchi, but is not countenanced by later
scholars.
f A.V. “digged down a wall” ; following Onkelos, who
reads YW = 2, “a town, a wall.”
g The Alexandrine MS. of the LXX. adds Simeon’s
name in this passage—‘‘ Let Reuben live and not die,
and let Simeon be few in number.” In so doing it differs
1318 SIMEON
plained in two ways. On the assumption that the
Blessing was actually pronounced in its present
form by Moses, the omission may be due to his dis-
pleasure at the misbehaviour of the tribe at Shittim.
On the assumption that the Blessing, or this por-
tion of it, is a composition of later date, then it
may be due to the fact of the tribe having by that
time vanished from the Holy Land. The latter of
these is the explanation commonly adopted.
During the journey through the wilderness Simeon
was a member of the camp which marched on the
south side of the Sacred Tent. His associates were
Reuben and Gad—not his whole brothers, but the
sons of Zilpah, Leah’s maid. The head of the tribe
at the time of the Exodus was Shelumiel son of
Zurishaddai (Num. i. 6), ancestor of its one heroine,
the intrepid Judith. [SALASADAT.] Among the spies
Simeon was represented by Shaphat son of Hori,
ἡ. e. Horite, a name which perhaps, like the “ Ca-
naanitess”’ of the earlier list, reveals a trace of the
lax tendencies which made the Simeonites an easy
prey to the licentious rites of Peor, and ultimately
destroyed the permanence of the tribe. At the
division of the land his representative was Shemuel,®
son of Ammihud.
The connexion between Judah and Simeon al-
ready mentioned seems to have begun with the
Conquest. Judah and the two Joseph-brethren
were first served with the lion’s share of the land ;
and then, the Canaanites having been sufficiently
subdued to allow the Sacred Tent to be esta-
blished without risk in the heart of the country,
the work of dividing the remainder amongst the
seven inferior tribes was proceeded with (Josh. viii.
1-6). Benjamin had the first turn, then Simeon
(xix. 1). By this time Judah had discovered that
the tract allotted to him was too large (xix. 9).
end also too much exposed on the west and south
for even his great powers. To Simeon accordingly
was allotted a district out of the territory of his
kinsman, on its southern frontier,* which contained
eighteen or nineteen cities, with their villages,
spread round the venerable well of Beersheba
(Josh. xix. 1-8; 1 Chr. iv. 28-33). Of these
places, with the help of Judah, the Simeonites pos-
sessed themselves (Judg. i. 3, 17); and here they
were found, doubtless by Joab, residing in the reign
of David (1 Chr. iv. 31). During his wandering
life. David must have been much amongst the
Simeonites. In fact three of their cities are named
in the list of those to which he sent presents of the
spoil of the Amalekites, and one (Ziklag) was his
own private™ property. It is therefore remarkable:
that the numbers of Simeon ana Judah who at-
tended his installation as king at Hebron should
have been so much below those ot the other tribes
(1 Chr. xii. 23-37). Possibly it is due to the fact
that the event was taking place in the heart of
their own territory, at Hebron. This, however,
will not account for the curious fact that the
warriors of Simeon (7100) were more ® numerous
than those of Judah (6800). After David’s removal
SIMEON
to Jerusalem, the head of the tribe was Shephatiah
son of Maachah (1 Chr. xxvii. 16).'
What part Simeon took at the time of the divi-
sion of the kingdom we are not told. The tribe was
probably not in a sufficiently strong or compact
condition to have shown any northern tendencies,
even had it entertained them. The only thing
which can be interpreted into a trace of its having
taken any part with the northern kingdom are the
two casual notices of 2 Chr. xv. 9 and xxxiy. 6,
which appear to imply the presence of Simeonites
there in the reigns of Asa and Josiah. But this
may have been merely a manifestation of that
vagrant spirit which was a cause or a consequence
of the prediction ascribed to Jacob, And on the
other hand the definite statement of 1 Chr. iv. 41-
43 (the date of which by Hezekiah’s reign, seems to
show conclusively its southern origin) proves that
at that time there were still some of them remain-
ing in the original seat of the tribe, and actnated by
all the warlike lawless spirit of their progenitor.
This fragment of ancient chronicle relates two expe-
ditions in search of more eligible territory. The
first, under thirteen chieftains, leading doubtless a
large body of followers, was made against the
Hamites and the Mehunim,® a powerful tribe of
Bedouins, “ at the entrance of Gedor at the east
side of the ravine.’ The second was smaller, but
more adventurous. Under the guidance of four
chiefs a band of 500 undertook an expedition
against the remnant of Amalek, who had taken
refuge from the attacks of Saul or David, or some
later pursuers, in the distant fastnesses of Mount
Seir. The expedition was successful. They smote
the Amalekites and took possession of their quarters ;
aud they were still living there after the return of
the Jews from Captivity, or whenever the First Book
of Chronicles was edited in its present form.
The audacity and intrepidity which seem to have
characterized the founder of the tribe of Simeon
are seen in their fullest force in the last of his de-
scendants of whom there is any express mention in
the Sacred Record. Whether the book which bears
her name be a history or a historic romance,
JupirH will always remain one of the most pro-
minent figures among the deliverers of her nation.
Bethulia would almost seem to have been a Si-
meonite colony. Ozias, the chief man of the city,
was a Simeonite (Jud. vi. 15), and so was Ma-
nasses the husband of Judith (viii. 2), She herself
had the purest blood of the tribe in her veins. Her
genealogy is, traced up to Zurishaddai (in the Greek
form of the present text Salasadai, viii. 1), the head
of the Simeonites at the time of their greatest power.
She nerves herself for her tremendous exploit by a
prayer to “the Lord God of her father Simeon”
and by recalling in the most characteristic manner
and in all their details the incidents of the massacre
of Shechem (ix. 2).
Simeon is named by Ezekiel (xlviii. 25, and the
author of the Book of the Revelation (vii. 7) in their
catalogues of the restoration of Israel. The former
not only from the Vatican MS. but also from the Hebrew
text, to which this MS. usually adheres more closely than
the Vatican does. ‘The insertion is adopted in the Com-
plutensian and Aldine editions of the LXX., but does
not appear in any of the other versions.
h It is a curious coincidence, though of course nothing
more, that the scanty records of Simeon should disclose two
names so illustrious in Israelite history as Saul and Samuel. |
i This is a different account to that supplied in Judg. i.
The two are entirely distinct documents. That of Judges,
from its fragmentary and abrupt character, has the ap-
pearance of being the more ancient of the two.
k «The parts of Idnmaea which border on Arabia and
Egypt” (Joseph. Ant. v. 1, $22).
m [{ had been first taken from Simeon by the Philistines
(1 Sam. xxvii. 6), if indeed he ever got possession of it.
n Possibly because the Simeonites were warriors and
| nothing else, instead of husbandmen, &c., like the men of
| Judah.
o A.V. “habitations.”
See MEHUNIM.
SIMEON
removes the tribe from Judah and places it by the
side of Benjamin.
2. (Συμεών : Simeon.) A priest of the family
of Joarib—or in its full form JEHOTARIB—one of
the ancestors of the Maccabees (1 Mace. ii. 1).
8. Son of Juda and father of Levi in the gene-
alogy of our Lord (Luke iii. 30) The Vat. MS.
gives the name Σιμεών.
4. That is, Simon Peter (Acts xv. 14). The
use of the Hebrew form of the name in this place is
very characteristic of the speaker in whose mouth
it occurs. It is found once again (2 Pet. i. 1),
though here there is not the same unanimity in
the MSs. Lachmann, with B, here adopts
«¢ Simon.” [G.]
5. A devout Jew, inspired by the Holy Ghost,
who met the parents of our Lord in the Temple,
took Him in his arms, and gave thanks for what he
saw, and knew of Jesus (Luke ii. 25-35).
In the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, Simeon
is called a high-priest, and the narrative of our
Lord’s descent into Hell is put into the mouths of
Charinus and Lenthius, who are described as two
sons of Simeon, who rose from the grave after
Christ’s resurrection (Matt. xxvii. 53), and related
their story to Annas, Caiaphas, Nicodemus, Joseph,
and Gamaliel.
Rabban Simeon, whose grandmother was of the
family of David, succeeded his father Hillel as pre-
sident of the Sanhedrim about A.b. 13 (Otho,
Lexicon Rabb. p. 697), and his son Gamaliel was
the Pharisee at whose feet St. Paul was brought up
(Acts xxii. 3). A Jewish writer specially notes
that no record of this Simeon is preserved in the
Mishna (Lightfoot, Horae Heb. Luke ii. 25). It
has been conjectured that he (Prideaux, Connexion,
anno 37, Michaelis) or his grandson (Schéttgen,
Horae Heb. Luke ii. 25) of the same name, may
be the Simeon of St. Luke. In favour of the
identity it is alleged that the name, residence,
time of life, and general character are the same in
both cases; that the remarkable silence of the
Mishna, and the counsel given by Gamaliel (Acts
v. 38) countenance a suspicion of an inclination on
the part of the family of the Rabban towards Chris-
tianity. On the other hand, it is argued that these
facts fall far short of historical proof; and that
Simeon was a very common name among the Jews,
that St. Luke would never have introduced so cele-
brated a character as the President of the Sanhedrim
merely as “ἃ man in Jerusalem,” and that his son
Gamaliel, after all, was educated asa Pharisee. The
question is discussed in Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra,
i. 21 §14-16. See also Wolf, Curae Philologicae,
Luke ii. 25, and Bibl. Hebr, ii. 682. [W. T. B.]
SIMEON NIGER. Acts xiii. 1, [Nicer.]
SIMON. A name of frequent occurrence in
Jewish history in the post-Babylonian period. It
is doubtful whether it was borrowed from the
Greeks, with whom it was not uncommon, or whe-
ther it was a contraction of the Hebrew Shimeon.
That the two names were regarded as identical ap-
pears from 1 Macc, ii. 65. Perhaps the Hebrew
name was thus slightly altered in order to render it
identical with the Greek.
1. Son of Mattathias. [MaccaBEEs, §4, p.
1660.]
2,.. Son of Onias the high-priest (ἱερεὺς 6 wéyas),
whose eulogy closes the ‘‘ praise of famous men” in
the Book of Ecclesiasticus (ch. iv.). [EccLEsIAs-
Ticus, vol. i. p. 479.] Fritzsche, whose edition of
SIMON 1319
Ecclesiasticus (Zzeg. Handb.) has appeared (1860)
since the article referred to was written, maintains
the common view that the reference is to Simon II.,
but without bringing forward any new arguments
to support it, though he strangely underrates the
importance of Simon I. (the Just). Without laying
undue stress upon the traditions which attached to
this name (Herzfeld, Gesch. Isr. i. 195), it is evi-
dent that Simon the Just was popularly regarded
as closing a period in Jewish history, as the last
teacher of ‘* the Great Synagogue.” Yet there is
in fact a doubt to which Simon the title “ the
Just” was given. Herzfeld (i. 377, 378) has en-
deavoured to prove that it belongs to Simon II.,
and not to Simon J., and in this he is followed by
Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth. i. 95). The later Hebrew
authorities, by whose help the question should be
settled, are extremely unsatisfactory and confused
(Jost, 110, &c.); and it appears better to adhere
to the express testimony of Josephus, who identifies
Simon I. with Simon the Just (Ant. xii. 2. §4, &c.),
than to follow the Talmudic traditions, which are
notoriously untrustworthy in chronology. The
legends are connected with the title, and Herzfeld
and Jost both agree in supposing that the reference
in Ecclesiasticus is to Simon, known as “the Just,”
though they believe this to be Simon II. (compare,
for the Jewish anecdotes, Raphall’s Hist. of Jews,
i. 115-124; Prideaux, Connewion, ii. 1).
3. “A governor of the Temple” in the time of
Seleucus Philopator, whose information as to the
treasures of the Temple led to the sacrilegious
attempt of Heliodorus (2 Mace. iii. 4 &c.). After
this attempt failed, through the interference of the
high-priest Onias, Simon accused Onias of conspiracy
(iv. 1, 2), and a bloody feud arose between their
two parties (iv. 3). Onias appealed to the king, but
nothing is known as to the result or the later his-
tory of Simon. Considerable doubt exists as to the
exact nature of the office which he held (προστάτης
Tov ἱεροῦ, 2 Mace. iii. 4). Various interpretations
are given by Grimm (το. Handb. ad loc.). The
chiet difficulty lies in the fact that Simon is said to
have been of ‘the tribe of Benjamin” (2 Mace. iii.
3), while the earlier “ruler of the house of God”
(ὁ ἡγούμενος οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ (κυρίου), 1 Chr. ix. -
11; 2 Chr, xxxi. 13; Jer. xx. 1) seems to have
been always a priest, and the “ captain of the
Temple” (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ, Luke xxii. 4, with
Lightfoot’s note; Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26) and the
keeper of the treasures (1 Chr. xxvi. 24; 2 Chr.
xxxi. 12) must have been at least Levites. Herz-
feld (Gesch. Isr. i, 218) conjectures that Benjamin
is an errdr for Minjamin, the head of a priestly
house (Neh. xii. 5, 17.) In support of this view
it may be observed that Menelaus, the usurping
-high-priest, is said to have been a brother of
Simon (2 Mace. iv. 23), and no intimation is
anywhere given that he was not of priestly de-
scent. At the same time the corruption (if it
exist) dates from an earlier period than the
present Greek text, for “tribe” (φυλή) could not
be used for ““ family” (οἶκος). The various read-
ing ἀγορανομίας (‘regulation of the market”) for
παρανομίας (“disorder,’ 2 Mace. iii. 4), which
seems to be certainly correct, points to some office
in connexion with the supply of the sacrifices; and
probably Simon was appointed to carry out the
design of Seleucus, who (as is stated in the context)
had undertaken to defray the cost of them (2 Mace.
iii. 3). In this case there would be less difficulty
in a Benjamite acting as the agent of a foreign king,
1520 SIMON
even in a matter which concerned the Temple-
service. [eR Wed
4. Simon THE Brorurer or Jesus.—The only
undoubted notice of this Simon occurs in Matt. xiii.
55, Mark vi. 3, where, in common with James,
Joses, and Judas, he is mentioned as one of the
“ὁ brethren” of Jesus. He has been identified by
some writers with Simon the Canaanite, and still
more generally with Symeon who became bishop
of Jerusalem afte: the death of James, A.D. 62
(Euseb. H. #. iii. 11, iv. 22), and who suffered
martyrdom in the reign of Trajan at the extreme
age of 120 years (Hegesippus, ap. Euseb, H. £. iii.
32), in the year 107, or according to Burton (Lec-
tures, ii. 17, note) in 104. The former of these
opinions rests on no evidence whatever, nor is the
latter without its difficulties. For in whatever
sense the term “ brother” is accepted—a vexed
question which has been already amply discussed
under BrorHeR and JAMES—it is clear that
neither Eusebius nor the author of the so-called
Apostolical Constitutions understood Symeon to be
the brother of James, nor consequently the ‘ bro-
ther” of the Lord. Eusebius invariably describes
James as “the brother” of Jesus (H. #. i. 12,
ii. 1, al.), but Symeon as the son of Clopas, and
the cousin of Jesus (iii. 11, iv. 22), and the same
distinction is made by the other author (Const.
Apost. vii. 46).
5. SIMON THE CANAANITE, one of the Twelve
Apostles (Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 18), otherwise de-
scribed as Simon Zelotes (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 18).
The latter term (ζηλώτη5), which is peculiar to
Luke, is the Greek equivalent for the Chaldee term ἃ
preserved by Matthew and Mark (κανανίτης, as in
text. recept., or καναναῖος, as in the Vulg., Cana-
nacus, and in the best modern editions). Each of
these equally points out Simon as belonging to the
faction of the Zealots, who were conspicuous for
their fierce advocacy of the Mosaic ritual. The
supposed references to Canaan (A. V.) or to Cana
(Luther's version) are equally erroneous. [CANAAN-
118.} The term xavavirns appears to have sur-
vived the other as the distinctive surname of
Simon (Const. Apost. vi. 14, viii. 27). He has been
frequently identified with Simon the brother of
Jesus; but Kusebius (H. 10. iii, 11) clearly distin-
guishes between the Apostles and the relations of
Jesus. Still less likely is it that he was identical
with Symeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, as
stated by Sophronius (App. ad Hieron. Catal.).
Simon the Canaanite is reported, on the doubtful
authority of the Pseudo-Dorotheus and of Nicephorus
Callistus, to have preached in Egypt, Cyrene, and
Mauritania (Burton’s Lectures, i, 333, note), and,
on the equally doubtful authority of an annotation
preserved in an original copy of the Apostolical
Constitutions (viii. 27), to have been crucified in
Judaea in the reign of Domitian.
a 82.
hed
b Some doubt has been thrown on Justin’s statement,
from the fact that Josephus (Ant. xx. 7, ὁ 2) mentions a
reputed magician of the same name and about the same
date, who was born in Cyprus. It has been suggested that
Justin borrowed his information from this source, and
mistook Citium, a town of Cyprus, for Gitton. If the
writers had respectively used the gentile forms Kurvevs
and Τττιεύς, the similarity would have favoured such an
idea, But neither does Josephus mention Citium, nor yet
does Justin use the gentile form. It is far more probable
that Josephus would he wrong than Justin, in any point
respecting Samaria.
SIMON
6. SIMON OF CYRENE.—A Hellenistic Jew,
born at Cyrene on the north coast of Africa, who
was present at Jerusalem at the time of the eruci-
fixion of Jesus, either as an attendant at the feast
(Acts ii. 10), or as one of the numerous settlers at
Jerusalem from that place (Acts vi. 9). Meeting
the procession that conducted Jesus to Golgotha, as
he was returning from the country, he was pressed
inte the service (ἠγγάρευσαν, a military term) to
bear the cross (Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21;
Luke xxiii. 26), when Jesus himself was unable to
bear it any longer (comp. John xix. 17). Mark
describes him as the father of Alexander and Rufus,
perhaps because this was thé Rufus known to the
Roman Christians (Rom. xvi. 13), for whom he
more especially wrote. The Basilidian Gnostics
believed that Simon suffered in lieu of Jesus (Bur-
ton’s Lectures, ii. 64).
7. SIMON THE LepeR.—A resident at Bethany,
distinguished as ‘‘ the leper,” not from his having
leprosy at the time when he is mentioned, but at
some previous period. It is not improbable that
he had been miraculously cured by Jesus. In his
house Mary anointed Jesus preparatory to His death
and burial (Matt. xxvi. 6 &.; Mark xiv. 3 &e.;
John xii. 1 &c.). Lazarus was also present as one
of the guests, while Martha served (John xii. 2):
the presence of the brother and his two sisters,
together with the active part the latter took in the
proceedings, leads to the inference that Simon was
related to them: but there is no evidence of this,
and we can attach no credit to the statement that
he was their father, as reported on apocryphal au-
thority by Nicephorus, (//. 2. i. 27), and still less
to the idea that he was the husband of Mary. Simon
the Leper must not be confounded with Simon the
Pharisee mentioned in Luke vii. 40.
8. Simon Macus.—A Samaritan living in the
Apostolic age, distinguished as a sorcerer or ‘*ma-
gician,” from his practice of magical arts (μαγεύων,
Acts viii. 9). His history is a remarkable one;
he was born at Gitton,» a village of Samaria
(Justin Mart. Apol. i. 26), identified with the
modern Auryet Jit, near Ndbulus (Robinson’s
Bib. Res. ii. 308, note). He was probably educated
at Alexandria (as stated in Clement. Hom. ii. 22),
and there became acquainted with the eclectic tenets
of the Gnostic school. Hither then or subsequently
he was a pupil of Dositheus, who preceded him as
a teacher of Gnosticism in Samaria, and whom he
supplanted with the aid of Cleobius (Constit.
Apostol. vi. 8). He is first introduced to us in the
Bible as practising magical arts in a city of Samaria,
perhaps Sychar (Acts viii. 5; comp. John iv. 5),
and with such success, that he was pronounced
to be “the power of God which is called great”’¢
(Acts viii. 10). The preaching and miracles of
Philip having excited his observation, he became
one of his disciples, and received baptism at his
© The A. V. omits the word καλουμένη, and renders
the words “ the great power of God.” But this is to lose
the whole point of the designation. The Samaritans de-
scribed the angels as δυνάμεις, pY‘n, 7. e. uncreated
influences proceeding from God (Gieseler, Hecl. Hist. i. 48,
note 6). They intended to distinguish Simon from such
an order of beings by adding the words “ which is called
great,” meaning thereby the source of all power, in other
words, the Supreme Deity Simon was recognized as the
incarnation of this power. He annovnced himself as in a
special sense “some great one” (Acts vill. 9); or to use
his own words (as reported by Jerome, on Matt. xxiv. 5),
SIMON
hands, Subsequently he witnessed the effect pro-
duced by the imposition of hands, as practised by
the Apostles Peter and John, and, being desirous of
acquiring a similar power for himself, he offered a
sum of money for it. His object evidently was to
apply the power to the prosecution of mayical arts.
The motive and the means were equally to be re-
probated ; and his proposition met with a severe
denunciation from Peter, fol!owed by a petition on
the part of Simon, the tenor of which bespeaks
terror but not penitence (Acts viii. 9-24). The
memory of his peculiar guilt. has been perpetuated
in the word stmony, as applied to all traffic in
spiritual offices. Simon’s history, subsequently to
his meeting with Peter, is involved in difficulties.
Karly Church historians depict him as the perti-
nacious foe of the Apostle Peter, whose movements
he followed for the purpose of seeking encounters,
in which he was signally defeated. In his jour-
neys he was accompanied by a female named
Helena, who had previously been a prostitute at.
Tyre, but who was now elevated to the position of
his ἔννοια ἃ or divine intelligence (Justin Mart.
Apol. i. 26; Euseb. H. #. ii. 13). His first
encounter with Peter took place at Caesarea
Stratonis (according to the Constitutiones Apos-
tolicae, vi. 8), whence he followed the Apostle to
Rome. Eusebius makes no mention of this first
encounter, but represents Simon’s journey to Rome
as following immediately after the interview re-
corded in Scripture (#7. 10. ii. 14) ; but his chrono-
logical statements are evidently confused; for in
the very same chapter he states that the meeting
between the two at Rome took place in the reign of
Claudius, some ten years after the events in
Samaria. Justin Martyr, with greater consistency,
represents Simon as having visited Rome in the
yeion of Claudius, and omits all notice of an en-
counter with Peter. His success there was so
great that he was deified, and a statue was erected
in his honour, with the inscription ‘Simoni Deo
Sancto” € (Apol. i. 26, 56). The above statements
can be reconciled only by assuming that Simon
made two expeditions to Rome, the first in the
reign of Claudius, the second, in which he en-
countered Peter, in the reign of Nero,f about the
year 68 (Burton’s Lectures, i. 233, 318): and
even this takes for granted the disputed fact of
St. Peter’s visit to Rome. [PeTER.] His death
is associated with the meeting in question: ac-
cording to Hippolytus, the earliest authority on
the subject, Simon was buried alive at his own
request, in the confident assurance that he would
SIMRI 1321
vise again on the third day (Adv. Haer. vi. 20).
According to another account, he attempted to
fly in proof of his supernatural power; in answer
to the prayers of Peter, he ‘fell and sustained
a fracture of his thigh- and ankle-bones (Con-
stitut. Apostol. ii. 14, vi. 9); overcome with vex-
ation, he committed suicide (Armob. Adv. Gent.
ii. 7). Whether this statement is confirmed, or,
on the other hand, weakened, by the account of a
similar attempt to fly recorded by heathen writers
(Sueton. Ner. 12; Juv. Sat. iii. 79), is uncertain.
Simon’s attempt may have supplied the basis for
this report, or this report may have been errone-
ously placed to his credit. Burton (Lectures,
1. 295) rather favours the former alternative.
Simon is generally pronounced by early writers to
have been the founder of heresy. It is difficult to
understand how he was guilty of heresy in the
proper sense of the term, inasmuch as he was not a
Christian: perhaps it refers to his attempt to
combine Christianity with Gnosticism. He is also
reported to have forged works professing to emanate
from Christ and His disciples (Constitut. Apostol.
vi. 16).
9. Smmon PETER. [PETER.]
10. Simon, a Pharisee, in whose house a
penitent woman anointed the head and feet of
Jesus (Luke vii. 40).
11. Simon THE TANNER.—A Christian con-
vert living at Joppa, at whose house Peter lodged
(Acts ix. 43). The profession of a tanner was
regarded with considerable contempt, and even as
approaching to uncleanness, by the rigid Jews.
{TaAnNER.] That Peter selected such an abode,
showed the diminished hold which Judaism had on
him. The house was near the sea-side (Acts x.
6, 32), for the convenience of the water.
12. Simon, the father of Judas Iscariot (John
vi. 7], xill..2, 26). [W. L. B.]
SI'MON CHOSAMAE'US (Σίμων Χοσα-
μαῖος : Simon), SHIMEON, and the three following
names in Ezr. x. 31, 32, are thus written in the
LXX. (1 Esd. ix. 32). The Vulgate has correctly
“Simon, Benjamin, et Malchus, et Marras.” ‘* Cho-
samaeus” is apparently formed by combining the
last letter of Malluch with the first part of the fol-
lowing name, Shemariah.
SIM'RI (DY: Φυλάσσοντες : Semri). Pro-
perly ‘‘Shimri,” son of Hosah, a Merarite Levite
in the reign of David, (1 Chr. xxvi. 10). Though
not the first-born, his father made him the head
« Ego sum sermo Dei, ego sum Speciosus, ego Paracletus,
ego Omnipotens, ego omnia Dei.”
4 In the ἔννοια, as embodied in Helena’s person, we
recognize the dualistic element of Gnosticism, derived
from the Manichean system. The Gnostics appear to
have recognized the δύναμις and the ἔννοια, as the two
original principles from whose junction all beings ema-
nated. Simon and Helena were the incarnations in which
these principles resided.
© Justin’s authority has been impugned in respect, to
this statement, on the ground that a tablet was discovered
in 1574 on the Viberina insula, which answers to the
locality described by Justin (ἐν τῷ Τίβερι ποταμῷ μεταξὺ
τῶν δύο γεφυρῶν), and bearing an inscription, the first
words of which are “Semoni sanco deo fidio.” This in-
scription, whicb really applies to the Sabine Hercules
Sancus Semo, is supposed to have been mistaken by
Justin, in his ignorance of Latin, for one in honour of
Simon. If the inscription had been confined to the words
quoted by Justin, such a mistake might have been con-
ceivable; but it goes on to state the name of the giver
and other particulars ; “Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum
Sex. Pompeius, Sp. F. Col. Mussianus Quinquennalis decus
Bidentalis donum dedit.” That Justin, a man of literary
acquirements, should be unable to translate such an in-
scription—that he should misquote it in an Apology duly
prepared at Rome for the eye of a Roman emperor—and
that the mistake should be repeated by other early writers
whose knowledge of Latin is unquestioned (Irenaeus,
Adv. Haeres. i. 20; Tertullian, Apol. 13)—these assump-
tions form a series of improbabilities, amounting almost
to an impossibility.
f This later date is to a certain extent confirmed by the
account of Simon’s death preserved by Hippolytus (Adv.
Haer. vi. 20); for the event is stated to have occurred
while Peter and Paul (the term ἀποστόλοις evidently
implying the presence of the latter) were together at
Reme.
1322 SIN
SIN
of the family. The LXX. read 10, shéméré,{ The antiquity of the town of Sin may perhaps be
“ ouards.”
SIN (JD: Sdis, Συήνη : Pelusiun), a city of
Egypt, mentioned only by Ezekiel (xxx. 15, 16).
The name is Hebrew, or, at least, Shemitic. Gesenius
supposes it to signify ‘clay,’ from the unused root
7D, probably “he or it was muddy, clayey.” It
is identified in the Vulg. with Pelusium, Πηλού-
σιον, “ the clayey or muddy ” town, from πηλός ;
and seems to be preserved in the Arabic Et-Teeneh,
συ
xuULSS, which torms part of the names of Fum
et-Teeneh, the Mouth of Et-Teeneh, the supposed Pe-
lusiac mouth of the Nile, and Burg or Kal’at et-
Teeneh, the Tower or Castle of Et-Teeneh, in the im-
mediate neighbourhood, “ὁ teen”’ signifying “ mud,”
&e., in Arabic. This evidence is sufficient to show
that Sin is Pelusium. The ancient Egyptian name
is still to be sought for: it has been supposed that
Pelusium preserves traces of it, but this is very im-
probable. Champollion identifies Pelusium with the
ilepegnown, Tepexrunst (the se-
cond being a variation held by Quatremére to be
incorrect), and Ba pesroen, of the Copts,
BOs
El-Farma, Lo «ἃ J, of the Ayabs, which was in the
time of the former a boundary-city, the limits of a
governor’s authority being stated to have extended
from Alexandria to Pilak-h, or Philae, and Peremoun
(Acts of St. Sarapamon MS. Copt. Vat. 67, fol. 90,
ap. Quatremére, Mémoires Géog. et Hist. sur
Egypte, i. 259). Champollion ingeniously derives
this name from the article cb, Ep, “to be,” and
OARS, “mud” (L’L£gypte, ii. 82-87; comp.
Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr. i. p. 297). Brugsch com-
pares the ancient Egyptian HA-REM, which he
reads Pe-rema, on our system, PE-REM, “the
abode of the tear,” or “ of the fish rem” (Geogr.
Inschr. i. 1. 6... pl. lv. n°. 1679). Pelusium, he
would make the city SAMHAT (or, as he reads it
Sam-hud), remarking that ‘* the nome of the city
Samhud” is the only one which has the determi-
native of a city, and, comparing the evidence of the
Roman nome-coins, on which the place is apparently
treated as a nome; but this is not certain, for
there may have been a Pelusiac nome, and the ety-
mology of the name SAMHAT is unknown (Id. p.
128; Pl. xxviii. 17).
The site of Pelusium is as yet undetermined. It
has been thought to be marked by mounds near Burg
et-Teeneh, now called El-Farma and not Et-Teeneh.
This is disputed by Captain Spratt, who supposes
that the mound of Ahoo-Kheeydr indicates where it
stood. This is further inland, and apparently on
the west of the old Pelusiac branch, as was Pe-
lusium. It is situate between Farma and Tel-
Defenneh.2. Whatever may have been its exact
position, Pelusium must have owed its strength not
to any great elevation, but to its being placed in
the midst of a plain of marsh-land and mud, never |
easy to traverse. The ancient sites in such alluvial
tracts of Egypt are in general only sufficiently
raised above the level of the plain to preserve them
from being injured by the inundation.
| have been alleged in confirmation.
inferred from the mention of ‘‘ the wilderness of
Sin” in the journeys of the Israelites (Ex. xvi. 1;
Num. xxxiii. 11). It is remarkable, however, that
the Israelites did not immediately enter this tract
on leaving the cultivated part of Egypt, so that iv
is held to have been within the Sinaitic peninsula,
and therefore it may take its name from some other
place or country than the Egyptian Sin. [Sin,
WILDERNESS OF. |
Pelusium is mentioned by Ezekiel, in one of the
prophecies relating to the invasion of Egypt by
Nebuchadnezzar, as one of the cities which should
then suffer calamities, with, probably, reference
to their later history. The others spoken of are
Noph (Memphis), Zoan (Tanis), No (Thebes),
Aven (Heliopolis), Pi-beseth (Bubastis), and Te-
haphnehes (Daphnae). All these, excepting the two
ancient capitals, Thebes and Memphis, lay on or
near the eastern boundary; and, in the approach to
Memphis, an invader could scarcely advance, after
capturing Pelusium and Daphnae, without taking
Tanis, Bubastis, and Heliopolis. In the most an-
cient times Tanis, as afterwards Pelusium, seems to
have been the key of Egypt on the east. Bubastis
was an important position from its lofty mounds,
and Heliopolis as securing the approach to Memphis.
The prophet speaks of Sin as ‘‘Sin the stronghold
of Eeypt” (ver. 15). This place it held from that
time until the period of the Romans. Herodotus
relates that Sennacherib advanced against Pelusium,
and that near Pelusium Cambyses defeated Psam-
menitus. In like manner the decisive battle in
which Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectane-
bos, NEKHT-NEBF, was fought near this city. It
is perhaps worthy of note that Ezekiel twice men-
tions Pelusium in the prophecy which contains the
remarkable and signally-fulfilled sentence: ‘* There
shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt”
(ver. 13). As he saw the long train of calamities
that were to fall upon the country, Pelusium may
well have stood out as the chief place of her suc-
cessive humiliations. Two Persian conquests, and
two submissions to strangers, first to Alexander,
and then to Augustus, may explain the especial
misery foretold of this city :—* Sin shall suffer
great anguish’ (ver. 16).
We find in the Bible a geographical name, which
has the form of a gent. noun derived from Sin,
and is usually held to apply to two different na-
tions, neither connected with the city Sin. In the
list of the descendants of Noah, the Sinite, °3‘D,
occurs among the sons of Canaan (Gen. x. 17;
1 Chr. i. 15). This people from its place between
the Arkite and the Arvadite has been supposed to
have settled in Syria north of Palestine, where
similar names occur in classical geography and
This theory
would not, however, necessarily imply that the
whole tribe was there settled, and the supposed
traces of the name are by no means conclusive. On
the other hand, it must be observed that some of
| the eastern towns of Lower Egypt have Hebrew as
well as Eeyptian names, as Heliopolis and Tanis ; that
those very near the border seem to have borne only
Hebrew names, as Migdol ; so that we have an in-
dication of a Shemitic influence in this part of Egypt,
| diminishing in degree according to the distance from
ἃ Capt. Spratt’s reports have unfortunately been printed |
only in abstract (“Delta of the Nile,” &c.; Return, House |
of Commons, 91h Feb 1860), with a very insufficient |
map. In M. Linant’s map we cannot discover Aboo-
Kheeyér (Percement de UIsthme de Suez, Atlas, Carte
Topographique).
SIN, WILDERNESS OF
the border. It is difficult to account for this
influence by the single circumstance of the Shepherd-
invasion of Egypt, especially as it is shown yet
more strikingly by the remarkably-strong charac-
teristics which have distinguished the inhabitants
ot north-eastern Egypt from their fellow-country-
men from the days of Herodotus and Achilles Tatius
to our own. Andwe must not pass by the state-
ment of the former of these writers, that the
Palestine Syrians dwelt westward of the Arabians
to the eastern boundary of Eeypt (iii. 5, and above
p- 1047, note 8), Therefore, it does not seem a
violent hypothesis that the Sinites were connected
with Pelusium, though their main body may per-
haps have settled much further to the north. The
distance is not greater than that between the Hit-
tites of southern Palestine and those of the valley of
the Orontes, although the separation of the less
powerful Hivites into those dwelling beneath Mount
Hermon and the inhabitants of the small confede-
racy of which Gibeon was apparently the head, is per-
haps nearer to our supposed case. If the wilderness of
Sin owed its name to Pelusium, this is an evidence of
the very early importance of the town and its con-
nexion with Arabia, which would perhaps be strange
in the case of a purely Eeyptian town. The conjec-
ture we have put forth suggests a recurrence to the
old explanation of the famous mention of “ the land
of Sinim,” ὮΝ) Ὁ YIN, in Isaiah (xlix. 12), supposed
by some to refer to China. This would appear trom
the context to be a very remote region. It is men-
tioned after the north and the west, and would seem
to be in a southern or eastern direction. Sin 15
certainly not remote, nor is the supposed place of
the Sinites to the north of Palestine; but the ex-
pression may be proverbial. The people of Pelu-
sium, if of Canaanite origin, were certainly remote
compared to most of the other Canaanites, and
were separated by alien peoples, and it is aiso
noticeable that they were to the south-east of
Palestine. As the sea bordering Palestine came to
designate the west, as in this passage, so the land of
Sinim may have passed into a proverbial expression
for a distant and separated country. See, however,
SINITE, SINIM. [RSs Be
SIN, WILDERNESS OF (Ὁ 2 1 : ἔρη-
_ pos Σὶν : desertum Sin). The name of a tract of the
wilderness which the Israelites reached after leaving
the encampment by the Red Sea (Num. xxxiii. 11,
12). Their next halting-place (Ex. xvi. 1, xvii. 1)
was Rephidim, probably the Wady Feirdn [Ruput-
pIM]|; on which supposition it would follow that
Sin must lie between that wady and the coast
of the Gulf of Suez, and of course west of Sinai.
Since they were by this time gone more than a
month ‘from Egypt, the locality must be too far
towards the S. E. to receive its name from the
Eeyptian Sin of ΕΖ. xxx. 15, called Sais by the
.XX., and identified with Pelusium (see previous
Article). In the wilderness of Sin the manna was
first gathered, and those who adopt the supposition
that this was merely the natural product of the tarfa
bush, find from the abundance of that shrub in
Wady es Sheikh, ὃ. Ἐς of W. Ghirundel a proof
of local identity. [EL1M.] At all events, that wady
is as probable as any other. [H. H.]
SIN-OFFERING CANN: ἁμαρτία, τὸ τῆς
SIN-OFFERING Lage
ἁμαρτίας, περὶ ἁμαρτίας : pro peccato), The sin-
offering among the Jews was the sacrifice, in which
the ideas of propitiation and of atonement for sin
were most distinctly marked. It is first directly
enjoined in Ley. iv., whereas in chs. i—iii. the burnt-
offering, meat-offering, and peace-offering are taken
for granted, and the object. of the Law is to regu-
late, not to enjoin, the presentation of them to the
Lord. Nor is the word chattath applied to any
sacrifice in ante-Mosaic times.* It is therefore pecu-
liarly a sacrifice of the Law, agreeing with the
clear definition of good and evil, and the stress laid
on the “ sinfulness οὐ sin,’ which were the main
objects of the Law in itself. The idea of propitiation
was no doubt latent in earlier sacrifices, but it was
taught clearly and distinctly in the Levitical sin-
offering.
The ceremonial of the sin-offering is described in
Lev. iv. and vi. The animal, a young bullock for
the priest or the congregation, a male kid or lamb
for a ruler, a female kid or lamb for a private per-
son, in all cases without blemish, was brought by
the sacrificer to the altar of sacrifice; his hand was
laid upon its head (with, as we lean from later
Jewish authorities, a confession of sin, and a prayer
that the victim might be its expiation); of the
blood of the slain victim, some was then sprinkled
seven times before the veil of the sanctuary, some
put on the horns of the altar of incense, and the
rest poured at the foot of the altar of sacrifice; the
fat (as the choicest part of the flesh) was then
burnt on the altar as a burnt-offering ; the 1emain-
der of the body, if the sin-offering were that of the
priest himself or of the whole congregation, was
carried out of the camp or city to a “ clean place”’
and there burnt ; but if the offering were that of an
individual, the flesh might be eaten by the priests
alone in the holy place, as being ‘¢ most holy.” -
The TRESPASS-OFFERING (DUS : πλημμέλεια,
τὸ τῆς πλημμελείας : pro delicto) is closely con-
nected with the sin-offering in Leviticus, but at the
same time clearly distinguished from it, being in
some cases offered with it as a distinct part of the
same sacrifice; as, for example, in the cleansing of
the leper (Lev. xiv.). The victim was in each
case to be a ram. At the time of offering, in all
cases of damage done to any holy thing, or to any
man, restitution was made with the addition of a
fifth part to the principal; the blood was sprinkled
round about upon the altar, as in the burnt-offering ;
the tat burnt, and flesh disposed of as in the sin-
offering. The distinction of ceremonial clearly indi-
cates a difference in the idea of the two sacrifices.
The nature of that difference is still a subject of
great controversy, Looking first to the derivation
of the two words, we find that DSA is derived
from SDN, which is, properly, to ‘‘ miss” a mark,
or to “err” from a way, aud secondarily to ** sin,” or
to incur ‘* penalty : that ΔΝ is derived from the
root Ov, which is properly to “ fail,” having for
its “primary idea negligence, especially in gait a
(Ges.). It is clear that, so far as derivation goes,
there appears to be more of reference to general and
actual sin in the former, to special cases of negli-
gence in the latter.
Turning next to the description, in the Book of
Leviticus, of the circumstances under which each
a Its technical use in Gen. iv. 7 is asserted, and sup-
ported by high authority. But the word here probably
means (as in the Vulg. and A. V.) “sin.” The fact that
it is never used in application to any otner sacrifice in
Genesis or Exodus, alone makes the translation “ sin-
offering” here very improbable.
1324 SIN-OFFERING
should be offered, we find one important passage
(Lev. v. 1-13) in which the sacrifice is called first
a “ trespass-offering’’ (ver. 6), and then a “ sin-
offering” (ver. 7, 9,11, 12). But the nature of
the victims in ver. 6 agrees with the ceremonial
of the latter, not of the former; the application of
the latter name is more emphatic and reiterated ;
and there is at ver. 14 a formal introduction of the
law of the trespass-offering, exactly as of the law
of the sin-offering in iv. 1. It is therefore safe to
conclude that the word nv is not here used in
its technical sense, and that the passage is to be
referred to the sin-otiering only.
We find then that the sin-offerings were—
(A.) REGULAR.
(1.) For the whole people, at the New Moon,
Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and Feast
of Tabernacles (Num. xxviii. 15-xxix. 38); besides
the solemn offering of the two goats on the Great
Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.).
(2.) For the Priests and Levites at their conse-
eration (Ex. xxix. 10-14, 36); besides the yearly
sin-offering (a bullock) for the high-priest on the
Great Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.).®
(B.) SPECIAL.
(1.) For any sin of “ignorance” against the
commandment of the Lord, on the part of priest,
people. ruler, or private man (Lev. iv.).
(2.) For refusal to bear witness under adjura-
tion (Lev. v. 1).
(3.) For ceremonial defilement not wilfully con-
tracted (Lev. v. 2, 3), under which may be classed
the offerings at the purification of women (xil. 6-8),
at the cleansing of leprosy (xiv. 19, 31) or the un-
cleanness of men or women (xv. 15, 30), on the
defilement of a Nazarite (Num. vi. 6-11) or the
expiration of his vow (16).
(4.) For the breach of a rash oath, the keeping
of which would involve sin (Lev. v. 4).
The trespass-offerings, on the other hand, were
always special, as—
(1.) For sacrilege “in ignorance,” with compen-
sation for the harm done, and the gift of a fifth part
of the value besides to the priest (Lev. v. 15, 16).
(2.) For ignorant transgression against some
definite prohibition of the Law (v. 17-19).
(3.) For fraud, suppression of the truth, or per-
jury against man, with compensation, and with the
addition of a fifth part of the value of the property
in question to the person wronged (vi. 1-6).
(4.) For rape of a betrothed slave (Lev. xix. 20,
21
>
(5.) At the purification of the leper (Lev. xiv.
12), and the polluted Nazarite (Num. vi. 12),
offered with the sin-offering.
From this enumeration it will be clear that the
two classes of sacrifices, although distinct, touch
closely upon each other, as especially in B. (1) of
the sin-offering, and (2) of the trespass-offering.
It is also evident that the sin-offering was the only
regular and general recognition of sin in the ab-
stract, and accordingly was far more solemn and
symbolical in its ceremonial ; the trespass-offering
was confined to special cases, most of which related
to the doing of some material damage, either to the
holy things or to man, except in (5), where the
SIN-OFFERING
trespass-offering is united with the sin-offering.
Josephus (Ant. iii. 9, §3) declares that the sin-
offering is presented by those “ who fall into sin in
ignorance” (κατ᾽ ἀγνοίαν), and the trespass-offering
by “one who has sinned and is conscious of his sin,
but has no one to convict him thereof.’ From this
it may be inferred (as by Winer and others) that
the former was used in cases of known sin against
some definite law, the latter in the case of secret
sin, unknown, or, if known, not liable to judicial
cognizance. Other opinions have been entertained,
widely different from, and even opposed to, one
another. Many of them are given in Winer's
Realw. “Schuldopfer.”” The opinions which sup-
pose one offering due for sins of omission, and the
other for sins of commission, have no foundation in
the language of the Law. Others, with more plausi-
bility, refer the sin-offering to sins of pure igno-
rance, the trespass-offering to those of a more sinful
and deliberate character; but this does not agree
with Levy. v. 17-19, and is contradicted by the
solemn contrast between sins of ignorance, which
might be atoned for, and “sins of presumption,”
against which death without mercy is denounced in
Num. xy. 30. A third opinion supposes the sin-
offering to refer to sins for which no material and
earthly atonement could be made, the trespass-
offering to those for which material compensation
was possible. This theory has something to sup-
port it in the fact that in some cases (see Lev. v.
15, 16, vi. 1-6) compensation was prescribed as
accessory to the sacrifice. Others seek more re-
condite distinctions, supposing (6. 4.) that the
sin-offering had for its object the cleansing of the
sanctuary or the commonwealth, and the trespass-
offering the cleansing of the individual; or that
the former referred to the effect of sin upon the soul
itself, the latter to the effect of sin as the breach of
an external law. Without attempting to decide so
difficult and so controverted a question, We may
draw the following conclusions :—
First, that the sin-offering was far the more
solemn and comprehensive of the two sacrifices.
Secondly, that the sin-offering looked more to
the guilt of the sin done, irrespective of its conse-
quences, while the trespass-offering looked to the
evil consequences of sin, either against the service
of God, or against man, and to the duty of atone-
ment, as far as atonement was possible. Hence the ἡ
two might with propriety be offered together.
Thirdly, that in the sin-offering especially we
find symbolized the acknowledgment of sinfulness
as inherent in man, and of the need of expiation
by sacrifice to renew the broken covenant between
man and God.
There is one other question of some interest, as
to the nature of the sins for which either sacrifice
could be offered. It is seen at once that in the Law
of Leviticus, most of them, which are not purely
ceremonial, are called sins of “ ignorance” (see
Heb. ix. 7); and in Num. xy. 30, it is expressly
said that while such sins can be atoned for by offer-
ings, “the soul that doeth aught preswmptuously ”
(Heb. with a high hand) “shall be cut off trom
among his people.” . . . “‘ His iniquity shall be upon
him” (comp. Heb. x. 26). But there are sufficient
indications that the sins here called ‘‘ of igno-
rance’ are more strictly those of “ negligence” or
b To these may be added the sacrifice of the red
heifer (conducted with the ceremonial of a sin-offering),
from the ashes of which was made the “ water of sepa-
ee ag a a I ara ae
ration,’ used in certain cases of ceremonial pollution.
See Num. xix.
SINA, MOUNT
SINAT 1325
“ frailty,” © repented of by the unpunished offender, | versed by a few ridges, chiefly of a tertiary forma-
as opposed to those of deliberate and unrepentant
sin. The Hebrew word itself and its derivations
are so used in Ps. exix. 67 (ἐπλημμέλησα, LXX.) ;
1 Sam. xxvi. 21 (ἠγνόηκα) ; Ps. xix. 13 (παραπτώ-
para); Job xix. 4 (πλάνος). The words ἀγνόημα
and ἄγνοια have a corresponding extent of meaning
in the N. T.; as when in Acts iii. 17, the Jews, in
their crucifixion of our Lord, are said to have acted
(κατ᾽ ἀγνοίαν) ; and in Eph. iv. 18, 1 Pet. 1, 14,
the vices of heathenism, done against the light of
conscience, are still referred to ἄγνοια. The use
of the word (like that of ἀγνωμονεῖν in classical
Greek) is found in all languages, and depends on
the idea that goodness is man’s true wisdom, and
that sin is the failing to recognize this truth. If
from the word we turn to the sins actually referred
to in Lev. iv. v., we find some which certainly are
not sins of pure ignorance; they are indeed few
out of the whole range of sinfulness, but they are
real sins. The later Jews (see Outram, De Sucri-
ficiis) limited the application of the sin-offering to
negative sins, sins in ignorance, and sins in action,
not in thought, evidently conceiving it to apply to
actual sins, but to sins of a secondary order.
In considering this subject, it must be remembered
that the sacrifices of the Law had a temporal, as
well-as a spiritual, significance and effect. They
restored an offender to his place in the common-
wealth of Israel; they were therefore an atonement
to the King of Israel for the infringement of His
law. It is clear that this must have limited the
extent of their legal application; for there are
crimes, for which the interest and very existence of
a society demand that there should be no pardon.
But so far as the sacrifices had a spiritual and
typical meaning, so far as they were sought by a
repentant spirit as a sign and means of reconcile-
ment with God, it can hardly be doubted that they
had a wider scope and a real spiritual effect, so
long as their typical character remained. [See
SACRIFICE. |
For the more solemn sin-offerings, see DAY OF
ATONEMENT ; Leprosy, &c. [A. B.]
SI'NA, MOUNT (τὸ ὄρος Σεινᾶ : mons Sina).
The Greek form of the well-known name which in
the O. T. universally, and as often as not in the
Apocr. and N. T., is given in the A. V. SINAI.
Sina occurs Jud. v. 14:8 Acts vii. 30, 38. [G.]
SI'NAI (2): Siva: Sinai). Nearly in the
centre of the peninsula which stretches between the
horns of the Red Sea lies a wedge of granite, griin-
stein, and porphyry rocks, rising to between 8000
and 9000 feet above the sea. Its shape resembles
a scalene triangle, with a crescent cut from its
northern or longer side, on which border Russegger’s
map gives a broad, skirting tract of old red sand-
stone, reaching nearly from gulf to gulf, and tra-
tion, running nearly N.W. and $8.E. On the S.W.
side of this triangle, a wide alluvial plain—nar-
rowing, however, towards the N.—lines the coast
of the Gulf of Suez, whilst that on the eastern or
Akabah coast is so narrow as almost to disappear.
Between these alluvial edges and the granitic mass
a strip of the same sandstone is interposed, the two
strips converging at Ras Mohammed, the southern
promontory of the whole. This nucleus of plutonic
yocks is said to bear no trace of volcanic action
since the original upheaval of its masses (Stanley,
21, 22). Laborde (Travels, p. 105) thought he
detected some, but does not affirm it. Its general
configuration runs into neither ranges nor peaks,
but is that ofa plateau cut across with intersecting
wadys,® whence spring the cliffs and mountain
peaks, beginning with a very gradual and termi-
nating in a very steep ascent. It has been arranged
(Stanley, S. and P. 11) in three chief masses as
follows :—
1. The N.W. cluster above Wady Feiran ; its
greatest relief found in the five-peaked ridge of
Serbal, at a height of 6342 feet above the sea.
(For an account of the singular natural basin into
which the waters of this portion of the mountain
mass are received, and its probable connexion with
Scriptural topography, see REPHIDIM.)
2. The eastern and central one; its highest point
the Jebel Katherin, at a height of 8063 (Iiippell}
to 8168 (Russegger) feet, and including the Sebel
Misa, the height of which is variously set (by
Schubert, Riippell, and Russegger) at 6796, 7033,
and 7097 feet.
3. The S.E. one, closely connected, however,
with 2; its highest point, Um Shawmer, being that
also of the whole.
The three last-named peaks all lie very nearly
in a line of about 9 miles drawn from the most
northerly of them, Mésa, a little to the W. of S.;
and a perpendicular to this line, traced on the map
westwards for about 20 miles, nearly traverses the
whole length of the range of Serba/. These lines
show the area of greatest relief for the peninsula,°
nearly equidistant from each of its embracing gulfs,
and also from its northern base, the range of Ht T7h,
and its southern apex, the Ras Mohammed.
Before considering the claims of the individual
mountains to Scriptural notice, there occurs a ques-
tion regarding the relation of the names Horeb and
Sinai. The latter name first occurs as that of the
limit on the further side from Egypt of the wilder-
ness of Sin (Ex. xvi. 1), and again (xix. 1, 2) as
the ‘‘ wilderness” or ‘‘desert of Sinai,” before
Mount Sinai is actually spoken of, as in ver. 11
soon after we find it. But the name “ Horeb ἃ is,
in the case of the rebuke of the people by God for
their sin in making the golden calf, reintroduced
into the Sinaitic narrative (xxxili. 6), having
c From the root Av, or πὰ, signifying to “ err”
* bp
or “ wander out of the way,” cognate in sense to the root
of the word chattath itself.
@ In this passage the present Greek text, of both MSS.,
Teads eis ὁδόν, not ὄρος, τοῦ Seva. But the note in the
margin of the A. V. of 1611 is, notwithstanding, wrong—
“Greek, into the way of the wilderness of Sina;” that
being nearer to the Vulg. deserta Sina montis occupa-
verunt.
b See Robinson’s “ Memoir on the Maps” (Vol. iii.
Appendix 1, pp. 32-39), a most important comment on the
different sources of authority for different portions of the
|
region, and the weight due to each, and containing a just
caution regarding the indications of surface aspect given
by Laborde.
© Pr. Stanley (77) notices another “very high moun-
tain S.W. of Um-Shém’s, apparently calculated by Riippell
to be the highest in the peninsula . . . possibly that called
by Burckhardt Thommar, or El Koly.” But this seems
only to effect an extension of the area of the relief in the
direction indicated.
ἃ Dr. Stanley has spoken of two of the three passages in
Exodus in which Horeb occurs (iii. 1, xvii. 6) as “ doubtful,”
and of the third (xxxiii. 6) as “ ambiguous ;” but he does
not say on what grounds (S. & P. 29, note).
1326 SINAI
been previously most recently used in the story of
the murmuring at Rephidim (xvii. 6, “1 will stand
before thee there upon the rock in Horeb’’), and
earlier as the name of the scene of the appearance
of God in the “ burning bush” (iii. 1). Now,
since Rephidim seems to be a desert stage apart
from the place where Israel ‘‘ camped before the
mount” (Sinai, xix. 2), it is not easy to account
for a Horeb at Rephidim, apparently as the specific
spot of a particular transaction (so that the refuge
ofa “general”? name Horeb, contrasted with Sinai
as a special one, is cut off), and a Horebd in the
Sinaitic region, apparently a synonym of the moun-
tain which, since the scene of the narrative is fixed
at it, had been called Sinai. Lepsius removes the
difficulty by making Serbd/ Sinai, but against this
it will be seen that there are even stronger objec-
tions. But a proper name given from a natural
feature may recur with that feature.
** Horeb,” properly signifying “ground left dry
by water draining off?’ Now both at Rephidim
and at Kadesh Meribah, where was the “ fountain
of judgment” (Gen. xiv. 7), it is expressly men-
tioned that “there was no water;” and the in-
ference is that some ordinary supply, expected to
be found there, had failed, possibly owing to
drought. “ The rock in Horeb” was (Ex. xvii. 6)
what Moses smote. It probably stood on the exact
spot where the water was expected to be, but was
not. Now Lepsius ( Zour, April 22, transl. by
Cottrell, p. 74) found in Wady Feiran, which he
identihes with Rephidim, singular alluvial banks of
earth which may have once tormed the bottom of a
lake since dried.¢ If this was the scene of the
miracle [see REPHIDIM ], the propriety of the name
Horeb, as applied to it, becomes clear. Further, in
all the places of Deut. where Horeb is found [see
HOREB], it seems to be used in reference to the
people as the place where they stood to receive,
rather than whence God appeared to give the law,
which is apparently in the same Book of Deut. in-
dicated by Sinai (xxxiii. 2); and in the one re-
maining passage of Exod., where Horeb occurs in
the narrative of the same events, it is used also in
reference to the people (xxxiii. 6), and probably refers
to what they had previously done in the matter of the
golden calf (xxxii. 2,3). If this be accepted, there
yemains in the Pentateuch oniy Ex. iii, 1, where
Moses led the flocks of Jethro “το the mountain
of God, to Horeb ;” but this form of speech, which
seems to identify two local names, is sometimes not
a strict apposition, but denotes an extension, espe-
cially where the places are so close together that
the writer tacitly recognizes them as one.f Thus
Horeb, strictly taken, may probably be a dry plain,
valley, or bed of a wady near the mountain; and
yet Wount Horeb, on the ‘ vast green plain” of
which was doubtless excellent pasture, may mean
the mountain viewed in reference thereto,8 or its
e “ Alluvial mounds”’ are visible at the foot of the
modern Horeb cliffs in the plain Hr Raheh; just as Lepsius
noticed others at the Wady Feiran, (Comp. Stanley, S.& P.
40, Lepsius, 84).
f So in Gen, xiil. 8, Abram goes “ to Bethel, unto the
place where his tent had been at the beginning, between
3ethel and Hai;” ὁ 6. really to Bethel, and somewhat
further.
g 10 ought not to be left unnoticed that different tribes
cf the desert often seem to give different names to the
same mountain, valley, &c., or the same names to different
mountains, &c., because perhaps they judge of them by the
way in which leading features group themselves to the
Such is |
SINAI
side abutting thereon. The mention of Horeb in
later books (e.g. 1 K. viii. 9, xix. 8) seems to show
that it had then become the designation of the
mountain and region generally. The spot where
the people themselves took part in the greatest
event of their history would naturally become the
popular name in later designations of that event.
“ Thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb”
was a literal fact, and became the great basis of all
traditions of it. By this they recognized that they
had been brought into covenant with God. On the
contrary, in Neh. ix. 15, we read, ‘‘ Thou camest
down upon Mount Sinai.”
But beyond the question of the relation which
these names mutually bear, there remains that of
site. Sinai is clearly a summit distinctly marked.
Where are we to look for it? There are three
principal views in answer to this question :—
I. That of Lepsius, above mentioned, favoured
also by Burckhardt (7 αν. p. 609), that Serbal is
Sinai, some 30 miles distant westward from the
Jebel Misa, but close to the Wady Feiran and
El Hessue, which he identifies, as do most authori-
ties, with Rephidim (Lepsius, 74), just a mile from
the old convent of Fardn. On this view Israel
would have reached Sinai the same day that they
fought with Amaiek: ‘the decampment occurred
during the battle” (ib. 86)—an unlikely thing,
since the contest was evidently fierce and close,
and lasted till sunset. Serbal is the most magnifi-
cent mountain of the peninsula, rising with a crown
of five peaks from the maritime plain on one side,
and from the Wady Feirdn on the other, and
showing its full height at once to the eye; and
Ritter (Geogr. xiv. 734-6) has suggested} that it
might have been, before the actual Exodus, known
as ‘* the mount of God” to the Amalekite Arabs,
and even to the Egyptians.i The earliest traditions
are in its favour. “ΤῸ is undoubtedly identified
with Sinai by Eusebius, Jerome, and Cosmas, that
is, by all known writers to the time of Justinian,”
as confirmed by the position ‘ of the episcopal city
of Paran at its foot” (Stanley, S. and P. 40).
But there are two main objections to this :—(1.)
It is clear, from Ex. xix. 2 (comp. xvii. 1), that the
interval between Rephidim and Sinai was that of a
regular stage of the march, The expressions in the
Hebrew are those constantly used for decamping
and encamping in the Books of Ex., Num., and
Deut. ; and thus a Sinai within a mile of Rephidim
is unsuitable. (2.) There is no plain or wady of
any sufticient size near Serbal to offer camping
ground to so large a host, or perhaps the tenth
part of them. Dr. Stewart (Zhe Tent and the
Khan, p. 146) contends for Serbal as the real
Sinai, seeking to obviate objection (1), by mak-
ing Rephidim ‘ no higher up than Heshuéh ”
[RepHipim], and (2), by regarding Wady Aleiat
and. Wady Rimm as capacious enough for the
eye, and which varies with the habitual point of view
(Lepsius, 64).
h Robinson, on the other hand (i. 78+9), suggests that
Sitrabit el Khadim (or Chadem), lying north of Serbal,
was a place of pilgrimage to the ancient Egyptians,
and a supposable object of Moses’ proposed “ three days’
journey into the wilderness.” But that pilgrimage was
an element in the religion of ancient Egypt seems at
least doubtful.
i So Dr. Stewart (The Tent and the Khan, p. 147) says,
“that it was a place of idolatrous worship before the
| passage of the children of Israel is extremely probable.”
He renders the’ name by “ Lord Baal.”
SINAI
host to camp in (ib. p. 145);—a very doubtful
+ assertion.
II. The second is that of Ritter, that, allowing
Serbal the reverence of an early sanctuary, the
Jebel Misa is Sinai, and that the Wady es
Sebayeh, which its S.E. or highest summit over-
hangs, is the spot where the people camped before
the mount; but the second objection to Serbal
applies almost in equal force to this—the want of
space below. The wady is “rough, uneven, and
narrow” (Stanley, S. and P.76); and there seems
no possibility of the people’s “removing (Ex. xx.
18) and standing afar off,’ and yet preserving any
connexion with the scene. Further, this site. offers
no such feature as a ‘‘ brook that descended out of
the mount” (Deut. ix. 21).
Ill. The third is that of Robinson, that the mo-
dern Horeb of the monks—vyiz. the N.W. and
lower face of the Jebel Musa, crowned with a
range of magnificent cliffs, the highest point called
Ras Sasafeh, or Stifsafeh, as spelt by Robinson—
overlooking the plain er Rahah, is the scene of the
giving of the Law, and that peak the mountain
into which Moses ascended. In this view, also,
Strauss appears to coincide (Sinai and Golyotha,
p- 116). Lepsius objects, but without much force
(since he himself climbed it), that the peak Sasafeh
is nearly inaccessible. It is more to the purpose to
observe that the whole Jebel Misa is, compara-
tively with adjacent mountains, insignificant ; “ its
prospect limited in the east, south, and west, by
higher mountains” (Riippell,™ quoted by Robinson,
i, 105, note; comp. Seetzen, Rezsen, vol. ii. p. 93);
that it is ‘‘remote and almost concealed.’ But
the high ground of Serbal being rejected for the
above reasons, and no voice having ever been raised
in favour of the Um Shaumer,® the highest point in
-the peninsula, lying S.W. of the Mzsa, some such
secondary and overshadowed peak must be assumed.
The conjunction of mountain with plain is the
ereatest feature of this site; in choosing it, we lose
in the mountain, as compared with Serba/, but we
gain in the plain, of which Serbd/ has nothing.
Yet the view from the plain appears by no means
wanting in features of majesty and awe (S. and P.
42-3). Dr. Stanley remarked (S. and P. 43)
some alluvial mounds at the foot of the cliff
“‘which exactly answered to the bounds” set to
restrain the people. In this long retiring sweep of
er Rahah the people could ‘“‘remove and stand
afar off ;” for it ‘* extends into the lateral valleys,”
and so joins the Wady es Sheykh (ib. 74). Here
too Moses. if he came down through one of the
oblique gullies which flank the Ras Sasafeh on the
N. and 8., might not see the camp, although he
might catch its noise, till he emerged from the
Wady ed Deir, or the Wady Leja, on the plain
itself. In the latter, also, is found a brook in close
connexion with the mountain.
Still there is the name of the Jebel Misa be-
longing to the opposite or S.E. peak or precipice,
overhanging L's Sebayeh. Lepsius treats this as a
kK Geogr. xiv. 593.
™ Τῷ should be added that Riippell (Lepsius, p. 12) took
Gebel Katherin for Horeb, but that there are fewer
features in its favour, as compared with the history, than
almost any other site (Robinson, i. 110).
n Though Dr. Stanley (S. & P. 39, note) states that it
has been “explored by Mr. Hogg, who tells me that it
meets none of the special requirements.”
© See the work of Professor Beer of Leipsic on this
curious question.
SINAI 1327
monkish legend unknown before the convent; but
there is the name Wady Shouaib (valley of Hobab
or Jethro, S. and P. 32), the Wady Lejd and
Jebel Fureid (perhaps from the forms in Arabic
legend of the names of his two daughters Liju and
Safuria = Zipporah), torming a group of Mosaic tra-
dition. Is it not possible that the Jebel Masa, or
loftiest south-eastern peak of that block of which
the modern Horeb is the lower and opposite end,
may have been the spot to which Moses retired,
leaving the people encamped in er Rahah below,
from which its distance is not above three miles?
That the spot is out of sight from that plain is
hardly a difficulty, for “the mountain burning
with fire to the midst of heaven” was what. the
people saw (Deut. iv. 11); and this would give a
reasonable distance for the spot, somewhere mid-
way, whence the elders enjoyed a partial vision of
God (Ex. xxiv. 9, 10).
Tradition, no doubt in this case purely monkish,
has fixed on a spot for Elijah’s visit—“ the cave”
to which he repaired; but one at Serbal would
equally suit (S. and P.49). That on the Jebel
Misa is called the chapel of St. Elias. It has been
thought possible that St. Paul may have visited
Sinai (Gal. i. 17), and been familiar with the name
Hajar (yx ) as given commonly to it, signify-
ing “a rock.” (Ewald, Sendschreiben, 493.)
It may be added that, supposing Wady Tayibeh
to have been the encampment “ by the sea,” as
stated in Num, xxxiii. 10, three routes opened
there before the Israelites: the most southerly one
(taken by Shawe and Pococke) down the plain e/
Kaa to Tir; the most northerly (Robinson’s) by the
Sarbit el Khadem (either of which would have left
Serbal out of their line of march); and the middle
one by Wady Feirdn, by which they would pass
the foot of Serbd/, which therefore in this case
alone could possibly be Sinai (Stanley, S. and P.
36, 37). Just east of the Jebel Misa, across the
narrow ravine named Shouaib, lies ed-Deir, or the
convent mountain, called also, from a local legend
(Stanley, 46; Robinson, i. 98), “ the Mount of the
Burning Bush.” Tradition has also fixed on a
hollow rock in the plain of the Wady es Sheykh,
on which the modern Horeb looks, as ‘‘ the (mould
of the) head of the cow,” 7. 6. in which the golden
calf was shaped by Aaron. In the ravine called
Leja, parallel to Shouaib on the western side of the
Jebel Misa, lies what is called the rock of Moses
(see REPHIDIM); and a hole in the ground near,
in the plain, is called, by manifest error, the ‘ pit
of Korah,” whose catastrophe took place far away
(Robinson, i. 115 ; Lepsius, 19).
The middle route atoresaid from W. Tayibeh
reaches the W. Feiran through what is called the
W. Mokatteb, or “ written valley,” from the in-
scriptions on the rocks which line it,° generally
considered to have been the work of Christian
hands, but whether those of a Christian people
localised there at an unknown period, as Lep-
| from the Rocks of Sinai) to regard them as a contem-
porary record of the Exodus by the Israelites involves this
anachronism: the events of the fortieth year—e. g. the
plague of fiery serpents—are represented as recorded close
on the same spot with what took place before the people
reacbed Sinai; and although the route which they took
cannot be traced in all its parts, yet all the evidence and
all the probability of the question is clearly against their
| ever having returned from Kadesh and the Arabah to the
Mr. Forster's attempt (Voice of Israel
|
valleys west of Sinai.
1528. SINIM
siusP (p. 90) thinks, or of passing pilgrims, as is the
more general opinion, is likely to continue doubtful.
It is remarkable that the names of the chief
peaks seem all borrowed from their peculiarities
J) means
of vegetation: thus Um Shémr’ (pots
ἐς mother of fennel ;” Rés Sasafeh (properly Siifsafeh,
R280) is “ willow-head,” a group of two or
three of which trees grow in the recesses of the
adjacent wady ; so Serbdal is perhaps from Be Sy 3
and, from analogy, the name “ Sinai,” now un-
known amongst the Arabs (unless Sena, given to
the point of the Jebel Fureid, opposite to the mo-
dern Horeb (Stanley, 42), contain a trace of it),
= ΄-“ο
may be supposed derived from the Linw and Li, the
tree of the Burning Bush. The vegetation 4 of the
peninsula is most copious at El Wady, near Tir,
on the coast of the Gulf of Suez, in the Wady
Feiran [see REPHIDIM], the two oases of its waste,
and “ in the nucleus of springs in the Gebel Mousa”’
(Stanley, 19). For a fuller account of its fora, see
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING. As regards
its fauna, Seetzen (iii. 20) mentions the following
animals as found at er Ramlch, near Sinai :—the wild
goat, the wubber, hyena, fox, hare, gazelle, panther
(rare), field-mouse (οἱ Dschiirdy, like a jerboa), and
a lizard called οἱ Dsob, which is eaten. [H. H.]
SINIM (0°3'D). A people noticed in Is. xlix. 12,
as living at the extremity of the known world,
either in the south or east. The majority of the
early interpreters adopted the former view, but the
LXX. in giving Πέρσαι favours the latter, and the
weight of modern authority is thrown into the
same scale, the name being identified by Gesenius,
Hitzigz, Knobel, and others, with the classical Sinae,
the inhabitants of the southern part of China. No
locality in the south equally commends itself to the
judgment: Sin, the classical Pelusium, which Bo-
chart (Phaleg, iv. 27) suggests, is too near, and
Syene (Michaelis, Spici/. ii. 32) would have been
given in its well-known Hebrew form. There is no
ἃ priori improbability in the name of the Sinae
being known to the inhabitants of Western Asia in
the age of Isaiah ; for though it is not mentioned by
the Greek geographers until the age of Ptolemy, it
is certain that an inland commercial route connected
the extreme east with the west at a very early
period, and that a traffic was maintained on the
frontier of China between the Sinae and the Scy-
thians, in the manner still followed by the Chinese
and the Russians at Avachta. If any name for
these Chinese traders travelled westward, it would
probably be that of the Sinae, whose town Thinae
(another form of the Sinae) was one of the great
emporiums in the western part of China, and is
represented by the modern Tisin or Tin, in the
province of Schensi. The Sinae attained an inde-
pendent position in Western China as early as the
8th century B.c., and in the 3rd century 1.0,
established their sway under the dynasty of Tsin
over the whole of the empire. The itabbinical name
of China, Tsin, as well as ** China” oe was derived
from this dynasty (Gesen. Thes. 5. v.). [W.L.B.5
p Arguing from the fact that these inscriptions occur
not only on roads leading out of Egypt, but in the most
secluded spots, and on rocks lying quite out of the main
SIRAH, THE WELL OF
SI'NITE (9D: ᾿Ασενναῖος : Sinaeus). A tribe
of Canaanites (Gen. x. 17; 1 Chr. i. 15), whose "
position is to be sought for in the northern part ot
the Lebanon district. Various localities in that
district bear a certain amount of resemblance to the
name, particularly Simna, a mountain fortress men-
tioned by Strabo (xvi. p. 755); Sinum or Sini, the
ruins of which existed in the time of Jerome
(Quaest. in Gen.1. .) ; Syn, a village mentioned in
the 15th century as near the river Arca (Gesen,
Thes. p. 948) ; and Dunniyeh, a district near Z77-
poli (Robinson’s Researches, ii. 494). The Targums
of Onkelos and Jonathan give Orthosia, a town on
the coast to the north-east of Tripolis. [W. L. B.]
SION, MOUNT. (ky 10;
PNW 1; τὸ ὄρος τοῦ Sndv: mons Sion).
One of the various names of Mount Hermon which
are fortunately preserved, all not improbably more
ancient than ‘‘ Hermon”? itself. It occurs in Deut.
iv. 48 only, and is interpreted by the lexicographers
to mean “lofty.” Fiirst conjectures that these
various appellations were the names of separate
peaks or portions of the mountain. Some have
supposed that Zion in Ps. exxxiii. 3 is a variation
of this Sion ; but there is no warrant for this be-
yond the fact that so doing overcomes a difficulty
of interpretation in that passage. "
2. (τὸ ὄρος Σιών; in Heb. Σιὼν ὄρος : mons Sion.)
The Greek form of the Hebrew name ZION (Tsion),
the famous Mount of the Temple (1 Mace. iv. 37,
60, v. 54, vi. 48, 62, vii. 33, x. 11, xiv. 27; Heb.
xil, 22; Rey. xiv. 1). In the Books of Maccabees
the expression is always Mount Sion. In the other
Apocryphal Books the name SION is alone employed.
Further, in the Maccabees the name unmistakeably
denotes the mount on which the Temple was built ;
on which the Mosque of the Aksa, with its attendant .
Mosques of Omar and the Mogrebbins, now stands.
The first of the passages just quoted is enough to
decide this. If it can be established that Zion in
the Old Testament means the same locality with
Sion in the Books of Maccabees, one of the greatest
puzzles of Jerusalem topography will be solved.
This will be examined under Zion. [G.]
SIPH'’MOTH (NidnY: Saget; Alex. Sapa-
pws: Sephamoth). One of the places in the south
of Judah which David frequented during his free-
booting life, and to his friends in which he sent a
portion of the spoil taken from the Amalekites. It
is named only in 1 Sam. xxx..28. It is not named
by Eusebius or Jerome. No one appears yet to
have discovered or even suggested an identification
of it. [G.]
SIPPA'I (BD: Σαφούτ; Alex. Sept: Sa-
phai). One of the sons of the Rephaim, or “ the
giants,” slain by Sibbechai the Hushathite at Gezer
(1 Chr. xx. 4), In 2 Sam, xxi. 18 he is called ΒΆΡΗ.
SI'RACH (Σειράχ, Sipdx : Sirach : in Rabbinic
writers, ND), the father of Jesus (Joshua), the
writer of the Hebrew original of the Book of Eccle-
siasticus. [ECCLESIAsTIcts ; JESUS THE SON OF
SIRACH. | [B. F. W.]
SIRAH, THE WELL OF (7907 3: τὸ
φρέαρ Tod Σεειράμ, in both MSS.: cisterna Sira).
Samar.
roads.
4 For a full account of the climate and vegetation
Schubert (/etsen, ii. 351) may be consulted,
SIRION
The spot from which Abner was recalled by Joab
to his death at Hebron (2 Sam. iii. 26 only). It
was apparently on the northern roaa from Hebron
—that by which Abner would naturally return
through Bahurim (ver. 16) to Mahanaim. There
is a spring and reservoir on the western side of
the ancient northern road, about one mile out of
Hebron, which is called Ain Sara, and gives its
name to the little valley in which it lies (see Dr.
Rosen’s paper on Hebron in the Zeitschrift der
D, ἢ. G. xii. 486, and the excellent map accom-
panying it). This may be a relic of the well of
Sirah. It is mentioned as far back as the 12th cen-
tury by Rabbi Petachia, but the correspondence of
the name with that of Sirah seems to have escaped
notice. [G.]
SIRI’‘ON es 7. 6. Siryon, in Deut., but in
Ps. xxix. jw, Shiryon ; Samar, {/1; Sam. Vers.
alas Σανιώρ : Sarion). One of the various names
of Mount Hermon, that by which it was known to
the Zidonians (Deut. iii. 9). The word is almost
identical with that (7) 1) which in Hebrew denotes
a * breastplate” or ‘‘ cuirass,” and Gesenius there-
fore expresses his belief that it was applied in this
sense to the mountain, just as the name Thorax
(which has the same meaning) was given to a
mountain in Magnesia. This is not supported by
the Samaritan Version, the rendering in which—
Rabban—seems to be equivalent to Jebel esh Sheykh,
the ordinary, though not the only modern name of
the mountain.
The use of the name in Ps. xxix. 6 (slightly
altered in the original—Shirion instead of Sirion)
is remarkable, though, bearing in mind the occur-
rence of Shenir in Solomon’s Song, it can hardly
be used as an argument for the antiquity of the
Psalin. {G.]
SISAMA'T (‘Y2DD: Σοσομαΐ: Sisamoi). A
descendant of Sheshan in the line of Jerahmeel
(1 Chr. ii. 40).
SIS'ERA (S1D'D?: Σεισάρα, Σισάρα; Joseph.
6 Σισάρης: Sisara). Captain (nw) of the army of
Jabin king of Canaan who reigned in Hazor. He
himself resided in Harosheth ὁ ot the Gentiles. The
particulars of the rout of Megiddo and of Sisera’s
flight and death are drawn out under the heads of
Barak, DEBORAH, JAEL, KENITES, KISHON,
MANTLE, TENT. ‘They have been recently elabo-
SISERA 1329
rated, and combined into a living whole, with
great attention to detail, yet without any sacrifice
of force, by Professor Stanley, in his Lectures on
the Hist. of the Jewish Church, Lect. xiv. To that
accurate and masterly picture we refer our readers.
The army was mustered at the Kishon on the
plain at the foot of the slopes of Lejjin. Partly
owing to the furious attack of Barak, partly to the
impassable condition of the plain, and partly to the
unwieldy nature of the host itself, which, amongst
other inipediments, contained 900 4 iron chariots —
a horrible confusion and rout took place. Sisera
deserted his troops and fled off on foot. He took a
north-east direction, possibly through Nazareth and
Safed, or, if that direct road was closed to him,
stole along by more circuitous routes till he found
himself before the tents of Heber the Kenite, near
Kedesh, on the high ground overlooking the upper
basin of the Jordan valley. Here he met his death
from the hands of Jael, Heber’s wife, who, although
“at peace” with him, was under a much more
stringent relation with the house of Israel (Judg.
iv. 2-22, v. 20, 26, 28, 30). [KENITEs, p. 11a. |
His name’ long survived as a word of fear and of
exultation in the mouths of prophets and psalmists
(1 Sam. xii. 9; Ps. Ixxxiii. 9).
It is remarkable that from this enemy of the Jews
should have sprung one of their most eminent cha-
racters, The great Rabbi Akiba, whose father was
a Syrian proselyte of justice, was descended from
Sisera of Harosheth (Bartolocci, iv. 272). The
part which he took in the Jewish war of independ-
ence, when he was standard bearer to Barcocba
(Otho, Hist. doct. Misn. 134 note), shows that the
warlike force still remained in the blood of Sisera.
2. (Σισάρα, Sicapdd; Alex. Σισάραα, “Σει-
σαράθ.) After a long interval the name re-appears
in the lists of the Nethinim who returned from
the Captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 53; Neh.
vii. 55). The number of foreign, non-Israelite
names® which occur in these invaluable lists has
been already noticed under Mrnunim [vol. ii.
p- 313.] Sisera is another example, and doubtless
tells of Canaanite captives devoted to the lowest
offices of the Temple, even though the Sisera from
whom the family derived its name were not actually
the same person as the defeated general of Jabin.
It is curious that it should occur in close com-
panionship with the name Harsha (ver. 52) which
irresistibly recals Harosheth.
a No variation from jy to t, or the reverse, is noticed
in Déderlein and Meisner, on either occurrence of the
name.
Ὁ Gesenius (Lez. s.v.), by comparison with the Syriac,
interprets the name as “ battle-array.” Fiirst, on the other
hand (Handwb. ii. 279), gives as its equivalent Vermittclung,
the nearest approach to which is perhaps “ lieutenant.”
As a Canaanite word its real signification is probably
equally wide of either.
ς ‘The site of HaRosHETH has not yet been identified
with certainty. But since the publication of vol i. the
writer observes that Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, ch.
xxix.) has suggested a site which seems possible, and
invites further examination. This is a tell or mound
on the north side of the Kishon, in the S.E. corner of the
plain of Akka, just bebind the hills which separate it
from the larger plain of Jezreel, The tell advances
close to the foot of Carmel, and allows only room for the
passage of the river between them. Its name is variously
given as Harothieh (Thomson), Harthijjeh (Schulz), Hur-
shiyeh (Robinson), Harti (Van de Velde), and el Har-
tiyeh. ‘The latter is the form given in the official list
made for the writer in 1861 by Consul Rogers, and
VOL. II.
is probably accurate. Dr. Thomson—apparently the
only traveller who has examined the spot—speaks of
the Tell as ‘covered with the remains of old walls and
buildings,’ in which he sees the relics of the ancient
castle of Sisera.
d The number of Jabin’s standing army is given by
Josephus (Ant. v. 5, §1) as 300,000 footmen, 10,006 horst-
men, and 3000 chariots. These numbers are large, but
they are nothing to those of the Jewish legends. Sisera
“had 40,000 generals, every one of whom had 100,000
men under him. He was thirty years old, and had con-
quered the whole world: and there was not a place the
walls of which did not fall down at his voice When
he shouted the very beasts of the field were rivetted
totheir places. 900 horses went in his chariot” (Jalkut
ad loc.). ‘*Thirty-one kings (comp. Josh. xii. 24) went
with Sisera and were killed with him. They thirsted
after the waters of the land of Israel, and they asked
and prayed Sisera to take them with him without further
reward” (comp. Judg. v.19). (Ber. Rab. ch. 23.) The
writer is indebted to the kindness of Mr. Deutsch for
these extracts.
e Mrnunm, Nepuusm, Harsua, Rezm.
4Q
1330 SISINNES
SLAVE
In the parallel list of i Esd. v. 32 Sisera is given | been to the ear of the Hebrew equivalent terms,
as ASERER. [G.]
SISIN'NES (Sicivyns: Sisennes). A governor
of Svria and Phoenicia under Darius, and a con-
temporary of Zerubbabel (1 Esdr. vi. 3). He
attempted to stop the rebuilding of the Temple,
but was ordered by Darius, after consulting the
archives of Cyrus’s reign, to adopt the opposite
course, and to forward the plans of Zerubbabel
(Ibid. vi. 7, vii. 1). In Ezra he is called Tarnai.
SIT'NAH (ANIL: ἐχθρία ; Joseph. Σιτεννά:
Inimicitiae). The second of the two wells dug by
Isaac in the valley of Gera:, and the possession of
which the herdmen of the valley disputed with him
(Gen. xxvi. 21). Like the first one, ESEK, it re-
ceived its name from the disputes which took place
over it, Sitnah meaning, as is stated in the margin,
“hatred,” or more accurately ‘ accusation,” but
the play of expression has not been in this instance
preserved in the Hebrew. The LXX., however,
have attempted it:—éxpivoyto.... ἐχθρία. The
root of the name is the same as that of Satan, and
this has been taken advantage of by Aquila and
Symmachus, who render it respectively ἀντικειμένη
and ἐναντίωσις. Of the situation of Esek and
Sitnah nothing whatever is known. [G.]
SIVAN. [Μοντη.]
SLAVE. The institution of slavery was recog-
nised, though not established, by the Mosaic Law
with a view to mitigate its hardships and to secure
to every man his ordinary rights. Repugnant as
the notion of slavery is to our minds, it is difficult
to see how it can be dispensed with in certain
phases of society without, at all events, entailing
severer evils than those which it produces. Exclu-
siveness of race is an instinct that gains strength in
proportion as social order is weak, and the rights
of citizenship ave regarded with peculiar jealousy
in communities which are exposed to contact with
aliens. In the case of war, carried on for conquest
or revenge, there were but two modes of dealing
with the captives, viz. putting them to death or
reducing them to slavery. The same may be said
in regard to such acts and outrages as disqualified
a person for the society of his fellow-citizens. Again,
as citizenship involved the condition of freedom and
independence, it was almost necessary to offer the
alternative of disfranchisement to all who through
poverty or any other contingency were unable to
support themselves in independence. In all. these
cases slavery was the mildest of the alternatives
that offered, and may hence be regarded as a bless-
ing rather than a curse. It should further be
noticed that a labouring class, in our sense of the
term, was almost unknown to the nations of an-
tiquity : hired service was regarded as incompatible
with freedom; and hence the slave in many cases
occupied the same social position as the servant or
labourer of modern times, though differing from
~him in regard to political status. The Hebrew
designation of the slave shows that service was the
salient feature of his condition; for the term ebed,>
usually applied to him, is derived from a verb sig-
nifying “‘ to work,” and the very same term is used
in reference to offices of high trust held by free
men. In short, service and slavery would have
though he fully recognised grades of servitude, ac-
cording as the servant was a Hebrew or a non-
Hebrew, and, if the latter, according as he was
bought with money (Gen. xvii. 12; Ex. xii. 44) or
born in the house (Gen. xiv. 14, xv. 3, xvii. 23).
We shall proceed to describe the condition of these
classes, as regards their original reduction to slavery.
the methods by which it might be terminated, and
their treatment while in that state.
I, Hebrew Slaves.
1. The circumstances under which a Hebrew
might be reduced to servitude were—(1) poverty ;
(2) the commission of theft; and (3) the exercise
of paternal authority. In the first case, a man
who had mortgaged his property, and was unable to
support his family, might sell himself to another
Hebrew, with a view both to obtain maintenance,
and perchance a surplus sufficient to redeem his
property (Lev. xxv. 25, 39). It has been debated
whether. under this law a creditor could seize his
debtor and sell him as a slave:¢ the words do not
warrant such an inference, for the poor man is said
in Lev. xxv. 39 to se/l himself (not as in the A. V.,
“be sold ;” see Gesen. 7168. p. 787), in other
words, to enter into voluntary servitude, and this
under the pressure not of debt, but of poverty. The
instances of seizing the children of debtors in 2 Κὶ.
iv. 1 and Neh. v. 5 were not warranted by law,
and must be regarded as the outrages of lawless
times, while the case depicted in the parable of the
unmerciful servant is probably borrowed from Ro-
man usages (Matt. xviii. 25). The words in Is.
1. 1, “ Which of my creditors is it to whom I have
sold you?” have a prima facie bearing upon the
question, but’in reality apply to one already in the
condition of slavery. (2) The commission of theft
rendered a person liable to servitude, whenever
restitution could not be made on the scale prescribed
by the Law (Ex. xxii. 1,5). The thief was bound
to work out the value of his restitution money in
the service of him on whom the theft had been
committed (for, according to Josephus, Ant. xvi. 1,
§1, there was no power of selling the person of a
thief to a foreigner); when this had been effected
he would be free, as implied in the expression ὁ" sold
for his theft,” i. ὁ. for the amount of his theft.
This law contrasts favourably with that of the
Romans, under which a thief became the actual
property of his master. (3) The exercise of paternal
authority was limited to the sale of a daughter of
tender age to be a maidservant, with the ulterior
view of her becoming a concubine of the purchaser
(Ex, xxi. 7). Such a case can perhaps hardly be
regarded as implying servitude in the ordinary
sense of the term.
2. The servitude of a Hebrew might be termin-
ated in three ways:—(1) by the satisfaction or
the remission of all claims against him : ἃ (2) by
the recurrence of the year of Jubilee (Lev. xxy.
40), which might arrive at any period of his servi-
tude; and (3), failing either of these, the expiration
of six years from the time that his servitude com-
menced (Ex. xxi. 2; Deut. xv. 12). There can be
no doubt that this last regulation applied equally to
the cases of poverty and theft, though Rabbinical
writers have endeavoured to restrict it to the former.
4 In the A. V. of vers. 20, 21, two entirely distinct
Hebrew words are each rendered “strive.’’
ΟΞ,
ο Michaelis (Comment. iii. 9, §123) decides in the
affirmative,
4 This is implied in the statement of the cases which
gave rise to the servitude: indeed without such an
assumption the words “for his theft’? (Ex. xxii. 3)
would be unmeaning. The Rabbinists gave their sanction
to such a view (Maimon. Abad. 2, §§8, 11).
SLAVE
The period of seven years has reference to the Sab-
batical principle in general, but not to the Sab-
batical year, for no regulation is laid down in
reference to the manumission of servants in that
year (Lev. xxv. 1 ff.; Deut. xv. 1 ff). We have
a single instance, indeed, of the Sabbatical year
being celebrated by a general manumission of He-
brew slaves, but,this was in consequence of the
neglect of the law relating to such cases (Jer. xxxiv.
144). (4) To the above modes of obtaining liberty
the Rabbinists added as a fourth, the death of the
master without leaving a son, there being no power
of claiming the slave on the part of any heir except
a son (Maimon. Abad. 2, §12).
If a seryant did not desire to avail himself of the
opportunity of leaving his service, he was to signify
his intention in a formal manner before the judges
(or more exactly at the place of judgment'), and
then the master was to take him to the door-post,
and to bore his ear through with an awl (Ex. xxi.
6), driving the awl into or “ unto the door,” as
stated in Deut. xv. 17, and thus fixing the servant
to it. Whether the door was that of the master’s
house, or the door of the sanctuary, as Ewald
(Alterth. p. 245) infers from the expression e/
haelohim, to which attention is drawn above, is not
stated; but the significance of the action is en-
hanced by the former view; for thus a connexion
is established between the servant and the house in
which he was to serve. The boring of the ear was
probably a token of subjection, the ear being the
organ through which commands were received (Ps.
xl. 6). A similar custom prevailed among the
Mesopotamians (Juv. i. 104), the Lydians (Xen.
Anab. iii. 1, §31), and other ancient nations. A
servant who had submitted to this operation re-
mained, according to the words of the Law, a servant
“for ever” (Ex. xxi. 6). These words are, how-
ever, interpreted by Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, §28) and
by the Rabbinists as meaning until the year of
Jubilee, partly from the universality of the freedom
that was then proclaimed, and partly perhaps because
it was necessary for the servant then to resume the
cultivation of his recovered inheritance. The latter
point no doubt presents a difficulty, but the inter-
pretation of the words “ for ever” in any other than
their obvious sense presents still greater difficulties.
3. The condition of a Hebrew servant was by no
means intolerable. His master was admonished to
treat him, not ‘“‘as a bondservant, but as an hired
servant and as a sojourner,” and, again, ‘not to rule
over him with rigour” (Lev. xxv. 39, 40, 43).
The Rabbinists specified a variety of duties as
coming under these general precepts ; for instance,
compensation for personal injury, exemption from
menial duties, such as unbinding the master’s san-
dals or carrying him in a litter, the use of gentle
language on the part of the master, and the main-
tenance of the servant’s wife and children, though
the master was not allowed to exact work from
them (Mielziner, Skiaven bei den Hebr. p. 31). At
the termination of his servitude the master was
enjoined not to “ let him go away empty,” but to
SLAVE 1331
remunerate him liberally out of his flock, his floor,
and his winepress (Deut. xv. 13, 14). Such a cus-
tom would stimulate the servant to faithful service,
inasmuch as the amount of the gift was left to the
master’s discretion ; and it would also provide him
with means wherewith to start in the world afresh.
In the event of a Hebrew becoming the servant
of a “ stranger,” meaning a non-Hebrew, the servi-
tude could be terminated only in two ways, viz. by
the arrival of the year of Jubilee, or by the repay-
ment to the master of the purchase-money paid for
the servant, after deducting a sum for the value of
his services proportioned to the length of his servi- »
tude (Lev. xxv. 47-55). The servant might be
redeemed either by himself or by one of his rela-
tions, and the object of this regulation appears to
have been to impose upon relations the obligation &
of effecting the redemption, and thus pntting an
end to a state which must have been pecukarly
galling to the Hebrew.
A Hebrew woman might enter into voluntary
servitude on the score of poverty, and in this case
she was entitled to her freedom after six years’ ser-
vice, together with the usual gratuity at leaving,
just as in the case of a man (Deut. xv. 12, 13).
According to Rabbinical tradition a woman could
not be condemned to servitude for theft; neither
could she bind herself to perpetual servitude by
having her ear bored (Mielziner, p. 43).
Thus far we have seen little that is objectionable
in the condition of Hebrew servants. In respect to
marriage there were some peculiarities which, to
our ideas, would be regarded as hardships. <A
master might, for instance, give a wife to a Hebrew
servant for the time of his servitude, the wife being
in this case, it must be remarked, not only a slave
but a non-Hebrew. Should he leave when his term
has expired, his wife and children would remain the
absolute property of the master (Ex. xxi. 4, 5).
The reason for this regulation is, evidently, that the
children of a female heathen slave were slaves; they
inherited the mother’s disqualification. Such a
condition of marrying a slave would be regarded as
an axiom by a Hebrew, and the case is only inci-
dentally noticed. Again, a father might sell his
young daughter» to a Hebrew, with a view either of
marrying her himself, or of giving her to his son (Ex.
xxi. 7-9). It diminishes the apparent harshness of
this proceeding if we look on the purchase-money
as in the light of a dowry given, as was not un-
usual, to the parents of the bride; still more, if
we accept the Rabbinical view (which, however,
we consider very doubtful) that the consent of the
maid was required before the marriage could take
place. But even if this consent were not obtained, the
paternal authority would not appear to be violently
strained ; for among ancient nations that authority
was generally held to extend even to the life of a
child, much more to the giving of a daughter in
marriage. The position of a maiden thus sold by
her father was subject to the following regula-
tions :—(1) She could not “go out as ‘the men-
servants do,” 7, 6. she could πε leave at the termi-
e The rendering of the A. V. “ αὐ the end of seven
years” in this passage is not wholly correct. ‘The mean-
ing rather is “at the end of a Sabbatical period of years,”
the whole of the seventh year being regarded as the end of | *
the period.
f Down ON πρὸς τὸ κριτήριον, LXX.
g In the A. V. the sense of obligation is not conveyed ;
instead of “may” in vers. 48. 49, shall ought to be
substituted.
h The female slave was in this case termed NOS, as
distinct from MD, applied to the ordinary household
slave. The distinction is marked in regard to Hagar, who
is described by the latter term before the birth of Ishmael,
and by the former after that event (comp. Gen. xvi. 1,
xxi. 10). The relative value of the terms is expressed in
Abigail’s address, “ Let thine handmaid (@mah) be a ser-
vant (shiphchGh) to wash,” &c. (1 Sam. xxv. 41).
4Q 2
1332 SLAVE
nation of six years, or in the year of Jubilee, if (as
the regulation assumes) her master was willing to
fulfil the object for which he had purchased her.
(2) Should he not wish to marry her, he should
call upon her friends to procure her release by the
repaymeut of the purchase-money (perhaps, as in
other cases, with a deduction for the value of her
services). (3) If he betrothed her to his son, he
was bound to make such provision for her as he
would for one of his own daughters. (4) If either
he or his son, having married her, took a second
wite, it should not be to the prejudice of the first.
(5) If neither of the three first specified alter-
natives took place, the maid was entitled to imme-
diate and gratuitous liberty (Ex. xxi. 7-11).
The custom of reducing Hebrews to servitude
appears to have fallen into disuse subsequently to
the Babylonish captivity. The attempt to enforce
it ineNehemiah’s time met with decided resistance
(Neh. v. 5), and Herod’s enactment that thieves
should be sold to foreigners, roused the greatest
animosity (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 1, 81). Vast num-
bers of Hebrews were reduced to slavery as war-
captives at different periods by the Phoenicians
(Joel iii. 6), the Philistines (Joel iii. 6; Am. i. 6),
the Syrians (1 Mace. iii. 41; 2 Mace. viii. 11), the
Egyptians (Joseph. Ant. xii. 2, §3), and, above all,
by the Romans (Joseph. B. J. vi. 9, §3). We
may form some idea of the numbers reduced to
slavery by war from the single fact that Nicanor
calculated on realizing 2000 talents in one campaign,
by the sale of captives at the rate of 90 for a talent
(2 Mace. viii. 10, 11), the number required to
fetch the sum being 180,000. The Phoenicians
were the most active slave-dealers of ancient times,
purchasing of the Philistines (Am, 1, 9), of the
Syrians (2 Mace. viii. 21), and even of the tribes
on the shores of the Enxine Sea (Ez. xxvii. 13), and
selling them wherever they could find a market
about the shores of the Mediterranean, and particu-
larly in Joel’s time to the people of Javan (Joel iii.
§), it being uncertain whether that name represents
a place in South Arabia or the Greeks of Asia
Minor and the peninsula. “It was probably through
the Tyrians that Jews were transported in Obadiah’s
time to Sepharad or Sardis (Ob. 20), At Rome
vast numbers of Jews emerged from the state of
slavery and became freedmen. The price at which
the slaves were offered by Nicanor was considerably
below the ordinary value either in Palestine or
Greece. In the former country it stood at 30
shekels (=about 3/. 8s.), as stated below, in the
iatter at about 14 minas (=about’5/. 1s. 6d), this
being the mean between the extremes stated by
Xenophon (Mem. ii. 5, §2) as the ordinary price at
Athens. The price at which Nicanor offered them
was only 2/. 15s. 2d.a head. Occasionally slaves
were sold as high as a talent (243/, 15s.) each
(Xen. 1. c.; Joseph. Ant, xii4, 89).
1. Non-Hebrew Slaves.
1. The majority of non-Hebrew slaves were
war-captives, either the Canaanites who had sur-
vived the general extermination of their race under
Joshua, or such as were conquered from the other
surrounding nations (Num. xxxi. 26 ff.). Besides
these, many were obtained by purchase from foreign
slave-dealers (Lev. xxv. 44, 45); and others may
have been resident foreigners who were reduced to
this state either by poverty or crime. The Rab-
SLAVE
binists further deemed that any person who per-
formed the services of a slave became ipso facto a
slave (Mishn. Aedush. 1, 89). The children of
slaves remained slaves, being the class described as
‘born in the house” (Gen. xiv. 14, xvii. 12; Eccl.
ii. 7), and hence the number was likely to increase
as time went on, The only statement as to their
number applies to the post-Babylonian period, when
they amounted to 7,337, or about 1 to 6 of the
free population (Ezr. ii. 65). We have reason to
believe that the number diminished subsequently to
this period, the Pharisees in particular being opposed
to the system. The average value of a slave appears
to have been thirty shekels (Ex. xxi. 32), varying of
course according to age, sex, and capabilities. The
estimation of persons given in Lev. xxvii. 2-8 pro-
bably applies to war-captives who had been dedicated
to the Lord, and the price of their redemption would in
this case represent the ordinary value of such slaves.
2. That the slave might be manumitted, appears
from Ex. xxi, 26, 27; Lev. xix. 20. As to the
methods by which this might be effected, we are
told nothing in the Bible; but the Rabbinists specify
the following four methods :—(1) redemption by a
money payment, (2) a bill or ticket of freedom,
(3) testamentary disposition, or, (4) any act that
implied manumission, such as making a slave one’s
heir (Mielziner, pp. 65, 66).
3. The slave is described as the ‘ possession” of
his master, apparently with a special reference to
the power which the latter had of disposing of him
to his heirs as he would any other article of per-
sonal property (Lev. xxv. 45, 46); the slave is also
described as his master’s “money ” (Ex, xxi. 21),
i. e. as representing a certain money value. Such
expressions show that he was regarded very much
in the light of a mancipium or chattel. But on the
other hand provision was made for the protection
of his person: wilful murder of a slave entailed the
same punishment as in the case of a free man (Lev.
xxiv. 17, 22). So again, if a master inflicted so
severe a punishment as to cause the death of his
servant, he was liable to a penalty, the amount of
which probably depended on the circumstances of
the case, for the Rabbinical view that the words
“he shall be surely punished,” or, more correctly,
“it is to be avenged,’ imply a sentence of death,
is wholly untenable (Ex. xxi. 20). No punish-
ment at all was imposed if the slave survived
the punishment by a day or two (Ex. xxi. 21),
the loss of the slavei being regarded as a sutli-
cient punishment in this case, A minor personal
injury, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth was to
be recompensed by giving the servant his liberty
(Ex. xxi. 26, 27). The general treatment of slaves
appears to have been gentle— occasionally too gentle,
as we infer from Solomon’s advice (Prov. xxix. 19,
21), nor do we hear more than twice of a slave run-
ning away from his master (1 Sam. xxv. 10; 1 K.
ii. 39). The slave was considered by a conscientious
master as entitled to justice (Job xxxi. 13-15) and
honourable treatment (Prov. xxx. 10). A slave,
according to the Rabbinists, had no power of acquir-
ing property for himself; whatever he might become
entitled to, even by way of compensation for per-
sonal injury, reverted to his master (Mielziner,
p. 55). On the other hand, the master might con-
stitute him his heir either wholly (Gen. xv. 3), or
jointly with his childyen (Prov. xvii. 2); or again,
i There is an apparent disproportion between this and
the following regulation, arising probably out of the
different circumstances under which the injury was ef-
fected. In this case the law is speaking of legitimate
punishment “with a rod;” in the next, of a violent
assault.
SLIME
he might give him his daughter in marriage (1 Chr.
ii, 35).
The position of the slave in regard to religious
privileges was favourable. He was to be circum-
cisel (Gen. xvii. 12), and hence was entitled to
partake of the Paschal sacrifice (Ex. xii. 44), as
well as of the other religious festivals (Deut. xii.
12, 18, xvi. 11, 14). It is implied that every
slave must have been previously brought to the
knowledge of the true God, and to’a willing accept-
ance of the tenets of Judaism, This would naturaliy
be the case with regard to all who were “ born in
the house,” and who were to be circumcised at the
usual age of eight days ; but it is difficult to under-
stand how those who were “bought with money,”
as adults, could be always induced to change their
creed, or how they could be circumcised without
having changed it. The Mosaic Law certainly pre-
supposes an universal acknowledgment of Jehovah
within the limits of the Promised Land, and would
therefore enferce the dismissal or extermination of
slaves who persisted in heathenism.
The occupations of slaves were of a menial cha-
racter, as implied in Lev. xxv. 39, consisting partly
in the work of the house, and partly in personal
attendance on the master. Female slaves, for in-
stance, ground the corn in the handmill (Ex. xi. 5;
Job xxxi, 10 ; Is. xlvii. 2), or gleaned in the harvest
field (Ruth ii. 8). They also baked, washed, cooked, ]
and nursed the children (Mishn. Cethub. ὅ, 85). The
occupations of the men are not specified ; the most
trustworthy held confidential posts, such as that of
steward or major-domo (Gen. xv. 2, xxiv. 2), of tutors
to sons (Prov. xvii. 2), and of tenants to persons of
large estate, for such appears to have been the posi-
tion of Ziba (2 Sam. ix. 2, 10). [W. L. B.]
SLIME. The rendering in the A. V. of the
rep)
Heb. WOM, chémdar, the (Hommar) of the
Arabs, translated ἄσφαλτος by the LXX, and bitu-
men in the Vulgate. That our translators under-
stood by this word the substance now known as
bitumen, is evident from the following passages in
Holland’s Pliny (ed. 1634). “The very clammy
slime Bitumen, which at certaine times of the yere
floteth and swimmeth upon the lake of Sodom,
called Asphaltites in Jury” (vii. 15, vol. i. p.
163). “The Bitumen whereof I speake, is in some
places in manner of a muddy slime; in others, very
earth or minerall ” (xxxy. 15, vol. ii. p. 557).
The three instances in which it is mentioned in
“the O. T. are abundantly illustrated by travellers
and historians, ancient and modern. It is first
spoken of as used for cement by the builders in the
plain of Shinar, or Babylonia (Gen. xi. 3). The
bitumen pits in the vale of Siddim are mentioned
in the ancient fragment of Canaanitish history (Gen.
xiv. 10); and the ark of papyrus in which Moses
was placed was made impervious to water by a
coating of bitumen and pitch (Ex. ii. 3).
Herodotus (i. 179) tells us of the bitumen found
at Is, a town of Babylonia, eight days journey from
Babylon. The captive Eretrians (Her. vi. 119)
were sent by Darius to collect asphaltum, salt, and
oil at Ardericca, a place two hundred and ten stadia
from Susa, in the district of Cissia. The town of
Is was situated on a river, or small stream, of the
same name which flowed into the Euphrates, and
carried down with it the lumps of bitumen, which
was used in the building of Babylon. Itis probably
the bitumen springs of Is which are described in
SLIME 1333
Strabo (xvi. 743). Eratosthenes, whom he quotes,
says that the liquid bitumen, which is called naphtha,
is found in Susiana, and the dry in Babylonia. Of
the latter there is a spring near the Euphrates, and
when the river is flooded by the melting of the
snow, the spring also is filled and overflows into
the river. The masses of bitumen thus produced
are fit for buildings which are made of baked brick.
Diodorus Siculus (ii. 12) speaks of the abundance
of bitumen in Babylonia. It proceeds from a spring,
and is gathered by the people of the country, not
only for building, but when dry for fuel, instead
of wood. Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 6, $23)
tells us that Babylon was built with bitumen by
Semiramis (comp. Plin. xxxv. 51; Berosus, quoted
by Jos. Ant. x. 11, §1, c. Apion. i. 19; Arrian,
Exp. Al. vii. 17, §1, &c.). The~ town of Is,
mentioned by Herodotus, is without doubt the
modern Hit or Heet, on the west or right bank of
the Euphrates, and four days’ journey, N.W., or
rather W.N.W., of Bagdad (Sir R. Ker Porter’s
Trav. ii. 361, ed, 1822). The principal bitumen
pit at Heet, says Mr. Rich (Memoir on the Ruins
of Babylon, p. 63, ed. 1815), has two sources, and
is divided by a wall in the centre, on one side of
which the bitumen bubbles up, and on the other
the oil of naphtha, Sir R. Κα, Porter (ii. 315) ob-
served “ that bitumen was chiefly confined by the
Chaldean builders, to the foundations, and lower
parts of their edifices ; for the purpose of preventing
the ill effects of water.” ‘* With regard to the use
of bitumen,” he adds, “1 saw πὸ vestige of it
whatever on any remnant of building on the higher
ascents, and therefore drier regions.” his view is
indirectly confirmed by Mr. Rich, who says that
the tenacity of bitumen bears no proportion to that
of mortar. The use of bitumen appears to have
been confined to the Babylonians, for at Nineveh,
Mr. Layard observes (Nin. ii. 278), “ bitumen
and reeds were not employed to cement the layers
of bricks, as at Babylon; although both materiais
are to be found in abundance in the immediate
vicinity of the city.’ At Nimroud bitumen was
found under a pavement (Win. i. 29), and “ the
sculpture rested simply upon the platform of sun-
dried bricks without any other substructure, a mere
layer of bitumen, about an inch thick, having been
placed under the plinth” (Nin. § Bab. p. 208).
In his description of the firing of the bitumen pits
at Nimroud by his Arabs, Mr. Layard falls into
the language of our translators. “" Tongues of
flame and jets of gas, driven from the burning pit,
shot through the murky canopy. As the fire bright-
ened, a thousand fantastic forms of light played
amid the smoke. To break the cindered crust, and
to bring fresh slime to the surface, the Arabs threw
large, stones into the spring. . . . In an hour the
bitumen was exhausted for the time, the dense
smoke gradually died away, and the pale light of
the moon again shone over the black slime pits”
(Nin. §& Bab. 202).
The bitumen of the Dead Sea is described by
Strabo, Josephus, and Pliny. Strabo (xvi. p. 763)
gives an account of the volcanic action by which
the bottom of the sea was disturbed, and the bitu-
men thrown to the surface. It was at first liquefied
by the heat, and then changed into a thick viscous
substance by the cold water of the sea, on the sur-
face of which it floated in lumps (βῶλοι). These
lumps are described by Josephus (B. J. iv. 8, $4)
as of the size and shape of a headless ox (comp.
Plin. vii. 13). The semi-liquid kind of bitumen is
1334 SLING
that which Pliny says is found in the Dead Sea, the
earthy in Syria about Sidon. Liquid bitumen, such
as the Zacynthian, the Babylonian, and the Apollo-
niatic, he adds, is known by the Greeks by the name
of pis-asphaltum (comp. Ex. ii. 3, LXX.). He tells
us Moreover that it was used for cement, and that
bronze vessels and statues and the heads of nails
were covered with it (Plin. xxxv. 51). The bitumen
pits by the Dead Sea are described by the monk Bro-
eardus (Descr. Terr. Sanct. ec. 7, in Ugolini, vi.
p- 1044). The Arabs of the neighbourhood have
perpetuated the story of its formation as given by
Strabo. ‘* They say that it forms on the rocks in
the depths of the sea, and by earthquakes or other
submarine concussions is broken off in large masses,
and rises to the surface” (Thomson, The Land and
the Book, p. 223). They told Burckhardt a similar
-.
tale. ‘‘ The asphaltum (p>); Hommar, which is
collected by the Arabs of the western shore, is said
to come from a mountain which blocks up the
passage along the eastern Ghor, and which is situ-
ated at about two hours south of Wady Mojeb.
The Arabs pretend that it oozes up from fissures in
the cliff, and collects in large pieces on the rock
below, where the mass gradually increases and
hardens, until it is rent asunder by the heat of the
sun, with a loud explosion, and, falling into the sea,
is carried by the waves in considerable quantities
to the opposite shores” (Zrav. in Syria, p. 394).
Dr. Thomson tells us that the Arabs still call these
pits by the name biaret hiimmar, which strikingly
resembles the Heb. beérdth chémdr of Gen. xiv. 10
(Land and Book, p. 224).
Strabo says that in Babylonia boats were made
of wicker-work, and then covered with bitumen to
keep out the water (xvi. p. 743). In the same
way the ark of rushes or papyrus in which Moses
was placed was plastered over with a mixture of
bitumen and pitch or tar. Dr. Thomson remarks
(p. 224): “ This is doubly interesting, as it reveals
the process by which they prepared the bitumen.
The mineral, as found in this country, melts readily
enough by itself; but then, when cold, it is as
brittle as glass. It must be mixed with tar while
melting, and in that way forms a hard, glossy wax,
perfectly impervious to water.” We know from
Strabo (xvi. p. 764) that. the Egyptians used the
bitumen of the Dead Sea in the process of embalm-
ing, and Pliny (vi. 35) mentions a spring of the
same mineral at Corambis in Ethiopia. [W. A. W. ]
SLING (ydp: σφενδόνη : funda). The sling
has been in all ages the favourite weapon of the
shepherds of Syria (1 Sam. xvii. 40; Burckhardt’s
Notes, i. 57), and hence was adopted by the Israel-
itish army, as the most effective weapon for light-
armed troops. The Benjamites were particularly
expert in their use of it: even the left-handed could
“ sling stones at an hair and not miss” (Judg. xx.
16 ; comp. 1 Chr, xii. 2). According to the Targum
of Jonathan and the Syriac, it was the weapon of
the Cherethites and Pelethites. It was advantage-
ously used in attacking and defending towns (2 K.
md. =» yop 2aN. © ΠΡ.
ἃ Other words besides those mentioned in vol. i. p. 749,
are :—
1. VADID ; ὁ συγκλείων ; clusor (2 K. xxiv. 14), where
chardsh is also used, thus denoting a workman of an ὮΝ τὰς I
| WY, σφῦρα, icus), 15. xli. 7.
inferior kind.
. SMYRNA
iii. 25 ; Joseph. B. J. iv. 1, §3), and in skirmishing
(B. J. ii. 17, §5). Other eastern nations availed
themselves of it, as the Syrians (1 Mace. ix. 11),
who also invented a kind of artificial sling (1 Mace.
vi. 51); the Assyrians (Jud. ix. 7 ; Layard’s Nin. ii.
344); the Egyptians (Wilkinson, i. 357); and the
Persians (Xen. Anab. iii. 3, 818), The construction
of the weapon hardly needs description : it consisted
of a couple of strings of sinew or some fibrous sub-
stance, attached to a leathern receptacle for the stone
in the centre, which was termed the capA,* i.e. pan
(1 Sam. xxv. 29): the sling was swung once or
twice round the head, and the stone was then dis-
charged by letting go one of the strings. Sling-
stones» were selected for their smoothness (1 Sam.
xvii. 40), and were recognised as one of the ordinary
munitions of war (2 Chr. xxvi. 14). In action the
stones were either carried in a bag round the neck
(1 Sam. xvii. 40), or were heaped up at the feet of
the combatant (Layard’s Nin. ii. 344). The vio-
lence with which the stone was projected supplied
a vivid image of sudden and forcible removal (Jer.
x. 18). The rapidity of the whirling motion of the
sling round the head, was emblematic of inquietude
(1 Sam. xxv. 29, “the souls of thine enemies shall
he whirl round in the midst of the pan of a sling”);
while the sling-stenes represented the enemies of
God (Zech. ix. 15, “they shall tread under foot
the, sling-stones”). The term margémda/ © in Prov.
xxvi. 8, is of doubtful meaning; Gesenius (Thes.
p- 1263) explains of ‘‘a heap of stones,” as in the
margin of the A. V., the LXX. ; Ewald, and Hitzig,
[W. L. B.]
of “a sling,” as in the text.
Egyptian Slingers.. (Wilkinson.)
* SMITH.? The work of the smith, together with
an account of his tools, is explained in HANDICRAFT,
vol. i. p. 749. A description of a smith’s workshop
is given in Ecclus, xxxvili. 28. [HW bal
SMYR’NA. The city to which allusion is made
in Revelation ii. 8-11, was founded, or at least
the design of founding it was entertained. by Alex-
ander the Great soon after the battle of the Gra~
nicus, in consequence of a dream when he had Jain
down to sleep after the fatigue of hunting. A temple
in which two goddesses were worshipped under the
name of Nemeses stood on the hill, on the sides of
2, vind, σφυροκόπος ; malleator ; a hammerer: a
term applied to Tubal-Cain, Gen. iv. 22 (Ges. p. 530, 755 ; ~
Saalschiitz, Arch. Heb. i. 143). [TuBat-Carn.]}
8: odin; 6 τύπτων ; he that smites (the anvil,
SMYRNA
which the new town was built under the auspices
of Antigonus and Lysimachus, who carried out the
design of the conqueror after his death. It was situ-
‘ated twenty stades from the city of the same name,
which after a long series of wars with the Lydians
had been finally taken and sacked by Halyattes.
The rich lands in the neighbourhood were cultivated
by the inhabitants, scattered in villages about the
country (like the Jewish population between the
times of Zedekiah and Ezra), for a period which
Strabo, speaking roundly, calls 400 years. The
descendants of this population were reunited in the
new Smyrna, which soon became a wealthy and
important city. Not only was the soil in the
neighbourhood eminently productive—so that the
vines were even said to have two crops of grapes—
but its position was such as to render it the natural
outlet for the produce of the whole valley of the
Hermus, The Pramnean wine (which Nestor in
the Iliad, and Circe in the Odyssey, are represented
as mixing with honey, cheese, and meal, to make a
* kind of salad dressing) grew even down to the time
of Pliny in the immediate neighbourhood of the
temple of the Mother of the gods at Smyrna, and
doubtless played its part in the orgiastic rites both
of that deity and of Dionysus, each of whom in the
times of Imperial Rome possessed a guild of wor-
shippers frequently mentioned in the inscriptions as
the ἱερὰ σύνοδος μυστῶν μητρὸς Σιπυληνῆς and
the ἱερὰ σύνοδος μυστῶν καὶ τεχνίτων Διονύσου.
One of the most remarkable of the chefs d’oeuvre of
Myron which stood at Smyrna, representing an old
woman intoxicated, illustrates the prevalent habits
of the population.
The inhabitants of New Smyrna appear to have
possessed the talent of successfully divining the
course of events in the troublous times through
which it was their destiny to pass, and of habitually
securing for themselves the favour of the victor for
the time being. Their adulation of Seleucus and
his son Antiochus was excessive. The title 6 θεὸς
καὶ σωτήρ is given to the latter in an extant in-
scription; and a temple dedicated to his mother
Stratonice, under the title of ᾿Αφροδίτη Stpato-
νικίς, was not only constituted a sanctuary itself,
but the same right was extended in virtue of it to
the whole city. Yet when the tide turned, a
temple was erected to the city Rome as a divinity,
in time to save the credit of the Smyrnaeans as
zealous friends of the Roman people. Indeed, though
history is silent as to the particulars, the existence
of a coin of Smyrna with the head of Mithridates
upon it, indicates that this energetic prince also, for
a time at least, must have included Smyrna within
the circle of his dependencies. However, during
the reign of Tiberius, the reputation of the Smyr-
naeans for an ardent loyalty was so unsullied, that
on this account alone they obtained permission to
erect a temple, in behalf of all the Asiatic cities, to
the emperor and senate, the question having been
for some time doubtful as to whether their city or
Sardis [Sarpis |—the two selected out of a crowd
of competitors—should receive this distinction. The
honour which had been obtained with such difficulty,
was requited with a proportionate adulation. Nero
appears in the inscriptions as σωτὴρ τοῦ σύμπαντος
ἀνθρωπείου γένους.
It seems not impossible, that just as St. Paul’s
a This is the more likely from the superstitious regard
in which the Smyrnaeans held chance phrases (κληδόνες)
as a material for augury. They had a κληδόνων ἱερόν
SMYRNA 1335
illustrations in the Epistle to the Corinthians are
derived from the Isthmian games, so the message
to the Church in Smyrna contains allusions to the
ritual of the pagan mysteries which prevailed in
that city. The story of the violent death and re-
viviscence of Dionysus entered into these to such
an extent, that Origen, in his argument against
Celsus, does not scruple to quote it as generally ac-
cepted by the Greeks, although by them interpreted
metaphysically (iv. p. 171, ed. Spence). In this
view, the words 6 πρῶτος καὶ 6 ἔσχατος, ὃς ἐγέν-
eto νεκρὸς καὶ ἔζησεν (Rev. ii. 8) would come
with peculiar force to ears perhaps accustomed to
hear them ina very different application. The same
may be said of δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς,
it having been a usual practice at Smyrna to’ pre-
sent a crown to the priest who superintended the
religious ceremonial, at the end of his year of office.
Several persons of both sexes have the title of στε-
φανηφόροι in the inscriptions; and the context
shows that they possessed great social consideration.
In the time of Strabo the ruins of the Old Smyrna
still existed, and were partially inhabited, but the
new city was one of the most beautiful in all
Asia. The streets were laid out as near as might
be at right angles; but an unfortunate oversight of
the architect, who forgot to make underground
drains to carry off the storm rains, occasioned the
flooding of the town with the filth and refuse of the
streets. There was a large public library there,
and also a handsome building surrounded with por-
ticoes which served as a museum. It was conse-
crated as a heroitim to Homer, whom the Smyr-
naeans claimed as a countryman. There was also
an Odeum, and a temple of the Olympian Zeus,
with whose cult that of the Roman emperors was
associated. Olympian games were celebrated here,
and excited great interest. On one of these occa-
sions (in the year A.D. 68) a Rhodian youth of the
name of Artemidorus obtained greater distinctions
than any on record, under peculiar circumstances
which Pausanias relates. He was a_pancratiast,
and not long before had been beaten at Elis from
deficiency in growth. But when the Smyrnaean
Olympia next came round, his bodily strength had
so developed that he was victor in three trials on the
same day, the first against his former competitors
at the Peloponnesian Olympia, the second with the
youths, and the third with the men ; the last contest
having been provoked by a taunt (Pausanias, v.
14, §4). The extreme interest excited by the games
at Smyrna, may perhaps account for the remark-
able ferocity exhibited by the population against the
aged bishop Polycarp. It was exactly on such occa-
sions that what the pagans regarded as the unpa-
triotic and anti-social spirit of the early Christians
became most apparent; and it was to the violent
demands of the people assembled in the stadium
that the Roman proconsul yielded up the martyr.
The letter of the Smyrnaeans, in which the account
of his martyrdom is contained, represents the Jews
as taking part with the Gentiles in accusing him as
an enemy to the state religion,—conduet which would
be inconceivable in a sincere Jew, but which was
quite natural in those which the sacred writer cha-
racterises as “ἃ synagogue of Satan ” (Rey. ii. 9).
Smyrna under the Romans was the seat of a con-
ventus juridicus, whither law cases were brought
just above the city outside the walls, in which this
mode of divination was the ordinary one (Pausanias,
ix. 11, §7).
1336 SNAIL
from the citizens of Magnesia on the Sipylus, and
also from a Macedonian colony settled in the same
country under the name of Hyreani. The last are
probably the descendants of a military body in the
service of Seleucus, to whom lands were given soon
after the building of New Smyrna, and who, together
with the Magnesians, seem to have had the Smyrnaean
citizenship then bestowed upon them. The decree
containing the particulars of this arrangement. is
among the marbles in the University of Oxford. The
Romans continued the system which they found ex-
isting when the country passed over into their hands.
(Strabo, xiv. p. 183 seqq.; Herodotus, i. 16;
Tacitus, Annal. iii. 63, iv. 56; Pliny, V. ἢ. v. 29;
Boeckh, Znseript. Graec. “Smyrnaean Inscriptions,’
especially Nos. 3163-3176 ; Pausanias, /oca cit., and
iv. 21, §5; Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 18.) (J. W. B.]
SNAIL. The representative in the A. V. of the
Hebrew words shablil and chémet.
1. Shablil (bySayy : κηρός ; ἔντερον, Aq. ;
χόριον, Sym.. cera) occurs only in Ps. lviii. 9
(8, A. V.): “ As a shablil which melteth let (the
wicked) pass away.” There are various opinions
as to the meaning of this word, the most curious,
perhaps, being that of Symmachus. The LXX. read
‘melted wax,’ similarly the Vulg. The ren-
dering of the A. V. (“snail”) is supported by the
authority of many of the Jewish Doctors, and is
probably correct. The Chaldee Paraphr. explains
shablil by thiblala axdda°n), z.e. “a snail or a
slug,” which was supposed by the Jews to con-
sume away and die by reason of its constantly
emitting slime as it crawls along. See Schol. ad
Gem. Moéd Katon, 1 fol. 6 B, as quoted by
Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 560) and Gesenius (hes. p.
212). It is needless to observe that this is not a
zoological fact, though perhaps generally believed by
the Orientals, The term Shablil would denote either
a Limax or a Helix, which are particularly notice-
able for the slimy track they leave behind them.
2. Chomet ( pn: σαύρα : lacerta) occurs only
as the name of some unclean animal in Ley. xi. 30.
The LXX, and Vulg. understand some kind of
Lizard by the term; the Arabic versions of
Erpenius and Saadias give the Chamelcon as the
animal intended. The Veneto-Greek and the
Rabbins, with whom agrees the A. V., render
the Heb, term by “snail”? Bochart (Hieroz.
ii, 500) has endeavoured to show that a species
of small sand lizard, called Chulaca by the Arabs,
is denoted; but his argument rests entirely upon
some supposed etymological foundation, and proves
aothing at all. The truth of the matter is that there
is no evidence to lead us to any conclusion; perhaps
some kind of lizard may be intended, as the two
most important old versions conjecture. [W. H.]
SNOW οὐ: χιών ; δρόσος in Prov. xxvi.;
nic). The historical books of the Bible contain
only two notices of snow actually falling (2 Sam,
xxiii. 20; 1 Mace. xiii. 22), but the allusions in
the poetical books are so numerous that there can
be no doubt as to its being an ordinary occurrence
in the winter months. Thus, for instance, the
snow-storm is mentioned among the ordinary ope~
rations of nature which are illustrative of the
Creator’s power (Ps. exlvii. 16, exlviii. 8). We
have, again, notice of the beneficial effect of snow
on the soil (Is. lv. 10). Its colour is adduced
as an image of brilliancy (Dan. vii. 9; Matt.
SO
iv. 7, in reference to the white robes of the princes),
and of the blanching effects of leprosy (Ex. iv. 6;
Num. xii. 10; 2 K. v.27), In the book of Job
we have references to the supposed cleansing effects
of snow-water (ix. 30), to the rapid melting of snow
under the sun’s rays (xxiv. 19), and the consequent
flooding of the brooks (vi. 16). The thick falling
of the flakes forms the point of comparison in the
obscure passage in Ps. Ixviii. 14, The snow lies
deep in the ravines of the highest ridge of Leba-
non until the summer is far advanced, and indeed
never wholly disappears (Robinson, iii. 531); the
summit of Hermon also perpetually glistens with
frozen snow (Robinson, ii. 437). From _ these
sources probably the Jews obtained their supplies
of ice for the purpose of cooling their beverages in
summer (Prov. xxv. 19). The “snow of Lebanon”
is also used as an expression for the refreshing cool-
ness of spring water, probably in reference to the
stream of Siloam (Jer. xviii. 14). Lastly, in Prov.
xxxi. 21, snow appears to be used as a synonym for
winter or cold weather. The liability to snow
must of course vary considerably in a country of
such varying altitude as Palestine. Josephus notes
it as a peculiarity of the low plain of Jericho that
it was warm there even when snow was prevalent
in the rest of the country (B. J. iv. 8, §3). At
Jerusalem snow often falls to the depth of a foot or
more in January and February, but it seldom lies
(Robinson, i. 429). At Nazareth it falls more
frequently and deeply, and it has been observed to fall
even in the maritime plain at Joppa and about Carmel
(Kitto, Phys. Hist. p. 210). A comparison of the
notices of snow contained in Scripture and in the
works of modern travellers would, however, lead
to the conclusion that more fell in ancient times
than at the present day. At Damascus, snow falls
‘to the depth of nearly a foot, and lies at all events
for a few days (Wortabet’s Syria, i. 215, 236).
At Aleppo it falls, but never lies for more than a
day (Russell, i. 69). Weebl
SO (NID: Σηγώρ: Sua). “So king of Egypt”
is once mentioned in the Bible. Hoshea, the last
king of Israel, evidently intending to become the
yassal of Egypt, sent messengers to himjand made
no present, as had been the yearly custom, to the
king of Assyria (2 Kings xvii. 4). The conse-
quence of this step, which seems to have been for-
bidden by the prophets, who about this period are
constantly warning the people against trusting in
Egypt and Ethiopia, was the imprisonment of
Hoshea, the taking of Samaria, and the carrying
captive of the ten tribes.
So has been identified by different writers with
the first and second kings of the Ethiopian XX Vth
dynasty, called by Manetho, Sabak6n, and Sebichds.
It will be necessary to examine the chronology of
the period in order to ascertain which of these iden-
tifications is the more probable. We therefore give
a table of the dynasty (see opposite page), including
the third and last reign, that of Tirhakah, for the
illustration of a later article. [TrRHAKAH. ]
The accession of Teharka, the Tirhakah of Scrip-
ture, may be nearly fixed on the evidence of an
Apis-tablet,which states that one of the bulls Apis
was born in his 26th year, and died at the end of
the 20th of Psammetichus I. This bull lived more
than 20 years, and the longest age of any Apis
stated is 26. Supposing the latter duration, which
would allow a short interval between Teharka and
xxviii. 3; Rev. i. 14), of purity (Is. i. 18; Lam. | Psammetichus II., as seems necessary, the accession of
50
SOCHO 1337
TABLE OF DYNASTY XXV.
[ee a ee Ee eee eee eee
Eeyprran Data,
Hesrew Data.
Correct |
B.C. Manetho. Monuments. error etc, | B.C Events,
reigns?
{ | ᾿ ΤῊ iF 9 ι
Africanus. Eusebius, Order. Highest Ϊ
Yrs. irs: Yr. |
719 | 1.Sabakén 8 | 1.Sabak6n 12. 1. SHEBEK . XII. 12 cir. 723 or 703 | Hoshea’s treaty with So,
Η
707 2. Sebichés 14 | 2. Sebichés 12} 2. SHEBETEK | 12
695 |3.Tarkos 18 3. 'Tarakos 20 3. TEHARKA | X¥XVI. 26 | cir. 703 or 6889) War with.Sennacherib,
|
eee eee
Teharka would be B.c. 695, If we assign 24 years
to the two predecessors, the commencement of the
dynasty would be B.c. 719. But it is not certain
that their reigns were continuous. ‘The account
which Herodotus gives of the war of Sennacherib
and Sethos suggests that Tirhakah was not ruling in
Egypt at the time of the destruction of the Assyrian
army, so that we may either conjecture, as Dr.
Hincks has done, that the reign of Sethos followed
that of Shebetek and preceded that of Tirhakah over
Egypt (Journ. Sac, Lit., Jan. 1853), or else that
Tirhakah was king of Ethiopia while Shebetek, not
the same as Sethos, ruled in Egypt, the former hypo-
thesis being far the more probable. It seems im-
possible to arrive at any positive conclusion as to
the dates to which the mentions in the Bible of So
and Tirhakah refer, but it must be remarked that it
is difficult to overthrow the date of B.c. 721, for
the taking of Samaria.
If we adopt the earlier dates So must correspond
to Shebek, if the later, perhaps to Shebetek ; but if
it should be found that the reign of Tirhakah is
dated too high, the former identification might still
be held. The uame Shebek is nearer to the Hebrew
name than Shebetek, and if the Masoretic points
do not faithfully represent the original pronunci-
ation, as we might almost infer from the conso-
nants, and the name was Sewa or Seva, it is not
very remote from Shebek. We cannot account for
the transcription of the LXX.
From Egyptian sources we know nothing more
of Shebek than that he conquered and put to
death Bocchoris, the sole king of the XXIVth dy-
nasty, as we learn from Manetho’s list, and that he
continued the monumental works of the Egyptian
kings. There is a long inscription at El-Karnak in
which Shebek speaks of tributes from “ the king of
the land of KHaLA (SHARA),” supposed to be Syria.
(Brugsch, Histoire d’ Egypte, i. p. 244.) This gives
some slight confirmation to the identification of this
king with So, and it is likely that the founder of a
new dynasty would have endeavoured, like Shishak
and Psammetichus L., the latter virtually the founder
of the XXVIth, to restore the Egyptian supremacy
in the neighbouring Asiatic countries,
The standard inscription of Sargon in his palace
at Khursabad states, according to M. Oppert, that
after the capture of Samaria, Hanon king of Gaza,
and Sebech sultan of Egypt, met the king of As-
syria in battle at Rapih, Raphia, and were defeated.
Sebech disappeared, but Hanon was captured. Pha-
raoh king of Hgypt was then put to tribute. (Les
Inscriptions Assyriennes des Sargonides, &c. p. 22.)
This statement would appear to indicate that either
Shebek or Shebetek, for we cannot lay great stress
upon the seeming identity of name with the former,
advanced to the support of Hoshea and his party,
and being defeated fled into Ethiopia, leaving the
kingdom of Egypt to a native prince. This evi-
dence favours the idea that the Ethiopian kings
Were not successive. pe Se fee]
SOAP m3, 73: πόα: herba, ἢ. borith). The
Hebrew term bdrith does not in itself bear the specific
sense of soap, but is a general term for any substance
of cleansing qualities. As, however, it appears in
Jer, ii. 22, in contradistinction to nether, which un-
doubtedly means “nitre,’’ or mineral alkali, it is
fair to infer that béréth refers to vegetable alkali, or
some kind of potash, which forms one of the usual
ingredients in our soap. Numerous plants, capable
of yielding alkalies, exist in Palestine and the sur-
rounding countries; we may notice one named Hu-
beibeh (the salsola kali* of botanists), found near
the Dead Sea, with glass-like leaves, the ashes of
which are called e/-Kuli from their strong alkaline
properties (Robinson, Bib. Researches, i. 505) ; the
Ajram, found near Sinai, which when pounded
serves as a substitute for soap (Robinson, i. 84) :-
the gilloo, or “soap plant” ot Egypt (Wilkinson,
ii. 106): and the heaths in the neighbourhood of
Joppa (Kitto’s Phys. Hist. p. 267). Modern tra-
vellers have also noticed the Saponaria officinalis and
the Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum, both possessing
alkaline properties, as growing in Palestine. From
these sources large quantities of alkali have been ex-
tracted in past ages, as the heaps of ashes outside
Jerusalem and Nablis testify (Robinson, iii. 201,
299), and an active trade in the article is still pro-
secuted with Aleppo in one direction (Russell, i.
79), and Arabia in another (Burckhardt, i. 66).
We need not assume that the ashes were worked up
in the form familiar to us; for no such article was
known to the Egyptians (Wilkinson, i. 186). The
uses of soap among the Hebrews were twofold :—
(1) for cleansing either the person (Jer. ii. 22 ; Job
ix. 30, where tor “never so clean,” read “ with
alkali”) or the clothes; (2) for purifying metals
(Is. i. 25, where for “ purely,” read “as through
alkali”). Hitzig suggests that bérith should be
substituted for berith, ‘covenant,’ in Ez. xx. 37,
and Mal. iii. 1, [Wiel bel
SO'CHO (35: Σωχῶν : Socho), 1 Chr. iv. 18.
Probably the town of Socoh in Judah, though
which of the two cannot be ascertained. It appears’
from its mention in this list, that it was colonized
by a man or a place named Heber. The Targum
playing on the passage after the custom of Hebrew
writers, interprets it as referring to Moses, and takes
the names Jered, Soco, Jekuthiel, as titles of him.
He was “the Rabba of Soce, because he sheltered
(JAD) the house of Israel with his virtue.” [G.]
1338 SOCHOH
SO'CHOH (nd: Alex. SoxAd: Soccho).
Another form of the name which is more correctly
‘given in the A, V. as Socou, but which appears
therein under no less than six forms. The present
one occurs in the list of King Solomon’s commis-
sariat districts (1 K. iv. 10), and is therefore pro-
bably, though not certainly, the town in the She-
felah, that being the great corn-growing district of
the country. [Socon, 1.]
SO'COH (nDi%). The name of two towns in
the tribe of Judah.
1. (Σαωχώ; Alex. Swxd: Soccho). In the
district of the Shefelah (Josh. xv. 35). It is a
member of the same group with Jarmuth, Azekah,
Shaaraim, &c. The same relative situation is im-
plied in the other passages in which the place
(under slight variations of form) is mentioned. At
Ephes-dammim, between Socoh and Azekah (1 Sam.
xvii. 1), the Philistines took up their position for
the memorable engagement in which their champion
was slain, and the wounded fell down in the road
to Shaaraim (ver. 54). Socho, Adullam, Azekah,
were among the cities in Judah which Rehoboam
fortified after the revolt of the northern tribes
(2 Chr. xi. 7), and it is mentioned with others of
the original list as being taken by the Philistines in
the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii. 18).
In the time of Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast.
“«Soccho”’) it bore the name of Socchoth, and lay
between 8 and 9 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis,
on the road to Jerusalem. Paula passed through it
on her road from Bethlehem (?) to Egypt (Jerome,
Ep. Paulae, 814). As is not unfrequently the case
in this locality, there were then two villages, an
upper and a lower (Onomast.). Dr. Robinson’s
identification of Socoh with esh-Shuweikeh» in the
western part of the mountains of Judah is very
probable (B. R.ii.21). It lies about 1 mile to the
north of the track from Beit Jibrin to Jerusalem,
between 7 and 8 English miles from the former.
To the north of it within a couple of miles is Yar-
muk, the ancient Jarmuth. Damun, perhaps Ephes-
dammim, is about the same distance to the east,
and although Azekah and Shaaraim have not been
identified, there is no doubt that they were in this
neighbourhood. To complete the catalogue, the
ruins—which must be those of the upper one of
Eusebius’s two villages—stand on the southern slope
of the Wady es-Sumt, which with great probability
is the Valley of Elah, the scene of Goliath’s death.
(See Tobler, 3tte Wanderung, 122.)
No traveller appears to have actually visited the
spot, but one of the few who have approached it
describes it as ‘‘ nearly half a mile above the bed of
the Wady, a kind of natural terrace covered with
green fields (in spring), and dotted with gray ruins Ἢ
(Porter, Handbk. 249 a).
From this village probably came “ Antigonus of
Soco,” who lived about the commencement of the
3rd century B.c. He was remarkable for being
the earliest Jew who is known to have had a
Greek name; for being the disciple of the great
Simon, surnamed the Just, whom he succeeded as
president of the Sanhedrim ; for being the master of
Sadok the reputed founder of the Sadducees ; but
most truly remarkable as the author of the follow-
4 The text of the Vat. MS. is so corrupt as to prevent
any name being recognized.
b Shuweikch is a diminutive of Shaukeh, as Mureikhy
of Murkhah, &e.
¢ The Keri to this passage reads ἢ 1.2, 2. 6. Suco.
SODOM
ing saying which is given in the Mishna (Pirke
Aboth, i. 3) as the substance of his teaching, “ Be
not ye like servants who serve their lord that they
may receive a reward. But be ye like servants
who serve their lord without hope of receiving a
reward, but in the fear of Heaven.”
Socoh appears to be mentioned, under the name
of Sochus in the Acts of the Council of Nice, though
its distance from Jerusalem as there given, is not
sufficient for the identification proposed above (Re-
land, Pal. 1019).
2. (Swxd; Alex. Swxé: Soccho). Alsoa town of
Judah, but in the mountain district (Josh. xv. 48.)¢ It
is one of the first group, and is named in company with
Anab, Jattir, Eshtemoh, and others.~ It has been dis-
covered by Dr. Robinson (B. #. i. 494) in the Wady-
el- Khalil, about 10 miles S.W. of Hebron; bearing, like
the other Socoh, the name of esh Shuweikeh, and with
Anab, Semoa, ’ Attir, within easy distance of it. [G.]
SO'D1 (3D: Σουδί : Sodi). The father of
Gaddiel, the spy selected from the tribe of Zebulun
(Num. xiii. 10).
SOD'OM (D5D.! i. 6. Sedém: [τὰ] Σόδομα;
Joseph. 4 πόλις Σοδομιτῶν : Sodoma. Jerome
vacillates between singular and plural, noun and
adjective. He employs all the following forms,
Sodomam, in Sodomis, Sodomorum, Sodomae, So-
domitae). One of the most ancient cities of Syria,
whose name is now a synonym for the most dis-
gusting and opprobrious of vices. It is commonly
mentioned in connexion with Gomorrah, but also
with Admah and Zeboim, and on one occasion (Gen.
xiv.) with Bela or Zoar. Sodom was evidently the
chief town in the settlement. Its king takes the
lead and the city is always named first in the list,
and appears to be the most important. The four
are first named in the ethnological records of Gen.
x. 19, as belonging to the Canaanites: “ The border
of the Canaanite was from Zidon towards Gerar unto
Azzah: towards Sedom and Amorah and Admah
and Tseboim unto Lasha.” The meaning of which
appears to be that the district in the hands of the
Canaanites formed a kind of triangle—the apex at
Zidon, the south-west extremity at Gaza, the south-
eastern at Lasha. Lasha, it may be remarked in
passing, seems most probably located on the Wady
Zurka Main, which enters the east side of the Dead
Sea, about nine miles from its northern end.
The next mention of the name of Sodom (Gen.
xiii. 10-13) gives more certain indication of the
position of the city. Abram and Lot are standing
together between Bethel and Ai (ver. 3), taking, as
any spectator from that spot may still do, a survey
of the land around and below them. Eastward of
them, and absolutely at their feet, lay the “circle
of Jordan,” It was in all its verdant glory, that
glory of which the traces are still to be seen, and
which is so strangely and irresistibly attractive to a
spectator from any of the heights in the neighbour-
hood of Bethel—watered by the copious supplies
of the Wady Kelt, the Ain Sultan, the Ain Duk,
and the other springs which gush out from the foot
of the mountains. These abundant waters even
now support amass of verdure before they are lost
in the light, loamy soil of the region. But at the
time when Abram and Lot beheld them, they were
4 It is perhaps doubtful whether the name had not also
the form 77D; Sedémah, which appears in Gen. x. 19.
The suffix may in this case be only the ΤΠ of motion, but
the forms adopted by LXX. and Vulg. favour the belief
that it may be part of the name.
SODOM
husbanded and directed by irrigation, after the man-
ner of Egypt, till the whole circle was one great oasis
—‘‘a garden of Jehovah” (ver. 10). In the midst
of the garden the four cities of Sodom, Gomorrah,
Admah, and Zeboim appear to have been situated.
To these cities Lot descended, and retaining his nomad
habits amongst the more civilised manners of the
Canaanite settlement ‘ pitched his tent” by® the
chief of the four. Ata later period he seems to have
been living within the walls of Sodom. It is neces~
sary to notice how absolutely the cities are identi-
fied with the district. In the subsequent account of
their destruction (Gen, xix.), the topographical terms
are employed with all the precision which is charac-
teristic of such early times. ‘‘ The Ciccdr,”’ the
“land of the Ciccar,” ‘* Ciccar of Jordan,” recurs
again and again both in chap. xiii. and xix., and
“the cities of the Ciccadr” is the almost technical
designation of the towns which were destroyed in
the catastrophe related in the latter chapter. The
mention of the Jordan is conclusive as to the situa-
tion of the district, for the Jordan ceases where it
enters the Dead Sea, and can have no existence south
of that point. But, in addition, there is the mention
of the eastward direction from Bethel, and the fact
of the perfect manner in which the district north of
the Lake can be seen from the central highlands of
the country on which Abram and Lot were standing.
And there is still further corroboration in Deut.
xxxiv. 3, where “the Ciccdr” is directly connected
with Jericho and Zoar, coupled with the statement
of Gen. x. already quoted, which appears to place
Zoar to the north of Lasha. It may be well to
remark here, with reference to what will be named
further on, that the southern half of the Dead Sea
is invisible from this point; not merely too distant,
but shut out by intervening heights,
We have seen what evidence the earliest records
afford of the situation of the five cities, Let us
now see what they say of the nature of that cata-
strophe by which they are related to have been de-
stroyed. It is described in Gen. xix. as a shower
of brimstone and fire from Jehovah, from the skies—
«The Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon Gomorrah,
brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven ;
and he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and
all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which
grew upon the ground” , . . “and lo! the smoke
of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.”
“Tt rained fire and brimstone from heaven ” (Luke
xvii. 29). However we may interpret the words
of the earliest narrative one thing is certain, that
the lake was not one of the agents in the cata-
strophe. Further, two words are used in-Gen. xix.
to describe what happened nwa, to throw
down, to destroy (vers. 13, 14), and ἼΞΠ, to over-
turn (21, 25, 29). In neither of these is the pre-
sence of water—the submergence of the cities or of
the district in which they stood—either mentioned,
or implied. Nor is it implied in any of the later
passages in which the destruction of the cities is
referred to throughout the Scriptures. Quite the
contrary. Those passages always speak of the dis-
e The word is TW, “at,” not “towards,” as in the A.V.
Luzatto, vicino a; LXX. ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν Σοδόμοις.
f Josephus regarded this passage as his main state-
ment of the event. See Ant. i. 11, $4.
5 These passages are given at length by De Saulcy
(Warr. i. 448).
h «The only expression which seems to imply that the
rise of the Dead Sea was within historical times, is that
SODOM 1339
trict on which the cities once stood, not as sub-
merged, but, as still visible, though desolate and unin-
habitable. ‘‘ Brimstone, and salt, and burning. . .
not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth there-
n” (Deut. xxix. 22). ‘Never to be inhabited,
nor dwelt in from generation to generation ; where
neither Arab should pitch tent nor shepherd make
[014 (Is. xiii. 19). ‘No man abiding there, nor
son of man dwelling in it” (Jer. xlix. 18; 1. 40).
“Α fruitful land turned into saltness ” (Ps. evii. 34).
“ Overthrown and burnt” (Amos iv. 11). “ The
breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual de-
solation” (Zeph. ii.9). “A waste land that smoketh,
and plants bearing fruit which never cometh to ripe-
ness”? (Wisd.ix.7). ““ Land lying in clods of pitch
and heaps of ashes” (2 Hsdr. ii. 9). ‘The cities
turned into ashes”’ (2 Pet. ii. 6, where their de-
struction by fire is contrasted with the Deluge).
In agreement with this is the statement of Jo-
sephus (B. J. fiv. 8, 84). After describing the
lake, he proceeds :—‘‘ Adjoining it is Sodomitis,
once a blessed region abounding in produce and in
cities, but now entirely burnt up. They say that
it was destroyed by lightning for the impiety of its
inhabitants. And even to this day the relics of the
Divine fire, and the traces of five cities are to be
seen there, and moreover the ashes reappear even in
the fruit.” In another passage (B. J. v. 13, 86)
he alludes incidentally to the destruction of Sodom,
contrasting it, like St. Peter, with a destruction by
water. By comparing these passages with Ant.
i. 9, it appears that Josephus believed the vale of
Siddim to have been submerged, and to have been a
distinct district from that of Sodom in which the
cities stood, which latter was still to be seen.
With this agree the accounts of heathen writers,
as Strabo and Tacitus; who, however vague their
statements, are evidently under the belief that the
district was not under water, and that the remains
of the towns were still to be seen.&
From all these passages, though much is obscure,
two things seem clear.
1. That Sodom and the rest of the cities of the
plain of Jordan stood on the north of the Dead Sea.
2. That neither the cities nor the district were
submerged by the lake, but that the cities were
overthrown and the land spoiled, and that it may
still be seen in its desolate condition.
When, however, we turn to more modern views,
we discover a remarkable variance from these con-
clusions.
1. The opinion long current, that the five cities
were submerged in the lake, and that their remains
—walls, columns, and capitals—might be still dis-
cerned below the water, hardly needs refutation
after the distinct statement and the constant impli-
cation of Scripture. Reland (Pal. 257) showed
more than two centuries ago how baseless was such
a hypothesis, and how completely it is contradicted
by the terms of the original narrative. It has since
been assaulted with great energy by De Sauley.
Professor Stanley (S. § P. 289) has lent his pow-
erful aid in the same direction,» and the theory,
which probably arose from a confusion between the
contained in Gen. xiv. 3— the vale of Siddim, which is
the Salt Sea.’ But this phrase may merely mean that
the region in question bore both names; as in the similar
expressions (verses 7 and 17)—‘En Mishpat, which is
Kadesh τ᾿ ‘Shaveh, which is the King’s Dale.’ It should,
however, be observed that the word ‘ Emek,’ translate
‘vale,’ is usually employed for a long broad valley, such
as in this connection would naturally mean the whole
length of the Dead Sea.” (Stanley, S. & P. 289 note.)
1340 SODOM
Vale of Siddim and the plain of the Jordan, will
doubtless never again be listened to. But
2. A more serious departure from the terms of the
ancient history is exhibited in the prevalent opinion
that the cities stood at the south end of the Lake.
This appears to have been the belief of Josephus
and Jerome (to judge by their statements on the
subject of Zoar). It seems to have been universally
held by the mediaeval historians and pilgrims, and
it is adopted by modern topographers, probably
without exception. In the words of one of the most
able and careful of modern travellers, Dr. Robinson,
«“‘The cities which were destroyed must have been
situated on the south end of the lake as it then
existed”? (B. FR. ii. 188). This is also the belief
of M. De Saulecy, except with regard to Gomorrah ;
and, in fact, is generally accepted. There are several
grounds for this belief; but the main point on
which Dr. Robinson rests his argument is the situa-
tion of Zoar.
(a.) “Lot,” says he, in continuing the passage
just quoted, “fled to Zoar, which was near to
Sodom; and Zoar lay almost at the southern end
of the present sea, probably in the mouth of the
Wady Kerar, where it opens upon the isthmus
of the peninsula, The fertile plain, therefore,
which Lot chose for himself, where Sodom was
situated . . . lay also south of the Jake ‘as thou
comest unto Zoar’” (B. 2. ibid.).
Zoar is said by Jerome to have been ‘the key
of Moab.” It is certainly the key of the position
which we are now examining. Its situation is more
properly investigated under its own head. [Zoar. ]_
1 will there be shewn that grounds exist for believing
that the Zoar of Josephus, Jerome, and the Crusaders,
which probably lay where Dr. Robinson places it,
was not the Zoar of Lot. On such a point, how-
ever, where the evidence is so fragmentary and so
obscure, it is impossible to speak otherwise than
with extreme diffidence.
In the meantime, however, it may be observed
that the statement of Gen. xix. hardly supports
the inference relative to the position of these two
places, which is attempted to be extorted from it.
For, assuming that Sodom was where all topo-
graphers seem to concur in placing it, at the salt
ridge of Usdum, it will be found that the distance
between that spot and the mouth of the Wady
Kerak, where Dr. Robinson proposes to place Zoar,
a distance which, according to the narrative, was
traversed by Lot and his party in the short twi-
light of an Eastern morning (ver. 15 and 23), is
no less than 16 miles
Without questioning that the narrative of Gen.
xix. is strictly historical throughout, we are not at
present in possession of sufficient knowledge of the
topography and of the names attached to the sites of
this remarkable region, to enable any profitable con-
clusions to be arrived at on this and the other kindred
questions connected with the destruction of the five
cities.
(b.) Another consideration in favour of placing
the cities at the southern end of the lake is
the existence of similar names in that direction.
i M. De Saulcy has not overlooked this consideration
(Narrative, i. 442). His own proposal to place Zoar at
Zuweirah is however inadmissible, for reasons stated
under the head of Zoar. If Usdum be Sodom, then the
site which has most claim to be identified with the site of
Zoar is the Yell um-Zoghal, which stands between the |
north end of Khashm Usdum and the Lake. But Zoar,
the cradle of Moab and Ammon, must surely have been |
SODOM
Thus, the name Usduwm, attached to the remark-
able ridge of salt which lies at the south-western
corner of the lake, is usually aceepted as the repre-
sentative of Sodom (Robinson, Van de Velde, De
Saulcy, &c. &c.). But there is a considerable dif-
zs
hb
ference between the two words ΠΟ and ,
and at any rate the point deserves further investi-
gation. The name ’Amrah (x ), which is at-
tached to a valley among the mountains south of
Masada (Van de Velde, ii. 99, and Map), is an
almost exact equivalent to the Hebrew of Gomorrha ©
(Amorah). .The name Dra’a ( xe = δ) and much
more strongly that of Zoghal (\s 5 3)? recal Zoar.
(c.) A third argument, and perhaps the weightiest
of the three, is the existence of the salt mountain
at the south of the lake, and its tendency to split
off in columnar masses, presenting a rude resem-
blance to the human form. But with reference to
this it may be remarked that it is by no means
certain that salt does not exist at other spots round
the lake. In fact, as we shall see under the head of
Zoar, Thietmar (A.D. 1217) states that he saw the
pillar of Lot’s wife on the east of Jordan at about
a mile from the ordinary ford: and wherever such
salt exists, since it doubtless belongs to the same
formation as the Ahashm Usdum, it will possess the
habit of splitting into the same shapes as that does.
It thus appears that on the situation of Sodom
no satisfactory conclusion can at present be come
to. On the one hand the narrative of Genesis
seems to state positively that it lay at the northern
end of the Dead Sea. On the other hand the long-
continued tradition and the names of existing spots
seem to pronounce with almost equal positiveness
that it was at its southern end. How the geo-
logical argument may affect either side of the
proposition cannot be decided in the present con-
dition of our knowledge.
Of the catastrophe which destroyed the city and
the district of Sodom we can hardly hope ever to
form a satisfactory conception, Some catastrophe
there undoubtedly was. Not only does the narrative
of Gen, xix. expressly state that the cities were mi-
raculously destroyed, but all the references to the
event in subsequent writers in the Old and New
Testaments bear witness to the same fact. But
what secondary agencies, besides fire, were employed
in the accomplishment of the punishment cannot be
safely determined in the almost total absence of exact
scientific description of the natural features of the
ground round the lake. It is possible that when the
ground has been thoroughly examined by competent
observers, something may be discovered which may
throw light on the narrative. Until then, it is
useless, however tempting, to speculate. But even
this is almost too much to hope for ; because, as we
shall presently see, there is no warrant for imagining
that the catastrophe was a geological one, and in any
other case all traces of action must at this distance
of time have vanished.
on the east side of the Lake.
k The G here is employed by the Greeks for the diffi-
cult guttural ain of the Hebrews, which they were
unable to pronounce (comp. Gothaliah for Athaliah, &c.),
This, however, would not be the case in Arabic, where
the ain is very common, and therefore De Saulcy’s identi-
fication of Gowmran with Gomorrah falls to the ground,
as far, at least, as etymology is concerned.
|
|
|
SODOM
SODOM 1341
It was formerly supposed that the overthrow of | be taken. (1.) The “ plain of the Jordan,” in which
Sodom was caused by the convulsion which formed
the Dead Sea, This theory is stated by Dean Milman
in his History of the Jews (i. 15, 16) with great
spirit and clearness.™ ‘The valley of the Jordan,
in which the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma,
and Tseboim were situated, was rich and highly
cultivated. It is most probable that the river then
flowed in a deep and uninterrupted channel down a
regular descent, and discharged itself into the eastern
gulf of the Red Sea. The cities stood on a soil
broken and undermined with veins of bitumen and
sulphur, ‘hese inflammable substances, set on
fire by lightning, caused a tremendous convulsion ;
the water-courses, both the river and the canals by
which the land was extensively irrigated, burst
their banks; the cities, the walls of which were
perhaps built from the combustible materials of the
soil, were entirely swallowed up by the fiery inun-
dation ; and the whole valley, which had been com-
pared to Paradise, and to the well-watered corn-
tields of the Nile, became a dead and fetid lake.”
But nothing was then known of the lake, and the
recent discovery of the extraordinary depression of
its surface below the ocean level, and its no less
extraordinary depth, has rendered it impossible
any longer to hold such a theofy. The changes
which occurred when the limestone strata of Syria
were split by that vast fissure which forms the
Jordan Valley and the basin of the Salt Lake, must
not only have taken place at a time long anterior
to the period-of Abraham, but must have been of
such a nature and on such a scale as to destroy all
animal life far and near (Dr. Buist, in Zrans. of
Bombay Geogr. Soc, xii, p. xvi.).
Since the knowledge of these facts has rendered
the old theory untenable, a new one has been
broached by Dr. Robinson. He admits that ‘a
lake must have existed where the Dead Sea now lies,
into which the Jordan poured its waters long before
the catastrophe of Sodom. The great depression of
tho whole broad Jordan valley and of the northern
part of the Arabah, the direction of its lateral
valleys, as well as the slope of the high western
district towards the north, all go to show that the
configuration of this region in its main features
is coévai with the present condition of the surface
of the earth in general, and not the effect. of any
local catastrophe at a subsequent periol..... In
view of the fact of the necessary existence of a
lake before the catastrophe of Sodom; the well-
watered plain toward the south, in which were
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and not far
off the sources of bitumen ; as also the peculiar
character of this part of the Jake, where alone as-
phaltum at the present day makes its appearance—
I say, in view of all these facts, there is but a step
to the obvious hypothesis, that the fertile plain is
now in part occupied by the southern bay lying
south of the peninsula; and that, by some conyul-
sion or catastrophe of nature connected with the
miraculous destruction of the cities, either the sur-
face of this plain was scooped out, or the bottom of
the lake heaved up so as to cause the waters to
overflow and cover permanently a larger tract than
formerly ” (B, R. ii. 188, 9).
To this very ingenious theory two objections may
the cities stood (as has been stated) can hardly have
been at the south end of the lake; and (2.) The
geological portion of the theory does not appear to
agree with the facts. The whole of the lower end
of the lake, including the plain which borders it on
the south, has every appearance not of having been
lowered since the formation of the valley, but of
undergoing a gradual process of filling up. ‘This
region is in fact the delta of the very large, though
irregular, streams which drain the highlands on its
east, west, and south, and have drained them ever
since the valley was a valley. No report by any ob-
server at ail competent to read the geological features
of the district will be found to give countenance
to the notion that any disturbance has taken place
within the historical period, or that anything oc-
curred there since the country assumed its present
general conformation beyond the quiet, gradual
change due to the regular operation of the ordinary
agents of nature, which is slowly filling up the
chasm of the valley and the lake with the washings
brought down by the torrents from the highlands
on all sides. The volcanic appearances and marks
of fire, so often mentioned, are, so far as we have
any trustworthy means of judging, entirely illusory,
and due to ordinary, natural, causes.
But in fact the narrative of Gen. xix. neither
states nor implies that any convulsion of the earth
occurred. The word haphac, rendered in the A. V.
‘‘overthrow,” is the only expression which sug-
gests such a thing. Considering the character of
the whole passage, it may be interred with almost
absolute certainty that, had an earthquake or con-
vulsion of a geological nature been a main agent
in the destruction of the cities, it would have been
far more clearly reflected in the narrative than it
is. Compare it, for example, with the forcible
language and the crowded images of Amos and the
Psalmist in reference to such a visitation. If it were
possible to speculate on materials at once so slender
and so obscure as are furnished by that narrative, it
would be more consistent to suppose that the actual
agent in the ignition and destruction of the cities
had been of the nature of a tremendous thunderstorm
accompanied by a discharge of meteoric stones.”
The name Sedém has been interpreted to mean
** burning ”’ (Gesenius, Thes.° 939a). This is pos-
sible, though it is not at all certain, since Gesenius
himself hesitates between that interpretation and
one which identifies it with a similar Hebrew word
meaning ‘“ vineyard,” and Fiirst (Handwb, ii. 72),
with equal if not greater plausibility, connects it
with a root meaning to enclose or fortify. Simonis
again (Onomast. 363) renders it ‘ abundance of
dew, ox water,” Hiller (Onomast. 176) “ fruitful
land,” and Chytraeus ‘‘ mystery.” In fact, like
most archaic names, it may, by a little inge-
nuity, be made to mean almost anything. Pro-
fessor Stanley (S. and P. 289) notices the first
of these interpretations, and comparing it with
the ““ Phlegraeart fields” in the Campagna at Rome,
says that “the name, if not derived from the sub-
sequent catastrophe, shows that the marks of fire
had already passed over the doomed valley.” Appa-
rent ‘‘ marks of fire” there are all over the neigh-
bourhood of the Dead Sea. They haye misled many
m This cannot be said of the account given by Fuller
in his Pisgah-sight of Palestine (Bk. 2, ch. 13), which
seems to combine every possible mistake with an amount
of bad taste and unseemly drollery quite astonishing even
in Fuller.
2 This is the account of the Koran (xi. 84):—“ We
turned those cities upside down and we rained upon them
stones of baked clay.”
ο Taking noqD = mow, and that as = naw.
1342 SODOMA
travellers into believing them to be the tokens of
conflagration and volcanic action; and in the same
manner it is quite possible that they originated the
name Sedém, for they undoubtedly abounded on the
shores of the lake long before eyen Sodom was
founded. But there is no wartant for treating those
appearances as the tokens of actual conflagration or
volcanic action. They are produced by the gradual
and ordinary action of the atmosphere on the rocks.
They are familiar to geologists in many other places,
and they are found in other parts of Palestine where
no fire has ever been suspected.
The miserable fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is
held up as a warning in numerous passages of the
Old and New Testaments. By St. Peter and St.
Jude it is made ‘an ensample to those that atter
should live ungodly,” and to those ‘‘ denying the
only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet.
ii. 6; Jude, 4-7). And our Lord Himself. when
describing the fearful punishment that will befall
those that reject His disciples, says that “it shall be
more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day
of judgment than for that city’? (Mark vi. 11;
comp. Matt. x. 15).
The name of the Bishop of Sodom—“ Severus
Sodomorum ”—appears amongst the Arabian pre-
lates who signed the acts of the first Council of
Nicaea. Reland remonstrates against the idea of
the Sodom of the Bible being intended, and sug-
gests that it is a mistake for Zuzumaon or Zoraima,
a see under the metropolitan of Bostra (Pal. 1020).
This M. De Sauley (Warr. i. 454) refuses to admit.
He explains it by the fact that many sees still bear
the names of places which have vanished, and exist
only in name and memory, such as Troy. The
Coptic version to which he refers, in the edition of
M. Lenormant, does not throw any light on the
point. [G.]
SOD'OMA (Σόδομα: Sodoma). Rom. ix. 29.
In this place alone the Authorized Version has fol-
lowed the Greek and Vulgate form of the well-
known name Sopom, which forms the subject of
the preceding article. The passage is a quotation
from Is. i. 9. The form employed in the Penta-
teuch, and occasionally in the other books of the
A. V. of 1611 is Sodome, but the name is now
universally reduced to Sodom, except in the one
passage quoted above. [G.]
SOD'OMITES (WIP; DWP: scortator,
effeminatus). This word does not denote the inha-
bitants of Sodom (except only in 2 Esdr. vii. 36)
nor their descendants ; but is employed in the A. V.
of the Old Testament for those who practised as a
religious rite the abominable and unnatural vice
from which the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah
have derived their lasting infamy. It occurs in
Deut. xxiii. 17; 1 K. xiv. 24, xv. 12, xxii. 46;
2K. xxiii. 7; and Job xxxvi. 14 (margin). The
Hebrew word Kadesh is said to be derived from a
root kadash, which (strange as it may appear’)
means “pure,” and thence “holy.” The words
sacer in Latin, and “devoted” in our own lan-
guage, have also a double meaning, though the
subordinate signification is not so absolutely con-
trary to the principal one as it is in the case of
SOLOMON
kadesh. “This dreadful ‘ consecration,’ or rather
desecration, was spread in different forms over
Phoenicia, Syria, Phrygia, Assyria, Babylonia. Ash-
taroth, the Greek Astarte, was its chief object.” It
appears also to have been established at Rome,
where its victims were called Galli (not from
Gallia, but from the river Gallus in Bithynia).
There 15 an instructive note on the subject in Je-
rome’s Comm. on Hos. iv. 14.
The translators of the Septuagint with that
anxiety to soften and conceal obnoxious expressions,
which has been often noticed as a characteristic of
their version,*have, in all cases but one, avoided
rendering Aadesh by its ostensible meaning. In the
first of the passages cited above they give a double
translation, πορνεύων and τελισκόμενος (initiated).
In the second σύνδεσμος (a conspiracy, perhaps
reading Wp). In the third τὰς τελετάς (sacri-
fices). In the fourth the Vat. MS. omits it, and the
Alex. has τοῦ ἐνδιηλλαγμένου. In the fifth τῶν
Kadyoiw: and in the sixth ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων.
There is a feminine equivalent to Aadesh, viz.
Kadeshah. This is found in Gen, xxxviii. 21, 22 ;
Deut. xxiii. 17, and Hos. iv. 14. In each of these
cases it throws a new light on the passage to re-
member that these women were (if the expression
may be allowed) the priestesses of a religion, not
plying for hire, or merely instruments for gratifying
passing lust. Such ordinary prostitutes are called
by the name zonah.@ The “strange women” of
Proy. ii. 16, &c., were foreigners, zaroth. [G.]
SODOMI'TISH SEA, THE (Mare Sodomi-
ticum), 2 Esdr. ν. 7; meaning the Dead Sea. [10 is
the only instance in the Books of the Old Testa-
ment, New Testament, or Apocrypha, of an ap-
proach to the inaccurate modern opinion which
connects the salt lake with the destruction of Sodom.
The name may, however, arise here simply from
Sodom having been situated near the lake. [G. ]
SOL'OMON (nisdy}, Shéléméh: Σαλωμών,
LXX.; Σολομών, N. T. and Joseph.: Salomo).
I. Name.—The changes of pronunciation are
worth noticing. We lose something of the dignity
of the name when it passes from the measured
stateliness of the Hebrew to the anapaest of the
N. T., or the tribrach of our common speech. Such
changes are perhaps inevitable wherever a name
becomes a household word in successive generations,
just as that of Friedereich (identical in meaning
with Solomon) passes into Frederick, The feminine
form of the word (SaA@un) retains the long vowel
in the N.T. It appears, though with an altered
sound, in the Arabic Suletmaun. .
II. Materials.—(1). The comparative scantiness
of historical data for a life of Solomon is itself
significant. While that of David occupies 1 Sam.
Xvi.-xxxi., 2 Sam. i.-xxiv., 1-K.i. ii., 1 Chr. x.-xxix.,
that of Solomon fills only the eleven chapters 1 K.
i-xi., and the nine 2 Chr. i-ix. The ,corapilers
of those books felt, as by a true inspiration, that
the wanderings, wars, and sufferings of David weve
better fitted for the instruction of after ages than
the magnificence of his son.» They manifestly give
extracts only from larger works which were before
a In1 K. xxii. 38 the word zonoth is rendered “ armour.”
It should be “ harlots””—*‘ and the harlots washed them-
selves there” (early in the morning, as was their custom,
adds Procopius of Gaza). The LXX. have rendered this
correctly.
Ὁ The contrast presented by the Apocryphal literature
of Jews, Christians, Mahometans, abounding in pseudo-
nymous works and legends gathering round the name of
Solomon (infra), but having hardly any connexion with
David, is at once striking and instructive.
SOLOMON
them, “ The book of the Acts of Solomon” (1 K. xi.
41); “The book of Nathan the prophet, the book
of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer ”’
(2 Chr. ix. 29). Those which they do give, bear,
with what for the historian is a disproportionate
fullness, on the early clories of his reign, and speak
but little (those in 2 Chr. not at all) of its later
sins and misfortunes, and we are consequently un-
able to follow the annals of Solomon step by step.
(2). Ewald, with his usual fondness for assign-
ing different portions of each book of the O. T. toa
series of successive editors, goes through the process
here with much ingenuity, but without any very
satisfactory result (Geschichte, iii. 259-263). A
more interesting inquiry would be, to which of the
books above named we may refer the sections which
the compilers have put together. We shall pro-
bably not be far wrong in thinking of Nathan, far
advanced in life at the commencement of the reign,
David’s chief adviser during the years in which he
was absorbed in the details of the Temple and its
ritual, himself a priest (1 Καὶ, iv. 5 in Heb. comp.
Ewald iii. 116), as having written the a¢count of the
accession of Solomon and the dedication of the Temple
(1 K. i.-viii. 66 ; 2 Chr. i.-viii. 15). The prayer of
Solomon, so fully reproduced, and so obviously pre-
composed, may have been written under his guidance,
To Ahijah the Shilonite, active at the close of the
reign, alive some time after Jeroboam’s accession,
we may ascribe the short record of the sin of Solo-
mon, and of the revolution to which he himself had
so largely contributed (1 K. xi.). From the Book
of the Acts of Solomon came probably the miscel-
laneous facts as to the commerce and splendour of
his reign (1 K. ix. 10-x. 29).
(3). Besides the direct history of the O. T. we
may find some materials for the life of Solomon in
the books that bear his name, and in the Psalms
which are referred, on good grounds, to his time,
Ps, ii., xlv., Ixxii., exxvii. Whatever doubts may
hang over the date and authorship of Ecclesiastes
and the Song of Songs, we may at least see in them
the reflection of the thoughts and feelings of his
reign. If we accept the latest date which recent
criticism has assigned to them, they elaborately
work up materials which were accessible to the
writers, and are not accessible to us. If we refer
them in their substance, following the judgment of
the most advanced Shemitic scholars, to the Solo-
monic period itself, they then come before us with
all the freshness and vividness of contemporary evi-
dence (Renan, Hist. des langues Sémit. p. 131).¢
(4). Other materials are but very scanty. The
history of Josephus is, for the most part, only a
loose and inaccurate paraphrase of the O. T. narra-
tive. In him,and in the more erudite among early
Christian writers, we find some fragments of older
history not without their value, extracts from
archives alleged to exist at Tyre in the first century
of the Christian era, and from the Phoenician his-
tories of Menander and Dius (Jos. Ant. viii. 2, 86 ;
5, 89), from Eupolemos (Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix.
e The weight of Renan’s judgment is however dimi-
nished by the fact that he had subsequently assigned
Ecclesiastes to the time of Alexander the Great (Cant. des
Cant. p. 102).
ἃ The narrative of 2 Sam. xii. leaves, it is true, a different
impression. On the other hand, the order of the names in
1 Chr. iii. 5, is otherwise unaccountable. Josephus dis-
tinctly states it (Ant. vii. 14, §2.). \
e According to the received interpretation of Prov. xxxi.
1, his mother atso contributed an ideal name, Lemuel !
Ι
SOLOMON 1343
30), from Alexander Polyhistor, Menander, and
Laitus (Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21). Writers such as
these were of course only compilers at second-
hand, but they probably had access to some earlier
documents which have now perished.
(5.) The legends of later Oriental literature will
claim a distinct notice. All that they contribute
to history is the help they give us in realising the
impression made by the colossal greatness of Solo-
mon, as in earlier and later times by that of Nim-
rod and Alexander, on the minds of men of many
countries and through many ages.
Ill. L£ducation.—(1).-The student of the life
of Solomon must take as his starting-point the cir-
cumstances of his birth. He was the child of
David's old age, the last-born of all his sons (1 Chr.
iii. 5).4 His mother had gained over David a
twofold power ; first, as the object of a passionate,
though guilty love; and next, as the one person to
whom, in his repentance, he could make something
like restitution. The months that preceded his
birth were for the conscience-stricken king a time
of self-abasement. The birth itself of the child who
was to replace the one that had been smitten must
have been looked for as a pledge of pardon and a
sign of hope. The feelings of the king and of his
prophet-guide expressed themselves in the names
with which they welcomed it. The yearnings of
the “ man of war,” who “‘had shed much blood,’
for a time of peace—yearnings which had shown
themselves before, when he gave to his third son
the name of Ab-salom (= father of peace), now led
him to give to the new-born infant the name of
Solomon (Shél6m6h =the peaceful one). Nathan,
with a marked reference to the meaning of the
king’s own name (=the darling, the beloved one),
takes another form of the same word, and joins it,
after the growing custom of the time, with the
name of Jehovah. David had been the darling of
his people. Jedid-jah (the name was coined for
the purpose) should be the darling of the Lord.
(2 Sam. xii. 24, ὅ.5 See JEDIDIAH; and Ewald,
iii. 215).
(2). The influences to which the childhood of
Solomon was thus exposed must have contributed:
largely to determine the character of his after
years. The inquiry, what was the education which
ended in such wonderful contrasts,—a wisdom
then, and perhaps since, unparalleled,—a sensuality
like that of Louisf XV., cannot but be instructive.
The three influences which must have entered most
largely into that education were those of his father,
his mother, and the teacher under whose charge
he was placed from his earliest infancy (2 Sam.
xii, 25),
(3). The fact just stated, that a prophet-priest
was made the special instructor, indicates the king's
earnest wish that this child at least should be pro-
tected against the evils which, then and afterwards,
showed themselves in his elder sons, and be worthy
of the name he bore. At first, apparently, theve
was no distinct purpose to make him his heir. Ab-
(= to God, Deodatus), the dedicated one. (comp. Ewald,
Poet. Biich. iv. 173). On this hypothesis the reproof
was drawn forth by the king’s intemperance and sen-
suality. In contrast to what his wives were, she draws
the picture of what a pattern wife ought to be (Pineda,
1. 4).
£ ee also the epithet “le bien-aimé"’ reminds us, no
less than Jedidiah, of the terrible irony of History for
those who abuse gifts and forfeit a vocation.
1344 SOLOMON
salom is still the king’s favourite son (2 Sam. xiii.
37, xviii. 33)—is looked on by the people as the
destined successor (2 Sam. xiv. 13, xv. 1-6). The
death of Absalom, when Solomon was about ten years
old, left the place vacant, and David, passing over
the claims of all his elder sons, those by Bathsheba
included, guided by the influence of Nathan, or
by his own discernment of the gifts and graces
which were tokens of the love of Jehovah, pledged
his word in secret to Bathsheba that he, and no
other, should be the heir (1 K.i. 13). The words
which were spoken somewhat later, express, doubt-
less, the purpose which guided him throughout
(1 Chr. xxviii. 9,20). His son’s life should not be
as his own had been, one of hardships and wars,
dark crimes and passionate repentance, but, from
first to last, be pure, blameless, peaceful, fulfilling
the ideat of glory and of righteousness, after which
he himself had vainly striven. The glorious
visions of Ps. lxxii. may be looked on as the pro-
phetie expansion of those hopes of his old age. So
far, all was well. But we may not ignore the
fact, that the later years of David’s life presented
a change for the worse, as well as for the better.
His sin, though forgiven, left behind it the Nemesis
of an enfeebled will and a less generous activity.
The liturgical element of religion becomes, after
the first passionate out-pouring of Ps. li., unduly
predominant. He lives to amass treasures and
materials for the Temple which he may not build
(1 Chr, xxii, 5, 14). He plans with his own
hands all the details of its architecture (1 Chr.
xxviii. 19). He organizes on a scale of elaborate
magnificence all the attendance of the priesthood
and the choral services of the Levites (1 Chr. xxiv.
xxv.). But, meanwhile, his duties as a king are
neglected. He no longer sits in the gate to do
judgment (2 Sam. xv. 2, 4). He leaves the sin of
Amnon unpunished, ‘‘ because he loved him, for he
was his first-born” (LXX. of 2 Sam. xiii.21)}, The
hearts of the people fall away from him, First
Absalom, and then Sheba, become formidable rivals
(2 Sam. xv. 6, xx. 2), The history of the number
ing of the people (2 Sam. xxiy., 1 Chr. xxi.) im-
plies the purpose of some act of despotism, a poll-
tax, or a conscription (2 Sam. xxiv. 9 makes the
latter the more probable), such as startled all his
older and more experienced counsellors. If, in
“the last words of David” belonging to this period,
there is the old devotion, the old hungering after
righteousness (2 Sam, xxiii. 2-5), there is also—
first generally (ibid. 6, 7), and afterwards resting
on individual offenders (1 K. ii, 5-8)—a more pas-
sionate desire to punish those who had wronged
him, a painful recurrence of vindictive thoughts for
offences which he had once freely forgiven, and
which were not greater than his own. We cannot
rest in the belief that his influence over his son’s
character was one exclusively for good.
(4). In Eastern countries, and under a system of
polygamy, the son is more dependent, even than
elsewhere, on the character of the mother. The
history of the Jewish monarchy furnishes many
instances of that dependence. It recognises it in
the care with which it records the name of each
mouarch’s mother. Nothing that we know of
Bathsheba leads us to think of her as likely to
mould her son’s mind and heart to the higher forms
SOLOMON
of goodness. She offers no resistance to the king’s
passion (Ewald, iii. 211). She makes it a stepping-
stone to power. She is a ready accomplice in the
scheme by which her shame was to have been
concealed. Doubtless she too was sorrowful and
penitent when the rebuke of Nathan was followea
by her child’s death (2 Sam. xii. 24), but the
atter-history shows that the grand-daughter of
Ahithophel [BAaTHSHEBA] had inherited not a
little of his character. A willing adultress, who
had become devout, but had not ceased to be
ambitious, could hardly be more, at the best,
than the Madame de Maintenon of a king, whose
contrition and piety were rendering him, unlike
his former self, unduly passive in the hands of
others.
(5). What was likely to be the influence of the
prophet to whose care the education of Solomon
was confided? (Heb. of 2 Sam. xii. 25). We
know, beyond all doubt, that he could speak bold
and faithful words when they were needed (2 Sam.
vii, 1-17, xii. 1-14). But this power, belonging
to moments or messages of special inspiration, does
not involve the permanent possession of a clear-
sighted wisdom, or of aims uniformly high; and
we in vain search the later years of David’s reign
for any proof of Nathan’s activity for good. He
gives himself to the work of writing the annals of
David’s reign (1 Chr. xxix. 29). He places his
own sons in the way of being the companions and
counsellors of the future king (1 K. iv. 5). The
absence of his name from the history of the “ num-
bering,” and the fact that the census was followed
early in the reign of Solomon by heavy burdens
and a forced service, almost lead us to the conclu-
sion that the prophet had acquiesced & in a measure
which had in view the magnificence of the Temple,
and that it was left to David’s own heart, returning
to its better impulses (2 Sam. xxiv. 10), and to an
older and less courtly prophet, to protest against
an act which began in pride and tended to op-
pression.»
(6). Under these influences the boy grew up. At
the age of ten or eleven he must have passed through
the revolt of Absalom, and shared his father’s exile
(2 Sam. xv. 16). He would be taught all that
priests, or Levites, or prophets had to teach ; music
and song; the Book of the Law of the Lord, in such
portions and in such forms as were then current ;
the ‘proverbs of the ancients,” which his father
had been wont to quote (1 Sam, xxiv. 13); probably
also a literature which has survived only in frag-
ments; the Book of Jasher, the upright ones, the
heroes of the people; the Book of the Wars of the
Lord; the wisdom, oral or written, of the sages of
his own tribe, Heman, and Ethan, and Calcol, and
Darda (1 Chr. ii. 6), who contributed so largely to
the noble hymns of this period (Ps, Ixxxviii., lxxxix.),
and were incorporated, probably, into the choir of
the Tabernacle (Ewald, iii. 355). The growing inter-
course of Israel with the Phoenicians would lead
naturally to a wider knowledge of the outlying world
and its wonders than had fallen to his father’s lot.
Admirable, however, as all this was, a shepherd-lite,
like his father’s, furnished, we may believe, a better
education for the kingly calling (Ps. xxviii. 70, 71).
Born to the purple, there was the inevitable risk of
a selfish luxury. Cradled in liturgies, trained to
ge Josephus, with his usual inaccuracy, substitutes
Nathan for Gad in his narrative (Ant. vii. 13, $2).
h We regret to find ourselves unable to follow Ewald in
his high estimate of the old age of David, and, conse-
quently, of Solomon's education.
SOLOMON
think chiefly of the magnificent “ palace” of Jehovah
(1 Chr. xxix. 19) of which he was to be the builder,
there was the danger, first, of an aesthetic formalism,
and then of ultimate indifference.
IV. Accession—(1.) The feebleness of David's
old age led to an attempt which might have de-
prived Solomon of the throne his father destined
for him. Adonijah, next in order of birth to Ab-
salom, like Absalom “was a goodly man” (1 Κα,
i. 6), in full maturity of years, backed by the
oldest of the king’s friends and counsellors, Joab
and Abiathar, and by all the sons of David, who
looked with jealousy, the latter on the obvious
though not as yet declared preference of the latest-
born, and the former on the growing influence of
the rival counsellors who were most in the king’s
favour, Nathan, Zadok, and Benaiah. Following in
the steps of Absalom, he assumed the kingly state
of a chariot and a bodyguard; and David, more
passive than ever, looked on in silence. At last a
time was chosen for openly proclaiming him as king.
A solemn feast at EN-ROGEL was to inaugurate the
new reign. All were invited to it but those whom
it was intended to displace. It was necessary for
those whose interests were endangered, backed ap-
parently by two of David’s surviving elder brothers
(Ewald, iii. 266 ; 1 Chr. ii. 13, 14), to take prompt
measures, Bathsheba and Nathan took counsel
together. The king was reminded of his oath. A
virtual abdication was pressed upon him as the only
means by which the succession of his favourite son
could be secured. The whole thing was completed
* with wonderful rapidity. Riding on the mule,
well-known as belonging to the king, attended by
Nathan the prophet, and Zadok the priest, and
more important still, by the king’s special company
of the thirty Gibborim, or mighty men (1 K. i.
10, 33), and the bodyguard of the Cherethites and
Pelethites (mercenaries, and therefore not liable to
the contagion of popular feeling) under the com-
mand of Benaiah (himself, like Nathan and Zadok,
of the sons of Aaron), he went down to GIHON,
and was proclaimed and anointed king.4 The shouts
of his followers fell on the startled ears of the
guests at Adonijah’s banquet. Happily they were
as yet committed to no overt act, and they did not
venture on one now. One by one they rose and
departed. The plot had failed. The counter coup
d état of Nathan and Bathsheba had been successful.
Such incidents are common enough in the history
of Eastern monarchies. They are usually followed
by a massacre of the defeated party. Adonijah ex-
pected such an issue, and took refuge at the horns
of the altar. In this instance, however, the young
conqueror used his triumph generously. The lives
both of Adonijah and his partizans were spared, at
least for a time. What had been done hurriedly
SOLOMON 1345
was done afterwards in more solemn form. Solo-
mon was presented to a great gathering of all the
notables of Israel, with a set speech, in which the
old king announced what was, to his mind, the
programme of the new reign, a time of peace and
plenty, of a stately worship, of devotion to Je-
hovah. A few months more, and Solomon found
himself, by his father’s death, the sole occupant of
the throne.
(2.) The position to which he succeeded was
unique. Never before, and never after, did the
kingdom of Israel take its place among the great
monarchies of the East, able to ally itself, or to
contend on equal terms with Egypt or Assyria,
stretching from the River (Euphrates) to the border
of Egypt, from the Mediterranean to the Gulf of
Akaba, receiving annual tributes from many subject
princes. Large treasures accumulated through
many years were at his disposal.i The people,
with the exception of the tolerated worship in
high places, were true servants of Jehovah. Know-
ledge, art, music, poetry, had received a new im-
pulse, and were moving on with rapid steps, to
such perfection as the age and the race were capable
of attaining. We may rightly ask—what manner
of man he was, outwardly and inwardly, who at
the age of nineteen or twenty, was called to this
glorious sovereignty? We have, it is true, no
direct description in this case as we have of the
earlier kings. There are, however, materials for
filling up the gap. The wonderful impression
which Solomon made upon all who came near him
may well lead us to believe that with him as with
Saul and David, Absalom and Adonijah, as with
most other favourite princes of Eastern peoples,
there must have been the fascination and the grace
of a noble presence. Whatever higher mystic
meaning may be latent in Ps. xlv., or the Song of
Songs, we are all but compelled to think of them
as having had, at least, a historical starting-point.
They tell us of one who was, in the eyes of the
men of his own time, “ fairer than the children of
men,” the face “ bright and ruddy ” as his father’s
(Cant. v. 10; 1 Sam. xvii. 42), bushy locks, dark
as the raven’s wing, yet not without a golden
glow,‘ the eyes soft as ‘‘the eyes of doves,” the
“countenance as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars,”
“the chiefest among ten thousand, the altogether
lovely” (Cant. 9-16). Add to this all gifts
of a noble, far-reaching intellect, large and ready
sympathies, a playful and genial humour, the lips
“full of grace,” the soul “ anointed”’ as ‘* with the
oil of gladness’ (Ps. xlv.), and we may form some
notion of what the king was like in that dawn of
his golden prime.™
(3.) The historical starting-point of the Song of
Songs just spoken of connects itself, in all proba-
h According to later Jewish teaching a king was not
anointed when he succeeded his father, except in the case
of a previous usurpation or a disputed succession (Otho,
Lexic. Rabbin. 5. v. “ Rex’’).
i The sums mentioned are (1) the public funds for
building the Temple, 100,000 talents (kikarim) of gold
and 1,000,000 of silver; (2) David's private offerings,
3000 talents of guld and 7000 of silver. Besides these,
large sums of unknown amount were believed to have
been stored up in the sepulchre of David. 3000 talents
were taken from it by Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. vii. 15, ᾧ 35;
xiii. 8, § 4, xvi. 7, § 1).
k Possibly sprinkied with gold dust, as was the hair of
the youths who waited on him (Jos. Anf. viii. 7,3), or
dyed with henna (Michaelis, Vot. in Lowth, Prael. xxxi.).
VOL, II,
m Jt will be seen that we adopt the scheme of the older
literalist school, Bossuet, Lowth, Michaelis, rather than
that of the more recent critics, Ewald, Renan, Ginsburg.
Ingeniously as the idea is worked out we cannot bring
ourselves to believe that a drama, belonging to the
literature of the northern kingdom, not to that of Judah,
holding up Solomon to ridicule as at once licentious
and unsuccessful, would have been treasured up by the
Jews of the Captivity, and received by the Scribes of
the Great Synagogue as by, or at least, in honour of
Solomon (comp. Renan, La Cantique des Cantiques, pp.
91, 95). We follow the Jesuit Pineda (De rebus Salom.
iv. 3) in applying the language of the Shulamite to
Solomon’s personal appearance, but not in his extreme
minuteness.
4R
1346 SOLOMON
bility. with the earliest facts in the history of the
new reign. The narrative, as told in 1 K. ii. is
not a little perplexing. Bathsheba, who had before
stirred up David against Adonijah, now appears as
interceding for him, begging that Abishag the Shu-
namite, the virgin concubine of David, might be
given him as a wife. Solomon, who till then had
professed the profoundest reverence for his mother,
his willingness to grant her anything, suddenly
flashes into fiercest wrath at this. The petition is
treated as part of a conspiracy in which Joab and
Abiathar are sharers. Benaiah is once more called
in. Adonijah is put to death at once. Joab is
slain even within the precincts of the Tabernacle, to
which he had fled as an asylum. Abiathar is de-
posed, and exiled, sent to a life of poverty and
shame (1 K. ii. 31-56), and the high priesthood
transferred to another family more ready than he
had been to pass from the old order to the new,
and to accept the voices of the prophets as greater
than the oracles which had belonged exclusively to
the priesthood [comp. Urrm AND THUMMIM]. The
facts have, however, an explanation. Mr. Grove’s
ingenious theory" identifying Abishag with the
heroine of the Song of Songs [SHULAMITE], resting
as it must do, on its own evidence, has this further
merit, that it explains the phenomena here. The
passionate love of Solomon for ‘the fairest among
women,” might well lead the queen-mother, hitherto
supreme, to fear a rival influence, and to join in any
scheme for its removal. The king’s vehement abrupt-
ness is, in like manner, accounted for. He sees in the
request at once an attempt to deprive him of the
woman he loves, and a plot to keep him still in the
tutelage of childhood, to entrap him into admitting
his elder brother’s right to the choicest treasure of his
father’s harem, and therefore virtually to the throne,
or at least to a regency in which he would have his
own partizans as counsellors. With a keen-sighted
promptness he crushes the whole scheme. He gets
rid of a rival, fulfils David’s dying counsels as to Joab,
and asserts his own independence. Soon afterwards
an opportunity is thrown in his way of getting rid of
one [SHIMEr], who had been troublesome before,
and might be troublesome again. He presses the
letter of a compact against a man who by his infa-
tuated disregard of it seemed given over to destruc-
tion® (1 K. ii. 36-46). There is, however, no
needless slaughter. The other “sons of David”
are still spared, and one of them, Nathan, becomes
the head of a distinct family (Zech. xii. 12), which
ultimately fills up the failure of the direct succes-
sion (Luke iii. 31). As he punishes his father’s
enemies, he also shows kindness to the friends who
had been faithful to him. Chimham, the son of
Barzillai, apparently zeceives an inheritance near
» The hypothesis is, however, not altogether new. It
was held by some of the literalist historical school of
Theodore of Mopsuestia (not by Theodore himself; comp.
his fragments in Migne, Ixvi. 699), and as such is anathe-
matised by Theodoret of Cyrns (Praef. in Cant. Cantic.),
The latter, believing the Song of Solomon to have been
supernaturally dictated to Ezra, could admit no inter-
pretation but the mystical (comp. Ginsburg, Song of Sol.
p. 66).
° An elaborate vindication of Solomon’s conduct in this
matter may be found in Menthen’s Thesaurus, i.; Slisser,
Diss. de Salom. processu contra Shimei.
Ρ Josephus, again inaccurate, lengthens the reign to 80
years, and makes the age at accession 14 (Ant. viii. 7, 08).
4 This Pharaoh is identified by Ewald (iii. 279) with
Psusennes, the last king of the 29th dynasty of Manetho, |
which had its seat in Lower Egypt at Tanis; but see
SOLOMON
the city of David, and probably in the reign of So-
lomon, displays his inherited hospitality by building
a caravanserai for the strangers whom the fame
and wealth of Solomon drew to Jerusalem (2 Sam.
xix. 31-40; 1 Κ' ii. 7; Jer. xli. 17; Ewald, Gesch.
iii. 274; Proph. ii. 191). ;
V. Foreign Policy.—(1.) The want of sufficient
data for a continuous history has been already no-
ticed. All that we have are—(a.) The duration of
the reign, 40 yearsP (1 K. xi. 42). (6.) The
commencement of the Temple in the 4th, its com-
pletion in the 11th year of his reign (1 K. vi. 1, 37,
38). (c.) The commencement of his own palace in
the 7th, its completion in the 20th year (1 K. vii.
1; 2 Chr. viii. 1), (d.) The conquest of Hamath-
Zobah, and the consequent foundation of cities in
the region North of Palestine after the 20th year
(2 Chr. viii. 1-6). With materials so scanty as
these, it will be better to group the chief facts in
an order which will best enable us to appreciate
their significance.
(2.) Egypt. The first act of the foreign policy
of the new reign must have been to most Israelites
a very startling one. He made affinity with Pha-
raoh, king of Egypt. He married Pharaoh’s
daughter (1 K. iii. 1).4 Since the time of the Ex-
odus there had been no intercourse between the
two countries. David and his counsellors had taken
no steps to promote it. Egypt had probably taken
part in assisting Edom in its resistance to David
(1 Chr. xi. 23; Ewald, iii. 182), and had received
Hadad, the prince of Edom, with royal honours.
The king had given him his wife’s sister in mar- -
riage, and adopted his son into his own family
(1 K. xi. 14-20). These steps indicated a purpose
to support him at some future time more actively,
and Solomon’s proposal of marriage was probably
intended to counteract it. It was at the time so
far successful, that when Hadad, on hearing of the
death of the dreaded leaders of the armies of Israel,
David and Joab, wished to seize the opportunity of
attacking the new king, the court of Egypt ren-
dered him no assistance (1 K. xi. 21, 22). The
disturbances thus caused, and not less those in the
North, coming from the foundation of a new Syrian
kingdom at Damascus by Rezon and other fugitives
from Zobah (1 K. xi. 23-25), might well lead So-
lomon to look out for a powerful support,? to
obtain for a new dynasty and a new kingdom a
recornition by one of older fame and greater power.
The immediate results. were probably favourable
enough. The new queen brought with her as a
dowry the frontier-city of Gezer, against which, as
threatening the tranquillity of Israel, and as still
possessed by a remnant of the old Canaanites,* Pha-
raoh had led his armies." She was received with
PHARAOH, pp. 816, 817. Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, §2) only
notes the fact that he was the last king of Egypt who
was known simply by the ¢itle Pharaoh.
τ Josephus (Ant. viii. 7, ᾧ 6), misled by the position of
these statements, refers the disturbances to the close of
Solomon’s reign, and is followed by most later writers.
The dates given, however, in one case after the death of
Joab, in the other after David’s conquest of Zobah, show
that we must think of them as continuing ‘‘all the days
of Solomon,’”’ surmounted at the commencement of his
reign, becoming more formidable at its conclusion.
5. Ewald sees in Ps. ii. a great hymn of thanksgiving
for deliverance from these dangers. The evidence in
favour of David’s authorship seems, however, to pre-
ponderate,
t Philistines. according to Josephus (An¢. viii. 6, §1).
u If, with Ewald (iii. 277), we identify Gezer with
ae ie αν α.
———S”r—C( ;PrlrmUmUlC ω...
SOLOMON
all honour, the queen-mother herself attending to
place the diadem on her son’s brow on the day
of his espousals (Cant. iii. 11). Gifts from the
nobles of Israel and from Tyre (the latter offered
perhaps by a Tyrian princess) were lavished at her
feet (Ps. xlv. 12). A separate and stately palace
was built for her, before long, outside the city
of David (2 Chr. viii. 11).* She dwelt there appa-
rently with attendants of her own race, ““ the
virgins that be her fellows,” probably conforming
in some degree to the religion of her adopted
country. According to a tradition which may have
some foundation in spite of its exaggerated numbers,
Pharaoh (Psusennes, or as in the story Vaphres),
sent with her workmen to help in building the
Temple, to the number of 80,000 (Eupolemos, in
Euseb. Praép. Evang. ii. 30-35). The ‘* chariots
of Pharaoh ” at any rate, appeared in royal proces-
sion with a splendour hitherto unknown (Cant.
Te eh
@) The ultimate issue of the alliance showed
that it was hollow and impolitic. There may have
been a revolution in Egypt, changing the dynasty
and transferring the seat of power to Bubastis
(Ewald, iii. 389).¥ There was at any rate a change
of policy. The court of Egypt welcomes the fugitive
Jeroboam when he is known to have aspirations
after kingly power. There, we may believe, by
some kind of compact, expressed or understood, was
planned ‘the scheme which led first to the rebellion
of the Ten Tribes, and then to the attack of Shishak
on the weakened and dismantled kingdom of the son
of Solomon. Evils such as these were hardly coun-
terbalanced by the trade opened by Solomon in the
fine linen of Egypt, or the supply of chariots and
horses which, as belonging to ageressive rather than
defensive warfare, a wiser policy would have led
him to avoid (1 K. x. 28, 29).
(4.) Tyre. The alliance with the Phoenician
king rested on a somewhat different footing. It had
been part of David’s policy from the beginning of his
rein. Hiram had been ‘“ ever a lover of David.”
He, or his grandtather,? had helped him by supply-
ing materials and workmen for his palace. As soon
as he heard of Solomon’s accession he sent ambas-
sadors to salute him. A correspondence passed
between the two kings, which ended in a treaty of
commerce.* Israel was to be supplied from Tyre
with the materials which were wanted for the
Temple that was to be the glory of the new reign.
Gold from Ophir, cedar-wood from Lebanon, pro-
bably also copper from Cyprus, and tin from Spain
or Cornwall (Niebuhr, Lect. on Anc. Hist. i. 79),
for the brass which was so highly valued, purple
from Tyre itself, workmen from among the Zidonians,
all these were wanted and were given. The open-
ing of Joppa as a port created a new coasting-trade,
SOLOMON 1347
and the materials from Tyre were conveyed to it on
floats, and thence to Jerusalem (2 Chr. ii. 16).
The chief architect of the Temple, though an Israel-
ite on his mother’s side, belonging to the tribe of
Dan or Naphtali [Hiram], was yet by birth a
Tyrian, a namesake of the king. In return for these
exports, the Phoenicians were only too glad to re-
ceive the corn and oil of Solomon’s territory. Their
narrew strip of coast did not produce enough for
the population of their cities, and then, as at a later
period, ‘‘ their country was nourished” by the
broad valleys and plains of Samaria and Galilee
(Acts xii. 20).
(5.) The results of the alliance did not end here.
Now, for the first time in the history of Israel,
they entered on a career as a commercial people.
They joined the Phoenicians in their Mediterranean
voyages to the coasts of Spain [TARSHISH].> Solo-
mon’s possession of the Edomite coast enabled him
to open to his ally a new world of commerce. The
ports of Elath and Ezion-geber were filled with
ships of Tarshish, merchant-ships, 7. 6. for the long
voyages, manned chiefly by Phoenicians, but built
at Solomon’s expense, which sailed down the
Aelanitie Gulf of the Red Sea, on to the Indian
Ocean, to lands which had before been hardly known
even by name, to OPHIR and SHEBA, to Arabia
Felix, or India, or Ceylon, and brought back after
an absence of nearly three years, treasures almost
or altogether new, gold and silver, and precious
stones, nard, aloes, sandal-wood, almug-trees, and
ivory ; and last, but not least in the eyes of the his-
torian, new forms of animal-life, on which the in-
habitants of Palestine gazed with wondering eyes,
‘‘apes and peacocks.” ‘he interest of Solomon in
these enterprises was shown by his leaving his pa-
laces at Jerusalem and elsewhere and travelling to
Elath and Ezion-geber to superintend the construc-
tion of the fleet (2 Chr. viii. 17), perhaps also to
Sidon for a like purpose. To the knowledge thus
gained, we may ascribe the wider thoughts which
appear in the Psalms of this and the following
periods, as of those who ‘‘see the wonders of the
deep and occupy their business in great waters”
(Ps. evii. 23-30), perhaps also an experience of
the more humiliating accidents of sea-travel (Proy.
xxiii, 34, 35).
(6.) According to the statement of the Phoeni-
cian writers quoted by Josephus (Ant. vili. 5, §3),
the intercourse of the two kings had in it also some-
thing of the sportiveness and freedom of friends.
They delighted to perplex each other with hard
questions, and laid wagers as to their power of an-
swering them. Hiram was at first the loser and
paid his forfeits ; but afterwards, through the help
of a sharp-witted Tyrian boy, Abdemon, solved the
hard problems and was in the end the winner.¢ The
Geshur, we may see in this attack a desire to weaken a
royal house which was connected by marriage with Absa-
lom (2 Sam. xiii. 37), and therefore likely to be hostile to
Solomon. But comp. GrezER,
x We may see in this fact a sign of popular dissatisfac-
tion at least on the part of the Priests and Levites repre-
sented by the compiler of 2 Chron,
y The singular addition of the LXX. to the history of
Jeroboam in 1 K. xi. makes this improbable. Jeroboam,
as well as Hadad, is received into the king’s family by
marriage with his wife’s sister, and, in each case, the
wife’s name is given as Thekemina.
z Comp. the data given in 2 Sam. v.11; Jos. Ant. vii.
3, §2, viii. 5, §3, c. Ap. i. 18, and Ewald, iii. 287.
a The letters are given at length by Josephus (Ant. viii.
2, §8) and Eupolemos (Euseb, Praep. Εὖ. l.c.).
b Ewald disputes this (iii. 345), but the statement in
2Chr. ix. 21, is explicit enough, and there are no grounds
for arbitrarily setting it aside as a blunder.
ς The statement of Justin Mart. (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 34),
ἐν Σιδῶνι εἰδωλολάτρει, receives by the accompanying διὰ
γυναῖκα the character of an extract from some history
then extant. The marriage of Solomon with a daughter
of the king of Tyre is mentioned by Eusebius (Praep.
Evang. Χ. 11). Ξ
4 The narrative of Josephus implies the existence of
some story, more or less humorous, in Tyrian literature,
in which the wisest of the kings of earth was baffled by a
boy’s cleverness. A singular pendant to this is found in
the popular mediaeval story of Solomon and Morolf, in
which the latter (an ugly, deformed dwarf) outwits the
former. A modernised version of this work may be
48 2
1348 SOLOMON
singular fragment of history inserted in 1 K. ix.
11-14, recording the cession by Solomon of sixteen
cities, and Hiram’s dissatisfaction with them, is
perhaps connected with these imperial wagers. The
king of Tyre revenges himself by a Phoenician bon-
mot [CabBuL]. He fulfils his part of the contract,
and pays the stipulated price.
(7.) These were the two most important alli-
ances. The absence of any reference to Babylon
and Assyria, and the fact that the Euphrates was
recognised as the boundary of Solomon's kingdom
(2 Chr. ix. 26), suggest the inference that the Meso-
potamian monarchies were, at this time, compara-
tively feeble. Other neighbouring nations were
content to pay annual tribute in the form of gifts
(2 Chr. ix. 24). The kings of the Hittites and of
Syria welcomed the opening of a new line of com-
merce which enabled them to find in Jerusalem an
emporium where they might get the chariots and
horses of Egypt (1 K. x. 29). This, however, was
obviously but a small part of the traffic organised
by Solomon. The foundation of cities like Tadmor
in the wilderness, and Tiphsah (Thapsacus) on the
Euphrates ; of others on the route, each with its
own special market for chariots, or horses, or stores
(2 Chr. viii. 3-6); the erection of lofty towers on
Lebanon (2 Chr, /. c.; Cant. vii. 4) pointed to a
more distant commerce, opening out the resources
of central Asia, reaching, as that of Tyre did after-
wards, availing itself of this very route, to the
_Nomade tribes of the Caspian and the Black Seas,
to Togarmah and Meshech and Tubal (Ez. xxvii.
13, 14; comp. Milman, Hist. of Jews, i. 270).
(8.) The survey of the influence exercised by So-
lomon on surrounding nations would be incomplete
if we were to pass over that which was more di-
rectly personal—the fame of his glory and his wisdom.
The legends which pervade the East are probably
not merely the expansion of the scanty notices of
the O. T.; but (as suggested above), like those
which gather round the names of Nimrod and Alex-
ander, the result of the impression made by the
personal presence of one of the mighty ones of the
earth.¢ Wherever the ships of Tarshish went, they
carried with them the report, losing nothing in its
passage, of what their crews had seen and heard.
The impression made on the Incas of Peru by the
power and knowledge of the Spaniards, offers per-
haps the nearest approach to what falls so little
within the limits of our experience, though there
was there no personal centre round which the admira-
tion could gather itself. The journey of the queen
of Sheba, though from its circumstances the most
conspicuous, did not stand alone. The inhabitants
of Jerusalem, of the whole line of country between
it and the Gulf of Akaba, saw with amazement the
“creat train ;” the men with their swarthy faces,
the camels bearing spices and gold and gems, of a
queen who had come from the far South, because
she had heard of the wisdom of Solomon, and con-
nected with.it “‘ the name of Jehovah” (1 K. x. 1).
SOLOMON
She came with hard questions to test that wisdom,
and the words just quoted may throw light upon
their nature. Not riddles and enigmas only, such
as the sportive fancy of the East delights in, but the
ever-old, ever-new problems of life, such as, even
in that age and country, were vexing the hearts
of the speakers in the Book of Job,& were stirring
in her mind when she communed with Solomon of
“all that was in her heart” (2 Chr. x. 2). She
meets us as the representative of a body whom the
dedication-prayer shows to have been numerous,
the strangers “ coming from a far country ”’ because
of the “ great name” of Jehovah (1 K. viii. 41),
many of them princes themselves, or the messengers
of kings (2 Chr. ix. 23). The historians of Israel
delighted to dwell on her confession that the reality
surpassed the fame, ‘‘ the one-half of the greatness
of thy wisdom was not told me” (2 Chr. ix. 6;
Ewald, iii. 353).
VI. Internal History.—(1.) We can now enter
upon the reign of Solomon, in its bearing upon the
history of Israel, without the necessity of a digres-
sion. The first prominent scene is one which pre-
sents his character in its noblest aspect. There
were two holy places which divided the reverence
of the people, the ark and its provisional tabernacle
at Jerusalem, and the original Tabernacle of the con-
gregation, which, after many wanderings, was now
pitched at Gibeon. It was thought right that the
new king should offer solemn sacrifices at both.
After those at Gibeon® there came that vision of
the night which has in all ages borne its noble wit-
ness to the hearts of rulers. Not for riches, or long
life, or victory over enemies, would the son of
David, then at least true to his high calling, feeling
himself as “a little child”? in comparison with the
vastness of his work, offer his supplications, but
for a ‘‘ wise and understanding heart,” that he
might judge the people. The “ speech pleased the
Lord.” There came in answer the promise of a
wisdom ‘‘ like which there had been none before,
like which there should be none after” (1 Καὶ. iii.
5-15). So far all was well. The prayer was a
right and noble one. Yet there is also a contrast
between it and the prayers of David which accounts
for many other contrasts. The desire of David’s
heart is not chiefly for wisdom, but for holiness.
He is conscious of an oppressing evil, and seeks to
be delivered from it. He repents, and falls, and
repents again. Solomon asks only for wisdom. He
has a lofty ideal before him, and seeks to accom-
plish it, but he is as yet haunted by no deeper
yearnings, and speaks as one who has “no need of
repentance.”
(2.) The wisdom asked for was given in large
measure, and took a varied range. The wide world
of nature, animate and inanimate, which the enter-
prises of his subjects were throwing open to him,
the lives and characters of men, in all their surface-
weaknesses, in all their inner depths, lay before
him, and he took cognisance of all. But the highest
foand in the Walhalla (iets, 1844), Older copies, in
Latin and German, of the 15th century, are in the Brit.
Mus. Library. The Anglo-Saxon Dialogue of Solomon
and Saturn is a mere catechism of Scriptural knowledge
e Cities like Tadmor and Tiphsah were not likely to
have been founded by a king who had never seen and
chosen the sites. 2 Chr. viii. 3, 4, implies the journey
which Josephus speaks of (Ant. viii. 6, §1), and at Tadmor
Solomon was within one day’s journey of the Euphrates,
and six of Babylon. (So Josephus, l.c¢., but the day’s
journey must have been a long one.)
f Josephus, again careless about authorities, makes her -
a queen of Egypt (Ὁ) and Ethiopia (Ant. viii. 6, Ὁ 5).
& Is it possible that the Book itself came into the lite-
rature of Israel by the intercourse thus opened? Its Arabic
character, both in language and thought, and the obvious
traces of its influence in the Book of Proverbs, have been
noticed by all critics worthy of the name [comp Jos).
h Hebron, in Josephus, once more blundering (Af.
viii. 2, §1).
i Ewald sees in the words of 1 K. iv. 33, the record of
books more or less descriptive of natural history, the
SOLOMON
wisdom was that wanted for the highest work, for
governing and guiding, and the historian hastens to
give an illustration of it. The pattern-instance is,
in all its circumstances, thoroughly Oriental. The
king sits in the gate of the city, at the early dawn,
to settle any disputes, however strange, between
any litigants, however humble. In the rough and
ready test which turns the scales of evidence, before
so evenly balanced, there is a kind of rough humour
as well as sagacity, specially attractive to the Eastern
mind, then and at all times (1 Κα, iii. 16-28).
(3.) But the power to rule showed itself not in
judging only, but in organising. The system of
government which he inherited from David received
a fuller expansion, Prominent among the “ princes ”
of his kingdom, 7. 6. officers of his own appointment,
were members of the priestly order:* Azariah the
son of Zadok, Zadok himself the high-priest, Benaiah
the son of Jehoiada as captain of the host, another
Azariah and Zabud, the sons of Nathan, one over
the officers ( Nittsabim) who acted as purveyors to
the king’s household (1 K. iv. 2-5), the other in
the more confidential character of ‘ king’s friend.”
In addition to these there were the two scribes
(Séphérim), the king’s secretaries, drawing up his
edicts and the like [ScriBEs], Elihoreph and Ahiah,
the recorder or annalist of the king’s reign (Mazcir),
the superintendent of the king’s house, and house-
hold expenses (15, xxii. 15), including probably the
harém. The last in order, at once the most indis-
peusable and the most hated, was Adoniram, who
presided ** over the tribute,” that word including
probably the personal service of forced labour (comp.
Keil, Comm. in loc., and Ewald, Gesch. iii. 334).
(4.) The last name leads us to.the king’s finances.
The first impression of the facts given us is that of
abounding plenty. That all the drinking vessels of
the two palaces should be of pure gold was a small
thing, “ nothing accounted of in the days of Solo-
mon” (1 K.x.21).™ “Silver was in Jerusalem as
stones, and cedars as the sycamore-trees in the vale ”
(1 K. x. 27). The people were “ eating and drink-
ing and making merry ” (1 K. iv. 20).- The trea-
sures left by David for building the Temple might
well seem almost inexhaustible ® (1 Chr. xxix. 1-7).
The large quantities of the precious metals imported
SOLOMON 1349
from Ophir and Tarshish would speak, to a people
who had not learnt the lessons of a long experience,
of a boundless source of wealth (1 Κα. ix, 28). All
the kings and princes of the subject-provinces paid
tribute in the form of gifts, in money and in kind,
“ὁ αὖ a fixed rate year by year” (1 K. x. 25).
Monopolies of trade, then, as at all times in the
East, contributed to the king’s treasury, and the
trade in the fine linen, and chariots, and horses of
Egypt, must have brought in large profits (1 Κα, x.
28,29). The king’s domain-lands were apparently
‘let out, as vineyards or for other purposes, at a
fixed annual rental (Cant. viii. 11). Upon the
Israelites (probably not till the later period of his
reign) there was levied a tax of ten per cent. on
their produce (1 Sam. viii. 15). All the provinces
of his own kingdom, grouped apparently in a special
order for this purpose, were bound each in turn to
supply the king’s enormous household with pro-
visions (1 K. iv. 21-23). [Comp. Taxrs.] The
total amount thus brought into the treasury in
gold, exclusive of all payments in kind, amounted
to 666 talents (1 Καὶ. x. 14).°
(5.) It was hardly possible, however, that any
financial system could bear the strain of the king’s
passion for magnificence. The cost of the Temple
was, it is true, provided for by David’s savings and
the offerings of the people ; but even while that was
building, yet more when it was finished, one struc-
ture followed on another with ruinous rapidity.
A palace for himself, grander than that which
Hiram had built for his father, another for Pha-
raoh’s daughter, the house of the forest of Lebanon,
in which he sat in his court of judgment, the pillars
all of cedar, seated on a throne of ivory and gold,
in which six lions on either side, the symbols of the
tribe of Judah, appeared (as in the thrones of As-
syria, Layard’s Nineveh, ii. 30) standing on ‘the
steps and supporting the arms of the chair (1 K.
vii. 1-12, x. 18-20), ivory palaces and ivory towers,
used apparently for the king’s armoury (Ps. xlv. 8;
Cant. iv. 4, vii. 4); the ascent from his own
palace to the house or palace of Jehovah (1 K. x.
5), a summer palace in Lebanon (1 K. ix. 19;
Cant. vii. 4), stately gardens at Etham, paradises
like those of the great Eastern kings (Kecl. ii. 5, 6 ;
catalogue raisonnée of the king’s collections, botanic and
zoological (iii. 358) ; to Renan, however (following Jose-
phus), it seems more in harmony with the unscientific
᾿ character of all Shemitic minds, to think of them as looking
on the moral side of nature, drawing parables or allegories
from the things he saw (Hist. des langues Sémitiques,
p. 127). The multiplied allusions of this kind in Prov.
XXx., make that, perhaps, a fair representative of this form
of Solomon's wisdom, though not by Solomon himself.
k We cannot bring ourselves, with Keil (Comm. in loc.)
and others, to play fast and loose with the word Cohen,
and to give it different meanings in alternate verses.
(Comp. Priests. ]
™ A reminiscence of this form of splendour is seen in
the fact that the mediaeval goldsmiths described their
earliest plate as ‘‘ceuvre de Salomon.” It was wrought
in high relief, was Kastern in its origin, and was known
also as Saracenic (Liber Custumarius, i. 61, 759).
u We labour, however, under a twofold uncertainty,
(1) as to the accuracy of the numbers, (2) as to the value
of the terms. Prideaux, followed by Lewis, estimates
the amount at 833,000,000/., yet the savings of the later
years of David’s life, for one special purpose, could hardly
have surpassed the national debt of England (comp.
Milman’s History of Jews, i. 267).
ο 666. There is something startling in thus finding in
a simple historical statement a number which has since
become invested with such a mysterious and terrible
significance (Rev. xiii. 18). The coincidence can hardly,
it is believed, be looked on as casual. “ ‘I'he Seer of the
Apocalypse,” it has been well said, “lives entirely in
Holy Scripture. On this territory, therefore, is the solu-
tion of the sacred riddle to be sought ” (Hengstenberg,
Comm. in Rev. in loc.). If, therefore, we find the number
occurring in the O.T., with any special significance, we
may well think that that furnishes the starting point of
the enigma. And there is such a significance here. (1.)
As the glory and the wisdom of Solomon were the repre-
sentatives of all earthly wisdom and glory, so the wealth
of Solomon would be the representative of all earthly
wealth. (2.) The purpose of the visions of St. John is to
oppose the heavenly to the earthly Jerusalem; the true
“ offspring of David,” “ the lion of the tribe of Judah,” to
all counterfeits; the true riches to the false. (3.) The
worship of the beast is the worship of the world’s mam-
mor. It may seem to reproduce the glory and the wealth
of the old Jerusalem in its golden days, but it is of evil,
not of God; a Babylon, not a Jerusalem. (4.) This re-
ference does not of course exclude either the mystical
meaning of the number six, so well brought out by
Hengstenberg (J.c.) and Mr. Maurice (on the Apocalypse,
p. 251), or even names like Lateinos and Nero Caesar.
The greater the variety of thoughts that could be con-
nected with a single number, the more would it commend
itself to one at all familiar with the method of the
Gematria of the Jewish cabbalists.
1350 SOLOMON
Joseph. Ant. viii. 7, §3; comp. PARADISE), the |
foundation of something like a stately school or
college,P costly aqueducts bringing water, it may
be, from the well of Bethlehem, dear to David’s
heart, to supply the king’s palace in Jerusalem
(Ewald, iii. 323), the fortifications of Jerusalem
completed, those of other cities begun (1 K. ix.
15-19), and, above all, the harém, with all the
expenditure which it involved on slaves and slave-
dealers, on concubines and eunuchs (1 Sam. viii.
15; 1 Chr. xxviii. 1), on men-singers and women-
singers (Eccl. ii. 8)—these rose hefore the wondering
eyes of his people and dazzled them with their
magnificence, All the equipment of his court, the
“ apparel” of his servants, was on the same scale.
If he went from his hall of judgment to the Temple
he marched between two lines of soldiers, each with
a burnished shield of gold (1 K. x. 16, 17; Ewald,
iii, 8320), If he went on a royal progress to his
paradise at Etham, he went in snow-white raiment,
riding in a stately chariot of cedar, decked with
silver and gold and purple, carpeted with the cost-
liest tapestry, worked by the daughters of Jeru-
salem (Cant. iii. 9, 10). A body-guard attended
him, “ threescore valiant men,” tallest and hand-
somest of the sons of Israel, in the freshness of their
youth, arrayed in Tyrian purple, their long black
hair sprinkled freshly every day with gold-dust
(ib. iii. 7, 8; Joseph. Ant. viii. 7, §3). Forty
thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve
thousand horsemen, made up the measure of his
magnificence (1 K. iv. 26). Ifsome of the public
works had the plea of utility, the fortification of
some cities for purposes of defence—Millo (the
suburb of Jerusalem), Hazor, Megiddo, the two
Beth-horons, the foundation of others, Tadmor and
Tiphsah, for purposes of commerce—these were
simply the pomps of a selfish luxury, and the
people, after the first dazzle was over, felt that
they were so. As the treasury became empty,
taxes multiplied and monopolies became more irk-
some. Even Israelites, besides the conscription which
brought them into the king’s armies (1 K. ix. 22),
were subject, though for a part only of each year,
to the corvée of compulsory labour (1 K. v. 13),
The revolution that followed had, like most other
revolutions, financial disorder as the chief among
its causes. The people complained, not of the king’s
idolatry, but of their burdens, of his ‘“ grievous
yoke” (1 K. xii. 4). Their hatred fell heaviest on
Adoniram, who was over the tribute. If, on the
one side, the division of the kingdom came as a
penalty for Solomon’s idolatrous apostasy from
Jehovah, it was, on another, the Nemesis of a
selfish passion for glory, itself the most terrible of
all idolatries.
(6.) It remains for us to trace that other down-
fall, belonging more visibly, though not more really,
to his religious life, from the loftiest height even to
the lowest depth. The building and dedication of
the Temple are obviously the representatives of the
first. That was the special task which he inherited
from his father, and to that he gave himself with
all his heart and strength. He came to it with all
the noble thoughts as to the meaning and grounds
SOLOMON
of worship which his father and Nathan could instil
into him. We have already seen, in speaking of
his intercourse with Tyre, what measures he took
for its completion, All that can be said as to its
architecture, proportions, materials [TEMPLE], and
the organisation of the ministering PRIESTS and
LEVITES, will be found elsewhere. Here it will be
enough to picture to ourselves the feelings of the
men of Judah as they watched, during seven long
years, the Cyclopian foundations of vast stones (still
remaining when all else has perished, Ewald, iii.
297) gradually rising up and covering the area of
the threshing-floor of Araunah, materials arriving
continually from Joppa, cedar, and gold and silver,
brass “ without weight” from the foundries of
Succoth and Zarethan, stones ready hewn and
squared from the quarries. Far from colossal in
its size, it was conspicuous chiefly by the lavish
use, within and without, of the gold of Ophir and
Parvaim. It glittered in the morning sun (it has
been well said) like the sanctuary of an ΕἸ Dorado
(Milman, Hist. of Jews, i. 259). Throughout the
whole work the tranquillity of the kingly city
was unbroken by the sound of the workman’s
hammer :
“ Like some tall palm, the noiseless fabric grew.”
(7.) We cannot ignore the fact that even now
there were some darker shades in the picture. Not
reverence only for the Holy City, but the wish to
shut out from sight the misery he had caused, to
close his ears against cries which were rising daily
to the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, led him probably
to place the works connected with the Temple at
as great a distance as possible from the Temple
itself. Forgetful of the lessons taught by the his-
tory of his own people, and of the precepts of the
Law (Ex, xxii. 21, xxiii. 9 et al.), following the
example of David’s policy in its least noble aspect
(1 Chr. xxii. 2), he reduced the “strangers” in
the land, the remnant of the Canaanite races who
had chosen the alternative of conformity to the
religion of their conquerors, to the state of helots,
and made their life “ bitter with all hard bondage.’’4
[PRosELYTES.] Copying the Pharaohs in their
magnificence, he copied them also in their disregard
of human suffering. Acting, probably, under the
same counsels as had prompted that measure, on
the result of David’s census, he seized on these
“strangers” for the weary, servile toil against
which the free spirit of Israel would have rebelled.
One hundred and fifty-three thousand, with wives
and children in proportion, were torn from their
homes and sent off to the quarries and the forests
of Lebanon (1 K. v. 15; 2 Chr. ii. 17, 18). Even
the Israelites, though not reduced permanently to
the helot state (2 Chr. viii. 9), were yet summoned
to take their share, by rotation, in the same labour
(1 K. v. 18,14). One trace of the special servitude
of “ these newers of stone” existed long afterwards
in the existence of a body of men attached to the
Temple, and known as SOLOMON’S SERVANTS.
(8.) After seven years and a half the work was
completed, and the day came to which all Israelites
looked back as the culminating glory of their nation.
Ρ Pineda’s conjecture (iii. 28) that “the house with
seven pillars,” “the highest places of the city,” of Prov.
ix. 1-3, had originally a local reference is,.at least, plaus-
ible enough to be worth mentioning. It is curious to
think that there may have been a historical ‘“ Sclomon’s
house,” like that of the New Atlantis.
a Ewald's apology for these acts of despotism (iii. 292)
presents a singular contrast to the free spirit. which, for
the most part, pervades his work. Throughout his
history of David and Solomon, his sympathy for the
father’s heroism, his admiration for the son’s magui-
ficence, seem to keep his judgment under a fascination
which it is difficult for his readers to escape from.
SOLOMON
Their worship was now established on a scale as
stately as that of other nations, while it yet retained
its freedom from all worship that could possibly
become idolatrous. Instead of two rival sanctuaries,
as before, there was to be one only. ‘The ark from
Zion, the tabernacle from Gibeon, were both re-
moved (2 Chr. ν. 5) and brought to the new
Temple. The choirs of the priests and Levites met
in their fullest force, arrayed in white linen. Then,
it may be for the first time, was heard the noble
hymn, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye
lift wp, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory
shall come in” (Milman, Hist. of Jews, i. 263).
The trumpeters and singers were “as one” in their
mighty Hallelujah—‘‘ O praise the Lord, for He is
good, for His mercy endureth for ever” (2 Chr. v.
13). The ark was solemnly placed in its golden
sanctuary, and then ‘‘the cloud,” the “ glory of the
Lord,” filled the house of the Lord. The two tables
of stone, associated with the first rude beginnings
of the life of the wilderness, were still, they and
they only, in the ark which had now so magnificent
a shrine (2 Chr. v. 10). They bore their witness
to the great laws of duty towards God and man,
remaining unchangeable through all the changes
and chances of national or individual life, from the
beginning to the end of the growth of a national
religion, And throughout the whole scene, the per-
son of the king is the one central object, compared
with whom even priests and prophets are for the
time subordinate. Abstaining, doubtless, from dis-
tinctively priestly acts, such as slaying the victims
and offering incense, he yet appears, even more than
David did in the bringing up the ark, in a liturgical
character. He, and not Zadok, blesses the congre-
gation, offers up the solemn prayer, dedicates the
Temple. He, and not any member of the prophetic
order, is then, and probably at other times, the
spokesman and “ preacher” of the people (Ewald,
iii. 320). He takes at least some steps towards that
far-off (Ps. ex. 1) ideal of “" ἃ priest after the order
of Melchizedek,” which one of his descendants rashly
sought to fulfil [Uzzran], but which was to be ful-
filled only in a Son of David, not the crowned leader
of a mighty nation, but despised, rejected, crucified.
From him came the lofty prayer, the noblest utter-
ance of the creed of Israel, setting forth the distance
and the nearness of the Eternal God, One, Incompre-
hensible, dwelling not in temples made with hands,
yet ruling men, hearing their prayers, giving them
all good things, wisdom, peace, righteousness.*
(9.) The solemn day was followed by a week of
festival, synchronising with the Feast of ‘Tabernacles,
the time of the completed vintage. Representatives
of all the tribes, elders, fathers, captains, proselytes,
it may be, from the newly-acquired territories in
Northern Syria (2 Chr. vi. 32, vii. 8),—all were
assembled, rejoicing in the actual glory and the
bright hopes of Israel. For the king himself then,
or at a later period (the narrative of 1 Κα, ix. and
2 Chr. vii. leaves it doubtful), there was a strange
contrast to the glory of that day. <A criticism,
misled by its own acuteness, may see in that
warning prophecy of sin, punishment, desolation,
only a vaticinium ex eventu, added some cen-
SOLOMON 1351
turies afterwards (Ewald, iii. 404). It is open
to us to maintain that, with a character such as
Solomon’s, with a religious ideal so far beyond his
actual life, such thoughts were psychologically pro-
bable, that strange misgivings, suggested by the
very words of the jubilant hymns of the day’s
solemnity, might well mingle with the shouts of
the people and the hallelujahs of the Levites.* It is
in harmony with all we know of the work of the
Divine Teacher, that those misgivings should receive
an interpretation, that the king should be taught
that what he had done was indeed right and good,
but that it was not all, and might not be perma-
nent. Obedience was better than sacrifice. here
was a danger near at hand.
(10.) The danger came, and in spite of the
warning the king fell. Before long the priests and
prophets had to grieve over rival temples to Moloch,
Chemosh, Ashtaroth, forms of ritual not idolatrous
only, but cruel, dark, impure. This evil came, as
the compiler of 1 K. xi. 1-8 records, as the penalty
of another. Partly from policy, seeking fresh alli-
ances, partly from the terrible satiety of lust seeking
the stimulus of change, he gave himself to “strange
women.” He found himself involved in a fascination
which led to the worship of strange gods. The
starting-point and the goal are given us. We are
left, from what we know otherwise, to trace the
process. Something there was perhaps in his very
‘largeness of heart,” so far in advance of the tra-
ditional knowledge of his age, rising to higher and
wider thoughts of God, which predisposed him to
it. His converse with men of other creeds and
climes might lead him to anticipate, in this respect,
one phase of modern thought, as the confessions of
the Preacher in Koheleth anticipate another. In
recognising what was true in other forms of faith,
he might lose his horror at what was false, his
sense of the pre-eminence of the truth revealed to
him, of the historical continuity of the nation’s reli-
gious life. His worship might go backward from
Jehovah to Elohim,‘ from Elohim to the “ Gods
many and Lords many” of the nations round.
Jehovah, Baal, Ashtaroth, Chemosh, each form of
nature-worship, might come to seem equally true,
equally acceptable. The women whom he brought
from other countries might well be allowed the
luxury of their own superstitions. And, if per-
mitted at all, the worship must be worthy of his
fame and be part of his magnificence. With this
there may, as Ewald suggests (iii. 380)," have
mingled political motives. He may have hoped,
by a policy of toleration, to conciliate neighbouring
princes, to attract a larger traffic. But probably
also there was another influence less commonly
taken into account. The wide-spread belief of the
Kast in the magic arts of Solomon is not, it is
believed, without its foundation of truth. On the
one hand, an ardent study of nature, in the period
that precedes science, runs on inevitably into the
pursuit ef occult, mysterious properties. On the
other, throughout the whole history of Judah, the
element of idolatry which has the strongest hold on
men’s minds was the thaumaturgic, soothsaying,
incantations, divinations (2 K. i. 2; Is. ii. 6;
τ Ewald, yielding to his one special weakness, sees in
this prayer the rhetorical addition of the Deuteronomist
editor (iii. 315).
s Ps, cxxxii. belongs manifestly (comp. vv. 7, 8, 10, 16,
with 2 Chr. vi. 41) to the day of dedication; and vy. 12
contains the condition, of which the vision of the night
presents the dark as the day had presented the bright side.
t It is noticeable that Elohim, and not Jehovah, is the
Divine name used throughout Ecclesiastes.
ἃ To see, however, as Ewald does, in Solomon’s policy
nothing but a wise toleration like that of a modern states-
man in regard to Christian sects, or of the English
Government in India, is surely to read history through a
refracting and distorting medium,
1352 SOLOMON
2 Chr. xxxiii. 6 e¢ al.). The religion of Israel
opposed a stern prohibition to all such perilous yet
tempting arts (Deut. xviii. 10 σέ al.). The religions
of the nations round fostered them. Was it strange
that one who found his progress impeded in one
path should turn into the other? So, at any rate,
δ was, The reign which began so gloriously was
a step backwards into the gross darkness of fetish
worship. As he left behind him the legacy of
luxury, selfishness, oppression, more than counter-
balancing all the good of higher art and wider
knowledge, so he left this too as an ineradicable
evil. Not less truly than the son of Nebat might
his name have been written in history as Solomon
the son of David who “ made Israel to sin.”
(11.) Disasters followed before long as the na-
tural consequence of what was politically a blunder
as well as religiously a sin. The strength of the
nation rested on its unity, and its unity depended
on its faith. Whatever attractions the sensuous
ritual which he introduced may have had for the
great body of the people, the priests and Levites
must have looked on the rival worship with entire
disfavour. The zeal of the prophetic order, dor-
mant in the earlier part of the reign, and as it
were, hindered from its usual utterances by the
more dazzling wisdom of the king, was now kindled
into active opposition. Ahijah of Shiloh, as if
taught by the history of his native place, was sent
to utter one of those predictions which help to work
out their own fulfilment, fastening on thoughts
before vague, pointing Jeroboam out to himself and
to the people as the destined heir to the larger half
of the kingdom, as truly called as David had been
called, to be the anointed of the Lord (1 K. xi.
28-39). The king in vain tried to check the cur-
rent that was setting strong against him. If Jero-
boam was driven for a time into exile it was only
as we have seen, to be united in marriage to the
then reigning dynasty, and to come back with a
daughter of the Pharaohs as his queen (LXX. ut
supra). The old tribal jealousies gave signs of re-
newed vitality. Ephraim was prepared once more
to dispute the supremacy of Judah, needing special
control (1 Ια, xi. 28). And with this weakness
within there came attacks from without. Hadad
and Rezon, the one in Edom, the other in Syria,
who had been foiled in the beginning of his reign,
now found no effectual resistance. The king, pre-
maturely old,* must have foreseen the rapid break-
ing up of the great monarchy to which he had suc-
ceeded. Rehoboam, inheriting his faults without his
x Solomon’s age at his death could not have been much
more than fifty-nine or sixty, yet it was not till he was
“old”’ that his wives perverted him (1 K. xi. 4).
y Hezekiah found, it was said, formulae for the cure of
diseases engraved on the dvor-posts of the Temple, and
destroyed them because they drew men away from the
worship of Jehovah (Suidas, s. v. ‘Eexias). Strange as
the history is, it has a counterpart in the complaint of the
writer of 2 Chr. xvi. 12, that Asa “sought not to the
Lord but to the physicians.’”’ Was there a rivalry in the
treatment of disease between the priests and prophets on
the one side (comp. Is. xxxviii. 21), and idolatrous thau-
muturgists on the other (comp. also 2 Καὶ, i. 2)?
z The Song of Songs, however, was never read publicly,
either in the Jewish or the Christian Church, nor in the
former were young men allowed to read it at all
(Theod. Cyr. Praef. in Cant. Cant. ; Theod. Mops. p. 699
in Migne).
8 We rest on this as the necessary condition of all deeper
interpretation. To argue, as many have done, that the
mystical sense must be the only one because the literal
SOLOMON
wisdom, haughty and indiscreet, was not likely to
avert it. :
(12.) Of the inner changes of mind and heart
which ran parallel with this history Scripture is
comparatively silent. Something may be learnt
from the books that bear his name, which, whether
written by him or not, stand in the Canon of the
O. T. as representing, with profound, inspired in-
sight the successive phases of his life; something
also from the fact that so little remains out of so
much, out of the songs, proverbs, treatises of which
the historian speaks (1 K. iv. 32,33). Legendary as
may be the traditions which speak of Hezekiah as at
one and the same time, preserving some portions of
Solomon’s writings (Prov. xxv. 1), and destroying
others,y a like process of selection must have been
gone through by the unknown Rabbis of the GREAT
SYNAGOGUE atter the return from the exile. Slowly
and hesitatingly they received into the Canon, as
they went on with their unparalleled work of the
expurgation by a people of its own literature, the
two books which have been the stumbling-blocks of
commentators, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs
(Ginsburg, Koheleth, pp. 13-15). They give ez-
cerpta only from the 3000 Proverbs. Of the thou-
sand and five Songs (the precise number indicates
a known collection) we know absolutely nothing.
They were willing, 7. 6. to admit Koheleth for the
sake of its ethical conclusion, the Song of Songs, be-
cause at a very early period, possibly even then, it
had received a mystical interpretation (Keil, Lin-
leit. in das Alt. Test. §127), because it was, at any
rate, the history of a love which if passionate, was
also tender, and pure, and true.2 But it is easy to
see that there are elements in that poem, the strong
delight in visible outward beauty, the surrender of
heart and will to one overpowering impulse, which
might come to be divorced from truth and purity,
and would then be perilous in proportion to their
grace and charm. Such a divorce took place we
know in the actual. life of Solomon. It could not
fail to leave its stamp upon the idyls in which
feeling and fancy uttered themselves. The poems of
the Son of David may have been like those of Hafiz.
The Scribes who compiled the Canon of the O. T.
may have acted wisely, rightly, charitably to his
fame, in excluding them.
(13.) The books that remain meet us, as has
been said, as at any rate representing the three
stages of his life. The Song of Songs brings before
us the brightness of his youth, the heart as yet un-
tainted, human love passionate yet undefiled, and
would be insupportable, is simply to “bring a clean
thing out of an unclean,” to assert that the Divine Spirit
would choose a love that was lustful and impure as the
fitting parable of the holiest. Much rather may we say
with Herder (Geist der Ebr. Poes., Dial. vi.), that the
poem, in its literal sense, is one which “ might have been
written in Paradise.’ The man and the woman are, as
in their primeval innocence, loving and beloved, thinking
no evil, “naked and not ashamed.”
Ὁ We adopt the older view of Lowth (Prael. xxx., ¥X3i.)
and others, rather than that of Renan and Ewald, which
almost brings down a noble poem to the level of an
operatic ballet at a Parisian theatre. Theodore of Mop-
suestia (J. c.) had, at least, placed it on a level with
the Symposium of Plato. The theory of Michaelis (Not.
in Lowth, xxxi.) that it represents a young husband
and his favourite bride hindered, by harem jealousies
or regulations, from free intercourse with each other,
seems to us preferable, and connects itself with the
identification of the Shulamite with Abishag, already
noticed,
SOLOMON
therefore becoming, under a higher inspiration, half-
consciously it may be to. itself, but, if not, then
unconsciously for others, the parable of the soul’s
affections.¢ Then comes in the Book of Proverbs,
the stage of practical, prudential thought, searching
into the recesses of man’s heart, seeing duty in
little things as well as great, resting all duty on
the fear of God, gathering from the wide lessons of
a king’s experience, lessons which mankind could
ill afford to lose.4 The poet has become the philo-
sopher, the mystic has passed into the moralist.
But the man passed through both stages without
being permanently the better for either. They were
to him but phases of his life which he had known
and exhausted (Eccl. i., ii.). And therefore there
came, as in the Confessions of the Preacher, the
great retribution, The “sense that wore with
time” avenged “ the crime of sense.” There fell on
him, as on other crowned yoluptuaries,® the weari-
ness which sees written on all things, Vanity of
Vanities. Slowly only could he recover from that
“vexation of spirit,” and the recovery was incom-
plete. It was not as the strong burst of penitence
that brought to his father David the assurance of
forgiveness. He could not rise to the height from
which he had fallen, or restore the freshness of his
first love. The weary soul could only lay again,
with slow and painful relapses, the foundations of
a true morality [comp. ECCLESIASTES }.
(14.) Here our survey must end. We may not
enter into the things within the veil, or answer
either way, the doubting question, Is there any
hope? Others have not shrunk from debating that
question, deciding, according to their formulae, that
he did or did not fulfil the conditions of salvation
so as to satisfy them, were they to be placed upon
the judgment-seat. It would not be profitable to
give references to the patristic and other writers
who have dealt with this subject, They have been
elaborately collected by Calmet (Dictionn. s. v.
Salomon, Nowvell. dissert. De la salut du Sal.).
It is noticeable and characteristic that Chrysostom
and the theologians of the Greek Church are, for
the most part, favourable, Augustine and those of
the Latin, for the most part, adverse to his chances
of salvation.£
VII. Legends.—(1.) The impression made by
Solomon on the minds of later generations, is shown
in its best form by the Wesire to claim the sanction of
hisname for even the noblest thoughts of other writers.
Possibly in ECCLESIASTES, certainly in the Book
of Wisdom, we have instances of this, free from the
vicious element of an apocryphal literature. Before
SOLOMON 1353
long, however, it took other forms. Round the
facts of the history, as a nucleus, there gathers a
whole world of fantastic fables, Jewish, Christian,
Mahometan, refractions, coloured and distorted, ac-
cording to the media through which they pass, of a
colossal form. Even in the Targum of Ecclesiastes
we find strange stories of his character. He and
the Rabbis of the Sanhedrim sat and drank wine
together in Jabne. His paradise was filled with
costly trees which the evil spirits brought him from
India. The casuistry of the Rabbis rested on his
dicta. Ashmedai, the king of the demons, deprived
him of his magic ring, and he wandered through the
cities of Israel, weeping and saying, I, the preacher,
was king over Israel in Jerusalem (Ginsburg, Kohe-
leth, App. i. H.; Koran, Sur. 38). He lett behind
him spells and charms to cure diseases and cast out
evil spirits; and for centuries, incantations bearing
his name were the special boast of all the “vagabond
Jew exorcists” who swarmed in the cities of the
empire (Jos. Ant. viii. 2,§5; Just. Mart. Respons.
ad Orthod. 55; Origen, Comm. in Matt. xxvi. 3).
His wisdom enabled him to interpret the speech of
beasts and birds, a gift shared afterwards, it was
said, by his descendant Hillel (Ewald, iii. 407 ;
Koran, Sur. 37). He knew the secret virtues of
gems and herbs® (Fabricius, Codex Pseudep. V. T.
1042). He was the inventor of Syriac and Ara-
bian alphabets (Ibid. 1014).
(2.) Arabic imagination took a yet wilder flight.
After a long struggle with the rebellious Afreets
and Jinns, Solomon conquered them and cast them
into the sea (Lane, Arabian Nights, i. p. 36).
The remote pre-Adamite past was peopled with a
succession of forty Solomons, ruling over different
races, each with a shield and sword that gave them
sovereisnty over the Jinns. To Solomon himself
belonged the magic ring which revealed to him the
past, the present, and the future. Because he
stayed his march at the hour of prayer instead of
riding on with his horsemen God gave him the
winds as a chariot, and the birds flew over him,
making a perpetual canopy. The demons in their
spite wrote books of magic in his name, but he,
being ware of it, seized them and placed them
under his throne, where they remained till his
death, and then the demons again got hold of them
and scattered them abroad (D’Herbelot, 8. v. “ So-
liman ben Daoud ;” Koran, Sur. 21). The visit of
the Queen of Sheba furnished some three or four
romances. The Koran (Sur. 27) narrates her visit,
her wonder, her conversion to the Islam, which
Solomon professed. She appears under three dif-
e «The final cause of Canticles,’ it has been well
said, “was that it might be a field in which mysticism
could disport itself’? (Bishop Jebb, Correspond. with
Knoz, i. 305). The traces of the “great mystery ” which
thus connects divine and human love, are indeed to be
found everywhere, in the Targums of Rabbis, in the
writings of Fathers, Schoolmen, Puritans, in the poems
of Mystics like Novalis, Jeladeddin Rumi, Saadi (comp.
Tholuck, Morgenland. Mystik, pp. 55, 227). It appears
in its highest form in the Vita Nuova of Dante, purified
by Christian feeling from the sensuous element which
jn Eastern writers too readily mingles with it. Of all
strange assertions, that of Renan, that mysticism of this
kind is foreign to the Shemitic character, is perhaps about
the strangest (Cant. des Cant. p. 119).
ἃ Both in Ecclesiastes (ii. 3-12) and yet more in Pro-
verbs (i. 11-17, vii. 6-23) we may find traces of experiences
gained in other ways. The graphic picture of the life of
the robbers and the prostitutes of an Eastern city could
hardly have been drawn but by one who, like Haroun
Alrashid and other Oriental kings, at times laid aside
the trappings of royalty, and plunged into the other
extreme of social life, that so he might gain the excite-
ment of a fresh sensation.
e “ A taste for pleasure is extinguished in the King’s
heart (Louis XLV.). Age and devotion have taught him
to make serious reflections on the vanity of everything he
was formerly fond of’ (Mme. de Maintenon’s Letters, 206).
f How deeply this question entered into the hearts of
Mediaeval thinkers, and in what way the noblest of them
all decided it, we read in the Divina Commedia—
“ La quinta luce ch’é tra noi piu bella
Spira di tal amor, che tutto il mondo
Laggit ne gola di saper novella.”
Paradiso, x. 109.
The “spira di tal amor” refers, of course, to the Song of
Solomon.
gz The name of a well-known plant, Solomon’s seal
(Convallaria Majalis), perpetuates the old belief.
1354 SOLOMON
ferent names, Nicaule (Calmet, Dict. s. v.), Balkis
(D’Herbelot, s. v.), Makeda (Pineda, v. 14). The
Avabs claim her as belonging to Yemen, the Ethi-
opians as coming from Meroe. In each form of the
story a sou is born to her, which calls Solomon its
father, in the Arab version Meilekh, in the Ethiopian
David after his grandfather, the ancestor of a long
line of Ethiopian kings (Ludolf, Hist. Aethiop. ii. 3,
4,5). Twelve thousand Hebrews accompanied her
on her return home, and from them were descended
the Jews of Ethiopia, and the great Prester John
(Presbyter Joannes) of mediaeval travellers (D’Her-
belot, /. c.; Pineda, ἰ. c.; Corylus, Diss. de regina
Austr. in Menthen’s Thesaurus, i.). She brought
to Solomon the self-same gifts which the Magi
afterwards brought to Christ. [Macr.] One at
least of the hard questions with which she came
was rescued from oblivion, Fair boys and sturdy
girls were dressed up by her exactly alike so that
no eye could distinguish them. The king placed
water before them and bade them wash, and then
when the boys scrubbed their faces and the girls
stroked them softly, he made out which were which
(Glycas, Annal. in Fabricius, /.c.). Versions of these
and other legends are to be found also in Weil, Bibl.
Legends, p. 171; Fiirst, Perlenschniire, ο. 36.
(3.) The fame of Solomon spread northward and
eastward to Persia. At Shiraz they showed the
Meder-Suleiman, or tomb of Bath-sheba, said that
Persepolis had been built by the Jinns at his com-
mand, and pointed to the Takht-i-Suleiman (Solo-
mon’s throne) in proof. Through their spells too
he made his wonderful journey, breakfasting at Per-
sepolis, dining at Baal-bec, supping at Jerusalem
(Chardin, iii. 135, 143; Ouseley, ii. 41, 437).
Persian literature, while it had no single life of
David, boasted of countless histories of Solomon,
one, the Suleiman-Nameh, in eiyhty books, ascribed
to the poet Firdousi (D’Heibelot, /. c.; Chardin, iii.
198). In popular belief he was confounded with
the great Persian hero, Djemschid (Ouseley, ii. 64).
(4.) As might be expected, the legends appeared
in their coarsest and basest form in Europe, losing
all their poetry, the mere appendages of the most
detestable of Apocrypha, Books of Magic, a Hygro-
manteia, a Contradictio Salomonis (whatever that
may be) condemned by Gelasius, Incantationes,
Clavicula, and the like.” One pseudonymous work
has a somewhat higher character, the Psalterium
Salomonis, altogether without merit, a mere cento
from the Psalms of David, but not otherwise
offensive (Fabricius, i. 9173; Tregelles, Zntrod. to
N. 7. p. 154), and therefore attached sometimes,
as in the great Alexandrian Codex, to the sacred
volume. One strange story meets us from the om-
nivorous Note-book of Bede. Solomon did repent,
and in his contrition he offered himself to the San-
hedrim, doing penance, and they scourged him five
times ἘΠ rods, and then he travelled in sackcloth
through the cities of Israel, saying as he went
Give alms to Solomon (Bede, de Salom. ap. Pineda).
VUI. New Testament.—We pass from this wild
h ‘lwo of these strange eons nave been pepridted in
Jacsimile by Scheible (Kloster, v.). The Clavicula Salo-
monis Necromantica consists of incantations made up of
Hebrew words ; and the mightiest spell of the enchanter
is the Sigillum Salomonis, engraved with Hebrew cha-
racters, such as might have been handed down through
a long succession of Jewish exorcists. It is singular
(unless this too was part of the imposture) that both the
books profess to be published with the special lcence of
Popes Julius If and Alexander VI. Was this the form
SOLOMON’S SERVANTS
farrago of Jewish and other fables, to that which
presents the most entire contrast to them. The
teaching of the N. T. adds nothing to the materials
for a life of Solomon. It enables us to take the
truest measure of it. The teaching of the Son of
Man passes sentence on all that kingly pomp. [1
declares that in the humblest work of God, in the
lilies of the field, there is a grace and beauty inex-
haustible, so that even ‘Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these” (Matt. vi. 29).!
It presents to us the perfect pattern of a growth in
wisdom, like, and yet unlike his, taking, in the eyes
of men, a less varied range; but deeper, truer,
purer, because united with purity, victory over
temptation, self-sacrifice, the true large-heartedness
of sympathy with all men. On the lowest view
which serious thinkers have ever taken of the life
otf Jesus of Nazareth, they have owned that there
was in Him one ‘‘ greater than Solomon” (Matt.
xii. 42). The historical Son of David, ideally a
type of the Christ that was to come, was in his
actual lite, the most strangely contrasted. It was
reserved for the true, the later Son of David, to
fulfil the prophetic yearnings which had gathered
round the birth of the earlier. He was the true
Shélémo6h, the prince of peace, the true Jedid-jah,
the well-beloved of the Father. [E. H. P.]
SOLOMON’S PORCH. [Patace.]
SOLOMON’S SERVANTS (CHILDREN OF).
cnisby? JAY 23 : υἱοὶ ᾿Αβδησελμά, Ezr. ii. 58 ;
viol δούλων Σαλωμών, Ezy. ii. 55; Neh. vii. 57,
60: filit servorum Salomonis). The persons thus
named appear in the lists of the exiles who returned
from the Captivity. They occupy all but the lowest
places in those lists, and. their position indicates
some connexion with the services of the Temple.
First come the priests, then Levites, then Nethinim,
then ‘the children of Solomon’s servants.’ In
the Greek of 1 Esdr. v. 33, 55, the order is the
same, but instead of Nesisic te we meet with
ἱερυδουλοι, “servants” or “ministers,” of the
Temple. In the absence of any definite state-
ment as to their office we are left to conjecture and
inference. (1.) The name, as well as the order,
implies inferiority even to the Nethinim. They
are the descendants of the s/aves of Solomon. The
servitude of the Nethinim, ‘‘given to the Lord,” was
softened by the idea of dedication. [NrTHINIM. |
(2.) The starting point of their history is to be
found probably in 1 K. v. 13, 14, ix. 20, 21
2 Chr. viii. 7, 8. Canaanites, who had been living
till then with a certain measure of freedom, were
reduced by Solomon to the helot state, and com-
pelled to labour in the king’s stone-quarries, and
in building his palaces and cities, To some extent,
indeed, the change had been effected under David,
but it appears to have been then connected
specially with the Temple, and the servitude under
his successor was at once harder and more extended
(1 Chr. xxii. 2). (9.) The last passage throws
of Hebrew literature which they were willing to en-
courage ?
i A pleasant Persian apologne teaching a like lesson
deserves to be rescued from the mass of fables. The king
of Israel met one day the king of the ants, took the insect
on his hand, and held converse with it, asking, Croesus-
like, ‘Am not I the mightiest and most glorious of men ?”
“ Not so,” replied the ant-king, “ Thou sittest on a throne
of gold, but [make thy hand my throne, and thus am
greater than thou” (Chardin, iii. p. 198).
SOLOMON’S SONG
SON OF GOD 1355
some light on their special office. The Nethinim, therefore the children of Israel, the favoured people
as in the case of the Gibeonites, were appointed | of God, are specially called collectively, by God,
to be hewers of wood (Josh. ix. 23), and this | His Son (Ex. iv. 22, 23; Hos. xi. 1).
was enough for the services of the Tabernacle.
For the construction and repairs of the Temple
another kind of labour was required, and the new
slaves were set to the work of hewing and squar-
ing stones (1 K. ν. 17, 18). Their descendants
appear to have formed a distinct order, inheriting
probably the same functions and the same skill.
‘The prominence which the erection of a new Temple
on their return from Babylon would give to their
work, accounts for the special mention of them in
the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah. Like the Ne-
thinim, they were in the position of proselytes,
outwardly conforming to the Jewish ritual, though
belonging to the hated race, and, even in their
names, bearing traces of their origin (Ezr. ii. 55-58).
Like them, too, the great mass must either have
perished, or given up their position, or remained
at Babylon. The 592 of Ezr, ii. 55 (Nethinim in-
cluded) must have been but a small fragment of the
descendants of the 150,000 employed by Solomon
(1 K. v. 15). [E. H. P.]
SOLOMON’S SONG. [CANTICLEs. ]
SOLOMON, WISDOM OF. [Wispom,
Book oF. ]
SON.* The term “son” is used in Scripture
Janguage to imply almost any kind of descent or
succession, as ben shandh, “son of a year,” ἢ. 6. ἃ
year old, ben hesheth, “ son of a bow,” @. 6. an arrow.
The word bar is often found in N. T. in composi-
tion, as Bar-timaeus. [CHILDREN.] [H. W. P.]
SON OF GOD (vids θεοῦν." the Second Person
of the Ever-blessed Trinity, who is coequal, co-
eternal, and consubstantial with the Father; and
who took the nature of man in the womb of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, and as Man bears the name
of JESUS, or Saviour, and who proved Himself to
be the MEssiAH or CHRIST, the Prophet, Priest,
and King of all true Israelites, the seed of faithful
Abraham, the universal Church of God.
The title Son OF GOD was gradually revealed to
the world in this its full and highest significance.
In the Book of Genesis the term occurs in the
plural number, “Sons of God,” Doxa
(Gen. vi. 2, 4), and there the appellation is ap-
plied to the potentates of the earth, and to those
who were set in authority over others (according
to the exposition in Cyril Alex. Adv. Julian. p.
296, and Adv. Anthropomorph. ο. 17), or (as some
have held) the sons of the family of Seth—those
who had been most distinguished by piety and
virtue. In Jobi. 6, and ii. 1, this title, “Sons of
God,” is used as a designation of the Angels. In
Psalm lIxxxii. 6, “I have said, ye are gods; and
ye are all sons of the Highest” (ον 432), the
title is explained by Theodoret and others to signify
those persons whom God invests with a portion of
His own dignity and authority as rulers of His
people, and who have clearer revelations of His
will, as our Lord intimates (John x, 35); and
But, ina still higher sense, that title is applied
by God to His only Son, begotten by eternal gene-
ration (see Ps, ii. 7), as interpreted in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (i, 5, v. 5); the word Dyn,
“to-day,” in that passage, being expressive of the
act of God, with whom is no yesterday, nor to-
morrow. ‘‘ In aeterno nec praeteritum est, nec
futurum, sed perpetuum hodie” (Luther). That
text evidently refers to the Messiah, who is crowned
and anointed as King by God (Ps. ii. 2, 6), although
resisted by men, Ps. ii, 21, 23, compared with
Acts iv. 25-27, where that text is applied by St.
Peter to the crucifixion of Christ and His subse-
quent exaltation; and the same Psalm is also re-
ferred to Christ by St. Paul, when preaching in
the Jewish synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts
xiii. 33); whence it may be inferred that the Jews
might have learnt from their own Scriptures that
the Messiah is in a special sense the Son of God;
and this is allowed by Maimonides in Porta Mosis,
ed. Pococke, p. 160,239. This truth might have
been deduced by logical inference from the Old Testa-
ment, but in no passage of the Hebrew Scriptures
is the Messiah clearly and explicitly designated by
the title “Son of God.” ‘The words, “ The form
of the fourth is like the Son of God,” are in the
Chaldee portion of the Book of Daniel (Dan. iii. 25),
and were uttered by a heathen and idolatrous king,
Nebuchadnezzar, and cannot therefore be understood
as expressing a clear appreciation, on the part of
the speaker, of the divinity of the Messiah, although
we may readily agree that, like Caiaphas and Pilate,
the king of Babylon, especially as he was perhaps
in habits of intercourse with Daniel, may have de-
livered a true prophecy concerning Christ.
We are now brought to the question, whether the
Jews, in our Lord’s age, generally believed that the
Messiah, or Christ, was also the Son of God in the
highest sense of the term, viz. as a Divine Person,
coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the
Father ?
That the Jews entertained the opinion that the
Messiah would be the Son of God, in the swbordi-
nate senses of the term already specified (viz. as a
holy person, and as invested with great power by
God), cannot be doubted; but the point at issue
is, whether they supposed that the Messiah would
be what the Universal Church believes Jesus Christ
to be? Did they believe (as some learned persons
suppose they did) that the terms Messiah and Son ,
of God are ““ equivalent and inseparable ” ?
It cannot be denied that the Jews ought to have
deduced the doctrine of the Messiah’s divinity from
their own Scriptures, especially from such texts as
Psalm xlv. 6, 7, ‘Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever
and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right
sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest
wickedness ; therefore God, Thy God, anointed Thee
with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows ;” a text
to which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
5.1. ]2: vids; jilius; from na, “‘ build” (see Jer.
xxxiii. 7).
2. V3, from v3, “ pure;” τέκνον ; dilectus (Prov.
xxxi. 2).
3. aby, παιδίον ; puer.
genus.
4. τ; γέννημα ; stirps ;
5. 1)2; σπέρμα ; posteri.
θ. p37, like a son, ἵ. 6. a Successor,
Ἕ .
b The present article, in conjunction with that of
Saviour, forms the supplement to the life of our Lord.
| [See Jesus Curtsr, vol. I. p. 1039.]
1356 SON OF GOD
appeals (Heb. i. 8); and the doctrine of the Mes-
siah’s Godhead might also have been inferred from
sueh texts as Isaiah ix. 6, “ Unto us a Child is
born, unto us a Son is given. . . . and His name
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty
God;” and vii. 14, ‘ Behold a Virgin shall con-
ceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name
Immanuel” (with us, God); and from Jer. xxiii. 5,
“ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
yaise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King
shall reign and prosper... 3 and this is the name
whereby He shall be called, the Lorp ‘(Jehoyah)
our Righteousness ;” and from Micah y. 2, ‘ Out
of thee (Bethlehem Ephratah) shall He come forth
unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings
forth have been from of old, from everlasting ;”’
and from Zech. xi. 13, “ And the Lord said unto
me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I
was prised at of them.”
But the question is not, whether the Jews might
not and ought not to have inferred the Divine Son-
ship of the Messiah from their own Scriptures, but
whether, for the most part, they really did deduce
that doctrine from those Scriptures? They ought
doubtless to have been prepared by those Scriptures
tor a suffering Messiah; but this we know was not
the case, and the Cross of Christ was to them a
stumbling-block (1 Cor. i. 23); and one of the
strongest objections which they raised against the
Christians was that they worshipped a man who
died a death which is declared to be an accursed
one in the Law of Moses, which was delivered by
God Himself (Deut. xxi. 23).
May it not also be true, that the Jews of our
Lord’s age failed likewise of attaining to the true
sense of their own Scriptures, in the opposite direc-
tion? May it not also be true, that they did not
acknowledge the Divine Sonship of the Messiah, and
that they were not prepared to admit the claims of
one who asserted Himself to be the Christ, and also
affirmed Himself to be the Son of God, coequal with
the Father ?
In looking at this question ἃ prior7, it must be
remembered that the Hebrew Scriptures declare in
the strongest and most explicit terms the Divine
Unity. ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is
one Lord” (Deut. vi. 4), this is the solemn decla-
ration which the Jews recite daily, morning and
evening (see Mishnah, Barachoth, chap. i.). They
regarded themselves as set apart from all the
nations of earth to be a witness of God’s unity,
and to protest against the polytheism of the rest
of mankind. And having suffered severe chastise-
ments in the Babylonish Captivity for their own
idolatries, they shrunk—and still shrink—with fear
and abhorrence from everything that might seem
in any degree to trench upon the doctrine of the
unity of the Godhead.
To this consideration we must add, ἃ posteriori,
the external evidence derived from the testimony of
ancient writers who lived near to our Lord’s age.
Trypho, the learned Jew, who debated with
Justin Martyr at Ephesus about A.D. 150, on the
points of controversy between the Jews and Chris-
tians expressly states, *‘that it seems to him not
only paradoxical but silly (μωρόν), to say that the
Messiah, or Christ, pre-existed from eternity‘as God,
and that He condescended to be born as man, and”
—Trypho explodes the notion—that Christ is ‘ not
man begotten of man” (Justin M. Dialog. a. Try-
phon. §48, vol. ii. p. 154, ed. Otto, Jen. 1842).
Here is a distinct assertion on the part of the Jew
SON OF GOD
that the Messiah is merely man ;. and here also
is a denial of the Christian doctrine, that He is
God, pre-existing from eternity, and took the nature
of man. In the same Dialegue the Jewish inter-
locutor, Trypho, approves the tenets of the Ebionite
heretics, who asserted that the Christ was a mere
man (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), and adds this remarkable
declaration; ‘all we (Jews) expect that the Messiah
will come as a man from man (i. e. from human
parents), and that Elias will anoint Him when He
iscome” (rdyrTes ἡμεῖς τὸν χριστὸν ἄν-
θρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων προσδοκῶμεν γενή-
σεσθαι, καὶ τὸν λίαν χρίσαι αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα,
Trypho Judaeus ap. Justin M. Dialog. 849, p.
156). And in §54, St. Justin Martyr, speaking in
the name of the Christian believers, combats that
assertion, and ‘affirms that the Hebrew prophecies
themselves, to which he appeals, testify that the
Messiah is not a man born of man, according to the
ordinary manner of human generation, ἄνθρωπος
ἐξ ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γεν-
νηθείς. And there is a remarkable passage in a sub-
sequent portion of the same dialogue, where Justin
says, ““ [f, O Trypho, ye understood who He is that
is sometimes called the Messenger of mighty counsel,
and a Man by Ezekiel, and designated as the Son of
Man by Daniel, and as a Child by Isaiah, and the
Messiah and God by Daniel, and a Stone by many,
and Wisdom by Solomon, and a Star by Moses, and
the Day-spring by Zechariah, and who is repre-
sented as suffering, by Isaiah, and is called by him
a Rod, and a Flower and Corner Stone, and the Son
of God, you would not have spoken blasphemy
against Him, who is already come, and who has
been born, and has suffered, and has ascended into
heaven and will come again” (Justin M. a. Try-
phon. §126, p. 409), and Justin affirms that he
has proved, against the Jews, that “Christ, who is
the Lord and God, and Son of God,’ appeared to
their Fathers, the Patriarchs, in various forms,
under the old dispensation (§128, p. 425). Com-
pare the authorities in Dorner, On the Person of
Christ, i. pp. 265-271, Engl. transl.
In the middle of the third century, Origen wrote
his apologetic work in defence of Christianity against
Celsus, the Epicurean, and in various places of that
treatise he recites the allegations of the Jews against
the Gospel. In one passage, when Celsus, speaking
in the person of a Jew, had said that one of the
Hebrew prophets had predicted that the Son of God
would come to judge the righteous and to. punish
the wicked, Origen rejoins, that such a notion is
most improperly ascribed to a Jew; inasmuch as the
Jews did indeed look for a Messiah, but not as the Son
of God. ‘No Jew,’’ he says, ‘‘ would allow that
any prophet ever said that a Son of God would
come; but what the Jews do say, is, that the
Christ of God will come; and they often dispute
with us Christians, as to this very question for
instance, concerning the Son of God, on the plea that
no such Person exists or was ever foretold” (Origen,
Adv. Cels. i. §49, vol. i. p. 365, B., see p. 38
and p. 79; ed. Spencer and other places, 6, 4. pp-
22, 30, 51, 62, 71, 82, 110, 136).
In the 4th century Eusebius testified that the
Jews of that age would not accept the title Son of
God as applicable to the Messiah (Euseb. Dem.
Evang. iv. 1), and in later days they charge Chris-
tians with impiety and blasphemy for designating
Christ by that title (Leontius, Conc. Nicen. ii.
Act. iv.).
Lastly, a learned Jew, Orobio, in the 17th
SON OF GOD
century, in his conference with Limborch, affirms
that if a prophet, or even, if it were possible, the
Messiah Himself, were to work miracles, and yet lay
claim to divinity, he ought to be put to death by
stoning, as one guilty of blasphemy (Orobio ap.
Limborch, Amica Collatio, p. 295, ed. Goud, 1688).
Hence, therefore, on the whole, there seems to
be sufficient reason for concluding (with Basnage,
Histoire des Juifs, iv. c. 24), that although the
Jews of our Lord’s age might have inferred, and
ought to have inferred, from their own Scriptures,
that the Messiah, or Christ, would be a Divine
Person, and the Son of God in the highest sense of
the term; and although some among them, who
were more enlightened than the rest, entertained
that opinion; yet it was not the popular and ge-
neraily received doctrine among the Jews that the
Messiah would be other than a man, born of human
parents, and not a divine being, and Son of God.
This conclusion reflects much light upon certain
important questions of the Gospel History, and
clears up several difficulties with regard to the evi-
dences of Christianity.
1. It supplies an answer to the question, “« Why
was Jesus Christ put to death?” He was accused
by the Jews before Pilate as guilty of sedition and
rebellion against the power of Rome (Luke xxiii.
1-5; cf. John xix. 12); but it is hardly necessary
to observe that this was a mere pretext, to which
the Jews resorted for the sake of exasperating the
Roman governor against Him, and even of com-
pelling Pilate, against his will, to condemn Him, in
order that he might not lay himself open to the
charge of “not being Caesar’s friend” (John xix.
12); whereas, if our Lord had really announced an
intention of emancipating the Jews from the Roman
yoke, He would have procured for Himself the fa-
vour and support of the Jewish rulers and people.
Nor does it appear that Jesus Christ was put to
death because He claimed to be the Christ. The
Jews were at that time anxiously looking for the
Messiah ; the Pharisees asked the Baptist whether
he was the Christ (John i. 20-25); ‘and all men
mused in their hearts of John whether he were the
Christ, or not” (Luke iii. 15).
On this it may be observed, in passing, that the
people well knew that John the Baptist was the
son of Zacharias and Elizabeth ; they knew him to
be a mere man, born after the ordinary manner of
human generation ; and yet they all thought it pro-
bable that he might be the Christ.
This circumstance proves, that, according to their
notions, the Christ was not to be a divine person ;
certainly not the Son of God, in the Christian sense
of the term. The same conclusion may be deduced
from the circumstance that the Jews of that age
eagerly welcomed the appearance of those false
Christs (Matt. xxiv. 24), who promised to deliver
them from the Roman yoke, and whom they knew
to be mere men, and who did not claim divine
origin, which they certainly would have done, if the
Christ was generally expected to be the Son of God.
We see also that atter the miraculous feeding,
the people were desirous of ** making Jesus a King”
(John vi. 15); and after the raising of Lazarus at
Bethany they met Him with enthusiastic accla-
mations, “‘ Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed
is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt.
xxi. 9; Mark xi. 9; John xii. 13). And the eager
and restless facility with which the Jews admitted
the pretensions of almost every fanatical adven-
SON OF GOD 1357
turer who professed to be the Messiah at that
period, seems to show that they would have
willingly allowed the claims of one who “ wrought
many miracles,” as, even by the confession of the
chief priests and Pharisees, Jesus of Nazareth did
(John xi. 47), if He had been content with such
a title as the Jews assigned to their expected
Messiah, namely that of a great Prophet, distin-
guished by mighty works.
We tind that when our Lord put to the Phari-
sees this question, ‘‘ What think ye of Christ,
whose Son is He?” their answer was not, ‘ He is
the Son of God,” but “ He is the Son of David;”
and they could not answer the second question
which He next propounded to them, ‘‘ How then
doth David, speaking in the Spirit, call Him Lord?”
The reason was, because the Pharisees did not ex-
pect the Messiah to be the Son of God; and when
He, who is the Messiah, claimed to be God, they
rejected His claim to be the Christ.
The reason, therefore, of His condemnation by
the Jewish Sanhedrim, and of His delivery to Pilate
for crucifixion, was not that He claimed to be the
Messiah or Christ, but because He asserted Himself
to be much more than that: in a word, because He
claimed to be the Son of God, and to be God.
This is further evident from the words of the
Jews to Pilate, ‘“‘ We have a law, and by our law
he ought to die, because he made himself the Son
of God” (John xix. 7); and from the previous re-
solution of the Jewish Sanhedrim, ‘* Then said they
all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said
unto them, Ye say that Iam. And they said, What
need we any further witness? for we ourselves
have heard of his own mouth. And the whole mul-
titude of them arose and led him unto Pilate”
(Luke xxii. 70, 71, xxiii. 1).
In St. Matthew’s Gospel the question of the High
Priest is as follows:—‘ I adjure thee by the living
God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ,
the Son of God” (Matt. xxvi. 63). This question
does not intimate that in the opinion of the High
Priest the Christ was the Son of God, but it shows
that Jesus claimed both titles, and in claiming
them for Himself asserted that the Christ was the
Son of God; but that this was not the popular
opinion, is evident from the considerations above
stated, and aiso from His words to St. Peter when
the Apostle confessed Him to be the “ Christ, the
Son of the living God” (Matt. xvi. 16); He de-
clared that Peter had received this truth, not from
human testimony, but by extraordinary revelation :
‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father
which is in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 17).
It was the claim which He put forth to be the
Christ and Son of God, that led to our Lord’s
condemnation by the unanimous verdict of the
Sanhedrim: ‘They all condemned Him to be
guilty of death” (Mark xiv. 64; Matt. xxvi.
63-66); and the sense in which He claimed to be
Son of God is clear from the narrative of John y. 15.
The Jews sought the more to kill Him because He
not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that
God was His own Father (πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν
θεὸν), making Himself “ equal unto God;” and
when He claimed Divine pre-existence, saying,
“ Before Abraham was (ἐγένετο), I am, then
took they up stones to cast at him” (John viii.
58, 59); and when He asserted His own unity
with God, “1 and the Father are one”’—one sub-
stance (ἕν), not one person (eis)—* then the Jews
1358 SON OF GOD
took up stones again to stone him” (John x.
30, 31); and this is evident again from their own
words, “ For a good work we stone thee not, but
for blasphemy ; and because that thou, being a man,
makest thyself God” (John x. 33).
Accordingly we find that, after the Ascension,
the Apostles laboured to bring the Jews to acknow-
ledge that Jesus was not only the Christ, but was |
also a Divine Person, even the Lord Jehovah.
Thus, for example, St. Peter, after the outpouring |
of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost by
Christ, says, “" Therefore let all the house of Israel |
know assuredly, that God hath made that same
Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lorp (Kupuoy, |
‘ JEHOVAH) and Christ” (Acts ii. 36).
2. This conclusion supplies a convincing proof |
of Christ’s Godhead.
equal with God, then there is no other alternative
but that He was guilty of blasphemy; for He
claimed ‘‘ God as His own Father, making Himself
equal with God,” and by doing so He proposed |
Himself as an object of divine worship. And in |
that case He would have rightly been put to |
death; and the Jews in rejecting and killing Him |
would have been acting in obedience to the Law
oi God which commanded them to put to death
any prophet, however distinguished he might be
by the working of miracles, if he were guilty of js yemarkable.
blasphemy (Deut. xiii. 1-11); and the crucifixion
of Jesus would have been an act of pious zeal on
their part for the honour of God, and would have
commended them to His fayour and protection,
whereas we know that it was that act which filled
the cup of their national guilt and has made them |
outcasts from God to this day (Matt. xxiii. 32-38 ; |
Luke xiii. 33-35; 1 Thess. ii. 15,16; James v. 6). |
When they repent of this sin, and say, “ Blessed |
(εὐλογημένος) is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord,” and acknowledge Jesus to be Christ
SON OF GOD
thy brother, the son of thy mother, entice thee
secretly ” (Deut. xiii. 6), there was a prophetic
reference to the case of Jesus, who ‘‘ said that he
had a human mother, but not a human father,
but was the Son of God and was God” (see
Fagius, /. c.).
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah ; but, according
to the popular view and preconceived notions of
‘the Jews, the Messiah was to be merely a human
personage, and would not claim to be God and to
be entitled to divine power. Therefore, though
they admitted his miracles to be really wrought,
yet they did not acknowledge the claim grounded
on those miracles to be true, but rather regarded
those miracles as trials of their loyalty to the
One True God, whose prerogatives, they thought,
If He is not the Son of God, | Were infringed and invaded by Him who wrought
those miracles; and they even ascribed those mira-
cles to the agency of the Prince of the Devils
| (Matt. xii. 24,27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15), and
said that He, who wrought those miracles, had a
devil (John vii. 20, viii. 48), and they called Him
Beelzebub (Matt. x. 25), because they thought that
he was setting Himself in opposition to God.
4, “They all condemned Him to be guilty of
death’? (Mark xiv. 64). The Sanhedrim was
| unanimous in the sentence of condemnation. This
We cannot suppose that there
were not some conscientious persons in so nu-
merous a body. Indeed, it may readily be allowed
that many of the members of the Sanhedrim were
actuated by an earnest zeal for the honour of God
when they condemned Jesus to death, and that
they did what they did with a view to God’s
| glory, which they supposed to be disparaged by our
Lord’s pretensions ; and that they were guided by
a desire to comply with God’s law, which required
them to put to death every one who was guilty of
blasphemy in arrogating to himself the power
and the Son of God, coequal with God, then Israel | which belonged to God.
shall be saved (Rom. xi. 26).
3. This conclusion also explains the fact—which
might otherwise have perplexed and staggered us
—that the miracles which Jesus wrought, and
which the Jews and their rulers acknowledged to
have been wrought by Him, did not have their
due influence upon them; those mighty and mer-
ciful works did not produce the effect upon them |
which they ought to have produced, and which those |
works wouid have produced, if the Jews and their
rulers had been prepared, as they ought to have
been, by an intelligent study of their own Scrip-
tures, to regard their expected Messiah as the Son
of God, coequal with God.
Not being so prepared, they applied to those
miracles the test supplied by their own law, which |
enjoined that, if a prophet arose among them, and |
worked miracles, and endeavoured to draw them
away from the worship of the true God, those |
miracles were to be regarded as trials of their own |
stedfastness, and were not to be accepted as proofs
of adivine mission, “ but the prophet himself was
to be put to death” (Deut. xiii. 1-11). The Jews
tried our Lord and His miracles by this law. Some
of the Jews ventured to say that “ Jesus of Naza-
reth was specially in the mind of the Divine |
Lawgiver when He framed that law ” (see Fagius |
on the Chaldee Paraphrase of Deut. xiii., and his
note on Deut. xviii. 15), and that it was provided
expressly to meet His case. Indeed they do not
hesitate to say that, in the words of the law, “if
Hence we may explain our Lord’s words on the
cross, “ Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do” (Luke xxiii. 34), Father, they are
not aware that He whom they are crucifying is
Thy Son:” and St. Peter said at Jerusalem to the
Jews after the crucifixion, “ Now, brethren, I wot
that through ignorance ye did it (7. 6. rejected and
crucified Christ),'as did also your rulers” (Acts iii.
17) ; and St. Paul declared in the Jewish synagogue
at Antioch in Pisidia, ‘they that dwell at Jeru-
salem, and their rulers, because they knew Him
not, nor yet the voices of the prophets, which are
read every Sabbath-day, have fulfilled them in con-
demning Him” (Acts xiii. 27).
Hence it is evident that the predictions of Holy
Scripture may be accomplished betore the eyes of
men, while they are unconscious of that fulfilment ;
and that the prophecies may be even accomplished
by persons who have the prophecies in their hands,
and do not know that they are fulfilling them.
Hence also it is clear that men may be guilty of
enormous sins when they are acting according to
their consciences and with a view to God’s glory,
and while they hold the Bible in their hands and
hear its voice sounding in their ears (Acts xiii. 27) ;
and that it is theretore of unspeakable importance
not only to hear the words of the Scriptures, but
to mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, with
humility, docility, earnestness, and prayer, in order
to understand their true meaning.
Therefore the Christian student has great reason
ee
—s
SON OF GOD
to thank God that He has given in the New Testa-
ment a divinely-inspired interpretation of the Old
Testament, and also has sent the Holy Spirit to
teach the Apostles all things (John xiv. 26), to
abide for ever with His Church (John xiv. 16),
the body of Christ (Col. 1. 24), which He has
made to be the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim.
iii. 15), and on whose interpretations, embodied in
the creeds generally received among Christians, we
may safely rely, as declaring the true sense of the
Bible.
If the Jews and their rulers had not been swayed
by prejudice, but in a careful, candid, and humble
spirit had considered the evidence before them, they
would have known that their promised Messiah was
to be the Son of God, coequal with God, and that
He was revealed as such in their own Scriptures,
and thus His miracles would have had their due
effect upon their minds.
5. Those persons who now deny Christ to be the
Son of God, coequal and coeternal with the Father,
are followers of the Jews, who, on the plea of zeal
for the Divine Unity, rejected and crucified Jesus,
who claimed to be God. Accordingly we find that
the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Nazarenes, Photinians,
and others who denied Christ’s divinity, arose from
the ranks of Judaism (cf. Waterland, Works, v.
240, ed. Oxf, 1823: on these heresies the writer
of this article may perhaps be permitted to refer to
his Introduction to the First Epistle of St. John,
in his edition of the Greek Testament). It has been
well remarked by the late Professor Blunt that the
arguments by which the ancient Christian Apo-
logists, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and
others, confuted the Jews, afford the strongest
armour against the modern Socinians (see also the
remark of St. Athanasius, Orat. ii., adv. Arianos,
pp- 377-383, where he compares the Arians to the
Jews).
The Jews sinned against the comparatively dim
light of the Old Testament: they who have fallen
into their error reject the evidence of both Testa-
ments.
6. Lastly, the conclusion stated in this article
supplies a strong argument for the Divine origin and
truth of Christianity. The doctrine of Christ, the
Son of God as well as Son of Man, reaches from the
highest pole of Divine glory to the lowest pole of
human suffering. No human mind could ever have
devised such a scheme as that: and when it was
presented to the mind of the Jews, the favoured
people of God, they could not reach to either of
these two poles ; they could not mount to the height
of the Divine exaltation in Christ the Son of God,
nor descend to the depth of human suffering in
Christ the Son of Man. They invented the theory
of two Messiahs, in order to escape from the ima-
ginary contradiction between a suffering and tri-
umphant Christ; and they rejected the doctrine of
Christ’s Godhead in order to cling to a defective
and unscriptural Monotheism. They failed of grasp-
ing the true sense of their own Scriptures in both
respects. But in the Gospel, Jesus Christ, Son of
God and Son of Man, reaches from one pole to the
other, and filleth all in all (Eph. i. 23). The
Gospel of Christ ran counter to the Jewish zeal
for Monotheism, and incurred the charge of Poly-
theism, by preaching Christ the Son of God, coequal
with the Father; and also contravened and chal-
lenged all the complex and dominant systems of
Gentile Polytheism, by proclaiming the Divine
SON OF MAN 1359
Unity. It boldly confronted the World, and it has
conquered the World ; because “ the excellency of
the power of the Gospel is not of man, but of
God ”’ (2 Cor. iv. 7).
The Author of the above article may refer for
further confirmation of his statements, to an ex-
cellent work by the Rev. W. Wilson, B.D., and
Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, entitled
An Illustration of the Method of explaining the
New Testament by the early Opinions of Jews and
Christians concerning Christ, Cambridge, 1797 ;
and to Dr. J. A. Dorne:’s History of the Develop-
ment of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, of
which an English translation has been printed at
Edinburgh, 1861, 2 vols. ; and to Hagenbach, Dog-
men-Geschichte, 842, §65, §66, 4te Auflage,
Leipz. 1857. [C. W.]
SON OF MAN (DIN}3, and in Chaldee
WINN; ὃ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, or υἱὸς ἀνθρώ-
που), the name of the Second Person of the Ever-
blessed Trinity, the Eternal Word, the Everlasting
Son, becoming Incarnate, and so made the Son of
Man, the second Adam, the source of all grace to
all men, united in His mystical body, the Christian
Church.
1. In a general sense every descendant of Adam
bears the name “Son of Man” in Holy Scripture,
Ἀ5 10 9000 Χτν. σι es. (Cxlive ὦ, ΟΣΙ͂νΙ. 7 Se ly 12.
lvi. 9, But in a more restricted signification it is
applied by way of distinction to particular persons.
Thus the prophet Ezekiel is addressed by Almighty
God as Ben-Adam, or “ Son of Man,” about eighty
times in his prophecies. This title appears to be
assigned to Ezekiel as a memento trom God—
(μέμνησο ἄνθρωπος &y)—in order that the pro-
phet, who had been permitted to behold the glorious
manifestation of the Godhead, and to hold converse
with the Almighty, and to see visions of futurity,
should not be ‘ exalted above measure by the
abundance of his revelations,” but should remember
his own weakness and mortality, and not impute
his prophetic knowledge to himself, but ascribe all
the glory of it to God, and be ready to execute with
meekness and alacrity the duties of his prophetic
office and mission from God to his fellow-men.
2. In a still more emphatic and distinctive sense
the title “Son of Man” is applied in the Old
Testament to the Messiah. And, inasmuch as the
Messiah is revealed in the Old Testament as a
Divine Person and the Son of God (Ps. ii. 7, Ixxxix.
27 ; Is. vii. 14, ix. 6), it is a prophetic pre-announce-
ment of His zncarnation (compare Ps, viii. 4 with
Heb. ii. 6, 7, 8, and 1 Cor. xv. 27).
In the Old Testament the Messiah is designated
by this title, ‘Son of Man,” in His royal and judi-
cial character, particularly in the prophecy of Dan.
vii. 13 :—“ Behold One like the Son of Man came
with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient
of Days . . . and there was given Him dominion and
glory . . . His dominion is an everlasting dominion.”
Here the title is not Ben-ish, or Ben- Adam, but
Bar-enosh, which represents humanity in its greatest
frailty and humility, and is a significant declaration
that the exaltation of Christ in His kingly and
judicial office is due to His previous condescension,
obedience, self-humiliation, and suffering in His
human nature (comp. Phil. ii. 5-11).
The title “Son of Man,’ derived from that pas-
sage of Daniel, is applied by St. Stephen to Christ
in His heavenly exaltation and royal majesty:
1360 SON OF MAN
“ Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of
Man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts vii.
56). This title is also applied to Christ by St.
John in the Apocalypse, describing our Lord’s
priestly office, which He executes in heaven (Rev.
i. 13): “Τὰ the midst of the seven golden candle-
sticks” (or golden lamps, which are the emblems
of the churches, i. 20) ‘‘ one like the Son of Man
clothed with a garment down to the foot” (His
priestly attire); ‘‘ His head and His hairs were
white like wool, as white as snow” (attributes
of divinity; comp. Dan. vii. 9). St. John also in
the Apocalypse (xiv. 14) ascribes the title “Son of
Man” to Christ when he displays His kingly and
judicial office: ‘I looked and beheld a white cloud,
and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of
Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in
His hand a sharp sickle”—to reap the harvest of
the earth.
3. It is observable that Ezekiel never calls himself
‘¢ Son of Man;”’ and in the Gospels Christ is never
called “‘ Son of Man” by the Evangelists; but
wherever that title is applied to Him there, it is
applied by Himself. :
The only passages in the New Testament where
Christ is called ‘Son of Man” by anyone except
Himself, ave those just cited, and they relate to
Him, not in His humiliation upon earth, but in His
heavenly exaltation consequent upon that humilia-
tion. The passage in John xii. 34, “ Who is this
Son of Man?” is an inquiry of the people concern-
ing Him who applied this title to Himself.
The reason of what has been above remarked
seems to be, that, as on the one hand it was expe-
dient for Ezekiel to be reminded of his own hu-
manity, in order that he should not be elated by
his revelations; and in order that the readers of his
prophecies might bear in mind that the revelations
in them are not due to Ezekiel, but to God the
Holy Ghost, who spake by him (see 2 Pet. i.
21); so, on the other hand, it was necessary that
they who saw Christ’s miracies, the evidences of
His divinity, and they who read the evangelic his-
tories of them, might indeed adore Him as God, but
might never forget that He is Man.
4. The two titles “‘ Son of God” and “Son of
Man,” declaring that in the one Person of Christ
there are two natures, the nature of God and the
nature of man, joined together, but not confused,
are presented to us in two memorable passages of
the Gospel, which declare the will of Christ that all
men should confess Him to be God and man, and
which proclaim the blessedness of this confession.
(1.) ‘* Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man,
am?” was our Lord’s question to His Apostles ;
and ** Whom say ye that I am? Simon Peter
answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God.” Our Lord acknowledged this
confession to be true, and to have been revealed
from heaven, and He blessed him who uttered it:
“Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona . . .”—‘* Thou
art son of Jonas, Bar-jona (comp. John xxi, 15);
and as truly as thow art Bar-jona, so truly am 1
Bar-enosh, Son of Man, and Ben-Elohim, Son of
God; and My Father, who is in heaven, hath
revealed this truth unto thee. Blessed is every one
who holds this faith ; for 1 Myself, Son of God and
Son of Man, am the living Rock on which the
Church is built; and he who holds this faith is a
genuine Petros, a lively stone, hewn out of Me the
Divine Petra, the Everlasting Rock, and built upon
SON OF MAN
Me”? (see the authorities cited in the note on Matt,
xvi. 18, in the present writer’s edition).
(2.) The other passage, where the two titles
(Son of God and Son of Man) are found in the
Gospels, is no less significant. Our Lord, standing
before Caiaphas and the chief priests, was interro-
gated by the high-priest, ‘¢ Art thou the Christ, the
Son of God?” (Matt. xxvi. 63; comp. Mark xiv. 61).
“ Art Thou, what Thou claimest to be, the Mes-
siah? and art Thou, as Thou professest to be, a
Divine Person, the Son of God, the Son of the
Blessed?” ‘ Jesus saith unto him, Thou sayest it ;
Iam” (Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62).
But, in order that the high-priest and the council
might not suppose Him to be a Divine Person only,
and not to be also really and truly Man, our Lord
added of His own accord, ““ Nevertheless” (πλὴν,
besides, or, as St. Mark has it, καὶ, also, in addition
to the avowal of My Divinity) “I say unto you,
Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on
the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds
of heaven” (Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62). That
is, “ I am indeed the Son of God, but do not forget
that I am also the Son of Man. Believe and confess
the true faith, that I, who claim to be the Christ,
am Very God and Very Man.”
5. The Jews, in our Lord’s age, were not disposed
to receive either of the truths expressed in those
words. They were so tenacious of the doctrine of
the Divine Unity (as they understood it), that they
were not willing to accept the assertion that Christ
is the ‘¢ Son of God;” Very God of Very God (see
above, article SON OF GOD), and they were not
disposed to admit that God could become Incarnate,
and that the Son of God could be also the Son of
Man: (see the remarks on this subject by Dorner,
On the Person of Christ, Introduction, throughout).
Hence we find that no sooner had our Lord as-
serted these truths, than ‘the high-priest rent his
clothes, saying. He hath spoken blasphemy. What
think ye? and they all condemned Him to be guilty
of death” (Matt. xxvi. 65, 66; Mark xiv. 63, 64).
And when St. Stephen had said, “" Behold, I see the
heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the
right hand of God,’ then they ‘cried out with a
loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him
with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and
stoned him” (Acts vii. 57, 58). They could no
longer restrain their rage against him as guilty of
blasphemy, because he asserted that Jesus, who had
claimed to be the Son of God, and who had been
put to death because He made this assertion, is also
the Son of Man, and was then glorified; and that
therefore they were mistaken in looking for another
Christ, and that they had been guilty of putting to
death the Messiah.
6. Here, then, we have a clear view of the diffi-
culties which the Gospel had to overcome, in. pro-
claiming Jesus to be the Christ, and to be the Son
of God, and to be the Son of Man; and in the
building up of the Christian Church on this founda-
tion. It had to encounter the prejudices of the
whole world, both Jewish and Heathen, in this
work. It did encounter them, and has triumphed
over them. Here is a proof of its divine origin.
7. If we proceed to analyze the various passages
in the Gospel where Christ speaks of Himself as the
Son of Man, we shall find that they not only teach
the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God
(and thus afford a prophetic protest against the
heresies which afterwards impugned that doctrine,
SON OF MAN
such as the heresy of the Docetae, Valentinus, and
Marcion, who denied that Jesus Christ was come in
the flesh, see on 1 John iv. 2, and 2 John 7); but
they also declare the consequences of the Incarna-
tion, both in regard to Christ, and in regard also to
all mankind.
The consequences of Christ’s Incarnation are de-
scribed in the Gospels, as a capacity of being a
"perfect pattern and example of godly life to men
(Phil. ii. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 21); and of suffering, of
dying, of “giving His life as a ransom for all,” of
being “the propitiation for the sins of the whole
world” (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10), of being the source of
life and grace, of Divine Sonship (John i. 12), of
Resurrection and Immortality to all the family of
Mankind, as many as receive Him (John iii. 16, 36,
xi. 25), and are engrafted into His body, and cleave
‘to Him by faith and love, and participate in the
Christian sacraments, which derive their virtue and
efficacy from His Incarnation and Death, and which
are the appointed instruments for conveying and
imparting the benefits of His Incarnation and Death
to us (comp. John iii. 5, vi. 53), who are ‘made
partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Pet. i. 4), by
virtue of our union with Him who is God and Man.
The infinite value and universal applicability of
the benefits derivable from the Incarnation and sa-
crifice of the Son of God are described by our Lord,
declaring the perfection of the union of the two
natures, the human nature and the Divine, in His
own person. “No man hath ascended up to
heaven but He that came down from heaven, even
the Son of Man which is in heaven ; and as Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever
believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life; for God so loved the world, that He gave His
only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
Him should not perish, but have everlasting life ;
for God sent not His Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world through Him might
be saved”? (John iii. 13-17); and again, “* What
and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where
He was before ?” (John vi. 62, compared with John
i. 1-3).
8. By His perfect obedience in our nature, and by
His voluntary submission to death in that nature,
Christ acquired new dignity and glory, due to His
obedience and sufferings. This is the dignity and
glory of His mediatorial kingdom; that kingdom
which He has as God-man, “the only Mediator
between God and man ”—(as partaking perfectly of
the nature of both, and as making an At-one-ment
between them), “the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim.
ii. 5; Heb. ix. 15, xii, 24).
It was as Son of Man that He humbled Himself,
it is as Son of Man that He is exalted; it was
as Son of Man, born of a woman, that He was
made under the Law (Gal. iv. 4), and as Son of
Man He was Lord of the Sabbath-day (Matt. xii. 8);
as Son of Man He suffered for sins (Matt. xvii. 12 ;
Mark viii. 31), and as Son of Man He has authority
on earth to forgive sins (Matt. ix. 6). It was as
Son of Man that He had not where to lay His
head (Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58), it is as Son of
Man that He wears on his head a golden crown
(Rev. xiv. 14); it was as Son of Man that He was
betrayed into the hands of sinful men, and suffered
many things, and was rejected, and condemned and
crucified (see Matt. xvii. 22, xx. 18, xxvi. 2, 24;
Mark viii. 31, ix. 31; x. 33; Luke ix. 22, 44,
xviii. 31, xxiv. 7), it is as Son of Man that He
VOU Il.
SON OF MAN 1361
now sits at the right hand of God, and as Son of
Man He will come in the clouds of heaven, with
power and great glory, in His own glory, and in
the glory of His Father, and all His holy angels
with Him, and it is as Son of Man that He will
“sit on the throne of His glory,” and “ before Him
will be gathered all nations” (Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv.
30, xxv. 31,32; Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxi. 27);
and He will send forth His angels to gather His
elect from the four winds (Matt. xxiv. 31), and to root
up the tares from out of His Field, which is the
World (Matt. xiii. 38, 41); and to bind them in
bundles to burn them, and to gather His wheat into
His barn (Matt. xiii. 30). It is as Son of Man
that He will call all from their grayes, and summon
them to His judgment-seat, and pronounce their
sentence for everlasting bliss or woe; “for, the
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son; . . . and hath given Him
authority to execute judgment also, because He is
the Son of Man” (John ν. 22,27). Only “the pure
in heart will see God” (Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14);
but the evil as well as the good will see their Judge:
“every eye shall see Him” (Rev. i. 7). This is
fit and equitable; and it is also fit and equitable
that He, who as Son of Man, was judged by the
world, should also judge the world; and that He
who was rejected openly, and suffered death for
all, should be openly glorified by all, and be exalted
in the eyes of all, as King of kings, and Lord of
lords.
9. Christ is represented in Scripture as the second
Adam (1 Cor, xv. 45, 47; comp. Rom. v. 14), inas-
much as He is the Futher of the new race of man-
kind ; and, as we are all by nature in Adam, so are
we by grace in Christ; and “as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ all are made alive” (1 Cor. xv. 22);
and “ if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature”
(2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24); and He, who is the
Son, is also in this respect a Father; and therefore
Isaiah joins both titles in one, “To us a Son is
given . . . and His name shall be called the Mighty
God, the Everlasting Father” (Isa. ix. 6). Christ
is the second Adam, as the Father of the new race ;
but in another respect He is unlike Adam, because
Adam was formed in mature manhood from the
earth ; but Christ, the second Adam, is Ben-Adam,
the Son of Adam; and therefore St. Luke, writing
specially for the Gentiles, and desirous to show the
universality of the redemption wrought by Christ,
traces His genealogy to Adam (Luke iii. 23-38).
He is Son of Man, inasmuch as he was the Promised
Seed, and was conceived in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, and took our nature, the nature of us all,
and became “ Emmanuel, God with us” (Matt. i.
23), “ God manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. iii. 16).
Thus the new Creation sprung out of the old; and
He made “all things new” (Rev. xxi. 5). The Son
of God in Eternity became the Son of Man in Time.
He turned back, as it were, the streams of pollution
and of death, flowing in the innumerable channels
of the human family, and introduced into them a
new element, the element of life and health, of
divine incorruption and immortality ; which would
not have been the case, if He had been merely like
Adam, having an independent origin, springing by
a separate efflux out of the earth, and had not been
Ben- Adam as well as Ben-Elohim, the Son of Adam,
as well as the Son of God. And this is what St.
Paul observes in his comparison—and contrast—
between Adam and Christ (Rom. v. 15-18), “ Not,
as was the transgression (in Adam) so likewise was
45
13862 SON OF MAN
the free gift (in Christ). For if (as is the fact)
the many (7. 6. all) died by the transgression of the
one (Adam), much more the grace of God, and the
itt by the grace that is of the one Man Jesus
Christ, overflowed to the many ; and not, as by one
who sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment came
from one man to condemnation, but the free gift
came forth from many transgressions to their state
of justification. For if by the transgression of the
one (Adam), Death reigned by means of the one,
much more they who receive the abundance of
grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in
lite through the one, Jesus Christ... Thus, where
Sin abounded, Grace did much more abound (Rom.
ν. 20) ; for, as, by the disobedience of the one man
(Adam), the many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of the one (Christ), the many were made
righteous. .. .”
10. The benefits accruing to mankind from the
Incarnation of the Son of God are obvious from
these considerations :—
We are not so to conceive of Christ as of a Deli-
verer external to humanity, but as incorporating
humanity in Himself, and uniting it to God; as
rescuing our nature from Sin, Satan, and Death ;
and as carrying us through the grave and gate of
death to a glorious immortality ; and bearing man-
kind, His lost sheep, on His shoulders; as bearing
us and our sins in His own body on the tree
(1 Pet. ii. 24); as bringing us through suffer-
ing to glory; as raising our nature to a dignity
higher than that of angels; as exalting us by His
Ascension into heaven; and as making us to “ sit
together with Himself in heavenly places” (Eph. ii.
6), even at the right hand of God. ‘* To him that
overcometh,” He says, ‘‘ will I grant to sit with Me
on My throne, even as I also overcame and am set
down with My Father on His throne” (Rev. iii. 21).
These are the hopes and privileges which we derive
from the Incarnation of Christ, who is the Lite
(John i. 4, xi. 25, xiv. 6; 1 John i. 2); from
our filial adoption by God in Him (John i. 12;
1 John iii. 1, 2); and from our consequent capacity
of receiving the Spirit of adoption in our hearts
(Gal. iv. 6); and from our membership and in-
dwelling in Him, who is the Son of God from all
eternity, and who became, for our sakes and for our
salvation, the Son of Man, and submitted to the
weakness of our humanity, in order that we might
partake in the glory of His immortality.
11. These conclusions frem Holy Scripture have
been stated clearly by many of the ancient fathers,
among whom it may suflice to mention 8, Irenaeus
(Adv. Haereses, iii. 20, p, 247, Grabe): ἥνωσεν
(Χριστὸς) ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ᾽ ci γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος
ἐνίκησεν τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν,
δικαίως ἐνικήθη 6 ἐχθρός: πάλιν τε εἰ μὴ 6 Θεὸς
ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὐκ ἂν βεβαίως ἔσχο-
μεν αὐτήν: καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρω-
ros τῷ Θ εᾧ, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆ 5
ἀφθαρσίας: ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε
καὶ ἀνθρώπου, διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους oi-
κειότητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ἑκατέρους
συναγαγεῖν. And ili. 21, p. 250: “ Hie igitur
Filius Dei, existens Verbum Patris . . . quoniam ex
Maria factus est Filius hominis . . . primitias resur-
rectionis hominis in Seipso faciens, ut quemadmodum
* The AA is no doubt the last relic of NayaA: comp.
IvE-ABARIM; and KANAH, River.
b M. Van de Velde (Alem. 350) proposes the Wady
SOREK, THY VALLEY OF
Caput resurrexit a mortuis, sic et reliquum corpus
omnis hominis, qui invenitur in vita... resurgat
per compagines et conjunctiones coalescens, et con-
firmatum augmento Dei” (Eph. iv. 16). And
S. Cyprian (De Idolorum Vanitate, p. 538, ed.
Venet. 1758): “ Hujus gratiae disciplinaeque ar-
biter et magister Sermo (Λόγος) et Milius Dei
mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes retro [luminator
et Doctor humani generis praedicabatur. Hic est
virtus Dei... carnem Spiritu Sancto cooperante
induitur . . . Hic Deus noster, Hie Christus est, qui
Mediator duorum hominem induit, quem perducat
ad Patrem. Quod homo est, esse Christus voluit,
ut et homo possit esse, quod Christus est.’ And
S. Augustine (Serm. 121): ‘ Filius Dei factus est
Filius hominis, ut vos, qui eratis filii homims,
efliceremini filii Dei.” [Ca Wd).
SOOTHSAYER. [Drivination. ]
SO'PATER (Sématpos: Sopater). Sopater
the son of Pyrrhus of Beroea was one of the com-
panions of St. Paul on his return from Greece into
Asia, as he came back from his third missionary
journey (Acts xx. 4). Whether he is the same with
Sosipater, mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21, cannot be
positively determined. The name of his father,
Pyrrhus, is omitted in the received text, though it
has the authority of the oldest MSS., A, B, Ὁ, E,
and the recently discovered Codex Sinaiticus, as well
as of the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Philoxenian-
Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic versions. Mill con-
demns it, apparently without reason, as a traditional
gloss. [W. A. W.]
SOPHER’ETH (ND: Σεφηρά, Sapapar ;
Alex. ᾿Ασεφοράθ, Sadapa0: Sopheret, Sophercth).
«The children of Sophereth” were a family who
returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel among the
descendants of Solomon’s servants (Ezr. ii. 55;
Neh. vii. 57). Called AzAPHION in 1 ἔβαν, v. 33.
SOPHONT'’AS (Sophonias). The Prophet ΖΕ-
PHANIAH (2 Esd. 1, 40).
SORCERER. [Divination.]
SO'REK, THE VALLEY OF (pri om:
Α᾽Αλσωρήχ ; Alex. χειμαρρους Σωρηχ : Vallis So-
rec). A wady (to use the modern Arabic term
which precisely answers to the Hebrew nuchal), in
which lay the residence of Dalilah (Judg. xvi. 4).
It appears to have been a Philistine place, and pos-
sibly was nearer Gaza than any other of the chief
Philistine cities, since thither Samson was taken
after his capture at Dalilah’s house. Beyond this
there are no indications of its position, nor is it
mentioned again in the Bible. Eusebius and
Jerome (Onomast. Swpnx) state that a village
named Capharsorech was shown in their day ‘on the
north of Kleutheropolis, near the town of Saar (or
Saraa), ἡ, e. Zorah, the native place of Samson.”
Zorah is now supposed to have been fully 10 miles N.
of Beit-Jibrin, the modern representative of Eleu-
theropolis, though it is not impossible that there may
have been a second further south. No trace of the
name of Sorek has been yet discovered either in the
one position or the other.b> But the district is com-
paratively unexplored, and doubtless it will ere
long be discovered.
The word Sorek in Hebrew signifies a pecu-
Simsim, which runs from near Beit Jibrin to Askulan ;
but this he.admits to be mere conjecture.
SOSIPATER
liarly choice kind of vine, which is said to have
derived its name from the dusky colowr of its
grapes, that perhaps being the meaning of the root
(Gesenius, Thes. 1342), 1Ὁ ocewrs in three passages
of the Old Test. (Is. v. 2; Jer. ii. 21; and, with
a modification, in Gen. xlix. 511). It appears to be
used in modern Arabic for a certain purple grape,
grown in Syria, and highly esteemed ; which 1s
noted for its small raisins, and minute, soft pips,
and produces a red wine. This being the case, the
valley of Sorek may have derived its name from the
growth of such vines, though it is hardly safe to
affirm the fact in the unquestioning manner in
which Gesenius (hes. ib.) does. Ascalon was
celebrated among the ancients for its wine; and,
though not in the neighbourhood of Zorah, was the
natural port by which any of the productions of
that district would be exported to the west. [.]
SOSIP'ATER. (Swolmarpos: Sosipater.) 1.
A general of Judas Maccabaeus, who in conjunction
with Dositheus defeated Timotheus and took him
prisoner, ο. B.C. 164 (2 Mace. xii. 19-24).
9,. Kinsman or fellow tribesman of St. Paul,
mentioned in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 21). He is probably
the same person as SOPATER of Beroea. [B. F.W.]
SOS'THENES (Ξωσθένης : Sosthenes) was ἃ
Jew at Corinth, who was seized and beaten in the
presence of Gallio, on the refusal of the latter to
entertain the charge of heresy which the Jews alleged
against the Apostle Paul (see Acts xviii. 12-17).
His precise connexion with that affair is left in some
doubt. Some have thought that he was a Christian,
and was maltreated thus by his own countrymen,
because he was known as a special friend of Paul.
But it is improbable if Sosthenes was a believer, that
Luke would mention him merely as “the ruler of
the synagogue” (ἀρχισυνάγωγοΞ), without any al-
lusion to his change of faith. A better view is, that
Sosthenes was one of the bigoted Jews; and that
“the crowd” (πάντες simply, and not πάντες οἱ
“Ἕλληνες, is the true reading) were Greeks whe,
taking advantage of the indifference of Gallio, and
ever ready to show their contempt of the Jews,
turned their indignation against Sosthenes. In this
case he must have been the successor of Crispus
(Acts xviii. 8) as chief of the synagogue (possibly
a colleague with him, in the looser sense of ἀρχι-
συνάγωγοι, as in Mark v. 22), or, as Biscoe con-
jectures, may have belonged to some other syna-
gogue at Corinth. Chrysostom’s notion that Crispus
and Sosthenes were names of the same person, is
arbitrary and unsupported.
Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians
jointly in his own name and that of a certain Sos-
thenes whom he terms ‘‘the brother” (1 Cor.
i. 1). The mode of designation implies that he
was well known to the Corinthians ; and some have
held that he was identical with the Sosthenes men-
tioned inthe Acts. It this be so, he must have been
converted at a later period (Wetstein, NV. Test. vol.
ii. p. 576), and have been at Ephesus and not at Co-
rinth, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. The
name was ἃ common one, and but little stress can be
laid on that coincidence. Eusebius says (/7. £.i. 12,
§1) that this Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1) was one of the
seventy disciples, and a later tradition adds that
he became bishop of the church at Colophon in
Tonia. ΠΕ ΒΞ ΜΟΙ
c The Arabic versions of this passage retain the term
Sorek as a proper name.
SOWER, SOWING 1363
SOS'TRATUS (Séarpatos: Sostratus), a com-
mander of the Syrian garrison in the Acra at Jeru-
salem (6 τῆς ἀκροπόλεως ἔπαρχος) in the reign
of Antiochus Epiphanes (c. B.c. 172: 2 Mace. iv.
Pie 29): [B. F. W.]
SOTA'T ΟἿ : Swrat, Sovret; Alex. Zouvtiel
in Neh.: Sotai, Sothat). The children of Sotai
were a family of the descendants of Solomon’s
servants who returned with Zerubbabel (zr. ii.
55; Neh. vii. 57).
SOUTH RAM'OTH (233 ΠῚ: ἐν Ῥαμᾷ
νότου ; Alex. ev papa v.: Ramoth ad meridiem).
One of the places frequented by David and his band
of outlaws during the latter part of Saul’s life, and to
his friends in which he showed his gratitude when
opportunity offered (1 Sam. xxx, 27). The towns
mentioned with it show that Ramoth must have
been on the southern confines of the country—the
very border of the desert. Bethel, in ver. 27, is
almost certainly not the well-known sanctuary, but
a second of the same name, and Hebron was probably
the most northern of all the places in the list. It
is no doubt identical with RAMATH OF THE SOUTH,
a name the same in every respect except that by a
dialectical or other change it is made plural, Ra-
moth instead of Ramath. [G.]
SOW. [Swre.]
SOWER, SOWING. The operation of sowing
with the hand is one of so simple a character, as to
need little description. The Egyptian paintings
furnish many illustrations of the mode in which it
was conducted. The sower held the vessel or
basket containing the seed, in his left hand, while
with his right he scattered the seed broadcast
(Wilkinson’s Anc. Eg. ii. 12,18, 39; see AGRI-
CULTURE for one of these paintings). The “ draw-
ing out” of the-seed is noticed, as the most charac-
teristic action of the sower, in Ps. cxxvi. 6 (A. V.
“ precious”) and Am, ix. 13: it is uncertain whe-
ther this expression refers to drawing out the
handful of seed from the basket, or to the dispersion
of the seed in regular rows over the ground (Gesen,
Thes. p. 827). In some of the Egyptian paintings
the sower is represented as preceding the plcugh:
this may be simply the result of bad perspective,
but we are told that such a practice actually pre-
yvails in the East in the case of sandy soils, the
plough serving the purpose of the harrow for cover-
ing the seed (Russell’s Aleppo, i. 74). In wet soils
the seed was trodden in by the feet of animals (Is.
xxxii, 20), as represented in Wilkinson’s Anc,
Eq. ii, 12. The sowing season commenced in Oc-
tober and continued to the end of February, wheat
being put in betore, and barley after the beginning
of January (Russell, i. 74). The Mosaic law pro-
hibited the sowing of mixed seed (Lev. xix..19 ;
Deut. xxii. 9) : Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, §20) supposes
this prohibition to be based on the repugnancy of
nature to intermixture, but there would appear to
be a further object of a moral character, viz. to
impress on men’s minds the general lesson of purity.
The regulation offered a favourable opportunity for
Rabbinical refinement, the results of which are em-
bodied in the treatise of the Mishna, entitled Ai/aim,
§§1-3. That the ancient Hebrews did not consider
themselves prohibited from planting several kinds
of seeds in the same field, appears from Is, xxviii.
25. A distinction is made in Lev. xi. 37, 3
between dry and wet seed, in respect to contact
with a corpse; the latter, as being more susceptible
45 2
1364 SPAIN
of contamination, would be rendered unclean there-
by, the former would not. The analogy between
the germination of seed and the effects of a principle
or a course of action on the human character for
good or for evil is frequently noticed in Scripture
(Prov. xi. 18; Matt. xiii, 19, 24; 2 Cor. ix. 6;
Gal. vi. 7). [W..L. B.]
SPAIN (Sravia: Hispania). The Hebrews
were acquainted with the position and the mineral
‘wealth of Spain from the time of Solomon, whose
alliance with the Phoenicians enlarged the circle of
their geographical knowledge to a very great extent.
[Tarsnisu.] The local designation, Tarshish, re-
presenting the Turtessus of the Greeks, probably
prevailed until the fame of the Roman wars in that
country reached the East, when it was superseded
by its classical name, which is traced back by
Bochart to the Shemitic tsaphan, “ rabbit,” and by
Humboldt to the Basque Ezpana, descriptive of its
position on the edge of the continent of Europe
(Dict. of Geog. i. 1074). The Latin form of this
name is represented by the Ἵσπανία of 1 Mace. viii.
3 (where, however, some copies exhibit the Greek
form), and the Greek by the Σπανία of Rom.
xv, 24, 28. The passages cited contain all the
Biblical notices of Spain: in the former the con-
quests of the Romans. are described in somewhat
exaggerated terms; for though the Carthaginians
were expelled as early as B.c. 206, the native tribes
were not finally subdued until B.c. 25, and not
until then could it be said with truth that “ they
had conquered all the place’? (1 Mace. viii. 4). In
the latter, St. Paul announces his intention of visit-
ing Spain. Whether he carried out this intention
is a disputed point connected with his personal
history. [Paut.] The mere intention, however,
implies two interesting facts, viz. the establishment
of a Christian community in that country, and this
by means of Hellenistic Jews resident there. We
have no direct testimony to either of these facts ;
but as the Jews had spread along the shores of the
Mediterranean as far as Cyrene in Africa and Rome
in Europe (Acts ii. 10), there would be no difficulty
in assuming that they were also found in the com-
mercial cities of the eastern coast of Spain. The
early introduction of Christianity into that country
is attested by Irenaeus (i. 3) and Tertullian (adv.
Jud. 7). An inscription, purporting to record a
persecution of the Spanish Christians in the reign
of Nero, is probably a forgery (Gieseler’s Hccl.
Hist. i. 82, note 5). [Wee tee a
SPARROW (jBY, tzippor: ὄρνεον, ὀρνίδιον,
τὸ πετεινόν, στρουθίον : χίμαρος in Neh. v. 18,
where LXX. probably read YON: avis, volucris,
passer). The above Heb, word oceurs upwards of
forty times in the O. T. In all passages excepting
two it is rendered by A. V. indifferently “ bird” or
“fowl.” In Ps. Ixxxiv. 3, and Ps. ci. 7, A. V.
renders it “sparrow.” The Greek Στρουθίον
(“ sparrow,” A. V.) occurs twice in N. T., Matt.
x. 29, Luke xii. 6, 7, where the Vulg. has passeres.
Tzippor (WD), from a root signifying to “ chirp”
or “ twitter,’ appears to be a phonetic repre-
sentation of the call note of any passerine bird.*
Similarly the modern Arabs use the term un9)5
(zaoush) for all small birds which chirp, and
ES te Hee)
τ᾽ Pan the Arabic ypuas Casfir), “ ἃ sparrow.”
SPARROW
2))) (zerzour) not only for the starling, but for
any other bird with a harsh, shrill twitter, both
these being evidently phonetic names.
Tzippor is therefore exactly translated by the
LXX. στρουθίον, explained by Moschopulus τὰ
μικρὰ τῶν ὀρνίθων, although it may sometimes
have been used in a more restricted sense. See
Athen. Deipn. ix. 391, where two kinds of στρου-
θία in the more restricted signification are noted.
It was reserved for later naturalists to discri-
minate the immense variety of the smaller birds of
the passerine order. Excepting in the cases of the
thrushes and the larks, the natural history of Ari-
stotle scarcely comprehends a longer catalogue than
that of Moses.
Yet in few parts of the world are the species of
passerine birds more numerous or more abundant
than in Palestine. A very cursory survey has sup-
plied a list of above 100 different species of this
order. See Jbis, vol. i. p. 26 seqq., and vol. iv.
p- 277 seqq.
But although so numerous, they are not ge-
nerally noticeable for any peculiar brilliancy of
plumage beyond the birds of our own climate. In
fact, with the exception of the denizens of the mighty
forests and fertile alluvial plains of the tropics, it
is a popular error to suppose that the nearer we
approach the equator, the more gorgeous necessarily
is the coloration of the birds. There are certain
tropical families with a brilliancy of plumage which
is unrivalled elsewhere; but any outlying members
of these groups, as for instance the kingfisher of
Britain, or the bee-eater and roller of Europe, are
not surpassed in brightness of dress by any of their
southern relations. Ordinarily in the warmer tem-
perate regions, especially in those which like Pales-
tine possess neither dense forests nor morasses, there
is nothing in the brillianey of plumage which espe-
cially arrests the attention of the unobservant. It
is therefore no matter for surprise if, in an unscien-
tific age, the smaller birds were generally grouped
indiscriminately under the term tzippor, ὀρνιδίον
or passer. The proportion of bright to obscure
coloured birds is not greater in Palestine than in
England ; and this is especially true of the southern
portion, Judaea, where the wilderness with its bare
hills and arid ravines affords a home chiefly to those
species which rely for safety and concealment on the
modesty and inconspicuousness of their plumage.
Although the common sparrow of England (Pas-
ser domesticus, L.) does not occur in the Holy
Land, its place is abundantly supplied by two very
closely allied Southern species (Passer salicicola,
Vieill., and Passer cisalpina, Tem.). Our English
Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus, L.) is also very
common, and may be seen in numbers on Mount
Olivet, and also about the sacred enclosure of the
mosque of Omar. This is perhaps the exact species
referred to in Ps. lxxxiv. 3, ‘* Yea, the sparrow hath
found an house.”
Though in Britain it seldom frequents houses,
yet in China, to which country its eastward range
extends, Mr. Swinhoe, in his ‘ Ornithology of Amoy,’
informs us its habits are precisely those of our
familiar house sparrow. Its shyness here may be
the result of persecution ; but in the East the Mus-
sulmans hold in respect any bird which resorts to
their houses, and in reverence such as build in οἱ
about the mosques, considering them to be under
the Divine protection. This natural veneration has
doubtless been inherited from antiquity. We learn
from Aelian (Var. Hist. v. 17) that the Athenians
SPARROW
condemned a man to death for molesting a sparrow
in the temple of Aesculapius. ‘The story of Aris-
todicus of Cyme, who rebuked the cowardly advice
of the oracle of Branchidae to surrender a suppliant,
by his symbolical act of driving the sparrows out
ot the temple, illustrates the same sentiment (Herod.
i. 159), which was probably shared by David and
the Israelites, and is alluded to in the Psalm. There
can be no difficulty in interpreting nina, not as
the altar of sacrifice exclusively, but as the place of
sacrifice, the sacred enclosure generally, τὸ τέμε-
vos, “fanum.” The interpretation of some com-
mentators, who would explain W)5¥ in this passage
of certain sacred birds, kept and preserved by the
priests in the temple like the Sacred Ibis of the
Egyptians, seems to be wholly without warrant.
See Bochart, iii. 21, 22.
Most of our commoner small birds are found in
Palestine. The starling, chaffinch, greenfinch,
linnet, goldfinch, corn bunting, pipits, blackbird,
song thrush, and the various species of wastail
abound. The woodlark (Alauda arborea, L.),
crested lark (Galerida cristata, Boie.), Calandra
lark (Melanocorypha calandra, Bp.), shovt-toed
lark (Calandrella brachydactyla, Kaup.), Isabel
lark (Alauda deserti, Licht.), and various other
desert species, which are snared in great numbers
for the markets, are far more numerous on the
southern plains than the skylark in England. In
the olive-yards, and among the brushwood of the
hills, the Ortolan bunting (Lmberiza hortulana,
L.), and especially Cretzschmaer’s bunting (Embe-
riza caesia, Cretz.), take the place of our common
yellow-hammer, an exclusively northern species.
Indeed, the second is seldom out of the traveller's
sight, hopping before him from bough to bough
with its simple but not unpleasing note. As most
of our warblers (Sylviadae) are summer migrants,
and have a wide eastern range, it was to be expected
that they should occur in Syria; and accordingly
upwards of twenty of those on the British list have
been noted there, including the robin, redstart, white-
throat, blackcap, nightingale, willow-wren, Dart-
ford warbler, whinchat, and stonechat. Besides
these, the Palestine lists contain fourteen others,
more southern species, of which the most interesting
are perhaps the little fantail (Cisticola schoenicola,
Bp.), the orphean (Curruca orphaea, Boie.), and
the Sardinian warbler (Sylvia melanocephala,
Lath.).
The chats (Saxicolae), represented in Britain by
the wheatear, whinchat, and stonechat, are very
numerous in the southern parts of the country. At
least nine species have been observed, and by their
lively motions and the striking contrast of black
and white in the plumage of most of them, they are
the most attractive and conspicuous bird-inhabitants
which catch the eye in the hill country of Judaea,
the favourite resort of the genus. Yet they are not
recognised among the Bedouin inhabitants by any
name to distinguish them from the larks.
The rock sparrow (Petronia stulta, Strickl.) is a
common bird in the barer portions of Palestine,
eschewing woods, and generally to be seen perched
alone on the top of a rock or on any large stone.
From this habit it has been conjectured to be
the bird alluded to in Ps. cii. 7, as ‘‘ the sparrow
that sitteth alone upon the housetop;” but as the
rock sparrow, though found among ruins, never
resorts to inhabited buildings, it seems more pro-
bable that the bird to which the psalmist alludes is
SPARROW 1365
the blue thrush (Petrocossyphus cyancus, Boie.),
a bird so conspicuous that it cannot fail to attract
attention by its dark-blue dress and its plaintive
monotonous note; and which may frequently be
observed perched on houses and especially on out-
buildings in the villages of Judaea. It is a solitary
bird, eschewing the society of its own species, and
rarely more than a pair are seen together. Certainly
the allusion of the psalmist will not apply to the
sociable and garrulous house- or tree- sparrows.
Petrocossyphus cyaneus.
Among the most conspicuous of the small birds
of Palestine are the shrikes (Lanii), of which the
red-backed shrike (Zanius collurio, L.) is a familiar
example in the south of England, but there repre-
sented by at least five species, all abundantly and
generally distributed, viz., Hnneoctonus rufus, ΒΡ.»
the woodchat shrike, Lanius meridionalis, L.; L.
minor, L.; L. personatus, Tem.; and Telephonus
cucullatus, Gr.
There are but two allusions to the singing of
birds in the Scriptures, Eccles. xii. 4 and Ps. civ, 12,
« By them shall the fowls (iy) of the heaven have
their habitation which sing among the branches.”
As the psalmist is here speaking of the sides of
streams and rivers (“ By them”), he probably had
in his mind the bulbul (ahs) of the country, or
Palestine nightingale (Ios canthopygius, Hempr.),
a bird not very far removed from the thrush tribe,
and a closely allied species of which is the true
bulbul of Persia and India, This lovely songster,
whose notes, for volume and variety, surpass those
of the nightingale, wanting only the final cadence,
abounds in all the wooded districts of Palestine, and
especially by the banks of the Jordan, where in the
early morning it fills the air with its music.
In one passage (Ez. xxxix. 4), tzippor is joined
with the epithet OY (ravenous), which may very
well describe the raven and the crow, both passerine
birds, yet carrion feeders. Nor is it necessary to
stretch the interpretation so as to include raptorial
birds, which are distinguished in Hebrew and Arabic
by so many specific appellations.
With the exception of the raven tribe, there is no
prohibition in the Levitical law against any pas-
serine birds being used for food; while the :vanton
destruction or extirpation of any species was guarded
1366 SPARROW
against by the humane provision in Deut, xxii. 6.
Small birds were therefore probably as ordinary an
article of consumption among the Israelites as they
still are in the markets both of the Continent and of
the East. The inquiry of our Lord, “ Are not five
sparrows sold for two farthings?” (Luke xii. 6),
“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing ?”
(Matt. x. 29), points to their ordinary exposure for
sale in His time. At the present day the markets
of Jerusalem and Jaffa are attended by many
‘* fowlers” who. offer for sale long strings of little
birds of various species, chiefly sparrows, wagtails,
and Jarks. These are also frequently sold ready
plucked, trussed in rows of about a dozen on slender
wooden skewers, and are cooked and eaten like
kabobs.
It may well excite surprise how such vast num-
bers can be taken, and how they can be vended at
a price too small to have purchased the powder
required for shooting them. But the gun is never
used in their pursuit. The ancient methods of
fowling to which we find so many allusions in
the Scriptures are still pursued, and, though simple,
are none the less effective. The art of fowling is
spoken of no less than seven times in ‘connexion
with "IBY, ὁ. 4. “a bird caught in the snare,”
“bird hasteth to the snare,” ‘fall in a snare,”
‘escaped out of the snare of the fowler.”’ There is
also one still more precise allusion, in Ecclus, xi. 30,
to the well-known practice of using deccy or call
birds, πέρδιξ θηρευτὴς ἐν καρτάλλῳ. The re-
ference in Jer. v. 27, ‘As a cage is full of
birds” (ΒΒ), is probably to the same mode of
snaring birds.
There are four or five simple methods of fowling
practised at this day in Palestine which are pro-
bably identical with those alluded to in the O. T.
The simplest, but by no means the least successful,
among the dexterous Bedouins, is fowling with the
throw-stick. The only weapon used is a short stick,
about 18 inches long and half an inch in diameter,
and the chase is conducted after the fashion in
which, as we read, the Australian natives pursue
the kangaroo with their boomerang, When the
game has been discovered, which is generally the
red-legged great partridge ( Caccabis saxatilis, Mey.),
the desert partridge (Ammoperdix Heyi, Gr.), or
the little bustard (Otis tetrax, L.), the stick is
hurled with a revolving motion so as to strike the
legs of the bird as it runs, or sometimes at a rather
higher elevation, so that when the victim, alarmed
by the approach of the weapon, begins to rise, its
wings are struck and it is slightly disabled. The
fleet pursuers soon come up, and, using their bur-
nouses as a sort of net, catch and at once cut the
throat of the game. The Mussulmans rigidly ob-
serve the Mosaic injunction (Lev. xvii. 13) to spill
the blood of every slain animal on the ground.
This primitive mode of fowling is confined to those
birds which, like the red-legged partridges and bus-
tards, rely for safety chiefly on their running powers,
and are with difficulty induced to take flight. The
writer once witnessed the capture of the little
desert partridge (Ammoperdix Heyi) by this method
in the wilderness near Hebron; an interesting illus-
tration of the expression in 1 Sam. xxvi. 20, “as
when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains.”
A’ more scientific method of fowling is that |
alluded to in Ecclus. xi. 30, by the use of decoy-
birds. The birds employed for this purpose are very
carefully trained and perfectly tame, that they may
SPARROW
utter their natural call-note without any alarm
from the neighbourhood of man. Partridges, quails,
larks, and plovers are taken by this kind of fowling,
especially the two former. The decoy-bird, in a
cage, is placed in a concealed position, while the
fowler is secreted in the neizhbourhood, near enough
to manage his gins and snares. For game birds a
common method is to construct of brushwood a
narrow run leading to the cage, sometimes using
a sort of bag-net within the brushwood. This has
a trap-door at the entrance, and when the dupe has
entered the run, the door is dropped. Great num-
bers of quail are taken in this manner in spring.
Sometimes, instead of the more elaborate decoy of a
run, a mere cage with an open door is placed in
front of the decoy-bird, of course well concealed by
grass and herbage, and the door is let fall by a
string, as in the other method. For larks and other
smaller birds the decoy is used in a somewhat dif+
ferent manner. The cage is placed without’ con-
cealment on the ground, and springes, nets, or horse-
hair nooses are laid round it to entangle the feet of
those whom curiosity attracts to the stranger; or
a net is so contrived as to be drawn over them, if
the cage be placed in a thicket or among brushwood.
Immense numbers can be takeu by this meaus in a
very short space of time. Traps, the door of which
overbalances by the weight of the bird, exactly like
the traps used by the shepherds on the Sussex
downs to take wheatears and larks, are constructed
by the Bedouin boys, and also the horse-hair springes
so familiar to all English schoolboys, though these
devices are not wholesale enough to repay the pro-
fessional fowler. It is to the noose on the ground
that reference is made in Ps. exxiv. 7, “ The snare
is broken and we are escaped.” Jn the towns and
gardens great numbers of birds, starlings and others,
are taken for the markets at night by means of a
large loose net on two poles, and a lanthorn, which
startles the birds from their perch, when they fall
into the net.
At the season of migration immense numbers of
birds, and especially quails, are taken by a yet more
simple method. When notice has been given of
the arrival of a flight of quails, the whole village
turns out. The birds, fatigued by their long flight,
generally descend to rest in some open space a few
acres in extent. The fowlers, perhaps tweuty or
thirty in number, spread themselves in a circle
round them, and, extending their loose large bur-
nouses with both arms before them, gently advance
towards the centre, or to some spot where they
take care there shall be some low brushwood. The
birds, not seeing their pursuers, and only slightly
alarmed by the cloaks spread before them, begin to
run together without taking flight, until they are
hemmed into a very small space. At a given signal
the whole of the pursuers make a din on all sides,
and the flock, not seeing any mode of escape, rush
huddled together into the bushes, when the bur-
nouses are thrown over them, and the whole are
easily captured by hand.
Although we have evidence that dogs were used
by the ancient Egy ptians, Assyrians, and Indians in
the chase, yet there is no allusion in Scripture to
their being so employed among the Jews, nor does
it appear “that any of the ancients employed the
sagacity of the dog, as we do that of the pointer and
setter, as an auxiliary i in the chase of winged game,
At the present day the Bedouins of Palestine employ,
in the pursuit of larger game, a very valuable race
of greyhounds, equalling ‘the Scottish staghound in
SPARTA
size and strength ; but the inhabitants of the towns
have a strong prejudice against the unclean animal,
and never cultivate its instinct for any further
purpose than that of protecting their houses and
flocks (Is. lvi. 10; Job xxx. 1), and of removing
the offal from their towns and villages. No wonder,
then, that its use has been neglected for purposes
which would have entailed the constant danger of
detilement from an unclean animal, besides the risk
of being compelled to reject as food game which
might be torn by the dogs (οἵ, Ex. xxii. 31; Lev.
xxii. 8, &c.).
Whether falconry was ever employed as a mode
of fowling or not is by no means so clear. Its
antiquity is certainly much greater than the intro-
duction of dogs in the chase of birds ; and from the
statement of Aristotle (Anim. Hist, ix. 24), “ In
the city of Thrace formerly called Cedropolis, men
hunt birds in the marshes with the help ot hawks,”
and from the allusion to the use of falconry in
India, according to Photius’ abridgement of Ctesias,
we may presume that the art was known to the
neighbours of the ancient Israelites (see also Aelian,
Hist. An, iv. 26, and Pliny, x. 8). Falconry, how-
ever, requires an open and not very rugged country
for its successful pursuit, and Palestine west of the
Jordan is in its whole extent ill adapted for this
species of chase. At the present day falconry is
practised with much care and skill by the Arab
inhabitants of Syria, though not in Judaea proper.
It is indeed the favourite amusement of all the
Bedouins of Asia and Africa, and esteemed an ex-
clusively noble sport, only to be indulged in by
wealthy sheiks. The rarest and most valuable
species of hunting falcon (Falco Lanarius, L.), the
Lanner, is a native cf the Lebanon and of the
northern hills of Palestine. It is highly prized by
the inhabitants, and the young are taken from the
nest and sold for a considerable price to the chief-
tains of the Hauran. Forty pounds sterling is no
uncommon price for a well-trained falcon. A de-
scription of falconry as now practised among the
Arabs would be out of place here, as there is
no direct allusion to the subject in the O. T. or
NEEL [H. B. T.]
SPARTA (Σπάρτη, 1 Mace. xiv. 16; Λακεδαι-
μόνιοι, 2 Mace. v. 9: A. V. ‘‘ Lacedaemonians”’).
In the history of the Maccabees mention is made of
a remarkable correspondence between the Jews and
the Spartans, which has been the subject of much
discussion. The alleged facts are briefly these.
When Jonathan endeavoured to strengthen his
government by foreign alliances (c. B.c. 144), he
sent to Sparta to renew a friendly intercourse which
had been begun at an earlier time between Areus
and Onias [AREUS; ONIAS], on the ground of
their common descent from Abraham (1 Mace. xii.
5-23). The embassy was favourably received, and
after the death of Jonathan “ the friendship and
league” was renewed with Simon (1 Mace. xiv.
16-23). No results are deduced from this corre-
spondence, which is recorded in the narrative
without comment; and imperfect copies of the
official documents are given as in the case of similar
negociations with the Romans. Several questions
arise out of these statements as to (1) the people
described under the name Spartans, (2) the rela-
tionship of the Jews and Spartans, (3) the historic
character of the events, and (4) the persons referred
to under the names Onias and Areus.
1. The whole context of the passage, as well as
the independent reference to the connexion of the
SPARTA 1567
“ Lacedaemonians ”’ and Jews in 2 Mace. ν. 9, seem
to prove clearly that the reteience is to the Spartans,
properly so called; Josephus evidently understood
the records in this sense, and the other interpreta-
tions which have been advanced are merely con-
jectures to avoid the supposed difficulties of the
literal interpretation. Thus Michaelis conjectured
that the words in the original text were DDD,
NED (Obad. ver. 20; Ges. Thes. 5. v.), which the
translators read erroneously as OSD, DO 7DD,
and thus substituted Sparta for Sapharad [Se-
PHARAD]. And Frankel, again (Monatsschrift,
1853, p. 456), endeavours to show that the name
Spartans may have been given to the Jewish settle-
ment at Nisibis, the chief centre of the Armenian
Dispersion. But against these hypotheses it may
be urged conclusively that it is incredible that a
Jewish colony should have been so completely
separated from the mother state as to need to be
reminded of its kindred, and also that the vicissi-
tudes of the government of this strange city (1 Mace.
xii. 20, βασιλεύς; xiv. 20, ἄρχοντες καὶ 7 πόλις)
should have corresponded with those of Sparta
itself.
2. The actual relationship of the Jews and
Spartans (2 Mace. v. 9, συγγένεια) is an ethno-
logical error, which it is difficult to trace to its
origin. It is possible that the Jews regarded the
Spartans as the representatives of the Pelasgi, the
supposed descendants of Peleg the son of Eber
(Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, iii. 4, 15; Ewald,
Gesch. iv. 277, note), just as in another place the
Pergamenes trace back their friendship with the
Jews to a connexion in the time of Abraham (Jos,
Ant. xiv. 10, §22); if this were so, they might easily
spread their opinion. It is certain, from an inde-
pendent passage, that a Jewish colony existed at
Sparta at an early time (1 Macc. xv. 23); and the
important settlement of the Jews in Cyrene may
have contributed te favour the notion of some
intimate connexion between tho two races. The
belief in this relationship appears to have continued
to later times (Jos. B. J. i. 26, 81), and, however
mistaken, may be paralleled by other popular le-
gends of the eastern origin of Greek states. The
various hypotheses proposed to support the truth of
the statement are examined by Wernsdorff (De fide
Inb, Mace. §94), but probably no one now would
maintain it.
3. The incorrectness of the opinion on which the
intercourse was based is obviously no objection to
the fact of the intercourse itself; and the very
obscurity of Sparta at the time makes it extremely
unlikely that any forger would invent such an
incident. But it is urged that the letters said to
have been exchanged are evidently not genuine,
since they betray their fictitious origin negatively
by the absence of characteristic forms of expression,
and positively by actual inaccuracies. To this it
may be replied that the Spartan letters (1 Mace. xii
20-23, xiv. 20-23) are extremely brief, and exist
only in a translation of a translation, so that it is
unreasonable to expect that any Doric peculiarities
should have been preserved. The Hellenistic trans-
lator of the Hebrew original would naturally render
the text before him without any regard to what might
have been its original form (xii. 22-25, εἰρήνη,
κτήνη; xiv. 20, ἀδελφοί). On the other hand the
absence of the name of the second king of Sparta
in the first letter (1 Mace. xii. 20), and of both
kings in the second (1 Mace. xiv. 20), is probably
to be explained by the political circumstances under
1368 SPEARMEN
which the letters were written. The text of the
first letter, as given by Josephus (Ant. xii. 4, 510),
contains some variations, and a very remarkable
additional clause at the end. The second letter is
apparently only a fragment.
4, The difficulty of fixing the date of the first
correspondence is increased by the recurrence of the
names involved. Two kings bore the name Areus,
one of whom reigned B.C. 309-265, and the other,
his grandson, died B.c. 257, being only eight years
old. The same name was also borne by an ad-
venturer, who occupied a prominent position at
Sparta, c. B.c. 184 (Polyb. xxiii. 11, 12). In
Judaea, again, three high priests bore the name
Onias, the first of whom held office B.c. 330-309
(or 300); the second B.c. 240-226; and the
third ο. B.c. 198-171. Thus Onias I. was for a
short time contemporary with Areus I., and the
correspondence has been commonly assigned to them
(Palmer, De Zpist., etc., Darmst. 1828 ; Grimm, on
1 Mace. xii.). But the position of Judaea at that
time was not such as to make the contraction of
foreign alliances a likely occurrence ; and the special
circumstances which are said to have directed the
attention of the Spartan king to the Jews as likely
to effect. a diversion against Demetrius Poliorcetes
when he was engaged in the war with Cassander,
B.C. 302 (Palmer, quoted by Grimm, /. c.), are not
completely satisfactory, even if the priesthood of
Onias can be extended to the later date.® This
being so, Josephus is probably correct in fixing the
event in the time of Onias III. (Anfé. xii. 4, 810).
The last-named Areus may have assumed the royal
title, if that is not due to an exaggerated trans-
lation, and the absence of the name of a second
king is at once explained (Ussher, Annales, A.C.
183; Herzfeld, Gesch, d. V. Isr. i. 215-218). At
the time when Jonathan and Simon made negoci-
ations with Sparta, the succession of kings had
ceased. The last absolute ruler was Nabis, who
was assassinated in B.C. 192. (Wernsdorff, De fide
Lib, Mace. §§$93-112; Grimm, /. c.; Herzteld,
l.c. The early literature of the subject is given
by Wernsdorff.) [B. F. W.]
SPEAR. [Arms.]
SPEARMEN (δεξιολάβοι)δ. The word thus
rendered in the A, V, of Acts xxiii, 23 is of very
rare occurrence, and its meaning is extremely
obscure, Our translators followed the lancearii of
the Vulgate, and it seems probable that their ren-
dering approximates most nearly to the true mean-
ing. The reading of the Codex Alexandrinus is
ΕΣ Πύλου, which is literally followed by the
Peshito-Syriac, where the word is translated
“darters with the right hand.” Lachmann adopts
this reading, which appears also tu have been that
of the Arabic in Walton’s Polyglot. Two hun-
dred δεξιολάβοι formed part of the escort which
accompanied St. Paul in the night-march from
Jerusalem to Caesarea. They are clearly distin-
guished both from the στρατιῶται, or heavy-armed
legionaries, who only went as far as Antipatris,
and from the ἱππεῖς, or cavalry, who continued the
journey to Caesarea, As nothing is said of the
return of the δεξιολάβοι to Jerusalem after their
arrival at Antipatris, we may infer that they
accompanied the cavalry to Caesarea, and this
ἃ Ewald (Gesch. iv. 276, 277, note) supposes that the
letter was addressed to Onias 11. during his minority
B.C, 290-240), in the course of the wars with Demetrius.
|
SPICE, SPICES
strengthens the supposition that they were irre-
gular light-armed troops, so lightly armed, indeed,
as to be able to keep pace on the march with
mounted soldiers, Meyer (Kommentar, 11. 3,
s. 404, 2te Aufl.) conjectures that they were a
particular kind of light-armed troops (called by
the Romans Velites, or Rorarii), probably either
javelin-men or slingers, In a passage quoted by
the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenneta (Tem.
i. 1) from John of Philadelphia they are dis-
tinguished both from the archers and from the
peltasts, or targeteers, and with these are described
as forming a “body of light-armed troops, who
in the 10th century were under the command of
an officer called a turmarch. Grotius, however,
was of opinion that at this late period the term
had merely been adopted from the narrative in
the Acts, and that the usage in the 10th century
is no safe guide to its true meaning. Others
regard them as body-ouards of the governor, and
Meursius, in his Glossariwn Graeco-barbarum,
supposes them to have been a kind of military
lictors, who had the charge of arresting prisoners ;
but the great number (200) employed is against
both these suppositions. In Suidas and the Ety-
mologicum Magnum παραφύλαξ is given as the
equivalent of δεξιολάβος. The word occurs again
in one of the Byzantine Historians, Theophylactus
Simocatta (iv. 1), and is used by him of soldiers
who were employed on skirmishing duty. It is
probable, therefore, that the δεξιολάβοι were light-
armed troops of some kind, but nothing is certainly
known about them, [We A. We]
SPICE, SPICES. Under this head it will be
desirable to notice the following Hebrew words,
basdm, nécoth, and sammim.
1. Basam, besem, or bdsem (ow, bya,
nwa: aromata) ). ᾿ The
first-enamed form of the Hebrew ter m, which occurs
only in Cant. v. 1, “I have gathered my myrrh
with my spice,” points apparently to some definite
substance. In the other places, with the exception
perhaps of Cant. i. 13, vi. 2, the words refer more
generally to sweet aromatic odours, the principal of
which was that of the balsam, or balm of Gilead; the
tree which yields this substance is now generally
admitted to be the Amyris (Balsamodendron) opo-
balsamum; though it is probable that other species
of Amyridaceae are included under the terms.
The identity of the Hebrew name ae the Arabic
Sy aes ---
Basham φυλὴ or Balasan (,, παι leaves
no reason to doubt that the cee are identical.
The Amyris opobalsamum was observed by Forskal
near Mecca; it was called by the Arabs Abuscham,
i. e. “very odorous.” But whether this was the
same plant that was cultivated in the plains of Je-
richo, and celebrated throughout the world (Pliny,
N. Η. xii. 25; Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. ix. 6 ;
Josephus, Ant. xv. 4, §2 ; Strabo, xvi. 367 ; &c.), it
is difficult to determine ; but being a tropical plant,
it cannot be supposed to have grown except in the
warm valleys of the S. of Palestine. The shrub
mentioned by Burckhardt (Zrav. p. 323) as grow-
ing in gardens near Tiberias, and which he was in-
formed was the balsam, cannot have been the tree
in question. The A. Υ͂. never renders Basdm by
‘balm ;” it gives this word as the representative of
the Hebrew “tzeri 7, or tzori Neer The form
Besem or Bésem, which is of frequent occurrence in
ἡδύσματα, θυμιάματα:
=
SPICE, SPICES
the O. T., may well be represented by the general
term of “spices,” or “sweet odours,” in accordance
with the renderings of the LXX. and Vulg. The
balm of Gilead tree grows in some parts of Arabia
and Africa, and is seldom more than fifteen feet
high, with straggling branches and scanty foliage.
The balsam is chiefly obtained from incisions in the
bark, but the substance is procured also from the
green and ripe berries. The balsam orchards near
Jericho appear to have existed at the time of Titus
by whose legions they were taken formal possession
of, but no remains of this celebrated plant are now
to be seen in Palestine.
(See Sertpture Herbal,
Balsam of Gilead (Amyris Gileadensis).
2, Nécdth (MSDI: θυμίαμα : aromata). The
company of Ishmaelitish merchants to whom Joseph
was sold were on their way from Gilead to Egypt,
with their camels bearing nécéth, tzeri [Baum],
and ἰδὲ (ladanum) (Gen. xxxvii. 25); this same
substance was also among the presents which Jacob
sent to Joseph in Egypt (see Gen. xliii. 11). It is
probable from both these passages that nécdth, if a
name for some definite substance, was a product of
Palestine, as it is named with other “ best fruits of
the land,” the ἐξ in the former passage being the
gum of the Cistus creticus, and not ‘ myrrh,” as
the A. V. renders it. [Myrru.] Various opinions
have been formed as to what nécdéth denotes, for
which see Celsius, Hierob. i. 548, and Rosenmiiller,
Schol. in Gen. (1. ¢.); the most probable explana-
tion is that which refers the word to the Arabic
SS
---
naka at (x53), i.e. “the gum obtained from the
Tragacanth” (Astragalus), three or four species
of which genus are enumerated as occurring in
Palestine; see Strand’s Flora Pataestina, No, 413-
416. The gum is a natural exudation from the
trunk and branches of the plant, which on being
SPICE, SPICES 1369
“exposed to the air grows hard, and is formed
either into lumps or slender pieces curled and
winding like worms, more or less long according
as matter offers” (Tournefort, Voyage, i. 59, ed.
Lond. 1741).
Astragalus Tragacantha,
It is uncertain whether the word F533 in 2 K.
xx. 13; Is. xxxix. 2, denotes spice of any kind. The
A. V. veads in the text ‘* the house of his precious
things,” the margin gives “ spicery,” which has the
support of the Vulg., Aq., and Symm. [ is clear
from the passages referred to that Hezekiah possessed
a house or treasury of precious and useful vegetable
productions, and that ndcéth may in these places
denote, though perhaps not exclusively, Tragacanth
gum. Keil (Comment. 1. c.) derives the word from
an unused root (M43, “implevit loculum”), and
renders it by “ treasure.”
3. Sammim (DDD: ἥδυσμα, ἡδυσμός, ἄρωμα,
θυμίαμα : suave fragrans, boni odoris, gratissimus,
aromata). A general term to denote those aromatic
substances which were used in the preparation of
the anointing oil, the incense offerings, &c. The
root of the word, according to Gesenius, is to be re-
ferred to the Arabic Samm, ‘“ olfecit,” whence
Samim, “an odoriferous substance.” For more par-
ticular information on the various aromatic sub-
stances mentioned in the Bible. the reader is referred
to the articles which treat of the different kinds:
FRANKINCENSE, GALBANUM, Myrru, SPIKE-
NARD, CINNAMON, &c.
The spices mentioned as being used by Nico-
demus for the preparation of our Lord’s body (John
xix. 39, 40) are “ myrrhand aloes,” by which latter
word must be understood, not the aloes of medicine
(Aloe), but the highly-scented wood of the Aqui-
laria agallochum (but see ALOES, App. A). The
enormous quantity of 100 lbs. weight of which St.
John speaks, has excited the incredulity of some
authors. Josephus, however, tells us that there
were five hundred spicebearers at Herod’s funeral
(Ané. xvii. 8, §3), and in the Talmud it is said
1370 SPIDER
that 80 Ibs. of opobalsamum were employed at the
funeral of a certain Rabbi; still there 1s no reason
to conclude that 100 Ibs. weight of pure myrrh and
aloes was consumed; the words of the Evangelist
imply a preparation (μίγμα) in which perhaps the
myrrh and aloes were the principal or most costly
aromatic ingredients; again, it must be remem-
bered that Nicodemus was a-rich man, and perhaps
was the owner of large stores of precious sub-
stances ; as a constant though timid disciple of our
Lord, he probably did not scruple at any sacrifice
so that he could show his respect for Him. [W. H. |
SPIDER. The representative in the A. V. of
the Hebrew words ’accabish and semamith.
1. "Accdbish (WMADY: ἀράχνη : aranea) occurs
in Job viii. 14, where of the ungodly (A. V. hypo-
crite) it is said his ‘* hope shall be cut off, and his
trust shall be the house of an ’accabish,” and in Is.
lix. 5, where the wicked Jews are allegorically said
to “weave the web of the ’accdbish.”’ There is no
doubt of the correctness of our translation ii ren-
dering this word “ spider.” In the two passages
quoted above, allusion is made to the fragile na-
ture of the spider’s web, which, though admirably
suited to fulfil all the requirements of the animal,
is yet most easily torn by any violence that may
be offered to it. In the passage in Is. (/. c.), how-
ever, there is probably allusion also to the lurking
habits of the spider for his prey: ‘ The wicked
hatch viper’s eggs and weave the spider’s web. . .
their works are works of iniquity, wasting and de-
struction are in their paths.” We have no informa-
tion as to the species of Araneidae that occur in
Palestine, but doubtless this order is abundantly
represented.
2, Sémamith (ον: καλαβώτης : steilio),
wroncly translated by the A. V. “spider” in Prov.
xxx. 28, the only passage where the word is found,
has reference, it is probable, to some kind of lizard
(Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 510). The Sémaméth is men-
tioned by Solomon as one of the four things that are
exceeding clever, though they be little upon earth. |
“The Sémamith taketh hold with her hands, and
is in kings’ palaces.” This term exists in the
modern Greek language under the form σαμιάμιν-
Bos. “Quem Graeci hodie σαμιάμινθον vocant, |
antiquae Graeciae est ἀσκαλαβώτης, id est stellio—
quae vox pura Hebraica est et reperitur in Proy.
cap. xxx. 28, now” (Salmasii Plin. Eaxercit.
p- 817, b. G.). The lizard indicated is evidently
some species of Gecko, some notice of which genus
of animals is given under the article LIZARD, where
the Letaéh was referred to the Piyodactylus Gecko.
The Sémamith is perhaps another species. [W.H. |
SPIKENARD (19), nérd: νάρδος: nardus).
We are much indebted to the late lamented Dr.
Royle for helping to clear up the doubts that had
long existed as to what particular plant furnished
the aromatic substance known as “ spikenard.””? Of
this substance mention is made twice in the O. T.,
viz. in Cant. i. 12, where its sweet odour is
alluded to, and in iv. 13, 14, where it is enume-
rated with various other aromatic substances
which were imported at an early age from Arabia
or India and the far East. The ointment with
which our Lord was anointed as He sat at meat in
Simon’s house at Bethany consisted of this pre-
cious substance, the costliness of which may be
inferred from the indignant surprise manifested by
SPIKENARD
some of the witnesses of the transaction (see Mark
xiv. 3-5; John xii. 3-5). With this may be
compared Horace, 4 Carm. xii. 16, 17—
“ Nardo vina merebere.
Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum.”
Dioscorides speaks of several kinds of νάρδος,
and gives the names of various substances which
composed the ointment (i. 77). The Hebrew
nérd, according to Gesenius, is of Indian origin,
and signifies the stalk of a plant; hence one of
the Arabic names given by Avicenna as the equi-
valent of nard is sunbul, “spica;” comp. the
Greek ναρδόσταχυς, and our “ spikenard.’ But
whatever may be the derivation of the Heb. 13,
there is no doubt that sunbul is by Arabian
authors used as the representative of the Greek
nardos, as Sir Wm. Jones has shown (Asiat. Res.
ii. 416). It appears, however, that this great
Oriental scholar was unable to obtain the plant
from which the drug is procured, a wrong pliant
having been sent him by Roxburgh. Dr. Royle
when director of the E. I. Company’s botanic
garden at Saharunpore, about 30 miles from the
foot of the Himalayan Mountains, having ascer-
tained that the jatamansee, one of the Hindu
synonyms for the sunbul, was annually brought
from the mountains overhanging the Ganges and
Jumna rivers down to the plains, purchased some
of these fresh roots and planted them in the
botanic gardens. They produced the same plant
which in 1825 had been described by Don from spe-
cimens sent by Dr. Wallich from Nepal, and named
by him Patrinia jatamansi (see the Prodromus
Florae Nepalensis, §c., accedunt plantae a Wal-
lichio nuperius missaec, Lond. 1825). The iden-
tity of the jatamansi with the Sunbul hindae of
the Arabs is established beyond a doubt by the
form of a portion of the rough stem of the plant,
which the Arabs describe as being like the tail of
an ermine (see woodcut), This plant, which has
Spikenard.
been called Nardostachys jatamansi by De Can-
dolle, is evidently the kind of nardos described by
Dioscorides (i. 6) under the name of γαγγῖτις, ἴ. ὁ,
“the Ganges nard.” Dioscorides refers especially
to its having many shaggy (πολυκόμους) spikes
I = eee a eee
:
|
|
SPINNING
crowing from one root, It is very imteresting to
note that Dioscorides gives the same locality for
the plant as is mentioned by Royle, ἀπό τινος πο-
ταμοῦ παραῤῥέοντος τοῦ bpous, Γάγγου καλου-
μένου παρ᾽ ᾧ φύεται : though he is here speaking
of lowland specimens, he also mentions plants ob-
tained from the mountains. (W. H.]
SPINNING (ΠῚ : νήθειν). The notices of
spinning in the Bible are confined to Ex. xxxv. 25,
26; Matt. vi. 28; and Prov. xxxi.19. The latter
passage implies (according to the A. V.) the use
of the same instruments which have been in vogue
for hand-spinning down to the present day, viz. the
distaff and spindle. The distaff, however, appears
to have been dispensed with, and the term ® so ren-
dered means the spindle itself, while that rendered
“spindle” > represents the whirl (verticillus, Plin.
xxxvii. 11) of the spindle, a button or circular rim
which was affixed to it, and gave steadiness to its
circular motion. The “ whirl” of the Syrian
women was made of amber in the time of Pliny
(1. c,). ‘The spindle was held perpendicularly in
the one hand, while the other was employed in
drawing out the thread, The process is exhibited
in the Egyptian paintings (Wilkinson, 11. 85).
Spinning was the business of women, both among
the Jews (Ex. /. c.), and for the most part among
the Egyptians (Wilkinson, ii. 84). [W. L. B.]
SPIRIT, THE HOLY. In the O. T. He is
generally called po ΤΠ, or my man, the
Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jehovah ; sometimes
the Holy Spirit of Jehovah, as Ps. li. 11; Is. Ixiii.
10, 11; or the Good Spirit of Jehovah, as Ps. exliii.
10: Neh. ix. 20. In the N. T. He is generally τὸ
πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, or simply τὸ πνεῦμα, the Holy
Spirit, the Spirit; sometimes the Spirit of God, of
the Lord, of Jesus Christ, as in Matt. iii. 16; Acts
v. 9; Phil. 1. 19, &c.
In accordance with what seems to be the general
rule of Divine Revelation, that the knowledge of
heavenly things is given more abundantly and more
clearly in later ages, the person, attributes, and
operations of the Holy Ghost are made known to us
chiefly in the New Testament. And in the light
of such later revelation, words which when heard
by patriarchs and prophets were probably under-
stood imperfectly by them, become full of meaning
to Christians.
In the earliest period of Jewish history the Holy
Spirit was revealed as co-operating in the creation
of the world (Gen. i. 2), as the Source, Giver, and
Sustainer of life (Job xxvii. 3, xxxiii. 4; Gen. ii. 7) 5
as resisting (if the common interpretation be cor-
rect) the evil inclinations of men (Gen. vi. 3)3 as
the Source of intellectual excellence (Gen. xli. 38 ;
Deut. xxxiv. 9); of skill in handicraft (Ex. xxviii.
3, xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31); of supernatural knowledge
and prophetic gifts (Num. xxiy. 2); of valour and
those qualities of mind or body which give one maa
acknowledged superiority over others (Judg. iii. 10,
νι 58: alg 20. ΧΗ, 249)
In that period which began with Samuel, the
effect of the Spirit coming on a man is described in
the remarkable case of Saul as change of heart
(1 Sam. x. 6, 9), shown outwardly by prophesying
(1 Sam. x.10; comp. Num. xi. 25, and 1 Sam. xix.
20). He departs from a man whom He has once
changed (1 Sam. xvi. 14). His departure is the
5 Ἴ55. > WWD.
SPIRIT, THE HOLY 1571
departure of God (xvi. 14, xviii. 12, xxviii. 15).
His presence is the presence of God (xvi. 13, xviii.
12). In the period of the Kingdom the operation
of the Spirit was recognised chiefly in the inspiration
of the prophets (see Witsius, IJiscellanea Sacra,
lib. 1.; J. Smith’s Select Discourses, 6. Of Pro-
phecy; Knobel, Prophetismus der Hebrder). Sepa-
rated more or less front the common occupations of
men to a life of special religious exercise (Bp. Bull’s
Sermons, x. p. 187, ed. 1840), they were sometimes
workers of miracles, always foretellers of future
events, and guides and advisers of the social and
political life of the people who were contemporary
with them (2K. ii.9; 2 Chr. xxiv. 205; Ez. ii. 23;
Neh. ix. 30, &c.). In their writings are found
abundant predictions of the ordinary operations of
the Spirit which were to be most frequent in later
times, by which holiness, justice, peace, and conso-
lation were to be spread throughout the world (Is.
ate Cn balls Uy Iain le isies)
Even after the closing of the eanon of the O. T.
the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world cop-
tinued to be acknowledged by Jewish writers (Wisd.
i. 7, ix. 173 Philo, De Gigant. 5; and see Ridley,
Moyer Lectures, Serm. ii. p. 81, &c.).
In the N. T., both in the teaching of our Lord
and in the narratives of the events which preceded
His ministry and occurred in its course, the exist-
ence and agency of the Holy Spirit ave frequently
revealed, and are mentioned in such a manner as
shows that these facts were part of the common
belief of the Jewish people at that time. Theirs
was, in truth, the ancient faith, but more generally
entertained, which looked upon prophets as inspired
teachers, accredited by the power of working signs
and wonders (see Nitzsch, Christi. Lehre, §84). It
was made plain to the understanding of the Jews
of that age that the same Spirit who wrought of
old amongst the people of God was still at work.
“The Dove forsook the ark of Moses and fixed its
dwelling in the Church of Christ ” (Bull, On Justi-
fication, Diss. ii. ch. xi. 87). The gifts of miracles,
prediction, and teaching, which had cast a fitful
lustre on the times of the great Jewish prophets,
were manifested with remarkable vigour in the
first century atter the birth of Christ. Whether in
the course of eighteen hundred years miracles and
predictions have altogether ceased, and, if so, at
what definite time they ceased, are questions still
debated among Christians. On this subject reference
may be made to Dr. Conyers Middleton’s Free En-
quiry into the Miraculous Powers of the Christian
Church; Dr. Brooke’s Examination of Middleton's
Free Enquiry; W. Dodwell’s Letter to Middleton ;
Bp. Douglas’s Criterion; J. H. Newman’s Lssay
on Miracles, ἕο. With respect to the gifts of
teaching bestowed both in early and later ages,
compare Neander, Planting of Christianity, Ὁ. iii
ch. v., with Horsley, Sermons, xiv., Potter, On
Church Government, ch. v., and Hooker, Lecl.
Polity, v. 72, §§5-8.
The relation of the Holy Spirit to the Incarnate
Son of God (see Oxford translation of Treatises of
Athanasius, p. 196, note d) is a subject for reverent
contemplation rather than precise definition. By
the Spirit the redemption of mankind was made
known, though imperfectly, to the prophets of old
(2 Pet. i. 21), and through them to the people of
God. And when the time for the Incarnation had
arrived, the miraculous conception of the Redeemer
(Matt. i. 18) was the work of the Spirit; by the
Spirit He was anointed in the womb or at baptism
1372 SPIRIT, THE HOLY
(Acts x. 38; cf. Pearson, On the Creed, Art. ii.
p. 126, ed. Oxon. 1843); and the gradual growth
of His perfect human nature was in the Spirit
(Luke ii. 40, 52). <A visible sign from heaven
showed the Spirit descending on and abiding with
Christ, whom He thenceforth filled and led (Luke
iv. 1), co-operating with Christ in His miracles
(Matt. xii. 18). The multitude of disciples are
taught to pray for and expect the Spirit as the best
and greatest boon they can seek (Luke xi. 13). He
inspires with miraculous powers the first teachers
whom Christ sends forth, and He is repeatedly pro-
mised and given by Christ to the Apostles (Matt.
x. 20, xii, 285 John xiv. 16, xx. 22; Actsi. 8).
Perhaps it was in order to correct the grossly
defective conceptions of the Holy Spirit which pre-
vailed commonly among the people, and to teach them
that this is the most awful possession of the heirs
of the kingdom of heaven, that our Lord Himself
pronounced the strong condemnation of blasphemers
of the Holy Ghost (Matt. xii. 31). This has roused
in every age the susceptibility of tender consciences,
and has caused much inquiry to be made as to the
specific character of the sin so denounced, and of
the human actions which fall under so terrible a
ban. On the one hand it is argued that no one
now occupies the exact position of the Pharisees
whom our Lord condemned, for they had not en-
tered into covenant with the Holy Spirit by baptism ;
they did not merely disobey the Spirit, but blas-
phemously attributed His works to the devil; they
resisted not merely an inward motion but an out-
ward call, supported by the evidence of miracles
wrought before their eyes. On the other hand, a
morbid conscience is prone to apprehend the unpar-
donable sin in every, even unintentional, resistance
of an inward motion which may proceed from the
Spirit. This subject is referred to in Article
XVI. of the Church of England, and is discussed
by Burnet, Beveridge, and Harold Browne, in their
Expositions of the Articles. It occupies the greater
part of Athanasius’ Fourth Epistle to Serapion,
ch, 8-22 (sometimes printed separately as a Treatise
on Matt. xii. 31). See also Augustine, Hp. ad
fiom. Expositio inchoata, §§14-23, tom. iii. pt. 2,
p- 983. Also Odo Cameracensis (A.D. 1113), De
Blasphemia in Sp. Sanctum, in Migne’s Patrologia
Lat, vol. 163; J. Denison (4.0. 1611), The Sin
against the Holy Ghost; Waterland’s Sermons,
‘xxvii. in Works, vol. v. p. 706; Jackson, On the
Creed, bk. viii. ch. iii. p. 770.
But the Ascension of our Lord is marked (Eph.
iv. 8; John vii. 39, &c.) as the commencement of
a new period in the history of the inspiration of
men by the Holy Ghost. The interval between that
event and the end of the world is often described as
the Dispensation of the Spirit. It was not merely
(as Didymus Alex. De Trinitate, iii. 34, p. 431,
and others have suggested) that the knowledge of
the Spirit’s operations hecame more general among
mankind. It cannot be allowed (though Bp. Heber,
Lectures, viii. 514 and vii. 488, and Warburton
have maintained it) that the Holy Spirit has suffi-
ciently redeemed His gracious promise to every suc-
ceeding age of Christians only by presenting us
with the New Testament, Something more was
promised, and continues to be given. Under the
old dispensation the gifts of the Holy Spirit were
uncovenanted, not universal, intermittent, chiefly
external. All this was changed. Our Lord, by
ordaining (Matt. xxvii. 19) that every Christian
should be baptized in the uame of the Holy Ghost,
SPIRIT, THE HOLY
indicated at once the absolute necessity from that
time forth of a personal connexion of every believer
with the Spirit; and (in John xvi. 7-15) He de-
clares the internal character of the Spirit’s work,
and (in John xiv. 16, 17, &c.) His permanent stay.
And subsequently the Spirit’s operations under the
new dispensation are authoritatively announced as
universal and internal in two remarkable passages
(Acts ii. 16-21; Heb. viii. 8-12). The different
relations of the Spirit to believers severally under
the old and new dispensation are described by St.
Paul under the images of a master to a servant,
and a father to a son (Rom. viii. 15); so much
deeper and more intimate is the union, so much
higher the position (Matt. xi. 11) of a believer, in
the later stage than in the earlier (see J. G. Walch-
ius, Miscellanea Sacra, p. 763, De Spiritu Adop-
tionis, and the opinions collected in note H in Hare’s
Mission of the Comforter, vol. ii. p. 433)... The
rite of imposition of hands, not only on teachers,
but also on ordinary Christians, which has been
used in the Apostolic (Acts vi. 6, xiii. 3, xix. 6,
&c.) and in all subsequent ages, is a testimony
borne by those who come under the new dispensa-
tion to their belief of the reality, permanence, and
universality of the gift of the Spirit.
Under the Christian dispensation it appears to be
the office of the Holy Ghost to enter into and dwell
within every believer (Rom. viii. 9, 113; 1 John iii.
24). By Him the work of Redemption is (so to
speak) appropriated and carried out to its comple-
tion in the case of every one of the elect people of
God. To believe, to profess sincerely the Christian
faith, and to walk as a Christian, are His gifts
(2 Cor. iv. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 3; Gal. v. 18) to each
person severally: not only does He bestow the
power and faculty of acting, but He concurs (1 Cor.
iii. 9; Phil. ii. 13) in every particular action so far
as it is good (see South’s Sermons, xxxv., vol. ii. p.
292). His inspiration brings the true knowledge
of all things (1 John ii. 27). He unites the whole
multitude of believers into one regularly organized
body (1 Cor. xii., and Eph. iv. 4-16). He is not
only the source of life to us on earth (2 Cor.
ili. 6; Rom, viii. 2), but also the power by whom
God raises us from the dead (Rom. viii. 11). All
Scripture, by which men in every successive gene-
ration are instructed and made wise unto salvation,
is inspired by Him (Eph. iii. 5; 2 Tim. iii. 16;
2 Pet. 1. 21); He co-operates with suppliants in
the utterance of every effectual prayer that ascends
on high (Eph. ii. 18, vi. 18; Rom. viii. 26);
He strengthens (Eph. iii. 16), sanctifies (2 Thess.
ii. 13), and seals the souls of men unto the day of
completed redemption (Eph. i. 13, iv. 30),
That this work of the Spirit is a real work, and
not a mere imagination of enthusiasts, may be
shown (1) from the words of Scripture to which
reference has been made, which are too definite and
clear to be explained away by any such hypothesis ;
(2) by the experience of intelligent Christians in
every age, who are ready to specify the marks and
tokens of His operation in themselves, and even to
describe the manner in which they believe He
works, on which see Barrow’s Sermons, Ixxvii. and
Ixxviii., towards the end; Waterland’s Sermons,
xxvi., vol. v. p. 686; (3) by the superiority of
Christian nations over heathen nations, in the pos-
session of those characteristic qualities which are
gifts of the Spirit, in the establishment of such
customs, habits, and laws as are agreeable thereto,
and in the exercise of an enlightening and purifying
r
‘
a
4
ἢ
SPIRIT, THE HOLY
influence in the world, Christianity and civiliza-
tion are never far asunder: those nations which are
now eminent in power and knowledge are all to be
found within the pale of Christendom, not indeed
free from national vices, yet on the whole mani-
festly superior both to contemporary unbelievers
and to Paganism in its ancient palmy days. (See
Hare’s Mission of the Comforter, Serm. 6, vol. i.
p- 202; Porteus on the Beneficial Effects of Chris-
tianity on the Temporal Concerns of Mankind, in
Works, vol. vi. pp. 375-460.)
It has been inferred from various passages of
Scripture that the operations of the Holy Spirit are
not limited to those persons who either by circum-
cision or by baptism have entered into covenant
with God. Abimelech (Gen. xx. 3), Melchizedek
(xiv. 18), Jethro (Ex. xviii, 12), Balaam (Num.
xxii. 9), and Job in the O. T.; and the Magi (Matt.
ii. 12) and the case of Cornelius, with the declara-
tion of St. Peter (Acts x. 35) thereon, are instances
showing that the Holy Spirit bestowed His gifts of
knowledge and holiness in some degree even among
heathen nations; and if we may go beyond the
attestation of Scripture, it might be argued from
the virtuous actions of some heathens, from their
ascription of whatever good was in them to the in-
fluence of a present Deity (see the references in
Heber’s Lectures, vi. p. 446), and from their tena-
cious preservation of the rite of animal sacrifice,
that the Spirit whose name they knew not must
have girded them, and still girds such as they were,
with secret blessedness.
Thus far it has been attempted to sketch briefly
the work ofthe Holy Spirit among men in all ages
as it is revealed to us in the Bible. But after the
closing of the canon of the N. T. the religious
subtilty of Oriental Christians led them to scruti-
nize, with the most intense accuracy, the words in
which God has, incidentally as it were, revealed to
us something of the mystery of the Being of the
Holy Ghost. It would be vain now to condemn
the superfluous and irreverent curiosity with which
these researches were sometimes prosecuted, and the
scandalous contentions which they caused. The
result of them was the formation and general ac-
ceptance of certain statements as inferences from
Holy Scripture which took their place in the esta-
blished creeds and in the teaching of the Fathers
of the Church, and which the great body of Chris-
tians throughout the world continue to adhere to,
and to guard with more or less vigilance.
The Sadducees are sometimes mentioned as pre-
ceding any professed Christians in denying the per-
sonal existence of the Holy Ghost. Such was the
inference of Epiphanius (Haeres. xli.), Gregory
Nazianzen (Oratio xxxi. §5, p. 558, ed. Ben.), and
others, from the testimony of St. Luke (Acts xxxiii.
8). But it may be doubted whether the error of
the Sadducees did not rather consist in asserting a
corporeal Deity. Passing over this, in the first
youthful age of the Church, when, as Neander ob-
serves (Ch. Hist. ii. 327, Bohn’s edit.), the power
of the Holy Spirit was so mightily felt as a new
creative, transforming principle of life, the know-
ledge of this Spirit, as identical with the Essence of
God, was not so thoroughly and distinctly impressed
on the understanding of Christians. Simon Magus,
the Montanists, and the Manicheans, are said to
have imagined that the promised Comforter was
personified in certain human beings. The language
of some of the primitive Fathers, though its de-
ficiencies have been greatly exaggerated, occasionally
SPIRIT, THE HOLY 1373
comes short of a full and complete acknowledgment
of the Divinity of the Spirit. Their opinions are
given in their own words, with much valuable
criticism, in Dr, Burton's Testimonies of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers to the Doctrine of the Trinity and
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (1831). Valentinus
believed that the Holy Spirit was an angel. The
Sabellians denied that He was a distinct Person
from the Father and the Son. Eunomius, with the
Anomaeans and the Arians, regarded Him as a
created Being. Macedonius, with his followers the
Pneumatomachi, also denied His Divinity, and re-
garded Him as a created Being attending on the
Son, His Procession from the Son as well as from
the Father was the great point of controversy in the
Middle Ages. In modern times the Socinians and
Spinosa have altogether denied the Personality, and
have regarded Him as an influence or power of the
Deity. It must suffice in this article to give the
principal texts of Scripture in which these erroneous
opinions are contradicted, and to refer to the prin-
cipal works in which they are discussed at length.
The documents in which various existing commu-
nities of Christians have stated their belief are spe-
cified by G. B. Winer, Comparative Darstellung des
Lehrbegriffs, &c., pp. 41 and 80.
The Divinity of the Holy Ghost is proved by the
fact that He is called God. Compare 1 Sam. xvi.
13 with xviii. 12; Acts v. 3 with v. 4; 2 Cor. iii.
17 with Ex. xxxiv. 34; Acts xxviii. 25 with Is.
vi. 8; Matt. xii. 28 with Luke xi. 20; 1 Cor. iii.
16 with vi. 19. The attributes of God are ascribed
to Him. He creates, works miracles, inspires pro-
phets, is the Source of holiness (see above), is ever-
lasting (Heb. ix. 14), omnipresent, and omniscient
(Ps. exxxix. 7; and 1 Cor. ii. 10).
The Personality of the Holy Ghost is shown by
the actions ascribed to Him. He hears and speaks
(John xvi. 13; Acts x. 19, xiii. 2, &.). He wills
and acts on His decision (1 Cor. xii. 11). He
chooses and directs a certain course of action (Acts
xv. 28). He knows (1 Cor. ii. 11). He teaches
(John xiv. 26), He intercedes (Rom. viii. 26).
The texts 2 Thess. iii. 5, and 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13,
are quoted against those who confound the three
Persons of the Godhead.
The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father
is shown from John xiv. 26, xv. 26, ἄς. The tenet
of the Western Church that He proceeds from the
Son is grounded on John xv. 26, xvi. 7; Rom. viii.
ΡΣ iver Gini 1: 19. ale beta 110 4π6 ὁπ
the action of our Lord recorded by St. John xx, 22.
The history of the long and important controversy
on this point has been written by Pfaff, by J. G.
Walchius, Historia Controversiae de Processione,
1751, and by Neale, History of the Eastern Church,
ii. 1093.
Besides the Expositions of the Thirty-nine Articles
referred to above, and Pearson, On the Creed, art.
viii., the work of Barrow (De Spiritu Sancto) con-
tains an excellent summary of the various heresies
and their confutation. The following works may
be consulted for more detailed discussion :—Atha-
nasius, Epistolae IV. ad Serapionem; Didymus
Alex. De Spiritu Sancto; Basil the Great, De
Spiritu Sancto, and Adversus Eunomium; Gregory
Nazianzen, Orationes de Theologia; Gregory of
Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, lib. xiii.; Ambrose, De
Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii.; Augustine, Contra Max-
iminum, and De Trinittite; Paschasius Diaconus,
De Sp. Sanc.; Isidorus, Hisp. Htymologia, vii. 3,
De Sp. Sanc.; Ratramnus Corbeiensis, Contre
.
1374 SPONGE
Graecorum, &c. lib, iv.; Alcuin, P. Damian, and
Anselm, De Processione; Aquinas, Sum. Theol.
i, 36-43; Owen, Treatise on the Holy Spirit;
J. Howe, Office and Works of the Holy Spirit ;
W. Clagett, On the Operations of the Spirit, 1678 ;
M. Hole, On the Gifts and Graces of the H. 8. ;
Bp. Warburton, Doctrine of Grace; Gl. Ridley,
Moyer Lectures on the Divinity and Operations
of the H. 8.1742; S. Ogden, Sermons, pp. 157-
176; Faber, Practical Treatise on the Ordinary
Operations of the H, 5. 1813; Bp. Heber, Bamp-
ton Lectures on the Personality and Office of the
Comforter, 1816; Archd, Hare, Mission of the
Comforter, 1846. Werle Ba
SPONGE (σπόγγος : spongia) is mentioned
only in the N.T. in those passages which relate
the incident of “a sponge filled with vinegar and
put on areed” (Matt. xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36),
or “on hyssop” (John xix. 29) being offered to
our Lord on the cross. The commercial value of
the sponge was known from very early times; and
although there appears to be no notice of it in the
O. T., yet it is probable that it was used by the
ancient Hebrews, who could readily have obtained
it good from the Mediterranean. Aristotle men-
tions several kinds, and carefully notices those
which were useful for economic purposes (Hist.
Anim. v. 14), His speculations on the nature of
the sponge ave very interesting. [W. H.]
STACH'YS (Srdxus: Stachys). Α Christian
at Rome, saluted by St. Paul in the Epistle to the
Romans (xvi. 9). The name is Greek. According
to a tradition recorded by Nicephorus Callistus
(H. 1. viii. 6) he was appointed bishop of Byzan-
tium by St. Andrew, held the office for sixteen
years, and was succeeded by Onesimus.
SPOUSE. [MarriaGe.]
STACTE (90), nataf: στακτή : stacte), the
name of one of the sweet spices which composed
the holy incense (sec Ex. xxx. 34). The Heb.
word occurs once again (Job xxxvi. 27), where it
is used to denote simply “a drop” of water. For
the various opinions as to what substance is in-
tended by ndtaf, see Celsius (Hierob. i, 529);
Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot. p. 164) identifies the
nataf with the gum of the storax tree (Styrax
officinale); the LXX. στακτή (from στάζω, “to
drop”) is the exact translation of the Heb. word.
Now Dioscorides describes two kinds of στακτή:
one is the fresh gum of the myrrh tree (Balsamo-
dendron myrrha) mixed with water and squeezed
out through a press (i. 74); the other kind, which
he calls, from the manner in which it is pre-
pared, σκωληκίτης στύραξ, denotes the resin of
the storax adulterated with wax and fat. The
true stacte of the Greek writers points to the
distillation from the myrrh tree, of which, according
to Theophrastus (fr. iv. 29, ed. Schneider), both a
natwral and an artificial kind were known; this is
the mér dérér (AVF AND) of Ex. xxx. 23. Perhaps
the natdf denotes the storax gum; but all that is
positively known is that it signifies an odorous
distillation from some plant. For, some account of
the styrax tree see under POPLAR. [W. H.]
STANDARDS. [Enstans. ]
STAR OF THE WISE MEN. Until the
last few yews the interpretation of St. Matt. ii.
1-12, by theologians in general, coincided in the
STAR OF THE WISE MEN
main with that which would he given to it by any
person of ordinary intelligence who read the account
with due attention. Some supernatural light
resembling a star had appeared in some country
(possibly Persia) far to the East of Jerusalem, to
men who were versed in the study of celestial
phenomena, conveying to their minds a superna-
tural impulse to repair to Jerusalem, where they
would find a new-born king. It supposed them
to be followers, and possibly priests, of the Zend
religion, whereby they were led to expect a Re-
deemer in the person of the Jewish infant. On
arriving at Jerusalem, after diligent inquiry and
consultation with the priests and learned men who
could naturally best inform them, they are directed
to proceed to Bethlehem. The star which they
had seen in the East re-appeared to them and pre-
ceded them (προῆγεν αὐτούς). until it took up its
station over the place where the young child was:
(ἕως ἔλθων ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἣν τὸ παιδίον).
The whole matter, that is, was supernatural ;
forming a portion of that divine pre-arrangement,
whereby, in his deep humiliation among men, the
child Jesus was honoured and acknowledged by the
Father, as His beloved Son in whom He was well
pleased. Thus the lowly shepherds who kept their
nightly watch on the hills near to Bethlehem,
together with all that remained of the highest and
best philosophy of the Kast, are alike the par-
takers and the witnesses of the glory of Him who
was “born in the city of David, a Saviour which
is Christ the Lord.” Such is substantially the
account which, until the earlier part of the present
century would have been given by orthodox divines,
of the Star of the Magi. Latterly, however, a
very different opinion has gradually become preva-
lent upon the subject, The star has been displaced
from the catesory of the supernatural, and has
been referred to the ordinary astronomical pheno-*
menon of a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and
Saturn. The idea originated with Kepler, who,
among many other brilliant but untenable fancies,
supposed that if he could identify a conjunction of
the above named planets with the Star of Bethle-
hem, he would thereby be able to determine, on the
basis of certainty, the very difficult and obscure
point of the Annus Domini. Kepler’s suggestion
was worked out with great cave and no very great
inaccuracy by Dr, Ideler of Berlin, and the results
of his calculations certainly do, on the first impres-
sion, seem to show a very specious accordance with
the phenomena of the star in question. We pur-
pose, then, in the first place, to state what celestial
phenomena did occur with reference to the planets
Jupiter and Saturn, at a date assuredly not very
distant from the time of our Saviour’s birth; and
then to examine how far they fulfil, or fail to
fulfil, the conditions required by the narrative in
St. Matthew.
In the month of May, B.c. 7, a conjunction ot
the planets Jupiter and Saturn occurred, not far
from the first point of Aries, the planets rising in
Chaldaea about 34 hours before the sun. It is
said that on astrological grounds such a conjunction
could not fail to excite the attention of men like the
Magi, and that in consequence partly of their
knowledge of Balaam’s prophecy, and partly from
the uneasy persuasion then said to be prevalent that
some great one was to be born in the Kast, these
Magi commenced their journey to Jerusalem. Sup-
posing them to have set out at the end of May
B.C. 7 upon a journey for which thé circumstances
STAR OF THE WISE MEN
will be seen to require at least seven months, the
planets were observed to separate slowly until the
end of July, when their motions becoming retro-
grade, they again came into conjunction by the end
of September, At that time there can be no doubt
Jupiter would present to astronomers, especially in
so clear an atmosphere,® a magnificent spectacle.
It was then at its most brilliant apparition, for it
was at its nearest approach both to the sun and to
the earth. Not far from it would be seen its duller
and much less conspicuous companion Saturn,
This glorious spectacle continued almost unaltered
for several days, when the planets again slowly
separated, then came to a halt, when, by re-assum-
ing a direct motion, Jupiter again approached to a
‘conjunction for the third time with Saturn, just as
the Magi may be supposed to have entered the Holy
City. And, to complete the fascination of the
tale, about an hour and a half after sunset, the
two planets might be seen from Jerusalem, hang-
ing as it were in the meridian, and suspended over
Bethlehem in the distance. These celestial pheno-
mena thus described are, it will be seen, beyond
the reach of question, and at the first impression
they assuredly appear to fulfil the conditions of the
Star of the Magi.
The first circumstance which created a suspicion
to the contrary, arose from an exaggeration, unac-
countable for any man having a claim to be ranked
among astronomers, on the part of Dr. Ideler
nimself, who described the two planets as wearing
the appearance of one bright but diffused light
to persons having weak eyes. ‘‘So dass fiir ein
schwaches Auge der eine Plunet fast in den Zer-
streumgskreis des andern trat, mithin beide als ein
einziyer Stern erscheinen konnten,’ p. 407, vol. ii.
Not only is this imperfect eyesight inflicted upon
the Magi, but it is qnite certain that had they
possessed any remains of eyesight at all, they could
not have failed to see, not a single star, but two
planets, at the very considerable distance of double
the moon’s apparent diameter. Had they been
even twenty times closer, the duplicity of the two
stars must have been apparent; Saturn, moreover,
rather confusing than adding to the brilliance of
his companion. This forced blending of the two
lights into one by Ideler was still further improved
by Dean Alford, in the first edition of his very
valuable and* suggestive Greek ‘Testament, who
indeed restores ordinary sight to the Magi, but
represents the planets as forming a single star of
surpassing brightness, although they were certainly
at more than double the distance of the sun’s appa-
rent diameter. Exaggerations of this description
induced the writer of this article to undertake the
very formidable labour of calculating afresh an
ephemeris of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, and of
the sun, from May to December B.c. 7. The
result was to confirm the fact of there being three
conjunctions during the above period, though some-
what to modify the dates assigned to them by
Dr. Ideler. Similar results, also, have been ob-
tained by Encke, and the December conjunction has
been confirmed by the Astronomer-Royal ; no celes-
tial phenomena, therefore, of ancient date are so
certainly ascertained as the conjunctions in question.
We shall now proceed to examine to what extent,
or, as it will be seen, to how slight an extent the
a The atmosphere in parts of Persia is so transparent
that the Magi may have seen the satellites of Jupiter
with their naked eyes.
STAR OF THE WISE MEN 1375
December conjunction fulfils the conditions of the
narrative of St. Matthew. We can hardly avoid
a feeling of regret at the dissipation of so fascinating
an illusion: but we are in quest of the truth, rather
than of a picture, however beautiful.
(a.) The writer must confess himself profoundly
ignorant of any system of astrology; but sup-
posing that some system did exist, it nevertheless is
inconceivable that solely on the ground of astrolo-
gical reasons men would be induced to undertake a
seven months’ journey. And as to the widely-
spread and prevalent expectation of some powerful
personage about to show himself in the Kast, the
fact of its existence depends on the testimony of
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. But it ought to
be very carefully observed that all these writers
speak of this expectation as applying to Vespasian,
in A.D. 69, which date was seventy-five years, or
two generations after the conjunctions in question !
The well-known and often quoted words of Tacitus
are, “eo ipso tempeore;” of Suetonius, ‘eo tem-
pore ;” of Josephus, “ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν éxeivoy;”
all pointing to A.D. 69, and not to B.c. 7. Seeing,
then, that these writers refer to no general uneasy
expectation as prevailing in B.c. 7, it can have
formed no reason for the departure of the Magi.
And, furthermore, it is quite certain that in the
February of B.c. 66 (Pritchard, in Trans. R. Ast.
Soc. vol. xxv.), a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn
occurred in the constellation Pisces, closer than the
one on Dec, 4, B.c. 7. If, therefore, astrolozical
reasons alone impelled the Magi to journey to Jeru-
salem in the latter instance, similar considerations
would have impelled their fathers to take the same
journey fifty-nine years before.
(b.) But even supposing the Magi did undertake
the journey at the time in question, it seems impos-
sible that the conjunction of Dec. B.c. 7 can on any
reasonable grounds be considered as fulfilling the
conditions in St. Matt. ii. 9. The circumstances
are as follows: On Dec. 4, the sun set at Jerusa-
lem at 5 p.m. Supposing the Magi to have then
commenced their journey to Bethlehem, they would
first see Jupiter aid his dull and somewhat distant
companion 13 hour distant from the meridian, in a
S.E. direction, and decidedly to the East of Bethle-
hem. By the time they came to Rachel’s tomb
(see Robinson’s Lib. Res. 11. 568) the planets would
be due south of them, on the meridian, and no
longer over the hill of Bethlehem (see the maps of
Van de Velde and of Tobler), for that village (see
Robinson, as above) bears from Rachel’s tomb
S. 5° E. + 8° declension=S. 15° E. The road
then takes a turn to the east, and ascends the hill
near to its western extremity; the planets there-
fore would now be on their right hands, and a little
behind them: the ‘‘star,’” therefore, ceased alto-
gether to go “ before them” asa guide. Arrived
on the hill and in the village, it became physically
impossible for the star to stand over any house
whatever close to them, seeing that it was row
visible far away beyond the hill to the west, and
far off in the heavens at an altitude of 57°. As
they advanced, the star would of necessity recede,
and under no circumstances could it be said to
stand “over” (“ ἐπάνω) any house, unless at the
distance of miles from the place where they were.
Thus the two heavenly bodies altogether fail to
fulfil either of the conditions implied in the words
ἐς προῆγεν αὐτούς, or “ἐστάθη ἐπάνω. A
star, if vertical, would appear to stand over any
house or object to which a spectator might chance
1376 STATER
to be near; but a star at an altitude of 57° could
appear to stand over no house or object in the
immediate neighbourhood of the observer. It is
scarcely necessary to add that if the Magi had left
the Jaffa Gate before sunset, they would not have
seen the planets at the outset; and if they had
left Jerusalem later, the ‘‘ star?’ would have been a
more useless guide than before. Thus the beau-
tiful phantasm of Kepler and Ideler, which has
fascinated so many writers, vanishes before the more
perfect daylight of investigation.
A modern writer of great ability (Dr. Words-
worth) has suggested the antithesis to Kepler’s
speculation regarding the star of the Magi, viz. that
the star was visible to the Magi alone. It is diffi-
cult to see what is gained or explained by the hypo-
thesis. The song of the multitude of the heavenly
host was published abroad in Bethlehem; the
journey of the Magi thither was no secret whis-
pered ina corner. Why, then, should the heavenly
light, standing as a beacon of glory over the place
where the young child was, be concealed from all
eyes but theirs, and form no part in that series of
wonders which the Virgin Mother kept and pon-
dered in her heart ?
The original authorities on this question are
Kepler, De Jesu Christi vero anno natalitio,
Frankfurt, 1614; Ideler, Handbuch der Chrono-
logie, ii. 399 ; Pritchard, Memoirs of Royal Ast,
Society, vol. xxv. Cees]
STATER (στατήρ: stater: A. V. ‘a piece
of money ;”” margin, “ stater ”
The term stater, from ἵστημι, is held to sig-
nify a coin of a certain weight, but perhaps means
a standard coin. It is not restricted by the Greeks
to a single denomination, but is applied to standard
coins of gold, electrum, and silver. The gold staters
were didrachms of the later Phoenician and the Attic
talents, which, in this denomination, differ only
about four grains troy. Cf the former talent were
the Daric staters or Darics (στατῆρες Δαρεικοί,
Δαρεικοί), the famous Persian gold pieces, and those
of Croesus (Κροισεῖοι), of the latter, the stater of
Athens. The electrum staters were coined by the
Greek towns on the west coast of Asia Minor; the
most famous were those of Cyzicus (στατῆρες
Κυζκηνοί, Κυζικηνοί), which weigh about 248
grains. They are of gold and silver mixed, in the
proportion, according to ancient authority—for we
believe these rare coins have not been analysed—of
three parts of gold to one of silver, The gold
was alone reckoned in the value, for it is said that
one of these coins was equal to 28 Athenian silver
drachms, while the Athenian gold stater, weighing
about 132 grains, was equal to 20 (20:132:: 28:
184 + or ¢ of a Cyzicene stater), This stater was
thus of 184 + grains, and equivalent to a didrachm
of the Aeginetan talent. Thus far the stater is
always a didrachm. In silver, however, the term
is applied to the tetradrachm of Athens, which was
of the weight of two gold staters of the same cur-
rency. There can therefore be no doubt that the
name stater was applied to the standard denomina-
tion of both metals, and does not positively imply
either a didrachm or a tetradrachm.
2. In the N. T. the stater is once mentioned, in
the narrative of the miracle of the sacred tribute-
money. At Capernaum the receivers of the di-
drachms το τὰ δίδραχμα ᾿λδμβάνονσει) asked
® Tt has been supposed by some ancient and modern
commentators that the civil tribute is here referred to ;
STEEL
St. Peter whether his master paid the didrachms,
The didrachm refers to the yearly tribute paid by
every Hebrew into the treasury of the Temple.®
The sum was half a shekel, called by the LXX, τὸ
ἥμισυ τοῦ διδράχμου. T he plain inference would
therefore be, that the receivers of sacred tribute took
their name from the ordinary coin or weight of metal,
the shekel, of which each person paid halt. But it
has been supposed that as the coined equivalent of
this didrachm at the period of the Evangelist was
a tetradrachm, and the payment of each person
was therefore a current didrachm [of account |, the
term here applies to single payments of didrachms.
This opinion would appear to receive some support
from the statement of Josephus, that Vespasian
fixed a yearly tax of two drachms on the Jews:
instead of that they had formerly paid into the
treasury of the Temple (Δ. J. vii. 6, 86). But this
passage loses its force when we remember that the
common current silver coin in Palestine at the time
of Vespasian, and that in which the civil tribute was
paid, was the denarius, the tribute-money, then
equivalent to the debased Attic drachm. It seems
also most unlikely that the use of the term didrachm
should have so remarkably changed in the interval
between the date of the LXX. translation of the
Pentateuch and that of the writing of St. Matthew’s
Gospel. To return to the narrative. St. Peter
was commanded to take up a fish which should be
found to contain a stater, which he was to pay to
the collectors of tribute for Our Lord and himself
(Matt. xvii. 24-27). The stater must here mean a
silver tetradrachm; and the only tetradrachms
then current in Palestine were of the same weight
as the Hebrew shekel. And it is observable, in
confirmation of the minute accuracy of the Evan-
gelist, that at this period the silver currency in
Palestine consisted of Greek imperial tetradrachms,
or staters, and Roman denarii of a quarter their
value, didrachms having fallen into disuse. Had
two didrachms been found by St. Peter the receivers
of tribute would scarcely have taken them; and, no
doubt, the ordinary coin paid was that miraculously
supplied. [ΕΒ ΒΗ
STEEL. In all cases where the word “ steel ”
occurs in the A. V. the true rendering of the Hebrew
is “copper.” mwany, néchushah, except in 2 Sam.
EX OO ὕοῦ χα: “94, “Ps. xviii. 34 [385], is always
translated “ brass ;” as is the case with the cognate
word nvny, néchosheth, with the two exceptions
of Jer. xv. 12 (A. V. “steel”), and Hzr. viii. 27
(A. V. “ copper”). Whether the Ancient Hebrews
were acquainted with steel is not perfectly certain.
It has been inferred from a passage in Jeremiah
(xv. 12), that the ‘iron from the north” there
spoken of denoted a superior kind of metal, hard-
ened in an unusual manner, like the steel obtained
from the Chalybes of the Pontus, the ironsmiths
of the ancient world. The hardening of iron
for cutting instruments was practised in Pontus,
Lydia, and Laconia (Eustath. 71. ii. p. 294, 6R,
quoted in Miiller, Hand. d. Arch. d. Kunst,
$307, n 4). Justin (aliv. 3, 88) mentions two
rivers in Spain, the Bilbilis (the Salo, or Xalon,
a tributary of the Ebro) and Chalybs, the water
of which was used for hardening iron (comp.
Plin. xxxiv. 41). The same practice is alluded to
both by Homer (Θά. ix. 393) and Sophocles (Aj.
but by this explanation the force of our Lord’s reason for
freedom from the payment seems to be completely missed,
STEPHANAS
650). The Celtiberians, according to Diodorus
Siculus (v.33), hada singular custom. They buried
sheets of iron in the earth till the weak part, as
Diodorus calls it, was consumed by rust, and what
was hardest remained. This firmer portion was then
converted into weapons of different kinds. The
same practice is said by Beckmann (Hist. of Inv.
ii. 328, ed. Bohn), to prevail in Japan. The last
mentioned writer is of opinion that of the two
methods of making steel, by fusion either from
iron-stone or raw iron, and by cementation, the
ancients were acquainted only with the former.
There is, however, a word in Hebrew, ADB,
paldah, which occurs only in Nah. ii. 3 [4], and is
there rendered “ torches,” but which most probably
denotes steel or hardened iron, and refers to the flash-
ing scythes of the Assyrian chariots. In Syriac
σ δ
and Arabic the cognate words ( 1.9, poldo,
ren De 9
Syl, faliidh, SN_5, falddh) signify a kind of
iron of excellent quality, and especially steel.
Steel appears to have been known to the Egyp-
tians. The steel weapons in the tomb of Rameses
III., says Wilkinson, are painted blue, the bronze
red (Anc. Eg. iii. 247). [We A. W.]
STEPH'ANAS (Στεφανᾶς : Stephanas). A
Christian convert of. Corinth whose household Paul
baptised as the “ first fruits of Achaia” (1 Cor. i.
16, xvi. 15). He was present with the Apostle at
Ephesus when he wrote his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, having gone thither either to consult
him about matters of discipline connected with the
Corinthian Church (Chrysost. Hom. 44), or on some
charitable mission arising eut of the “ service for
the saints”’ to which he and his family had devoted
themselves (1 Cor. xvi. 16, 17). [Wen Bi]
STE'PHEN (Στέφανος : Stephanus), the First
Martyr. His Hebrew (or rather Syriac) name is tra-
ditionally said to have been Chelil, or Cheliel (a crown).
He was the chief of the Seven (commonly called
DEACONS) appointed to rectify the complaints in
the early Church of Jerusalem, made by the Hel-
lenistic against the Hebrew Christians. His Greek
name indicates his own Hellenistic origin.
His importance is stamped on the narrative by a
reiteration of emphatic, almost superlative phrases :
“ full of faith and of the Holy Ghost”? (Acts vi. δ);
“full of graceb and power” (ib. 8); irresistible
“spirit and wisdom” (ib. 10); “ full of the Holy
Ghost” ¢ (vii. 55). Of his ministrations amongst
the poor we hear nothing. But he seems to have
been an instance, such as is not uncommon in history,
of a new energy derived from a new sphere. He shot
far ahead of his six companions, and far above his
particular office. First, he arrests attention by the
“ὁ oyeat wonders and miracles that-he did.” ‘Then
begins a series of disputations with the Hellenistic
Jews of North Africa, Alexandria, and Asia Minor,
his companions in race and birthplace. The subject
of these disputations is not expressly mentioned ;
but, from what follows, it is evident that he struck
into a new vein of teaching, which eventually caused
his martyrdom.
STEPHEN 1377
Down to this time the Apostles and the early
Christian community had clung in their worship,
not merely to the Holy Land and the Holy City,
but to the Holy Place of the Temple. This
local worship, with the Jewish customs belong-
ing to it, he now denounced. So we must infer
from the accusations brought against him, con-
firmed as they are by the tenor of his defence.
The actual words of the charge may have been
false, as the sinister and malignant intention which
they ascribed to him was undoubtedly false. ‘* Blas-
phemous” (BAdopyua), that is, “ calwmnious”
words, “against Moses and against God” (vi. 11),
he is not likely to have used. But the overthrow
of the Temple, the cessation of the Mosaic ritual, is
no more than St. Paul preached openly, or than is
implied in Stephen’s own speech: ‘against this holy
place and the Law”—* that Jesus of Nazareth shall
destroy this place, and shall change the customs
that Moses delivered us” (vi. 13, 14).
For these sayings he was arrested at the instiga-
tion of the Hellenistic Jews, and brought before the
Sanhedrin, where, as it would seem, the Pharisaic
party had just before this time (v. 34, vii. 51) gained
an ascendancy.
When the charge was formally lodged against
him, his countenance kindled as if with the view of
the great prospect which was opening for the Church ;
the whole body even of assembled judges was trans-
fixed by the sight, and “ saw his face as it had been
the face of an angel” (vi. 15).
For a moment, the account seems to imply, the
judges of the Sanhedrin were awed at his presence.4
Then the High Priest that presided appealed to him
(as Caiaphas had in like manner appealed in the
Great Trial in the Gospel History) to know his own
sentiments on the accusations brought against him.
To this Stephen replied in a speech which has every
appearance of being faithfully reported. The pecu-
liavities of the style, the variations from the Old
Testament. history, the abruptness which, by breaking
off the argument, prevents us from easily doing it
justice, are all indications of its being handed down
to us substantially in its original form.
The framework in which his defence is cast is a
summary of the history of the Jewish Church. In
this respect it has only one parallel in the N. T.,
the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews—
a likeness that is the more noticeable, as in all
probability the author of that Epistle was, like Ste-
phen, a Hellenist.
In the facts which he selects from this history,
he is guided by two principles—at first more or
less latent, but gradually becoming more and more
apparent as he proceeds. The first is the endeavour
to prove that, even in the previous Jewish history,
the presence and favour of God had not been con-
fined to the Holy Land or the Temple of Jerusalem.
This he illustrates with a copiousness of detail
which makes his speech a summary almost as much
of sacred geography as of sacred history—the ap-
pearance of God to Abraham “in Mesopotamia
before he dwelt in Haran” (vii. 2); his successive
migrations to Haran and to Canaan (vii. 4); his
want of even a resting place for his foot in Canaan
(vii. 5); the dwelling of his seed in a strange land
a Basil of Seleucia, Ovat. de S. Stephano. See Gesenius
in voce 355.
b A, B, D, and most of the versions, read χάριτος. The.
Rec. Text reads πίστεως.
¢ Traditionally he was reckoned amongst the Seventy
disciples.
VOL, II.
d Well described in Conybeare and Howson, Life of
S. Paul, i. 74; the poetic aspect of it beautifully given
in Tennyson’s Two Voices.
e Other verbal likenesses to this Epistle are pointed out
by Dr. Howson, i. 77 (quoting from Mr. Humphry, Comm.
on the Acts).
4 T
1378 STEPHEN
(vii. 6); the details of the stay in Hgypt (vii. 8-13);
the education of Moses in Lgypt (vii. 20-22); his
exile in Midian (vii. 29); the appearance in Sinai,
with the declaration that the desert ground was
holy earth (γῆ ἁγίαν (vii. 30-33); the forty years
in the wilderness (vii. 36, 44) ; the long delay be-
fore the preparation for the Tabernacle of David
(vii. 45); the proclamation of spiritual worship
even after the building of the Temple (vii. 47-50).
The second principle of selection is based on the
attempt to show that there was a tendency from
the earliest times towards the same ungrateful and
narrow spirit that had appeared in this last stage of
their political existence. And this rigid, suspi-
cious, disposition he contrasts with the freedom of
the Divine Grace and of the human will, which
were manifested in the exaltation of Abraham (vii,
4), Joseph (vii. 10), and Moses (vii. 20), and in
the jealousy and rebellion of the nation against these
their greatest benefactors, as chiefly seen in the bit-
terness against Joseph (vii. 9) and Moses (vii. 27),
and in the long neglect of true religious worship in
the wilderness (vii. 39-43).
Both of these selections are worked out on what
may almost be called critical principles. There is
no allegorizing of the text, nor any forced construc-
tions. Every passage quoted yields fairly the sense
assigned to it.
Besides the direct illustration of a freedom from
local restraints involved in the general argument,
there is also an indirect illustration of the same
doctrine, from his mode of treating the subject in
detail. No less than twelve of his references to the
Mosaic history differ from it either by variation or
addition.
1. The call of Abraham before the migration
to Haran (vii. 2), not, as according to Gen. xii. 1, in
Haran.
2. The death of his father after the call (vii. 4),
not, as according to Gen. xi. 32, before it.
3. The 75 souls of Jacob’s migration (vii. 14),
not (as according to Gen. xlvi. 27) 70.
4, The godlike loveliness (ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ) of
Moses (vii. 20), not, simply, as according to Ex.
li. 2, the statement that ‘‘ he was a goodly child.”
5. His Egyptian education (vii. 22) as contrasted
with the silence on this point in Ex. iv. 10.
6. The same contrast with regard to his secular
greatness, ‘ mighty in words and deeds” (vii. 22,
comp. Ex. ii. 10).
7. The distinct mention of the three periods of
forty years (vii. 23, 30, 36) of which only the last
is specified in the Pentateuch.
8. The terror of Moses at the bush (vii. 32), not
mentioned in Ex, iii. ὃ,
9. The supplementing of the Mosaic narrative
by the allusions in Amos to their neglect of the
true worship in the desert (vii. 42, 43),
10, The intervention of the angels in the giving
of the Law (vii. 53), not mentioned in Ex. xix. 16.
11. The burial of the twelve Patriarchs at
Shechem (vii. 16), not mentioned in Ex. i. 6.
12. The purchase of the tomb at Shechem by
Abraham from the sons of Emmor (vii. 16), not,
as according to Gen. xxiii. 15, the purchase of the
cave at Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite.
To which may be added
13. The introduction of Remphan from the LXX.
of Amos v. 26, not found in the Hebrew.
The explanation and source of these variations
must be sought under the different names to which
they refer; but the general fact of their adoption
STEPHEN
by Stephen is significant as showing the freedom
with which he handled the sacred history, and the
comparative unimportance assigned by him and by
the sacred historian who records his speech, to minute
accuracy. It may almost be said that the whole
speech is a protest against a rigid view of the me-
chanical exactness of the inspired records of the O. T.
“He had regard,” as St. Jerome says, ‘to the
meaning, not to the words.”
It would seem that, just at the close of his argu-
ment, Stephen saw a change in the aspect οἵ his
judges, as if for the first time they had caught the
drift of his meaning, He broke off from his calm
address, and turned suddenly upon them in an im-
passioned attack which shows that he saw what was
in store for him, Those heads thrown back on their
unbending necks, those ears closed against any pene-
tration of truth, were too much for his patience :—
“¢ Ye stiffmecked and uncircumcised in heart and
ears! ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your
fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did
not your fathers persecute? ... the Just One:
of whom ye are the betrayers and murderers,”
As he spoke they showed by their faces that their
hearts (to use the strong language of the narrative)
“‘ were being sawn asunder,” and they kept gnash-
ing their set teeth against him; but still, though
with difficulty, restraining themselves. He, in this
last crisis of: his fate, turned his face upwards to the
open sky, and as he gazed the vault of heaven
seemed to him to part asunder (διηνοιγμένοΞ) ;
and the Divine Glory appeared through the rending
of the earthly veil—the Divine Presence, seated on
a throne, and on the right hand the human form
of “Jesus,” not, as in the usual representations,
sitting in repose, but standing erect as if to assist
His suffering servant. “Stephen spoke as if to him-
self, describing the glorious vision ; and, in so doing,
alone of all the speakers and writers in the N. T.,
except only Christ Himself, uses the expressive
phrase, ‘‘the Son of Man.” As his judges heard the
words, expressive of the Divine exaltation of Him
whom they had sought so lately to destroy, they
could forbear no longer. They broke into a loud yell ;
they clapped their hands to their ears, as if to pre-
vent the entrance of any more blasphemous words ;
they flew as with one impulse upon him, and
dragged him out of the city to the place of exe-
cution.
It has been questioned by what right the San-
hedrin proceeded to this act without the concur-
rence of the Roman government; but it is enough
to reply that the whole transaction is one of violent
excitement. On one occasion, even in our Lord’s
life, the Jews had nearly stoned Him even within
the precincts of the Temple (John viii. 59). ‘ Their
vengeance in other cases was confined to those sub-
ordinate punishments which were left under their
own jurisdiction: imprisonment, public scourging
in the synagogue, and excommunication” (Milman’s
Hist. of Latin Christianity, 1. 400). See Conybeare
and Howson’s St. Paul, i. 74.
On this occasion, however, they determined for
once to carry out the full penalties enjoined by the
severe code of the Mosaic ritual.
Any violator of the law was to be taken outside
the gates, and there, as if for the sake of giving to
each individual member of the community a sense
of his responsibility in the transaction, he was to be
crushed by stones, thrown at him by all the people.
Those, however, were to take the lead in this
wild and terrible act who had taken upon them-
STEPHEN
selves the responsibility of denouncing him (Deut.
xvii. 7; comp. John viii. 7). These were, in this
instance, the witnesses who had reported or mis-
reported the words of Stephen. They, according to
the custom, for the sake of facility in their dreadful
task, stripped themselves, as is the Eastern practice
on commencing any violent exertion ; and one of the
prominent leaders in the transaction was deputed by
custom to signify his assent to the act by taking
the clothes into his custody, and standing over them
whilst the bloody work went on, The person who
officiated on this occasion was a young man from
Tarsus—one probably of the Cilician Hellenists who
had disputed with Stephen. His name, as the nar-
rative significantly adds, was Saul.
Everything was now ready for the execution. It
was outside the gates of Jerusalem. The earlier tra-
dition€ fixed it at what is now called the Damascus
gate. The later, which is the present tradition,
fixed it at what is hence called St. Stephen’ s gate,
opening on the descent to the Mount of Olives; and
in the red streaks of the white limestone rocks of
the sloping hill used to be shown the marks of his
blood, and on the first rise of Olivet, opposite, the
eminence on which the Virgin stood to support him
with her prayers.
The sacred narrative fixes its attention only on
two figures—that of Saul of Tarsus already no-
ticed, and that of Stephen himself.
As the first volley of stones burst upon him, he
called upon the Master whose human form he had
just seen in the heavens, and repeated almost the
words with which He himself had given up His life
on the cross, “Ὁ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Another crash of stones brought him on his
knees. One loud piercing cry (ἔκραξε μεγάλῃ
φωνῇ )—answering to the loud shriek or yell with
which his enemies had flown upon him—escaped
his dying lips. Again clinging to the spirit of
his Master’s words, he cried “ Lord, lay not. this
sin to their charge,” and instantly sank upon the
ground, and, in the touching language ot the nar-
yator, who then uses for the first time the word,
afterwards applied to the departure of all Chris-
tians, but here the more remarkable from the
bloody scenes in the midst of which the death took
place—exoiuhOn, “ fell asleep.” "
His mangled body was buried by the class of
Hellenists and proselytes to which he belonged (οἱ
εὐσεβεῖς), with an amount of funeral state and
Jamentation expressed in two words used here only
in the N. T. (συνεκόμισαν and κοπετόΞς).
This simple expression is enlarged by writers of
the 5th century into an elaborate legend. The High-
Priest it is said, had intended to leave the corpse to
be devoured by beasts of prey. It was rescued by
Gamaliel, carried off in his own chariot by night,
and buried in a new tomb on his property at
Caphar Gamala (village of the Camel), 8 leagues
from Jerusalem. The funeral lamentations lasted
for forty days. All the Apostles attended. Gamaliel
undertook the expense, and, on his death, was in-
terred in an adjacent cave.
This story was probably first drawn up on the
occasion of the remarkable event which occurred in
STEPHEN 1379
A.D. 415, under the name of the Invention and
Translation of the Relics of S. Stephen. Successive
visions of Gamaliel to Lucian, the parish priest of
Caphar Gamala, on the 5rd and 18th of December
in that year, revealed the spot where the martyr’s
remains would be found. ‘They were identified by
a tablet bearmg his name Chelie/, and were carried
in state to Jerusalem, amidst various portents, and
buried in the church on Mount Zion, the scene of
so many early Christian traditions. The event of
the Translation is celebrated in the Latin Church
on August 3, probably from the tradition of that
day being the anniversary of the dedication of a
chapel of 8. Stephen at Ancona.
The story itself is encompassed with legend, but
the event is mentioned in all the chief writers of
the time. Parts of his remains were afterwards
transported to different parts of the coast of the
West—Minorea, Portugal, North Africa, Ancona,
Constantinople—and in 460 what were still left at
Jerusalem were translated by the Empress Kudocia
to a splendid church called by his name on the
supposed scene of his martyrdom (Tillemont, δ΄.
Etienne, art. 5-9, where all the authorities are
quoted),
The importance of Stephen’s career may be briefly
summed up under three heads :—
I. He was the first great Christian ecclesiastic.
The appointment of “ the Seven, ” commonly (though
not in the Bible) called Deacons, formed the first
direct. institution of the nature of an organised
Christian ministry, and of these Stephen was the
head—* the Archdeacon,’ as he is called in the
Eastern Church—and in this capacity represented as
the companion or precursor of Laurence, Archdeacon
of Rome in the Western Church. In this sense
allusion is made to him in the Anglican Ordination
of Deacons.
Il. He is the first martyr—the proto-martyr.
To him the name ‘‘ martyr” is first applied (Acts
xxii. 20). He, first of the Christian Church, bore
witness to the truth of his convictions by a violent
and dreadful death. The veneration which has ac-
crued to his name in consequence is a testimony of
the Bible to the sacredness of truth, to the nobleness
of sincerity, to the wickedness and the folly of per-
secution. It also contains the first germs of the
reverence for the character and for the relics of
martyrs, which afterwards grew to a height, now
regarded by all Christians as excessive, A beautiful
hyt mn by Reginald Heber Rerise men atis this side of
Stephen’s character.
lll. He is the forerunner of St. Paul. So he was
already regarded in ancient times. Παύλου 6 διδάσ-
καλος is the expression used for him by Basil of Se-
leucia. But it is an aspect that has been much more
forcibly drawn out in modern times. Not only was
his martyrdom (in all probability) the first means
of converting St, Paul—his prayer for his murderers
not only was fulfilled in the conversion of St. Paul
—the blood of the first martyr, the seed of the
greatest Apostle—the pangs of remorse for his
death, amongst the stings of conscience, against
which the Apostle vainly writhed (Acts ix. 5);
not only thus, but in his doctrine also he was the
f Comp. “ I was standing by and consenting to his death,
and kept the raiment of those that slew him” (Acts xxii.
20).
g These conflicting versions are well given in Conybeare
and Howson, S. Paul, i. 80.
h The date of Stephen’s death is unknown. But eccle-
siastical tradition fixes it in the same year as the Cruci-
fixion, on the 26th of December, the day after Christmas-
day. It is beautifully said by Augustine (in allusion to the
juxtaposition of the two festivals), that men would not
have had the courage to die for God, if God had not become
man to die for them (Tillemont, S. Httenme, art. 4),
47T 2
1380 ~ STOCKS
anticipator, as, had he lived, he would have been
the propagator, of the new phase of Christianity,
of which St. Paul became the main support. His
denunciations of local worship—the stress which he
lays on the spiritual side of the Jewish history—his
freedom in treating that history—the very turns of
expression that he uses—are all Pauline.
The history of the above account is taken from
Acts (vi. ‘I-viii. 2; xxii. 19, 20); the legends from
Tillemont (ii. p. 1-24) ; the more general treatment
from Neander’s Planting of the Christian Church,
and from Howson and Conybeare in The ee of
St. Paul, ch. 2. (A. P. 8.]
STOCKS (NBD, TD: ξύλον). The term
“ stocks ”’ is applied in the A. V. to two different
articles, one of which (the Hebrew mahpeceth)
answers rather to our pillory, inasmuch as its name
implies that the body was placed in a bent position
by the confinement of the neck and arms as well
as the legs; while the other (sad) answers to our
“ stocks,’ the feet alone being confined in it. The
former may be compared with the Greek κύφων,
as described in the Scholia ad Aristoph. Plut. 476:
fae latter with the Roman nervus (Plaut. Asin. iii.
2,5; Capt. v. 3, 40), which admitted, however,
of being converted into a species of torture, as the
legs could be drawn asunder at the will of the
jailor (Biscoe on Acts, p. 229). The prophet Jere-
miah was confined in the first sort (Jer. xx. 2),
which appears to have been a common mode of
punishment in his day (Jer. xxix. 26), as the pri-
sons contained a chamber for the special purpose,
termed ‘“ the house of the pillory ” (2 Chr. xvi. 10;
TAN E. τς roee ἢ). The stocks (sad) are
noticed in Job xiii, 27, xxxiii. 11, and Acts xvi. 24.
The term used in Proy. vii. 22 (A. V. “ stocks ’”)
more properly means a fetter. [W. L. B.]
STOICS. The Stoies and Epicureans, who are
mentioned together in Acts xvii. 18, represent the
two opposite schools of practical philosophy which
survived the fall of higher speculation in Greece
[PutLosopHy]. The Stoic school was founded by
Zeno of Citium (c. B.c. 280), and derived its name
from the painted portico (7 ποικίλη στοά, Diog.
L. vii.) in which he taught. Zeno was followed by
Cleanthes (c, B.c. 260), Cleanthes by Chrysippus
(c. B.c. 240), who was regarded as the intellectual
founder of the Stoic system (Diog. L. vii. 183).
Stoicism soon found an entrance at Rome. Dio-
genes Babylonius, a scholar of Chrysippus, was
its representative in the famous embassy of philo-
sophers, B.C. 161 (Aulus Gellius, WN. A. vii. 14) ;
and not long afterwards Panaetius was the friend
of Scipio Africanus the younger, and many other
leading men at Rome. His successor Posidonius
numbered Cicero and Pompey among his scholars ;
and under the Empire stoicism was not unnaturally
connected with republican virtue. Seneca (fA.D.
65) and Musonius (Tac. Hist. iii. 81) did much
to popularize the ethical teaching of the school by
their writings; but the true clory of the later
Stoies is Epictetus (te. A.D. 115), the records of
whose doctrine form the noblest monument of
STONES
heathen morality (Hpicteteae Philos. Monum. ed.
Schweighiuser, 1799). The precepts of Epictetus
were adopted by Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180)
who endeavoured to shape his public life by their
guidance. With this last effort stoicism reached
its climax and its end. [ PHILOSOPHY. |
The ethical system of the Stoics has been com-
monly supposed to have a close connexion with
Christian morality (Gataker, Antoninus Praef.;
Meyer, Stoic. Eth. c. Christ. compar., 1823), and
the outward similar ity of isolated precepts is very
close and worthy of notice. But the morality of
stoicism is essentially based on pride, that of
Christianity on humility; the one upholds indi-
vidual independence, the other absolute faith in
another; the one looks for consolation in the issue
of fate, the other in Providence; the one is limited
by periods of cosmical ruin, the other is consum-
mated in a personal resurrection (Acts xvii. 18).
But in spite of the fundamental error of stoicism,
which lies in a supreme egotism, the teaching of
this school gave a wide currency to the noble doc-
trines of the Fatherhood of God (Cleanthes, Hymn.
31-38; comp. Acts xvii. 28), the common bonds
of mankind (Anton. iv. 4), the sovereignty of the
soul. Nor is it to be forgotten that the earlier
Stoics were very closely connected with the East,
from which much of the form, if not of the essence,
of their doctrines seems to have been derived. Zeno
himself was a native of Citium, one of the oldest
Phoenician settlements. [Crirrr.] His successor
Chrysippus came from Soli or Tarsus; and Tarsus
is mentioned as the birthplace of a second Zeno and
Antipater. Diogenes came from Seleucia in Baby-
lonia, Posidonius from Apamea in Syria, and Epic-
tetus from the Phrygian Hierapolis (comp. Sir A.
Grant, The Ancient Stoics, Oxford Essays, 1858,
82
ἢ The chief authorities for ae opinions of the
Stoics are Diog. Laert. vii.; Cicero, De Fin. ;
Plutarch, De Stoic. repugn. ; De plac. "Philos, adv,
Stoic.; Sextus Empiricus ; and the remains of Seneca,
Epictetus, and Mareus Aurelius. Gataker, in his
edition of the Meditations of M. Aurelius, has
traced out with the greatest care the parailels which
they offer to Christian doctrine. [B. F. W.]
STOMACHER (058). The Heb. pethiyil
describes some article of female attire (Is. iii. 24),
the character of which is a mere matter of con-
jecture. The LXX. describes it as a variegated
tunic (χιτὼν pecomdéppupos); the Vulg. as a
species of girdle (fascia pectoralis). The word is
evidently a compound, but its elements are uncer-
tain. Gesenius (7168. p. 1137) derives it from
‘3 9°M5, with very much the same sense as in
the LXX.; Sualschiitz (Archdol. i. 30) from 95
Oya, with the sense of “ undisguised lust,” as applied
to some particular kind of dress. Other explana-
tions are given in Gesen. 7168. 1. 6. [W. L. B.]
STONES (Jas). The uses to which stones
were applied i in ancient Palestine were very various.
a F. g. Seneca, De Clem. §5: “ Pece: avimus omnes....
nec deliquimus tantum sed ad extremum aevi delin-
quemus.” Rom. iii. 23: “ Peccaverunt omnes”
Ep. i.: “Quem mihi dabis.... qui intelligat se quotidie
mort?” Pom. xv. 31: “ Quotidie morior.
De Vit, beata,§12: “ Laudant enim [Epicurei] ea quibus
erubescebant et vitio gloriautur.” Phil. iii. 19: “ Quorum
- gloria in confusione eorum.,”
“Tn regno nati sumus: Deo parere libertas est.”
τὰ. §15:
ἁπλῶς μηδὲν ἄλλο θέλε ἢ ἃ ὁ
Epict. Diss. ii. 11,22:
θεὸς θέλει.
Anton. vii.
ὠφελεῖς.
b Seneca, De Vit. beat. §8: “ Incorruptus vir sit externis
et insuperabilis miratorque tantum sui, fidens animo atque
in utrumque paratus artifex vitae”
74: μὴ οὖν κάμνε ὠφελούμενος ἐν ᾧ
STONES
1. They were used for the ordinary purposes of
building, and in this respect the most noticeable
point is the very large size to which they occasion-
ally run (Mark xiii. 1), Robinson gives the dimen-
sions of one as 24 feet long by 6 feet broad and ὃ
feet high (Res. 1. 253; see also p. 284, note). For
most public edifices hewn stones were used: an
exception was made in regard to altars, which were
to be built of unhewn stone (Ex. xx. 25; Deut.
xxvii. 5; Josh, viii. 31), probably as being in a
more natural state, The Phoenicians were parti-
cularly famous for their skill in hewing stone
(2 Sam. v. 11; 1 K. v. 18). Stones were selected
of certain colours in order to form ornamental
string-courses: in 1 Chr. xxix. 2 we find enume-
rated * onyx stones and stones to be set, glistering
stones (lit. stones of eye-paint), and of divers colours
(ὦ e. streaked with veins), and all manner of pre-
cious stones, and marble stones” (comp. 2 Chr. iii.
6). They were also employed for payements (2 K.
xvi. 17; comp. Esth. i. 6). 2. Large stones were
used for closing the entrances of caves (Josh, x.
18; Dan. vi. 17), sepulchres (Matt. xxvii. 60;
John xi. 38, xx. 1), and springs (Gen. xxix. 2).
3. Flint-stones # occasionally served the purpose of
a knife, particularly for circumcision and simflar
objects (Ex. iv. 25; Josh. v. 2,3; comp. Herod.
ii. 86; Plutarch, Wicias, 13; Catull. Carm. lsii, 5).
4. Stones were further used as ἃ munition of war for
slings (1 Sam. xvii. 40, 49), catapults (2 Chr. xxvi.
14), and bows (Wisd. v. 22; comp, 1 Mace. vi.
51); as boundary marks (Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17;
Job xxiv. 2; Prov. xxii. 28, xxiii. 10); such were
probably the stone of Bohan (Josh. xv. 6, xviii. 17),
the stone of Abel (1 Sam. vi. 15, 18), the stone
Ezel (1 Sam. xx. 19), the great stone by Gibeon
(2 Sam. xx. 8), and the stone Zoheleth (1 K. i. 9);
as weights for scales (Deut. xxv. 15; Prov. xvi.
11); and for mills (2 Sam. xi. 21). 5. Large
stones were set up to commemorate any remarkable
events, as by Jacob at Bethel after his interview
with Jehovah (Gen, xxviii. 18, xxxy. 14), and again
when he made the covenant with Laban (Gen. xxxi.
45); by* Joshua after the passage of the Jordan
(Josh. iv. 9); and by Samuel in token of his vic-
tory over the Philistines (1 Sam. vii. 12). Similarly
the Egyptian monarchs erected their stelae at the
farthest point they reached (Herod. ii. 106). Such
stones were occasionally consecrated by anointing, as
instanced in the stone erected at Bethel (Gen. xxviii.
18). <A similar practice existed in heathen coun-
tries, and by a singular coincidence these stones
were described in Phoenicia by a name very similar
to Bethel, viz. baetylia (βαιτύλια), whence it has
been surmised that the heathen name was derived
from the Scriptural one, or vice versd (Kalisch’s
Comm. in Gen. 1. c.). But neither are the names
actually identical, nor are the associations of a
kindred nature; the baetylia were meteoric stones,
and derived their sanctity from the belief that they
liad fallen from heaven, whereas the stone at Bethel
was simply commemorative. [BeTHEL; Inou. j
The only point of resemblance between the two
consists in the custom of anointing—the anointed
stones (λίθοι Aurapol), which are frequently men-
tioned by ancient writers as objects of divine honour
(Arnob. adv. Gent. i. 39; Euseb. Praep. Evan. i.
a yy or WY. Ὁ ypon Ona~pena.
© MDW {AN. 4 ΤᾺΝ.
© A reference to this practice is supposed by Gesenius
STONES 1381
10, 818; Plin. xxxvii. 51), being probably a€rolites.
6, That the worship of stones prevailed among the
heathen nations surrounding Palestine, and was
borrowed from them by apostate Israelites, appears
from Is. lvii. 6, according to the ordinary rendering
of the passage ; but the original » admits of another
sense, ‘in the smooth (clear of wood) places of the
valley,” and no reliance can be placed on a peculiar
term introduced partly for the sake of alliteration.
The eben mascith,® noticed in Lev. xxvi. 1 (A. V.
“image of stone’’), has again been identified with
the baetylia, the doubtful term mascith (comp. Num.
xxxili. 52, “picture; Ez. viii. 12, “imagery 7)
being supposed to refer to devices engraven on the
stone. [Ipou.] The statue (matstsébah 4) of Baal
is said to have been of stone and of a conical shape
(Movers, Phoen. i. 673), but this is hardly recon-
cileable with the statement of its being burnt in
2 Κι. x. 26 (the correct reading of which would be
matstsébah, and not matstséboth). 7. Heaps of
stones were piled up on various occasions, as in token
of a treaty (Gen. xxxi, 46), in which case a certain
amount of sanctity probably attached to them (ef.
Hom, Od. xvi. 471); or over the grave of some
notorious offender (Josh. vii. 26, viii. 29; 2 Sam.
xviii. 17; see Propert. iv. 5, 75, for a similar cus-
tom among the Romans). The size of some of these
heaps becomes very great from the custom preva-
lent among the Arabs that each passer-by adds a
stone ;© Burckhardt mentions one near Damascus
20 ft. long, 2 ft. high, and 3 ft. broad (Syria,
p. 46). 8. The “ white stone”’ noticed in Rev. ii,
17 has been variously regarded as referring to the
pebble of acquittal used in the Greek courts (Ov.
Met. xv. 41); to the lot cast in elections in Greece ;
to both these combined, the white conveying the
notion of acquittal, the stone that of election
(Bengel, Gnom.); to the stones in the high-priest’s
breastplate (Ziillig) ; to the tickets presented to the
victors at the public games, securing them main-
tenance at the public expense (Hammond); or,
lastly, to the custom of writing on stones (Alford
in l.c.). 9. The use of stones for tablets is alluded
to in Ex. xxiv. 12; and Josh. viii. 832. 10. Stones
for striking fire are mentioned in 2 Mace. x. 3. 11.
Stones were prejudicial to the operations of hus-
bandry: hence the custom of spoiling an enemy’s
field by throwing quantities of stones upon it (2 K.
iii, 19, 25), and, again, the necessity of gathering
stones previous to cultivation (Is. v. 2): allusion is
made to both these practices in Eccl. ili. 5 (“ἃ time
to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones”).
12. The notice in Zech. xii. 3 of the ‘ burdensome
stone” is referred by Jerome to the custom of
lifting stones as an exercise of strength, which he
describes as being practised in Judaea in his day
(comp. Ecclus. vi, 21); but it may equally well
be explained of a large corner-stone as a symbol
of strength (Is. xxviii. 16).
Stones are used metaphorically to denote hardness
or insensibility (1 Sam. xxv. 37; Ez. xi, 19, xxxvi.
26), as well as firmness or strength, as in Gen,
xlix. 24, where “ the stone of Israel ” is equivalent
to “the rock of Israel” (2Sam. xxiii, 3; Is, xxx.
29), The members of the Church are called ‘* living
stones,” as contributing to rear that living temple
in which Christ, himself ‘a living stone,” is the
to be contained in Prov. xxvi. 8, which he renders “asa
bag of gems in a heap of stones” (hes. p. 1263). The
Vulgate has a curious version of this passage: “ Sicut qui
mittit lapidem in acervum Mercuri.”
1382 STONES, PRECIOUS
chief or head of the corner (Eph. ii. 20-22, 1 Pet.
ii. 4-8). LW. L. B.}
STONES, PRECIOUS. The reader is re-
ferred to the separate articles, such as AGATE,
CARBUNCLE, SARDONYX, &c., for such informa-
tion as it has been possible to obtain on the various
gems mentioned in the Bible. The identification
of many of the Hebrew names of precious stones is
a task of considerable dithculty : sometimes we have
no further clue to aid us in the determination of a
name than the mere derivation of the word, which
derivation is always too vague to be of any service,
as it merely expresses some quality often common
to many precious stones. As far, however, as
regards the stones of the high-priest’s breastplate,
it must be remembered that the authority of
Josephus, who had frequent opportunities of seeing
it worn, is preferable to any other. The Vulgate
agrees with his nomenclature, and in Jerome’s time
the breastplate was still to be inspected in the
Temple of Concord: hence this agreement of the
two is of sreat weight. The modern Arabic names
of the more usual gems, which have probably re-
mained fixed the last 2000 years, afford us also some
approximations to the Hebrew nomenclature; still,
as it was intimated above, there is much that can
only be regarded as conjecture in attempts at identi-
fication. Precious stones are frequently alluded to
in the Holy Scriptures ; they were known and very
highly valued in the earliest times. The onyx-
stone, fine specimens of which are still of great
value, is expressly mentioned by Moses as being
found in the land of Havilah. The sard and sard-
onyx, the amethyst or rose-quartz, with many
agates and other varieties of quartz, were doubtless
the best known and most readily procured. ‘* Onyx-
stones, and stones to be set, glistering stones and
of divers colours, and all manner of precious
stones,” were among the articles collected by David
for the temple (1 Chr. xxix. 2). The Tyrians
traded in precious stones supplied by Syria (Ez.
xxvii. 16), and the robes of their king were covered
with the most brilliant gems. The merchants of
Sheba and Raamah in South Arabia, and doubtless
India and Ceylon, supplied the markets of Tyre
with various precious stones.
The art of engraving on precious stones was
known from the very earliest times, Sir G.
Wilkinson says (Anc. Egypt. ii. 67, Lond. 1854),
« The Israelites learnt the art of cutting and en-
graying stones from the Egyptians.”’ There can be
no doubt that they did learn much of the art from
this skilful nation, but it is probable that it was
known to them long before their sojourn in Egypt ;
for we read in Gen. xxxviii. 18, that when Tamar
desired a pledge Judah gave her his signet, which
we may safely conclude was engraved with some
device. The twelve stones of the breastplate were
engraved each one with the name of one of the tribes
(Ex, xxviii. 17-21). The two onyx (or sardonyx)
stones which formed the high-priest’s shoulder-
pieces were engraved with the names of the twelve
tribes, six on one stone and six on the other, “Ἅ with
the work of an engraver in stone like the engravings
of a signet.” See also ver, 36, “like the en-
STONES, PRECIOUS
sravings of a signet.” It is an undecided question
whether the diamond was known to the early
nations of antiquity. The A. V. gives it as the
rendering of the Heb. Yahdélom, (adm), but it
is probable that the jasper is intended. Sir ἃ.
Wilkinson is of opinion that the ancient Egyptians
were acquainted with the diamond, and used it for
engraving (ii. p. 67). Beckmann, on the other
hand, maintains that the use of the diamond was
unknown even to the Greeks and Romans: “ I must
confess that I have found no proofs that the ancients
cut glass with a diamond” (Hist. of Inventions,
ii. p. 87, Bohn’s ed.). The substance used for
polishing precious stones by the ancient Hebrews
and Egyptians was emery powder or the emery
stone (Corundum), a mineral inferior only to the
diamond in hardness [ADAMANT, App. A.]. There
is no proof that the diamond was known to the
ancient Orientals, and it certainly must be banished
from the list of engraved stones which made the
sacerdotal breastplate ; for the diamond can be cut
only by abrasion with its own powder, or by friction
with another diamond; and this, even in the hands
of a well-practised artist, is a work of most patient
labour and of considerable difficulty ; and it is not
likely that the Hebrews, or any other Oriental
people, were able to engrave a name upon a dia-
mond as upon a signet ring.b Again, Josephus tells
us (Ant. iii. 7, $5) that the twelve stones of the
breastplate were οἵ. eat size and extraordinary
beauty. We have no means of ascertaining their
size; probably they were nearly an inch square;
at any rate a diamond only half that size, with
the five letters of αὶ (Zebulun) engraved on
it—for, as he was the sixth son of Jacob (Gen.
xxx, 20), his name would occupy the third place
in the second row—is quite out of the question,
and cannot possibly be the Yahalém of the breast-
plate.
Perhaps the stone called ‘‘ligure” by the A. V.
has been the subject of more discussion than any
other of the precious stones mentioned in the Bible.
In our article on that subject we were of opinion
that the stone denoted was probably tourmaline.
We objected to the “ hyacinth stone” representing
the lyncurium of the ancients, because of its not
possessing attractive powers in any marked degree,
as we supposed and had been informed by a well-
known jeweller. It appears, however, from a com-
munication kindly made to us by Mr. King, that
the hyacinth (zircon) is highly electric when
rubbed. He states he is practically convinced of
this fact, although he allows that highly electric
powers are not usually attributed to it by mineralo-
gists. Mr. King asserts that ou hyacinth (jacinth,
zircon) was greatly used for engraving on by
Greeks, Romans, and Persians, and that numerous
intaglios in it exist of the age of ‘Theophrastus.
The ancient hyacinthus was our sapphire, as
Solinus shows.
Precious stones are used in Scripture in a figura-
tive sense, to signify value, beauty, durability,
&e., in those objects with which they are com-
pared (see Cant, v. 14; Is. liv. 11, 12; Lam. iv.
a The LXX., Vulg., and Josephus, are all agreed as to
the names of the stones; there is, however, some little
difference as to their relative positions in the breastplate :
thus the ἴασπις, which, according to Josephus, occupies
the second place in the third row, is by the LXX. and
Vulg. put in the third place; a similar transposition
occurs with respect to the ἀμέθυστος and the ayarys in
the third row.
b “The artists of the Renaissance actually succeeded
in engraving on the diamona; the discovery is assigned
to Clement Birago, by others to J. da Trezzo, Philip I1.’s
engraver.” [C. W. King.J
STONING
7; Rev. iv. 3, xxi. 10-21). As to the precious
stones in the breastplate of the high-priest, see
Josephus, Ant. iii. 7, δ. Epiphanius, περὶ τῶν
ιβ΄ λίθων τῶν ὄντων ἐν τ. στολ. τ. ᾿Ααρών, in
Epiphanii Opuse. ed. Petavius, ii, p. 225-232,
Cologne, 1682, (this treatise has been edited
separately by Conr. Gesner, De omni rerun
fossil. genere, &c. Tiguri, 1565; and by Mat.
Hiller, the author of the Hierophyticon, in his
Syntagmata Hermeneutica, p. 83, Tubing. 1711) ;
Braun, De Vestitu Sacerdotum Hebracorum
(Amstel. 1680, and 2nd ed. 1698), lib. ii. capp.
7 and 8; Bellermann, Die Urim und Thummim
die Aeltesten Gemmen, Berlin, 1824 ; Rosenmiiller,
‘The Mineralogy of the Bible,’ Biblical Cabinet,
vol. xxvii. ΠῚ
STONING. [PunisuMents. ]
STORE (TPN, chasidah: translated indif-
ferently by LXX. ἀσίδα, ἔποψ, ἐρωδίος, πελεκάν:
Vulg. herodiv, herodius, milvus: A. V. “ stork,”
except in Job xxxix. 13, where it is translated
“ wing” (“ stork” in the margin). But there is
some question as to the correct reading in this
passage. The LXX. do not seem to have recognised
the stork under the Hebrew term avon ; other-
wise they could scarcely kaye missed the obvious
rendering of weAapyds, or have adopted in two in-
stances the phonetic representation of the original,
ἀσίδα (whence no doubt Hesych. ἄσις, εἶδος ὁρ-
véov). It is singular that a bird so conspicuous
and familiar as the stork must have been both in
Egypt and Palestine should have escaped notice by
the LXX., but there can be no doubt of the correct-
ness of the rendering of A. V. The Heb. term is
derived from the root DN, whence IDM, “ kind-
ness,” from the maternal and filial affection of which
this bird has been in all ages the type).
White Stork (Ciconva alba).
The White Stork (Ciconia alba, L.) is one of the
largest and most conspicuous of land birds, standing
nearly four feet high, the jet black of its wings and
its bright red beak and legs contrasting finely with
STORK 1883
the pure white of its plumage (Zech. v. 9, “They
had wings like the wings of a stork”), It is placed
by naturalists near the Heron tribe, with which it
has some aflinity, forming a connecting link between
it and the spoonbill and ibis, like all of which, the
stork feeds on fish and reptiles, especially on the
latter. In the neighbourhood of man it devours
readily all kinds of offal and garbage. For this
reason, doubtless, it is placed in the list of unclean
birds by the Mosaic law (Lev. xi. 19; Deut. xiv.
18). The range of the white stork extends over
the whole of Europe, except the British Isles, where
it is now only a rare visitant, and over Northern
Africa and Asia, as far at least as Birmah.
The Black Stork (Ciconia nigra, L.), though less
abundant in places, is scarcely less widely distvi-
buted, but has a more easterly range than its
congener. Both species are very numerous in
Palestine, the white stork being universally distvi-
buted, generally in pairs, over the whole country,
the black stork living in large flocks after the
fashion of herons, in the more secluded and marshy
districts. The writer met with a flock of upwards
of fifty black storks feeding near the west shore of
the Dead Sea. They are still more abundant by
the Sea of Galilee, where also the white stork is
so numerous as to be gregarious ; and in the swamps
round the waters of Merom.
While the black stork is never found about build-
ings, but prefers marshy places in forests, and breeds
on the tops of the loftiest trees, where it heaps up
its ample nest far from the haunts of man; the
white stork attaches itself to him, and for the
service which it renders in the destruction of rep-
tiles and the removal of offal has been repaid from
the earliest times by protection and reverence.
This is especially the case in the countries where it
breeds. In the streets of towns in Holland, in the
villages of Denmark, and in the bazaars of Syria
and Tunis, it may be seen stalking gravely among
the crowd, and wo betide the stranger either in
Holland or in Palestine who should dare to molest it.
The claim of the stork to protection seems to have
been equally recognized by the ancients. Sempr.
Rufus, who first ventured to bring young storks to
table, gained the following epigram, on the failure of
his candidature for the praetorship :— .
“Quanquam est duobus elegantior Plancis
Suffragiorum puncta non tulit septem.
Ciconiarum populus ultus est mortem.”
Horace contemptuously alludes to the same sacrilege
in the lines
“ Tutoque ciconia nido,
Donec vos auctor docuit praetorius ” (Sat. ii. 2, 49).
Pliny (Nat. Hist. x. 21) tells us that in Thessaly
it was a capital crime to kill a stork, and that they
were thus valued equally with human life, in con-
sequence of their warfare against serpents. They
were not less honoured in Egypt. It is said that
at Fez in Morocco, there is an endowed hospital for
the purpose of assisting and nursing sick cranes and
storks, and of burying them when dead. The Maro-
cains hold that storks are human beings in that
form from some distant islands (see note to Brown’s
Pseud. Epid. iii. 27,§3). The Turks in Syria point
to the stork as a true follower of Islam, from the
preference he always shows for the Turkish and Arab
over the Christian quarters. For this undoubted
fact, however, there may be two other reasons—the
greater amount of offal to be found about the Mosiem
houses, and the persecutions suffered from the scey-
1384 STORK
tical Greeks, who rob the nests, and show none of
the gentle consideration towards the lower animals
which often redeems the Turkish character. Strick-
- land, Mem. and Papers, vol. ii. p. 227, states that
it is said to have quite deserted Greece, since the
expulsion of its Mohammedan protectors, The ob-
servations of the writer corroborated this remark.
Similarly the rooks were said to be so attached
to the old régime, that inost of them left France at
the Revolution ; a true statement, and accounted for
by the clearing of most of the fine old timber which
used to surround the chateaux of the noblesse.
The derivation of ΠῚ ὉΠ points to the paternal
and filial attachment of which the stork seems to
have been a type among the Hebrews no less than
the Greeks and Romans. It was believed that the
young repaid the care of their parents by attaching
themselves to them for life, and tending them in
old age. Hence it was commonly called among
the Latins “ avis pia.” (See Laburnus in Petronius
Arbiter ; Aristotle, Hist. Anim. ix. 14; and Pliny,
Nat. Mist. x. 32.)
Pliny also notices their habit of always returning
to the same nest. Probably there is no foundation
for the notion that the stork so far diflers from other
birds as to recognise its parents after it has become
mature; but of the fact of these birds returning
year after year to the same spot, there is no ques-
tion. Unless when molested by man, storks’ nests
all over the world are rebuilt, or rather repaired,
for generations on the same site, and in Holland the
same individuals have been recognised for many years.
That the parental attachment of the stork is very
strong, has been proved on many occasions. The
tale of the stork which, at the burning of the town
of Delft, vainly endeavoured to carry off her young,
and at length sacrificed her life with theirs rather
than desert them, has been often repeated, and seems
corroborated by unquestionable evidence, Its watch-
fulness over its young is unremitting, and often
shown in a somewhat droll manner. The writer
was once in camp near an old ruined tower in the
plain of Zana, south of the Atlas, where a pair of
storks had their nest. The four young might often
be seen from a little distance, surveying the prospect
from their lonely height; but whenever any of the
human party happened to stroll near the tower,
one of the old storks, invisible before, would in-
stantly appear, and, lighting on the nest, put its
foot gently on the necks of all the young, so as to
hold them down out of sight till the stranger had
passed, snapping its bill meanwhile, and assuming
a grotesque air of indifference and unconsciousness
of there being anything under its charge.
Few migratory birds are more punctual to the
time of their reappearance than the white stork, or
at least, from its familiarity and conspicuousness,
its migrations have been more accurately noted.
“The stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed
times” (see Virgil, Georg. ii. 319, and Petron.
Sat.). Pliny states that it is rarely seen in Asia
Minor after the middle of August. This is pro-
bably a slight error, as the ordinary date of its
arrival in Holland is the second week in April, and
it remains until October. In Denmark Judge Boie
noted its arrival from 1820 to 1847. he earliest
date was the 26th March, and the latest the 12th
April (Kjaerbolling, Danmarks Fugle, p. 262). In
Palestine it has been observed to arrive on the 22nd
March. Immense flocks of storks may be seen on
the banks of the Upper Nile during winter, and
STORK
some few further west, in the Sahara; but it does
not appear to migrate very far south, unless indeed
the birds that are seen at the Cape of Good Hope
in December be the same which visit Europe.
The stork has no note, and the only sound it
emits is that caused by the sudden snapping of its
long mandibles, well expressed by the epithet ‘ crota-
listria” in Petron. (quasi κροταλίζω, to rattle the
castanets). From the absence of voice probably
arose the error alluded to by Pliny, “Sunt qui
ciconiis non inesse linguas contirment.”
Some unnecessary difficulty has been raised re-
specting the expression in Ps, civ. 17, ‘¢ As for the
stork, the fir-trees are her house.” In the west of
Europe the home of the stork is connected with
the dwellings of man, and in the East, as the eagle
is mentally associated with the most sublime scenes
in vature, so, to the traveller at least, is the stork
with the ruins of man’s noblest works. Amid the
desolation of his fallen cities throughout Eastern
Europe and the classic portions of Asia and Africa,
we are sure to meet with them surmounting his
temples,’his theatres or baths. It is the same in
Palestine. A pair of storks have possession of the
only tall piece of ruin in the plain of Jericho; they
are the only tenants of the noble tower of Richard
Coeur de Lion at Lydda; and they gaze on the
plain of Sharon from the lofty tower of Ramleh
(the ancient Arimathea). So they have a pillar
at Tiberias, and a corner of a ruin at Nebi Mousseh.
And no doubt in ancient times the sentry shared
the watch-tower of Samaria or of Jezreel with the
cherished storks. But the instinct of the stork
seems to be to select the loftiest and most con-
spicuous spot he can find where his huge nest may
be supported ; and whenever he can combine this
taste with his instinct for the society of man, he
naturally selects a tower or a roof. In lands of
ruins, which from their neglect and want of drainage
supply him with abundance of food, he finds a
column or a solitary arch the most secure position
for his nest; but where neither towers nor ruins
abound he does not hesitate to select a tall tree, as
both storks, swallows, and many other birds must
have done before they were tempted by the artificial
conveniences of man’s buildings to desert their na-
tural places of nidification. Thus the golden eagle
builds, according to circumstances, in cliffs, on trees,
or even on the ground; and the common heron,
which generally associates on the tops of the tallest
trees, builds in Westmoreland and in Galway on
bushes. It is therefore needless to interpret the
text of the stork merely perching on trees. It pro-
bably was no less numerous in Palestine when
David wrote than now; but the number of suitable
towers must have been far fewer, and it would
therefore resort to trees. Though it does not fie-
quent trees in South Judaea, yet it still builds on
trees by the Sea of Galilee, according to several
travellers; and the writer may remark, that while
he has never seen the nest except on towers or
pillars in that land of ruins, Tunis, the only nest
he ever saw in Morocco was on a tree. Varro
(Re Rustica, iii. 5) observes, ** Advenae volucres
pullos faciunt, in agro cicontae, in tecto hirundines.”
All modern authorities give instances of the white
stork building on trees. Degland mentions several
pairs which still breed in a marsh near Chalons-
sur-Marne (Orn. Europ. ii. 153). Kjaerbolling
makes a similar statement with respect to Den-
mark, and Nillson also as to Sweden. Badeker
observes ‘ that in Germany the white stork builds
STRAIN AT
in the gables, &., and in trees, chiefly the tops of
poplars and the strong upper branches of the oak,
binding the branches together with twigs, turf, and
earth, and covering the flat surface with straw,
moss, and feathers” (Zier Hur. pl. xxxvi.).
The black stork, no less common in Palestine,
has never relinquished its natural habit of building
upon trees. This species, in the north-eastern por-
tion of the land, is the most abundant of the two
(Harmer’s Obs. iii. 323). Of either, however, the
expression may be taken literally, that ‘ the fir-trees
ave a dwelling for the stork.” [EB 11
STRAIN AT. The A. V. of 1611 renders
Matt. xxiii. 24, “ Ye blind guides! which strain at
a gnat, and swallow a camel.” ‘There can be little
doubt, as Dean Trench has supposed, that this ob-
scure phrase is due to a printer’s error, and that
the true reading is “strain out.” Such is the sense
of the Greek διῦλίζειν, as used by Plutarch (Op.
Mor. p. 692 ἢ, Symp. Probl. vi. 7, §1) and Dios-
corides (ii. 86), viz. to clarify by passing through
a strainer (ὑλιστήρ). “¢ Strain out,” is the reading
of Tyndale’s (1539), Cranmer’s (1539), the Bishops’
(1568), and the Geneva (1557) Bibles, and “ strain
at,’ which is neither correct nor intelligible, could
only have crept into our A. V., and been allowed
to remain there, by an oversight. Dean Trench
gives an interesting illustration of the passage from
a private letter written to him by a recent traveller
in North Africa, who says: “ In a ride from Tan-
gier to Tetuan, I observed that a Moorish soldier
who accompanied me, when he drank, always un-
folded the end of his turban and placed it over the
mouth of his bota, drinking through the muslin, to
strain out the gnats, whose larvae swarm in the
water of that country” (On the Auth. Vers. of the
N. T. pp. 172, 173). If one might conjecture the
cause which led, even erroneously, to the substitu-
tion of at for out, it is perhaps to be found in the
marginal note of the Geneva Version, which explains
the verse thus: ‘* Ye stay at that which is nothing,
and let pass that which is of greater importance.”
STRANGER (93, 10/F). A “stranger” in
the technical sense of the term may be defined to be
a person of foreign, 7. 6. non-Israelitish, extraction
resident within the limits of the promised land.
He was distinct from the proper ‘ foreigner,’ ἃ
inasmuch as the latter still belonged to another
country, and would only visit Palestine as a tra-
veller: he was still more distinct from the “ na-
tions,’ >» or non-Israelite peoples, who heid no
relationship with the chosen people of God. The
term answers most nearly to the Greek μέτοικος,
and may be compared with our expression “ natu-
ralized foreigner,” in as far as this implies a certain
political status in the country where the foreigner
resides: it is opposed to one “ born in the land,” ¢
or, as the term more properly means, “ἡ not trans-
planted,’ in the same way that a naturalized
‘toreigner is opposed to a native. The terms applied
to the “stranger” have special reference to the fact
of his residing 4 in the land, ‘The existence of such
STRANGER 1385
a class of persons among the Israelites is easily
accounted for: the ““ mixed multitude” that ac-
companied them out of Egypt (Ex. xii. 38) formed
one element; the Canaanitish population, which
was never wholly extirpated from their native soil,
formed another and a still more important one;
captives taken in war formed a third; fugitives,
hired servants, merchants, &c., formed a fourth.
The number from these various sources must have
been at all times very considerable; the census of
them in Solomon’s time gave a return of 153,600
males (2 Chr. ii. 17), which was equal to about a
tenth of the whole population. The enactments
ot the Mosaic Law, which regulated the political
and social position of resident strangers, were con-
ceived in a spirit of great liberality. With the
exception of the Moabites and Ammonites (Deut.
xxiii. 3), all nations were admissible to the mights
of citizenship under certain conditions. It would
appear, indeed, to be a consequence of the prohibition
of intermarriage with the Canaanites (Deut. vii. 3),
that these would be excluded from the rights of
citizenship; but the Rabbinical view that this ex-
clusion was superseded in the case of proselytes
seems highly probable, as we find Doeg the Edomite
(1 Sam. xxi. 7, xxii. 9), Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam.
xi. 6), and Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam. xxiv. 18),
enjoying to all appearance the full rights of citizen-
ship. Whether a stranger could ever become legally
a landowner is a question about which there may
be doubt. Theoretically the whole of the soil was
portioned out among the twelve tribes, and Ezekiel
notices it as a peculiarity of the division which he
witnessed in vision, that the strangers were to share
the inheritance with the Israelites, and should thus
become as those “‘ born in the country” (Ez. xlvii.
22). Indeed the term “stranger” is more than
once applied in a pointed manner to signify one
who was not a landowner (Gen, xxiii. 4; Lev. xxv.
23); while on the other hand ezrach (A. V. “ born
in the Jand’’) may have reference to the possession
of the soil, as it is borrowed from the image of a
tree not transplanted, and so occupying its native
soil. The Israelites, however, never succeeded in
obtaining possession of the whole, and it is possible
that the Canaanitish occupants may in course of
time have been recognised as “ strangers,” and had
the right of retaining their land conceded to them,
There was of course nothing to prevent a Canaanite
from becoming. the mortgagee in possession of a
plot, but this would not constitute him a proper
landowner, inasmuch as he would lose all interest
in the property when the year of Jubilee came
round. That they possessed land in one of these
two capacities is clear from the case of Araunah
above cited. The stranger appears to have been
eligible to all civil offices, that of king excepted
(Deut. xvii. 15). In regard to religion, it was
absolutely necessary that the stranger should not
infringe any of the fundamental. laws of the Israel-
itish state: he was forbidden to blaspheme the
name of Jehovah (Ley. xxiv. 16), to work on the
Sabbath (ἔχ. xx. 10), to eat leavened bread at the
2999). ova. © ΠΝ.
d mas Aun. These terms appear to describe, not
two different classes of strangers, but the stranger under
two different aspects, gér rather implying his foreign
origin, or the fact of his having turned aside to abide
with another people, téshab implying his permanent re-
sidence in the land of his adoption. Winer (Realwb.
“‘ Fremde”’) regards the latter as equivalent to hireling.
Jahn (Archaeol. i. 11, §181) explains téshab of one who,
whether Hebrew or foreigner, was destitute of a home.
We see no evidence for either of these opinions. In the
LXX. these terms are most frequently rendered by πάροι-
«os, the Alexandrian substitute for the classical μέτοικος.
Sometimes προσήλυτος is used, and in two passages (Ex,
xii. 19; Is. xiv. 1) yewpas, as representing the Chaldee
form of the word gér.
1386 STRANGER
time of the Passover (Ex. xii. 19), to commit any
breach of the marriage laws (Lev. xviii. 26), to
worship Molech (Lev. xx. 2), or to eat blood or
the flesh of any animal that had died otherwise
than by the hand of man (Lev. xvii. 10, 15). He
was required to release a Hebrew servant in the
year of Jubilee (Lev. xxv. 47-54), to observe the day
of atonement (Lev. xvi. 29), to perform the rites
of purification when necessary (Lev. xvii. 15; Num.
xix. 10), and to offer sin-offerings after sins of igno-
rance (Num. xv. 29). If the stranger was a bonds-
man he was obliged to submit to circumcision (Ex.
xii. 44); if he was independent, it was optional
with him; but if he remained uncircumcised, he
was prohibited from partaking of the Passover (Ex.
xii. 48), and could not be regarded as a full citizen.
Liberty was also given in regard to the use of pro-
hibited food to an uncircumcised stranger; for on
this ground alone can we harmonise the statements
in Deut. xiv. 21 and Ley. xvii. 10,15. Assuming,
however, that the stranger was circumcised, no
distinction existed in regard to legal rights between
the stranger and the Israelite: ‘one law” for both
classes is a principle affirmed in respect to religious
observances (Ex. xii. 49; Num. xv. 16), and to legal
proceedings (Lev. xxiv. 22), and the judges are
strictly warned against any partiality in their de-
cisions (Deut. i. 16, xxiv. 17,18). The Israelite
is also enjoined to treat him as a brother (Lev. xix.
34; Deut. x. 19), and the precept is enforced in
each case by a reference to his own state in the
land of Egypt. Such precepts were needed in order
to counteract the natural tendency to treat persons
in the position of strangers with rigour. For,
though there was the possibility of a stranger ac-
quiring wealth and becoming the owner of Hebrew
slaves (Lev. xxv. 47), yet his normal state was one
of poverty, as implied in the numerous passages
where he is coupled with the fatherless and the
widow (6. 4. Ex. xxii. 21-23; Deut. x. 18, xxiv.
17), and in the special directions respecting his
having a share in the feasts that accompanied cer-
tain religious festivals (Deut. xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. 11),
in the leasing ef the corn-field, the vineyard, and
the olive-yard (Lev. xix. 10, xxiii. 22; Deut. xxiv.
20), in the produce of the triennial tithe (Deut. xiv.
28, 29), in the forgotten sheaf (Deut. xxiv. 19), and
in the spontaneous production of the soil in the
sabbatical year (Lev. xxv. 6). It also appears that
the “stranger” formed the class whence the hire-
lings were drawn: the terms being coupled together
in Ex. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 6,40. Such
labourers were engaged either by the day (Lev. xix.
13 ; Deut. xxiv. 15), or by the year (Ley. xxv. 53),
and appear to have been considerately treated, for
the condition of the Hebrew slave is favourably
compared with that of the hired servant and the
sojourner in contradistinction to the bondman (Lev.
xxv. 39,40). A less fortunate class of strangers,
probably captives in war or for debt, were reduced
to slavery, and were subject to be bought and sold
(Ley, xxv. 45), as well as to be put to task-work, as
was the case with the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 21) and
with those whom Solomon employed in the building
of the Temple (2 Chr, ii. 18). he liberal spirit of
the Mosaic regulations respecting strangers presents
a strong contrast to the rigid exclusiveness of the
Jews at the commencement of the Christian era.
The growth of this spirit dates from the time of
the Babylonish captivity, and originated partly in
the outrages which the Jews suffered at the hands
of foreigners, and partly through a fear lest their
STREET
nationality should be swamped by constant admix-
ture with foreigners: the latter motive appears to
have dictated the stringent measures adopted by
Nehemiah ‘Neh. ix. 2, xiii. 3). Our Lord condemns
this exclusive spirit in the parable of the good
Samaritan, where He defines the term “ neighbour”
in a sense new to His hearers (Luke x. 36). It
should be observed, however, that the proselyte ©
of the New Testament is the true representative of
the stranger of the Old Testament, and towards this
class a cordial feeling was manifested. {PRosu-
LYTE.] The term “ stranger’? (£évos) is generally
used in the New Testament in the general sense of
foreigner, and occasionally in its more technical sense
as opposed to a citizen (Eph. ii. 19). [W. L. B.]
STRAW (3271, teben: ἄχυρον : palea). Both
wheat and barley siraw were used by the ancient
Hebrews chiefly as fodder for their horses, cattle,
and camels (Gen. xxiv. 25; 1 K. iv. 28 ; Is. xi. 7,
Ixv. 25). The straw was probably often chopped
and mixed with barley, beans, &c., for provender
(see Harmer’s Observations, i. 423-4; Wilkinson,
Anc. Egypt. ii. 48, Lond. 1854), There is no
intimation that straw was used for litter; Harmer
thinks it was not so employed; the litter the people
now use in those countries is the animals’ dung,
dried in the sun and bruised between their hands,
which they heap up again in the morning, sprinkling
it in the summer with fresh water to keep it from
corrupting (Obs. p. 424, Lond. 1797). Straw was
employed by the Egyptians for making bricks
(Ex. v. 7, 16): it was chopped up and mixed
with the clay to make them more compact and to
prevent their cracking (Anc. Egypt. ii. 194).
[Bricks.] The ancient Egyptians reaped their
corn close to the ear, and afterwards cut the straw
close to the ground (Jd. p. 48) and laid it by.
This was the straw that Pharaoh refused to give to
the Israelites, who were therefore compelled to gather
“stubble” (wD, Kash) instead, a matter of con~
siderable difficulty, seeing that the straw itself had
been cut off near to the ground. The Stubble fre-
quently alluded to in the Scriptures may denote
either the short standing straw, mentioned above,
which was commonly set on fire, hence the allu-
sions in Is. v. 24; Joel ii. 5, or the small frag-
ments that would be left behind after the reapings,
hence the expression, “as the ash before the wind ἢ
(Ps. Ixxxiii. 13; Is. xli. 2; Jer. xiii. 24). [W.H.]
STREAM OF EGYPT (O81 bm): Ῥινο-
κόρουρα (pl.): torrens Aegypti), once occurs in the
A.V. instead of ‘the river of Egypt,” apparently
to avoid tautology (15. xxvii. 12), It is the best
translation of this doubtful name, for it expresses
the sense of the Hebrew while retaining the vague-
ness it has, so long as we cannot decide whether it
is applied to the Pelusian branch of the Nile or the
stream of the Wadi-l-’Areesh. [RIVER OF EGYPT;
NILE. | pR. S. P.]
STREET (YAN, 1, Pw: πλατεῖα, ῥύμη).
The streets of a modern Oriental town present ἃ
great contrast to those with which we are familiar,
being generally narrow, tortuous, and gloomy, even
in the best towns, such as Cairo (Lane, 1. 20),
Damascus (Porter, i. 30), and Aleppo (Russell, 1.
14). Their character is mainly fixed by the cli-
e The term προσήλυτος occurs in.the LXX. as= δ
in Ex. xii. 19, xx. 10, xxii, 21, xxiii, 9.
ele
νὰ
STREET
mate and the style of architecture, the narrowness
being due to the extreme heat, and the gloominess
to the circumstance of the windows looking for the
most part into the inner court. As these same
influences existed in ancient times, we should be
inclined to think that the streets were much of the
same character as at present. The opposite opinion
has, indeed, been maintained on account of the He-
brew term réch6b, frequently applied to streets, and
properly meaning a wide place. The specific signi-
fication of this term, however, is rather a court~
yard or square: it is applied in this sense to the
broad open space adjacent to the gate of a town,
where public business was transacted (Deut. xiii.
16), and, again, to the court before the Temple
(Ezy. x. 9) or before a palace (Esth. iv. 6). Its
application to the street may point to the com-
parative width of the main street, or it may per-
haps convey the idea of publicity rather than of
width, a sense well adapted to the passages in |
which it occurs (6, 4. Gen. xix. 2; Judg. xix. 15;
2 Sam. xxi. 12). The street called “ Straight,” in
Damascus (Acts ix. 11), was an exception to the
rule of narrowness: it was a noble thoroughfare,
100 feet wide, divided in the Roman age by colon-
nades into three avenues, the central one for foot
passengers, the side passages for vehicles and horse-
men going in different directions (Porter, i. 47).
The shops and warehouses were probably collected
together into bazars in ancient as in modern times:
we read of the bakers’ bazar (Jer. xxxvii. 21), and
of the wool, brazier, and clothes bazars (ἀγορά)
in Jerusalem (Joseph. B. J. v. 8, §1), and perhaps
the agreement between Benhadad and Ahab that
the latter should ‘* make streets in Damascus”
(1 K. xx. 34), was in reference rather to bazars
(the term chuts here used being the same as in Jer.
xxxvii. 21), and thus amounted to the establishment
of a jus commercii. A lively description of the
bazars at Damascus is furnished us by Porter
(i. 58-60). The broad and narrow streets are dis-
tinguished under the terms réchéb and chits in the
following passages, though the point is frequently
lost in the A. V. by rendering the latter term
“ abroad” or “ without” :—Prov. v. 16, vii. 12,
zxii. 135 Jer. v. 1, ix. 21; Am. v.16; Nah. ii. 4.
The same distinction is apparently expressed by the
terms réchob and shék in Cant. iii. 2, and by πλατεῖα
and ῥύμη in Luke xiv. 21: but the etymological
sense of shuk points rather to a place of concourse,
such as a market-place, while ῥύμη is applied to
the ““ Straight” street of Damascus (Acts ix. 11),
and is also used in reference to the Pharisees (Matt.
vi. 2) as a place of the greatest publicity: it is
therefure doubtful whether the contrast can be sus-
tained: Josephus describes the alleys of Jerusalem
under the term στενωποί (B. J. v. 8, 81). The
term shik occurs elsewhere only in Prov. vii. 8;
Keel. xii. 4, 5. The term chats, already noticed,
applies generally to that which is outside the resi-
dence (as in Prov. vii. 12, A. V. “ she is without δὴ);
and hence to other places than streets, as to a
pasture-ground (Job xiii. 17, where the A. V.
requires emendation). That streets occasionally had
names appears from Jer. xxxvii. 21; Acts ix. 11.
That they were generally unpaved may be inferred
from the notices of the pavement laid by Herod the
Great at Antioch (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 5, 83), and by
Herod Agrippa 11. at Jerusalem (Ant. xx. 9, §7).
Hence pavement forms one of the peculiar features
of the ideal Jerusalem (Tob. xiii. 17; Rev. xxi. 21).
Each street and bazar in a modern town is locked
SUCCOT'H 1387
up at night (Lane, i. 25; Russell, i. 21), and hence
a person cannot pass without being observed by the
watchman: the same custom appears to have pre-
vailed in ancient times (Cant. iii. 3). [W. L. B.]
STRIPES. [Punisumenrs. ]
SU’AH (MID: Bove: Sue}. Son of Zophah, an
Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 36). ᾽
50 ΒΑ (Σαβιή; Alex. Σουβάς: Suba). The
sons of Suba were among the sons of Solomon’s
servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esd. ν.
34). There is nothing corresponding to the name
in the Hebrew lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.
SUBA'L (Συβαΐ; Alex. Συβαεί: Obat) = SHAL-
MAI (1 Esd. v. 30; comp. Ezr. ii. 46).
SUC'COTH (ΓΞ : Σκηναί in Gen. in both
MSS., elsewhere Σοκχώθ, Σοκχωθᾶ, Bex xa ;
Alex. Soxxw@: in Gen. Sochoth, id est, tabernacula 5
Soccoth, Socchoth). A town of ancient date in the
Holy Land, which is first heard of in the account
of the homeward journey of Jacob from Padan-aram
(Gen. xxxiii. 17). The name is fancifully derived
from the fact of Jacob’s having there put up
* booths” (,Succéth, nd) for his cattle, as well
as a house for himself. Whether that occurrence
originated the name of Succoth (and, following the
analogy of other history, it is not probable that it
did), the mention of the house and the booths in
contrast to the “tents ” of the wandering life indi-
cates that the Patriarch made a lengthened stay
there—a fact not elsewhere alluded to.
From the itinerary of Jacob’s return it seems
that Succoth lay between PENTEL, near the ford of
the torrent Jabbok, and Shechem (comp. xxxii. 30,
and xxxiii. 18, which latter would be more accurately
rendered ‘‘ Came safe to the city Shechem”). In
accordance with this is the mention of Succoth in
the narrative of Gideon’s pursuit of Zebah and Zal-
munna (Judg. viii. 5-17). His course is eastward
—the reverse of Jacob’s—and he comes first to
Succoth, and then to Penuel, the latter being fur-
ther up the mountain than the former (ver. 8,
“went up thence”). Its importance at this time
is shown by the organisation and number of its
seventy-seven head-men—chiefs and sheikhs—and
also by the defiance with which it treated Gideon on
his first application.
It would appear from this passage that it lay on
the east of Jordan, which is corroborated by the
fact that it was allotted to the tribe of Gad (Josh.
xiii. 27). In the account of Jacob’s journey, all
mention of the Jordan is omitted.
Succoth is named once again after this—in 1 K. vii.
46; 2 Chr. iv. 17—as marking the spot at which
the brass foundries were placed for casting the
metal-work of the Temple, ‘in the district of
Jordan, in the fat or soft ground between Succoth
and Zarthan.” But, as the position of Zarthan is
not yet known, this notice has no topographical
value beyond the mention of the Jordan.
It appears to have been known in the time of
Jerome, who says (Quaest. in Gen. xxxiii. 16) that
there was then a town named Sochoth beyond the
Jordan (trans Jordanem), in the district (parte) of
Seythopolis. Nothing more, however, was heard
of it till Burckhardt’s journey. He mentions it in
ες δι
@ DPT, A.V. “elders.” The word has exactly the
signification of the Arabic sheikh, an old man, and hence
the head of a tribe.
1888 SUCCOTH
a note to p. 345 (July 2). He is speaking of the
places about the Jordan, and, after naming three
ruined towns ‘‘ on the west side of the river to the
north of Bysan,” he says: ‘ Near where we crossed
wD
to the south are the ruins of Sukkot (b%w). On
the western bank of the river there are no ruins
between Ain Sultan (which he has just said was
the southernmost of the three ruined places north
of Bysan) and Rieha or Jericho.” There can,
therefore, be no doubt that the Sukkot of Burck-
hardt was on the east of the Jordan. The spot
at which he crossed he has already stated (p. 343,
4) to have been “two hours from Bysan, which
bore N.N.W.”
Dr. Robinson (B, R. iii. 309, &e.) and Mr. Van
de Velde (Syr. and Pal. ii. 343) have discovered
a place named Sahit (oS La): evidently entirely
distinct both in name and position from that of
Burckhardt. In the accounts and maps of these
travellers it is placed on the west side of the Jor-
dan, less than a mile from the river, and about 10
miles south of Beisdn.
on the east side of the low bluff on which the ruins
stand. The distance of Sakit from Beisdn is too
great, even if it were on the other side of the
Jordan, to allow of its being the place referred to by
Jerome. The Sukkot of Burckhardt is more suit-
able. But it is doubtful whether either of them
can be the Succoth of the Old Test. For the events
of Gideon’s story the latter of the two is not un-
suitable. It is in the line of flight and pursuit
which we may suppose the Midianites and Gideon
to have taken, and it is also near a ford. Sahit, on
the other hand, seems too far south, and is also on
the west of the river. But both appear too far
to the north for the Succoth of Jacob, lying as that
did between the Jabbok and Shechem, especially if
we place the Wady Zerka (usually identified with the
Jabbok) further to the south than it is placed
in Van de Velde’s map, as Mr. Beke> proposes to
do. Jacob’s direct road from the Wady Zerka to
Shechem would have led him by the Wady Fer-
rah, on the one hand, or through Yantm, on the
other. Ifhe went north as far as Sakut, he must
have ascended by the Wady Maleh to Teyasir, and
so through Tubds and the Wady Bidén, Perhaps
his going north was a ruse to escape the dangerous
proximity of Esau; and if he made a long stay at
Succoth, as suggested in the outset of this article,
the détour from the direct road to Shechem would
be of little importance to him.
Until the position of Succoth is more exactly
ascertained, it is impossible to say what was the
VALLEY OF SUCCOTH mentioned in Ps. lx. 6 and
eviii. 7. The word rendered * Valley ” is ’émek in
both cases (ἡ κοίλας τῶν σκηνῶν ; Vallis Soccoth).
The same word is employed (Josh. xiii. 27) in speci-
fying the position of the group of towns amongst
which Succoth occurs, in describing the allotment
of Gad. So that it evidently denotes some marked
feature of the country. It is not probable, however,
that the main valley of the Jordan, the Ghdr, is
intended, that being always designated in the Bible
by the name of “ the Arabah.” LG. }
> This ΠΝ an Mitt and exper’ ienced traveller, has
lately returned from a journey between Damascus, the
Wady Zerka, and Nablus. It was undertaken with the
view of testing his theory that Haran was in the neigh-
bourhood of Damascus. Without going into that question,
A fine spring bubbles out’
SUCCOTH-BENOTH
SUC'COTH (ΠἾΞὉ: Σοκχώθ: Socoth, Soceoth:
“booths,” or “ tents”), the first camping-place of
the Israelites when they left Kgypt (Ex. xii. 37,
xiii, 20; Num. xxxiii. 5, 6). This place was
apparently reached at the close of the first day’s
march. It can scarcely be doubted that each of
the first three stations marks the end of a single
journey. Rameses, the starting-place, we have
shown was probably near the western end of the
Wadi-t-Tumeylat. We have calculated the dis-
tance traversed in each day’s journey to have been
about fifteen miles, and as Succoth was not in the
desert, the next station, Etham, being ‘‘in the edge
of the wilderness ” (Ex. xiii. 20; Num. xxxiii. 6), it
must have been in the valley, and consequently
nearly due east of Rameses, and fifteen miles distant
in a straight line. If Rameses may be supposed to
have been near the mound called El-’Abbaseeyeh,
the position of Succoth can be readily deterrhined
within moderate limits of uncertainty. It was
probably, to judge from its name, a resting-place
of caravans, or a military station, or a town named
from one of the two. We find similar names in
Scenae Mandrae (/tin. Ant.), Scenae Mandrorum
(Not. Dign.) or Σκηνὴ Μανδρῶν (Not. Graec.
Episcopatuum), Scenae Veteranorum (Jt. Ant. Not.
Dign.), and Scenae extra Gerasa (sic: Not. Dign.).
See, for all these places, Parthey, Zur Erdkunde
des alten Aegyptens, p. 535. It is, however,
evident that such a name would be easily lost, and
even if preserved, hard to recognize, as it might be
concealed under a corresponding name of similar
signification, though very different in sound, as that
of the settlement of Ionian and Carian mercenaries,
called τὰ Srpardmedu (Herod. ii. 154).
We must here remark upon the extreme careless-
ness with which it has been taken for granted that
the whole journey to the Red Sea was through the
desert, and an argument against the authenticity
of the sacred narrative based upon evidence which
it not only does not state but contradicts. For,
as we have seen, Etham, the second camping-
place, was “ in the edge of the wilderness,” and the
country was once cultivated along the valley
through which passed the canal of the Red Sea.
The demand that Moses was commissioned to make,
that the Israelites might take ‘ three days’ journey
into the wilderness” (Ex. ili. 18), does not imply that
the journey was to be of three days through the
wilderness, but rather that it would be necessary to
make three days’ journey in order to sacrifice in the
wilderness. [EXoDUS, THE; RED SEA, PASSAGE
OF. | [ΠΡ Ε
SUC'COTH-BEN'OTH (ΠΣ ΠῚΞΌ : Σωκ-
χὼθ-Βενίθ: Sochoth-benoth) occurs only in 2 K.
xvii. 30, where the Babylonish settlers in Samaria are
said to have set up the worship of Succoth-benoth
on their arrival in that country. It has generally
been supposed that this term is pure Hebrew, and
signifies the “tents of daughters ;” which some
explain as “the booths in which the daughters of
the Babylonians prostituted themselves in honour
of their idol,” others as “ small taber nacles i in which
were contained images of female deities” (compare
Gesenius and 8. Newman, ad voc. Mad; Winer,
all that concerns us here is to say that he has fixed the
latitude of the mouth of the Wady Zerka at 32° 13’, or
more than ten miles south of its position in Van de
Velde’s map. Mr. Beke’s paper and map will be pub-
lished in the Journal of the R. Geogr. Society for 1863.
SUCHATHITES
Realwérterbuch, ii. p. 543; Calmet, Commentaire
Littéral, ii. 897). It is a strong objection to both
these explanations, that Succoth-benoth, which in
the passage in Kings occurs in the same construc-
tion with Nergal and various other gods, is thus
not a deity at all, nor, strictly speaking, an object
of worship. Perhaps therefore the suggestion of
Sir H, Rawlinson, against which this objection does
not lie, may be admitted to deserve some attention.
This writer thinks that Succoth-benoth represents
the Chaldaean goddess Zir-banit, the wite of Me-
rodach, who was especially worshipped at Babylon,
in conjunction with her husband, and who is called
the “queen” of the place. Succoth he supposes to
be either ‘‘a Hamitic term equivalent to Zir,”’ or pos-
sibly a Shemitic mistranslation of the term—Zirat,
“supreme,” being confounded with Zarat, “ tents.”
(See the Zssay of Sir H. Rawlinson in Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 630.) [G. R.]
SUCHA'THITES (ans: Σωκαθιείμ : in
tabernaculis commorantes). One of the families of
scribes at Jabez (1 Chr. ii. 55),
SUD (3008: Sodi). <A river in the immediate
neighbourhood of Babylon, on the banks of which
Jewish exiles lived (Bar. i. 4). No such river is
known to geographers: but if we assume that the
first part of the book of Baruch was written in He-
brew, the original text may have been Sur, the final Ἢ
having been changed into Ἵ. In this case the name
would represent, not the town of Sora, as suggested
by Bochart (Phaleg, i. 8), but the river Euphrates
itself, which is always named by Arab geographers
‘the river of Sura,” a corruption probably of the
‘* Sippara ” of the inscriptions (Rawlinson’s Herod.
i, 611, note 4). Weel Β:]
SUD (Sova; Alex. Sovad: Sw) = Sta, or
SIAHA (1 Esd. v. 29; comp. Neh. vii. 47; Ezr.
ii. 44).
SU'DIAS (Sovdias: Serebias et LEdias) =
HopaviaAH 3 and HOpEVAH (1 Esd. v. 26; comp.
Ezr. iii. 40; Neh. vii. 43).
SUK’KIIMS (03D: Τρωγλοδύται: Troglo-
ditae), a nation mentioned (2 Chr. xii. 3) with the
Lubim and Cushim as supplying part of the army
which came with Shishak out of Egypt when he in-
vaded Judah. Gesenius (Zex. 5. v.) suggests. that
their name signifies “dwellers in tents,” in which
case it might perhaps be better to suppose them to
have been an Arab tribe like the Scenitae, than
Ethiopians. If it is borne in mind that Zerah was
apparently allied with the Arabs south of Palestine
[ΖΕΒΑΗ], whom we know Shishak to have subdued
[ SHISHAK], our conjecture does not seem to be im-
probable. The Sukkiims may correspond to some
one of the shepherd or wandering races mentioned
on the Egyptian monuments, but we have not
found any name in hieroglyphics resembling their
name in the Bible, and this somewhat favours the
opinion that it is a Shemitic appellation. [R.S. P.]
SUN (WD). In the history of the creation
the sun is described as the “ greater light” in con-
tradistinction to the moon or “lesser light,” in
conjunction with which it was to serve “ for signs,
and for seasons, and for days, and for years,’ while
its special office was “to rule the day” (Gen, i.
14-16). The “signs” referred to were probably
such extraordinary phenomena as eclipses, which
were regarded as conveying premonitions of coming
SUN 1589
events (Jer. x. 2; Matt. xxiv. 29, with Luke xxi, 25),
The joint influence assigned to the sun and moon in
deciding the “ seasons,” both for agricultural opera-
tions and for religious festivals, and also in regulating
the length and subdivisions of the ‘‘ years,’ correctly
describes the combination of the lunar and solar
year, which prevailed at all events subsequently to
the Mosaic period—the moon being the measurer
(κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν) of the lapse of time by the subdivi-
sions of months and weeks, while the sun was tlie
ultimate regulator of the length of the year by
means of the recurrence of the feast of Pentecost at
a fixed agricultural season, viz. when the corn be-
cameripe. The sun “ ruled the day ” alone, sharing
the dominion of the skies with the moon, the bril-
lianey and utility of which for journeys and other
purposes enhances its value in Eastern countries.
It “ruled the day,” not only in reference to
its powerful influences, but also as deciding the
length of the day and supplying the means of
calculating its progress. Sun-rise and sun-set are
the only defined points of time in the absence of
artificial contrivances for telling the hour of the
day: and as these points are less variable in the
latitude of Palestine than in our country, they
served the purpose of marking the commence-
ment and conclusion of the working day. Be-
tween these two points the Jews recognized three
periods, viz. when the sun became hot, about
9 A.M. (1 Sam. xi. 9; Neh. vii. 3); the double light
or noon (Gen. xliii. 16; 2 Sam. iv. 5), and * the
cool of the day ” shortly before sunset (Gen. iii. 8).
The sun also served to fix the quarters of the he-
misphere, east, west,,north, and south, which were
represented respectively by the rising sun, the
setting sun (Is. xlv. 6; Ps. 1.1), the dark quarter
(Gen. xiii. 14; Joel 11, 20), and the brilliant quarter
(Deut. xxxiii. 23; Job xxxvii. 17; Ez. xl. 24); or
otherwise by their position relative to a person
facing the rising sun—before, behind, on the left
hand, and on the right hand (Job xxiii, 8, 9). The
apparent motion of the sun is frequently referred to
in terms that would imply its reality (Josh. x. 13;
2ulGsxe lites. x1Xs) ols) ΘΟ δα. 5. Habs aii Lil):
The ordinary name for the sun, shemesh, is sup-
posed to refer to the extreme brilliancy of its rays,
producing stupor or astonishment in the mind of
the beholder; the poetical names, chammah® (Job
xxx. 28; Cant. vi. 10; Is. xxx. 26), and cheres>
(Judg. xiv. 183; Job ix. 7) have reference to its
heat, the beneficial effects of which are duly com-
memorated (Deut. xxxiii. 14; Ps. xix. 6), as well
as its baneful influence when in excess (Ps. cxxi. 6 ;
Is, xlix. 10; Jon. iv. 8; Kcelus. xliii. 3,4). The
vigour with which the sun traverses the heavens is
compared to that of a “ bridegroom coming out of
his chamber,” and of a “ giant rejoicing to run his
course” (Ps. xix. 5). The speed with which the
beams of the rising sun dart across the sky, is ex-
pressed in the term ‘‘ wings” applied to them (Ps.
exxxix. 9; Mal. iv. 2).
The worship of the sun, as the most prominent
and powerful agent in the kingdom of nature, was
widely diffused throughout the countries adjacent
to Palestine. The Arabians appear to have paid
direct worship to it without the intervention of any
statue or symbol (Job xxxi. 26, 27; Strab. xvi. p.
784), and this simple style of worship was pro-
bably familiar to the ancestors of the Jews in
5 mon. > DIN.
1390 SUN
Chaldaea and Mesopotamia. In Egypt the sun was
worshipped under the title of hé or Ra, and not as
was supposed by ancient writers under the form of
Osiris (Diod. Sic. i, 11; see Wilkinson’s Anc. Eg.
iv. 289): the name came conspicuously forward as
the title of the kings, Pharaoh, or rather Phra,
meaning ‘‘the sun” (Wilkinson, iv, 287). The
Hebrews must have been well acquainted with the
idolatrous worship of the sun during the captivity
in Egypt, both from the contiguity of On, the chief
seat of the worship of the sun as implied in the
name itself (On =the Hebrew Bethshemesh, “ house
of the sun,” Jer. xliii. 13), and also from the con-
nexion between Joseph and Poti-pherah (‘he who
belongs to Ra’’), the priest of On (Gen. xli. 45).
After their removal to Canaan, the Hebrews came
in contact with various forms of idolatry, which
originated in the worship of the sun; such as the
Baal of the Phoenicians (Movers, Phén. i. 180),
the Molech or Milcom of the Ammonites, and the
Hadad of the Syrians (Plin. xxxvii. 71). These
idols were, with the exception of the last, intro-
duced into the Hebrew commonwealth at various
periods (Judg. ii. 11; 1 K. xi. 5) 5 but it does not
follow that the object symbolized by them was
known to the Jews themselves. If we have any
notice at all of conscious sun-worship in the early
stages of their’ history, it exists in the doubtful
term chammdnim © (Lev. xxvi. 30; Is. xvii. 8, &e.),
which was itself significant of the sun, and pro-
bably described the stone pillars or statues under
which the solar Baal (Baal-Haman of the Punic in-
scriptions, Gesen. 7108. i. 489) was worshipped
at Baal-Hamon (Cant. viii. 11) and other places.
Pure sun-worship Appears to have been introduced
by the Assyrians, and to have become formally
established by Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 3, 5), in con-
travention of the prohibitions of Moses (Deut. iv.
19, xvii. 3). Whether the practice was borrowed
from the Sepharvites of Samaria (2 K. xvii. 31),
whose gods Advammelech and Anammelech are
supposed to represent the male and female sun, and
whose original residence (the Heliopolis of Berosus)
was the chief seat of the worship of the sun in Ba-
bylonia (Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 611), or whether
the kings of Judah drew their model of worship
more immediately from the East, is uncertain. The
dedication of chariots and horses to the sun (2 K.
xxiii. 11) was.perhaps borrowed from the Persians
(Herod. i. 189; Curt. iii. 3, 811; Xen. Cyrop.
viii. 3, §24), who honoured the sun under the
form of: Mithras (Strab. xv. p. 732). At the
same time it should be observed that the horse
was connected with the worship of the sun in other
countries, as among the Massagetae (Herod. i. 216),
and the Armenians (Xen. Anab. iv. 5, §35), both
of whom used it as a sacrifice. To judge from
the few notices we have on the subject in the
Bible, we should conclude that the Jews derived
their mode of worshipping the sun from several
quarters. The practice of burning incense on the
house-tops (2 K. xxiii. 5, 12; Jer. xix. 13;
Zeph. i. 5) might have been borrowed from the
Arabians (Strab. xvi. p. 784), as also the simple
act of adoration directed towards the rising sun
(Ez. viii. 16 ; comp. Job xxxi. 27). On the other
hand, the use of the chariots and horses in the pro-
cessions on festival days came, as we have observed,
SUSA
from Persia; and so also the custom of “ putting
the branch to the nose” (Ez. viii. 17) according to
the generally received explanation, which identifies
it with the Persian practice of holding in the left
hand a bundle of twigs called Bersam while wor-
shipping the sun (Strab. xv. p. 753; Hyde, Fel.
Pers. p. 345). This, however, is very doubtful,
the expression being otherwise understood of “ put-
ting the knife to the nose,” ὁ, 6. producing self-
mutilation (Hitzig, On Hzek.). An objection lies
against the former view from the fact that the
Persians are not said to have held the branch to the
nose. The importance attached to the worship of
the sun by the Jewish kings, may be inferred from
the tact that the horses were stalled within the
precincts of the ternple (the term parvar 4 meaning
not “suburb” as in the A, V., but either a portico
or an outbuilding of the temple). They were re-
moved thence by Josiah (2 Κα, xxiii. 11),
In the metaphorical language of Scripture the
sun is emblematic of the law of God (Ps. xix. 7),
ot the cheering presence of God (Ps. Ixxxiv. 11),
of the person of the Saviour (John i. 9; Mal. iv.
2), and of the glory and purity of heavenly beings
(Reve) ioe! Gy σε, σα, Τὴ: [W. L. B.]
SUR (Σούρ: Vulg. omits). One of the places
on the sea-coast of Palestine, which are named as
having been disturbed at the approach of Holofernes
with the Assyrian army (Jud. ii. 28). It cannot
be Tyre, the modern Sur, since that is mentioned
immediately before. Some have suggested Dor,
others a place named Sora, mentioned by Steph.
Byz. as in Phoenicia, which they would identity
with Athlit ; others, again, Sirafend. But none of
these are satisfactory.
SURETISHIP. (1.) The A. V. rendering for
tokéim,* lit. in marg. “ those that strike (hands).’’
(2.) The phrase téstimeth yad, ‘ depositing in the
hand,” 7. 6. giving in pledge, may be understood
to apply to the act of pledging, or virtual though
not personal suretiship (Lev. vi. 2, in Hebr. v. 21).
In the entire absence of commerce the law laid dowa
no rules on the subject of suretiship, but it is
evident that in the time of Solomon commercial
dealings had become so multiplied that suretiship
in the commercial sense was common (Proy. vi.
1, xi. 15. αν 185 xx. 165 xi 20». ΣΕΥΗ͂ os
But in older times the notion of one man be-
coming a surety for a service to be discharged
by another was in full force (see Gen. xliv. 32),
and it is probable that the same form of under-
taking existed, viz. the giving the hand to (striking
hands’ with), not, as Michaelis represents, the per-
son who was to discharge the service—in the
commercial sense the debtor—jbut the person to
whom it was due, the creditor (Job xvii. 3;
Prov. vi. 1; Michaelis, Zaws of Moses, §151, ii.
322, ed. Smith). The surety of course became
liable for his client’s debts in case of his failure. In
later Jewish times the system had become common,
and caused much distress in many instances, yet
the duty of suretiship in certain cases is recognised
as valid (Ecclus, viii. 13, xxix. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19).
[Loan. | ᾿ Π| |
SUSA (Susan). Esth. xi. 8, xvi. 18, [Suu-
SHAN, |
© pM. 4 5.
* DPI: Vulg. laqueos; from YPM, “strike”
(Ges. 1511).
b Ἴ" NIAwA ; παραθήκη.
SUSANCHITES
SWAN 1391
SUSANCH'ITES (NIDIWW : Σουσαναχαῖοι: | Pliny following him, have given currency to the
Susanechaei) is found once only—in Ezr. iv. 9,
where it occurs among the list of the nations whom
the Assyrians had settled in Samaria, and whose
descendants still occupied the country in the reign
of the Pseudo-Smerdis. There can be no doubt
that it designates either the inhabitants of the city
Susa uae), or those of the country—Susis or
Susiana—whereof Susa was the capital. Perhaps
as the Elamites are mentioned in the same passage,
and as Daniel (viii. 2) seems to call the country
Elam and the city Shushan (or Susa), the former ex-
planation is preterable. (See SHUsHAN.) [G. R.]
SUSAN'NA (Secdvva, Σουσάννα, i. 6.
Mav, “a lily”). 1. The heroine of the story
of the Judgment of Daniel. [DAN1EL, APpocRY-
PHAL ADDITIONS TO.] The name occurs in Diod.
Sic. as that of the daughter of Ninus (ii. 6), and
Sheshan (1 Chr. ii. 31, 34, 35) is of the same
origin and meaning (Ges. Thes. s. v.).
2. One of the women who ministered to the
Lord (Luke viii. 3). [B. F. W.]
SU'SI (DID: Σουσί: Susi). The father of
Gaddi the Manassite spy (Num. xiii. 11).
SWALLOW, [1)95, dérér, and Way, agtr,
both thus translated in A. V. Ww occurs twice,
Ps, Ixxxiy. 3, and Prov. xxvi. 2: transl. by LXX.
τρωγών and στρουθός ; Vulg. turtur and passer.
WAY also twice, Is. xxxviii. 14, and Jer. viii. 7,
both times in conjunction with D°D or DID, and
rendered by LXX. περιστερά and στρουθίον, Vulg.
“ columba”’ and “ciconia.” In each passage D'D
is rendered, probably correctly, by LXX. χελιδών
(swallow), A. V. crane [CRANE], which is more
probably the true signification of V3. DD is,
perhaps, connected with Arab. Carn (?msiss?),
applied to many warbling birds.
The rendering of A. V. for W4 seems less open
to question, and the original (quasi ὙΠ, “γθε-
dom”) may include the swallow with other swiftly
flying or free birds. The old commentators, except
Bochart, who renders it ‘‘ columba fera,” apply
it to the swallow from the love of freedom in
this bird and the impossibility of retaining it in
captivity.
Whatever be the precise rendering, the characters
ascribed in the several passages where the names
occur, are strictly applicable to the swallow, viz.
its swiftness of flight, its nesting in the buildings
of the Temple, its mournfal, garr ulous note, and its
regular migration, shared indeed in common with:
several others. But the turtle-dove, for which the
LXX, have taken WI, was scarcely likely to be a
familiar resident in the Temple enclosure. On
Is, xxxviii. 14, ‘* Like a swallow, so did I chatter,’
we may observe that the garrulity of the swallow
was proverbial among the ancients (see Nonn.
Dionys. ii. 133, and Aristoph. Batr. 93). Hence
its epithet κωτιλάς, “the twitterer,” κωτιλάδας
δὲ τὰς χελιδόνας, Athen. 622. See Anacr. 104,
and ὀρθρογόη, Hes. Op. 566; and Virg. Georg.
iv. 306.
Although Aristotle in his ‘ Natural History,’ and
fable that many Eaallowa bury themselves during
winter, yet the regularity of their migration alluded
to by the Prophet Jeremiah was familiar ly recog-
nised by the ancients. See Anacreon (Od. xxxiii.),
The ditty quoted by Athen. (360) from Theognis
is well known—
HAO’ ἦλθε χελιδὼν, καλὰς ὧρας ἄγουσα,
καλοὺς ἐνιαυτοὺς, ἐπὶ γαστέρα λευκὰ, ἐπὶ νῶτα
μέλαινα.
So Ovid (ust. ii.
hirundo.”
Many species of swallow occur in Palestine.
those familiar to us in Britain are found.
swallow (Hirundo rustica, L., var.
Lichst.), martin (Chelidon urbiea, L.), sand
martin (Cotyle riparia, L.), abound. Besides these
the eastern swallow (Mir. rufula, Tem.), which
nestles generally in fissures in rocks, and the crag
martin (Cotyle rupestris, L.), which is confined to
mountain gorges and desert districts, are also com-
mon. See 7018, vol. i. p. 27, vol. τι p- 386. The
crag martin is the only member of the genus which
does not migrate from Palestine in winter. Of
the genus Cypselus (swift), our swift (Cypselus
apus, L,) is common, and the splendid alpine swift
(Cyps. melba, L.) may be seen in all suitable loca-
lities. A third species, peculiar, so far as is yet
known, to the north-east of Palestine, has recently
been described under the name of Cypselus Gali-
leensis.
Whatever be the true appellation for the swallow
tribe in Hebrew, it would perhaps include the
bee-eaters, so similar to many of the swallow-,
at least in the eyes of a cursory observer, in flight,
note, and habits. Of this beautiful genus three
species occur in Palestine, Merops apiaster, L.,
Merops Persicus, L., and in the valley of the
Jordan only, the eastern sub-tropical form Merops
viridis, L. fH. Bs ἢ
SWAN (nist won, tinshemeth). Thus rendered
by A. V. in ΤΣ xi. 18, Deut. xiv. 16, where it
occurs in the list of unclean birds; LXX. πορφυ-
play, iBis; Vulg. porphyrio, ibis. Bochart (Hiero.
li. 290) explains it noctua (owl), and derives the
name from nny, “to astonish,” because other
birds are startled at the apparition of the owl.
Gesenius suggests the pelican, from Dv, “© to
breathe, to puff,’ with reference to the inflation of
its pouch. Whatever may have been the bird in-
tended by Moses, these conjectures cannot be ad-
mitted as satisfactory, the owl and pelican being
both distinctly expressed elsewhere in the catalozue.
Nor is the A. V. translation likely to be correct.
It is not probable that the swan was known to
Moses or the Israelites, or at least that it was
sufficiently familiar to have obtained a place in this
list. Hasselquist indeed mentions his having seen
a swan on the coast of Damietta; but though a
regular winter visitant to Greece, only accidental
stragglers wander so far south as the Nile, and it
has not been observed by recent naturalists either
in Palestine or Egypt. Nor, if it had been known to
the Israelites, is it easy to understand why the swan
should have been classed among the unclean birds.
The renderings of the LXX., ‘“ porphyrio” and
“ ibis,” are either of them more probable. Neither
of these birds occur elsewhere in the catalogue,
both would be familiar to residents in Egypt, and
853), ““ Praenuntia veris
All
The
Cahirica,
1392 SWEARING
the original seems to point to some water-fowl.
The Samaritan Version also agrees with the LXX.
Πορφυρίων, porphyrio antiquorum, Bp., the purple
water-hen, is mentioned by Aristotle (Hist. An.
viii. 8), Aristophanes (Av. 707), Pliny (Wat. Hist.
x. 63), and more fully described by Athenaeus
(Deipn. ix, 388). It is allied to our corn-crake
and water-hen, and is the largest and most beautiful
of the tamily Rallidae, being larger than the do-
mestic fowl, with a rich dackeniie plumage, and
brilliant red beak and legs. From the extraordinary
length of its toes it is “enabled, lightly treading on
the. flat leaves of water-plants, to support itself
without immersion, and apparently to run on the
surface of the water. It frequents marshes and
the sedge by the banks of rivers in all the countries
bordering on the Mediterranean, and is abundant in
Lower Egypt. Athenaeus has correctly noted its
singular habit of grasping its food with its very
long toes, and thus conveying it to its mouth. It
is ‘distinguished from all the other species of
Rallidae “by its short powerful mandibles, with
which it crushes its prey, consisting often of
reptiles and young birds. It will frequently seize
a young duck with its long feet, and at once crunch
the head of its victim with its beak. It is an
omnivorous feeder, and from the miscellaneous
character of its food, might reasonably find a place
in the catalogue of unclean birds. 105 flesh is rank,
coarse, and very dark-coloured. ΠΕ B. T.]
SWEARING. [Oaru.]
SWEAT, BLOODY. One of the physical
phenomena attending our Lord’s agony in the garden
of Gethsemane is described by St. Luke (xxii. 44):
“His sweat was as it were great drops (lit. clots,
θρόμβοι) of blood falling down to the ground.”
The genuineness of this verse and of the preceding
has been doubted, but is now generally acknow-
ledged. They are omitted in A and B, but are
found in the Codex Sinaiticus (δ), Codex Bezae,
and others, and in the Peshito, Philoxenian, and
Curetonian Syriac (see Tregelles, Greek New Test. ;
Scrivener, Introd. to the Crit. of the N. T. p. 434),
and Tregelles points to the notation of the section
and canon in ver. 42 as a trace of the existence of
the verse in the Codex Alexandrinus.
Of this malady, known in medical science by, the
term diapedesis, there have been examples recorded
both in ancient and modern times. Aristotle was
aware of it (De Part. Anim. iii. 5). The cause
assigned is generally violent mental emotion.
“ὁ Kannegiesser,” quoted by Dr, Stroud (Phys. Cause
of the Death of Christ, p. 86), “ remarks, * Violent
mental excitement, whether occasioned by uncon-
trollable anger or vehement joy, and in like manner
sudden terror or intense fear, forces out a sweat,
accompanied with signs either of anxiety or hilarity.’
After uscribing this sweat to the unequal constric-
tion of some vessels and dilatation of others, he
further observes: ‘If the mind is seized with a
sudden fear of death, the sweat, owing to the exces-
sive degree of constriction, often becomes bloody.’ ”
Dr. Millingen (Curiosities of Medical Experience,
p- 489, 2nd ed.) gives the following explanation of
the phenomenon : ““ It is probable that this strange
disorder arises from a violent commotion of the
nervous system, turning the streams of blood out
of their natural course, and forcing the red particles
into the cutaneous excretories. A mere relaxation
of the fibres could not produce so powerful a
revulsion. It may also arise in cases of extreme
SWINE
debility, in connexion with a thinner condition of
the blood.”
The following are a few of the instances on record
which have been collected by Calmet (Diss, sux la
Sueur du Sang), Millingen, Stroud, Trusen (Die
Sitten, Gebrduche, und Krankheiten d. alt. Hebr.,
Breslau, 1853). Schenkius (Obs. Med. lib. iii
p- 458) mentions the case of a nun who was so
terrified at falling into the hands of soldiers that
blood oozed from all the pores of her body. ‘The
same writer says that in the plague of Miseno in
1554 a woman who was seized sweated blood for
three days. In 1552, Conrad Lycosthenes (de Pro-
digtis, p. 623, ed. 1557) reports, a woman sick of
the plague sweated blood from the upper part of
her body. Maldonato (Comm. in Evang.) gives
an “instance, attested by eyewitnesses, of a man
at Paris in full health and vigour, who, hearing
the sentence of death, was covered with a bloody
sweat. According to De Thou (lib. xi. vol. i.
p. 326, ed. 1626), the governor of Monte-
maro, being seized by stratagem and threatened
with death, was so moved thereat that he sweated
blood and water. Another case, recorded in the
same historian (lib. Ixxxii. vol. iv. p. 44), is that
of a Florentine youth who was unjustly con-
demned to death by Pope Sixtus V. The death
of Charles LX. of France was attended by the same
phenomenon. Mezeray (Hist. de France, ii. p.
1170, ed, 1646) says of his last moments, “ ἢ]
sagitoit et se remuoit sans cesse, et le sang luy
jaillissoit par tous les conduits, mesme par les
pores, de sorte qu’ on le trouva une fois qui baignoit
dedans.” A sailor, during a fearful storm, is said
to have fallen with terror, and when taken up his
whole body was covered with a bloody sweat (Mil-
lingen, p. 488). In the Mélanges α᾽ Histoire (iii.
179), by Dom Bonaventure d’ Argonne, the case is
given of a woman who suffered so much from this
malady that, after her death, no blood was found
in her veins. Another case, of a girl of 18 who
suffered in the same way, is reported by Mesaporiti,*
a physician at Genoa, accompanied by the observa-
tions of Valisneri, Professor of Medicine at Padua.
It occurred in 1708 (Phil. Trans. No. 303, p.
2144). There is still, however, wanted a well-
authenticated instance in modern times, observed
with all the care and attested by all the exactness
of later medical science. That given in Caspar’s
Wochenschrift, 1848, as having been observed by
Dr. Schneider, appears to be the most recent, anc
resembles the phenomenon mentioned by Theo-
phrastus (London Med. Gaz., 1848, vol. ii. p.
953). For further reference to authorities, see
Copeland’s Dict, of Medicine, ii.72. [W. A. W.]
SWINE (91M, chdzir: ὗς, ὕειος, σῦς ; χοῖρος
yan Ng 1h5
sus, aper). Allusion will be found in the
Bible to these animals, both (1) in their domestic
and (2) in their wild state.
(1.) The flesh of swine was forbidden as food
by the Levitical law (Lev. xi. 7; Deut. xiv. 8);
the abhorrence which the Jews as a nation had of
it may be inferred from Is. ]xv. 4, where some of
the idolatrous people are represented as ‘ eating
swine’s flesh,” and as having the “ broth of abom-
inable things in their vessels 3 * see also Ixvi. 3, 17,
and 2 Mace. vi. 18, 19, in which passage we "read
that Eleazar, an aged scribe, when compelled by
a So the name is given in the Philos. Trans. ; Calmet
writes it ‘* M. Saporitius.”
SWINE
Antiochus to receive in his mouth swine’s flesh,
“spit it forth, choosing rather to die gloriously
than to live stained with such an abomination.”
The use of swine’s flesh was forbidden to the
Feyptian priests, to whom, says Sir G. Wilkinson
(ἄπο. Egypt. i. 322), “above all meats it was
particularly obnoxious” (see Herodotus, ii. 47;
Aelian, de Nat. Anim. x. 16; Josephus, Contr.
Apion. ii. 14), though it was occasionally eaten by
the people. The Avabians also were disallowed the
use of swine’s flesh (see Pliny, N. H. viii. 52;
Koran, ii. 175), as were also the Phoenicians,
Aethiopians, and other nations of the Kast.
No other reason for the command to abstain from
swine’s flesh is given in the law of Moses beyond
the general one which forbade any of the mam-
malia as food which did not literally fulfil the
terms of the definition of a ‘‘ clean animal,” viz.
that it was to be a eloven-footed ruminant. The
pig, therefore, though it divides the hoof, but does
not chew the cud, was to be considered unclean ;
and consequently, inasmuch as, unlike the ass and
the horse in the time of the Kings, no use could
be made of the animal when alive, the Jews did |
It is, |
not breed swine (Lactant. Jnstit. iv. 17).
however, probable that dietetical considerations may
have influenced Moses in his prohibition of swine’s
flesh; it is generally believed that its use in hot
countries is liable to induce cutaneous disorders ;
hence in a people liable to leprosy the necessity for
the observance of a strict rule.
the meat not being eaten was its unwholesomeness,
on which account it was forbidden to the Jews and |
Moslems” (Sir G. Wilkinson’s nofe in Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, ii. 47). Ham. Smith, however (Kitto’s
Cycl. art. “ Swine’), maintains that this reputed
unwholesomeness of swine’s flesh has been much
exaggerated; and recently a writer in Colburn’s
New Monthly Mayazine (July 1, 1862, p. 266)
has endorsed this opinion, Other conjectures for the
reason of the prohibition, which are more curious
than valuable, may be seen in Bochart (Hieroz.
i. 806, seg.). Callistratus (apud Plutarch. Sympos.
iv. 5) suspected that the Jews did not use swine’s
flesh’ for the same reason which, he says, influ-
enced the Egyptians, viz. that this animal was
sacred, inasmuch as by turning up the earth with
its snout it first taught men the ait of ploughing
(see Bochart, Hieroz. 1. 806, and a dissertation by
Cassel, entitled De Judaeorum odio ct abstinentia
a porcina ejusque causis, Magdeb. ; also Michaelis,
Comment. on the Laws of Moses, art. 203, iii.
230, Smith’s transl.). Although the Jews did not
breed swine, during the greater period of their
existence as a nation, there can be little doubt
that the heathen nations of Palestine used the flesh
as food.
At the time of our Lord’s ministry it would
appear that the Jews occasionaliy violated the law
ot Moses with respect to swine’s flesh. Whether
“the herd of swine” into which the devils were
allowed to enter (Matt. viii. 32; Mark v. 13)
were the property of the Jewish or Gentile inha-
bitants of Gadara does not appear from the sacred
narrative; but that the practice of keeping swine
did exist amongst some of the Jews seems clear
from the enactment of the law of Hyrcanus, “ne
cui porcum alere liceret” (Grotius, Annot. ad
Matt. 1. c.). Allusion is made in 2 Pet. ii. 22
to the fondness which swine have for “ wallowing in
the mire ;” this, it appeais, was a proverbial expres-
sion, with which may be compared the “ amica
VOL. 11.
|
“The reason of
SYCAMINE-TREE 1393
luto sus’? of Horace (Ep. i. 2, 26). Solomon’s
comparison of a ‘ jewel of gold in a swine’s snout ”’
to a * fair woman without discretion” (Prov. xi.
22), and the expression of our Lord, “neither cast
ye your pearls before swine,’ are so obviously
intelligible as to render any remarks unnecessary.
The transaction of the destruction of the herd of
swine already alluded to, like the cursing of the
barren fig-tree, has been the subject of most unfair
eavil: it is well answered by Trench (Miracles,
p- 173), who observes that “(ἃ man is of more
value than many swine;” besides which it must
be remembered that it is not necessary to suppose
that our Lord sent the devils into the swine. He
merely pe:mitted them to go, as Aquinas says,
“quod autem porci in mare piaecipitati sunt non
fuit operatio divini mivaculi, sed operatio daemo-
num’e permissione divina&;” and if these Gadarene
villagers were Jews and owned the swine, they
were rightly punished by the loss of that which
they ought not to have had at all.
Wild Boar.
(2.) The wild boar of the wood (Ps, Ixxx. 13)
is the common Sus scrofa which is frequently met
with in the woody parts of Palestine, especially
in Mount Tabor. The allusion in the psalm to
the injury the wild boar does to the vineyards is
well borne out by fact. ‘It is astonishing what
havoe a wild boar is capable of effecting during a
single night; what with eating and trampling under
foot, he will destroy a vast quantity of grapes ”
(Hartley’s Rescarches in Greece, p. 234). |W. H.]
SWORD. [Arms.]
SYCAMINE-TREE (συκάμινος : morus) is
mentioned once only, viz., in Luke xvii. 6, “If
ye had faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye might
say to this sycamine-tree, Be thou plucked up,”
&e. There is no reason to doubt that the συκά-
μινος is distinct from the συκομωραία of the same
Evangelist (xix. 4) [Sycamore], although we learn
from Dioscorides (i. 180) that this name was some-
times given to the συκόμορος. The sycamine is
the mulberry-tree (Morus), as is evident from
Dioscorides, Theophrastus (H. P. i. 6, §1; 10,
§10; 13, §4, &c.), and various other Greek writers ;
see Celsius, Hierob. i. 288. A form of the same
word, συκαμηνῃά, is still one of the names for the
mulberry-tree in Greece (see Heldreich’s Nitz-
pflanzen Griechenlands, Athen. 1862, p. 19.
“ Morus alba L. und M. nigia L. 7 Mopna,
Movpynd, und Μουρῃά, auch Svxaunvyd—pelase.
muré,—éd.”). Both black and white mulberry-
4U
1394 SYCAMORE
trees are common in Syria and Palestine, and are
largely cultivated there for the sake of supplying food
to the caterpillars of the silk-worm, which are bred
in great numbers. The mulberry-tree is too well
known to render further remarks necessary. [ W. H.]
Morus negra (Mulberry).
SYCAMORE (pv, Shik’mah: συκάμινος.
συκομορέα or συκομοραία, in the N. T.: Syca-
morus, morus, ficetum). The Hebrew word occurs
in the O. T. only in the plural form mase. and once
fem., Ps. Ixxviii. 475 and 1015 in the LXX. always
translated by the Greek word συκάμινος. The two
Greek words occur only once each in the N. 1,
συκάμινος (Luke xvii. 6), and συκομωρέα (Luke
xix. 4). Although it may be admitted that the
Sucamine is properly, and in Luke xvii. 6, the
Mulberry, and the Sycamore the Pig-mulberry, or
Sycamore-fig (Hicus Sycomorus), yet the latter is
the tree generally referred to in the O. T., and called
by the Sept. sycamine, as 1 Κα, x. 27; 1 Chr. xxvii.
28; Vs. Ixxviii. 47; Am, vii. 14. Dioscorides ex-
pressly says Συκόμορον; ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο συκά-
μινον λέγουσι, lib. i. cap. 180, Compare Gese-
nius, Thesaurus Heb. p. 1476 ὃ: Winer, Rwb, ii.
65 ff.; Rosenmiiller, Alterthwnskunde, B. iv.
ΕΞ 281 ff.; Celsius, Hierob. i. 310.
The Sycamore, or Fig-mulberry (from σῦκον,
fig, and μόρον, mulberry), is in Egypt and Palestine
a tree of great importance and very extensive use.
It attains the size of a walnut-tree, has wide-
spreading branches, and afférds a delightful shade.
On this account it is frequently planted by the
waysides. Its leaves are heart-shaped, downy on
the under side, and fragrant. The fruit grows
directly from the trunk itself on little sprigs, and
in clusters like the grape. To make it eatable, each
SYCAMORE
fruit, three or four days before gathering, must, it
is said, be punctured with a sharp instrument or
the finger-nail. Comp. Theophrastus, De Caius
Plant ies Wi SO πε la ier τ ΒΡ ογ;
Ν. H. xiii. 7; Forsk&l, Descr. Plant. p.182. This
was the original employment of the prophet Amos,
as he says vii, 14.2 Hasselquist (Trav. p. 260;
Lond. 1766) says, “the fruit of this tree tastes
pretty well; when quite ripe it is soft, watery,
somewhat sweet, with a very little portion of an
aromatic taste.” It appears, however, that a
species of gall insect (Cynips Sycomori) often spoils
Ficus Sycomorus.
much of the fruit. ‘The tree,” Hasselquist adds,
“is wounded or cut by the inhabitants at the time
it buds, for without this precaution, as they say, it
will not bear fruit” (p. 261). In form and smell
and inward structure it resembles tlie fig, and hence
its name. ‘The tree is always verdant, and bears
fruit several times in the year without being con-
fined to fixed seasons, and is thus, as a permanent
food-bearer, invaluable to the poor. The wood of
the tree, though very porous, is exceedingly durable.
It suffers neither from moisture nor heat. The
Egyptian mummy coffins, which are made of it,
ave still perfectly sound after an entombment of
thousands of years. It was much used for doors,
and large furniture, such as sofas, tables, and chairs.»
4 Amos says of himself he was nopy pbja: LXxX.
κνίζων συκάμινα : Vulg. vellicans sycamina A eae}
cutter of the fruit for the purpose of ripening it.
is the very word used by ‘I'beophrastus,
Krigw
1854. ‘For coffins, boxes, tables, doors,
objects which required large and thick planks, for idols
and wooden statues, the sycamore was principally em-
ployed; and from the quantity discovered in the tombs
alone, it is evident that tne tree was ultivated toa
| great extent.’ Don, however, believed that the mummy-
b See Wilkinson’s Ancient Kgyptians, ii. 110, Lond. |
pi |
and other |
cases of the Egyptians were made of the wood of
the Cordia Myxa, a tree which furnishes the Sebesten
SYCHAR
So great was the value of these trees, that David
appointed for them in his kingdom a special over-
seer, as he did for the olives (1 Chr. xxvii. 28); and
it is mentioned as one of the heaviest of Egypt’s
calamities, that her syeamores were destroyed by
hailstones (Ps. Ixxviii. 47). That which is called
Sycamore in N. America, the Occidental Plane or
Dutton-wood tree, has no yesemblance whatever to
the sycamore of the Bible; the name is also applied
to a species of maple (the Acer Pseudo-platanus or
Fiulse-plane), which is much used by turners and
millwrights. [Ὁ HE. 8.]
SY'CHAR (Συχάρ in δὲ ACD; but Rec. Text
Σιχάρ with B: Sichar; but Codd. Am. and Fuld.
Sychar: Syriac, Socar). A place named only in
John iv. 5. It is specified as ‘a city of Samaria
called Sychar, near the ground which Jacob gave to
Joseph his son; and there was the well of Jacob.”
Jerome believed that the name was merely a
copyist’s error for Sychem; but the unanimity of
the MSS. is sufficient to dispose of this supposition.
Sychar was either a name applied to the town of
Shechem, or it was an independent place. 1. The
first of these alternatives is now almost universally
accepted. In the words of Dr. Robinson (Bib. Res.
ii. 290), “In consequence of the hatred which
existed between the Jews and the Samaritans, and
in allusion to their idolatry, the town of Sichem
received, among the Jewish common people, the by-
name Sychar.” ‘This theory may be correct, but
the only support which can be found for it is the
very imperfect one afforded by a passage in Isaiah |
(xxviii. 1, 7), in which the prophet denounces the
Ephraimites as shiceérim—* drunkards ;” and by a
passage in Habakkuk (ii. 18) in which the words
méoreh sheker, “a teacher of lies,” are supposed to
contain an allusion to Moreh, the original name of
the district of Shechem, and to the town itself. But
this is surely arguing in a circle. And had such a
nickname been applied to Shechem so habitually as
its occurrence in St. John would seem to imply,
there would be some trace of it in those passages
of the Talmud which refer to the Samaritans, and in
which every term of opprobrium and ridicule that
can be quoted or invented is heaped on them. It may
be affirmed, however, with certainty that neither ir
Targum nor Talmud is there any mention of such a
thing. Lightfoot did not know of it. The numerous
treatises on the Samaritans are silent about it, and
recent close search has failed to discover it.
Presuming that Jacob’s well was then, where it is
now shown, at the entrance of the valley of Nablus,
Shechem would be too distant to answer to the
words of St. John, since it must have been more
than a mile off.
“Α city of Samaria called Sychar, near to the
plot of ground which Jacob gave to Joseph ’—
surely these are hardly the terms in which such a
place as Shechem would be described; for though
it was then perhaps at the lowest ebb of its fortunes,
yet the tenacity of places in Syria to name and fame
is almost. proverbial.
plums. There can be no donbt, however, that the
wood of the Ficus Sycomorus was extensively used in
ancient days. ‘The dry climate of Egypt might have
helped to have preserved the timber, which must have
been valuable in a country where large timber-trees are
scarce,
a The text of Eusebius reads @=9 miles; but this is
corrected by Jerome to 3. ‘
b The tomb or monument alluded to in these two
passages must have occupied the place of the Moslem
SYCHAR 1395
There is not much force in the argument that
St. Stephen uses the name Sychem in speaking of
Shechem, for he is recapitulating the ancient history,
and the names of the Old Testament narrative (in
the LXX. form) would come most naturally to his
mouth. But the earliest Christian tradition, in the
persons of Eusebius and the Bourdeaux Pilgrim——
both in the early part of the 4th century—discrimi-
nates Shechem from Sychar. lWusebius ( Onomast.
Συχάρ and Aou(a) says that Sychar was in front ot
the city of Neapolis; and, again, that it lay by the
side of Luza, which was *three miles from Neapolis.
Sychem, on the other hand, he places in the suburbs
of Neapolis by the tomb of Joseph. The Bour-
deaux Pilgrim describes Sechim as at the foot of the
mountain, and as containing Joseph’s monument»
and plot of ground (villa). And he then proceeds
to say that a thousand paces thence was the place
called Sechar.
And notwithstanding all that has been said of the
predilection of Orientals for the water of certain
springs or wells (Porcer, Handbook, 342), it does
appear remarkable, when the very large number of
sources in Nablus itself is remembered, that a woman
should have left them and come out a distance or
more than a mile. On the other hand, we need
not suppose that it was her habit to do so; it may
have been a casual visit.
2. In favour of Sychar having been an independ-
ent place is the fact that a village named ’Ashar
( ©) still exists® at the south-east foot of
bal, about north-east of the Well of Jacob, and
about half a mile from it. Whether this is the vil-
lage alluded to by Eusebius, and Jerome, and the
Bourdeaux Pilgrim, it is impossible to tell. The
earliest notice of it which the writer has been able
to discover is in Quaresmius (Elucidatio, ii. 808 δ).
It is uncertain it he is speaking of himself or
quoting Brocardus. If the latter, he had a different
copy from that which is 4 published. It is an im-
portant point, because there is a difference of more
than four centuries between the two, Brocardus
having written about 1280, and Quaresmius about
1650. The statement is, that ‘on the left of the
well,” ἢ, 6. on the north, as Gerizim has just been
spoken of as on the right, “is a large city (oppidum
magnum), but deserted and in ruins, which is be-
lieved to have been the ancient Sichem..... The
natives told me that they called the place Zstar.”
A village like "Askar ® answers much more ap-
propriately to the casual description of St. John
than so large and so venerable a place as Shechem.
On the other hand there’ is an etymological diffi-
culty in the way of this identification. ’ Askar begins
with the letter °Aim, which Sychar does not appear
to have contained ; a letter too stubborn and enduring
to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name.
In.favour of the theory that Sychar was a ‘ nick-
name”’ of Shechem, it should not be overlooked that
St. John appears always to use the expression Aeyd-
μενος, “called,” to denote a soubriquet or title
tomb of Yusuf, now shown at the foot of Gerizim, not
far from the east gate of Nablus.
¢ Dr. Rosen, in Zeitschrift der D. M. G. xiv. 634. Van
de Velde (S. & P. ii. 333) proposes ’Askar as the native
place of Judas Iscariot.
d Perhaps this is one of the variations spoken of by
Robinson (ii. 539).
© The identity of Askar with Sychar is supported by
Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, ch. Xxxi.), and by Mr, Wil-
liams in the Dict. of Geogr. (ii. 412 ὃ).
4U 2
1396 SYCHEM
borne by place or person in addition to the name,
or to attach it to a place remote and little known.
Instances of the former practice are xi. 16, xx. 24,
xix. 13, 17: of the latter, xi. 54.
. These considerations have been stated not so much
with the hope of leading to any conclusion on the
identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless, as with
the desire to shew that the ordinary explanation is
not nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed
to he. [G.]
SY'CHEM (Συχέμ: Sichem; Cod. Amiat. Sy-
chem). "The Greek form of the word Shechem, the
name of the well known city of Central Palestine.
It ovewrs in Acts vii. 16 only. The main interest
of the passage rests on its containing two of those
numerous and singular variations from the early
history, as told in the Pentateuch, with which the
speech of St. Stephen* abounds. [STEPHEN.] This
single verse exhibits an addition to, and a discrepancy
from, the earlier account. (1) The patriarchs are
said in it to have been buried at Sychem, whereas
in the O. T. this is related of the bones of Joseph
alone (Josh, xxiv. 32). (2) The sepulchre at
Sychem is said to have been bought from Emmor
by Abraham ; whereas in the O. T. it was the
cave of Machpelah at Kirjath-arba which Abraham
bought and made into his sepulchre, and Jacob
who bought the plot of ground at Shechem from
Hamor (Gen. xxxiii. 19). In neither of these cases
is there any doubt of the authenticity of the present
Greek text, nor has any explanation been put for-
ward which adequately meets the difficulty—if
difficulty it be. That no attempt should have
been made to reconcile the numerous and obvious
discrepancies contained in the speech of St. Stephen
by altering the MSS. is remarkable, and a cause of
great thankfulness. Thankfulness because we are
thus permitted to possess at once a proof that it is
possible to be as thoroughly inspired by the Spirit
of God as was Stephen on this occasion, and yet
have remained ignorant or forgetful of minute facts,
—and a broad and conspicuous seal to the unimport-
ance of such slight variations in the different ac-
counts of the Sacred History, as long as the general
tenor of the whole remains harmonious.
A bastard variation of the name Sychem, viz.
SICHEM, is found, and its people are mentioned as—
SY'CHEMITE, THE (τὸν Συχέμ: Hevacus),
in Jud. ν. 16. This passage is remarkable for
giving the inhabitants of Shechem an independent
place among the tribes of the country who were
dispossessed at the conquest. [G.]
SYE'LUS (ξΞυῆλος ; Alex. Ἡσυῆλος : om. in
Vulg.) =JEHIEL 3 (1 Esd. i. 8; comp. 2 Chr.
xxxv. 8).
SYE'NE, properly Sevensu (AND: Συήνη:
Syene), a town of Egypt on the frontier of Cush
or Ethiopia. The prophet Ezekiel speaks of the
desolation of Egypt ‘ from Migdol to Seveneh, even
unto the border of Cush” (xxix. 10), and of its
people being slain “ from Migdol to Seveneh” (xxx,
6). Migdol was on the eastern border [Miepor],
and Seveneh is thus rightly identified with the town
of Syene, which was always the last town of Egypt
on the south, though at one time included in the
nome Nubia. Its ancient Egyptian name is SUN
(Brugsch, Geogr. Inschrift. i. 155, tab. i., No. 55),
* These are examined at great length, and elaborately
reconciled, in the New Yestament of Canon Wordsworth,
1860, pp. 65-69.
SYNAGOGUE
preserved in the Coptic ΓΟ ἃ... CENON,
and the Arabic Aswan. The modern town is
slightly to the north of the old site, which is marked
by an interesting early Arab burial-ground, covered
with remarkable tombstones, having inscriptions
in the Cufic character. Champollion suggests the
derivation C&, causative, OCH, O’VEN,
** to open,” as though it signified the opening or key
of Egypt (L’ Egypte, i. 161-166), and this is the
meaning of the hieroglyphic name. ER. SP.
SYNAGOGUE (Suvaywyh: Synagoga).—
It may be well to note at the outset the points of
contact between the history and ritual of the syna-
gogues of the Jews, and the facts to which the
inquiries of the Biblical student are principally
directed. (1.) They meet us as the great charac-
teristic institution of the later phase ot Judaism,
More even than the Temple and its services, in the
time of which the N. T. treats, they at once repre-
sented and determined the religious life of the
people. (2.) We cannot separate them from the
most intimate connexion with our Lord’s life and
ministry. In them He worshipped in His youth,
and in His manhood. Whatever we can learn of
the ritual which then prevailed tells us of a worship
which He recognised and sanctioned ; which for that
reason, if for no other, though, like the statelier
services of the Temple, it was destined to pass away,
is worthy of our respect and honour, They were
the scenes, too, of no small portion of His work.
In them were wrought some of His mightiest works
of healing (Mark i. 23; Matt. xii. 9; Luke xiii.
11). In them were spoken some of the most glo-
rious of His recorded words (Luke iv. 16; John vi,
59) ; many more, beyond all reckoning, which are not
recorded (Matt. iv. 23, xiii. 54; John xviii. 20,
etc., etc.). (3.) There are the questions, leading
us back to a remoter past: In what did the wor-
ship of the synagogue originate ? what type was it
intended to reproduce? what customs, alike in
nature, if not in name, served as the starting-point
for it? (4,) The synagogue, with all that be-
longed to it, was connected with the future as well
as with the past. [Ὁ was the order with which the
frst Christian believers were most familiar, from
which they were most likely to take the outlines,
or even the details, of the worship, organisation,
government of their own society. Widely diverg-
ent as the two words and the things they represented
afterwards became, the Ecclesia had its starting-
point in the Synagogue.
Keeping these points in view, it remains to deal
with the subject in a somewhat more formal manner.
I. Name.—(1.) The Aramaic equivalent NNWI3
first appears in the Targum of Onkelos as a sub-
stitute for the Hebrew my ( =congregation) in
the Pentateuch (Leyrer, wt infr.). The more pre-
cise local designation, NDI33 NA (Beth ha-Cen-
neseth= House of gathering), belongs to a yet later
date. This is, in itself, tolerably strong evidence
that nothing precisely answering to the later syna-
gogue was recognised before the Exile. If it had
been, the name was quite as likely to have been
perpetuated as the thing.
(2.) The word συναγωγή, not unknown in clas-
sical Greek (Thue. ii. 18, Plato, Republ. 526 Ὁ),
became prominent in that of the Hellenists. It
appears in the LXX. as the translation of not less
than twenty-one Hebrew words in which the idea
ofa gathering is implied (Tromm, Concordant. s. v.).
SYNAGOGUE
With most of these we have nothing to do. Two
of them are more noticeable. It is used 130 times
for M1), where the prominent idea is that of an |
appointed meeting (Gesenius, s. v.), and 25 times
for 2), a meeting called together, and therefore
ἜΤ
more commonly translated in the LXX. by ἐκ-
κλησία. In one memorable passage (Prov. v. 14),
the two words, ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή, destined
to have such divergent histories, to be representa-
tives of such contrasted systems, appear in close
juxtaposition. In the books of the Apocrypha the
word, as in those of the O. T., retains its general
meaning, and is not used specifically for any yecog-
nised place of worship. For this the received phrase
seems to be τόπος προσευχῆς (1 Mace. iii. 46,
3 Mace. vii. 20). In the N. T., however, the local
meaning is the dominant one. Sometimes the word
is applied to the tribunal which was connected with
or sat in the synagogue in the narrower sense (Matt.
x. 17, xxiii. 34; Mark xiii. 9; Luke xxi. 12, xii,
11). Within the limits of the Jewish Church it
perhaps kept its ground as denoting the place of
meeting of the Christian brethren (Jas. ii. 2). 10
seems to have been claimed by some of the pseudo-
Judaising, half-Gnostic sects of the Asiatic Churches
for their meetings (Rev. ii. 9). It was not altoge-
ther obsolete, as applied to Christian meetings, in
the time of Ignatius (Zp. ad Trall. c. 5, ad Polyc.
ce. 3). Even in Clement of Alexandria the two
words appear united as they had done in the LXX.
(ἐπὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐκκλησίας, Strom. vi. p.633).
Afterwards when the chasm between Judaism and
Christianity became wider, Christian writers were
fond of dwelling on the meanings of the two words
which practically represented them, and showing
how far the Synagogue was excelled by the Ecclesia
(August. Enarr. in Ps. Ixxx.; Trench, Synonyms
of N. T. §i.). The cognate word, however, σύναξις,
was formed or adopted in its place, and applied to
the highest act of worship and communion for
which Christians met (Suicer, Tes. s. v.).
II. History.—(1.) Jewish writers have claimed
for their synagogues a very remote antiquity. In
well-nigh every place where the phrase “ before
the Lord” appears, they recognise in it a known
sanctuary, a fixed place of meeting, and therefore a
synagogue (Vitringa, De Synag. pp. 271 et seq.).
The Targum of Onkelos finds in Jacob’s “ dwelling
in tents ” (Gen. xxy. 27) his attendance at a syna-
gogue or house of prayer. That of Jonathan finds
them in Judg. v. 9, and in “ the calling of assem-
blies ” of Is. i. 13 (Vitringa, pp. 271-315).
(2.) Apart from these far-fetched interpretations,
!
we know too little of the life of Israel, both before |
and under the monarchy, to be able to say with
certainty whether there was anything at all corres-
ponding to the synagogues of later date.
one hand, it is probable that if new moons and
sabbaths were observed at all, they must have been
attended by some celebration apart from, as well as
at, the Tabernacle or the Temple (1 Sam. xx. 5;
2 K. iv. 23). On the other, so far as we find
traces of such local worship, it seems to have fallen
too readily into a fetich-religion, sacrifices to ephods
and teraphim (Jude. viii. 27, xvii. 5) in groves and
on high-places, offering nothing but a contrast to
the ‘reasonable service,” the prayers, psalms, in-
On the |
SYNAGOGUE
1397
struction in the Law, of the later synagogue. The
special mission of the Priests and Levites under
Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xvii. 7-9) shows that there
was no regular provision for reading the “ book of
the law of the Lord ” to the people, and makes it
probable that even the rule which prescribed that it
should be read once every seven years at the feast
of Tabernacles ha fallen into disuse (Deut. xxxi. 10).
With the rise of the prophetic order we trace a
more distinct though still a partial approximaticn.
Wherever there was a company of such prophets
there must have been a life analogous in many of
its features to that of the later Essenes and Thera-
peutae, to that of the coenobia and monasteries of
Christendom. In the abnormal state of the polity
of Israel under Samuel, they appear to have aimed
at purifying the worship of the high-places from
idolatrous associations, and met on fixed days for
sacrifice and psalmody (1 Sam. ix. 12, x. 5).
The scene in 1 Sam. xix. 20-24 indicates that the
meetings were open to any worshippers who might ἡ
choose to come, as well as to “the sons of the
prophets,” the brothers of the order themselves.
Later on, in the time of Elisha, the question of the
Shunammite’s husband (2 Καὶ. iv. 23), ““ Wherefore
wilt thou go to him (the prophet) to-day? It is
neither new moon nor sabbath,” implies frequent
periodical gatherings, instituted or perhaps revived
by Elijah and his successors, as a means of sus-
taining the religious life of the northern kingdom,
and counteracting the prevalent idolatry. The date
of Ps. Ixxiv. is too uncertain for us to draw any
inference as to the nature of the “ synagogues of
God” (by “TY, meeting-places of God), which
the invaders are represented as destroying (v. 8).
It may have belonged to the time of the Assyrian
or Chaldaean invasion (Vitringa, Synag. pp. 396-
405). It has been referred to that of the Maccabees
(De Wette, Psalmen, in loc.), or to an intermediate
period when Jerusalem was taken and the land laid
waste by the army of Bagoses, under Artaxerxes II.
(Ewald, Poet. Biich. ii. 358). The ‘assembly of
the elders,” in Ps. cvii. 32, leaves us in like un-
certainty.
(3.) During the exile, in the abeyance of the
Temple-worship, the meetings of devout Jews pro-
bably became more systematic (Vitringa, De Synag.
pp- 413-429; Jost, Judenthum, i. 168; Pornitius,
De Synagog. in Ugolini, Thes. xxi.), and rust have
helped forward the change which appea:s so con-
spicuously at the time of the return. The repeated
mention of gatherings of the elders of Israel, sitting
before the prophet Ezekiel, and hearing his word
(Ez. viii. 1,-xiv. 1, xx. 1, xxxiii. 31), implies the
transfer to the land of the captivity of the custom
that had originated in the schools of the prophets.
One remarkable passage may possibly contain a
more distinct reference to them. Those who still
remained in Jerusalem taunted the prophet and his
companions with their exile, as outcasts from the
blessings of the sanctuary. <“* Get ye far from
the Lord; unto us is this land given in a posses-
sion.” The prophet’s answer is, that it was not so.
Jehovah was as truly with them in their “ little
sanctuary ” as He had been in the Temple at Jeru-
salem. His presence, not the outward glory, was
itself the sanctuary (Ez. xi. 15, 16).* The whole
history of Ezra presupposes the habit of solemn,
a The passage is not withont its difficulties. The in-
terpretation given above is supported by the LXX.,
Vulg.,and A.V. It is confirmed by the general consensus
of Jewish interpreters. (Vatablus, in Crit. Sac. in loco,
Calmet, 5. v. Synagogue.) The other renderings (comp,
Ewald and Rosenmiiller, im loc.), “I will be to them a
1398 SYNAGOGUE
probably of periodic meetings (Ezr. viii. 15; Neh.
viii. 2, ix. 1; Zech. vii. 5). ‘To that period. ac-
cordingly we may attribute the revival, if not the
institution of synagogues. The “ancient days”
of which St. James speaks (Acts xv. 21) may, at
least, go back so far. Assuming Ewald’s theory as
to the date and occasion of Ps. Ixxiv., there must,
at some subsequent period, have been a great de-
struction of the buildings, and a consequent sus-
pension of the services. It is, at any rate, striking
that they are not in any way prominent in the
Maccabaean history, either as objects of attack, or
rallying points of defence, unless we are to see in
the gathering of the persecuted Jews at Maspha
(Mizpah) as at a ‘place where they prayed atore-
time in Israel’? (1 Mace. iii. 46), not only a
yeminiscence of its old glory as a holy place, but
the continuance of a more recent custom. When
that struggle was over, there appears to have been
a freer development of what may be called the
synagogue parochial system among the Jews of
Palestine and other countries. The influence of
John Hyrcanus, the crowing power of the Pharisees,
the authority of the Scribes, the example, probably,
of the Jews of the ‘dispersion ” (Vitringa, p. 426),
would all tend in the same direction. Well-nigh
every town or village had its one or more syna-
gogues. Where the Jews were not in sufficient
numbers to be able to erect and fill a building,
there was the προσευχή, or place of prayer, some-
times open, sometimes covered in, commonly by a
running stream or on the sea-shore, in which
devout Jews and proselytes met to worship, and,
perhaps, to read (Acts xvi. 13; Jos. Ant. xiv.
10, 23; Juven. Sat. iii. 296). Sometimes the
term προσευχή (= nar ΓΞ) was applied even
to an actual synagogue (Jos. Vit. c. 54).
(4.) It is hardly possible to overestimate the
nfluence of the system thus deyeloped. To it we
may ascribe the tenacity with which, after the
Maccabaean struggle, the Jews adhered to the
religion of their fathers, and never again relapsed
into idolatry. The people were now in no danger
of forgetting the Law, and the external ordinances
that hedged it round. If pilgrimages were still
made to Jerusalem at the great feasts, the habitual
religion of the Jews in, and yet more out of Pales-
tine was connected much more intimately with
the synagogue than with the Temple. Its simple,
edifying devotion, in which mind and heart could
alike enter, attracted the heathen proselytes who
might have been repelled by the bloody sacrifices of
the Temple, or would certainly have been driven
from it unless they could make up their minds to
submit to circumcision (Acts xxi. 28; comp.
PROSELYTES). Here too, as in the cognate order
of the Scribes, there was an influence tending to
SYNAGOGUE
diminish and ultimately almost to destroy the
autherity of the hereditary priesthood. The ser-
vices of the synagogue required no sons of Aaron ;
gave them nothing more than a complimentary
precedence. [Prigsts; Scrives.] The way was
silently prepared for a new and higher order, which
should rise in “the fulness of time” out of the
decay and abolition of both the priesthood and the
Temple. In another way too the synagogues every-
where prepared the way for that order. Not
“« Moses” only but ‘‘the Prophets” were read in
them every Sabbath day, and thus the Messianic
hopes of Israel, the expectation of a kingdom of
Heaven, were universally diffused.
III. Structure-—(1.) The size of a synagogue,
like that of a church or chapel, varied with the
population. We have no reason for believing that
there were any fixed laws of proportion for its di-
mensions, like those which are traced in the Taber-
nacle and the Temple. Its position was, however,
determinate. It stood, if possible, on the highest
ground, in or near the city to which it belonged.
Failing this, a tall pole rose from the roof to render
it conspicuous (Leyrer. s. v. Synag. in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl.). And its direction too was fixed.
Jerusalem was the Kibleh of Jewish devotion. The
synagogue was so constructed, that the worshippers
as they entered, and as they prayed, looked toward
it¢ (Vitringa, pp. 178, 457). ‘The building was
commonly erected at the cost of the district, whe-
ther by a church-rate levied for the purpose, or by
free gifts, must remain uncertain (Vitringa, p.
229). Sometimes it was built by a rich Jew, or
even as in Luke vii. 5, by a friendly proselyte. In
the later stages of Eastern Judaism it was often
erected, like the mosques of Mahometans, near the
tombs of famous Rabbis or holy men. When the
building was finished it was set apart, as the
Temple had been, by a special prayer of dedication.
From that time it had a consecrated character. The
common acts of life, eating, drinking, reckoning up
accounts, were forbidden in it. No one was to
pass through it as a short cut. Even if it ceased
to be used, the building was not to be applied to
any base purpose—might not be turned, 6. g. into a
bath, a laundry, or a tannery. A scraper stood
outside the door that men might rid themselves,
before they entered, of anything that would be de-
filing (Leyrer, /. c., and Vitringa).
(2.) In the internal arrangement of the syna-
gozue we trace an obvious analogy, mutatis mu-
tandis, to the type of the Tabernacle. At the upper
or Jerusalem end stood the Ark, the chest which,
like the older and more sacred Ark, contained the
Book of the Law. It gave to that end the name
and character of a sanctuary (5397). The same
thought was sometimes expressed by its being called
sanctuary, for a little time,” or “in a little measure,”
give a less satisfactory meaning. ‘The language of the
later Jews applied the term “sanctuary” to the ark-end
of the synagogue (inj7a).
b We may trace perhaps in this selection of localities,
like the “sacri fontis nemus” of Juv. Sat. iii. 13, the
re-appearance, freed from its old abominations, of the
attachment of the Jews to the worship of the groves, of
the charm which led them to bow down under ‘every
green tree” (Is. lvii. 5; Jer. ii. 20),
¢ The practice of a fixed Kibleh (= direction) in
prayer was clearly very ancient, and commended itself to |
some special necessities of the Eastern character. In|
Ps. xxviii., ascribed to David, we have probably the |
|
earliest trace of it (De Wette, in loc.). It is recognised
in the dedication prayer of Solomon (1 K. viii. 29 et al.).
It appears as a fixed rule in the devotions of Daniel
(Dan. vi. 10). It was adopted afterwards by Mahomet,
and the point of the Kibleh, after some lingering reverence
to the Holy City, transferred from Jerusalem to the
Kaaba of Mecca. The early Christian practice of praying
towards the Kast indicates a like feeling, and probably
originated in the adoption by the Churches of Europe
and Africa of the structure of the synagogue. The
position of the altar in those churches rested on a like
analogy. ‘The table of the Lord, bearing witness of the
blood of the New Covenant, took the place of the Ark which
contained the Law that was the groundwork of the Old.
SYNAGOGUE
after the name of Aaron (Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. ch.
x.), and was developed still further in the name of
Cophereth, ov Mercy-seat, given to the lid, or door
of the chest, and in the Veil which hung before it
(Vitringa, p. 181). This part of the synagogue
was naturally the place of honour, Here were the
πρωτοκαθεδρίαι, atter which Pharisees and Scribes
strove so eagerly (Matt. xxiii. 6), to which the
wealthy and honoured worshipper was invited
(James ii. 2, 3). Here too, in front of the Ark,
still reproducing the type of the Tabernacle, was
the eight-branched lamp, lighted only on the greater
festivals. Besides this, there was one lamp kept
burning perpetually. Others, brought by devout
worshippers, were lighted at the beginning of the
Sabbath, ὦ, ὁ. on Friday evening (Vitvinga, p. 198).4
A little further towards the middle of the building
was a raised platform, on which several persons
could stand at once, and in the middle of this rose
a pulpit, in which the Reader stood to read the
lesson or sat down to teach. The congregation
were divided, men on one side, women on the other,
a low partition, five or six feet high, running be-
tween them (Philo, De Vit. Contempl. ii. 476).
The arrangements of modern synagogues, for many
centuries, have made the separation more complete
by placing the women in low side-galleries, screened
off by lattice-work (Leo of Modena, in Picart, Cée-
rém. Relig. i.). Within the Ark, as above stated,
were the rolls of the sacred books. The rollers
round which they were wound were often elabo-
rately decorated, the cases for them embroidered or
enamelled, according to their material. Such cases
were customary offerings from the rich when they
brought their infant-children on the first anniver-
sary of their birthday, to be blessed by the Rabbi
of the synagogue.e As part of the fittings we have
also to note (1.) another chest for the Haphtaroth,
or rolls of the prophets. (2.) Alms-boxes at or
near the door, after the pattern of those at the
Temple, one for the poor of Jerusalem, the other
for local charities.£ (5.) Notice-boards, on which
were written the names of offenders who had been
“put out of the synagogue.” (4.) A chest for
trumpets and other musical instruments, used at
the New Years, Sabbaths, and other festivals (Vi-
tringa, Leyrer, /. c.).
IV. Officers—(1.) In smaller towns there was
often but one Rabbi (Vitringa, p. 549). Where
a fuller organization was possible, there was a
college of Elders (D°3P}=apeoBirepa, Luke vii.
3) presided over by one who was κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, 6
ἀρχισυνάγωγος (Luke viii. 41, 49, xiii. 14;
Acts xviii. 8, 17). To these elders belonged a
variety of synonymes, each with a special signifi-
cance. They were O'D37D (Parnasim = ποιμένες,
Eph. iv. 11), watching over their flock, προεστῶ-
Tes, ἡγούμενοι, as ruling oyer it (1 Tim. v. 17;
d Here also the customs of the Eastern Church, the
votive silver lamps hanging before the shrines and holy
places, bring the old practice vividly before our eyes.
e The custom, it may be noticed, connects itself with the
memorable history of those who “ brought young children”
to Jesus that He should touch them (Mark x. 13).
f If this practice existed, as is probable, in the first
century, it throws light upon the special stress laid by
St. Paul on the collection for the “poor saints” in Jeru-
saiem (1 Cor, xvi. &c.). The Christian Churches were
not to be behind the Jewish Synagogues in their contri-
butions to the Palestine Relief Fund. ,
gs Lhe two treatises De decem Otiosis, by Rhenferd and
SYNAGOGUE 1399
Heb. xiii. 7). With their head, they formed a kind
of Chapter, managed the attais of the synagogue,
possessed the power of excommunicating ( Vitvinga,
pp. 549-621, 727).
(2.) The most prominent functionary in a large
synagogue was known as the MAW (Shéliach=
lecatus), the officiating minister who acted as the
delegate of the congregation, and was therefore the
chief reader of prayers, &c., in their name. The
conditions laid down for this office remind us of St.
Paul’s rule for the choice of a bishop. He was to be
active, of full age, the father of a family, not rich
or engaged in business, possessing a good voice, apt
to teach (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 1-7; Tit. i. 6-9). In
him we find, as the name might lead us to expect,
the prototype of the ἄγγελος ἐκκλησίας of Rev. i.
20, ii. 1, &c. (Vitringa, p. 934).
(3.) The Chazzan (tm), or ὑπηρετῆς of the
synagogue (Luke iv. 20) had duties of a lower
kind resembling those of the Christian deacon, or
sub-deacon.. He was to open the doors, to get the
building ready for service. For him too there
were conditions like those for the /egatus. Like the
legatus and the elders, he was appointed by the
imposition of hands (Vitringa, p. 836). Prac-
tically he often acted during the week as school-
master of fhe town or village, and in this way
came to gain a prominence which placed him nearly
on the same level as the /egatus.
(4.) Besides these there were ten men attached
to every synagogue, whose functions have been the
subject-matter of voluminous controversy. They
were known as the Batlanim ("2122 = Otios7),
and no synagogue was complete without them. They
were to be men of leisure, not obliged to labour for
their livelihood, able therefore to attend the week-
day as well as the Sabbath services. By some
(Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matt. iv. 23, and, in part,
Vitringa, p. 532) they have been identified with
the above officials, with the addition of the alms-
collectors.» Rhenferd, however (Ugolini, Ties. vol.
xxi.), sees in them simply a body of men, perma-
nently on duty, making up a congregation (ten
being the minimum number?), so that there might
be no delay in beginning the service at the proper
hours, and that no single worshipper might go
away disappointed. The latter hypothesis is sup-
ported by the fact that there was a like body of
men, the Stationarii or Viri Stationis of Jewish
Archaeologists, appointed to act as permanent repre-
sentatives of the congregation in the services of the
Temple (Jost, Gesch. Judenth, i. 168-172), It is
of course possible that, in many cases the same
persons may have united both characters, and been,
é.g. at once Otiosi and alms-collectors.
(5.) It will be seen at once how closely the
organization of the synagogue was reproduced in
that of the Ecclesia. Here also there was the single
Vitringa, in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi., occupy more
than 700 folio pages. The present writer has not read
them through. Is there any one living who has?
h Lightfoot’s classification is as follows. The Ten
consisted of three Judges, the Legatus, whom thi§ writer
identifies with the Chazzan, three Parnasim, whom he
identifies with alms-collectors and compares to the dea-
cons of the church, the Targumist or interpreter, the
schoolmaster and his assistant. ‘The whole is, however,
very conjectural.
i This was based on a fantastic inference from Num.
xiv. 27. ‘Lhe ten unfaithful spies were spoken of as an
“ evil congregation.’ Sanhedr. iv. 6, in Lightfoot, U. ὁ.
1400 SYNAGOGUE
SYNAGOGUE
presbyter-bishup [BisHop] in small towns, a council | if that. was in its turn succeeded by the renewed
of presbyters under one head in large cities. The
legatus of the synagogue appears in the ἄγγελος
(Rev. i. 20, ii. 1), perhaps also in the ἀπόστολος
of the Christian Church.
is given the name of Shepherds (Eph. iv.
1 Pet. v. 1). They are known also as ἡγούμενοι
(Heb. xiii. 7). Even the transfer to the Christian
proselytes of the once distinctively sacerdotal name
of ἱερεύς, foreign as it was to the feelings of the
Christians of the Apostolic Age, was not without
its paiallel in the history of the synagogue. Sceva,
the exorcist Jew of Ephesus, was probably a “ chief
priest ” in this sense (Acts xix. 14). In the edicts
of the later Roman emperors, the terms ἀρχιερεύς
and ἱερεύς are repeatedly applied to the ruleis of
synagogues (Cod. Theodos. De Jud., quoted by Vi-
tringa, De decem Otiosis, in Ugolini, Thes. xxi.).
Possibly, however, this may have been, in part,
owing to the piesence of the scatteved priests, after
the destruction of the Temple, as the Rabbis or
elders of what was now left to them as their only
sanctuay. To them, at any rate, a certain pre-
cedence was given in the synagogue services. They
were invited first to read the lessons for the day.
The benediction of Num. vi. 22, was reserved for
them alone.
V. Worship.—(1.) The ritual of the synagozue
was to a large extent the reproduction (here also, as
with the fabric, with many inevitable changes) of
the statelier liturgy of the Temple. This is not the
place for an examination of the principles and struc-
ture of that liturgy, or of the baser elements, wild
Talmudic legends, curses against Christians under
the name of Epicureans, and other extravagances
which have mingled with it (McCaul, Old Paths,
ch. xvii., xix.). It will be enough, in this place, to
notice in what way the ritual, no less than the
organization, was connected with the facts of the
N. T. history, and with the life and order of the
Christian Church. Here too we meet with multi-
plied coincidences. It would hardly be an exag-
geration to say that the worship of the Church was
identical with that of the Synagogue, modified (1.)
by the new truths, (2.) by the new institution of
the Supper of the Lord, (3.) by the spivitual Cha-
rismata.
(2.) From the synagogue came the use of fixed
forms of prayer. To that the first disciples had
been accustomed from their youth. They had asked
their Master to give them a distinctive one, aud he
had complied with their request (Luke xi. 1), as
the Baptist had done before for his disciples, as
_ every Rabbi did for his. The forms might be
and were abused. The Pharisee might in syna-
gogues, or, when the synagogues were closed, in
the open street, recite aloud the devotions appointed
for hows of prayer, might gabble through the
Shema (“ Hear O Israel,” &ec. from Deut. vi. 4),
his Kaddish, his Sheméneh LEsréh, the eighteen
Gerachoth ov blessings, with the ‘‘ yain repetition ”
which has reappeared in Christian worship. But
for the disciples this was, as yet, the true pattern
of devotion, and their Master sanctioned it. To
their minds there would seem nothing inconsistent
with true heart worship in the recurrence of a
fixed order (κατὰ τάξιν, 1 Cor. xiv. 40), of the
same prayers, hymus, doxologies, such as all litur-
11.
gical study leads us to think of as existing in |
the Apostolic Age. If the gifts of utterance which
characterised the first period of that age led for a
time to greater freedom, to unpremeditated prayer,
To the eldeis as such |
predominance of a formal fixed order, the alterna-
tion and the struggle-which have reappeaied in so
many periods of the history of the Church were not
without their parallel in that of Judaism. There
also, was a protest against the rigidity of an un-
bending form. Eliezer of Lydda, a contemporary
of the second Gamaliel (circ. A.D. 80-115), taught
that the legatus of the synagogue should discard
even the Sheméneh Esréh, the eighteen fixed
prayers and benedictions of the daily and Sabbath
services, and should pray as his heart prompted
him. The offence against the formalism into which
Judaism stiffened, was apparently too great to be
forgiven. He was excommunicated (not, indeed,
avowedly on this ground), and died at Caesarea
(Jost, Gesch. Judenth. ii. 36, 45).
(3.) The large admixture of a didactic element
in Christian worship, that by which it was distin-
guished from all Gentile forms of adoration, was
derived from the older order. ‘* Moses”’ was “ read
in the synagogues every Sabbath-day” (Acts xv.
21), the whole Law being read consecutively, so as
to be completed, according to one cycle, in three
years, according to that which ultimately prevailed
and determined the existing divisions of the Hebrew
text (BIBLE, and Leyrer, /. c.), in the 52 weeks
of a single year. The writings of the Prophets
were read as second lessons in ,a corresponding
order. They were followed by the Derash, the
λόγος παρακλήσεως (Acts xiii. 15), the exposition,
the sermon of the synagogue. The first Christian
synagogues, we must believe, followed this order
with but little deviation. It remained for them
before long to ald *‘the other Scriptures” which
they had learnt to recognise as more precious even
than the Law itself, the ‘‘ prophetic word” of the
New Testament, which not less truly than that of
the Old, came, in epistle or in narrative, from the
same Spirit [SCRIPTURE]. The synagogue use of
Psalms again, on the plan of selecting those which
had a special fitness for special times, answered to
that which appears to have prevailed in the Church
of the first three centuries, and for which the simple
consecutive repetition of the whole Psalter, in a
day as in some Eastern monasteries, in a week as
in the Latin Church, in a month as in the English
Prayer-book is, perhaps, a less satisfactory sub-
stitute.
(4.) To the ritual of the synagogue we may pro-
bably trace a practice which has sometimes been a
stumbling-block to the student of Christian anti-
quity, the subject-matter of fierce debate among
Christian controversialists. Whatever account may
be given of it, it is certain that Prayers for the
Dead appear in the Church’s worship as soon as we .
have any trace of it after the immediate records of
the Apostolic age. It has well been described by a
writer, whom no one can suspect of Romish ten-
dencies, as an “immemorial practice,” Though
“Scripture is silent, yet antiquity plainly speaks.”
The prayers “have found a place in every early
liturgy of the world” (Ellicott, Destiny of the
Creature, Serm. vi.). How, indeed, we may ask,
could it have been otherwise? The strong feeling
shown in the time of the Maccabees, that it was
not ‘superfluous and vain” to pray for the dead
(2 Mace. xii. 44), was sure, under the influence of
the dominant Pharisaic Scribes, to shew itself in the
devotions of the synagogue. So far as we trace
back these devotions, we may say that there also
the practice is ‘‘immemorial,” as old at least as
SYNAGOGUE
the traditions of the Rabbinic fathers (Buxtorf, De
Synag. pp. 709, 710 : McCaul, Old Paths, ch.
xxxvili.). There is a probability indefinitely great
SYNAGOGUE 1401
reckoning, so long ἡ, e. as they fraternized with
their brethren of the stock of Abraham, this would
coincide in point of time with their δεῖπνον on the
that prayers for the departed (the Kaddish of | first day of the week. A supper on what we should
later Judaism) were familiar to the synagogues
of Palestine and other countries, that the early
Christian believers were not startled by them
as an innovation, that they passed uncondemned
even by our Lord Himself. The writer already
quoted sees a probable reference to them in 2 Tim:
i. 18 (Ellicott, Past. Epistles, in loc.). St. Paul,
remembering Onesiphorus as one whose “ house ”
had been bereaved of him, prays that he may find
mercy of the Lord ‘in that day.” Prayers tor the
dead can hardly, therefore, be looked upon as anti-
Scriptural. Ifthe English Church has wisely and
rightly eliminated them from her services, it is not
because Scripture says nothing of them, or that
their antiquity is not primitive, but because, in
such a matter, experience is a truer guide than
the silence or the hints of Scripture, or than the
voice of the most primitive antiquity.
(5.) The conformity extends also to the times
of prayer. In the hours of service this was obvi-
ously the case. The third, sixth, and ninth hours
were, in the times of the N. T. (Acts iii. 1, x. 3, 9),
and had been, probably, for some time before (Ps.
lv. 17; Dan. vi. 10), the fixed times of devotion,
known then, and still known, respectively as_ the
Shacharith, the Mincha, and the’ Ardbith; they had
not only the prestige of an authoritative tradition,
but were connected respectively with the names of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom, as to the
first originators, their institution was ascribed
(Buxtorf, Synag. p. 280). The same hours, it is
well known, were recognised in the Church of the
second, probably in that of the first century also
(Clem. Al. Strom. 1. c.; Tertull. De Orat. c. xxv.).
The sacred days belonging to the two systems seem,
at first, to present a contrast rather than a resem-
blance ; but here, too, there is a symmetry which
points to an original connexion, The solemn days
of the synagogue were the second, the fifth, and the
seventh, the last or Sabbath being the conclusion
of the whole. In whatever way the change was
brought about, the transfer of the sanctity of the
Sabbath to the Lord’s Day involved a corresponding
change in the order of the week, and the first, the
fourth, and the sixth became to the Christian so-
ciety what the other days had been to the Jewish,
(6.) The following suggestion as to the mode in
which this transfer was etfected, involves, it is be-
lieved, fewer arbitrary assumptions than any other
[comp. Lorp’s Day, SABBATH], and connects it-
self with another interesting custom, common to
the Church and the Synagogue. It was a Jewish
custom to end the Sabbath with a feast, in which
they did honour to it as to a parting king. The
feast was held in the synagogue. A cup of wine,
over which a special blessing had been spoken, was
handed round (Jost, Gesch. Judenth. i. 180). It
is obvious that, so long as the Apostles and their
followers continued to use the Jewish mode of
call Sunday evening would have been to them on
the second. By degrees, as has been shown else-
where [Lorp’s SUPPER], the time became later,
passed on to midnight, to the early dawn of the
next day. So the Lord’s Supper ceased to be a sup-
per really. So, as the Church rose out of Judaism,
the supper gave its holiness to the coming, instead
of deriving it from the departing day. The day
came to be κυριακή, because .it began with the
δεῖπνον κυριακόν. Gradually the Sabbath ceased
as such to be observed at all. The practice of
observing both, as in the Church of Rome up to the
fifth century, gives us a trace of the transition
period,
(7.) From the synagogue lastly came many less
conspicuous practices, which meet us in the litur-
gical life of the first three centuries. Ablution,
entire or partial, before entering the place of meet-
ing (Heb. x. 22; John xiii. 1-15; Tertull. De Orat.
cap. xi.); standing and not kneeling, as the attitude
of prayer (Luke xviii. 11 ; Tertull. ibid. cap. xxiii.);
the arms stretched out (Tertull. ibid. cap. xiii.) ; the
face turned towards the Kibleh of the East (Clem.
Al. Strom. 1. c.); the responsive Amen of the
congregation to the prayers and benedictions of the
elders (1 Cor, xiv. 16)" In one strange exceptional
custom of the Church of Alexandria we trace the
wilder type of Jewish, of Oriental devotion. There,
in the closing responsive chorus of the prayer, the
worshippers not only stretched out their necks and
lifted up their hands, but leapt up with wild ges-
tures (τούς te πόδας ἐπεγείρομεν), as if they
would fain rise with their prayers to heaven itself
(Clem. Al. Strom. vii. 40). This, too, reproduced a
custom of the synagooue. Three times did the whole
body of worshippers leap up simultaneously as they
repeated the great Ter-sanctus hymn of Isaiah vi.
(Vitringa, p. 1100 et seq. ; Buxtorf, cap. x.).
VI. Judicial Functions —(1.) The language of
the N.T. shows that the officers of the synagogue
exercised in certain cases a judicial power. The
synagogue itself was the place of trial (Luke xii,
11; xxi. 12); even, strange as it may seem, of the
actual punishment of scourging (Matt. x. 17; Mark
xiii. 9). They do not appear to have had the
right of inflicting any severer penalty, unless,
under this head, we may include that of excom-
munication, or “ putting a man out of the
synagogue” (John xii. 42, xvi. 2), placing him
under an anathema (1 Cor. xvi. 22 ; Gal. i. 8, 9),
“delivering him to Satan” (1 Cor. v. 5; 1 Tim.
i, 20). (Meyer and Stanley, ἦν Joc.) In some
cases they exercised the right, even outside the
limits of Palestine, of seizing the persons of the
accused, and sending them in chains to take their
trial before the Supreme Council at Jerusalem (Acts
ix. 25 xxii. 5).
(2.) It is not quite so easy, however, to define
the nature of the tribunal, and the precise limits of
k It has always to be borne in mind that the word was
obviously coined for the purposes of Christian. life, and is
applied in the first instance to the supper (1 Cor. xi. 20),
afterwards to the day (Rev. i. 10).
m One point of contrast is as striking as these points of
resemblance. The Jew prayed with his head covered,
with the Yallith drawn over his ears and reaching to the
shoulders. The Greek, however, habitually in worship
as in other acts, went bare-headed ; and the Apostle of
the Gentile Churches, renouncing all early prejudices,
recognises this as more fitting, more natural, more in
harmony with the right relation of the sexes (1 Cor.
xi, 4).
τ Phe same curious practice existed in the 17th cen-
tury, and is perhaps not yet extinct in the Church of
Abyssinia, in this, as in other things, preserving more than
any other Christian society, the type of Judaism (Ludolf,
Hist. Aethiop. iii. 6; Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 12).
1402 SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT
its jurisdiction. In two of the passages referred to
(Matt. x. 17; Mark xiii. 9) they are carefully
distinguished from the συνέδρια, or councils, yet
both appear as instruments by which the spirit of
religious persecution might fasten on its victims.
The explanation commonly given that the council
sat in the synagogue, and was thus identified with
it, is hardly satisfactory (Leyrer, in Herzog’s
fieal-Encyc. “Synedrien”). It seems more pro-
bable that the council was the larger tribunal
of 23, which sat in every city [CounciL], iden-
tical with that of the seven, with two Levites as
assessors to each, which Josephus describes as acting
in the smaller provincial towns (Ant. iv. 8, 814;
B. J, ii. 20, §5),° and that under the term syna-
gogue we are to understand a smaller court, pro-
bably that of the Ten judges mentioned in the
Talmud (Gem. Hieros. Sanhedr. I. c.), consisting
either of the eldeis, the chazzan, and the legatus, or
otherwise (as Herzfeld conjectures, i. 392) of the
ten Batlanim, or Otiosi (see above, IV. 4).
(3.) Here also we trace the outline of a Christian
institution, The ἐκκλησία, either hy itself or by
appointed delegates, was to act as a Court of Arbi-
tration in all disputes among its members. The
elders of the Church were not, however, to descend
to the trivial disputes of daily life (τὰ βιωτικά).
For these any men of common sense and fairness,
however destitute of official honour and position
(of ἐξουθενημένοι), would be enough (1 Cor. vi.
1-8). For the elders, as for those of the synagogue,
were reserved the graver offences against religion
and morals. In such cases they had power to
excommunicate, to “put out of” the Lcclesia,
which had taken the place of the synagogue, some-
times by their own authority, sometimes with the
consent of the whole society (1 Cor. v. 4). It is
worth mentioning that Hammond and other com-
mentators have seen a reference to these judicial
functions in James ii. 2-4, ‘The special sin of
those who fawned upon the rich was, on this view,
that they were ‘judges of evil thoughts,” carrying
respect of persons into their administration of jus-
tice. The interpretation, however, though inge-
nious, is hardly sufficiently supported. [E. H. P.]
SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT (223
ΠΡ 2). The institution thus described, though
not Biblical in the sense of occurring as a word in
the Canonical Scriptures, is yet too closely con-
nected with a large number of Biblical facts and
names to be passed over. In the absence of direct
historical data, it will be best to put together the
traditions or conjectures of Rabbinic writers.
(1.) On the return of the Jews from Babylon, a
great council was appointed, according to these tra-
ditions, to rve-organise the religious life of the
people. It consisted of 120 members (Megilloth,
17b, 180), and these were known as the men of
the Great Synagogue, the successors of the pro-
phets, themselves, in their turn, succeeded by scribes
prominent, individually, as teachers (Pirke Aboth,
i, 1). Ezra was recognised as president. Among
the other members, in part together, in part suc-
cessively, were Joshua, the High Priest, Zerubba-
bel, and their companions, Daniel and the three
“children,” the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, Ma-
lachi, the rulers Nehemiah and Mordeeai. Their
aim was to restore again the crown, or glory οἵ
SYNTYCHE
Israel, ὁ. θ.. to reinstate in its majesty the name
of God as Great, Mighty, Terrible (Deut. vii. 21,
x. 175) ΟΝ ΘΙ, o5ax- O25) Jen: ἐσ χε Sha πη; ἐκ:
4). To this end they collected all the sacred
writings of former ages and their own, and so com-
pleted the canon of the O.T. Their work included
the revision of the text, and this was settled by the
introduction of the vowel points, which have been
handed down to us by the Masoretic editors. They
instituted the feast of Purim. ‘They organised the
ritual of the synagogue, and gave their sanction to
the Shemdéneh Esréh, the eighteen solemn bene-
dictions in it (Ewald, Gesch, iv. 193). Their de-
crees were quoted afterwards as those of the elders
(the πρεσβύτεροι of Mark vii. 3, the ἀρχαῖοι
of Matt. ν. 21, 27, 33), the Dibré Séphérim (=
words of the scribes), which were of more authority
than the Law itself. They left behind them the
characteristic saying, handed down by Simon the
high-priest, the last member of the order, “ Be
cautious in judging; train up many scholars; set
a hedge about the Law” (Pirke Aboth, i. 1).
[ SCRIBES. ]
(2.) Much of this is evidently uncertain. The
absence of any historical mention of such a body,
not only in the O.T. and the Apocrypha, but in
Josephus, Philo, and the Seder Olam, so that the
earliest record of it is found in the Pirke Aboth,
cire. the second century after Christ, had led some
crities (e.g. De Wette, J. D. Michaelis) to reject
the whole statement as a Rabbinic invention, resting
on no other foundation than the existence, after the
exile, of a Sanhedrim of 71 or 72 members, charged
with supreme executive functions. Ewald (Gesch.
Isr. iy. 192) is disposed to adopt this view, and
looks on the number 120 as a later element, intro-
duced for its symbolic significance. Jost (Gesch.
des Jud. i. 41) maintains that the Greek origin of
the word Sanhedrim points to its later date, and
that its functions were prominently judicial, while
those of the so-called Great Synagocue were promi-
nently legislative. He recognises, on the other hand,
the probability that 120 was used as a round
number, never actually made up, and thinks that
the germ of the institution is to be found in the
85 names of those who are recorded as haying
joined in the solemn league and covenant of Neh. x.
1-27. The narrative of Neh. viii, 13 clearly im-
plies the existence of a body of men acting as coun-
sellors under the presidency of Ezra, and these may
have been (as Jost, following the idea of another
Jewish critic, suggests) an assembly of delegates
from all provincial synagogues—a synod (to use the
terminology of a later time) of the National Church.
The Pirke Aboth, it should be mentioned, speaks of
the Great Synagogue as ceasing to exist betore the
historical origin of the Sanhedrim (x. 1), and it is
moie probable that the latter rose out of an attempt
to veproduce the former than that the former was
only the mythical transfer of the latter to an earlier
time. (Comp. Leyrer, s. v. Synagoge, die grosse, in
Herzog’s Encyclop.) [PAY Ee Ps]
SYN'TYCHE (Suytixn: Syntyche), a female
member of the Church of Philippi, mentioned (Phil. iv.
2,3) along with another named Evop14s (or rather
Euodia). To what has been said under the latter
head the following may be added. ‘The Apostle’s
injunction to these two women is, that they should
live in harmony with one another; from which we
© ‘The identification of these two is due to an inge-
nious conjecture by Grotius (on Matt. v. 21). ‘lhe ad-
dition of two scribes or secretaries makes the number in
both cases equal.
SYRACUSE
infer that they had, more or less, failed in this re~
spect. Such harmony was doubly important. if
they held an office, as deaconesses, in the Church :
and it is highly probable that this was the case.
They had atlorded to St. Paul active co-operation
under difficult circumstances (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
συνήθλησάν μοι, ver. 2), and perhaps there were
at Philippi other women of the same class (αἵτινες,
ib.). Atall events this passage is an illustration
of what the Gospel did for women, and women for
the Gospel, in the Apostolic times: and it is the more
interesting, as having reference to that Church which
was the first founded by St. Paul in Europe, and the
first member of which was Lyp1A. Some thoughts
on this subject will be found in Rilliet, Comm. sur
VEpitre aux Philipp. pp. 311-914. [. 5. H.]
SY’RACUSE (Ξυρακοῦσαι: Syracusa). ‘The
celebrated city on the eastern coast of Sicily, St.
Paul arrived thither in an Alexandrian ship from
Melita, on his voyage to Rome (Acts xxviii. 12).
. The magnificence which Cicero describes as still re-
maining in his time, was then no doubt greatly im-
paired. The whole of the resources of Sicily had been
exhausted in the civil wars of Caesar and Pompey,
and the piratical warfare which Sextus Pompeius,
the youngest son of the latter, subsequently carried
on against the triumvir Octavius, Augustus restored
Syracuse, as also Catana and Centoripa, which last
had contributed much to the successful issue of his
struggle with Sextus Pompeius. Yet the island
Ortygia, and a very small portion of the mainland
adjoining, sufticed for the new colonists and the rem-
nant of the former population. But the site of
Syracuse rendered it a convenient place for the
African corn-ships to touch at, for the harbour was
an excellent one, and the fountain Arethusa in the
island furnished an unfailing supply of excellent
water. The prevalent wind in this part of the
Mediterranean is the W.N.W. This would carry
the vessels from the corn region lying eastward of
Cape Bon, round the southern point of Sicily, Cape
Pachynus, to the eastern shore of the island. Creep-
ing up under the shelter of this, they would lie either
in the harbour of Messana, or at Rhegium, until the
wind changed to a southern point and enabled them
to fetch the Campanian harbours, Puteoli or Gaeta,
or to proceed as far as Ostia. In crossing from
Africa to Sicily, if the wind was excessive, or varied
two or three points to the northward, they would
naturally bear up for Malta,—and this had pro-
bably been the case with the “ Twins,” the ship in
which St. Paul found a passage after his shipwreck
on the coast of that island. Arrived in Malta, they
watched for the opportunity of a wind to take
them westward, and with such a one they readily
made Syracuse. To proceed further while it con-
tinued blowing would have exposed them to the
dangers of a lee-shore, and accordingly they re-
mained “ three days.” They then, the wind having
probably shifted into a westerly quarter so as to
give them smooth water, coasted the shore and
made (περιελθόντες κατηντήσαμεν eis) Khegium.
After one day there, the wind got round still more
and blew from the south; they therefore weighed,
and arrived at Puteoli in the course of the second
day of the run (Acts xxviii. 12-14),
In the time of St. Paul’s voyage, Sicily did pot
supply the Romans with corn to the extent it had
done in the time of King Hiero, and in aless degree
as late as the time of Cicero. It is an error, how-
ever, to suppose that the soil was exhausted ; for '
Strabo expressly says, that for corm, and some other
t
SYRIA 1403
productions, Sicily even surpassed Italy. But the
country had become depopulated by the long series
of wars, and when it passed into the hands of Rome,
her great nobles turned vast tracts into pasture.
In the time of Augustus, the whole of the centre
of the island was occupied in this manner, and
among its exports (except from the neighbourhood
of the volcanic region, where excellent wine was
produced), fat stock, hides, and wool appear to
have been the prominent articles, These grazing
and horse-breeding farms were kept up by slave
labour; and this was the reason that the whole
island was in a chronic state of disturbance, owing
to the slaves continually running away and forming
bands ot brigands. Sometimes these became so
formidable as to require the aid of regular military
operations to put them down; a circumstance of
which Tiberius Gracchus made use as an argument
in favour of his measure of an Agrarian law (Ap-
pian, B. C. i. 9), which would have reconverted the
spacious grass-lands into small arable farms culti-
vated by Roman freemen.
In the time of St. Paul there were only five Ro-
man colonies in Sicily, of which Syracuse was one.
The others were Catana, Tauromenium, Thermae,
and Tyndaris. Messana too, although not a colony,
was a town filled with a Roman population. Pro-
bably its inhabitants were merchants connected
with the wine trade of the neighbourhood, of which
Messana was the shipping port. Syracuse and
Panormus were important as strategical points,
and a homan force was kept up at each. Sicels,
Sicani, Morgetes, and Iberes (aboriginal inhabitants
of the island, or very early settlers), still existed in
the interior, in what exact political condition it is
impossible to say; but most likely in that of vil-
leins. Some few towns are mentioned by Pliny
as having the Latin franchise, and some as paying
a fixed tribute ; but with the exception of the five
colonies, the owners of the soil of the island were
mainly great absentee proprietors, and almost all
its produce came to Rome (Strabo, vi. c. 2;
Appian, B. C. iv. 84 seqq., v. 15-118; Cicero,
Verrs.ivs 53:7. Plin. N. Aoi. 8). *[J.W.B.]
SYR'TA (DON: Συρία : Syria) is the term used
throughout our version for the Hebrew Aram, as
well as tor the Greek Συρία. The Greek writers
generally regarded it as a contraction or corruption
of Assyria (Herod, vii. 63; Scylax, Peripl. p. 80;
Dionys. Perieg. 970-975 ; Eustath. Comment. ad loc.
&e.). But this derivation is exceedingly doubtful.
Most probably Syria is for Tsyria, the country-about
Tsur (WS), or Tyre, which was the first of the
Syrian towns known to the Greeks. The resem-
blance to Assyria (WW) is thus purely accidental ;
and the two words must be regarded as in reality
completely distinct.
1. Geographical extent.—It is very difficult to
fix the limits of Syria. The Hebrew Aram seems
to commence on the northern frontier of Palestine,
and to extend thence northward to the skirts of
Taurus, westward to the Mediterranean, and east-
ward probably to the Khabour river. Its chief
divisions are Aram-Dammesek, or “Syria of Da-
mascus,” Aram-Zobah, or ‘‘ Syria of Zobah,” Aram-
Naharaim, ‘‘ Mesopotamia,” or “ Syria of the Two
Rivers,” and Padan-Aram, “the plain Syria,” or
“ the plain at the foot of the mountains.” Of these
we cannot be mistaken in identifying the first with
the rich country about Damascus, lying between
Anti-libanus and the desert, and the last with the
1404 SYRIA
SYRIA
district about Harran and Orfah, the flat country | distance from one another, extend along two-thirds
stretching out from the western extremity of Mons
Masius towards the true source of the Khabour at
Ras-el-Ain. Avam-Naharaim seems to be a term
including this last tract, and extending beyond it,
though how far beyond is doubtful. The “ two
rivers” intended are probably the Tigris and the
Euphrates, which approach very near each other in
the neighbourhood of Diarbekr ; and Aram-Naha-
yaim may have originally been applied especially to
the mountain tract which here separates them. If
so, it no doubt gradually extended its meaning ; for
in Gen. xxiv. 10 it clearly includes the district
about Harran, the Padan-Aram of other places.
Whether the Scriptural meaning ever extends much
beyond this is uncertain, It is perhaps most pro-
bable that, as the Mesopotamia of the later Greeks,
so the Aram-Naharaim of the Hebrews was limited
to the north-western portion of the country con-
tained between the two great streams. [See MEso-
POTAMIA.]. Aram-Zobah seems to be the tract
between the Euphrates and Coelesyria; since, on
the one hand, it reaches down to the Great River
(2 Sam. viii. 3, x. 16), and on the other excludes
Hamath (2 Sam. viii. 9,10). The other divisions
of Aram, such as Aram-Maachah and Aram-beth-
Rechob, are more difficult to locate with any cer-
tainty. Probably they were portions of the tract
intervening between Anti-libanus and the desert.
The Greek writers used the term Syria still
more vaguely than the Hebrews did Aram. On
the one hand they extended it to the Euxine, in-
cluding in it Cappadocia, and even Bithynia (Herod.
i, 72, 76, ii. 104; Strab. xvi. 1, 82; Dionys.
Perieg. 972); on the other they carried it to the
borders of Egypt, and made it comprise Philistia
and Edom (Herod. iii. 5; Strab. xvi. 2, §2).
Again, through the confusion in their minds be-
tween the Syrians and the Assyrians, they some-
times included the country of the latter, and even
its southern neighbour Babylonia, in Syria (Strab.
xvi. 1, 82). Still they seem always to have had a
feeling that Syria Proper was a narrower region.
Herodotus, while he calls the Cappadocians and the
Assyrians Syrians, gives the name of Syria only to
the country lying on the Mediterranean between
Cilicia and Egypt (ii. 106, 157, 159, iii. 6, 91).
Dionysius, who speaks of two Syrias, an eastern
and a western, assigns the first place to the latter
(Perieg. 895). Strabo, like Herodotus, has one
Syria only, which he defines as the maritime tract
between Egypt and the Gulf of Issus. The ordi-
nary use of the term Syria, by the LXX. and New
Testament writers, is even more restricted than this.
They distinguish Syria from Phoenicia on the one
hand, and from Samaria, Judaea, Idumaea, &c., on
the other. In the present article it seems best to
take the word in this narrow sense, and to regard
Syria as bounded by Amanus and Taurus on the
north, by the Euphrates and the Arabian desert on
the east, by Palestine, or the Holy Land, on the
south, by the Mediterranean near the mouth of the
Orontes, and then by Phoenicia upon the west.
The tract thus circumscribed is about 300 miles
long from north to south, and from 50 to 150 miles
broad. It contains an area of about 30,000 square
miles. '
2. General physical features.—The general cha-
racter of the tract is mountainous, as the Hebrew
name Aram (from a root signifying ‘‘ height”) suf-
ficiently implies. On the west, two longitudinal
chains, running parallel with the coast at no great
of the length of Syria, from the latitude of Tyre to
that of Antioch. These chains, towards the south,
were known respectively as Libanus and Anti-
libanus, after which, about lat. 35°, the more
western chain, Libanus, became Bargylus; while
the eastern, sinking into comparative insignificance,
was without any special appellation. In the lati-
tude of Antioch the longitudinal chains are met by
the chain of Amanus, an outlying barrier of Taurus,
having the direction of that range, which in this
part is from south-west to north-east. From this
point northwards to the true Taurus, which here
bounded Syria, and eastward to the Euphrates
about Bireh-jik and Sumeisat, the whole tract ap-
pears to consist of mountains infinitely ramified ;
below which, towards Sajur and Aleppo, are some
elevated plains, diversified with ranges of hills, while
south of these, in about lat. 36°, you enter the
desert. The most fertile and valuable tract of
Syria is the long valley intervening between Li-
banus and Anti-libanus, which slopes southward
from a point a little north of Baalbek, and is there
drained by the Litany; while above that point the
slope is northward, and the streams form the
Orontes, whose course is in that direction. The
northern mountain region is also fairly productive ;
but the soil of the plains about Aleppo is poor, and
the eastern flank of the Anti-libanus, except in one
place, is peculiarly sterile. The exception is at the
lower or southern extremity of the chain, where
the stream of the Barada forms the rich and de-
lightful tract already described under the head of
DaMASCUS.
3. The Mountain Ranges.—(a) Lebanon. Of the
various mountain ranges of Syria, Lebanon possesses
the greatest interest. It extends from the mouth
of the Litany to Arka, a distance of nearly 100
miles, and is composed chiefly of Jura limestone,
but varied with sandstone and basalt. It culmi-
nates towards its northern extremity, half-way be-
tween Tripoli and Beyrut, and at this point at-
tains an elevation of nearly 10,000 feet (Robinson,
Bibl. Researches, iii. 547). Anciently it was
thickly wooded with cypresses, cedars, and firs;
but it is now very scantily clothed. As a minute
description of its present condition has been already
given in the proper place, it is unnecessary to pro-
long the preseut account. [LEBANON.] (0) Anti-
libanus. This range, as the name implies, stands
over against Lebanon, running in the same direc-
tion, 7.e. nearly north and south, and extending the
same length. It is composed of Jura limestone,
oolite, and Jura dolomite. The culminating point
is Hermon, at the southern, or rather the south-
eastern end of the chain; for Anti-libanus, unlike
Libanus, bifurcates at its lower extremity, dividing
into two distinct ridges, between which flows the
stream of the Hasbeya. Hermon is thought to
exceed the height of 9000 feet. (c) Bargylus.
Mount Bargylus, called now Jebel Nosairi towards
the south, and towards the north Jebel Kraad, ex-
tends from the mouth of the Nalr-el-Kebir (Eleu-
therus), nearly opposite Hems, to the vicinity of
Antioch, a distance of rather more than 100 miles.
It is separated from Lebanon by a comparatively
level tract, 15 or 20 miles broad (//-Bukeva),
through which flows the stream called L/-Kebir.
Mount Bargylus is broader than Lebanon, and
throws out a number of short spurs east and west,
both towards the sea and towards the valley of the
Orontes. One of the western spurs terminates in a
SYRIA
remarkable headland, known to the ancients as
Mount Casius, and now called Jebel-el-Akra, or the
“Ὁ Bald Mountain,” which rises abruptly from the sea
to a height exceeding 5000 feet. At the northern
extremity of Bargylus, where it overhangs the
lower course of the Orontes, was Daphne, the deli-
cious suburb of Antioch, and the favourite haunt of
its luxurious populace. (4) Amanus. — North of
the mouth of the Orontes. between its course and
the eastern shore of the Gulf of Issus (Zskanderun),
lies the range of Amanus, which extends from
the south-west end of the gulf, in a north-easterly
direction, a distance of 85 or 90 miles, and finally
forms a junction with Taurus in about long.
36° 25', Amanus divides Syria from Cilicia, and
is a stony range with bold rugged peaks and conical
summits, formed of serpentines and other secondary
rocks supporting a tertiary formation. Its average
elevation is 5000 feet, and it terminates abruptly at
Ras-el-Khanzir, in a high cliff overhanging the sea.
There are only two or three passes across it; and
one alone, that of Betlan, is tolerably commodious.
Amanus, like Anti-libanus, bifurcates at its south-
western extremity, having, besides its termination
at the Ras-el-Khanzir, another, now called Musa
Dagh, which approaches within about six miles of
the mouth of the Orontes, and seems to be the
Pieria of Strabo (xvi. 2, §8). This spur is of
limestone formation. The flanks of Amanus are
well clothed with forests of pine, oak, and larch, or
copses of myrtle, arbutus, oleander, and other
shrubs. The range was well known to the Assy-
rians, who called it Khamana, and mt unfrequently
cut timber in it, which was conveyed thence to
their capital.
4. The Rivers.—The principal rivers of Syria
are the Litany and the Orontes. The Litany springs
from a- small lake situated in the middle of the
Coele-syrian valley, about six miles to the south-
west of Baalbek. Hence it descends the valley
called E/-Btikaa, with a course a little west of
south, sending out on each side a number of canals
for irrigation, and receiving rills from the opposite
yanges of Libanus and Anti-libanus, which com-
pensate for the water given off. The chief of these
is called Z/-Btirdony, and descends trom Lebanon
near Ζαλίοι. The Biikaa narrows as it proceeds
southwards, and terminates in a gorge, through
which the Litany forces itself with a course which
is still to the south-west, flowing deep between
high precipices, and spanned by a bold bridge of a
single arch, known as the Jisr Burghus. Having
emerged from the ravine, it flows first south-west
by west, and then nearly due south, till it reaches
the latitude of Tyre, when meeting the mountains
of Upper Galilee, it is forced to bend to the west,
and, passing with many windings through the low
coast tract, enters the sea about 5 miles north of
the great Phoenician city. The entire course of the
stream, exclusive of small windings, is about 80
miles. The source of the Orontes is but. about 15
miles from that of the Litany. A little north of
Baalkbek, the highest point or water-shed of the
Coele-syrian valley is reached, and the ground
begins to descend northwards. A small rill breaks
out from the foot of Anti-libanus, which, after
flowing nearly due north for 15 miles across the
plain, meets another greater source given out by
Lebanon in lat. 34° 22', which is now considered
the true ‘‘ head of the stream.” The Orontes from
this point flows down the valley to the north-east,
and passing through the Bahr-el-Kades—a lake
SYRIA 1405
about 6 miles long and 2 broad—approaches Hems
(Emesa), which it leaves on itsright bank. It then
flows for 20 miles nearly due north; after which,
on approaching Hamah (Hamath), it makes a
slight bend to the east round the base of the Jebel
Lrbayn, and then, entering the rich pasture country
of £l-Ghab, runs north-west and north (ο Jisr
Hadid. The tributaries which it receives in this
part of its course are many but small, the only one
of any importance being the Wady-el-Sarwj, which
enters it from the west a little below Hamath. At
Jisr Hadid, or ‘‘ the Iron Bridge,” the course of
the Orontes suddenly changes, Prevented by the
range of Amanus from flowing any further to the
north, it sweeps round boldly to the west, and re-
ceiving.a large tributary—the Aara-Su—from the
north-east, the volume of whose water exceeds
its own, it enters the broad valley of Antioch,
“doubling back here upon itself, and flowing to
the south-west.” In this part of its course the
Orontes has been compared to the Wye (Stanley,
Sinai and Palestine, p. 409). The entire length
of the stream is estimated at above 200 miles. Its
modern name is the WNahr-el-Asi, or ““ Rebel
Stream,” an appellation given to it on account of
its violence and impetuosity in many parts of its
course,
The other Syrian streams of some consequence,
besides the Litany and the Orontes, are the Barada,
or river of Damascus, the Aoweik, or river of
Aleppo, and the Sajur, a tributary ot the Euphrates.
The course of the Barada has already been de-
scribed under the head of Damascus. [DAMascus. ]
The Koweik rises in the highlands south of Ain
Tab, from two sources, one of which is known as
the Baloklu-Su, or “ Fish-River.” It seems to be
the Chalus of Xenophon (Anad. i. 4, 89). Its
course is at first east, but soon becomes south, or a
little west of south, to Aleppo, after which it me-
anders considerably through the high plain south
of that city, finally terminating in a marsh known
as El-Mutkh. The Sajur rises a little further to
the north, in the mountains north of Ain-Tub. Its
course for the first 25 miles is south-east, after
which it runs east for 15 or 20 miles, finally re-
suming its first direction, and flowing by the town
of Sajur into the Euphrates. It is a larger river
than the Koweik, though its course is scarcely so
long.
5. The Lakes.—The principal lakes of Syria are
the Agh-Dengiz, or Lake of Antioch; the Sabakhah,
or Salt Lake, between Aleppo and Balis; the Bahr-
el-Kades, on the upper Orontes ; and the Bahr-el-
Merj, or Lake of Damascus. (a) The Lake of An-
tioch is an oblong fresh-water basin, 10 miles long
by 7 broad, situated to the north of the Orontes,
where it sweeps round through the plain of Umk,
before receiving the Kara-Su. It is formed by the
waters of three large streams—the Kara-Su, the
Afrin, and the Aswad—which collect the drainage
of the great mountain tract lying north-east and
east of Antioch, between the 36th and 37th pa-
rallels. It has been argued, from the silence of
Xenophon and Strabo, that this lake did not exist
in ancient times (Rennell, Z//ustrations of the Expe-
dition of Cyrus, p. 65), but modern investigations
pursued upon the spot are thought to disprove this
theory (Ainsworth, Researches in Mesopotamia,
p- 299). The waters How into the lake on the east
and north, and flow out of it at its south-west
angle by a broad and deep stream, known as the
Kara-Su, which falls into the Orontes a few miles
1406 SYRIA
above Antioch. (b) The Sabakhah is a salt lake,
into which only insignificant streams flow, and
which has no outlet. It lies midway between Balis
and Aleppo, the route between these places passing
along its northern shore. It is longer than the Lake
of Antioch, but narrower, being about 15 miles
from east to west, and 4 miles only from north to
south, even where it is widest. (c) The Bahr-el-
ACades is smaller than either of the foregoing lakes.
It has been estimated at 8 miles Tong and 3 broad
(Pococke, Description of the East, i. 140), and
again at 6 miles long.and 2 broad (Chesney,
Luphrates Exp. i. 394), but has never been accu-
rately measured. Pococke conjectures that it is of
recent formation; but his only reason seems to be
the silence of ancient writers, which is scarcely suf-
ficient to prove the point. (d) The Bahr-cl-Merj.
like the piece of water in which the Mowezk or
river of Aleppo ends, scarcely deserves to be called
a lake, since it is little better than a large marsh.
The length, according to Col. Chesney, is 9 miles,
and the breadth 2 miles (Zuphrat. Exp. i. 503);
but the size seems to vary with the seasons, and
with the extent to which irrigation is used along
the course of the Barada. A recent traveller, who
traced the Barada to its termination, found it divide
a few miles below Damascus, and observed that
each branch terminated in a marsh of its own;
while a neighbouring stream, the Awaadj, com-
monly regarded as a tributary of the Barada, also
lost itself in a third marsh separate from the other
two (Porter in Geograph. Journ. xxvi. 43-46).
6. The Great Valleyi—By far the most im-
portant part of Syria, and on the whole its most
striking feature, is the great valley which reaches
from the plain of Umk, near Antioch, to the narrow
gorge on which the Litany enters in about lat.
33° 30'. This valley, which runs nearly parallel
with the Syrian coast, extends the lensth of 230
miles, and has a width varying from 6 or 8 to 15
or 20 miles. The more southern portion of it was
known to the ancients as Coele-Syria, or “ the
Hollow Syria,’ and has been already described.
[CoELESyRIA.] In length this portion is rather
more than 100 miles, terminating with a screen of
hills a little south of Hems, at which point the
north-eastern direction of the valley also ceases,
and it begins to bend to the north-west. The lower
valley from Hems downward is broader, generally
speaking, and richer than the upper portion. Here
was “ Hamath the Great” (Am. vi. 2), now
Hamah; and here too was Apameia, a city but
little inferior to Antioch, surrounded by rich pas-
tures, where Seleucus Nicator was wont to feed 500
elephants, 300 stallion horses, and 30,000 mares
(Strab. xvi. 2, 810). The whole of this region is
fertile, being watered not only by the Orontes, but
by the numerous affluents which flow into it from
the mountain ranges enclosing the valley on either
side.
7. The Northern Highlands.—Northern Syria,
especially the district called Commagéne, between
Taurus and the Euphrates, is still very insufficiently
explored. It seems to be altogether an elevated
tract, consisting of twisted spurs from Taurus and
Amanus, with narrow valleys between them, which
open out into bare and sterile plains, ‘The valleys
themselves are not very fertile. They are watered
by small streams, producing often abundant fish.
gardens make an agreeable appearance.
SYRIA
and, for the most part, flowing into the Orontes or
the Euphrates. A certain number of the more
central ones, however, unite, and constitute the
“yiver of Aleppo,” which, unable to reach either of
the Oceanic streams, forms (as we have seen) a lake
or marsh, wherein its waters evaporate. Along the
course of the Euphrates there is rich land and
abundant vegetation; but the character of the
country thence to the valley of the Orontes is bare
and woodless, except in the vicinity of the towns,
where fruit-trees are cultivated, and orchards and
Most. of
this region is a mere sheep-walk, which grows more
and more harsh and repulsive as we approach the
south, where it gradually mingles with the desert.
The highest elevation of the plateau between the
two rivers is 1500 feet ; and this height is reached
soon after leaving the Euphrates, while towards the
west the decline is gradual.
8. The Eastern Desert. — East of the inner
mountain-chain, and south of the cultivable ground
about Aleppo, is the great Syrian Desert, an
“elevated dry upland, for the most part of gypsum
and marls, producing nothing but a few spare
bushes of wormwood, and the usual aromatic plants
of the wilderness.” Here and there bare and stony
ridges of no great height eross this arid region, but
fail to draw water from the sky, and have, conse-
quently, no streams flowing from them. A few
wells supply the nomad population with a brackish
fluid. ‘fhe region is traversed with difficulty, and
has never been accurately surveyed. The most
remarkable oasis is at Palmyra, where there are
several small streams and abundant . palm-trees.
[See Tapmor.] Towards the more western part
of the rezion along the foot of the mountain-range
whick there bounds it, is likewise a good deal of
tolerably fertile country, watered by the streams
which flow eastward fiom the range, and after a
longer or a shorter course are lost in the desert.
The best known and the most productive of these
tracts, which seem stolen from the desert, is the
famous plain of Damascus—the e/-Ghutah and el-
Merj of the Arabs—already described in the account
given of that city. [Damascus.] No rival to
this “earthly paradise” is to be found along the
rest of the chain, since no other stream flows down
from it at all comparable to the Barada; but wher-
ever the eastern side of the chain has been visited,
a certain amount of cultivable territory has been
found at its foot; corn is grown in places, and
olive-trees are abundant (Burckhardt, Travels in
Syria, pp. 124-129; Pococke, Description of the
East, vol. ii. p. 146). Further trom the hills all
is bare and repulsive; a dry hard desert like that
of the Sinaitic peninsula, with a soil of marl and
gravel, only rarely diversified with sand.
9. Chief Divisions.—According to Strabo, Syria
Proper was divided into the following districts :—
1. Commagéné; 2. Cyrrhestica; 3. Seleucis; 4.
Coele-syria; and 5. Damascéné. If we take its
limits, however, as laid down above (§ 1), we must
add to these districts three others: Chalybonitis,
or the country about Aleppo; Chalcis or Chalcidicé,
a small tract south of this, about the lake in which
the river of Aleppo ends; and Palmyréné, or the
desert so far as we consider it to have been Syrian,
(a) Commagéné® lay to the north. Its capital
was Samosata or Sumeisat. The territory is said
a The root of this name appears in the early Assyrian
inscriptions as that of a people, the Qummush, or Qum-
muhki. They dwell, however, east of the Euphrates,
between Sumeisat and Diarbekr.
SYRIA
to have been fairly fertile, but small; and from
. this we may gather that it did not descend lower | appear to have been of Hamitic descent,
than about Ain-Tab. (6) From Ain-Tab, or per-
haps from a point higher up, commenced Cirrhestica
or Cyristica. It was bounded on the north by
Commagéné, on the north-west by Amanus, on the
west and south-west by Seleucis, and on the south
by Chalybonitis or the region of Chalybon, Both
it and Commagéné reached eastward to the Eu-
phrates. Cyrrhestica was so called from its capital
Cyrrhus, which seems to be the modern Corus.
It included Hierapolis (Bambuk), Batnae (Dahab?),
and Gindarus ((indaries). (c) Chalybonitis
adjoined Cyrrhestica on the south, lying between
that region and the desert. It extended probably
from the Euphrates, about Balis, to Mount St.
Simeon (Amguli Dagh). Like Cyrrhestica, it de-
rived its name from its capital city, which was
Chalybon, now corrupted into Haleb, or Aleppo.
(4) Chalcidicé was south of the more western por-
tion of Chalybonitis, and was named from its capital,
Chaleis, which seems to be marked by the modern
Kennasserin, a little south of the lake in which the
river of Aleppo ends (Pococke, Travels, ii. 149).
(e) Seleucis lay between Cyrrhestica, Chalybonitis,
and Chalcis on the one side, and the Mediterranean
on the other. It was a large province, and con-
tained four important subdivisions, 1. Seleucis
Proper or Pieria, the little corner between Amanus
and the Orontes, with its capital, Seleucia, on the
coast, above the mouth of the Orontes; 2. Antio-
chis, the region about Antioch; 3. Laodicéne, the
coast tract between the mouth of the Orontes and
Phoenicia, named after its capital, Laodiceia (still
called Ladikiyeh), which was an excellent port, and
situated in a most fertile district (Strab. xvi. 2, 89);
and 4, Apaméné, consisting of the valley of the
Orontes from-Jisr Hadid to Hamah, or perhaps to
Hems, and having Apamea (now Famieh) for its
chief city. (f ) Coele-syria lay south of Apamea,
being the continuation of the Great Valley, and ex-
tending from Hems to the gorge in which the valley
ends. The chief town of this region was Heliopolis
(Baalbek). (4) Damascéné included the whole
cultivable tract between the bare range which
breaks away from Anti-libanus in lat. 33° 30', and
the hills which shut in the valley of the Awaj on
the south. It lay east of Coele-syria and south-west of
Palmyréné. (4) Palmyréné was the name applied
to the whole of the Syrian Desert. It was bounded
on the east by the Euphrates, on the north by
Chalybonitis and Chalcidicé, on the west by Apa-
méné and Coele-syria, and on the south by the great
desert of Arabia.
10. Principal towns.—The chief towns of Syria
may be thus arranged, as nearly as possible in the
order of their importance: 1. Antioch; 2. Da-
mascus; 3, Apameia; 4. Seleucia ; 5. Tadmor or
Palmyra; 6. Laodiceia ; 7. Epiphaneia (Hamath) ;
8. Samosata; 9. Hierapolis (Mabog); 10. Chaly-
bon; 11. Emesa; 12. Heliopolis; 13. Laodiceia
ad Libanum; 14. Cyrrhus; 15. Chalcis; 16.
Poseideium ; 17. Heracleia; 18. Gindarus; 19.
Zeugma; 20. Thapsacus. Of these, Samosata,
Zeugma, Thapsacus, are on the Euphrates ; Seleucia,
Laodiceia, Poseideium; and Heracleia, on the sea-
shore; Antioch, Apameia, Epiphaneia, and Emesa
(Hems) on the Orontes; Heliopolis and Laodiceia ad
Libanum, in Coele-syria; Hierapolis, Chalybon,
Cyrrhus, Chalcis, and Gindarus, in the northern
highlands ; Damascus on the skirts, and Palmyra
in the centre of the eastern desert.
SYRIA 1407
11, History.—The first occupants of Syria
The
Canaanitish races, the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites,
&c., are connected in Scripture with Egypt and
Ethiopia, Cush and Mizraim (Gen. x. 6 and 15-18);
and even independently of this evidence, there seems
to be sufficient reason for believing that the races
in question stood in close ethnic connexion with the
Cushite stock ( Rawlinson’s Herodotus, iv. 243-245),
These tribes occupied not Palestine only, but also
Lower Syria, in very early times, as we.may gather
from the fact that Hamath is assigned to them in
Genesis (x. 18). Afterwards they seem to have
become possessed of Upper Syria also, for when the
Assyrians first push their conquests beyond the
Euphrates, they find the Hittites (Ahatt/) esta-
blished in strength on the right bank of the Great
River. After a while the first comers, who were
still to a great extent nomads, received a Shemitic
infusion, which most probably came to them from
the south-east. The family of Abraham, whose
original domigile was in Lower Babylonia, may,
perhaps, be best regarded as furnishing us with a
specimen of the migratory movements of the period.
Another example is that of Chedorlaomer with his
confederate kings, of whom one at least—Amraphel
—must have been a Shemite. The movement may
have begun before the time of Abraham, and hence,
perhaps, the Shemitic names of many of the inhabi-
tants when Abraham first comes into the country,
as Abimelech, Melchizedek, Eliezer, &c.» The only
Syrian town whose existence we find distinctly
marked at this time is Damascus (Gen. xiv, 15;
xv. 2), which appears to have been already a place
of some importance. Indeed, in one tradition,
Abraham is said to have been king of Damascus for
a time (Nic, Dam. Fr. 30); but this is quite un-
worthy of credit. Next to Damascus must be
placed Hamath, which is mentioned by Moses as a
well-known place (Num. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 8), and
appears in Egyptian papyri of the time of the
eighteenth dynasty (Cambridge Essays, 1858, p.
268). Syria at this time, and for many centuries
afterwards, seems to have been broken up among a
number of petty kingdoms. Several of these are
mentioned in Scripture, as Damascus, Rehob,
Maachah, Zobah, Geshur, &c. We also hear oc-
casionally of “ the kings of Syria and of the Hit-
tites” (1 K. x. 29; 2 K. vii. 6)—an expression
indicative of that extensive subdivision of the tract
among numerous petty chiefs which is exhibited to
us very clearly in the early Assyrian inscriptions.
At various times different states had the pre-
eminence ; but none was ever strong enough to
establish an authority over the others.
The Jews first come into hostile contact with
the Syrians, under that name, in the time οἱ
David. The wars of Joshua, however, must have
often been with Syrian chiefs, with whom he dis-
puted the pussession of the tract about Lebanon
and Hermon (Josh. xi. 2-18). After his time the
Syrians were apparently undisturbed, until David
began his aggressive wars upon them. Claiming
the frontier of the Euphrates, which God had
promised to Abraham (Gen, xv. 18), David made
war on Hadadezer, king of Zobah, whom he
defeated in a great battle, killing 18,000 of his
men, and taking from him 1000 chariots, 700
b It is possible, however, that these names may~be the
Shemitic equivalents of the real names of these persons,
which names might in that case have been Hamitic.
1408 SYRIA
horsemen, and 20,000 footmen (2 Sam. viii. 3, 4,
13). The Damascene Syrians, having endeavoured
to succour their kinsmen, were likewise defeated
with great loss (ib. ver. 5); and the blow so
weakened them that they shortly afterwards sub-
mitted and became David’s subjects (ver. 6).
Zobah, however, was far from being subdued as
yet. When, a few years later, the Ammonites
determined on engaging in a war with David, and
applied to the Syrians for aid, Zobah, together
with Beth-Rehob, sent them 20,000 footmen, and
two other Syrian kingdoms furnished 13,000 (2
Sam. x. 6). This army being completely defeated
by Joab, Hadadezer obtained aid from Mesopotamia
(ib. ver. 16), and tried the chance of a third battle,
which likewise went against him, and produced the
general submission of Syria to the Jewish monarch.
The submission thus begun continued under the
reign of Solomon, who “ reigned over all the king-
doms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land
of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt ;
they bro: ght presents and served Solomon all the
days of his life” (1 K. iv. 21). The only pait of
Syria which Solomon lost seems to have been Damas-
cus, where an independent kingdom was set up by
Rezon, a native of Zobah (1 K. xi, 23-25). On
the separation of the two kingdoms, soon after the
accession of Rehoboam, the remainder of Syria no
doubt shook off the yoke. Damascus now became
decidedly the leading state, Hamath being second
to it, and the northern Hittites, whose capital was
Carchemish near Pambuh, third. [CARCHEMISH. |
The wars of this period fall most properly into
the history of Damascus, and have already been
described in the account given of that city. [Da-
mascus.] Their result was to attach Syria to
the great Assyrian empire, from which it passed |
to the Babylonians, after a short attempt on the
part of Egypt to hold possession of it, which was
frustrated by Nebuchadnezzar.
lonians Syria passed to the Persians, under whom
it formed a satrapy in conjunction with Judaea,
Phoenicia, and Cyprus (Herod. iii. 91). Its re-
sources were still great, and probably it was his
confidence in them which encouraged the Syrian
satrap, Megabazus, to raise the standard of revolt
against Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.c. 447). After
this we hear little of Syria till the year of the
battle of Issus (B.c. 333), when it submitted to
Alexander without a struggle.
Upon the death of Alexander Syria became, for
the first time, the head of a gieat kingdom.
the division of the provinces among his generals
(B.C. 321), Seleucus Nicator received Mesopotamia
and Syiia; and though, in the twenty years of
struggle which followed, this country was lost and
won iepeatedly, it yvemained finally, with the
exception of Coele-syria, in the hands of the prince
to whom it was originally assigned. ‘That prince,
whose dominions veached fiom the Mediterranean
to the Indus, and from the Oxus to the Southern
Ocean, havitig, as he believed, been exposed to
great dangers on account of the distance fiom |
Gieece of his original capital, Babylon, resolved
immediately upon his victory of Ipsus (B.c. 301)
to fix his metropolis in the West, aud settled upon |
Syria as the fittest place for it. Antioch was
begun in B.c. 300, and, being finished in a few
years, was made the capital of Seleucus’ kingdom.
The whole realm was thenceforth :uled from this
ceutre, and Syiia, which had long been the prey
of stronger countzies, and had been exhausted by
From the Baby- |
On-
SYRIA
their exactions, grew rich with the wealth which
now flowed into it on all sides. The Juxury
and magnificence of Antioch were extraoidinary.
Broad straight streets, with colonnades from end
to end, temples, statues, arches, bridges, a του]
palace, and various other public buildings dispersed
throughout it, made the Syrian capital by far the
most splendid of all the cities of the East. At
the same time, in the provinces, other towns of
large size weie growing up. Seleucia in Pieria,
Apameia, and both Laodiceias were foundations of
the Seleucidae, as their names sufficiently mdi-
cate. Weak and indolent as were many of these
monarchs, it would seem that they had a here-
ditary taste for building; and so each aimed at
outdoing his predecessois in the number, beauty,
and magnificence of his constructions, As the
history of Syria under the Seleucid princes has
been already given in detail, in the articles treating
of each monarch [ANTIOCHUS, DEMETRIUS, SE-
LEUCUS, &c.], it will be unnecessary here to do
more than sum it up geneially. The most flour-
ishing period was the ve gn of the founder, Nicator.
The empire was then almost as large as that of
the Achaemenian l’eisians, for it at one time
included Asia Minor, and thus reached from the
Egean to India. It was organised into satrapies,
of which the number was 72. ‘rade flourished
greatly, old lines of traffic being restored and new
ones opened. The reign of Nicator’s son, Antio-
chus 1., called Soter, was the beginning of the
| decline, which was progiessive from his date, with
only one or two slight inter:uptions. Soter lost
territory to the kingdom of Peigamus, and failed
in an attempt to subject Bithyuia. He was also
| unsuccessful against Egypt. Under his son, An-
tiochus II., called Θεός, or “ the God,’ who
ascended the throne in B.C. 261, the disintegration
of the empire proceeded move rapidly. The revolt
of Parthia in B.c. 256, followed by that of Bactria
in B.C. 254, deprived the Syrian kingdom of some
of its best provinces, and gave it a new enemy
which shortly became a rival and finally a supe-
rior. At the same time the war with Egypt was
prosecuted without either advantage or glory.
Fresh losses were suffered in the reign of Seleucus
11. (Callinicus), Antiochus the Second’s successor.
While Callinicus was engaged in Egypt against
Ptolemy Euergetes, Eumenes of Pergamus obtained
possession of a great part of Asia Minor (8.6.
242); and about the same time Arsaces II., king
of Parthia, conquered Hyrcania and annexed it to
his dominions. An attempt to recover this latter
province cost Callinicus his crown, as he was
defeated and made prisoner by the Parthians (B.c.
226). In the next reign, that of Seleucus III.
(Cevaunus), a slight reaction set in. Most of Asia
Minor was recovered for Ceraunus by his wife’s
‘nephew, Achaeus (B.c. 224), and he was pre-
paring to invade Pergamus when he died poisoned,
His successor and brother, Antiochus III., though
he gained the surname of Great from the grandeur
of his expeditions and the partial success of some
of them, can scarcely be said to have really done
anything towards raisiig the empire from its
declining condition, since his conquests on the side
of Egypt, consisting of Coele-syria, Phoenicia, and
Palestine, formed no sufficient compensation for the
loss of Asia Minor, which he was forced to cede to
Rome for the aggvandisement of the rival kingdom
of Pergamus (B.c. 190). Even had the territorial
balance been kept more even, the ill policy of
SYRIA
making Rome an enemy of the Syrian kingdom,
with which Antiochus the Great is taxable, would
have necessitated our placing him among the
princes to whom its ultimate ruin was mainly
owing. ‘Towards the East, indeed, he did some-
thing, if not to thrust back the Parthians, at any
rate “to protect his empire from their aggressions.
But the exhaustion consequent upon his constant
wars and signal defeats—more especially those of
Raphia and Magnesia—left Syria far more feeble
at his death than she had been at any former
period. The almost eventless reign of Seleucus LV.
(Philopator), his son and successor (B.C. 187-175),
is suthicient proof of this feebleness. It was not
till twenty years of peace had recruited the
resources of Syria in men and money, that An-
tiochus IV. (Epiphanes), brother of Philopator,
ventured on engaging in a great war (B.c. 171)—
a war for the conquest of Egypt. At first it
seemed as if the attempt would succeed. Egypt
was on the point of yielding to her foe of so many
years, when Rome, following out her traditions of
hostility to Syrian power and influence, interposed
her mediation, and deprived Epiphanes of all the
fruits of his victories (B.c. 168). A greater
injury was, about the same time (B.c. 167),
inflicted on Syria by the folly of Epiphanes him-
self. Not content with replenishing his treasury
by the plunder of the Jewish temple, he madly
ordered the desecration of the Holy of Holies, and
thus caused the revolt of the Jews, which proved
a permanent loss to the empire and an aggravation
of its weakness. After the death of Epiphanes
the empire rapidly verged to its fall. The regal
power fell into the hands of an infant, Antiochus V.
(Eupator), son of Epiphanes (B.c. 164); the nobles
contended for the regency; a pretender to the
crown started up in the person of Demetrius, son
of Seleucus IV.; Rome put in a claim to. ad-
minister the government; and amid the troubles
thus caused, the Parthians, under Mithridates I.,
overran the eastern provinces (B.C. 164), con-
quered Media, Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, &c., and
advanced their frontier to the Euphrates. It was
in vain that Demetrius II. (Nicator) made an
attempt (B.C. 142) to recover the lost territory ;
his boldness cost him his liberty; while a similar
attempt on the part of his successor, Antiochus VII.
(Sidetes), cost that monarch his life (B.c. 128).
Meanwhile, in the shorn Syrian kingdom, disorders
of every kind were on the increase ; Commagéné
revolted and established her independence ; ‘civil
wars, murders, mutinies of the troops, rapidly
succeeded one another ; the despised Jews were
called in by both sides in the various struggles ;
and Syria, in the space of about ninety years, trom
B.C. 154 to B.c. 64, had no fewer than ten sove-
reions. All the wealth of the country had been
by. this time dissipated; much had flowed Rome-
wards in the shape of bribes; more, probably, had
been spent on the wars; and stiil more had been
wasted by the kings in luxury of every kind.
Under these circumstances the Romans showed no
eagerness to occupy the exhausted region, which
passed under the power of Tigranes, king of
Armenia, in B.C. 83, and was not made a province
of the Roman Empire till after Pompey’s complete
defeat of Mithridates and his ally Tigranes, B.c. 64.
The chronology of this period has been well worked
out by Clinton (F. H. vol. iii. pp. 308-346), from
whom the following table of the kings, with the
dates of their accession, is taken :—
VOL. II
SYRIA 1409
Kings | Length of | Date of
‘ feign. | Accession.
1, Seleucus Nicator . | 32 years, Oct. 312
2. Antiochus Soter. . . Cae Jan. 280
3. Antiochus Theus anes ae ae | Jan. 261
4. Seleucus Callinicus . . ΟΣ Jan. 246
5. Seleucus Ceraunus . . | 3 ,, | Aug. 226
6. Antiochus Magnus . | koa Aug. 223
7. Seleucus Philopator . ΕἸ τον ol (Octy LST
8. Antiochus Epiphanes | VS |) AUS, 15
9. Antiochus Eupator . Pair Ar |p Deck mee
10. Demetrius Soter . We An Nov. 162
11. Alexander Bala . al eran Aug. 150
9
12. Ba ius Nicator Cast ἡ] 9 Ἐ Nov. 146
13. Antiochus Sidetes 1 Oy Oy ieee Feb. 137
14. Demetrius Nicator (2nd
ΠΡ ( ἘΝ ce Feb. 128
15. Antiochus Grypus eames Seeley med Aug. 125
16. Antiochus Cyzenicus . | 18 ,, 113
17. Antiochus Eusebes ane 12 95
Philippus . | as
18. Tigranes » Che betes 83
19. Antiochus ‘Asiaticus 4 69
As Syria holds an important place, not only in
the Old Testament, but in the New, some account
of its condition under the Romans must now be
given. That condition was somewhat peculiar.
While the country generally was formed into a
Roman province, under governors who were at first
propraetors or quaestors, then proconsuls, and
finally legates, there were exempted from the direct
rule of the governor, in the first place, a number of
“*free cities,” which retained the administration of
their own affairs, subject to a tribute levied accord-
ing to the Roman principles of taxation ; and 2ndly,
a number of tracts, which were assigned to petty
princes, commonly natives, to be ruled at their
pleasure, subject to the same obligations with the
free cities as to taxation (Appian, Syr. 50). The
free cities were Antioch, Seleucia, Apameia, Epi-
phaneia, Tripolis, Sidon, and Tyre; the principali-
ties, Commagéné, Chalcis ad Belum (near Baalbek),
Arethusa, Abila or Abiléné, Palmyra, and Da-
mascus. The principalities were sometimes called
kingdoms, sometimes tetrarchies. They were esta-
blished where it was thought that the natives were
so inveterately wedded ‘to their own customs, and so
well disposed for revolt, that it was necessary to
consult their feelings, to flatter the national vanity,
and to give them the semblance without the sub-
stance of freedom, (a) Commagéné was a king-
dom (regnum). It had broken off from Syria
during the later troubles, and become a separate
state under the government of a branch of the Se-
leucidae, who affected the names of Antiochus and
Mithridates. The Romans allowed this condition
of things to continue till A.D. 17, when, upon the
death of Antiochus III., they made Commagéné
into a province ; in which condition it continued till
A.D. 38, when Caligula gaye the crown to An-
tiochus ΓΝ. (Epiphanes), the son of Antiochus III,
Antiochus IV. continued king till A.p. 72, when he
was deposed by Vespasian, and Commagéné was
finally absorbed into the Empire. He had a son,
called also Antiochus and Epiphanes, who was be-
trothed to Drusilla, the sister of “ King Agrippa,”
and afterwards the wife of Felix, the procurator of
Judaea. (ὁ) Chalcis “ad Belum ” was not the city
so called near Aleppo, which gave name to the
district of Chalcidice, but a town of less importance
near Heliopolis (Baalbek), whence probably the
suffix “ad Belum.” It is mentioned in this con-
4X
1410 SYRIA
nexion by Strabo (xvi. 2, §10), and Josephus says
that it was under Lebanon (Ant. xiv. 7, §4), so
that there cannot be much doubt as to its posi-
tion. It must have been in the “ Hollow Syria” —
the modern Bikaa—to the south of Baalbek (Jo-
seph. B. J. i. 9, §2), and therefore probably at
Anjar, where there are large ruins (Robinson, Bid/.
Res. iii. 496, 497). This too was generally, or
perhaps always, a “kingdom.” Pompey found it
under a certain Ptolemy, ‘“ the son of Mennaeus,”
and allowed him to retain possession of it, together
with certain adjacent districts. From him it passed
to his son, Lysanias, who was put to death by
Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra (ab. B.c.
54), after which we find its revenues farmed by
Lysanias’ steward, Zenodorus, the royalty being in
abeyance (Joseph. Ant. xv. 10, 81), In B.c. 22
Chalcis was added by Augustus to the dominions of
Herod the Great, αὖ whose death it probably passed
to his son Philip (ib. xvii. 11, §4). Philip died
A.D. 34; and then we lose sight of Chalcis, until
Claudius in his first year (A.D, 41) bestowed it on
a Herod, the brother of Herod Agrippa L., still as a
“kingdom.” From this Herod it passed (A.D. 49)
to his nephew, Herod Agrippa II., who held it only
three or four years, being promoted from it to a
better government (ib, xx. 7, 81). Chalcis then
fell to Agrippa’s cousin, Aristobulus, son of the
first Herodian king, under whom it remained till
A.D. 73 (Joseph. 8. J. vii. 7, §1). About this
time, or soon after, it ceased to be a distinct go-
vernment, being finally absorbed into the Roman
province of Syria. (c) Arethusa (now Restun)
was for a time separated from Syria, and go-
verned by phylarchs. The city lay on the right
bank of the Orontes between Hamah and Hems,
rather nearer to the former. In the government
were included the Emiseni, or people of Hems
(Emesa), so that we may regard it as comprising
the Orontes yalley from the Jebel Erbayn, at least
as high as the Bahr-el-Kades, or Baheiret- ems,
the lake of Hems. Only two governors are known,
Sampsiceramus, and Jamblichus, his son (Strab.
xvi. 2, §10). Probably this principality was one
of the first absorbed. (d) Abiléné, so called from
its capital Abila, was a “tetrarchy.” It. was
situated to the east of Anti-libanus, on the route
between Baalbek and Damascus (Jtin. Ant.).
Ruins and inscriptions mark the site of the capital
(Robinson, bib. Res. iii. 479-482), which was at
the village called Z7 Suk, on the river Barada, just
where it breaks forth from the mountains, The
limits of the territory are uncertain. We first hear
of this tetrarchy in St. Luke’s Gospel (iii. 1), where
it is said to have been in the possession of a certain
Lysanias at the commencement of St. John’s mi-
nistry, which was probably A.D. 27. Of this
Lysanias nothing more is known; he certainly
cannot be the Lysanias who once held Chalcis ; since
that Lysanias died above sixty years previously.
Eleven years after the date mentioned by St. Luke,
A.D. 38, the heir of Caligula bestowed ‘the te-
trarchy of Lysanias,” by which Abiléné is no doubt
intended, on the elder Agrippa (Joseph. Ant. xviii.
6, §10), and four years later Claudius confirmed
the same prince in the possession of the “ Abila of
Lysanias ” (ib, xix. 5, §1). Finally, in a.p. 53, Clau-
dius, among other grants, conferred on the younger
Agrippa “ po which had been the tetrarchy of
Lysanias” (ib. xx. 7, 81). Abila was taken by Pla-
cidus, one of the generals of Vespasian, in B.c. 69
(Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 7, §6), and thenceforth was
annexed to Syria. (ὁ) Palmyra appears to have
SYRIA
occupied a different position from the rest of the
Syrian principalities. It was in no sense dependent
upon Rome (Plin, H. N. v. 25), but, relying on
its position, claimed and exercised the right of self-
government from the breaking up of the Syrian
kingdom to the reign of Trajan. Antony made an
attempt against it, B.c. 41, but failed. It was not
till Trajan’s successes against the Parthians, between
A.D. 114 and A.D. 116, that Palmyra was added to
the Empire. (jf) Damascus is the last of the prin-
cipalities which it is necessary to notice here. It
appears to have been left by Pompey in the hands
of an Arabian prince, Aretas, who, however, was to
pay a tribute for it, and to allow the Romans to
occupy it at their pleasure with a garrison (Joseph.
Ant. xiv. 4, §5; 5, §1; 11, §7). This state of
things continued most likely to the settlement of
the Empire by Augustus, when Damascus was at-
tached to the province of Syria. During the rest
of Augustus’ reign, and during the entire reign of
Tiberius, this arrangement was in force ; but it seems
probable that Caligula on his accession separated
Damascus from Syria, and gave it to another Aretas,
who was king of Petra, and a relation (son?) of the
former. [See ARETAS.| Hence the fact, noted by
St. Paul (2 Cor. xi. 32), that at the time of his
conversion Damascus was held by an “ ethnarch of
king Aretas.”” The semi-independence of Damascus
is thought to have continued through the reigns of
Caligula and Claudius (from A.D, 37 to A.D. 54),
but to have come to an end under-Nero, when the
district was probably re-attached to Syria.
The list of the governors of Syria, from its con-
quest by the Romans to the destruction of Jeru-
salem, has been made out with a near approach to
accuracy, and is as follows :—
Date of Date of
Names. Titles of office. entering —_ quitting
office. office.
re, Quaestor pro
M. Aemilius Scaurus . prastar; - B.C.62 . BC. 61 +
L. Marcius Philippus . . Propraetor . WS oie, GE)
Lentulus Marcellinus. . Propraetor . Pe 5. AB
Gabinius . . Proconsul . . 56 . 55
Crassus . Pepe Oo 53
Cassius ~sQuaestorin «oS 51
M. Calpurnius Bibulus . Proconsul 51 47
Sext. Julius Caesar. era 46
Q. Caecilius Bassus ‘ Praetor . 46 44
(Q. Cornificius . .. received authority from the
(L. Statius Mureus. . { Senate to dispossess Bassus,
(Q. Marcius Crispus but failed.)
C. Cassius Longinus - Proconsul .B.c.43 . B.c. 42
L. Decidius Saxa . Legatus . Aaa
P. Ventidius Bassus . Legatus . 40) ον 7985
C. Sosius ia - Legatus . 38 . . 35
L. Munatius Plancus . » Legatus . 35 . 82
L. Calpurnius Bibulus . Legatus . STs) ol
Ὁ ΒΒ το, «1.5 . Legatus . 30 ,
M. Valerius Messalla. . Legatus . 29 29
Varro . : . Legatus . 24
M. Vipsanius Agrippa . Legatus . 22 20
M. Tullius A . . Legatus . 190)
. Legatus . 15
M. Vipsanius Agrippa
M. Titius . : J
C. Sentius Saturninus .
P. Quintilius Varus
» Legatus 4), ./ 0) ΠΝ... τ
» Lhegatus’ =). τ heen
S egatus’s 3). 8 5
P. Sulpicius Quirinus . . Legatus - A.D. 5
. Caecilius Metellus
: Creticus Silanus . Legatus ἢ : 1
M. Calpurnius Piso . Legatus . 17 19
Cn. Sentius Saturninus . Prolegatus ὃ 19
L. Pomponius Flaccus . Propraetor . 22 33
L. Vitellius . Legatus . . 85 ,ὦς..89
P. Petronius . . Legatus . SH way ie 3c
Vibius Marsus . . Legatus . 42 48
C. Cassius Longinus . Legatus . 48 51
T. Numidius* Quadratus Legatus . 51 60
Domitius Corbulo . . Legatus . 60 63
Cincius . . Legatus . 63
C. Cestius Gallus . . . Legatus . 65 67
P. Licinius Mucianus. . Legatus . 67 69
* Called “ Vinidius
by Tacitus.
SYRIA
The history of Syria during this period may be
summed up in a few words. Down to the battle of
Pharsalia, Syria was fairly tranquil, the only troubles
being with the Arabs, who occasionally attacked
the eastern frontier. The Roman governors laboured
hard to raise the condition of the province, taking
great pains to restore the cities, which had gone to
decay under the later Seleucidae. Gabinius, pro-
consul in the years 56 and 55 B.c., made himself
particularly conspicuous in works of this kind.
After Pharsalia (B.c. 46) the troubles of Syria were
renewed. Julius Caesar gave the province to his
relative Sextus in B.c. 47; but Pompey’s party
was still so strong in the East, that in the next
year one of his adherents, Caecilius Bassus, put
Sextus to death, and established himself in the go-
vernment so firmly that he was able to resist for
three years three proconsuls appointed by the Senate
to dispossess him, and only finally yielded upon
terms which he himself offered to his antagonists.
Many of the petty princes of Syria sided with him,
and some of the nomadic Arabs took his pay and
fought under his banner (Strab. xvi. 2, §10). Bassus
had but just made his submission, when, upon the
assassination of Caesar, Syria was disputed between
Cassius and Dolabella, the friend of Antony, a dis-
pute terminated by the suicide of Dolabella, B.c.
43, at Laodiceia, where he was besieged by Cassius.
The next year Cassius left his province and went to
Philippi, where, after the first unsuccessful engage-
ment, he too committed suicide. Syria then fell to
Antony, who appointed as his legate, L. Decidius
Saxa, in B.c. 41. The troubles of the empire now
tempted the Parthians to seek a further extension
of their dominions at the expense of Rome, and
Pacorus, the crown-prince, son of Arsaces XIV.,
assisted by the Roman refugee, Labienus, overran
Syria and Asia Minor, defeating Antony’s generals,
and threatening Rome with the loss of all her Asiatic
possessions (B.C. 40-39). Ventidius, however, in
B.C. 38, defeated the Parthians, slew Pacorus, and
recovered for Rome her former boundary. A quiet
time followed. From B.c. 38 to B.c. 31 Syria
was governed peaceably by the legates of Antony,
and, after his defeat at Actium and death at Alex-
andria in that year, by those of Augustus, lr B.¢.
27 took place that formal division of the provinces
between Augustus and the Senate from which the
imperial administrative system dates; and Syria,
being from its exposed situation among the pro-
vinciae principis, continued to be ruled by legates,
who were of consular rank (consulares) and bore
severally the full title of “ Legatus Augusti pro
praetore.” During the whole of this period the
province enlarged or contracted its limits according
as it pleased the reigning emperor to bestow tracts
of land on the native princes, or to resume them
and place them under his legate. Judaea, when
attached in this way to Syria, occupied a peculiar
position. Partly perhaps on account of its remote-
ness from the Syrian capital, Antioch, partly no
doubt because of the peculiar character of its people,
it was thought best to make it, in a certain sense,
a separate government. A special procurator was
therefore appointed to rule it, who was subordinate
to the governor of Syria, but within his own pro-
vince had the power of a legatus. [See JUDABA. ]
Syria continued without serious disturbance from
the expulsion of the Parthians (B.c. 38) to the
breaking out of the Jewish war (A.D. 66). In B.c.
19 it was visited by Augustus, and in A.p. 18-19
by Germanicus who died at Antioch in the last-
SYRO-PHOENICIAN 1411
named year, In a.p. 44-47 it was the scene of
a severe famine. [See AGABUS.] A little earlier
Christianity had begun to spread into it, partly by
means of those who “ were scattered”’ at the time
of Stephen’s persecution (Acts xi. 19), partly by
the exertions of St. Paul (Gal. i. 21). The Syrian
Church soon grew to be one of the most flourishing
(Acts xiii. 1, xv. 23, 35, 41, &c.). Here the name
of “Christian” first arose—at the outset no doubt
a gibe, but thenceforth a glory and a boast. Antioch,
the capital, became as early probably as a.p. 44
the see of a bishop, and was soon recognised as a
patriarchate. ‘The Syrian Church is accused of
laxity both in faith and morals (Newman, Arians,
p- 10); but, if it must admit the disgrace of having
given birth to Lucian and Paulus of Samosata,
it can claim on the other hand the glory of such
names as Ignatius, Theophilus, Ephraem, and Ba-
bylas. It suffered without shrinking many grievous
persecutions; and it helped to make that emphatic
protest against worldliness and luxuriousness of
living at which monasticism, according to its ori-
ginal conception, must be considered to have aimed.
The Syrian monks were among the most earnest
and most self-denying ; and the names of Hilarion
and Simon Stylites are enough to prove that a
most important part was played by Syria in the
ascetic movement of the 4th and 5th centuries,
(For the geography of Syria, see Pococke’s De-
scription of the East, vol. ii. pp. 88-209.; Burek-
hardt’s Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, pp.
1-309; Robinson’s Later Biblical Researches, pp.
419-625; Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, pp. 403-
414; Porter’s Five Years in Damascus; Ains-
worth’s Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand,
pp. 97-70 ; Researches, &c., p. 290 et seqq. For
the history under the Seleucidae, see (besides the
original sources) Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii.
Appendix iii. pp. 308-346; Vaillant’s Zmperium
Seleucidarum, and Frolich’s Annales Rerum et
Regum Syriae. For the history under the Romans,
see Norisius, Cenotaphia Pisana, Op. vol. iii. pp.
424-531.) [6. Π.]
SYRIAC VERSIONS. [Verstons, ΒΥΕΙΑΟ.]
SY’'RO-PHOENICTIAN (Συροφοινίκισσα,
Συροφοίνισσα, or Σύρα Φοίνισσα: Syro-Phoenissi)
occurs only in Mark vii. 26. The coinage of the
words ‘* Syro-Phoenicia,” and ‘‘ Syro-Phoenicians,”
seems to have been the work of the Romans, though
it is difficult to say exactly what they intended by
the expressions. It has generally been supposed
that they wished to distinguish the Phoenicians of
Syria from those of Africa (the Carthaginians) ;
and the term ‘‘ Syrophoenix” has been regarded as
the exact converse to ‘“ Libyphoenix ” (Alford, in
luc.). But the Libyphoenices are not the Phoe-
nicians of Africa generally—they are a peculiar
race, half-African and half-Phoenician (‘* mixtum
Punicnm Afris genus,” Liv. xxi, 22). The Syro-
Phoenicians, therefore, should, on this analogy, be
a mixed race, half-Phoenicians and half-Syrians.
This is probably the sense of the word in the
satirists Lucilius (ap. Non. Mare. De proprictat.
serm, iv. 431) and Juvenal (Sut. viii. 159), who
would regard a mongrel Oriental as peculiarly
contemptible.
In later times a geographic sense of the terms
superseded the ethnic one. The Emperor Hadrian
divided Syria into three parts, Syria Proper, Syro-
Phoenice, and Syria Palaestina; and henceforth a
Syro-Phoenician meant a native of this sub-pro-
4X2
1412 TAANACH
vince (Lucian, De Conc. Deor, §4), which included
Phoenicia Proper, Damascus, and Palmyrené.
As the geographic sense had not come into use
in St. Mark’s time, and as the ethnic one would be
a refinement unlikely in a sacred writer, it is per-
haps most probable that he really wrote Supa
Φοίνισσα, “a Phoenician Syrian,” which is found
in some copies.
St. Matthew uses “ Canaanitish” (Xavavata) in
the place of St. Mark’s ‘*Syro-Phoenician,” or
“ Phoenician Syrian,” on the same ground that the
LXX. translate Canaan by Phoenicia (Φοινίκη).
The terms Canaan and Phoenicia had succeeded one
another as geographical names in the same country ;
and Phoenicians were called ‘“ Canaanites,” just
as Englishmen are called “Britons.” No con-
clusion as to the identity of the Canaanites with
the Phoenicians can properly be drawn from the
indifferent use of the two terms. (See Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, vol. iv. pp. 243-245.) [G. R.]
T
TA'ANACH (FIV: Ζακάχ, Bardx, Oavadx,
Baddd; Alex. Oavax, Tavax, exbavaad, Oevvax,
@aavax: Thanac, Thanach). An ancient Ca-
naanitish city, whose king is enumerated amongst the
thirty-one conquered by Joshua (Josh. xii. 21). It
came into the hands of the half tribe of Manasseh
(Josh. xvii. 11, xxi. 25; 1 Chr. vii. 29), though it
would appear to have lain outside their boundary
and within the allotment of either Issachar or Asher
(Josh. xvii. 11), probably the former. It was be-
stowed on the Kohathite Levites (Josh. xxi, 25).
Taanach was one of the places in which, either
from some strength of position, or from the ground
near it being favourable for their mode of fighting,
the Aborigines succeeded in making a stand (Josh.
xvii. 12; Judg. i. 27); and in the great struggle
of the Canaanites under Sisera against Deborah and
Barak, it appears to have formed the head-quarters
of their army (Judg. v. 19). After this defeat the
Canaanites of Taanach were probably made, like the
rest, to pay a tribute (Josh. xvii. 13; Judg. i. 28),
but in the town they appear to have remained to
the last. Taanach is almost always named in com-
pany with Megiddo, and they were evidently the
chief towns of that fine rich district which forms
the western portion of the great plain of Esdraelon
ἀκ ν. 12}.
There it is still to be found. The identification
of Ta’annuk with Taanach, may be taken as one of
the surest in the whole Sacred Topography. It was
' known to Eusebius, who mentions it twice in the
Onomasticon (@aavax and @avah) as ἃ ““ very large
village,” standing between 3 and 4 Roman miles
from Legio—the ancient Mesiddo. It was known
to hap-Parchi, the Jewish mediaeval traveller, and
it still stands about 4 miles south-east of Lejjin,
retaining its old name with hardly the change of a
letter. The ancient town was planted on a large
mound at the termination of a long spur or pro-
montory, which runs out northward from the hills
of Manasseh into the plain, and leaves a recess or
bay, subordinate to the main plain on its north
side and between it and Lejjin. The modern
hamlet clings to the S.W. base of the mound (Rob.
ii. 316, 329; Van de Velde, i. 358; Stanley,
Jewish Church, 321, 322).
TABBATH
In one passage the name is slightly changed both
in original and A. ἡ. [TANACH. ] [G.]
TA'ANATH-SHI'LOH (nov noxn: Θή-
νασα καὶ S€AAnoa; Alex. Τηναθ σηλω;: Tanath-
Selo). A place named once only (Josh. xvi. 6) as
one of the landmarks of the boundary of Ephraim,
but of which boundary it seems impossible to as-
certain, All we can tell is, that at this part the
enumeration is from west to east, Janohah being
east of Taanath Shiloh. With this agrees the
statement of Eusebius (Onomasticon), who places
Janohah 12, and Thenath, or as it was then called
Thena,* 10 Roman miles east of Neapolis. Janohah
has been identified with some probability at Yanin,
on the road from Ndblus to the Jordan Valley.
The name Yana, or Ain Tdna, seems to exist in
that direction. A place of that name was seen by
Robinson N.E. of Mejdel (B. Εἰ. iii. 295), and it is
mentioned by Barth (Ritter, Jordan, 471), but
without any indication of its position. Much stress
cannot however be laid on Eusebius’s identification.
In a list of places contained in the Talmud (Je-
rusalem Megillah i.), Taanath Shiloh is said to be
identical with SH1Lon. This has been recently re-
vived by Kurtz ( Gesch. des Alt. Bundes, ii. 70). His
view is that Taanath was the ancient Canaanite
name of the place, and Shiloh the Hebrew name,
conferred on it in token of the ‘ rest.’ which allowed
the tabernacle to be established there after the con-
quest of the country had been completed. This is
ingenious, but at present it is a mere conjecture,
and it is at variance with the identification of Eu-
sebius, with the position of Janohah, and, as far as
it can be inferred, of Michmethah, which is men-
tioned with Taanath Shiloh in Josh. xvi. 6, [G.]
TAB'AOTH (Ταβαώθ; Alex. Ταβώθ : Tobloch).
TABBAOTH (1 Esd. v. 29).
TAB'BAOTH (Miyad: Ταβαώθ; Alex. Ταβ-
βαώθ: Tabbaoth, Tebbaoth). The children of Tab-
baoth were a family of Nethinim who returned
with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 43; Neh. vii. 46). The
name occurs in the form TABAOTH in 1 Esd. ν. 29.
TAB BATH (nay : Ταβάθ: Alex. TaBaé:
Tebbath). A place mentioned only in Judg. vii. 22,
in describing the flight of the Midianite host after
Gideon’s night attack. The host fled to Beth-shittah,
to Zererah,.to the brink of Abel-meholah on (Sy),
Tabbath. Beth-shittah may be Shittah, which lies
on the open plain between Jebel Fukia and Jebel
Duhy, 4 miles east of Ain Jalid, the probable scene
of Gideon’s onslaught. Abel-meholah was no doubt
in the Jordan Valley, though it may not have been
so much as 8 miles south of Beth-shean, where
Eusebius and Jerome would place it. But no
attempt seems to have been made to identify Tab-
bath, nor does any name resembling it appear in the
books or maps, unless it be Tubukhat-Fahil, 7.e.
“Terrace of Fahil.” This is a very striking na-
tural bank, 600 feet in height (Rob. iii. 325), with
a long, horizontal, and apparently flat top, which is
embanked against the western face of the mountains
east of the Jordan, and descends with a very steep
front to the river. It is such a remarkable object
in the whole view of this part of the Jordan Valley
that it is difficult to imagine that it did not bear a
distinctive name in ancient as well as modern times.
ἃ Ptolemy names Thena and Neapolis as the two chief
towns of the district of Samaria (cap. 16, quoted in Reland,
| Pal. 461).
TABERNACLE
At any rate, there is no doubt that, whether this
Tubukah represents Tabbath or not, the latter was
somewhere about this part of the Ghor. [G.]
TAB'EAL ὦν 39: Ταβεήλ: Tuabeel). Pro-
perly “ Tabeel,” the ‘pathach being due to the pause
( Gesen, Lehrg. §52, 1b; Heb. Gr. §29,4c). The
son of Tabeal was apparently an Ephraimite in the
army of Pekah the son of Remaliah, or a Syrian in
the army of Rezin, when they went up to besiege
Jerusalem in the reign of Ahaz (Is. vii. 6). The
Avamaic form of the name fayours the latter sup-
position [comp. ‘TABRIMMON ].
Jonathan renders the name as an appellative, “ and
we will make king in the midst. of her him who
seems good to us” “and WII j n°). Rashi by
Gematria turns the name 5 th Rimla, by
which apparently he would understand Remaliah.
TAB'EEL (N30: Ταβεήλ : Thabeel). An
officer of the Persian government in Samaria in the
reign of Artaxerxes (Ezr. iv. 7). His name appears
to indicate that he was a Syrian, for it is really the
same as that of the Syrian vassal of Rezin who is
called in our A. V. “ Tabeal.” Add to this that
the letter which he and his companions wrote to
the king was in the Syrian or Aramaean language.
Gesenius, however (Jes. i. 280), thinks that he
may have been a Samaritan. He is called TABEL-
1105 in 1 Esd. ii. 16. The name of Tobiel the
father of Tobit is probably the same. [W. A. W.]
TABEL'LIUS (Ταβέλλιος : Sabellius). (1
Esdr. ii. 16.) [TABEEL. |
TAB'ERAH (AIA: eumupicuds). The
name of a place in the wilderness of Paran, given
from the fact of a “ burning’”’ among the people by
the “fire of the Lord” which there took place (Num.
xi. 3, Deut. ix. 22). It has not been identified and
is not mentioned among the list of encampments in
Num. xxxiii. [H. H.]
TABERING (MIDDND: φθεγγόμεναι : mur-
murantes). The- obsolete word thus used in the
A. V. of Nah. ii. 7 requires some explanation. The
Hebrew word connects itself with an, “a timbrel,”
and the image which it brings before us in this
passage is that of the women of Nineveh, led away
into captivity, mourning with the plaintive tones
of doves, and beating on their breasts in anguish,
as women beat upon their timbrels (comp. Ps,
Ixviii. 25 [26], where the same verb is used). The
LXX. and Vulg., as above, make no attempt at
giving the exact meaning, The Targum of Jona-
than gives a word which, like the Hebrew, has the
meaning of “ tympanizantes.” The A. V. in like
manner reproduces the original idea of the words.
The “ tabour” or “ tabor’”’? was a musical instru-
ment of the drum-type, which with the pipe
formed the band of a country village. We retain
a trace at once of the word and of the thing in the
* tabourine ” or “ tambourine” of modern music,
in the “tabret” of the A. V. and older English
writers. To “ tabour,” accordingly, i is to beat with
loud strokes as men beat upon such an instrument.
The verb is found in this sense in Beaumont and
Fletcher, The Tamer Tamed (1 would tabor
her”), and answers with a singular aout to the
exact meaning of the Hebrew. BD yas bs ea
TABERNACLE (1300, S88: σκηνή τ ἰα-
bernaculum). The description of the Tabernacle
and its materials will be found under TEMPLE.
The Targum of
TABERNACLE 1415
The writer of that article holds that he cannot deal
satisfactorily with the structural order and propor-
tions of the one without discussing also those οἵ the
other. Here, therefore, it remains for us to treat—
(1) of the word and its synonyms; (2) of the
history of the Tabernacle itself; (3) of its relation
to the religious life of Israel ; : (4) of the theories of
later times respecting it.
I. The Word and its Synonyms. —(1.) The
first word thus used (Ex, XXV. 9) is }2U1D (Mish-
can), formed from jv = to settle down or dwell,
and thus itself = dwelling. It connects itself with
the Jewish, though not Scriptural, word Shechinah,
as describing the dwelling-place of the Divine Glory.
It is noticeable, however, that it is not applied in
prose to the common dwellings of men, the tents of
the Patriarchs in Genesis, or those of Israel in the
wilderness, It seems to belong rather te the speech
of poetry (Ps. Ixxxvii. 2; Cant. i. 8). The loftier
character of the word may obviously have helped to
determine its religious use, and justifies translators .
who have the choice of synonyms like ‘‘ tabernacle’’
and “tent” in a like preference.
(2.) Another word, however, is also used, more
connected with the common life of men; ΠΝ
(dhel), the “ tent” of the Patriarchal age, of Abra-
ham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob (Gen. ix. 21,’&c.).
For the most part, as needing something to raise it,
it is used, when applied to the Sacred Tent, with
some distinguishing epithet. In one passage only
(1 K. i. 39) does it appear with this meaning by
itself. The LXX. not distinguishing between the
two words. gives σκηνὴ for both. The original
Onis repre-
sented the outermost covering, the black goat’s hair
curtains ; jDwID, the inner covering, the curtains
which rested on the boards (Gesenius, 8. v.). The
two words ἔπε accordingly sometimes joined, as in
Ex. xxxix. 32, xl. 2, 6, 29 (A. V. ““ the tabernacle
of the tent »y Even here, however, the LXX.
gives σκηνὴ only, with the exception of the var.
lect. of ἣ σκηνὴ τῆς σκεπῆς in Ex. xl. 29.
(3.) MA (Baith), οἶκος, domus, is applied to the
Tabernacle in Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26; Josh. vi.
24, ix. 23; Judg. xviii. 31, xx. 18, as it had been,
apparently, to the tents of the Patriarchs (Gen.
xxxili. 17). So far as it differs from the two pre-
ceding words, it expresses more definitely the idea
of a fixed settled habitation. It was therefore fitter
for the sanctuary of Israel after the people were
settled in Canaan, than during their wanderings.
For us the chief interest of the word lies in its hay-
ing descended from a yet older order, the first
word ever applied in the O. T. to a local sanctuary,
‘““BETH-EL,” “ the house of God” (Gen. xxviii. 17, °
22), keeping its place, side by side, with other
words, tent, tabernacle, palace, temple, synagogue,
and at last outliving ‘all of them, rising, in sine
Christian Ecclesia, to yet higher uses (1 Tim. iii.
15
te wap ears: wap (Mikdéash), ἁγίασμα,
ἁγιαστήριον, τὸ ἅγιον, τὰ ἅγια, sanctuarium, the
holy, consecrated place, and therefore applied. ac-
cording to the graduated scale of holiness of which
the Tabernacle bore witness, sometimes to the whole
structure (Ex. xxv. 8; Lev. xii. 4), sometimes to
the court into which none but the priests might
enter (Lev. iv.6; Num. iii. 38, iv. 12), sometimes to
the innermost sanctuary of all, the Holy of Holies
difference appears to have been that
1414 TABERNACLE
(Ley. iv. 6?). Here also the word had an earlier
starting-point and a far-reaching history, EN-
ΜΠΙΒΗΡΑΊ, the city of judgment, the seat of some old
oracle, had been also Kapusu, the sanctuary (Gen.
xiv. 7: Ewald, Gesch. Isr. ii. 307). The name
El Khuds clings still to the walls of Jerusalem.
(5.) 23°77 (Hécal), ναός, templum, as mean-
ing the stately building, or palace of Jehovah
(1 Chr. xxix. 1, 19), is applied more commonly to
the Temple (2 K. xxiv. 13, &.), but was used
also (probably at the period when the thought of
the Temple had affected the religious nomenclature
of the time) of the Tabernacle at Shiloh (1 Sam.
i. 9, iii. 3) and Jerusalem (Ps. v. 7). In either
ease the thought which the word embodies is, that
the “tent,” the ‘‘ house,” is royal, the dwelling-
place of the great king.
(6.) The two words (1) and (2) receive a new
meaning in combination (a.) with itd (mé°éd),
ind (6.) with NATYA (ha@edith). To understand
she full meaning of the distinctive titles thus
formed is to possess the key to the significance of
she whole Tabernacle. (a.) The primary force of
TY is “ to meet by appointment,” and the phrase
sayin Ons has therefore the meaning of ‘a place
of or.for a fixed meeting.” Acting on the belief
that the meeting in this case was that of the wor-
shippers, the A. V. has uniformly rendered it by
ἐς tabernacle of the congregation ”’ (so Seb. Schmidt,
“tentorium conventtis ;” and Luther, “ Stiftshiitte ”
in which Stift = Pfarrkirche), while the LXX. and
Vulg., confounding it with the other epithet, have
rendered both by ἣ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, and
“«tabernaculum testimonii.” None of these render-
ings, however, bring out the real meaning of the
word. This is to be found in what may be called
the locus classicus, as the interpretation of all
words connected with the Tabernacle.
be a continual burnt-offering .
meet you (TYAN. γνωσθήσομαι) tospeak there unto
thee. And there will I meet (“FTY3, τάξομαι) with
the children of Israel. And I will sanctify ΟΠ ΞΡ) |
the tabernacle of meeting and I will divell
ORIDY) among the children of Israel, and will be |
their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord
their God” (Ex. xxix. 42-46). The same central
thought occurs in Ex. xxv, 22, “‘ There I will meet |
with thee” (comp. also Ex. xxx. 6, 36; Num. xvii.
4). It is clear, theretore, that ‘‘ congregation” is
inadequate. Not the gathering of the worshippers
only, but the meeting of God with His people, to
commune with them, to make himself known to
them, was what the name embodied. Ewald has
accordingly suggested Offenbarungszelt = Tent of |
Revelation, as the best equivalent (Alterthimer,
p- 130). This made the place a sanctuary. Thus
it was that the tent was the dwelling, the house ot
God (Bahr, Symbolik, i. 81).
(7.) The other compound phrase, (b.) MAYA bax,
as connected with WAY (= to bear witness), is |
rightly rendered by ἥ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου,
TABERNACLE
tabernaculum testimonii, die Wohnung des Zeug-
nisses, ‘‘the tent of the testimony ’’ (Num. ix. 15)
“the tabernacle of witness’? (Num. xvii. 7, xviii.
2). In this case the tent derives its name from
that which is the centre of its holiness. The two
tables of stone within the ark are emphatically the
testimony (Ex. xxv. 16, 21, xxxi. 18). They were
to all Israel the abiding witness of the nature and
will of God. The tent, by virtue of its relation to
them,’ became the witness of its own significance as
the meeting-place of God and man. The probable
connexion of the two distinct names, in sense as
well as in sound (Bahr, Symb. i. 83; Ewald, Alt.
p- 230), gave, of course, a force to each which no
translation can represent.
II. History.—(1.) The outward history of the
Tabernacle begins with Ex. xxv. It comes after the
first great group of Laws (xix.-xxiii.), after the cove-
nant with the people, after the vision of the Divine
Glory (xxiv.). For forty days and nights Moses
is in the mount. Before him there lay a problem,
as measured by human judgment, of gigantic diffi-
culty. In what fit symbols was he to embody the
great truths, without which the nation would sink
into brutality? In what way could those symbols
be guarded against the evil which he had seen in
Egypt, of idolatry the most degrading ? He was
not left to solve the problem for himself. There
rose before him, not without points of contact with
previous associations, yet in no degree formed out
of them, the ‘ pattern ” of the Tabernacle. The
lower analogies of the painter and the architect
seeing, with their inward eye, their completed
| work, “before the work itself begins, may help us to
understand how it was that the vision on the
mount included all details of form, measurement,
| materials, the order of the ritual, the apparel of the
priests. He is directed in his choice of the two
| chief artists, Bezaleel of the tribe of Judah,» Aholiab
*¢ This shall |
_- + at the door ot |
the tabernacle of meeting (TPWD) where I will |
of the tribe of Dan (xxxi.). The sin of the
golden calf apparently postpones the execution.
For a moment it seems as if the people were to be
left without the Divine Presence itself, without any
recognised symbol of it (Ex. xxiii. 3). As ina
transition period, the whole future depending on
the penitence of the people, on the intercession of
their leader, a tent is pitched, probably that of
Moses himself, outside the camp, to be provisionally
the Tabernacle of Meeting. There the mind of the
Lawgiver enters into ever-closer fellowship with
the mind of God (Ex. xxxiii. 11), learns to think of
Him as “merciful and gracious” (Ex. xxxiv. 6),
in the strength of that thought is led back to the
fulfilment of the plan which had seemed likely to
end, as it began, in vision, Of this provisional.
Tabernacle it has to be noticed, that there was as
yet no ritual and no priesthood. The people went
out to it as to an oracle (Ex. xxxiii. 7). Joshua,
though of the tribe of Ephraim, had free access to
it (Ex, xxxili. 11).
(2.) Another outline Law was however given ;
another period of solitude, like the first, followed.
The work could now be resumed. The people
offered the necessary materials in excess of what
was wanted (Ex. xxxvi. 5, 6). Other workmen
(Ex, xxxvi. 2) and work-women (Ex. xxxv. 25)
® An interesting parallel is found in the preparations |
There also the extremest minutiz were |
for the Temple.
among the things which the Lord made David “ to under-
stand in writing by His hand upon him,” i. e. by an in-
process of deliberation and decision (1 Chr. xxviii. 19).
b ‘Lhe prominence of artistic power in the genealogies
of the tribe of Judah is worth noticing (1 Chr. iv. 4, 14,
21, 23). Dan, also, in the person of Hiram, is afterwards
ward illumination which seemed to exclude the slow | conspicuous (2 Chr, ii, 143 comp. 1 Kx. vii. 13, 14).
TABERNACLE
placed themselves under the direction of Bezaleei
and Aholiab. The parts were completed separately,
and then, on the first day of the second year from
the Exodus, the Tabernacle itself was erected and the
ritual appointed for it begun (Ex. xl. 2).
(3.) The position of the new Tent was itself
significant. It stood, not, like the provisional
Tabernacle, at a distance from the camp, but in its
very centre. The multitude of Israel, hitherto
scattered with no fixed order, were now, within a
month of its erection (Num. ii. 2), grouped round
it, as around the dwelling of the unseen Captain of
the Host, in a fixed order, according to their tribal
yank. The Priests on the east, the other three
families of the Levites on the other sides, were
closest in attendance, the “ body-guard”’ of the Great
King. [Levires.] In the wider square, Judah,
Zebulun, Issachar, were on the east; Ephraim,
Manasseh, Benjamin, on the west ; the less conspicu-
ous tribes,-Dan, Asher, Naphtali, on the north;
Reuben, Simeon, Gad, on the south side. When
the army put itself in order of march, the position
of the Tabernacle, carried by the Levites, was still
central, the tribes of the east and south in front,
those of the north and west in the rear (Num. ii.).
Upon it there rested the symbolic cloud, dark by
day, and fiery red by night (Ex. xl. 38). When
the cloud removed, the host knew that it was the
signal for them to go forward (Ex. xl. 36, 37;
Num. ix. 17). As long as it remained, whether
for a day, or month, or year, they continued where
they were (Num. ix. 15-23). Each march, it
must be remembered, involved the breaking-up of
the whole structure, all the parts being carried on
waggons by the three Levite families of Kohath,
Gershon, and Merari, while the ‘sons of Aaron”
prepared for the removal by covering everything
in the Holy of Holies with a purple cloth (Num.
iv. 6-15).
(4.) In all special facts connected with the
Tabernacle, the original thought reappears. It is
the place where man meets with God. There the
Spirit “‘comes upon” the seventy Elders, and they
prophesy (Num. xi. 24, 25). Thither Aaron and
Miriam are called out, when they rebel against the
servant of the Lord (Num. xii. 4). There the
* glory of the Lord” appears after the unfaithful-
ness of the twelve spies (Num. xiv. 10), and the
rebellion of Korah and his company (Num. xvi. 19,
42), and the sin of Meribah (Num. xx. 6). Thither,
when there is no sin to punish, but a difficulty to
be met, do the daughters of Zelophehad come to
bring their cause “before the Lord” (Num. xxvii.
2). There, when the death of Moses draws near,
is the solemn * charge” given to his successor (Deut.
xxxi. 14).
(5.) As Jong as Canaan remained unconquered,
and the people were still therefore an army, the
Tabernacle was probably moved from place to
place, wherever the host of Israel was, for the time,
encamped, at Gilgal (Josh, iv. 19), in the valley
between Ebal and Gerizim (Josh. viii. 30-35);
again, at the head-quarters of Gilgal (Josh. ix. 6, x.
15, 43) ; and, finally, as at ‘the place which the
Lord had chosen,” at Shiloh (Josh. ix. 27, xviii. 1).
The reasons of the choice are not given. Partly,
perhaps, its central position, partly its belonging to
¢ The occurrence of the same distinctive word in Ex.
XXXviii. 8, implies a recognised dedication of some kind,
by which women bound themselves to the service of the
Tabernacle, probably as singers and dancers. What we |
find under Eli was the corruption of the original practice |
TABERNACLE 141
the powerful tribe of Ephraim, the tribe of the
great captain of the host, nay have determined the
preference, There it continued during the whole
period of the Judges, the gathering-point for “the
heads of the fathers ” of the tribes (Josh. xix. 51),
for councils of peace or war (Josh, xxii. 12; Judg.
xxi, 12), for annual solemn dances, in which the
women of Shiloh were conspicuous (Judg. xxi. 21).
There, too, as the religion of Israel sank towards
the level of an orgiastic Heathenism, troops of
women assembled,¢ shameless as those of Midian,
worshippers of Jehovah, and, like the ἱερόδουλοι
of heathen temples, concubines of His priests (1 Sam.
ii. 22). It was far, however, from being what it
was intended to be, the one national sanctuary, the
witness against a localized and divided worship.
The old religion of the high places kept its ground.
Altars were erected, at first under protest, and
with reserves, as being not for sacrifice (Josh. xxii.
26), afterwards freely and without scruple (Judg.
vi. 24, xiii. 19). Of the names by which the
one special sanctuary was known at this period,
those of the ““ House,’’ or the “" Temple,” of Jehovah
(1 Sam. i. 9, 24, iii. 3, 15) are most prominent.
(6.) A state of things which was rapidly assimi-
lating the worship of Jehovah to that of Ashtaroth,
or Mylitta, needed to be broken up. The Ark of
God was taken and the sanctuary lost its glory ;
and the Tabernacle, though it did not perish, never
again recovered it¢ (1 Sam. iv. 22), Samuel, at
once the Luther and the Alfred of Israel, who had
grown up within its precincts, treats it as an
abandoned shrine (so Ps. Ixxviii. 60), and sacrifices
elsewhere, at Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 9), at Ramah
(ix. 12, x. 3), at Gilgal (x. 8, xi. 15). It pro-
bably became once again a moveable sanctuary, less
honoured as no longer possessing the symbol of the
Divine Presence, yet cherished by the priesthood,
and some portions, at least, of its ritual, kept up.
For a time it seems, under Saul, to have been
settled at NoB (1 Sam. xxi. 1-6), which thus
became what it had not been before—a priestly
city. The massacre of the priests and the flight of
Abiathar must, however, have robbed it yet further
of its glory. It had before lost the Ark. It now
lost the presence of the High-Priest, and with it
the oracular ephod, the Unim and the THUMMIM
(1 Sam. xxii. 20, xxiii. 6), What change of for-
tune then followed we do not know. The fact
that all Israel was encamped, in the last days of
Saul at Gilboa, and that there Saul, though without
success, inquired of the Lord by Urim (1 Sam.
xxviii. 4-6), makes it probable that the Tabernacle,
as of old, was in the encampment, and that Abia-
thar had returned to it. In some way or other, it
found its way to Gibeon (1 Chr. xvi. 39). The
anomalous separation of the two things which, in
the original order, had been joined, brought about
yet greater anomalies ; and, while the ark remained
at Kirjath-jearim, the Tabernacle at Gibeon con-
nected itself with the worship of the high-places
(1 K. iii. 4). The capture of Jerusalem and the erec-
tion there of a new Tabernacle, with the ark, of which
the old had been deprived (2 Sam. vi. 17; 1 Chr,
xv. 1). left it little more than a traditional, histori-
cal sanctity. It retained only the old altar of
burnt-offerings (1 Chr. xxi. 29). Such as it was,
(comp. Ewald, Aléerth. 297). In the dances of J udg. xxi,
21, we have a stage of transition.
d Ewald (Geschichte, ii. 540) infers that Shiloh itself
was conquered and laid waste.
1416 TABERNACLE
however, neither king nor people could bring
themselves to sweep it away. The double ser-
vice went on; Zadok, as high-priest, officiated at
Gibeon (1 Chr, xvi. 39); the more recent, more
prophetic service of psalms and hymns and music,
under Asaph, gathered round the Tabernacle at
Jerusalem (1 Chr. xvi. 4, 37). The divided wor-
ship continued all the days of David. The sanctity
of both places was recognised by SOLOMON on his
accession (1 Κα, iii. 15; 2 Chron. i, 3). But it
was time that the anomaly should cease. As long
as it was simply Tent against Tent, it was difficult
to decide between them. The purpose of David
fullilled by Solomon, was that the claims of both
should merge in the higher glory of the Temple.
Some, Abiathar probably among them, clung to the
old order, in this as in other things [SOLOMON ;
Urtm AND THUMMIM], but the final day at last
came, and the Tabernacle of Meeting was either
taken down, or left to perish and be forgotten.
So a page in the religious history of Israel was
closed. So the disaster of Shiloh led to its natural
consummation.
Ill. Relation to the religious life of Israel.—
(1.) Whatever connexion may be traced between
other parts of the ritual of Israel and that of the
nations with which Israel had been brought into
contact, the thought of the Tabernacle meets us as
entirely new. The ‘house of God” [BreTHEL]
of the Patriarchs had been the large ‘‘ pillar of
stone” (Gen. xxviii. 18,19), bearing record of some
high spiritual experience, and tending to lead men
upward to it (Bahr, Symbol. i. 93), or the grove
which, with its dim, doubtful light, attuned the
souls of men to a divine awe (Gen, xxi. 33). The
temples of Egypt were stately and colossal, hewn in
the solid rock, or built of huge blocks of granite, as
unlike as possible to the sacred Tent of Israel. The
command was one in which we can trace a special
fitness. The stately temples belonged to the house
of bondage which they were leaving. The sacred
places of their fathers were in the land towards
which they were journeying. In the mean while,
they were to be wanderers in the wilderness. To
have set up a Bethel after the old pattern would
have been to make that a resting-place, the object
then or afterwards of devout pilgrimage; and the
multiplication of such places at the different stages
of their march would have led inevitably to poly-
theism. It would have failed utterly to lead them
to the thought which they needed most—of a Divine
Presence never absent from them, protecting, ruling,
judging. A sacred tent, a moving Bethel, was the
fit sanctuary for a people still nomadic.é It was
capable of being united afterwards, as it actually
came to be, with ‘the grove”’ of the older cultus
(Josh. xxiv. 26).
(2.) The structure of the Tabernacle was obvi-
ously determined by a complex and profound sym-
bolism; but its meaning remains one of the things
at which we can but dimly guess. No interpreta-
tion is given in the Law itself. The explanations
of Jewish writers long afterwards are manifestly
TABERNACLE
wide of the mark. That which meets us in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, the application of the types
of the Tabernacle to the mysteries of Redemption,
was latent till those mysteries were made known.
And, yet, we cannot but believe that, as each por-
tion of the wonderful order rose before the inward
eye of the lawgiver, it must have embodied dis-
tinctly manifold truths which he apprehended him-
self, and sought to communicate to others. It
entered, indeed, into the order of a Divine educa-
tion for Moses and for Israel; and an education by
means of symbols, no less than by means of words,
presupposes an existing language. So far from
shrinking, therefore, as men have timidly and un-
wisely shrunk (Witsius, Aegyptiaca, in Ugolini,
Thes. i.) from asking what thoughts the Egyptian
education of Moses would lead him to connect with
the symbols he was now taught to use, we may
see in it a legitimate method of inquiry—almost
the only method possible. Where that fails, the
gap may be filled up (as in Bahr, Symbol. passim)
from the analogies of other nations, indicating,
where they agree, a wide-spread primeval symbol-
ism. So far from labouring to prove, at the price
of ignoring or distorting facts, that everything was
till then unknown, we shall as little expect to find
it so, as to see in Hebrew a new and heaven-
born language, spoken for the first time on Sinai,
written for the first time on the Two Tables of the
Covenant.
(3.) The thought of a graduated sanctity, like
that of the outer court, the Holy Place, the Holy of
Holies, had its counterpart, often the same number
of stages, in the structure of Egyptian temples
(Bahr, i. 216). The interior Adytum (to proceed
from the innermost recess outward) was small in
proportion to the rest of the building, and com-
moniy, as in the Tabernacle ( Joseph. Ant. ii. 6, §3),
was at the western end (Spencer, iii. 2), and was
unlighted from without,
In the Adytum, often at least, was the sacred ARK,
the culminating point of holiness, containing the
highest and most mysterious symbols, winged
figures, generally like those of the cherubim (Wilk-
inson, Anc. Egypt. v. 275 ; Kenrick, Egypt, i. 460),
the emblems of stability and life. Here were out-
ward points of resemblance. Of ali elements of
Egyptian worship this was one which could be trans-
ferred with least hazard, with most gain. No one
could think that the Ark itself was the likeness of
the God he worshipped. When we ask what gave
the Ark its holiness, we are led on at once to the
infinite difference, the great gulf between the two
systems. That of Egypt was predominantly cos-
mical, starting from the productive powers of nature.
The symbols of those powers, though not originally
involying what we know as impurity, tended to it
fatally and rapidly (Spencer, iii. 1 ; Warburton, Di-
vine Legation, 11. 4 note), That of Israel was pre-
dominantly ethical. The nation was taught to think
of God, not chiefly as revealed in nature, but as ma-
nifesting Himself in and to the spirits of men. In the
Ark of the Covenant, as the highest revelation then
e The language of 2 Chr. v. 5, leaves it doubtful
whether the Tabernacle there referred to was that at
Jerusalem or Gibeon. (But see Joseph. Ant. viii. 4, §1.)
f Spencer (De leg. Hebraeor. iii. 3) labours hard, but
not successfully, to prove that the tabernacles of Moloch
of Amos v, 26, were the prototypes of the Tent of Meet-
ing. It has tobe remembered, however, (1) that the word
used *n Amos (siccéth) is never used of the Tabernacle,
and means something very different; and (2) that the
Moloch-worship represented a defection of the people sub-
sequent to the erection of the Tabernacle. On these grounds
then, and not from any abstract repugnance to the idea of
such a transfer, I abide by the statement in the text.
g Analogies of like wants met in a like way, with no
ascertainable historical connexion, are to be found among
the Gaetulians and other tribes of northern Africa (Sil.
Ital. iii. 289), and in the Sacred Tent of the Carthaginian
encampments (Diod, Sic. xx. 65).
.
TABERNACLE
possible of the Divine Nature, were the two tables of
TABERNACLE 1417
mercy-seat, cherubim, the very walls, were all over-
stone, on which were graven, by the teaching ef the | laid with gold, the noblest of all metals, the symbol
Divine Spirit, and therefore by “ the finger of | of light and purity, sun-light itself as it were, fixed
God,” » the great unchanging laws of human duty
which had been proc laimed on Sinai. Here the
lesson taught was plain enough. The highest know-
ledge was as the simplest, the esoteric as the exo-
teric. In the depths of the Holy of Holies, and for
the high-priest as for all Israel, there was the reve-
lation of a righteous Will requiring righteousness in
man (Saalschiitz, Archdol. ο, 77). And over the
Ark was the Céphereth (MreRcY-SEAT), so called
with a twofold reterence to the root-meaning of the
word. [t covered the Ark.
a mercy covering sins. As the ‘ footstool”
God, the “ throne” of the Divine Glory, it declared
that over the Law which seemed so rigid and un-
bending there rested the compassion of ONE forgiv-
ing “iniquity and transgression.”i And over the
Mercy-seat were the CHERUBIM, reproducing in
put at least, the symbolism of the great Hamitic
races, forms familiar to Moses and to Israel, needing
no description for them, interpreted for us by the
fuller vision of the later prophets (Ezek. i. 5-13, x.
8-15, sli. 19), or by the winged forms of the im: agery
of Egypt.
powers of nature, created life in its highest form
(Bahr, i. 341) their “ over-shadowing wings,”
‘meeting’ as in token of perfect harmony, de-
clared that nature as well as man found its highest
glory in subjection to a Divine Law, that men might
take refuge in that Order, as under “ the shadow
of the wings” of God (Stanley, Jewish Church,
p- 98). Placed where those and other like figures
were, in the temples of Egypt, they might be hin-
drances and not helps, might sensualize instead of
purifying the worship of the people. But it was
part of the wisdom which we may reverently trace
in the order of the Tabernacle, that while Egyptian
symbols are retained, as in the Ark, the Cherubim,
the UrntM and the ΤΉΘΜΜΙΜ, their place is changed.
They remind the hich-priest, the representative of
the whole nation, of the truths on which the order
rests. The people cannot bow down and worship
that which they never see.
The material not less than the forms, in the Holy
of Holies was significant. The acacia or shittim-
wood, least liable, of woods then accessible, to decay,
might well represent the imperishableness of Divine
Truth, of the Laws of Duty (Bahr, i. 286). Ark,
It was the witness of |
of |
Representing as they did the manifold |
and embodied, the token of the incorruptible, of the
glory of a great king (Bihr, i. 282), It was not
‘without meaning that all this lavish expenditure of
what was most costly was placed where none might
gaze on it. The gold thus offered taught man, that
the noblest acts of beneficence and sacrifice ave not
those which are done that they may be seen of men,
but those which are known only to Him who “ seeth
in secret” (Matt. vi. 4). Dimensions also had their
meaning. Difficult as it may be to feel sure that
we have the key to the enigma, there can be but little
doubt that the older religious systems of the world
did attach a mysterious significance to each separate
number ; that the training of Moses, as afterwards
the far less complete initiation of Pythagoras in the
symbolism of Egypt, must have made that trans-
parently clear to him, which to us is almost impe-
netrably dark.* To those who think over the words
of two great teachers, one heathen (Plutarch, De
15. et Os. p. 411), and one Christian (Clem. Al.
Strom. vi. p. 84-87), who had at least studied as
far as they could the mysteries of the religion of
Egypt, and had inherited part of the old system,
the precision of the numbers in the plan of the
Tabernacle will no longer seem unaccountable. If
in a cosmical system, a right-angled triangle with
the sides three, four, five, represented the triad of
Osiris, Isis, Orus, creative force, receptive matter,
the universe of creation (Plutarch, /. c.), the perfect
cube of the Holy of Holies, the constant recurrence
of the numbers 4 and 10, may well be accepted as
symbolizing order, stability, perfection (Bahr, i.
225).™
(4.) Into the inner sanctuary neither people nor
the priests as a body ever entered. Strange as it
may seem, that in which everything represented
light and life was left in utter darkness, in profound
solitude. Once only in the year, on the Day oF
ATONEMENT, might the high-priest enter. The
strange contrast has, however, its parallel in the
spiritual life. Death and life, light and darkness, are
wonderfully united. Only through death can we
truly live. Only by passing into the “ thick dark-
ness ” where God is (Ex. xx. 21; 1 K. viii. 12),. can
we enter at all into the “ light inaccessible,” in
which He dwells everlastingly. The solemn annual
entrance, like the withdrawal of symbolic forms from
h The equivalence of the two phrases, “by the Spirit
of God,” and “by the finger of God,” is seen by com-
paring Matt. xii. 28, and Luke xi. 20. Comp. also the
language of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. §133) and
the use of “the hand of the Lord” in 1 K. xviii. 46;
2K. iii. 15; Ezek. i. 3, iii. 145 1 Chr. xxviii. 19.
i Ewald, giving to 152, the root of Céphereth, the
meaning of “to scrape,” “ erase,” derives from that
meaning the idea implied in the LXX. ἱλαστήριον, and
denies that the word ever signified ἐπίθεμα (Alterth.
p- 128, 129).
k A full discussion of the subject is obviously impos-
sible here, but it may be useful to exhibit briefly the
chief thoughts which have been connected With the
numbers that are most prominent in the language of
symbolism. Arbitrary as some of them may seem, a
_ sufficient induction to establish each will be found in
Bihr’s elaborate dissertation, i. 128-255, and other works.
Comp. Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. iv. 190-199; Leyrer in
Herzog’s Encyclop. “ Stittshiitte.”
One—The Godhead, Eternity, Life, Creative Force,
the Sun, Man.
Two—Matter, Time, Death, Receptive Capacity, the
Moon, Woman.
THREE (as a number, or in the triangle)—The Universe
in connexion with God, the Absolute in itself,
the Unconditioned, God.
Four (the number, or in the square or cube)—Con-
ditioned Existence, the World as created, Divine
Order, Revelation.
SEVEN (as =3-+4)—The Union of the World and
God, Rest (as in the Sabbath), Peace, Blessing,
Purification.
TEN (as =1+2-+4 3-4 4)—Completeness, moral and
physical, Perfection.
Frve—Perfection half attained, Incompleteness.
TwELveE—The Signs of the Zodiac, the Cycle of the
Seasons; in Israel the ideal number of the
people, of the Covenant of God with them.
m The symbol reappears in the most startling form in
the closing visions of the Apocalypse. There the hea-
venly Jerusalem is described, in words which absolutely
exclude the literalism which has sometimes been blindly
apptied to it, as a city four-square, 12,000 furlongs in
length and breadth and height (Rev. xxi. 16).
1418 TABERNACLE
the gaze of the people, was itself part of a wise
and Divine order. Intercourse with Egypt had
shown how easily the symbols of Truth might be-
come common and familiar things, yet without
symbols, the truths themselves might be forgotten.
Both dangers were met. To enter once, and once
only in the year, into the awful darkness, to stand
before the Law of Duty, before the presence of the
God who gave it, not in the stately robes that be-
came the representative of God to man, but as re-
presenting man in his humiliation, in the garb of
the lower priests, bare-footed and in the linen
ephod, to confess his own sins and the sins of the
people, this was what connected the Atonement-day
(Cippir) with the Mercy-seat (Céphereth). And
to come there with blood, the symbol of life, touch-
ing with that blood the mercy-seat, with incense,
the symbol of adoration (Ley. xvi. 12-14), what
did that express but the truth, (1.) that man must
draw near to the righteous God with no lower
offering than the pure worship of the heart, with
the living sacrifice of body, soul, and spirit; (2.)
that could such a perfect sacrifice be found, it
would have a mysterious power working beyond
itself, in proportion to*its perfection, to cover the
multitude of sins?
(5.) From all others, from the high-priest at all
other times, the Holy of Holies was shrouded by
the double VEIL, bright with many colours and
strange forms, even as curtains of golden tissue were
to be seen hanging before the Adytum of an Egyp-
tian temple, a strange contrast often to the bestial
form behind them (Clem. Al. Paced. iii. 4), In one
memorable instance, indeed, the veil was the wit-
ness of higher and deeper thoughts. On the shrine
of Isis at Sais, there were to be read words which,
though pointing toa pantheistic rather than an ethical
religion, were yet wonderful in their loftiness,
“Tam all that has been (πᾶν τὸ γεγονός), and is,
and shall be, and my veil no mortal hath withdrawn ”
(ἀπεκάλυψεν) (de Is. εὐ Osir. p. 394). Like, and
yet more, unlike the truth, we feel that no such
words could have appeared on the veil of the Taber-
nacle. In that identification of the world and God,
all idolatry was latent, as in the faith of Israel in
the I AM, all idolatry was excluded™ In that
despair of any withdrawal of the veil, of any revela-
tion of the Divine Will, there were latent all the arts
of an unbelieving priesteraft, substituting symbols,
pomp, ritual for such a revelation. But what then
was the meaning of the veil which met the gaze of
the priests as they did service in the sanctuary ?
Colours in the art of Egypt were not less significant
than number, and the four bright colours, probably,
after the fashion of that art, in parallel bands, blue
symbol of heaven, and purple of kingly glory, and
crimson of life and joy, and white of light and
purity (Bahr, i. 305-330), formed in their combi-
nation no remote similitude of the rainbow, which
of old had been a symbol of the Divine covenant
with man, the pledge of peace and hope, the sign of
the Divine Presence (liz. i. 28 ; Ewald, Alterth. p-
333). Within the veil, light and truth were seen in
their unity. The veil itself represented the infinite
variety, the πολυποίκιλος σοφία of the Divine
order in Creation (Eph, iii. 10). And there again
were seen copied upon the veil, the mysterious
forms of the cherubim ; how many, or in what atti-
n The name Jehovah, it has been well said, was ‘the
rending asunder of the veil of Sais.” (Stanley, Jewish
Church, p. 110.)
the presence of Jehovah.
TABERNACLE
tude, or of what size, or in what material, we are
not told. The words ‘‘cunning work” in Ex.
XxxXxvi, 39, applied elsewhere to combinations of em-
broidery and metal (Ex, xxviii. 15, xxxi. 4), jus-
tify perhaps the conjecture that here also they
were of gold. In the absence of any other evidence
it would have been, perhaps, natural to think that
they reproduced on a larger scale, the number and
the position of those that were over the mercy-seat.
The visions of Ezekiel, however, reproducing, as they
obviously do, the forms with which his priestly lite
had made him familiar, indicate not less than four
(c. i. and x.), and those not all alike, having seve-
rally the faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle,
strange symbolic words, which elsewhere we should
have identified with idolatry, but which here were
bearing witness against it, emblems of the manifold
variety of creation as at once manifesting and con-
cealing God,
(6.) The outer sanctuary was one degree less
awful in its holiness than the inner. Silver, the
type of Human Purity, took the place of gold, the
type of the Divine Glory (Bahr, i. 284). It was
to be trodden daily by the priests, as by men who
lived in the perpetual consciousness of the nearness
of God, of the mystery behind the veil. Barefooted
and in garments of white linen, like the priests of
Isis [PRiESTS], they accomplished their ministra-
tions. And here, too, there were other emblems of
Divine realities. With no opening to admit light
from without, it was illumined only by the golden
LAMP with its seven lights, one taller than the
others, as the Sabbath is more sacred than the
other days of the week, never all extinguished
together, the perpetual symbol of all derived gifts
of wisdom and holiness in man, reaching their
mystical perfection when they shine in God’s sanc-
tuary to His glory (Ex. xxv. 31, xxvii. 20; Zech.
iv. 1-14). The SHEW-BREAD, the “‘ bread of faces,”
of the Divine Presence, not unlike in outward form
to the sacred cakes which the Egyptians placed
before the shrines of their gods, served as a token
that, though there was no form or likeness of the
Godhead, He was yet there, accepting all offerings,
recognising in particular that special offering which
represented the life of the nation at once in the
distinctness of its tribes and in its unity as a
people (Ewald, Alterth. p. 120). The meaning of
the ALTAR OF INCENSE was not less obvious. The
cloud of fragrant smoke was the natural, almost the
universal, emblem of the heart’s adoration (Ps. exli.
2). The incense sprinkled on the shew-bread and
the lamp taught men that all other offerings needed
the intermingling of that adoration. Upon that
altar no * strange fire” was to be kindled. When
fresh fire was needed it was to be taken from the
ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING in the outer court
(Lev. ix. 24, x. 1). Very striking, as compared
with what is to follow, is the sublimity and the
purity of these symbols. It is as though the
priestly order, already leading a consecrated life,
were capable of understanding a higher language
which had to be translated into a lower for those
that were still without (Saalschiitz, Archdol. §77).
(7.) Outside the tent, but still within the con-
secrated precincts, was the Court, fenced in by an
enclosure, yet open to all the congregation as well
as to the Levites, those only excepted who were
ceremonially unclean, No Gentile might pass beyond
the curtains of the entrance, but every member of
the priestly nation might thus far ‘¢ draw near ” to
Here therefore stood the
TABERNACLE
ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERINGS, at which SACRI-
FICES in all their varieties were offered by penitent
or thankful worshippers (Ex. xxvii. 1-8; xxxviil.
1), the brazen LAvER at which those worshippers
purified themselves before they sacrificed, the priests
before they entered into the sanctuary (Ex. xxx.
17-21). Here the graduated scale of holiness ended.
What Israel was to the world, fenced in and set
apart, that the Court ofthe Tabernacle was to the
surrounding wilderness, just as the distinction be-
tween it and the sanctuary answered to that between
the sons of Aaron and other Israelites, just as the
idea of holiness culminated personally in the high-
priest, locally in the Holy of Holies.
IV. Theories of later times—(1.) It is not pro-
bable that the elaborate symbolism of such a struc-
ture was understood by the rude and sensual multi-
tude that came out of Egypt. In its fulness per-
haps no mind but that of the lawgiver himself ever
entered into it, and even for him, one-half, and that
the highest, of its meaning must have been alto-
gether latent. Yet it was ποῦ the less, was perhaps
the more fitted, on that account to be an instru-
ment for the education of the people. To the most
ignorant and debased it was at least a witness of
the nearness of the Divine King. It met the crav-
ing of the human heart which prompts to worship,
with an order which was neither idolatrous nor im-
pure. It taught men that their fleshly nature was
the hindrance to worship; that it rendered them
unclean ; that only by subduing it, killing it, as
they killed the bullock and the goat, could they
offer up an acceptable sacrifice; that such: a sacri-
fice was the condition of forgiveness, a higher sacri-
fice than any they could ofter the ground of that
forgiveness. The sins of the past were considered
as belonging to the fleshly nature which was slain
and offered, not to the true inner self of the wor-
shipper. More thoughtful minds were led inevitably
to higher truths. They were not slow to see in the
Tabernacle the parable of God’s presence manifested
in Creation. Darkness was as His pavilion (2 Sam.
xxii, 12). He has made a Tabernacle for the Sun
(Ps. xix. 4). The heavens were spread out like its
curtains. The beams of His chambers were in the
mighty waters (Ps. civ. 2, 3; Is. xl. 22; Lowth,
De Sac. Poes. viii.). The majesty of God seen in
the storm and tempest was as of one who rides
upon a cherub (2 Sam. xxii. 11). If the words,
“He that dwelleth between the cherubim,” spoke
on the one side of a special, localised manifestation
of the Divine Presence, they spoke also on the other
of that Presence as in the heaven of heavens, in the
light of setting suns, in the blackness and the flashes
of the thunder-clouds.
(2.) The thought thus uttered, essentially poetical
in its nature, had its fit place in the psalms and
hymns of Israel, It lost its beauty, it led men on
a false track, when it was formalised into a system.
At a time when Judaism and Greek philosophy
were alike effete, when a feeble, physical science
which could read nothing but its own thoughts in
the symbols of an older and deeper system, was
after its own fashion rationalising the mytholosy
of heathenism, there were found Jewish writers
willing to apply the same principle of interpretation
ὁ It is curious to note how in Clement of Alexandria
the two systems of interpretation cross each other, lead-
ing sometimes to extravagances like those in the text,
sometimes to thoughts at once lofty and true. Some of
these have been already noticed. Others, not to’ be
TABERNACLE 1419
to the Tabernacle and its order. In that way, it
seemed to them, they would secure the respect even
of the men of letters who could not bring them-
selves to be Proselytes. ‘The result appears in
Josephus and in Philo, in part also in Clement of
Alexandria and Origen. Thus interpreted, the entire
significance of the Two Tables of the Covenant and
their place within the Ark disappeared, and the
truths which the whole order represented became
cosmical instead of ethical. If the special idiosyn-
crasy of one writer (Philo, De Profug.) led him
to see in the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary that
which answered to the Platonic distinction between
the visible (αἰσθητά) and the spiritual (νοητά),
the coarser, less intelligent Josephus goes still more
completely into the new system. The Holy of
Holies is the visible firmament in which God dwells,
the Sanctuary as the earth and sea which men in-
habit (Ant. ili. 6, 84, 7; 7, §7). The twelve loaves
of the shew-bread represented the twelve months of
the year, the twelve signs of the Zodiac. The seven
lamps were the seven planets, The four colours
of the veil were the four elements (στοιχεῖα), air,
fire, water, earth. Even the wings of the cherubim
were, in the eyes of some, the two hemispheres of
the universe, or the constellations of the Greater and
the Lesser Bears! (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. §35).
The table of shew-bread and the altar of incense
stood on the north, because north winds were most.
fruitful, the lamp on the south because the motions
of the planets were southward (ib. §34, 35), We
need not follow such a system of interpretation fur-
ther. It was not unnatural that the authority with
which it started should secure for it considerable
respect. We find it re-appearing in some Christian
writers, Chrysostom (Hom. in Joann. Bapt.) and
Theodoret (Quaest. in Exod.)—in some Jewish,
Ben Uzziel, Kimchi, Abarbanel (Bahr, i. 103 et seq.).
It was well for Christian thought that the Church
had in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apoca-
lypse of St. John that which helped to save it from
the pedantic puerilities of this physico-theology.°
(3.) It will have been clear from all that has
been said that the Epistle to the Hebrews has not
been looked on as designed to limit our inquiry
into the meaning of the symbolism of the Taber-
nacle, and that there is consequently no ground for
adopting the system of interpreters who can see in
it nothing but an aggregate of types of Christian
mysteries. Such a system has, in fact, to choose
between two alternatives. Either the meaning was
made clear, at least to the devout worshippers of old,
and then it is no longer true that the mystery was
hid “ from ages and generations,” or else the mys-
tery was concealed, and then the whole order was
voiceless and unmeaning as long as it lasted, then
only beginning to be instructive when it was
‘¢yeady to vanish away.”’ Rightly viewed there
is, it is believed, no antagonism between the inter-
pretation which starts from the idea of symbols of
Great, Eternal Truths, and that which rests on the
idea of types foreshadowing Christ and His Work,
and His Church. If the latter were the highest
manifestation of the former (and this is the key-
note of the Epistle to the Hebrews), then the two
systems run parallel with each other. The type
passed over, are, that the seven lamps set forth the varied
degrees and forms (πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως) Of God’s
Revelation, the form and the attitude of the Cherubim, the
union of active ministry and grateful, ceaseless contem-
plation (Strom. ν, §36, 37).
1420 TABERNACLE
may help us to understand the symbol. The sym-
bol may guard us against misinterpreting the type.
That the same things were at once symbols and
types may take its place among the proofs of an
insight and a foresight more than human. Not
the veil of nature only but the veil of the flesh,
the humanity of Christ, at once conceals and mani-
fests the Eternal’s Glory. The rending of that
veil enabled all who had eyes to see and hearts to
believe, to enter into the Holy of Holies, into the
Divine Presence, and to see, not less clearly than the
High Priest, as he looked on the ark and the Mercy
Seat, that Righteousness and Love, Truth and
Mercy were as one. Blood had been shed, a life
had been offered which, through the infinite power
of its Love, was able to atone, to satisfy, to purify.P
(4.) We cannot here follow out that strain of a
higher mood, and it would not be profitable to enter
into the speculations which later writers have en-
grafted on the first great thought. Those who wish
to enter upon that line of inquiry may find mate-
rials enough in any of the greater commentaries
on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Owen’s, Stuart’s,
Bleek’s, Tholuck’s, Delitzsch’s, Alford’s), or in
special treatises, such as those of Van Till (De Tub-
ernac. in Ugolini, Thes. viii.); Bede (£xpositio
Mystica et Moralis Mosaici Tabernaculi) ; Witsius
(De Tabern. Levit. Mysteriis, in Miscell. Sacr.).
Strange, outlying hallucinations, like those of an-
cient Rabbis, inferring from ‘the pattern showed
to Moses in the Mount,” the permanent existence of
a heavenly Tabernacle, like in form, structure,
proportions to that which stood in the wilderness
(Leyrer, 7. c.), or of later writers who have seen in
it (not in the spiritual but the anatomical sense of
the word) a type of humanity, representing the
outer bodily framework, the inner vital organs
(Friederich, Symb. der Mos. Stifteshitte in Leyrer,
l.c.; and Ewald, Alt. p. 338), may be dismissed
with a single glance :
“ Non ragionamm’ di lor, ma guarda e passa.”
(5.) It is not quite as open to us to ignore a
speculative hypothesis which, though in itself un-
substantial enough, has been lately revived under
circumstances which have given it prominence. It
has been maintained by Von Bohlen and Vatke
(Bahr, i. 117, 273) that the commands and the de-
scriptions relating to the Tabernacle in the Books
of Moses are altogether unhistorical, the result of
the effort of some late compiler to ennoble the
eradle of his people’s history by transferring to a
remote antiquity what he found actually existing
in the Temple, modified only so far as was’ neces-
sary to fit it in to the theory of a migration and a
wandering. The structure did not belong to the
time of the Exodus, if indeed there ever was an
Exodus. The Tabernacle thus becomes the myth-
ical attergrowth of the Temple, not the Temple the
historical sequel to the Tabernacle. It has lately
been urged as tending to the same conclusion that
the circumstances connected with the Tabernacle in
the Pentateuch are manifestly unhistorical. The
whole congregation of Israel are said to meet in a
court which could not have contained more than a
few hundred men (Colenso, Pentateuch and Book of
Joshua, P. 1. c. iv. v.). The number of priests was
TABERNACLE
utterly inadequate for the services of the Taber-
nacle (bid. ec. xx.). The narrative of the head-
money collection, of the gifts of the people, is full
of anachronisms (07d. ¢. xiv.).
(6.) Some of these objections—those, 6, g. as to
the number of the first-born, and the dispropor-
tionate smallnéss of the priesthood, have been met
by anticipation in remarks under PRiEsTs and LE-
VITES, written some months before the objections,
in their present form, appeared. Others bearing
upon the general veracity of the Pentateuch his-
tory it is impossible to discuss here. It will be
sufficient to notice such as bear immediately upon
the subject of this article. (1.) It may be said that
this theory, like other similar theories as to the
history of Christianity, adds to instead of diminish-
ing difficulties and anomalies. It may be possible
to make out plausibly that what purports to be the
first period of an institution, is, with all its docu-
ments, the creation of the second; but the question
then comes how we are to explain the existence of
the second. The world rests upon an elephant, and
the elephant on a tortoise, but the footing of the
tortoise is at least somewhat insecure. (2.) What-
ever may be the weight of the argument drawn
from the alleged presence of the whole congregation
at the door of the Tabernacle tells with equal force
against the historical existence of the Temple and
the narrative of its dedication. There also when
the population numbered some seven or eight mil-
lions (2 Sam, xxiv. 9), “all the men of Israel ᾿᾿
(1 K. viii. 2), all “the congregation ”’ (ver, 5), all
the children of Israel (ver. 63) were assembled, and
the king ““ blessed’’ all the congregation (ver. 14,
55). (3.) There are, it is believed, undesigned
touches indicating the nomade life of the wilderness.
The wood employed for the Tabernacle is not the
sycamore of the valleys nor the cedar of Lebanon,
as afterwards in the Temple, but the shittim of the
Sinaitic peninsula. [SurrrAH-TREE, SHITTIM. ]
The abundance of fine linen points to Egypt, the
568] or dolphin skins (“ badgers” in A. V., but see
Gesenius s. v. vinn) to the shores of the Red Sea.
{BapGER-SKINS, Appendix A.] The Levites are
not to enter on their office till the age of thirty,
as needing for their work as bearers a man’s full
strencth (Num. iv. 25, 30). Afterwards when
their duties are chiefly those of singers and gate-
keepers, they were to begin at twenty (1 Chr. xxiii.
24). Would a later history again have excluded
the priestly tribe from all share in the structure of
the Tabernacle, and left it in the hands of mythical
persons belonging to Judah, and to a tribe then so
little prominent as that of Dan? (4.) There re-
mains the strong Egyptian stamp impressed upon
well-nigh every part of the Tabernacle and its ritual,
and implied in other incidents. [Comp. PRIESTS,
LevitEs, URIM AND THUMMIM, BRAZEN SER-
PENT.| Whatever bearing this may have on our
views of the things themselves, it points, beyond
all doubt, to a time when the two nations had been
brought into close contact, when not jewels of
silver and gold only, but treasures of wisdom, art,
knowledge were ‘‘ borrowed” by one people from
the other. ‘To what other period in the history
before Samuel than that of the Exodus of the Pen-
p The allusions to the Tabernacle in the Apocalypse
are, as might be expected, full of interest. As in a vision,
which loses sight of all time limits, the Temple of the
Tabernacle is seen in heaven (Rey. xv. 5), and yet in
ὶ
the heavenly Jerusalem there is no Temple seen (xxi.
22). And in the heavenly Temple there is no longer any
veil; it is open, and the ark of the covenant is clearly
seen (xi. 19).
TABERNACLES,
‘tateuch can we refer that intercourse ? When was
it likely that a wild tribe, with difficulty keep-
ing its ground against neighbouring nations, would
have adopted such a complicated ritual from a
system so alien to its own? So it is that the
wheel comes full circle. The facts which when
urged by Spencer, with or without a hostile pur-
pose, were denounced as daring and dangerous and
unsettling, are now seen to be witnesses to the an-
tiquity of the religion of Israel, and so to the sub-
stantial truth of the Mosaic history. They are
used as such by theologians who in various degrees
enter their protest against the more destructive
criticism of our own time (Hengstenberg, Egypt
and the Books of Moses; Stanley, Jewish Church,
lect. iv.). (5.) We may, for a moment, put an
imaginary case. Let us suppose that the records
of the O. T. had given us in 1 and 2 Sam. a history
like that which men now seek to substitute for
what is actually given, had represented Samuel
as the first great preacher of the worship of Elo-
him, Gad, or some later prophet as introducing
for the first time the name and worship of Jeho-
vah, and that the O. T. began with this (Colenso,
P. Il. c. xxi.). Let us then suppose that some
old papyrus, freshly discovered, slowly deciphered,
gave us the whole or the greater part of what
we now find in Exodus and Numbers, that there
was thus given an explanation both of the actual
condition of the people and of the Egyptian element
so largely intermingled with their ritual. Can we
not imagine with what jubilant zeal the Books of
Samuel would then have been “ critically ex-
amined,” what inconsistencies would have been
detected in them, how eager men would have been
to prove that Samuel had had credit given him
for a work which was not his, that not he, but
Moses, was the founder of the polity and creed of
Israel, that the Tabernacle on Zion, instead of com-
ing fresh from David’s creative mind, had been
preceded by the humbler Tabernacle in the Wilder-
ness ? ΕΞ HP]
TABERNACLES, THE FEAST OF (an
MADI: ἑορτὴ σκηνῶν : feriae tabernaculorum:
FONT AN, Ex. xxiii. 16, “the feast of ingather-
ing:” σκηνοπηγία, John vii. 2; Jos. Ant. viii.
4, §5: σκηναί, Philo, De Sept. §24: ἡ σκηνή,
Plut. Sympos. iv. 6, 2), the third of the three
. great festivals of the Hebrews, which lasted from
the 15th till the 22nd of Tisvi.
I, The following are the principal passages in
the Pentateuch which refer to it: Exod. xxiii. 16,
where it is spoken of as the Feast of Ingathering,
and is brought into connexion with the other festi-
vals under their agricultural designations, the Feast
of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Harvest ;
Lev. xxiii. 34-36, 39-43, where it 1s mentioned as
commemorating the passage of the Israelites through
the desert ; Deut. xvi. 13-15, in which there is no
notice of the eighth day, and it is treated as a thanks-
giving for the harvest; Num. xxix. 12-38, where
there is an enumeration of the sacrifices which be-
THE FEAST OF 1421
long to the festival; Deut. xxxi. 10-15, where the
injunction is given for the public reading of the Law
in the Sabbatical year, at the Feast of Tabernacles.
In Neh. viii. there is an account of the observance
of the feast by Ezra, from which several additional
particulars respecting it may be gathered.
II. The time of the festival fell in the autumn,
when the whole of the chief fruits of the ground,
the corn, the wine, and the oil, were gathered in
(Ex. xxiii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 39; Deut. xvi. 13-15).
Hence it is spoken of as occurring “in the end of
the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours
out of the field.” Its duration was strictly only
seven days (Deut. xvi. 13; Ez. xlv. 25). But it
was followed by a day of holy convocation, dis-
tinguished by sacrifices of its own, which was
sometimes spoken of as an eighth day (Lev. xxiii.
36; Neh. viii. 18).
During the seyen days the Israelites were com-
manded to dwell in booths or huts 4 formed of the
boughs of trees. These huts, when the festival
was celebrated in Jerusalem, were constructed in
the courts of houses, on the roofs, in the court οἵ
the Temple, in the street of the water gate, and in
the street of the gate of Ephraim. The boughs were
of the olive, palm, pine, myrtle, and other trees
with thick foliage (Neh. viii. 15, 16). The com-
mand in Ley. xxiii. 40 is said to have been so
understood,» that the Israelites, from the first day
of the feast to the seventh, carried in their hands
“the fruit (as in the margin of the A. V., not
branches, as in the text) of goodly trees, with
branches of palm trees, boughs of thick trees, and
willows of the brook.”
According to Rabbinical tradition, each Israelite
used to tie the branches into a bunch, to be
carried in his hand, to which the name /ulab* was
given. The ‘fruit of goodly trees”’ is generally
taken by the Jews to mean tie citron.t But
Josephus (Ant. iii. 10, §4) says that it was the
fruit of the persea, a tree said by Pliny to have
been conveyed from Persia to Egypt (Hist. Nat.
xv. 13), and which some have identified with the
peach (Malus persica). The boughs of thick trees
were understood by Onkelos and others to be
myrtles (ODI), but that no such limitation to
a single species could have been intended seems to
be proved by the boughs of thick trees and myrtle
branches being mentioned together (Neh. viii. 15).
The burnt-offerings of the Feast of Tabernacles
were by far more numerous than those of any other
festival. It is said that the services of the priests
were so ordered that each one of the courses was
employed during the seven days (Succah, v. 6).
There were offered on each day two rams, fourteen
lambs, and a kid for a sin-offering. But what was
most peculiar was the arrangement of the sacrifices
of bullocks, in all amounting to seventy. Thirteen
were offered on the first day, twelve on the second,
eleven on the third, and so on, reducing the number
by one each day till the seventh, when seven bul-
locks only were offered (Num. xxix. 12-38).
4 The word n2D means “ἃ hut,” and is to be distin-
guished from pias “a tent of skins or cloth,” which is
the term appiied to the Tabernacle of the Congregation.
See Gesen. 8, v.
b This is the view of the Rabbinists, which appears to
be countenanced by a comparison of v. 40 with vy. 42.
But the Karaites held that the boughs here mentioned
were for no other purpose than to cover the huts, and
that the willow branches were merely for tying the parts
of the huts together.
¢ The word abyb strictly means simply a palm
branch. Buxt. Lex. Talm. c. 1143; Carpzov, App. Crit.
p. 416; Drusius, Not. Maj. in Lev. xxiii.
4 JJTMN. So Onkelos, Jonathan, and Succah. See
Buxt. Lex. Talm. sub an.
1422 TABERNACLES,
The eighth day was a day of holy convocation of
peculiar solemnity, and, with the seventh day of
the Passover, and the day of Pentecost, was desig-
nated NNYY (Passover, §2, note!]. We are
told that on the morning of this day the Hebrews
left their huts and dismantled them, and took up
their abode again in their houses. The special offer-
ings of the day were a bullock, a ram, seven lambs,
and a goat for a sin-offering (Num. xxix. 36-38).¢
When the Feast of Tabernacles fell on a Sabbatical
year, portions of the Law were read each day in
public, to men, women, children, and strangers
(Deut. xxxi. 10-13,. _It is said that, in the time
of the Kings, the king himself used to read from a
wooden pulpit erected in the court of the women,
and that the people were summoned to assemble by
sound of trumpet.£ Whether the’ selections were
made from the Book of Deuteronomy only, or from
the other books of the Law also, isa question. But
according to the Mishna (Sota, vi. 8, quoted by
Reiand) the portions read were Deut. i. 1-vi. 4,
xi. 13-xiv. 22, xiv. 23-xvi. 22, xviii. 1-14, xxvii.
1-xxvili. 68 (see Fagius and Rosenmiiller on Deut.
xxxi. 115 Lightfoot, Temple Service, c. xvii.).
We find Ezra reading the Law during the festival
‘day by day, from the first day to the last day ”
(Neh. viii. 18).
III. There are two particulars in the observance
of the Feast of Tabernacles which appear to be re-
ferred to in the New Testament, but are not noticed
in the Old. These were, the ceremony of pouring
out some water of the pool of Siloam, and the dis-
play of some great lights in the court of the women.
We are told that each Israelite, in holiday attire,
having made up his /ulaé, before he broke his fast
(Fagius in Ley. xxiii.), repaired to the Temple with
the /u/ab in one hand and the citron in the other,
at the time of the ordinary morning sacrifice,
The parts of the victim were laid upon the altar.
One of the priests fetched some water in a golden
ewer from the pool of Siloam, which he brought
into the court through the water gate. As he
entered the trumpets sounded, and he ascended the
slope of the altar. At the top of this were fixed
two silver basins with small openings at the bottom.
Wine was poured into that on the eastern side, and
the water into that on the western side, whence it
was conducted by pipes into the Cedron (Maimon.
ap. Carpzov. p: 419). The hallel was then sung,
and when the singers reached the first verse of Ps.
exviii. all the company shook their lulabs. This
gesture was repeated at the 25th verse, and again
when they sang the 29th verse. The sacrifices
which belonged to the day of the festival were then
offered, and special passages from the Psalfms were
chanted.
In the evening (it would seem after the day of
holy convocation with which the festival had com-
© The notion of Miinster, Godwin, and others, that the
eighth day was called “the day of palms,” is utterly
without foundation. No trace of such a designation is
found in any Jewish writer, It probably resulted from a
theory that the Feast of Tabernacles must, like the Pass-
over and Pentecost, have a festival to answer to it in the
calendar of the Christian Church, and that “ the day of
palms ”’ passed into Palm Sunday.
f A story is told of Agrippa that when he was once |
performing this ceremony, as he came to the words “thou
may’st not set a stranger over thee which is not thy
brother,’ the thought of his foreign blood occurred to
him, and he was affected to tears. But the bystanders
encouraged him, crying out “Fear not, Agrippa! Thou
THE FEAST OF
menced had ended, both men and women assembled
in the court of the women. expressly to hold a
rejoicing for the drawing of the water of Siloam.
On this occasion, a degree of unrestrained hilarity
was permitted, such as would have been unbecoming
while the ceremony itself was going on, in the
presence of the altar and in connexion with the
offering of the morning sacrifice (Succah, iv. 9, v.1,
and the passages from the Gem. given by Lightfoot,
Temple Service, §4).
At the same time there were set up in the court
two lofty stands, each supporting four great lamps.
These were lighted on each night of the festival.
It is said that they cast their light over nearly the
whole compass of the city. The wicks were
furnished from the cast-off garments of the priests,
and the supply of oil was kept.up by the sons of
the priests. Many in the assembly carried flam™
beaux. A body of Levites, stationed on the fifteen
steps Jeading up to the women’s court, played in-
struments of music, and chanted the fifteen psalms
which are called in the A. V. Songs of Degrees
(Ps. exx.-cxxxiv.). Singing and dancing were
afterwards continued for some time. The same
ceremonies in the day, and the same joyous meeting
in the evening, were renewed on each of the seven
days.
Tt appears to be generally admitted that the
words of our Saviour (John vii. 37, 38)—* If any
man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He
that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said,
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water ”’—
were suggested by the pouring out of the water of
Siloam. The Jews seem to have regarded the rite
as symbolical of the water miraculously supplied to
their fathers from the rock at Meribah. But they
also gave to it a more strictly spiritual significa-
tion, in accordance with the use to which our Lord
appears to turn it. Maimonides (note in Succah)
applies to it the very passage which appears to
be referred to by our Lord (ls, xii. 3)—‘‘ There-
fore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells
of salvation.” The two meanings are of course
perfectly harmonious, as is shown by the use which
St. Paul makes of the historical fact (1 Cor. x. 4)
—‘ they drank of that spiritual rock that followed
them: and that rock was Christ.”
But it is very doubtful what is meant by “ the
last day, that great day of the feast.” It would
seem that either the last day of the feast itself,
that is the seventh, or the last day of the religious
observances of the series of annual festivals, the
eighth, must be intended. But there seems to
have been nothing, according to ancient testimony,
to distinguish the seventh, as a great day, com-
pared with the other days; it was decidedly in-
ferior, in not being a day of holy convocation,
and in its number of sacrifices, to the first day.»
art our brother.” Lightfoot, 7. S. c. xvii.
e Dean Alford considers that there may be a reference
| to the public reading of the Law at the Feast of Taber-
| nacles, John vii. 19—* Did not Moses give you the law?
| and yet none of you keepeth the law ”—even if that year
was not the Sabbatical year, and the observance did not
actually take place at the time.
h But Buxtorf, who contends that St. John speaks of the
seventh day, says that the modern Jews of his time called
that day “the Great Hosanna,” and distinguished it by a
greater attention than usual to their personal appearance,
and by performing certain peculiar rites in the synagogue
(Syn, Jud. xxi.).
|
.
a
TABERNACLES,
On the other hand, it is nearly certain that the
ceremony of pouring out the water did not take
place on the eighth day,' though the day might
have been, by an easy licence, called the great day
of the feast (2 Mace. x. 6; Joseph. Ant. iii. 10, §4;
Philo, De Sept. §24). Dean Alford reasonably
supposes that the eighth day may be meant, and
that the reference of our Lord was to an ordinary
and well-known observance of the feast, though it
was not, at the very time, going on.
We must resort to some such explanation, if we
adopt the notion that our Lord’s words (John viii.
12)—*J am the light of the world ”—+refer to the
great lamps of the festival. The suggestion must
have arisen in the same way, or else from the
apparatus for lighting not being removed, although
the festival had come to an end. It should, how-
ever, be remarked that Bengel, Stier, and some
others, think that the words refer to the light of
morning which was then dawning. The view that
may be taken of the genuineness of John viii. 1-11
will modity the probability of the latter interpre-
tation.
IV. There are many directions given in the
Mishna for the dimensions and construction of the
huts. They were not to be lower than ten palms,
nor higher than twenty cubits. They were to stand
by themselves, and not to rest on any external sup-
port, nor to be under the shelter of a larger building
or of a tree. They were not to be covered with
skins or cloth of any kind, but only with boughs
or, in part, with reed mats or laths. They were
. to be constructed expressly for the festival, out of
new materials. Their forms might vary in accord-
ance with the taste of the owners.k According to
some authorities, the Israelites dwelt in them during
the whole period of the festival (Sifri, in Reland),
but others said it was sufficient if they ate fourteen
meals in them, that 1s, two on each day (Succah
ii. 6). Persons engaged in religious service, the sick
nurses, women, slaves, and minors, were excepted
altogether from the obligation of dwelling in them
and some indulgence appears to have been given
to all in very tempestuous weather (Succah, i. ii. ;
Miinster on Ley. xxiii. 40; Buxt. Syn. Jud. ¢
XI. )e
The furniture of the huts was to be, according to
most authorities, of the plainest description. There
was to be nothing which was not fairly necessary
It would seem, however, that there was no strict
rule on this point, and that there was a consider-
able difference according to the habits or circum-
stances of the occupant ™ (Carpzoy, p. 415; Buxt.
Syn. Jud. p. 451).
It is said that the altar was adorned throughout
the seven days with sprigs of willows, one of which
each Israelite who came into the court brought
with him. The great number of the sacrifices has
been already noticed. The number of public vic-
tims offered on the first day exceeded those of any
day in the year (Menach. xiii. 5). But besides
these, the Chagigahs or private peace-ofierings
[PAssover, ii, 53: f.] were more abundant than at
any other time ; and there is reason to believe that
the whole of the sacrifices nearly outnumbered all
these offered at the other festivals put together.
It belongs to the character of the feast that on each
μεγίστη.
in the accounts of its observance in Josephus (Ant.
viii. 4, 51, xv. 33), as well as in the accounts of its
THE FEAST OF 1425
day the trumpets of the Temple are said to have
sounded twenty-one times.
V. Though all the Hebrew annual festivals were
seasons of rejoicing, the Feast of Tabernacles was,
in this respect, distinguished above them all. The
huts and the lulabs must have made a gay and
striking spectacle over the city by day, and the
lamps, the flambeaux, the music, and the joyous
gatherings in the court of the Temple must have |
given a still more festive character to the night.
Hence, it was called by the Rabbis 3M, the festival,
kat ἐξοχήν. There isa proverb in Succah (v. 1),
“‘He who has never seen the rejoicing at the
pouring out of the water of Siloam has never seen
rejoicing in his life.’ Maimonides says that he
who failed at the Feast of Tabernacles in contri-
buting to the public joy according to his means,
incurred especial guilt (Carpzovy, p. 419). The
feast is designated by Josephus, (Ané. viii. 4, §1)
ἑορτὴ ἃ ἅἁγιωτάτη καὶ μεγίστη. and by Philo, ἑορτῶν
Its thoroughly festive nature is shown
celebration by Solomon, Ezra, and Judas Macca-
baeus. From this fact, and its connexion with the
ingathering of the fruits of the year, especially the
vintage, it is not wonderful that Plutarch should
have likened it to the Dionysiac festivals, calling it
θυρσοφορία and κρατηροφορία (Sympos. iv.). The
account which he gives of it is curious, but it is
not much to our purpose here. It contains about
as much truth as the more famous passage on the
Hebrew nation in the fifth book of the History of
Tacitus.
VI. The main purposes of the Feast of Taber-
nacles are plainly set forth (Ex. xxiii, 16, and Ley.
xxiii. 43). It was to be at once a thanksgiving
for the harvest, and a commemoration of the time
when the Israelites dwelt in tents during their pas-
sage through the wilderness. In one of its mean-
ings, it stands in connexion with the Passover, as
the Feast of Abib, the month of green ears, when
the first sheaf of barley was offered before the
Lord ; and with Pentecost, as the feast of harvest,
when the first loaves of the year were waved
before the altar: in its other meaning, it.is related
to the Passover as the great yearly memorial of
the deliverance from the destroyer, and from the
tyranny of Egypt. The tents of the wilderness
furnished a home of freedom compared with the
house of bondage out of which they had been
brought. Hence the Divine Word assigns as a
reason for the command that they should dwell in
huts during the festival, ‘‘that your generations
may know that I made the children of Israel to
dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the
land of Egypt” (Lev. xxiii. 43).
But naturally connected with this exultation in
their regained freedom, was the rejoicing in the
more perfect fulfilment of God’s promise, in the
settlement of His people in the Holy Land. Hence
the festival became an expression of thanksgiving
for the rest and blessing of a settled abode, and,
as connected with it, for the regular annual cul-
tivation of the ground, with the storing up of
the corn and the wine and the oil, by which the
prosperity of the nation was promoted and the fear
18. ΒΡ however, said that the water was poured
out on eight days. Succah, iv. 9, with Bartenora’s note.
κα There are some curious figures of different forms of
huts, and of the great lights of the Feast of Tabernacles,
in Surenhusius’ Mishna, vol. ii.
m There is a lively description of some of the huts used
by the Jews in modern times in La Vie Juive en Alsace,
p. 170, &c.
1424 TABERNACLES, THE FEAST OF
of famine put into a remoter distance. Thus the
agricultural and the historical ideas of the feast
became essentially connected with each other.
But besides this, Philo saw in this feast a witness
for the original equality of all the members of the
chosen race. All, during the week, poor and rich, the
inhabitant alike of the palace or the hovel, lived in
huts which, in strictness, were to be of the plainest
* and most ordinary materials and construction.®
From this point of view the Israelite would be
reminded with still greater edification of the perilous
and toilsome march of his forefathers through the
desert, when the nation seemed to be more imme-
diately dependent on God for food, shelter and pro-
tection, while the completed harvest stored up for
the coming winter set before him the benefits he had
derived from the possession of the land flowing
with milk and honey which had been of old pro-
mised to his race.
But the culminating point of this blessing was
the establishment of the central spot of the national
worship in the Temple at Jerusalem. Hence it was
evidently fitting that the Feast of Tabernacles
should be kept with an unwonted degree of obser-
vance at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple (1 K.
viii. 2, 65; Joseph. Ant. viii. 4, §5), again, after
the rebuilding of the Temple by Ezra (Neh. viii.
13-18), and a third time by Judas Maccabaeus
when he had driven out the Syrians and restored
the Temple to the worship of Jehovah (2 Macc.
x. 5-8).
The origin of the Feast of Tabernacles is by some
connected with Succoth, the first halting-place of
the Israelites on their march vut of Egypt; and the
huts are taken not to commemorate the tents in the
wilderness, but the leafy booths (succoth) in which
they lodged for the last time before they entered the
desert. The feast would thus call to mind the
transition from settled to nomadic life (Stanley,
Sinai and Palestine, Appendix, §89).
Carpzov, App. Crit. p.414; Bahr, Symbolik, ii.
624; Buxt. Syn. Jud. c. xxi.; Reland, Ant. iv. 5;
Lightfoot, Temple Service, xvi. and Exercit. in
Joan, vii. 2, 37; Otho, Lex. Rab. 250; the treatise
Suecah, in the Mishna, with Surenhusius’ Notes ;
Hupfeld, De Fest. Hebr. pt. ii. Of the monographs
on the subject the most important appear to be,
Ikenius, De Libatione Aquae in Fest, Tab.; Groddek,
De Ceremonia Palmarum in Fest. Tab. (in Ugolini,
vol. xviii.), with the Notes of Dachs on Succah, in
the Jerusalern Gemara. [s. C.]
TABITHA (Ταβιθά: Tabitha), also called
Dorcas (Δορκάς) by St. Luke: a female disciple of
Joppa, ‘ full of good works,” among which that of
making clothes for the poor is specifically men-
tioned. While St. Peter was at the neighbouring
town of Lydda, Tabitha died, upon which the disci-
ples at Joppa sent an urgent message to the Apostle,
TABOR
begging him to come to them without delay. ΤῈ is
not quite evident from the narrative whether they
looked for any exercise of miraculous power on his
part, or whether they simply wished for Christian
consolation under what they regarded as the common
calamity of their Church; but the miracle recently
performed on Eneas (Acts ix. 34), and the expression
in ver. 88 (διελθεῖν ἕως ἡμῶν), lead to the former
supposition. Upon his arrival Peter found the de-
ceased already prepared for burial, and laid out in an
upper chamber, where she was surrounded «by the
recipients and the tokens of her charity. After the
example of our Saviour in the house of Jairus
(Matt. ix. 25; Mark v. 40), “ Peter put them all
forth,” prayed for the Divine assistance, and then
commanded Tabitha to arise (comp. Mark ν. 41 ;
Luke viii. 54). She opened her eyes and sat up,
and then, assisted by the Apostle, rose from her
couch. This great miracle, as we are further told,
produced an extraordinary effect in Joppa, and was
the occasion of many conversions there (Acts ix.
36-42).
The name of ““ Tabitha” (SND) is the Aramaic
form answering to the Hebrew may, a “ female
39
gazelle,” the gazelle being regarded in the East,
among both Jews and Arabs, as a standard of
beauty,—indeed, the word ΔΝ properly means
“beauty.” St. Luke gives “ Dorcas” as the
Greek equivalent. of the name. Similarly we
find δορκάς as the LXX. rendering of ‘2Y in
Deut. xii. 15, 22; 2Sam. ii. 18; Prov. vi. 5. It
has been inferred from the occurrence of the two
names, that ‘Tabitha was a Hellenist (see Whitby
in loc.). This, however, does not follow, even if
we suppose that the two names were actually borne
by her, as it would seem to have been the prac-
tice even of the Hebrew Jews at this period to
have a Gentile name in addition to their Jewish
name. But it is by no means clear from the lan-
guage of St. Luke that Tabitha actually bore the
name of Dorcas. All he tells us is that the name
of Tabitha means “gazelle” (δορκάς), and, for the
benefit of his Gentile readers, he afterwards speaks
of her by the Greek equivalent. At the same time
it is very possible that she may have been known
by both names ; and we learn from Josephus (B. J.
iv. 3, §5) that the name of Dorcas was not un-
known in Palestine. Among the Greeks, also, as we
gather from Lucret. iv. 1154, it was a term of en-
dearment. Other examples of the use of the name
will be found in Wetstein, in Joc. [W: B: J.)
TA'BOR and MOUNT? TABOR (38 ὙΠ:
probably = height, as im Simonis’ Onomasticon,
p- 300: Γαιθβώρ, ὄρος Θαβώρ, Θαβώρ, but τὸ
᾿Ιταβύριον in Jer. and Hosea, and in Josephus, who
has also "AtapBupiov: Thabor), one of the most
interesting and remarkable of the single moun-
n Some Jewish authorities and others connect with this
the fact that in the month Tisri the weather becomes
rather cold, and hence there was a degree of self-denial, at
least for the rich, in dwelling in huts (Jos. Ant, iii. 10, ὁ 43
Buxt. Syn. Jud, p. 4475 Kel. Ant. iv. 5). They see in
this a reason why the commemoration of the journey
through the desert should have been fixed at this season
of the year. The notion seems, however, not to be in
keeping with the general character of the feast, the time
of which appears to have been determined entirely on
agricultural ground. Hence the appropriateness of the
language of the prophet, Zech, xiv. 16, 17; comp. Exod. |
As little worthy of more
Xxiil. 163; Deut. xvi. 13-17.
than a passing notice is the connecting the fall of Jericho
with the Festival (Godwyn, p. 72; Reland, iv. 5), and of
the seventy bullocks offered during the seven days being
a symbol of the seventy Gentile uations (Reland, iv. 5;
Bochart, Phaleg, i. 15). But of somewhat more interest
is the older notion found in Onkelos, that the shade of the
| branches represented the cloud by day which sheltered
| the Israelites.
He renders the words in Ley. xxiii. 43—
“that I made the children of Israel to dwell under the
shadow of a cloud.”
8. The full form occurs in Judg. iv. 6, 12, 14 ; that of
Tabor only, in Josh. xix. 22; Judg. viii. 18; Ps. Ixxxix.
12; Jer. xlvi. 18; Hos. v. 1. ‘
TABOR
View of Mount Tabor from the S.W., from a sketch taken in 1842 by W. Tipping, Esq.,
tains in Palestine. It was a Rabbinic saying (and
shows the Jewish estimate of the attractions of
the locality) that the Temple ought of right to
have been built here, but was required by an
express revelation to be erected on Mount Moriah.
It rises abruptly from the north-eastern arm of
the Plain of Esdraelon, and stands entirely insu-
lated, except on the west, where a narrow ridge
connects it with the hills of Nazareth. It pre-
sents to the eye, as seen from a distance, a
beautiful appearance, being so symmetrical in its
proportions, and rounded off like a hemisphere or
the segment of a circle, yet varying somewhat
as viewed from different directions. The body of
the mountain consists of the peculiar limestone of
the country. It is studded with a comparatively
dense forest of oaks, pistaciis, and other trees and
bushes, with the exception of an occasional opening
on the sides and a small uneven tract on the
summit. The coyerts afford at present a shelter
for wolves, wild boars, lynxes, and various rep-
tiles. Its height is estimated at 1000 feet, but
may be somewhat less rather than more. Its an-
cient name, as already suggested, indicates its ele-
vation, though it does not rise much, if at all,
above some of the other summits in the vicinity.
It is now called Jebel οἰ- Τῶν. It lies about six
or eight miles almost due east from Nazareth.
The writer, in returning to that village towards
the close of the day (May 3rd, 1852), found
the sun as it went down in the west shining
directly in his face, with hardly any deviation to
the right hand or the left by a single turn of the
path. The ascent is usually made on the west side,
near the little village of Debtrieh, probably the
ancient Daberath (Josh. xix. 12), though it can
be made with entire ease in other places. It
requires three-quarters of an hour or an hour to
reach the top The path is circuitous and at
times steep, but not so much so as to render it
VOL. II.
and engraved by his permission.
difficult to ride the entire way. ‘The trees and
bushes are generally so thick as to intercept the
prospect; but now and then the traveller as he
ascends comes to an open spot which reveals to
him a magnificent view of the plain. One of the
most pleasing aspects of the landscape, as seen
from such points, in the season of the early har-
vest, is that presented in the diversified appearance
of the fields. The different plots of ground exhibit
various colours, according to the state of culti-
vation at the time. Some of them are red, where
the land has been newly ploughed up, owing to
the natural properties of the soil; others: yellow
or white, where the harvest is beginning to ripen
or is already ripe; and others green, being covered
with grass or springing grain, As they are con-
tiguous to each other, or intermixed, these patti-
coloured plots present, as looked down upon from
above, an appearance of gay checkered work which
is singularly beautiful. The top of Tabor consists
of an irregular platform, embracing a circuit of
half-an-hour’s walk and commanding wide views
of the subjacent plain from end to end. A copious
dew falls here during the warm months. Travyel-
lers who have spent the night there have found
their tents as wet in the morning as if they had
been drenched with rain.
It is the universal judgment of those who have
stood on the spot that the panorama spread before
them as they look from Tabor includes as great a
variety of objects of natural beauty and of sacred
and historic interest as any one to be seen from
any position in the Holy Land. On the east the
waters of the Sea of Tiberias, not less than fifteen
miles distant, are seen glittering tl.rough the
clear atmosphere in the deep bed where they
repose so quietly. Though but a small portion of
the surface of the lake can be distinguished, the
entire outline of its basin can be traced on every
|side. In the same direction the eye follows the
‘ 4 Y
1426 TABOR
course of the Jordan for many miles; while still
further east it rests upon a boundless perspective
of hills and valleys, embracing the modern Hauran,
and further south the mountains of the ancient
Gilead and Bashan. The dark line which skirts
the horizon on the west is the Mediterranean ;
the rich plains of Galilee fill up the intermediate
space as far as the foot of Tabor. The ridge of
Carmel lifts its head in the north-west, though
the portion which lies directly on the sea is not
distinctly visible. On the north and north-east
we behold the last ranges of Lebanon as they
rise into the hills about Safed, overtopped in the
rear by the snow-capped Hermon, and still nearer
to us the Horns of Hattin, the reputed Mount of
the Beatitudes. On the south are seen, first the
summits of Gilboa, which David’s touching elegy
on Saul and Jonathan has fixed for ever in the
memory of mankind, and further onward a con-
fused view of the mountains and valleys which
occupy the central part of Palestine. Over the
heads of Dihy and Gilboa the spectator looks into
the valley of the Jordan in the neighbourhood of
Beisan (itself not within sight), the ancient Beth-
shean, on whose walls the Philistines hung up
the headless trunk of Saul, after their victory over
Israel. Looking across a branch of the plain of
Esdraelon, we behold Endor, the abode of the
sorceress whom the king consulted on the night
before his fatal battle. Another little village
clings to the hill-side of another ridge, on which
we gaze with still deeper interest. It is Nain,
the village of that name in the New Testament,
where the Saviour touched the bier, and restored
to life the widow’s son. The Saviour must have
passed often at the foot of this mount in the course
of his journeys in different parts of Galilee. It
is not surprising that the Hebrews looked up with
so much admiration to this glorious work of the
Creator’s hand. The same: beauty rests upon its
brow to-day, the same richness of verdure refreshes
the eye, in contrast with the bleaker aspect of so
many of the adjacent mountains. The Christian
traveller yields spontaneously to the impression of
wonder and devotion, and appropriates as his own
the language of the psalmist (Ixxxix. 11, 12):— *
“The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine;
The world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded
them.
The north and the south thou hast created them ;
Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.”
Tabor does not occur in the New Testament, but
makes a prominent figure in the Old, The Book
of Joshua (xix. 22) mentions it as the boundary
between Issachar and Zebulon (see ver. 12). Barak,
at the command of Deborah, assembled his forces
on Tabor, and, on the arrival of the opportune
moment, descended thence with ‘ ten thousand
men after him” into the plain, and conquered
* Sisera on the banks of the Kishon (Judg. iv. 6-15).
The brothers of Gideon, each of whom “ re-
sembled the children of a king,’ were murdered
here by Zebah and Zalmunna (Judg. viii. 18, 19).
Some writers, after Heider and others, think that
Tabor is intended when it is said of Issachar and
TABOR
Zebulon in Deut. xxxili. 19, that “they shall call
the people unto the mountain; there they shall
offer sacrifices of righteousness.” Stanley, who
holds this view (Sinai and Palestine, p. 351),
remarks that he was struck with the aspect of
the open glades on the summit as specially fitted
for the convocation of festive assemblies, and could
well believe that in some remote age it may have
been a sanctuary of the northern tribes, if not of
the whole nation. The prophet in Hos. v. 1,
reproaches the priests and royal family with having
‘been a snare on Mizpah and a net spread upon
Tabor.” The charge against them probably is
that they had set up idols and practised heathenish
rites on the high places which were usually
selected for such worship. The comparison in Jer.
xlvi. 18, “ As Tabor is among the mountains and
Carmel by the sea,” imports apparently that those
heights were proverbial for their conspicuousness,
beauty, and strength.
Dr. Robinson (Researches, ii. 353) has thus
described the ruins which are to be seen at present
on the summit of Tabor. ‘ All around the top are
the foundations of a thick wall built of large
stones, some of which are bevelled, showing that
the entire wall was perhaps originally of that cha-
racter. In several parts are the remains of towers
and bastions. The chief remains are upon the
ledge of rocks on the south of the little basin, and
especially towards its eastern end; here are—in
indiscriminate confusion — walls, and arches, and
foundations, apparently of dwelling-houses, as well
as other buildings, some of hewn, and some of
large bevelled stones. The walls and traces of a
fortress are seen here, and further west along the
southern brow, of which one tall pointed arch of a
Saracenic gateway is still standing, and bears the
name of Bab el-Hawa, ‘Gate of the Wind.’ Con-
nected with it are loopholes, and others are seen
near by. ‘These latter fortifications belong to the
era of the Crusades; but the large bevelled stones
we refer to a style of architecture not later than
the times of the Romans, before which period,
indeed, a town and fortress already existed on
Mount Tabor. In the days of the crusaders, too,
and earlier, there were here churches and monaste-
ries. The summit has many cisterns, now mostly
dry.” The same writer found the thermometer
here, 10 A.M. (June 18th), at 98° F., at sunrise at
64°, and at sunset at 749, The Latin Christians
have now an altar here, at which their priests from
Nazareth perform an annual mass. The Greeks
also have a chapel, where, on certain festivals, they
assemble for the celebration of religious rites.»
Most travellers who have visited Tabor in recent
times have found it utterly solitary so far as
regards the presence of human occupants. It hap-
pened to the writer on his visit here to meet,
unexpectedly, with four men who had taken up
their abode in this retreat, so well suited to
encourage the devotion of religious devotees. One
of them was an aged priest of the Greek Church,
a native of Wallachia, named Erinna, according to
his own account more than a hundred years old,
who had come here to await the final advent of
Ὁ Professor Stanley, in his Notices of Localities visited
with the Prince of Wales, has mentioned some particulars
attached to the modern history of Tabor which appear to
have escaped former travellers. ‘‘ The fortress, of which
the ruins crown the summit, had evidently four gateways,
like those by which the great Roman camps of our own
country were entered. By one of these gateways my
attention was called to an Arabic inscription, said to be
the only one on the mountain.” It records the building
or rebuilding of “this blessed fortress”” by the order of
the Sultan Abu Bekr on his return from the East Α.Η.
607.
TABOR
Christ. His story was an interesting one. In his
early years “he received an intimation in his sleep
that he was to build a church on a mountain shown
to him in his dream. He wandered through many
countries, and found his mountain at last in Tabor.
There he lived, and collected money from pilgrims,
which at his death, a few years ago, amounted to
a sufficient sum to raise the church, which is
approaching completion. He was remarkable for
his long beard and for a tame panther, which, like
the ancient hermits, he made his constant com-
panion” (Stanley, Localities, 191-2). He was a
man of huge physical proportions, and stood forth
as a good witness for the efticacy of the diet of milk
and herbs, on which, according to his own account,
he subsisted. The other three men were natives
of the same province. Two of them, having been
to Jerusalem and the Jordan on a pilgrimage, had
taken 'Fabor in their way on their return home-
ward, where, finding unexpectedly the priest,
whom they happened to know, they resolved to
remain with him for a time.
deliberating whether he should not take up his
permanent abode there. The fourth person was
a young man, a relative of the priest, who seemed
to have taken on himself the filial office of caring
for his aged friend in the last extremity. In the
monastic ages Tabor, in consequence, partly, of a
belief that it was the scene of the Saviour’s trans-
figuration, was crowded with hermits. It was one
of the shrines from the earliest period which
pilgrims to the Holy Land regarded it as a sacred
duty to honour with their presence and _ their
prayers. Jerome, in his Itinerary of Paula, writes,
“‘Scandebat montem Thabor, in quo transfiguratus
est Dominus; aspiciebat procul Hermon et Her-
monim et campos latissimos Galilaeae (Jesreel), in
quibus Sisara prostratus est. Torrens Cison qui
mediam planitiem dividebat, et oppidum juxta,
Naim, monstrabantur,”
This idea that our Saviour was transfigured on
Tabor prevailed extensively among the early Chris-
tians, who adopted legends of this nature, and
reappears often still in popular religious works.
If one might choose a place which he would deem
peculiarly fitting for so sublime a transaction, there
is none certainly which would so entirely satisfy
our feelings in this respect.as the lofty, majestic,
beautiful Tabor. It is impossible, however, to
acquiesce in the correctness of this opinion. It is
susceptible of proof from the Old Testament, and
from later history, that a fortress or town existed
on Tabor from very early times down to B.C. 50
or 533 and, as Josephus says (Bell, Jud. iv. 1, 88)
that he strengthened the fortifications of a city
there, about A.D. 60, it is morally certain that
Tabor must have been inhabited during the inter-
vening period, that is, in the days of Christ.
Tabor, therefore, could not have been the Mount
of Transfiguration; for when it is said that Jesus
took his disciples “ up into a high mountain apart
and was transfigured before them” (Matt. xvii. 1, 2),
we must understand that He brought them to the
summit of the mountain, where they were alone
by themselves (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν). It is impossible to
ascertain with certainty what place is entitled to
the glory of this marvellous scene. The evan-
gelists record the event in connexion with a journey
of the Saviour to Caesarea Philippi, near the
sources of the Jordan. It is conjectured that the
Transfiguration may have taken place on one of the
summits of Mount Hermon in that vicinity. See
One of them was:
TACHE
Ritter’s Erdhkunde, xv. 394 sq.
stein’s Leben Jesu, p. 309. For the history of
the tradition which connects Tabor with the
Transfiguration, consult Robinson’s Researches, ii.
358, 9. [Ho Β. Η.]
TA'BOR (WAM: Oaxxela; Alex. Θαβωρ:
Thabor) is mentioned in the lists of 1 Chr. vi. as a
city of the Merarite Levites, in the tribe of Ze-
bulun (ver. 77). The catalogue of Levitical cities
in Josh, xxi. does not contain any name answering
to this (comp. vers. 34, 35). But the list of the
towns of Zebulun (Ib. xix.) contains the name of
CHISLOTH-TABOR (ver. 12), It is therefore, pos-
sible, either that Chisloth-Tabor is abbreviated into
Tabor by the chronicler, or that by the time these
later lists were compiled, the Merarites had esta-
blished themselves on the sacred mountain, and that
Tabor is Mount Tabor. [G.]
TA'BOR, THE PLAIN OF (ἦ3 iby:
ἡ δρῦς Θαβώρ: quercus Thabor). It has been
already pointed out [see PLAIN, p. 8906], that
this is an incorrect translation, and should be THE
Oak OF TABOR. It is mentioned in 1 Sam. x. 3,
only as one of the points in the homeward journey
of Saul after his anointing by Samuel. It was the
next stage in the journey after ‘“ Rachel’s sepulchre
at Zelzach.” But unfortunately, like so many of
the other spots named in this interesting passage,
the position of the Oak of Tabor has not yet been
fixed.
Ewald seems to consider it certain (gewiss) that
Tabor and Deborah are merely different modes of
pronouncing the same name, and he accordingly
identifies the oak of Tabor with the tree under
which Deborah, Rachel’s nurse, was buried (Gen.
xxxy. 8), and that again with the palm, under which
Deborah the prophetess delivered her oracles (Gesch.
iil. 29, i. 390, ii. 489), and this again with the
Oak of the old Prophet near Bethel (ib. iii.
444). But this, though most ingenious, can only
be received as a conjecture, and the position on
which it would land us—‘‘ between Ramah and
Bethel” (Judg. iv. 5), is too far from Rachel’s se-
pulchre to fall in’ with the conditions of the nar-
rative of Saul’s journey, as long as we hold that to
be the traditional sepulchre near Bethlehem. A
further opportunity for examining this most puz~
zling route will occur under ZELZAH; but the
writer is not sanguine enough to hope that any
light can be thrown on it in the present state of
our knowledge. [G.]
TABRET. [TimsrReEt.]
TAB'RIMON (530 : TaBepeua ; Alex. Ta-
Bevponud: Tubremon). Properly, Tabrimmon, i. e.
* good is Rimmon,”’ the Syrian god; compare the
analogous torms Tobiel, Tobiah, and the Phoenician
Tab-aram (Gesen. Mon. Phoen. 456). The father of
Benhadad I., king of Syria in the reign of Asa
(1 K. xv. 18).
TACHE (Bp: κρίκος : circulus, fibula). The
word thus rendered occurs only in the description
of the structure of the tabernacle and its fittings
{παν 6:1. .99} xxxv.o 11. xxxvie 135) xexixe
33), and appears to indicate the small hooks by
which a curtain is suspended to the rings from
which it hangs. or connected vertically, as in the
case of the veil of the Holy of Holies, with the
loops of another curtain. The history ea English
4 Y¥ 2
1427
3; and Lichten-
1428 *TACHMONITE, THE
word is philologically interesting, as presenting
points of contact with many different languages.
The Gaelic and Breton branches of the Keltic family
give tac, or tach, in the sense of a nail or hook.
The latter meaning appears in the attaccare, stac-
care, of Italian, in the attacher, détacher, of French.
On the other hand, in the tak of Dutch, and the
Zacke of German, we have a word of like sound and
kindred meaning. Our Anglo-Saxon taccan and Eng-
lish take (to seize as with a hook ?) are probably
connected with it. In later use the word has slightly
altered both its form: and meaning, and the tack is
no longer a hook, but a small flat-headed nail (comp.
Diez, Roman. Wérterb. 5. v. Tacco). [E. H. P.]
TACH'MONITE, THE (‘313MA: ὁ Xavo-
vatos: sapientissimus). ‘* The Tachmonite (pro-
perly, Tachcemonite) that sat in the seat,’ chief
among Dayid’s captains (2 Sam. xxiii. 8), is in
1 Chr. xi. 11 called “ Jashobeam an Hachmonite,”’
or, as the margin gives it, “son of Hachmoni.”
The Geneva version has in 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, ‘* He
that sate in the seate of wisedome, being chiefe of
the princes, was Adino of Ezni,” regarding * Tach-
monite”’ as an adjective derived from Don, chacam,
ἐς wise,’ and in this derivation following Kimchi.
Kennicott has shown, with much appearance of pro-
bability, that the words NAW] IW, yosheb bas-
shebeth, “ he that sat in the seat,” are a corruption
of Jashobeam, the true name of the hero, and that
the mistake arose from an error of the transcriber,
who carelessly inserted nawa from the previous
verse where it occurs. He further considers ‘“ the
Tachmonite”’ a corruption of the appellation in
Chronicles, “son of Hachmoni,’ which was the
family or local name of Jashobeam. ‘‘ The name here
in Samuel was at first ΩΓ, the article 7 at
the beginning having been corrupted into a 1; for
the word 12 in Chronicles is regularly supplied in
Samuel by that article”? (Dissert. p. 82). There-
fore he concludes ‘* Jashobeam the Hachmonite”’ to
have been the true reading. Josephus (Ané. vii.
12, §4) calls him ᾿Ιέσσαμος vids ᾿Αχεμαίου, which
favours Kennicott’s emendation.- —_[W. A. W.]
TADMOR (AIM: Goeduop: Palmira), called
“Tadmor in the wilderness” (2 Chr. viii. 4).
There is no reasonable doubt that this city, said to
have been built by Solomon, is the same as the
one known to the Greeks and Romans and_ to
modern Europe by the name, in some form or
other, of Palmyra (Παλμυρά, Παλμιρά, Palmira).
The identity of the two cities results from the
following circumstances: Ist, The same city is spe-
cially mentioned by Josephus (ἀπέ. viii. 6, $1) as
bearing in his time the name of Tadmor among the
Syrians, and Palmyra among the Greeks; and in
his Latin translation of the Old Testament, Jerome
translates ‘Tadmor by Palmira (2 Chr. viii. 4).
2ndly, The modern Arabic name of Palmyra is
substantially the same as the Hebrew word, being
Tadmur or Tathmur, 3Srdly, The word Tadmor
has nearly the same meaning as Palmyra, signifying
probably the “ City of Palms,” from Tamar, a Palm:
and this is confirmed by the Arabic word for Palma,
a Spanish town on the Guadalquivir, which is said
to be called admir (see Gesenius in his Thesaurus,
p- 345). 4thly, The name Tadmor or Tadmédr
actually occurs as the name of the city in Aramaic
and Greek inscriptions which have been found
there. 5thly, In the Chronicles, the city is men-
TADMOR
tioned as having been built by Solomon after his
conquest of Hamath Zobah, and it is named in con-
junction with ‘‘all the store-cities which he built
in Hamath.’’ This accords fully with the situation
of Palmyra [HAMATH ]; and there is no other known
city, either in the desert or not in the desert, which
can lay claim to the name of Tadmor.
In addition to the passage in the Chronicles, there
is a passage in the Book of Kings (1 K. ix. 18) in
which, according to the marginal reading (/ver7), the
statement that Solomon built Tadmor, likewise
occurs. But on referring to the original text
(Cethib), the word is found to be not Tadmor,
but Tamar. Now, as all the other towns men-
tioned in this passage with Tamar are in Palestine
(Gezer, Beth-horon, Baalath), as it is said of
Tamar that it was “in the wilderness in the land,’
and as, in Ezekiel’s prophetical description of the
Holy Land, there is a Tamar mentioned as one of
the borders of the land on the south (Kz. xvii,
19), where, as is notorious, there is a desert, it is
probable that the author of the Book of Kings did
not really mean to refer to Palmyra, and that the
marginal reading of “ Tadmor ”’ was founded on the
passage in the Chronicles (see Thenius, Hxegetisches
Handbuch, 1 i. ix. 18).
If this is admitted, the suspicion naturally sug-
gests itself, that the compiler of the Chronicles may
have misapprehended the original passage in the
Book of Kings, and may have incerrectly written
“Tadmor’’ instead of * Tamar.’’ On this hypothesis
there would have been a curious circle of mistakes ;
and the final result would be, that any supposed
connexion between Solomon and the foundation of
Palmyra must be regarded as purely imaginary,
This conclusion is not necessarily incorrect or un-
reasonable, but there are not sufficient reasons for
adopting it. In the first place, the Tadmor of
the Chronicles is not mentioned in connexion with
the same cities as the Tamar of the Kings, so there
is nothing cogent to suggest the inference that the
statement of the Chronicles was copied from the
Kings. Secondly, admitting the historical correct-
ness of the statement that the kingdom of Solomon
extended from Gaza, near the Mediterranean Sea, to
Tiphsah or Thapsacus, on the Euphrates (1 Καὶ iv.
24; comp. Ps. Ixxii. 8, 9), it would be in the
highest degree probable that Solomon occupied and
garrisoned such a very important station for con-
necting different parts of his dominions as Palmyra.
And, even without reference to military and political
considerations, it would have been a masterly po-
licy in Solomon to have secured Palmyra as a point
of commercial communication with the Euphrates,
Babylon, and the Persian Gulf. It is evident that
Solomon had large views of commerce; and as we
know that he availed himself of the nautical skill
of the Tyrians by causing some of his own sub-
jects to accompany them in distant voyages from a
port on the Red Sea (1 K. ix. 26, 27, 28, x. 22),
it is unlikely that he should have neglected trade
by land with such a centre of wealth and civiliza-
tion as Babylon. But that great city, though so
nearly in the same latitude with Jerusalem that
there is not the difference of even one degree be-
tween them, was separated from Jerusalem by a
great desert, so that regular direct communication
between the two cities was impracticable. In
a celebrated passage, indeed, of Isaiah (xl. 3), con-
nected with “the voice of him that crieth in
the wilderness,” images are introduced of δ᾽ direct
return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon through
TADMOR
the desert. Such a route was known to the
Bedawin of the desert; and may have been excep-
tionally passed over by others; but evidently these
images are only poetical, and it may be deemed
indisputable that the successive caravans of Jews
who returned to their own land from Babylon
arrived fiom the same quarter as Nebuchadnezzar
and the Chaldaeans (Jer, i. 14, 15, x. 22, xxv. 9),
viz., from the North. In fact, Babylon thus be-
came so associated with the North in the minds of
the Jews, that in one passage of Jeremiah® (xxiii. 8)
it is called **the North country,” and it is by no
means impossible that many of the Jews may have
been ignorant that Babylon was nearly due east
from Jerusalem, although somewhat more than
600 miles distant. Now, the way in which Pal-
myra would have been useful to Solomon in trade
between Babylon and the west is evident from a
glance at a good map. By merely following the
road up the stream on the right bank of the
Euphrates, the traveller goes in a north-westerly
direction, and the width of the desert becomes pro-
portionally less, till at length, from a point on the
Kuphrates, there are only about 120 miles across
the desert to Palmyra,» and thence about the same
distance across the desert to Damascus. From
Damascus there were ultimately two roads into
Palestine, one on each side of the Jordan; and
there was an easy communication with Tyre by
Paneias, or Caesarea Philippi, now Banids. It is
true that the Assyrian and Chaldee armies did not
cross the desert by Palmyra, but took the more cir-
cuitous road by Hamath on the Orontes: but this
was doubtless owing to the greater facilities which
that route afforded for the subsistence of the cavalry
of which those armies were mainly composed, For
mere purposes of trade, the shorter road by Pal-
myra had some decided advantages, as long as it
was thoroughly secure. See Movers, Das Phéniz-
ische Alterthum, 3ter Theil, p. 243, &c.
Hence there are not sufficiently valid reasons for
denying the statement in the Chronicles that Solo-
mon built Tadmor in the wilderness, or Palmyra.
As, however, the city is nowhere else mentioned
in the whole Bible, it would be out of place to
enter into a long, detailed history of it on the
present occasion. The following leading facts, how-
ever, may be mentioned. The first author of anti-
quity who mentions Palmyra is Pliny the Elder
(Hist. Nat. v. 26), who says, “ Palmira nobilis
urbs situ, divitiis soli et aquis amoenis vasto undique
ambitu arenis includit agros;” and then proceeds
to speak of it as placed apart, as it were between
the two empires of the Romans and the Parthians,
and as the first object of solicitude to each at the
commencement of war. Afterwards it was men-
tioned by Appian (De Bell. Civil. v. 9), in refer-
ence to a still earlier period of time, in connection
with a design of Mark Antony to let his cavalry
plunder it. The inhabitants are said to have
withdrawn themselves and their effects to a strong
position on the Euphrates—and the cavalry entered
an empty city. In the second century A.D.
it seems to have been beautified by the Emperor
Hadrian, as may be inferred from a statement of
a A misunderstanding of this passage has counte-
nanced the ideas of those who believe in a future second
return of the Jews to Palestine. This belief may, under
peculiarly favourable circumstances, lead hereafter to its
own realization. It has not, however, been hitherto
really proved that a second dispersion or a second return
of the Jews was ever contemplated by any Hebrew
TADMOR 1429
Stephanus of Byzantium as to the name of the city
having been changed to Hadrianopolis (5. v. Παλ-
upd). In the beginning of the third century a.p.
it became a Roman colony under Caracalla (211-
217 A.D.), and received the jus Italicum. Subse-.
quently, in the reign of Gallienus, the Roman
Senate invested Odenathus, a senator of Palmyra,
with the regal dignity, on account of his services in
defeating Sapor king of Persia. On the assassination
of Odenathus, his celebrated wife Zenobia seems to
have conceived the design of erecting Palmyra into
an independent monarchy ; and, in prosecution of
this object, she, for a while, successfully resisted the
Roman arms. She was at length defeated and taken
captive by the Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 273), who
left a Roman garrison in Palmyra. This garrison
was massacred in a revolt ; and Aurelian punished
the city by the execution not only of those who
were taken in arms, but likewise of common pea-
sants, of old men, women, and children. From this
blow Palmyra never recovered, though there are
proofs of its having continued to be inhabited until
the downfall of the Roman Empire. There is a
fragment of a building, with a Latin inscription,
bearing the name of Diocletian; and there are
existing walls of the city of the age of the Em-
peror Justinian. In 1172, Benjamin of Tudela
found 4000 Jews there; and at a later period
Abulfeda mentioned it as full of splendid ruins.
Subsequently its very existence had become un-
known to modern Europe, when, in 1691 A.D., it
was visited by some merchants from the English
factory in Aleppo; and an account of their dis-
coveries was published in 1695, in the Philosophical
Transactions (vol. xix. No. 217, p. 83, No. 218,
p- 129). In 1751, Robert Wood took drawings
of the ruins on a very large scale, which he
published in 1753, in a splendid folio work, under
the title of The Ruins of Palmyra, otherwise,
Tadmor in the Desert. This work still continues
to be the best on Palmyra; and its valuable en-
gravings fully justify the powerful impression which
the ruins make on every intelligent traveller who
crosses the desert to visit them. The colonnade
and individual temples are inferior in beauty and
majesty to those which may be seen elsewhere—
such, for example, as the Parthenon, and the re-
mains of the Temple of Jupiter, at Athens: and
there is evidently no one temple equal to the Temple
of the Sun at Baalbek, which, as built both at about
the same period of time and in the same order of
architecture, suggests itself most naturally as an
object of comparison. But the long lines of
Corinthian columns at Palmyra, as seen at a dis-
tance, are peculiarly imposing; and in their general
effect and apparent vastness, they seem to surpass
all other ruins of the same kind. All the buildings
to which these columns belonged were probably
erected in the second and third centuries of our
aera. Many inscriptions are of later date; but
no inscription earlier than the second century seems
yet to have been discovered.
For further information consult the original au-
thorities for the history of Palmyra in the Seriptores
Historiae Augustae, Triginta Tyranni, xiv., Divus
prophet,
b The exact latitude and longitude of Palmyra do not
seem to have been scientifically taken. Mr. Wood men-
tions that his party had no quadrant with them, and
there is a disagreement between various maps and geo-
graphical works. According to Mr. Johnston, the position
is, lat. 349 18’ N., and long. 38° 13’ E.
1430 TAHAN
Aurelianus, xxvi.; Hutropius, ix. cap. 10, 11, 12.
In 1696 A.p., Abraham Seller published a most
mstructive work entitled, The Antiquities of Pal-
myra, containing the History of the City and its
Emperors, which contains several Greek inscrip-
tions, with translations and explanations. The
Preface to Wood’s work likewise contains a detailed
TAHPANHES
ees: of the city; and Gibbon, in the 11th
chapter of the Decline and Fall, has given an
account of Palmyra with his usual vigour and
accuracy. For an interesting account of the pre-
sent state of the ruins see Porter’s Handbook for
Syria and Palestine, pp. 543-549, and Beaufort’s
Egyptian Sepulchres, &e. i. [E. 1.1
Ruins of Tadmor or Palmyra.
TA'HAN (JAM: Tavax, Θαέν : Thehen,
Thaan). A descendant of Ephraim, but of what
degree is uncertain (Num. xxvi. 35). In 1 Chr.
vii. 25 he appears as the son of Telah.
TA'HANITES, THE (NAN: ὁ Tavaxi:
Thehenitae). The descendants of the preceding, a
branch of the tribe of Ephraim (Num. xxvi. 35).
TA'HATH (ANA: Θαάθ: Thahaih). 1.
Kohathite Levite, ancestor of Samuel and Heman
(1 Chr. vi. 24, 37 [9, 227).
2. (Gadd; Alex. Θαάθ.) According to the pre-
sent text, son of Bered, and great-grandson of
Ephraim (1 Chr. vii. 20). Burrington, however
(Geneal. i. 273), identifies Tahath with Tahan, the
son of Ephraim.
8. (Ξαάθ; Alex. Noweé.) Grandson of the pre-
ceding, as the text now stands (1 Chr. vii. 20).
But Burrington considers him as a son of Ephraim
(ii. tab. xix.). In this case Tahath was one of the
sons of Ephraim who were slain by the men of
Gath in a raid made upon their cattle.
TA'HATH (NOM: Karadé).
aesert-station of the Israelites between Makheloth
and Tarah (Num. xxxiii. 26). The name, signifying
“under” or “ below,’ may relate to the level of
the ground, ‘The site has not been identified.
Tachta, from the same root, is the common word
employed to designate the lower one of the double
villages so common in Syria, the upper one being
fora. Thus Beitir el-foka is the upper Beth-horon,
Beitir el-tachta the lower one. [H. H.]
TAH'PANHES, TEHAPH'NEHES, TA-
HAP'ANES (DM8NA, DMIHNIA, DIBNA, the
last form in text, but Keré has first : “‘Tdpvas,
A
The name of a
just mentioned (xxx. 18).
Tapva: Taphnis, Taphne). A.city of Egypt, of
importance in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and
Ezekiel. The name is evidently Egyptian, and closely
resembles that of the Egyptian queen TAHPENES.
The Coptic name of this place, TANG
(Quatremére, Mem. Géog. et Hist. i. 297, 298), is
evidently derived from the LXX. form: the Gy.
and Lat. forms, Δάφναι, Hdt., Δάφνη, Steph. Byz.,
Dafno, tin. Ant., ave perhaps nearer to the Egyp-
tian original (see Parthey, Zur Erdkunde des Alten
Aeguptens, p. 528).
Tahpanhes was evidently a town of Lower Egypt
near or on the eastern border. When Johanan and
the other captains went into Egypt ‘“ they came to
Tahpanhes” (Jer. xliii. 7), Here Jeremiah pro-
phesied the conquest of the country by Nebuchad-
nezzar (8-13). Ezekiel foretells a battle to be
there fought apparently by the king of Babyloa
The Jews in Jeremiah’s
time remained here (Jer. xliv. 1). [Ὁ was an im-
portant town, being twice mentioned by the latter
prophet with Noph or Memphis (ii. 16, xlvi. 14),
as well as in the passage last previously cited. Here
stood a house of Pharaoh Hophra before which
Jeremiah hid great stones, where the throne of
Nebuchadnezzar would afterwards be set, and his
pavilion spread (xliii. 8-10). It is mentioned
with ‘* Ramesse and all the land of Gesen” in Jud.
i. 9. Herodotus calls this place Daphnae of Pelu-
sium (Δάφναι αἱ Πηλουσίαι), and relates that
Psammetichus I. here had a garrison against the
Arabians and Syrians, as at Elephantine against
the Ethiopians, and at Marea against Libya, adding
that in his own time the Persians had garrisons at
Daphnae and Elephantine (ii. 30). Daphnae was
therefore a very important post under the xxvith
dynasty. According to Stephanus it was near
Pelusium (8. v.).
TAHPENES
In the /tinerury of Antoninus this town, called
Datno, is placed 16 Roman miles to the south-west
of Pelusium (ap. Parthey, Map vi., where observe
that the name of Pelusium is omitted). This posi-
tion seems to agree with that of Tel-Defenneh,
which Sir Gardner Wilkinson supposes to mark the
site of Daphnae (Modern Egypt and Thebes, i. 447,
448). This identification favours the inland posi-
tion of the site of Pelusium, if we may trust to the
distance stated in the /tinerary. [SiN.] Sir G.
Wilkinson (/. c.) thinks it was an outpost of
Pelusium. It may be observed that the Camps, τὰ
Στρατόπεδα, the fixed garrison of Ionians and
Carians established by Psammetichus I., may pos-
sibly have been at Daphnae. Can the name be
of Greek origin? If the Hanes mentioned by
Isaiah (xxx. 4) be the same as Tahpanhes, as we
have suggested (s. v.), this conjecture must be dis-
missed. No satisfactory Egyptian etymology of this
name has been suggested, Jablonski’s Tacde-
ENED,, “the head” or “ beginning of the
age” (Opuse. i. 345), being quite untenable, nor
has any Egyptian name resembling it been dis-
covered.* The name of Queen TAHPENES throws
no light upon this matter. {RSs Bel
TAH'PENES (ΠΗ : Θεκεμίνα: Tuphnes),
a proper name of an Egyptian queen. She was wife
of the Pharaoh who received Hadad the Edomite,
and who gave him her sister in marriage (1 Καὶ, xi.
18-20). In the LXX. the latter is called the elder
sister of Thekemina, and in the addition to ch, xii.
Shishak (Susakim) is said to have given Ano, the
elder sister of Thekemina his wite, to Jeroboam.
It is obvious that this and the earlier statement
are irreconcileable, even if the evidence from the
probable yepetition of an elder sister be set aside,
and it is scarcely necessary to add that the name
of Shishak’s chief or only wife, KARAAMAT, does
not support the LXX. addition. [SHisuaK.] There
is therefore but one Tahpenes or Thekemina, At
the time to which the narrative refers there were
probably two, if not three, lines ruling in Egypt,
the Tanites of the xxist dynasty in the lower
country, the high-priest kings at Thebes, but pos-
sibly they were of the same line, and perhaps one
of the last fainéunts of the Rameses family. To
the Tanite line, as apparently then the most power-
ful, and as holding the territory nearest Palestine,
the Pharaoh in question, as well as the father-in-
law of Solomon, probably belonged. If Manetho’s
list be correct he may be conjectured to have been
Psusennes. [PHARAOH.}] No name that has any
near resemblance to either Tahpenes or Thekemina
has yet been found among those of the period (see
Lepsius, AGnigsbuch). ἰ 5. ῬῚ]
ΤΑΗΒΕΙΑ (YONA: Oapax; Alex. Θαρά:
Tharaa). Son of Micah, and grandson of Mephi-
bosheth (i Chr. ix. 41). In the parallel list of
1 Chr. viii. 35 his name appears as TAREA,
TAH'TIM HOD’'SHI, THE LAND OF
CeIn DIANA YIN: els τὴν Θαβασῶν ἥ ἐστιν
NaBacai; Alex. γην εθαων αδασαι: terra inferiora
Hodsi). One of the places visited by Joab during
his census of the land of Israel. It occurs between
Gilead and Dan-jaan (2 Sam. xxiv. 6). The name
has puzzled all the interpreters. The old versions
TALMAI 1431
throw no light upon it, Fiirst (Handwh. i. 380)
proposes to separate the ‘ Land of the Tachtim”
fiom ‘ Hodshi,” and to read the latter as Harshi—
the people of Harosheth (comp. Judg. iv. 2). The-
nius restores the text of the LXX. to read “ the Land
of Bashan, which is Edrei.” ‘This in itself is feasible,
although it is certainly very difficult to connect it
with the Hebrew. Ewald ((resch. iii. 207) proposes
to read Hermon for Hodshi; and Gesenius ( 7168.
450 a) dismisses the passage with a vi pro sano
habendum.
There is a district called the Ard et-tahta, to the
E.N.E. of Damascus, which recalls the old name—
but there is nothing to show that any Israelite was
living so far from the Holy Land in the time of
David. [G.]
TALENT (953: τάλαντον : talentum), the
greatest weight of the Hebrews. Its Hebrew name
properly signifies “ἃ circle” or “ globe,” and was
perhaps given to if on account of a form in which
it was anciently made. The Assyrian name of the
talent is tikwn according to Dr. Hincks.
The subject of the Hebrew talent will be fully
discussed in a later article [WeEIautTs]. [R.S. P.]
σ
TALI'THA CU'MI (ταλιθὰ κοῦμι: Αι
Ὡς Ξε
wWOAN). Two Syriac words (Mark v. 41),
signifying “ Damsel, arise.”
The word NM" occurs in the Chaldee para-
phrase of Prov, ix. 3, where it signifies a girl; and
Lightfoot (Horae Heb. Mark v. 41) gives an in-
stance of its use in the same sense by a Rabbinical
writer. Gesenius ( Thesaurus, 550) derives it from
the Hebrew προ, alamb. The word ")21} is both
Hebrew and Syriac (2 p. fem. Imperative, Kal, and
Peal), signifying stand, arise.
As might be expected, the last clause of this
verse, after Cumi, is not found in the Syriac ver-
sion. 5
Jerome (Ep, lvii, ad Pammachium, Opp. tom. i.
p- 308, ed. Vallars.) records that St. Mark was
blamed for a false translation on account of the
insertion of the words, “I say unto thee; but
Jerome points to this as an instance of the superi-
ority of a free over a literal translation, inasmuch
as the words inserted serve to show the emphasis of
our Lord’s manner in giving this command on His
own personal authority. [Webbs]
TALMA'T onda: Θελαμί, Θολαμί, Θολμί ;
Alex. Θελαμείν, Θολμαί, Θαμεί : Tholmai). 1. One
of the three sons of “{π6 Anak,” who were driven
out from their settlement in Kirjath-Arba, and
slain by the men of Judah, under the command
of Caleb (Num. xiii. 22; Josh. xv. 14; Judg.
ate
2. (Θολμί in 2 Sam., Θολμαΐ in 1 Chr.; Alex.
Θολμεί, Θολομαΐ, Θολμαΐ: Tholmai, Tholomai.)
Son of Ammihud, king of Geshur (2 Sam. iii. 3,
xiii, 37; 1 Chr. iii. 2). His daughter Maachah
was one of the wives of David and mother of Absa-
lom. He was probably a petty chieftain dependent
on David, and his wild retreat in Bashan afforded a
shelter to his grandson after the assassination of
Amnon,
* Dr. Brugsch, following Mr. Heath (Hxodus Papyrt,
p. 174), identifies the fort ‘'eBNeT with Tabpanhes ; but
this name does not seem to us sufficiently near either to
———
the Hebrew or to the Greek (Geogr. Inschr. i. 300, 301,
Taf. lvi. no. 1728),
1452 TALMON
TAL’MON qiabn : Τελμών, but TeAauiy in
Neh. xi. 19; Alex. Τελμάν, Τολμών, Τελαμείν :
Telmon). The head of a family of doorkeepers in
the Temple, “ the porters for the camps of the sons
of Levi” (1 Chr. ix. 17; Neh. xi. 19). Some of
his descendants returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii.
42; Neh. vii. 45), and were employed in their
hereditary office in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra
(Neh. xii. 25), for the proper names in this passage
must be considered as the names of families.
ΤΑΙ ΒΑΚ (Σαλόας: Thalsas). ELASAH (1 Esd.
ix. 22).
TA'MAH ( nih: Onud: FA Hyuaé: Thema).
The children of Tamah, or Thamah (Ezr, ii. 53),
were among the Nethinim who returned with
Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 55).
TAMAR (ΕΠ = “ palm-tree ἢ. The name
of three women remarkable in the history of Israel.
1. (Θάμαρ: Thamar). The wite successively of
the two sons of Judah, ER and ONAN (Gen, xxxviii.
6-30). Her importance in the sacred narrative
depends on the great anxiety to keep up the lineage
of Judah. It seemed as if the family were on the
point of extinction. ER and ONAN had successively
perished suddenly. Judah’s wife Bathshuah died ;
and there only remained a child Shelah, whom
Judah was unwilling to trust to the dangerous
union, as it appeared, with Tamar, lest he should
meet with the same fate as his brothers. That he
should, however, marry her seems to have been re-
garded as part of the fixed law of the tribe, whence
its incorporation into the Mosaic Law in after times
(Deut. xxv. 5; Matt. xxii. 24); and, as such, Tamar
was determined not to let the opportunity escape
through Judah’s parental anxiety. Accordingly
she resorted to the desperate expedient of en-
trapping the father himself into the union which
he feared for his son. He, on the first emergence
from his mourning for his wife, went to one of
the festivals often mentioned in Jewish history as
attendant on sheep-shearing. He wore on his finger
the ring of his chieftainship; he carried his staff in
his hand; he wore a collar or necklace round his
neck. He was encountered by a veiled woman on
the road leading to Timnath, the future birthplace
of Samson, amongst the hills of Dan. He took her
for one of the unfortunate women who were conse-
crated to the impure rites of the Canaanite worship.
{SopoemiTEs.] He promised her, as the price of
his intercourse, a kid from the flocks to which he
was going, and left as his pledge his ornaments
and his staff. The kid he sent back by his shep-
herd (LXX.), Hirah of Adullam. The woman
could nowhere be found. Months afterwards it
was discovered to be his own daughter-in-law
Tamar who had thus concealed herself under the
veil or mantle, which she cast off on her return
home, where she resumed the seclusion and dress of
a widow. She was sentenced to be burnt alive, and
was only saved by the discovery, through the
pledges which Judah had left, that her seducer
was no less than the chieftain of the tribe. He
had the magnanimity to recognise that she had been
driven into this crime by his own neglect of his
promise to give her in marriage to his youngest son.
*¢ She hath been more righteous than 1... . and he
knew her again no more”’ (Gen. xxxviii. 26). The
fruit of this intercourse were twins, PHAREZ and
ZARAH, and through Pharez the sacred line was
TAMAR
continued. Tlence the prominence given to Tamar
in the nuptial benediction of the tribe of Judah
(Ruth iy. 12), and in the genealogy of our Lord
(Matt. i. 3).
The story is important (1.) as showing the sig-
nificance, from early times, attached to the con-
tinuance of the line of Judah; (2.) as a glimpse.
into the rough manners of the patriarchal time;
(3.) as the germ of a famous Mosaic law.
2. (Onudp; Alex. ©audp; Joseph. Θαμάρα:
Thamar.) Daughter of David and Maachah the
Geshurite princess, and thus sister of Absalom
(2 Sam. xiii. 1-32; 1 Chr. iii. 9; Joseph. Ant.
vii. 8, §1). She and her brother were alike re-
markable for their extraordinary beauty. Her name
(‘* Palm-tree”) may have been given her on this
account. This fatal beauty inspired a frantic
passion in her half-brother Amnon, the eldest son
of David by Ahinoam. He wasted away from
the feeling that it was impossible to gratify his
desire, “for she was a virgin”—the narrative
leaves it uncertain whether from a scruple on ᾿
his part, or from the seclusion in which in her
unmarried state she was kept. Morning by morn-
ing, as he received the visits of his friend JoNA-
DAB, he is paler and thinner (Joseph. Ant. vii.
ὃ, 81). Jonadab discovers the cause, and suggests to
him the means of accomplishing his wicked pur-
pose. He was to feign sickness. The king, who
appears to have entertained a considerable affection,
almost awe, for him, as the eldest son (2 Sam. xiii.
5, 21: LXX.), came to visit him; and Amnon en-
treated the presence of Tamar, on the pretext that
she alone could give him food that he would eat.
What follows is curious, as showing the simplicity
of the royal life. It would almost seem that Tamar
was supposed to have a peculiar art of baking pa-
latable cakes. She came to his house (for each
prince appears to have had a separate establishment),
took the dough and kneaded it, and then in his
presence (for-this was to be a part of his fancy,
as though there were something exquisite in the
manner of her performing the work) kneaded it a
second time into the form of cakes. The name given
to these cakes (lebibah), “ heart-cakes,” has been
variously explained: “ hollow cakes” — cakes with
some stimulating spices” (like our word cordial)—
cakes in the shape of a heart (like the Moravian
gertihrte herzen, Thenius, ad loc.)—cakes “ the de-
light of the heart.” Whatever it be, it implies
something special and peculiar. She then took the
pan, in which they had been baked, and poured
them all out in a heap before the prince. This
operation seems to have gone on in an outer room,
on which Amnon’s bedchamber opened. He caused
his attendants to retire—called her to the inner room
and there accomplished his design. In her touching
remonstrance two points are remarkable. First, the
expression of the infamy of such a crime “ in Zsrael,”
implying the loftier standard of morals that prevailed,
as compared with other countries at that time ; and,
secondly, the belief that even this standard might
be overborne lawfully by royal authority—‘ Speak
to the king, for he will not withhold me trom thee.”
This expression has led to much needless explanation,
from its contradiction to Lev. xviii. 9, xx. 17 ; Deut.
xxvii. 22: as, e.gr., that, her mother Maachah not,
being a Jewess, there was no proper legal relation-
ship between her and Amnon; or that she was
ignorant of the law; or that the Mosaic laws were
not then in existence (Thenius, ad loc.). It is
enough to suppose, what evidently her whole speech
TAMAR
implies, that the king had a dispensing power,
which was conceived to cover even extreme cases.
The brutal hatred of Amnon succeeding to his
brutal passion, and the indignation of Tamar at his
barbarous insult, even surpassing her indignation
at his shameful outrage, are pathetically and gra-
phically told, and in the narrative another glimpse
is given us of the manners of the royal household.
The unmarried princesses, it seems, were distin-
guished by robes or gowns with sleeves (so the
LXX., Josephus, &c., take the word translated in
the A. V. “divers colours”). Such was the
dress worn by Tamar on the present occasion, and
when the guard at Amnon’s door had thrust her
out and closed the door after her to prevent her re-
turn, she, in her agony, snatched handfuls of ashes
{rom the ground and threw them on her hair, then
tore off her royal sleeves, and clasped her bare hands
upon her head, and rushed to and fro through the
streets screaming aloud. In this state she encoun-
tered her brother Absalom, who took her to his
house, where she remained as if in a state of
widowhood. The king was afraid or unwilling to
interfere with the heir to the throne, but she was
avenged by Absalom, as Dinah had been by Simeon
and Levi, and out of that vengeance grew the series
of calamities which darkened the close of David's
reign.
The story of Tamar, revolting as it is, has the
interest of revealing to us the interior of the royal
household beyond that of any other incident of
those times. (1.) The establishments of the princes.
(2.) The simplicity of the royal employments.
(3.) The dress of the princesses. (4.) The relation
of the king to the princes and to the law.
3. (Onudp; Alex. @audp: Thamar.) Daughter
of Absalom, called probably after her beautiful aunt,
and inheriting the beauty of both aunt and father
(2 Sam. xiv. 7). She was the sole survivor of
the house of Absalom; and ultimately, by her
marriage with Uriah of Gibeah, became the mother
of Maachah, the future queen of Judah, or wife
of Abijah (1 K. xv. 2), Maachah being called
after her great-grandmother, as Tamar after her
aunt. [FARR S:]]
TA'MAR (DA : Θαιμᾶνδ in both MSS.:
Thamar). A spot on the south-eastern frontier of
Judah, named in Ezek. xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28 only,
evidently called from a palm-tree. If not Hazazon
Tamar, the old name of Engedi, it may be a place
called Thamar in the Onomasticon (“ Hazazon
Tamar”), a day’s journey south of Hebron. The
Peutinger Tables give Thamar in the same direc-
tion, and Robinson (B. R. ii. 198, 201) identifies
the place with the ruins of an old fortress at
Kurnub. De Sauley (Narr. i. ch. 7) endeavours
to establish a connexion between Tamar and the
Kalaat embarrhes, at the mouth of the ravine of
that name on the S.W. side of the Dead Sea, on
the ground (amongst others) that the names are
similar. But this, to say the ieast, is more than
doubtful. [A. P. S.]
TAMMUZ (NOMA: 6 Θαμμούς: Adonis).
Properly “the Tammuz,’ the article indicating
that at some time or other the word had been re-
garded as an appellative, though at the time of its
* Ez. xlvii. 19 contains an instance of the double
translation not infrequent in the present text of the
LXX., ἀπὸ Θαιμᾶν καὶ Φοινικῶνος.
TAMMUZ 1433
occurrence and subsequently it may have been
applied as a proper name. As it is found once only
in the O. T., and then in a passage of extreme ob-
scurity, it is not surprising that many conjectures
have been formed concerning it ; and as none of the
opinions which have been expressed rise above the
importance of conjecture, it will be the object of
this article to set them forth as clearly as possible,
and to give at least a history of what has been said
upon the subject.
In the sixth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin,
in the sixth month and on the fifth day of the
month, the prophet Ezekiel as he sat in his house
surrounded by the elders of Judah, was transported
in spirit to the far distant Temple at Jerusalem.
The hand of the Lord God was upon him, and led
him “to the door of the gate of the house of Je-
hovah, which was towards the north; and behold
there the women sitting, weeping for the Tam-
muz.” Some translate the last clause “ causing
the Tammuz to weep,” and the influence which this
rendering has upon the interpretation will be seen
hereafter. If }}19F) be a regularly formed Hebrew
word, it must be derived either from a root 113
or T1A (comp. the forms mids, 5371), which is not
known toexist. To remedy this defect Fiirst (Handwb.
8. V.) invents a root, to which he gives the significa-
tion “to be strong, mighty, victorious,” and transi-
tively, “to overpower, annihilate.” It is to be re-
gretted that this lexicographer cannot be contented to
confess his ignorance of what is unknown. Roediger
(in Gesen. hes. 5. v.) suggests the derivation from a
root, DDID = ti) ; according to which T415M is a con-
traction of TA}IDF, and signifies a melting away,
dissolution, departure, and so the ἀφανισμὸς ᾿Αδώ-
vidos, or disappearance of Adonis, which was
mourned by the Phoenician women, and after them
by the Greeks. But the etymology is unsound,
and is evidently contrived so as to connect the name
Tammuz with the general tradition regarding it.
The ancient versions supply us with no help.
The LXX., the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the
Peshito Syriac, and the Arabic in Walton’s Polyglot,
merely reproduce the Hebrew word. ‘The Vulgate
alone gives Adonis as a modern equivalent, and
this rendering has been eagerly adopted by subse-
quent commentators, with but few exceptions. It
is at least as old, therefore, as Jerome, and the fact
of his having adopted it shows that it must have
embodied the most credible tradition. In his note
upon the passage he adds that since, according to
the Gentile fable, Adonis had been slain in the month
of June, the Syrians give the name of Tammuz to
this month, when they celebrate to him an anni-
versary solemnity, in which he is lamented by the
women as dead, and afterwards coming to life again
is celebrated with songs and praises. In another
passage (ad Paulinum, Op. i. p. 102, ed. Basil.
1565) he laments that Bethlehem was oversha-
dowed by a grove of Tammuz, that is, of Adonis,
and that ‘‘in the cave where the infant Christ once
cried, the lover of Venus was bewailed.” Cyril of
Alexandria (in Oseam, Op. iii.-79, ed. Paris, 1638),
and Theodoret (in E'zech.), give the same explana-
tion, and are followed by the author of the Chro-
nicon Paschale. The only exception to this uni-
formity is in the Syriac translation of Melito’s
Apology, edited by Dr. Cureton in his Spicilegium
Syriacum.. The date of the translation is unknown ;
the original if genuine must belong to the second
1434 TAMMUZ
century. The following is a literal rendering of
the Syriac: ‘The sons of Phoenicia worshipped
Balthi, the queen of Cyprus. For she loved Tamuzo,
the son of Cuthar, the king of the Phoenicians,
and forsook her kingdom and came and dwelt in
Gebal, a fortress of the Phoenicians. And at that
time she made all the villages* subject to Cuthar
the king. For before Tamuzo she had loved Ares,
and committed adultery with him, and Hephaestus
her husband caught her, and was jealous of her.
And he (7. e. Ares) came and slew Tamuzo on Leba-
non while he made a hunting among the wild boars.»
And from that time Balthi remained in Gebal, and
died in the city of Aphaca, where Tamuzo was
buried”’ (p. 25 of the Syriac text). We have here
very clearly the Greek legend of Adonis reproduced
with a simple change of name. Whether this
change is due to the translator, as is not impro-
bable, or whether he found ‘‘ Tammuz” in the
original of Melito, it is impossible to say. Be this
as it may, the tradition embodied in the passage
quoted, is probably as valuable as that in the same
author which regards Serapis as the deification of
Joseph. The Syriac lexicographer Bar Bahlul
(10th cent.), gives the legend as it had come down
te his time. ““ Tomuzo was, as they say, a hunter
shepherd and chaser of wild beasts; who when Be-
Jathi loved him took her away from her husband.
And when her husband went forth to seek her To-
muzo slew him. And with regard to Tomuzo also,
there met him in the deseit a wild boar and slew
him. And his father made for him a great lamen-
tation and weeping in the month Tomuz: and Be-
lathi his wife, she too made a lamentation and
mourning over him. And this tradition was handed
down among the heathen people during her lifetime
and after her death, which same tradition the Jews
received with the rest of the evil festivals of the
people, and in that month Tomuz used to make tor
him a great feast. Tomuz also is the name of one
of the months of the Syrians.” © In the next cen-
tury the legend assumes for the first time a different
form in the hands of a Rabbinical commentator.
Rabbi Solomon Isaaki (Rashi) has the following
note on the passage in Ezekiel. ‘* An image which
the women made hot in the inside, and its eyes
were of lead, and they melted by reason of the heat
of the burning and it seemed as if it wept; and
they (the women) said, He asketh for offerings.
Tammuz is a word signifying burning, as by
FYNO? TIN (Dan, ii. 19), and TAY ΠΣ NAN
(ibid. ver. 22).” And instead of rendering ‘ weep:
ing for the Tammuz,” he gives, what appears to
be the equivalent in French, ‘ faisantes pleurer
Péchauffé.”” .10 is clear, therefore, that Rashi re-
gards Tammuz as an appellative, derived from the
Chaldee root NIN, dza, ‘‘to make hot.” It is
equally clear that his etymology cannot be defended
for an instant. In the 12th century (a.p. 1161),
Solomon ben Abraham Parchon in his lexicon, com-
piled at Salerno from the works of Jehuda Chayug,
and Abulwalid Merwan ben Gannach, has the fol-
lowing observations upon Tammuz. “It is the
likeness of a reptile which they make upon the water,
and the water is collected in it and tlows through
* Not “ Cyprians,” as Dr. Cureton translates.
Ὁ Dr. Cureton’s emendation of this corrupt passage seems
the only one which can be adopted.
TAMMUZ
its holes, and it seems as if it wept. But the
month called Tammuz is Persian, and so are all our
months; none of them is from the sacred tongue,
though they are written in the Scripture they are
Persian; but in the sacred tongue the first month,
the second month,” &c. At the close of this cen-
tury we meet for the first time with aa entirely
new tradition repeated by R. David Kimchi, both
in his Lexicon and in his Commentary, from the
Moreh Nebuchim of Maimonides, ‘‘ In the month
Tammuz they made a feast of an idol, and the
women came to gladden him ; and some say that by
crafty means they caused the water to come into
the eyes of the idol which is called Tammuz, and it
wept, as if it asked them to worship it. And some
interpret Tammuz ‘ the burnt one,’ as if from Dan.
iii. 19 (see above), 7. 6. they wept over him because
he was burnt; for they used to burn their sons and
their daughters in the fire, and the women used to
weep over them. .. . But the Rab, the wise, the
great, our Rabbi Moshe bar Maimon, of blessed me-
mory, has written, that it is found written in one
of the ancient idolatrous books, that there was a
man of the idolatrous prophets, and his name was
Tammuz, And he called to a certain king and com-
manded him to serve the seven planets and the twelve
signs. And that king put him to a violent death,
and on the night of his death there were gathered
together all the images from the ends of the earth
to the temple of Babel, to the golden image which
was the image of the sun. Now this image was
suspended between heaven and earth, and it fell
down in the midst of the temple, and the images
likewise (fell down) round about it, and it told
them what had befallen Tammuz the prophet.
And the images all of them wept and lamented all
the night; and, as it came to pass, in the morning
all the images flew away to their own temples in
the ends of the earth. And this was to them for
an everlasting statute; at the beginning of the first
day of the month Tammuz each year they lamented
and wept over Tammuz. And some interpret Tam-
muz as the name of an animal, for they used to
worship an image which they had, and the Targum
of (the passage) DYN NN DOYS 15) Cs. xxxiv.
14) is pOynma pron pW. But in most
copies }}}9N is written with two vaws.” The
, book of the ancient idolaters from which Maimonides
quotes, is the now celebrated work on the Agri-
culture of the Nabatheans, to which reference will
be made hereafter. Ben Melech gives no help, and
Abendana merely quotes the explanations given by
Rashi and Kimchi.
The tradition recorded by Jerome, which identi-
fies Tammuz with Adonis, has been followed by
most subsequent commentators: among others by
Vatablus, Castellio, Cornelius a Lapide, Osiander,
Caspar Sanctius, Lavater, Villalpandus, Selden,
Simonis, Calmet, and in later times by J. D.
Michaelis, Gesenius, Ben Zeb, Rosenmiiller, Maurer,
Ewald, Havernick, Hitzig, and Movers. Luther
amd others regarded Tammuz as a name of Bacchus.
That Tammuz was the Egyptian Osiris, and that
his worship was introduced to Jerusalem from
Egypt, was held by Calvin, Piscator, Junius,
Leusden, and Pfeiffer. This view depends chiefly
Bablul in the Cambridge University Library, the readings
of which seem preferable in many respects to those in the
extract furnished by Bernstein to Chwolson (Die Ssabier,
¢ In this translation I have followed the MS. of Bar j)&c. ii. 206).
TAMMUZ
upon a false etymology proposed by Kircher, which
connects the word Tammuz with the Coptic tamut,
to hide, and so makes it signify the hidden or con-
cealed one ; and therefore Osiris, the Egyptian king
slain by Typho, whose loss was commanded by Isis
to be yearly lamented in Egypt. The women
weeping for Tammuz are in this case, according to
Junius, the priestesses of Isis. The Egyptian origin
of the name Tammuz has also been detended by a.
reference to the god Aiuz, mentioned by Plutarch |
and Herodotus, who is identical with Osiris. There
is good reason, however, to believe that Amuz is a
mistake for Amun. That something corresponding
to Tammuz is found in Egyptian proper names, as
they appear in Greek, cannot be denied. Ταμώς,
an Egyptian, appears in Thucydides (viii. 31) as a
Persian officer, in Xenophon (Anab. i. 4, §2) as an
admiral, The Egyptian pilot who heard the mys-
terious voice bidding him proclaim, “ Great Pam is
dead,” was called Θαμούς (Plutarch, De Defect.
Orac. 17). The names of the Egyptian kings,
Θούμμωσις, Τέθμωσις, and Θμῶσις, mentioned by
Manetho (Jos. c. Ap. i. 14, 15), have in turn
been compared with Tammuz; but unless some
more certain evidence be brought forward than is
found in these apparent resemblances, there is little
reason to conclude that the worship of Tammuz
was of Egyptian origin.
It seems perfectly clear, from what has been said,
that the name Tammuz affords no clue to the
identification of the deity whom it designated. The
slight hint given by the prophet of the nature of
the worship and worshippers of Tammuz has been
sufficient to connect them with the yearly mourn-
ing for Adonis by the Syrian damsels. Beyond this
we can attach no especial weight to the explana-
tion of Jerome. It isa conjecture and nothing more,
and does not appear to represent any tradition. All
that can be said therefore is, that it is not impos-
sible that Tammuz may be a name of Adonis the
sun-god, but that there is nothing to prove it.
The town of Byblos in Phoenicia was the head-
quarters of the Adonis-worship.4 The feast in his
honour was celebrated each year in the temple of
Aphrodite on the Lebanon ὃ (Lucian, De Ded Syra,
§6), with rites partly sorrowful, partly joyful. The
Emperor Julian was present at Antioch when the
same festival was held (Amm. Mare. xxii. 9, 818).
10 lasted seven days (Amm. Mare. xx. 1), the
period of mourning among the Jews (Ecclus. xxii.
12; Gen. 1. 10; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13; Jud. xvi. 24),
the Egyptians (Heliodor. Aeth. vii. 11), and the
Syrians (Lucian, De Ded Syra, $52), and began
with the disappearance (ἀφανισμός) of Adonis.
Then followed the search (ζήτησις) made by the
women after him. His body was represented by a
wooden image placed in the so-called “ gardens of
Adonis” (᾿Αδώνιδος κῆποι), which were earthenware |
vessels filled with mould, and planted with wheat,
barley, lettuce, and fennel. They were exposed by
the women to the heat of the sun, at the house-
doors or in the ‘ Porches of Adonis;” and the
withering of the plants was regarded as symbolical
of the slaughter of the youth by the fire-god
Mars. In one of these gardens Adonis was found
again, whence the fable says he was slain by the
boar in the lettuce (apaxn=Aphaca?), and was
there found by Aphrodite. The finding again
TAMMUZ 1435
(εὕρεσις) was the commencement of a wake, ac-
companied by all the usages which in the East
attend such a ceremony—prostitution, cutting off
the hair (comp. Lev. xix. 28, 29, xxi. 5; Deut.
xiv. 1), cutting the breast with knives (Jer. xvi. 6),
and playing on pipes (comp. Matt. ix. 23). The
image of Adonis was then washed and anointed
with spices, placed in a coffin on a bier, and the
wound made by the boar was shown on the figure.
The people sat on the ground round the bier, with
their clothes rent (comp. Zp. of Jer. 31, 22), and
the women howled and cried aloud. The whole
terminated with a sacrifice for the dead, and the
burial of the figure of Adonis (see Movers, Phoe-
nizier,i.c. 7). According to Lucian, some of the
inhabitants of Byblos maintained that the Egyp-
tian Osiris was buried among them, and that the
mourning and orgies were in honour of him, and
not of Adonis (De Ded Syra, §7). This is in ac-
cordance with the legend of Osiris as told by Plut-
arch (De Js. et Os.). Lucian further relates that,
on the same day on which the women ot Byblos
every year mourned for Adonis, the inhabitants of
Alexandria sent them a letter, enclosed in a vessel
which was wrapped in rushes or papyrus, an-
nouncing that Adonis was found. ‘The vessel was
cast into the sea, and carried by the current to
Byblos (Procopius on Is. xviii.). It is called by
Lucian BuBAivny κεφαλήν, and is said to have
traveused the distance between Alexandria and
Byblos in seven days. Another marvel related by
the same narrator is that of the river Adonis
(Nahr Ibrahim), which flows down from the
Lebanon, and once a year was tinged with blood,
which, according to the legend, came from the
wounds of Adonis (comp, Milton, P. L. i. 460) ;
but a rationalist of Byblos gave him a different
explanation, how that the soil of the Lebanon was
naturally very red-coloured, and was carried down
into the river by violent winds, and so gave a
bloody tinge to the water; and to this day, says
Mr, Porter (Handb. p. 187), ‘‘atter every storm
that breaks upon the brow of Lebanon, the Adonis
still ‘runs purple to the sea.” The rushing waters
tear from the banks red soil enough to give them a
ruddy tinge, which poetical fancy, aided by popular
credulity, converted into the blood of Thammuz.”
The time at which these rites of Adonis were
celebrated is a subject of much dispute. It is not
so important with regard to the passage in Ezekiel,
for there does not appear to be any reason for sup-
posing that the time of the prophet’s vision was
coincident with the time at which Tammuz was
worshipped. Movers, who maintained the con-
trary, endeavoured to prove that the celebration
was in the late autumn, the end of the Syrian
year, and corresponded with the time of the au-
tummal equinox, He relies chiefly for his conclu-
sion on the account given by Ammianus Marcel
linus (xxii. 9, $13) of the teast of Adonis, which
was being held at Antioch when the Emperor Julian
entered the city. It is clear, from a letter of the
Emperor’s (Zp. Jul. 52), that he was in Antioch
before the first of August, and his entry may there-
fore have taken place in July, the Tammuz of the
Syrian year. This time agrees moreover with the
explanation of the symbolical meaning of the rites
given by Ammianus Marcellinus (xxi. 9, §15),
4 There was a temple at Amathus, in Cyprus, shared
by Adonis and Aphrodite (Paus. ix. 41, §2); and the wor-
ship of Adonis is said to have come from Cyprus to Athens
in the time of the Persian War. 4
e Said to have been founded by Kinyras, the reputed
father of Adonis.
1436 TAMMUZ
TAPPUAH
that they were a token of the fruits cut down in| against the trutn of Ibn Washiyyah’s story as to
their prime.
Now at Aleppo (Russell, Aleppo, i.| the manner in which he discovered the works he
72) the harvest is all over before the end of June, | professed to translate. It has been due to Professor
and we may fairly conclude that the same was the
case at Antioch. Add to this that in Hebrew
astronomical works VON NDIPN, tékuphath Tam-
muz is the “ summer solstice ;” and it seems more
reasonable to conclude that the Adonis feast of the
Phoenicians and Syrians was celebrated rather as
the summer solstice than as the autumnal equinox.
At this time the sun begins to descend among the
wintry signs (Kenrick, Phoenicia, 310).
The identification of Tammuz with an idolatrous
prophet, which has already been given in a quota-
tion from Maimonides, who himself quotes from
the Agriculture of the Nabatheans, has been re-
cently revived by Prof. Chwolson of St. Peters-
burg ( Veber Tammuz, &c. 1860). An Arab writer
of the 10th century, En-Nedim, in his book called
Fihrist el’ Ulam, says (quoting from Abi Said
Wahb ben Ibrahim) that in the middle of the month
Tammuz a feast is held in honour of the god ΤΆ ζ.
The women bewailed him because his lord slew
him and ground his bones in a mill, and scattered
them to the winds. In consequence of this the
women ate nothing during the feast that had been
ground in a mill (Chwolson, Die Ssabier, &c. ii.
27). Prof. Chwolson regards Ta-’fiz as a cor-
ruption of Tammuz; but the most important pas-
sage in his eyes is from the old Babylonian book
called the Agriculture of the Nabatheans, to which
he attributes a fabulous antiquity. It was written,
he maintains, by one Qit’Ami, towards the end of
the 14th century B.c., and was translated into
Arabic by a descendant of the ancient Chaldeans,
whose name was Ibn Washiyyah. As Professor
Chwolson’s theory has been strongly attacked,
aud as the chief materials upon which it is founded
are not yet before the public, it would be equally
premature to take him as an authority, or to pro-
nounce positively against his hypothesis, though,
judging from present evidence, the writer of this
article is more than sceptical as to its truth.
Qat’ami then, in that dim antiquity from which
he speaks to us, tells the same story of the prophet
Tammuz as has already been given in the quota-
tion from Kimchi. It was read in the temples
after prayers, to an audience who wept and wailed;
and so great was the magic influence of the tale that
Qit’ami himself, though incredulous of its truth,
was unable to restrain his tears. A part, he
thought, might be true, but it referred to an event
so far removed by time from the age in which he
lived that he was compelled to be sceptical on many
ints. His translator; Ibn Washiyyah, adds that
muz belonged neither to the Chaldeans nor to
Canaanites, nor to the Hebrews, nor to the
syrians, but to the ancient people of Janban.
This last, Chwolson conjectures, may be the
Shemitic name given to the gigantic Cushite abori-
gines of Chaldea, whom the Shemitic Nabatheans
found when they first came into the country, and
from whom they adopted certain elements of their
worship. Thus Tammfiz, or Tammitzi, belongs
to a religious epoch in Babylonia which preceded
the Shemitic (Chwolson, Ueberreste d. Altbabyl.
Lit. p. 19). Ibn Washiyyah says moreover that
all the Sabians of his time, both those of Babylonia
and of Harran, wept and wailed for Tammuz in the
month which was named after him, but that none
of them preserved any tradition of the origin of the
worship. This fact alone appears to militate strongly
Chwolson’s reputation to give in brief the substance
of his explanation of Tammuz; but it must be
confessed that he throws little light upon the obscu-
rity of the subject.
In the Targum of Jonathan on Gen. viii. 5, “ the
tenth month”’ is translated “Ὁ the month Tammuz.”
According to Castell (Ler. Hept.), tamiz is used
in Arabic to denote “the heat of summer ;” and
Tamizi is the name given to the Pharaoh who
cruelly treated the Israelites. [W. A. W.]
TA'NACH ΠΏ}: 4 Tavax; Alex. 7 Θαανάχ:
Thanach). A slight variation, in the vowel-points
alone, of the name TAANACH,. It occurs in Josh.
xxi, 25 only. [G.]
TANHU'METH (Noni A: Θαναμάθ, Oavae-
μέθ ; Alex. Θανεμάν in 2 K.: Thanehumeth). The
father of Seraiah in the time of Gedaliah (2 K. xxv.
23; Jer. xl. 8). In the former passage he is called
“the Netephathite,” but a reference to the parallel
narrative of Jeremiah will show that some words
have dropped out of the text.
TANIS (Tavis), Jud. i. 10. [Zoan.]
TA'PHATH (ΠΡΌ ; Τεφάθ: Alex. Ταφατά:
Tapheth). The daughter of Solomon, who was
married to Ben-Abinadab, one of the king’s twelve
commissariat officers (1 K. iv. 11).
- TA'PHON (ἡ Tedd; Joseph. Toxda or *To-
χόαν: Thopo: Syr. Tefos). One of the cities in
Judaea fortified by Bacchides (1 Mace. ix. 50). It
is probably the BeTH-Tappuan of the Old Test.,
which lay near Hebron, The form given by
Josephus suggests Tekoa, but Grimm (λοι.
Handbuch) has pointed out that his equivalent for
that name is Θεκωε; and there is besides too much
unanimity among the Versions to allow of its being
accepted. [G.j
TAPPU'AH (MSM: LXX. omits in both MSS. :
Taphphua). 1. A city of Judah, in the district of the
Shefelah, or lowland (Josh. xv. 34). It is a
member of the group which contains Zoreah,
Zanoah, and Jarmuth; and was therefore no doubt
situated on the lower slopes of the mountains of the
N.W. portion of Judah, about i2 miles W. of Jeru-
salem, where these places have all been identified
with tolerable probability. It is remarkable that
the name should be omitted in both MSS. of the
LXX. The Syriac Peshito has Pathuch, which,
when connected with the Enam that follows it in
the list, recals the Pathuch-enayim of Gen. xxxviii.
14, long a vexed place with the commentators.
[See ENAM, 5496.] Neither Tappuah nor Pathuch
have however been encountered. This Tappuah
must not be confounded either with the Beth-
Tappuah near Hebron, or with the Land of Tap-
puah in the territory of Ephraim. It is uncertain
which of the three is named in the list of the
thirty-one kings in Josh. xii.
2. (Tapov, Θαφέθ; Alex. Eppove, Θαφθωθ:
Taphphua). A place on the boundary of the “ chil-
dren of Joseph” (Josh. xvi. 8, xvii. 8). Its full
name was probably En-tappuah (xvii. 7), and it
had attached to it a district called the Land of
4 It is probable that the ν is the sign of the accusative
case. Jericho, Emmaus, and Bethel, in the same para-
grapb, are certainly in the accusative.
i
i
TAPPUAH
Tappuah (xvii. 8). This document is evidently in
so imperfect or confused a state that it is impossible
to ascertain from it the situation of the places it
names, especially as comparatively few of them
have been yet met with on the ground. But from
the apparent connexion between Tappuah and the
Nachal Kanah, it seems natural to look for the
former somewhere to the S.W. of Nablus, in the
neighbourhood of the Wady Falaik, the most likely
claimant for the Kanah. We must await further
investigation in this hitherto unexplored region
before attempting to form any conclusion, [G.]
TAPPU'AH (MBM: Θαπούς ; Alex. Oappov:
Thaphphw). One of the sons of Hebron, of the tribe
of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 43). [Ὁ is doubtless the same
as BetH-TAPPUAH, now Zeffuh, near 5 Hebron; and
the meaning of the record is that Tappuah was
colonized by the men of Hebron, [G.]
TAPPU'AH, THE LAND OF (MBA YN:
Vat. omits; Alex. yn Θαθφωθ: terra Taphphuae).
A district named in the specification of the boundary
between Ephraim and Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 8). It
apparently lay near the torrent Kanah (probably the
Wady Falaik), but the name has not yet been met
with at all in the central district of Palestine. [G.]
TA’RAH (AIM: Ταράθ: Num. xxxiii, 27).
A desert-station of the Israelites between Tahath
and Mitheah, not yet identified with any known
site. (a Hy
TAR/ALAH (MONI: Θαρεήλα; Alex. Θα-
pada: Tharala). One of the towns in the allot-
ment of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27 only). It is
named between Irpeel and Zelah; but nothing
certain is known of the position of either of those
places, and no name at all resembling Taralah has
yet been discovered. Schwarz’s identification (with
* Thaniel” Daniyal), near Lydd, is far-fetched in
etymology, and unsuitable as to position ; for there
is nothing to lead to the conclusion that the Ben-
jamites had extended themselves so far to the west
when the lists of Joshua were drawn up. [G.]
TARE'A ΟΝ: Θαράχ ; Alex. Θαρεέ:
Tharaa). The same as Tahrea, the son of Micah
(1 Chr. viii. 35), the Hebrew letters δὲ and M1 being
interchanged, a phenomenon of rare occurrence
(Gesen. Thes. p. 2).
TARES ((ζάνια: zizania). There can be little
doubt that the ζιζάνια of the parable (Matt. xiii.
25) denote the weed called ‘ darnel” (Lolium
temulentum), a widely distributed grass, and the
only species of the order that has deleterious pro-
perties. The word used by the Evangelist is an
Oriental, and not a Greek term. It is the Arabic
(eee
zawan (ω5}»» and the σόπἪη (pain) of the
Talmud (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s.v.). The deri-
Ss
vation of the Arabic word, from zan ( ω"»»
“‘nausea,’ is well suited to the character of the
plant, the grains of which produce vomiting and
purging, convulsions, and even death. Volney
( Trav. ii. 306) experienced the ill effects of eating
its seeds; and ‘‘ the whole of the inmates of the
a The principal valley of the town of Hebron is called
Wady Tuffah (Map to Rosen’s paper in Zeitsch. ἢ). M. G.
xii. and p. 481).
TARPELITES 1437
Sheffield workhouse were attacked some years ago
with symptoms supposed to be prodaced by their
oatmeal having been accidentally adulterated with
lolium” (Engl. Cyc. s.v. Lolium). The darnel
before it comes into ear is very similar in ap-
pearance to wheat; hence the command that the
zizania should be left to the harvest} lest while
men plucked up the tares “they should root up
also the wheat with them.” Prof. Stanley, how-
ever (S. and P. p. 426), speaks of women and
‘children picking out from the wheat in the corn-
fields of Samaria the tall green stalks, still called by
the Arabs zuwan. “These stalks.” he continues,
“if sown designedly throughout the fields, would
be inseparable trom the wheat, from which, even
when growing naturally and by chance, they are at
first sight hardly distinguishable.” See also Thom-
son (The Land and the Book, p. 420):—« The
grain is just in the proper stage to illustrate the
parable. In those parts where the grain has headed
owt, the tares have done the same, and then a child
cannot mistake them for wheat or barley; but
where both are less developed, the closest scrutiny
will often fail to detect then. Even the farmers,
who in this country generally weed their fields, do
not attempt to separate the one from the other.”
The grain-growers in Palestine believe that the
zuwan is merely a degenerate wheat; that in wet
seasons the wheat turns to tares. Dr. Thomson
asserts that this is their fixed opinion. It is curious
to observe the retention of the fallacy through many
ages. ‘* Wheat and zunin,” says Lightfoot (Hor.
Heb. on Matt. xiii. 25), quoting from the Talmud,
“are not seeds of different kinds.” See also Buxtort
(Lea. Talm. s. v. }9}1) :—“ Zizania, species tritici
degeneris, sic dicti, quod scortando cum bono tritico,
in pejorem naturam degenerat.” The Roman writers
appear to have entertained a similar opinion with
respect to some of the cereals: thus Pliny (WV. 1].
xviii. 17), borrowing probably from Theophrastus,
asserts that ‘‘ barley will degenerate into the oat.”
The notion that the zizania of the parable are
merely diseased or degenerate wheat has been de-
fended by P. Brederod (see his letter to Schultetus
in Exercit. Evang. ii. cap. 65), and strangely
adopted by Trench, who (Notes on the Parables,
p- 91, 4th ed.) regards the distinction of these two
plants to be “a falsely assumed fact.” If the
zizania of the parable denote the Lolium temu-
lentum, and there cannot be any reasonable doubt
about it, the plants are certainly distinct, and the
L. temulentum has as much right to specific dis-
tinction as any other kind of grass. [W. H.]
TARGUMS. [Versions, CHALDEE. ]
TARPELITES, THE (M0590: Ταρφα-
λαῖοι ; Alex. Ταρφαλλαῖοι: Tharphalaci). A yvace
of colonists who were planted in the cities of Sa-
maria after the captivity of the northern kingdom
of Israel (Ez. iv. 9). They have not been iden-
tified with any certainty. Junius and others have
found a kind of resemblance in name to the Tar-
pelites in the Tapyri (Taoupot) of Ptolemy (vi. 2,
§6), a tribe of Media who dwelt eastward of Ely-
mais, but the resemblance is scarcely more than
apparent. They are called by Strabo Τάπυροι (xi.
514, 515, 520, 523). Others, with as little proba-
bility, have sought to recognise the Tarpelites in the
Tarpetes (Ταρπῆτες, Strab. xi. 495), a Maeotic race,
In the Peshito-Syriac the resemblance is greater, for
they are there called Tarpoyé. Fiirst (Handwb.}
1438 TARSHISH
TARSHISH
says in no case can Turpel, the country of the Tar- | cians, saying—@o.vixev κτίσμα Taprnoods. It
pelites, be the Phoenician Tripolis. [W. A. W.]
TAR'SHISH (U*WIA: Θάρσεις : Tharsis ; |
Gen. χ. 4). 1. Probably Tartessus; Gr. Ταρτησσός.,
A city and emporium of the Phoenicians in the |
south of Spain. In Psalm Ixxii. 10, it seems |
applied to a large district of country ; perhaps, to
that portion of Spain which was known to the
Hebrews when that Psalin was written. And the
word may have been likewise used in this sense in
Gen. x. 4, where Knobel ( Vélkertafel der Genesis,
Giessen, 1850, ad loc.) applies it to the Tuscans,
though he agrees with nearly all biblical critics in
regarding it elsewhere as synonymous with Tar-
tessus. The etymology is uncertain.
With three exceptions in the Book of Chronicles,
which will be noticed separately (see below, No. 2),
the following are references to all the passages in
the Old Testament, in which the word “ Tarshish ”
occurs; commencing with the passage in the Book
of Jonah, which shows that it was accessible from
Yaph6, Yafa, or Joppa, a city of Palestine with a
well-known harbour on the Mediterranean Sea (Jon.
1. Ὁ: Vow cu (απ x40 al Chie Jee 7.5. 15:11. 10: ΧΧῊΪ:
1.6: 10; "14. Ix. 0 Ixvi,.19)- Ἰοῦς. Θ᾽ συ xxvii. 12,
25, xxxvili. 13; 1 K. x. 22, xxii. 48 [49]; Ps. xlviii.
8, Ixvii. 10). On a review of these passages, it
will be seen that not one of them furnishes direct
proof that Tarshish and Tartessus were the same
cities. But their identity is rendered highly pro-
bable by the following circumstances. 1st. There
1s a very close similarity of name between them,
‘Tartessus being merely Tarshish in the Aramaic
form, as was first pointed out by Bochart (Phaleg,
lib. iii. cap. 7). Thus the Hebrew word Ashshir
= Assyria, is in the Aramaic form Athi, Attir,
and in Greek ᾿Ατουρία (Strabo, xvi. 1, 2), and
᾿Ατυρία (Dion Cass., lxviii. 26)—though, as is well
known, the ordinary Greek form was ᾿Ασσυρία.
Again, the Hebrew word Bashan, translated in the
same form in the A. V. of the Old Testament, is
Bathan or Bithnan in Aramaic, and Βαταναία in
Greek ; whence also Batanaea in Latin (see Bux-
torfii Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbini-
cum, 8. Vv.). Moreover, there are numerous changes
of the same kind in common words; such as the
Aramaic numeral 8, tamnei, which corresponds
with the Hebrew word shemoneh; and telag, the
Aramaic word for “snow,” which is the same word
as the Hebrew sheleg (see Gesenius, Thesaurus,
Ῥ. 1544). And it is likely that in some way which
cannot now be explained, the Greeks received the
word ** Tarshish”’ from the Phoenicians in a partly
Aramaic form, just as they received in that form
many Hebrew letters of the alphabet. The last
sh of Tarshish* would naturally be represented by
the double s in the Greek ending, as the sound and
letter sh was unknown to the Greek language.
{SHIBBOLETH.] 2ndly. There seems to have been
a special relation between Tarshish and Tyre, as
there was at one time between Tartessus and the
Phoenicians. In the 23rd chapter of Isaiah, there
1s something like an appeal to Tarshish to assert its
independence (see the notes of Rosenmiiller, Gese-
nius, and Ewald, on verse 18). And Arrian (De |
Exped. Alexandri, ii. 16, §3) expressly states that
Tartessus was founded or colonized by the Phoeni-
a It is unsafe to lay any stress on Tarseium (Tap-
σήιον), Which Stephanus of Byzantium says (s. v.) was a
city near the Columns of Hercules. Stephanus was
probably misled by a passage to which he refers in
| Polybius, iii. 24.
has been suggested that this ‘s a mistake on the
part of Arrian, because Diodorus (xxv. 14) re-
_ presents Hamilcar as defeating the Iberians and
Tartessians, which has been thought to imply that
the latter were not Phoenicians. But it is to be
remembered that there was a river in Hispania
Baetica called Tartessus, as well as a city of that
name (Strabo, iii. p. 148), and it may easily have
been the case that tribes which dwelt on its banks
may have been called Tartessians, and may have
been mentioned under this name, as defeated by
Hamilcar. Still, this would be perfectly compatibie
with the fact, that the Phoenicians established there
a factory or settlement called Tartessus, which had
dominion for a while over the adjacent territory.
It is to be borne in mind likewise, that Arrian,
who must be pronounced on the whole to be a judi-
cious writer, had access to the writings of Me-
nander of Ephesus, who translated some of the
Tyrian archives into Greek (Joseph. Ant. ix. 14,
§2), and it may be presumed Arrian consulted
those writings, when he undertook to give some
account of Tyre, in reference to its celebrated siege
by Alexander, in connexion with which he makes
his statement respecting Tartessus.
3rdly. The articles which Tarshish is stated by
the prophet Ezekiel to have supplied to Tyre, are
precisely such as we know through classical writers
to have been productions of the Spanish Peninsula.
Ezekiel specifies silver, iron, lead, and tin (Ez. xxvii.
12), and in regard to each of these metals as connected
with Spain, there are the following authorities. As
to silver, Diodorus says (v. 35), speaking of Spain
possessing this metal in the greatest abundance
and of the greatest beauty (σχεδόν τι πλεῖστον
καὶ κάλλιστον), and he particularly mentions
that the Phoenicians made a great profit by this
metal, and established colonies in Spain on its ac-
count, at a time when the mode of working it was
unknown to the natives (comp. Aristot. de Mirabil.
c. 135, 87). This is confirmed by Pliny, who says
(Nat. Hist. xxxiii. 31), “ Argentum reperitur—in
Hispania pulcherrimum ; id quoque in sterili solo,
atque etiam montibus;” and he proceeds to say
that wherever one vein has been found, another
vein is found not far off. With regard to iron and
lead, Pliny says, “ metallis plumbi, ferri, aeris,
argenti, auri tota ferme Hispania scatet”” (Nat.
Hist. iii, 4). And as to lead, more especially, this
is so true even at present, that a writer on Mines
and Mining in the last edition of the Hncyc. Bri-
tannica, p. 242, states as follows :—‘‘ Spain pos-
sesses numerous and valuable lead-mines. The
most important are those of Linares, which are si-
tuated to the east of Bailen near the Sierra Morena,
They have been long celebrated, and perhaps no
known mineral fieid is naturally so rich in lead as
this.” And, lastly, in regard to tin, the trade of
Tarshish in this metal is peculiarly significant, and
taken in conjunction with similarity of name and
other circumstances already mentioned, is reason-
ably conclusive as to its identity with Tartessus.
For even now the countries in Europe, or on the
shores of the Mediterranean Sea where tin is found
are very few; and in reference to ancient times, it
would be difficult to name any such countries
except Iberia or Spain, Lusitania, which was some-
The Ταρσήιον of Polybius could
scarcely have been very far from the Pulchrum Pro-
| montorium of Carthage.
TARSHISH
what less in extent than Portugal, and Cornwall in
Great Britain. Now if the Phoenicians, for pur-
poses of trade, really made coasting voyages on the
Atlantic Ocean as far as to Great Britain, no
emporium was more favourably situated for such
voyages than Tartessus. If, however, in accord-
ance with the views of Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, it
is deemed unlikely that Phoenician ships made
such distant voyages (Historical Survey of the
Astronomy of the Ancients, p. 455), it may be
added, that it is improbable, and not to be admitted
as a fact without distinct proof, that nearly 600
years before Christ, when Ezekiel wrote his pro-
phecy against Tyre, they should have supplied the
nations on the shores of the Mediterranean with
British Tin obtained by the mouths of the Rhone.
Diodorus indeed mentions, (v. 38), that in his
time tin was imported into Gaul from Britain,
and was then conveyed on horseback by traders
across Gaul to Massilia, and the Roman colony
of Narbo. But it would be a very different thing
to assume that this was the case so many centu-
ries earlier, when Rome, at that time a small and
insignificant town, did not possess a foot of land
in Gaul; and when, according to the received sys-
tems of chronology, the settlement of Massilia had
only just been founded by the Phocaeans. As
countries then from which Tarshish was likely to
obtain its tin, there remain only Lusitania and
Spain. And in regard to both of these, the evi-
dence of Pliny the Elder at a time when they
were flourishing provinces of the Roman empire,
remains on record to show that tin was found in
each of them (Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 47). After men-
tioning that there were two kinds of lead, viz.
black lead, and white lead, the latter of which was
called ‘‘ Cassiteros’’ by the Greeks, and was fabu-
lously reported to be obtained in islands of the At-
Jantic Sea, Pliny proceeds to say, “‘ Nunc certum
est in Lusitania gigni, et in Gallaecia;’ and he
goes on to describe where it is found, and the mode
of extracting it (compare Pliny himself, iv. 34,
and Diodorus, 7. c., as to tin in Spain). It may be
added that Strabo, on the authority of Poseidonius,
had made previously a similar statement (iii. 147),
though fully aware that in his time tin was like-
wise brought to the Mediterranean, through Gaul
by Massilia, from the supposed Cassiterides or
Tin Islands. Moreover, as confirming the state-
ment of Strabo and Pliny, tin-mines now actually
exist in Portugal; both in parts, which belonged
to ancient Lusitania, and in a district which
formed part of ancient Gallicia.» And it is to
be borne in mind that Seville on the Guadalquivir,
which has free communication with the sea, is
only about 80 miles distant from the Portuguese
frontier.
Subsequently when Tyre lost its independence,
the relation between it and Tarshish was probably
altered, and for a while, the exhortation of Isaiah
xxiii. 10, may have been realised by the inhabitants
passing through their land, free asa river. This
independence of Tarshish, combined with the over-
shadowing growth of the Carthaginian power,
would explain why in after times the learned Jews
do not seem to have known where Tarshish was.
Thus, although in the Septuagint translation of the
Pentateuch, the Hebrew word was as closely fol-
lowed as it could be in Greek (Θάρσεις, in which
Ὁ Viz. in the provinces of Porto, Beira, and Braganza.
Specimens were in the fnternational Exhibition of 1862.
TARSHISH 1439
the @ is merely ΤΣ without a point, and εἰ is equi-
valent to i, according to the pronunciation in mo-
dern Greek), the Septuagint translators of Isaiah
and Ezekiel translate the word by ‘‘ Carthage” and
“the Carthaginians” (ls. xxiii. 1, 10, 14; Ez.
xxvil. 12, xxxviii, 13); and in the Targum of the
Book of Kings and of Jeremiah, it is translated
“ Africa,” as is pointed out by Gesenius (1 K, xxii.
48; Jer. χ. 9). In one passage of the Septuagint
(Is. ii. 16), and in others of the Targum, the word
is translated sea; which receives apparently some
countenance from Jerome, in a note on Is. ii. 16,
wherein he states that the Hebrews believe that
Tharsis is the name of the sea in their own lan-
guage. And Josephus, misled, apparently, by the
Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, which he
misinterpreted, regarded Tharsis as Tarsus in Cilicia
(Ant. i. 6, §1), in which he was followed by other
Jews, and (using Tarsus in the sense of all Cilicia)
by one learned writer in modern times. See Hart-
mann’s Aufkldrungen ἄρον Asien, vol. i. p. 69, as
quoted by Winer, 8. v.
It tallies with the ignorance of the Jews respect-
ing Tarshish, and helps to account for it, that in
Strabo’s time the emporium of Tartessus had long
ceased to exist, and its precise site had become a
subjec. of dispute. In the absence of positive proof,
we may acquiesce in the statement of Strabo (iit.
p- 148), that the river Baetis (now the Guadal-
quivir) was formerly called Tartessus, that the city
Tartessus was situated between the two arms by
which the river flowed into the sea, and that the
adjoining country was called Tartessis. But there
were two other cities which some deemed to have
been Tartessus; one, Gadir, or Gadira (Cadiz)
(Sallust, Firagm. lib. ii.; Pliny, Nat. Hist. iv. 36,
and Avienus, Descript. Orb. Terr. 614); and the
other, Carteia, in the Bay of Gibraltar (Strabo, iii.
p- 151; Ptolem., ii. 4; Pliny, iii. 3; Mela, ii. 6).
Of the three, Carteia, which has found a learned
supporter at the present day (Ersch and Gruber’s
Encyclopédie, s. v.), seems to have the weakest
claims, for in the earliest Greek prose work extant,
Tartessus is placed beyond the columns of Hercules
(Herodotus, iv. 152); and in a still earlier fragment
of Stesichorus (Strabo, iii. p. 148), mention is made
of the river Tartessus, whereas there is no stream
near Carteia (= El Roccadillo) which deserves to be
called more than a rivulet. Strictly speaking, the
same objection would apply to Gadir; but, for
poetical uses, the Guadalquivir, which is only 20
miles distant, would be sufficiently near. It was,
perhaps, in reference to the claim of Gadir that
Cicero, in a letter to Atticus (vii. 3), jocosely calls
Balbus, a native of that town, “ Tartessium istum
tuum.” But Tartessius was, likewise, used by
poets to express the extreme west where the sun
set (Ovid, Metam. xiv. 416; Silius Italicus, x. 58;
compare Sil. Ital., iii. 399).
Literature.—For Tarshish, see Bochart, Phaleg,
lib, iii. cap. 7; Winer, Biblisches Realworterbuch,
s.v.; and Gesenius, Thesaurus Ling. Hebr. et
Chald. 5. v. For Tartessus, see a learned Paper of
Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, Notes and Queries, 2nd
Series, vol. vii. p. 189-191.
Q.. If the Book of Chronicles is to be foliowed,
there would seem to have been a Tarshish, acces-
sible from the Red Sea, in addition to the Tarshish
of the south of Spain. Thus, with regard to the
ships of Tarshish, which Jehoshaphat caused to be
constructed at Ezion Geber on the Aelanitic Gulf of
the Red Sea (1 K. xxii. 48), it is said in the
1440 TARSHISH
Chronicles (2 Chr. xx. 36) that they were made to
go to Tarshish; and in like manner the navy of
ships which Solomon had previously made in Ezion
Geber (1 K. ix. 26), is said in the Chronicles
(2 Chr, ix. 21) to have gone to Tarshish with the
servants of Hiram. It is not to be supposed that
the author of these passages in the Chronicles con-
templated a voyage to Tarshish in the south of
Spain by going round what has since been called
the Cape of Good Hope. Sir G, Cornewall Lewis
(Notes and Queries, 2nd series, vol. vi. 61-64,
81-83) has shown reasons to doubt whether the
cireumnavigation of Africa was ever effected by the
Phoenicians, even in the celebrated voyage which
Herodotus says (iv. 42) they made by Neco’s orders ;
but at any rate it cannot be seriously supposed
that, according to the Chronicles, this great voyage
was regularly accomplished once in three years in
the reign of Solomon. Keil supposes that the
vessels built at Ezion Geber, as mentioned in 1 K.
xxii. 49, 50, were really destined for the trade to
Tarshish in Spain, but that they were intended to
be transported across the isthmus of Suez, and to be
launched in one of the havens of Palestine on the
Mediterranean Sea. (See his Notes ad locum.
Engl. Transl.) But this seems improbable; and
the two alternatives from which selection should be
made seem to be, Ist. That there were ¢wo emporia
or districts called Tayshish, viz. one in the south of
Spain, and one in the Indian Ocean; or, 2ndly,
That the compiler of the Chronicles, misappre-
hending the expression ‘ships of Tarshish,”
supposed that they meant ships destined to go to
Tarshish ; whereas, although this was the original
meaning, the words had come to signify large*
Phoenician ships, of a particular size and descrip-
tion, destined for long voyages, just as in English
«Hast Indiaman” was a general name given to
vessels, some of which were not intended to go to
India atall. The first alternative was adopted by
Bochart, Phaleg, lib. iii. ὁ. 7, and has probably
been the ordinary view of those who have per-
ceived a difficulty in the passages of the Chronicles ;
but the second, which was first suggested by Vi-
tringa, has been adopted by the acutest Biblical
critics of our own time, such as De Wette, Jntro-
duction to the Old Testament, Parker’s translation,
Boston, 1843, p. 267, vol. ii.; Winer, Biblisches
Realwérterbuch, s.v.; Gesenius, Thesaurus Linguae
Heb. et Chald. s.v., and Ewald, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, vol. iii. 1st edit. p. 763 and is
acknowledged by Movers, Ueber die Chronikeln,
1834, 254, and Hiavernick, Spezielle Einleitung in
das Alte Testament, 1839, vol. ii. p. 237. This
alternative is in itself by far the most probable, and
ought not to occasion any surprise. ‘The compiler
of the Chronicles, who probably lived in the time
of Alexander’s successors, had the Book of Kings
before him, and in copying its accounts, occasionally
used Jater and more common words for words older
and more unusual (De Wette, /.c. p. 266). It is
probable that during the Persian domination Tartes-
sus was independent (Herodotus i. 163); at any
rate, when first visited by the Greeks, it appears to
TARSHISH
have had its own kings. It is not, therefore, by
any means unnatural that the old trade of the
Phoenicians with Tarshish had ceased to be under-
stood ; and the compiler of the Chronicles, when he
read of “ ships of Tarshish,” presuming, as a matter
of course, that they were destined for ‘l'arshish, con-
sulted, as he thought, the convenience of his readers
by inserting the explanation as part of the text.
Although, however, the point to which the fleet
of Solomon and Hiram went once in three years did
not bear the name of Tarshish, the question here
arises of what that point was, however it was
called? And the reasonable answer seems to be
India, or the Indian Islands. This is shown by the
nature of the imports with which the fleet returned,
which are specified as “ gold, silver, ivory, apes,
and peacocks” (1 K. x. 22), The gold might
possibly have been obtained from Africa, or from
Ophir in Arabia [OpHiR], and the ivory and the
apes might likewise have been imported from
Africa; but the peacocks point conclusively, not to
Africa, but to India. One of the English transla~
tors of Cuvier’s Animal Kingdom, London, 1829,
vol. viii. p. 136, says, in reference to this bird:
“Tt has long since been decided that India was the
cradle of the peacock. It is in the countries of
Southern Asia, and the vast Archipelago of the
Eastern Ocean, that this bird appears to have fixed
its dwelling, and to live in a state of freedom. All
travellers who have visited these countries make
mention of these birds, Thevenot encountered
great numbers of them in the province of Guzzerat ;
Tavernier throughout all India, and Payrard in the
neighbourhood of Calcutta. Labillardiére tells us
that peacocks are common in the island of Java.”
To this may be added the statement of Sir William
Jardine, Naturalist’s Library, vol. xx. p. 147.
There are only two species “ known ; both inhabit
the continent and islands of India ”—so that the
mention of the peacock seems to exclude the possi-
bility of the voyage having been to Africa. Mr.
Crawfurd, indeed, in his excellent Descriptive Dic-
tionary of the Indian Islands, p. 310, expresses an
opinion that the birds are more likely to have been
parrots than peacocks ; and he objects to the pea-
cock, that, independent of its great size, it is of
delicate constitution, which would make it nearly
impossible to convey it in small vessels and by a
long sea voyage. It is proper, however, to mention,
on the authority of Mr. Gould, whose splendid
works on birds are so well known, that the peacock
is by no means a bird of delicate constitution, and
that it would bear a sea voyage very well. Mr.
Gould observes that it might be easily fed during a
long voyage, as it lives on grain; and that it would
merely have been necessary, in order to keep it in
a cage, to have cut off its train; which, it is to be
observed, falls off of itself, and is naturally renewed
once a year.
The inference to be drawn from the importation
of peacocks is confirmed by the Hebrew name for
the ape and the peacock. Neither of these names
is of Hebrew, or even Shemitic, origin; and each
points to India.4 Thus the Hebrew word for ape is
e Sir Emerson Tennent has pointed out and translated
a very instructive passage in Xenophon, Econom. cap,
viii., in which there is a detailed description ofa large
Phoenician vessel, τὸ μέγα πλοῖον τὸ Φοινικόν. This seems
to have struck Xenophon with the same kind of admira-
tion which every one feels who becomes acquainted for
the first time with the arrangements of an English man
of war. See Encycl. Britannica, 8th ed. s. v. “'Larshish.”
|
ἃ The word “shenhabbim ” = ivory, is likewise usually
regarded as of Indian origin, “ ibha” being in Sanscrit,
“elephant.” But “shenhabbim,” or “ shenhavim,” as
the word would be without points, is nowhere used for
ivory except in connection with this voyage, the usual
word for ivory being shen by itself. The conjecture of
Rédiger in Gesenius’s Thesaurus, 5. V. is very probable,
that the correct reading is DJ 3Y’, ivory (and) ebony
TARSHISH
Képh, while the Sanscrit word is kapi (see Gesenius
and Fiirst, s. v., and Max Miiller, On the Science
of Language, p. 190). Again, the Hebrew word
for peacock is tukki, which cannot be explained
in Hebrew, but is akin to téka in the Tamil lan-
guage, in which it is-likewise capable of explanation.
Thus, the Rey. Dr. R. Caldwell, than whom there is
no greater authority on the Tamil language, writes
as follows from Pdalamcottah, Madras, June 12,
1862.—“ Tokae is a well recognized Tamil word
for peacock, though now used only in poetry. The
Sanscrit stkki refers to the peculiar crest of the pea-
cock, and means (avis) cristuta; the Tamil toha
refers to the other and still more marked peculiarity
of the peacock, its tail (ἡ, ¢. its train), and means
(avis) caudata. The Tamil toka signifies, accord-
ing to the dictionaries, ‘ plumage, the peacock’s tail,
the peacock, the end of a skirt, a flag, and, lastly, a
woman ’ (a comparison of gaily-dressed women with
peacocks being implied). The explanation of all
these meanings is, that ¢éka literally means that
which hangs—a hanging. Hence tokhai, another
form of the same word in provincial use in Tamil
(see also the tégai of Rédiger in Gesenius’s The-
saurus, p. 1502), means ‘ skirt,’ and in Telugu,
toka means a tail.” It is to be observed, however,
that, if there was any positive evidence of the
voyage having been to Africa, the Indian origin of
the Hebrew name for ape and peacock would not be
of much weight, as it cannot be proved that the
Hebrews first became acquainted with the name of
these animals through Solomon’s naval expeditions
from Ezion Geber. Still, this Indian origin of those
names must be regarded as important in the ab- |
sence of any evidence in favour of Africa, and in
conjunction with the fact that the peacock is an
Indian and not an African bird.
It is only to be added, that there are not sufhi-
cient data tor determining what were the ports in
India or the Indian Islands which were reached by
the fleet of Hiram and Solomon. Sir Emerson
Tennent has made a suggestion of Point de Galle,
in Ceylon, on the ground that from three centuries
before the Christian eva there is one unbroken chain
of evidence down to the present time, to prove that
it was the grand emporium for the commerce of
all nations east of the Red Sea. [See article Tar-
SHISH, above.| But however reasonable this sugges-
tion may be, it can only be received as a pure
conjecture, inasmuch as there is no evidence that |
any emporium at all was in existence at the Point
de Galle 700 years earlier. It can scarcely be
doubted that there will always henceforth be an
emporium at Singapore; and it might seem a spot
marked out by nature for the commerce of nations ;
yet we know how fallacious it would be, under any
circumstances, to argue 2000 years hence that it
must have been a great emporium in the twelfth
century, or even previous to the nineteenth century,
of the Christian era, εἰς T.]
TAR’SUS (Tapods). The chief town of Crutcta,
“no mean city” in other respects, but illustrious
to all time as the birthplace and early residence of
the Apostle Paul (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3).
It is simply in this point of view that the place is
TARSUS 1441
mentioned in the three passages just referred to.
And the only other passages in which the name oc-
curs are Acts ix. 30 and xi. 25, which give the
limits of that residence in his native town which
succeeded the first visit to Jerusalem after his con-
version, and preceded his active ministerial work
at Antioch and elsewhere (compare Acts xxii. 21
and Gal, i. 21). Though Tarsus, however, is not
actually mentioned elsewhere, there is little doubt
that St. Paul was there at the beginning of his
second and third missionary journeys (Acts xv. 41,
xviii. 23).
Even in the flourishing period of Greek history
it was a city of some considerable consequence
(Χο. Anab. i. 2, §23). After Alexander’s con-
quests had swept this way (Q. Curt. iii. 5), and
the Seleucid kingdom was established at Antioch,
Tarsus usually belonged to that kingdom, though
| for a time it was under the Ptolemies. In the Civil
Wars of Rome it took Caesar’s side, and on the
occasion ot a visit from him had its name changed
| to Juliopolis (Caes. Bell. Alex. 663; Dion Cass,
xlvii. 26). Augustus made it a “ free city.” We
are not to suppose that St. Paul had, or could
| have, his Roman citizenship from this cireum-
stance, nor would it be necessary to mention this,
but that many respectable commentators have
fallen into this error. We ought to note, on
the other hand, the circumstances in the social
state of Tarsus, which had, or may be conceived
to have had, an influence on the Apostle’s train-
ing and character. It was renowned as a place
of education under the early Roman emperors.
Strabo compares it in this respect to Athens and
Alexandria, giving, as regards the zeal for learning
showed by the residents, the preference to Tarsus
(xiv. 673). Some eminent Stoics resided here,
among others Athenodorus, the tutor of Augustus,
and Nestor, the tutor of Tiberius. ‘Tarsus also was
a place of much commerce, and St. Basil describes
it as a point of union for Syrians, Cilicians, Isau-
rians, and Cappadocians (Basil, Hp. Huseb. Samos.
Episc.).
Tarsus was situated in a wide and fertile plain
on the banks of the Cydnus, the waters of which
are famous for the dangerous fever caught by Alex-
ander when bathing, and for the meeting of Antony
and Cleopatra. This part of Cilicia was intersected
in Roman times by good roads, especially one cross-
ing the Taurus northwards by the “ Cilician Gates’’
to the neighbourhood of Lystra and Iconium, the
other joining Tarsus with Antioch, and passing
eastwards by the ““ Amanian”’ and ‘ Syrian Gates.”
No ruins of any importance remain. he following
Coin of Tarsus.
=shen habnim, which is remarkably confirmed by a pas-
sage in Ezekiel (xxvii. 15), where he speaks of the men of
Dam yy.
e The Greeks received the peacock through the Per-
sians, as is shown by the Greek name tads, rads,
VOL. Il.
which is nearly identical with the Persian name tatis,
. The fact that the peacock is mentioned for
Dedan having brought to ‘lyre horns of ivory and ebony, | U™ lb Ρ
the first time in Aristophanes, Aves, 102, 269 (being
unknown to the Homeric Poems) agrees with this Persian
origin.
4Z
1442 TARTAK
authorities may be consulted :—Belley in vol. xxvii. |
of the Académie des Inscript.; Beautort’s Kara-
mania, p. 275; Leake’s Asia Minor, p. 214; Barker’s
Lares and Penates, pp. 31, 173, 187. [J.S. H.]
TAR'TAK (PAIN: Θαρθάκ : Tharthac). One
of the gods of the Avite, or Avvite, colonists who
were planted in the cities of Samaria after the re-
moval of the tribes by Shalmaneser (2 Καὶ, xvii. 31).
According to Rabbinical tradition, Tartak is said to
have been worshipped under the form of an ass
(Talm. Babl. Sanhedrin, fol. 050). From this it |
has been conjectured that this idol was the Egyptian
Typho, but though in the hieroglyphics the ass is
the symbol of Typho, it was so far from being re- |
garded as an object of worship, that it was consid-
ered absolutely unclean (Plut. 15. ef Os. ο. 14).
A Persian or Pehlvi origin has been suggested for
Tartak, according to which it signifies either ‘ in-
tense darkness,” or ‘ hero of darkness,” or the
- underworld, and so perhaps some planet of ill-luck
as Saturn or Mars (Gesen. Zhes.; Fiirst, Handwb.).
The Carmanians, a warlike race on the Persian
Gulf, worshipped Mars alone of all the gods, and
sacrificed an ass in his honour (Strabo, xv. p. 727).
Perhaps some trace of this worship may have given
rise to the Jewish tradition. [W. A. W.]
TARTAN (JAA: Θαρθάν, Τανάθαν, or Tap-
αθάν : Tharthan), which occurs only in 2 K. xviii.
17, and Is. xx, 1, has been generally regarded as a
proper name. (Gesen. Lew. Heb. s. v.; Winer,
Realwérterbuch ; Kitto, Bibl. Cyclopaed., &c.)
Winer assumes, on account of the identity of name,
that the same person is intended in the two places.
Kitto, with more caution, notes that this is uncer-
tain. Recent discoveries make it probable that in
Tartan, as in Rabsaris and Rabshakeh, we have not
a proper name at all, but a title or official designa-
tion, like Pharaoh or Surena.* The Assyrian Zar-
tan is a general, or commander-in-chief. It seems
as if the Greek translator of 2 Kings had an inkling
of the truth, and therefore prefixed the article to all
three names (ἀπέστειλε βασιλεὺς ᾿Ασσυρίων τὸν
Θαρθὰν καὶ τὸν Ῥαφὶς (?) καὶ τὸν Ῥαψάκην
πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Ἕ ζεκίαν), which he very rarely
prefixes to the names of persons where they are first
mentioned. 4
If this be the true account of the term Tartan,
we must understand in 2 K. xviii. 17, that Senna-
cherib sent ‘a general,” together with his “ chief
eunuch” and “chief cup-bearer,” on an embassy
to Hezekiah, and in Is. xx. 1 that “a general ’—
probably a different person—was employed by
Sargon against Ashdod, and succeeded in taking the
city. [G. R.]
TAT'NAL (IAM: Θανθαναΐ; Alex. Θαθθαναΐ :
Thathanai: Simonis, Gesenius, Fiirst), Satrap
(ANB) of the province west of the Euphrates in the
time of Darius Hystaspis and Zerubbabel (Ezr, v.
3, 6, vi. 6,13). {SHurHar-Boznat.| The name
is thought to be Persian. [PASC SET]
TAVERNS, THE THREE. [Turse
TAVERNS. |
TAXES. In the history of Israel, as of other |
nations, the student who desires to form a just
estimate of the social condition of the people must |
8. Surena, the Parthian term for “a general,”’ was often |
mistaken for a proper name by the classical writers.
(Strab, xvi. 1 §23; Appian, Bell. Parth. Ὁ. 140; Dion
|
TAXES
take into account the taxes which they had to
pay. According as these are light or heavy may
vary the happiness and prosperity of a nation.
To them, though lying in the background of his-
tory, may often be traced, as to the true motive-
power, many political revolutions. Within the
limits of the present article, it will not be possible
to do more than indicate the extent and form of
taxation in the several periods of Jewish history
and its influence on the life of the people.
I. Under the Judges, according to the theocratic
government contemplated by the law, the only pay-
ments obligatory upon the people as of permanent
obligation were the TrrHEs, the First Fruits, the
REDEMPTION-MONEY of the first-born, and other
offerings as belonging to special occasions [ PRIESTS ].
The payment by each Israelite of the half-shekel
as “atonement-money,” for the service of the
tabernacle, on taking the census of the people
(Ex. xxx. 13), does not appear to have had the
character of a recurring tax, but to have been |
supplementary to the tiee-will offerings of Ex.
xxv. 1-7, levied for the one purpose of the con-
struction of the sacred tent. In later times,
indeed, after the return from Babylon, there was
an annual payment for maintaining the fabric and
services of the Temple; but the fact that this
begins by the voluntary compact to pay one-third
of ἃ shekel (Neh. x. 32) shows that till then
there was no such payment recognised as neces-
sary. A little later the third became a half, and
under the name of the didrachma (Matt. xvii. 24)
was paid by every Jew, in whatever part of the
world he might be living (Jos. Ané. xviii. 9, §1).
Large sums were thus collected in Babylon and
other eastern cities, and were sent to Jerusalem
under a special escort (Jos. Ant. 1. c.; Cic. pro
Flace. c. 28). We have no trace of any further
taxation than this during the period of the Judges.
It was not in itself heavy: it was lightened by
the feeling that it was paid as a religious act.
| In return for it the people secured the celebration
of their worship, and the presence among them ot
a body of men acting more or less efficiently as
priests, judges, teachers, perhaps also as physicians.
|Priests.] We cannot wonder that the people
should afterwards look back to the good old days
when they had been so lightly burdened.
II. The kingdom, with its centralised govern-
ment and greater magnificence, involved, of course,
a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxa-
tion. This may have come, during the long his-
tory of the monarchy, in many different forms,
according to the financial necessities of the times.
The chief burdens appear to have been: (1) A
tithe of the produce both of the soil and of live
stock, making, together with the ecclesiastical
tithe, 20 per cent. on incomes of this nature (1
Sam, viii. 15, 17). (2) Forced military service
for a month every year (1 Sam. viii. 12; 1 IK
ix. 22; 1 Chr. xxvii. 1). (3) Gifts to the king,
theoretically free, like the old Benevolences of
English taxation, but expected as a thing of course,
at the commencement of a reign (1 Sam. x. 27)
or in time of war (comp. the gifts of Jesse, 1 Sam,
xvi. 20, xvii, 18). In the case of subject-princes
the gifts, still made in kind, armour, horses, gold,
silver, &c., appear to have been regularly assessed
Cass. xl. 16; Plut. Crass. p. 561, E, &c.) Tacitus is
the first author who seems to be aware that it is a title
(Ann. vi. 42).
TAXES
(1 K. x. 25; 2 Chr. ix. 24). © Whether this
was ever the case with the presents from Israelite
subjects must remain uncertain. (4) Import
duties, chiefly on the produce of the spice districts
of Arabia (1 K. x. 15). (5) The monopoly of
certain branches of commerce, as, for example,
that of gold (1 Καὶ. ix. 28, xxii. 48), fine linen or
byssus from Egypt (1 K. x. 28), and horses (ib.
ver. 29). (6) The appropriation to the king’s use
of the early crop of hay (Am. vii. 1), This may,
however, have been peculiar to the northern king-
dom or occasioned by a special emergency (Ewald,
Proph. in loc.).*
It is obvious that burdens such as these, coming
upon a people previously unaccustomed to them,
must have been almost intolerable. Even under
Saul exemption from taxes is looked on as a
sufficient reward for great military services (1
Sam. xvii. 25). Under the outward splendour
and prosperity of the reign of Solomon there lay
the deep discontent of an over-taxed people, and
it contributed largely to the revolution that fol-
lowed. The people complain not of Solomon’s
idolatry but of their taxes (1 K. xii. 4). Of all
the king’s officers he whom they hate most is
ADORAM or ADONIRAM, who was “over the tii-
bute” (1 K. xii. 18). At times, too, in the history
of both the kingdoms there were special burdens.
A tribute of 50 shekels a head had to be paid by
Menahem to the Assyrian king (2 K. xv. 20), and
under his successor Hoshea, this assumed the form
of an annual tribute (2 Κα. xvii. 4; amount not
stated). After the defeat of Josiah by Pharaoh-
Necho, in like τ ΔΉΠΟΥ ἃ heavy income-tax had to
be imposed on the kingdom of Judah to pay the
tribute demanded by Egypt (2 K. xxiii. 35), and
the change of masters consequent on the battle of
Carchemish brought in this respect no improve-
ment (Jos. Ant. x. 9, §1-3).
III. Under the Persian empire, the taxes paid
by the Jews were, in their broad outlines, the
same in kind as those of other subject races. The
financial system which gained for Darius Hystaspis
the name of the “shopkeeper king” (κάπηλος,
Herod. iii. 89), involved the payment by each
satrap of a fixed sum as the tribute due from his
province (ibid.), and placed him accordingly in the
position of a publicanus, or farmer of the revenue,
exposed to all the temptation to extortion and
tyranny inseparable from such a-system. Here, |
accordingly, we get glimpses of taxes of many
kinds. In Judaea, as in other provinces, the
inhabitants had to provide in kind for the main-
tenance of the governor’s household (comp, the
case of Themistocles, Thuc. i. 138, and Herod. i.
192, ii. 98), besides a money-payment of 40 shekels
a day (Neh. v. 14, 15). In Ezr. iv. 18, 20,
vii. 24, we get a formal enumeration of the
three great branches of the revenue, (1) The
1D, fixed, measwred payment, probably direct
taxation (Grotius). (2) iba, the excise or octrot
on articles of consumption (Gesen.s.v.). (3) ἜΝ
probably the toll payable at bridges, fords, or
certain stations on the high road. The influence
of Ezra secured for the whole ecclesiastical order,
from the priests down to the Nethinim, an immu-
nity from all three (Ezr, vii. 24); but the burden
TAXES 1443
pressed heavily ou the great body of the people,
and they complained bitterly both of this and of
the ἀγγαρήϊον, or forced service, to which they and
their cattle were liable (Neh. ix. 37). They were
compelled to mortgage their vineyards and fields,
borrowing money at 12 per cent., the interest being
payable apparently either in money or in kind (Neh.
vy. 1-11). Failing payment, the creditors exercised
the power (with or without the mitigation of the
year of JUBILEE) of seizing the persons of the
debtors and treating them as slaves (Neh. v. 5;
comp. 2 K. iv. 1). Taxation was leading at
Jerusalem to precisely the same evils as those
whiéh appeared from like causes in the early
history of Rome. To this cause may probably
be ascribed the incomplete payment of tithes or
offerings at this period (Neh. xiii. 10, 12; Mal.
iii, 8), and the consequent necessity of a special
poll-tax of the third part of a shekel for the ser-
vices of the Temple (Neh. x. 32). What could be
done to mitigate the evil was done by Nehemiah,
but the taxes continued, and oppression and injus-
tice marked the government of the province accord~
ingly (Ecel. v. 8).>
IV. Under the Egyptian and Syrian kings the
taxes paid by the Jews became yet heavier. The
“farming”? system of finance was adopted in its
worst form. The Persian governors had had to
pay a fixed sum into the treasury. Now the taxes
were put up to auction. The contract sum ior
those of Phoenicia, Judaea, Samaria, had been
estimated at about 8000 talents. An unscrupulous
adventurer (e.g. Joseph, under Ptolemy Euergetes)
would bid double that sum, and would then go
down to the province, and by violence and cruelty,
like that of Turkish or Hindoo collectors, squeeze
out a large margin of profit for himself (Jos. Ant.
xii. 4, $1-5).
Under the Syrian kings we meet with an inge-
nious variety of taxation. Direct tribute (φόροι),
an excise duty on salt, crown-taxes (στέφανοι,
golden crowns, or their value, sent yearly to the
king), one-half the produce of fruit trees, one-third
that of corn land, a tax of some kind on cattle:
these, as the heaviest burdens, are ostentatiously
enumerated in the decrees of the two Demetriuses
remitting them (1 Mace. x. 29,30; xi.35). Even
after this, however, the golden crown and scarlet
robe continue to be sent (1 Mace. xiii. 39). The
proposal of the apostate Jason to farm the revenues
at a rate above the average (460 talents, while
Jonathan—1 Mace. xi. 28—pays 300 only), and
to pay 150 talents more for a licence to open a
circus (2 Mace. iv. 9), gives us a glimpse of
another source of revenue. The exemption given
by Antiochus to the priests and other ministers,
with the deduction of one-third tor all the residents
in Jerusalem, was apparently only temporary (Jos.
Ané. xii. 3, §3).
VY. The pressure of Roman taxation, not
absolutely heavier, was probably more galling, as
being more thorough and systematic, more dis-
tinctively a mark of bondage. The capture of
Jerusalem by Pompey was followed immediately
by the imposition of a tribute, and within a short
time the sum thus taken from the resources of the
country amounted to 10,000 talents (Jos. Ant.
xiv. 4, 84, 5). The decrees of Julius Caesar showed
if
4 The history of the drought in the reign of Ahab
(1 K. xviii. 5) shows that in such cases a power like this
must have been essential to the support of the cavalry of rence.
the royal army.
b The later date of the book is assumed in this refe-
Comp. ECCLESIASTES.
4Z2
1444 TAXES
a characteristic desire to lighten the burdens that
pressed upon the subjects of the republic. The
tribute was not to be farmed. It was not to be
levied at all in the Sabbatic year. One-fourth
only was demanded in the year that followed (Jos.
Ant. xiv. 10, §5, 6). The people, still under the
government of Hyrcanus, were thus protected
against their own rulers. The struggle of the
republican party after the death of the Dictator
brought fresh burdens upon the whole of Syria,
and Cassius levied not less than 700 talents from
Judaea alone. Under Herod, as might be expected
from his lavish expenditure in public buildings,
the taxation became heavier. Even in years of
famine a portion of the produce of the soil was
seized for the royal revenue (Jos. Ant. xv. 9, §1),
and it was not till the discontent of the people
became formidable that he ostentatiously dimin-
ished this by one-third (Jos. Ant. xv. 10, 54). It
was no wonder that when Herod wished to found a
new city in Trachonitis, and to attract a population
of residents, he found that the most effective bait
was to promise immunity from taxes (Jos. Ant.
xvii. 2, §1), or that on his death the people should
be loud in thei’ demands that Archelaus should
release them from their burdens, complaining
specially of the duty levied on all sales (Jos. Ant.
xvii. 8, §4).
When Judaea became formally a Roman pro-
vince, the whole financial system of the Empire
came as a natural consequence. The taxes were
systematically farmed, and the publicans appeared
as a new curse to the country. [PUBLICANS. ]
The Portoria were levied at harbours, piers, and
the gates of cities. These were the τέλη of Matt.
xvii. 24; Rom. xiii. 7. In addition to this there
was the κῆνσος or poll-tax (Cod. D. gives ἐπι-
κεφάλαιον in Mark xii. 15) paid by every Jew,
and looked upon, for that reason, as the special
badge of servitude. It was about the lawfulness
of this payment that the rabbis disputed, while
they were content to acquiesce in the payment of
the customs (Matt. xxii. 17; Mark xii. 13; Luke
xx. 20). It was against this apparently that the
struggles of Judas of Galilee and his followers
were chiefly directed (Jos. Ant. xviii. 1, §6;
B. J. ii. 8, §1). United with this, as part of the
same system, there was also, in all probability, a |
property-tax of some kind. Quirinus, after the
deposition of Archelaus, was sent to Syria to
complete the work—begun, probably, at the time
of our Lord’s birth—of valuing and registering
property [CyReNius, TAXING], and this would |
hardly have been necessary for a mere poll-tax.
The influence of -Joazar the high-priest led the
people generally (the followers of Judas and the |
Pharisee Sadduc were the only marked exceptions)
to acquiesce in this measure and to make the
required returns (Jos. Ant. xviii. 1, §1); but their
discontent still continued, and, under Tiberius, |
they applied for some alleviation (Tac. Ann. ii.
42). In addition to these general taxes, the inha-
bitants of Jerusalem were subject to a special
house-duty about this period; Agrippa, in his |
desire to reward the good-will of the people, re-
mitted it (Jos. Ant. xix. 6, §3).
It can hardly be doubted that in this, as in
most other cases, an oppressive taxation tended
greatly to demoralise the people. Many of the
TAXING
most glaring faults of the Jewish character are
distinctly traceable to it. The fierce, vindictive
cruelty of the Galilaeans, the Zealots, the Sicarii,
was its natural fruit. It was not the least
striking proof that the teaching of our Lord and
His disciples was more than the natural outrush of
popular feeling, that it sought to raise men to the
higher region in which all such matters were regarded
as things indifferent; and, instead of expressing the
popular impatience of taxation, gave, us the true
counsel, the precept ‘“‘ Render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s,” “ tribute to whom tribute is due,
custom to whom custom.” [E. H. P.]}
TAXING. I. (ἡ ἀπογραφή: descriptio, Luke
ii. 2; professio, Acts v. 37). The cognate verb
ἀπογράφεσθαι in like manner is rendered by “ to
be taxed” in the A. V.,4 while the Vulgate employs
ἐς ut describeretur universus orbis” in Luke ii. 1,
and “ ut profiterentur singuli” in ver. 3. Both the
Latin words thus used are found in classical writers
with the meaning of a registration or formal return
of population or property (Cic. Verr. ii. 3, §47;
de Of.i. 7; Sueton. Tiber. 80). The English word
conveys to us more distinctly the notion of a tax
or tribute actually levied, but it appears to have
been used in the 16th century for the simple assess-
ment of a subsidy upon the property of a given
county (Bacon, Hen. VII. p. 67), or the registra-
tion of the people for the purpose of a poll-tax
(Camden, Hist. of Eliz.). This may account for
the choice of the word by Tindal in lieu of “ de-
scription” and “ profession,” which Wyclif, fol-
lowing the Vulgate, had given. Since then “ taxing”
has kept its ground in most English versions with
the exception of ‘‘ tribute” in the Geneva, and
“enrolment” in the Rhemish of Acts v. 37. The
word ἀπογραφή by itself leaves the question whe-
ther the returns made were of population or pro-
perty undetermined. Josephus, using the words
ἢ ἀποτίμησις τῶν οὐσιῶν (Ant. xviii. 1, §1) as
an equivalent, shows that “the taxing” of which
Gamaliel speaks included both. That connected
with the Nativity, the first step towards the com-
plete statistical returns, was probably limited to the
former (Greswell, Harmony, i. 542). In either case
“Census” would have seemed the most natural
Latin equivalent, but in the Greek of the N. T.,
and therefore probably in the familiar Latin of the
period, as afterwards in the Vulg., that word slides
off into the sense of the tribute actually paid (Matt.
xxii. 17, xvii. 24).
II. Two distinct registrations, or taxings, are
mentioned in the N. T., both of them by St. Luke.
The first is said to have been the result of an edict
of the emperor Augustus, that “ all the world (7. e.
the Roman empire) should be taxed” (ἀπογρά-
φεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην) (Luke ii. 1), and
is connected by the Evangelist with the name of
Cyrenius, or Quirinus. The second, and more im-
portant (ἡ ἀπογραφή, Acts v. 37), is referred to in
the report of Gamaliel’s speech, and is there dis-
tinctly associated, in point of time, with the revolt
of Judas of Galilee. The account of Josephus (Ant.
xviii. 1, §1; 8. J. ii. 8, §1) brings together the
two names which St. Luke keeps distinct, with an
interval of several years between them. Cyrenius
comes as governor of Syria after the deposition of
Archelaus, accorapanied by Coponius as procurator
of Judaea. He is sent to make an assessment of the
«In Heb. xiii. 23 (πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν
first-born as citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, the A. V.
οὐρανοῖς), where the idea is that of the registration of the | has simply “written,” the Vulg. “ qui conscripti sunt.”
TAXING
value of property in Syria (no intimation being
given of its extension to the οἰκουμένη), and it is
this which rouses Judas and his followers to their
rebellion. The chronological questions presented
by these apparent discrepancies have been discussed,
so far as they are connected with the name of the
governor of Syria, under CyReNius. An account
of the tumults caused by the taxing will be found
under JUDAS OF GALILEE.
III. There are, however, some other questions
connected with the statement of Luke ii. 1-3, which
call tor some notice.
(1.) The truth of the statement has been ques-
tioned by Strauss (Leben Jesu, i. 28) and De Wette
(Comm. in loc.), and others, on the ground that
neither Josephus nor any other contemporary writer
mentions a census extending over the whole empire
at this period (A.U.c. 750). An edict like this,
causing a general movement from the cities where
men resided to those in which, for some reason or
other, they were to be registered, must, it is said,
have been a conspicuous fact, such as no historian
would pass over. (2.) Palestine, it is urged further,
was, at this time, an independent kingdom under
Herod, and therefore would not have come under
the operation of an imperial edict. (3.) If such a
measure, involving the recognition of Roman so-
vereignty, had been attempted under Herod, it would
have roused the same resistance as the undisputed
census under Quirinus did ata later period. (4.)
The statement of St. Luke that “all went to be
taxed, every one into his own city,” is said to be
inconsistent with the rules of the Roman census,
which took cognizance of the place of residence only,
not of the place of birth. (5.) Neither in the
Jewish nor the Roman census would it have been
necessary for the wife to travel with her husband
in order to appear personally before the registrar
(censitor). The conclusions from all these objec-
tions are, that this statement belongs to legend, not
to history ; that it was a contrivance, more or less
ingenious, to account for the birth at Bethlehem
(that being assumed in popular tradition as a pre-
conceived necessity for the Messiah) of one whose
kindred lived, and who himself had grown up at
Nazareth; that the whole narrative of the Infancy
of our Lord, in St. Luke’s Gospel, is to be looked
on as mythical. A sufficient defence of that narra-
tive may, it is believed, be presented within com-
paratively narrow limits.
(1.) It must be remembered that our history of
this portion of the reign of Augustus is defective.
Tacitus begins his Annals with the emperor’s death.
Suetonius is gossiping, inaccurate, and ill-arranged.
Dion Cassius leaves a gap from A.U.C. 748 to 756,
with hardly any incidents. Josephus does not pro-
fess to givea history of the empire. It might easily
be that a general census, circ. A.U.c. 749-750,
should remain unrecorded by them. If the measure
was one of frequent occurrence, it would be all
the more likely to be passed over. The testimony
of a writer, like St. Luke, obviously educated and
well informed, giving many casual indications of a
study of chronological data (Luke i. 5, iii.; Acts
xxiv. 27), and of acquaintance with the Herodian
family (Luke viii. 3, xxiii. 8; Acts xii. 20, xiii. 1)
and other official people (Acts xxiii—xxvi.), recog-
nising distinctly the later and more conspicuous
ἀπογραφή, must be admitted as fair presumptive
evidence, hardly to be set aside in the absence of
any evidence to the contrary. How hazardous such
an inference from the silence of bistorians would be,
TAXING 1445
we may judge from the fact that there was un-
doubtedly a geometrical survey of the empire at
some period in the reign of Augustus, of which
none of the above writers take any notice (comp.
the extracts from the Rei Agrariae Scriptores in
Greswell, Harmony, i. p. 537). It has been argued
further that the whole policy of Augustus rested on
a perpetual communication to the cential govern-
ment of the statistics of all parts of the empire. The
inscription on the monument of Ancyra (Gruter,
Corpus Inscript. i. 230) names three general cen-
suses in the years A.U.c. 726, 746, 767 (comp.
Sueton. Octav. c. 28; Greswell, Harm. i. p. 535),
Dion Cass. (ly. 13) mentions another in Italy in
A.U.C. 757. Others in Gaul are assigned to A.U.C.
727, 741, 767. Strabo (vi. 4, §2) writing early in
the reign of Tiberius, speaks of "μία τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς
τιμήσεων, as if they were common things. In
A.U.C. 726, when Augustus offered to resign his
power, he laid before the senate a “ rationarium
imperii ” (Sueton, Octav. c. 28). After his death,
in like manner, a “ breviarium totius imperii” was
produced, containing full returns of the population,
wealth, resources of all parts of the empire, a care-
ful digest apparently of facts collected during the
labours of many years (Sueton. Octav. c. 101; Dion
Cass. lv.; Tacit. Ann. i. 11). It will hardly seem
strange that one of the routine official steps in this
process should only be mentioned by a writer who,
like St. Luke, had a special reason for noticing it.
A census, involving property-returns, and the direct
taxation consequent on them, might excite atten-
tion. A mere ἀπογραφή would have little in it
to disturb men’s minds, or force itself upon a
writer of history.
There is, however, some evidence, more or less
circumstantial, in confirmation of St. Luke’s state-
ment. (1.) The inference drawn from the silence of
historians may be legitimately met by an inference
drawn from the silence of objectors. It never oc-
curred to Celsus, or Lucian, or Porphyry, questioning
all that they could in the Gospel history, to question
this. (2.) A remarkable passage in Suidas (s. Ὁ.
ἀποΎραφή) mentions a census, obviously differing
from the three of the Ancyran monument, and
agreeing, in some respects, with that of St. Luke.
It was made by Augustus not as censor, but by his
own imperial authority (δόξαν αὐτῷ ; comp. ἐξῆλθε
δόγμα, Luke ii. 1). The returns were collected
by twenty commissioners of high rank. They in-
cluded property as well as population, and extended
over the whole empire. (3.) Tertullian, incident-
ally, writing controversially, not against a heathen,
but against Marcion, appeals to the returns of the
census for Syria under Sentius Saturninus as acces-
sible to all who cared to search them, and proving
the birth of Jesus in the city of David (Tert. adv.
Mare. iv. 19). Whatever difficulty the difference
of names may present [comp. CYRENIUS], here is,
at any rate, a strong indication of the fact of a
census of population, cire, A.U.c. 749, and there-
fore in harmony with St. Luke’s narrative. (4.)
Greswell (Harm. i. 476, iv. 6) has pointed to some
circumstances mentioned by Josephus in the last
year of Herod’s life, and therefore coinciding with
the time of the Nativity, which imply some special
action of the Roman government in Syria, the nature
of which the historian carelessly or deliberately sup-
presses.» When Herod attends the council at Be-
b The fulness with which Josephus dwells on the history
of David’s census and the tone in which he speaks of it
1446 TAXING
rytus there are mentioned as present, besides Satur-
ninus and the Procurator, of περὶ Πεδάνιον πρέ-
oBers, as though the officer thus named had come,
accompanied by other commissioners, for some pur-
pose which gave him for the time almost co-ordinate
influence with the governor of Syria himself (B. J.
i. 27, §2). Just after this again, Herod, for some
unexplained reason, found it necessary to administer
to the whole people an oath, not of allegiance to
himself, but of goodwill to the emperor; and this
oath 6000 of the Pharisees refused to take (Joseph.
Ant. xvii. 2, §4; B. J. i. 29, 82). This statement
implies, it is urged, some disturbing cause affecting
the public tranquillity, a formal appearance of all
citizens before the king’s officers, and lastly, some
measure specially distasteful to the Pharisees. The
narrative of St Luke offers an undesigned explana-
tion of these phenomena.
(2.) The second objection admits of as satisfac-
tory an answer. The statistical document already
referred to included subject-kingdoms and allies,
no less than the provinces (Sueton. /. c.). If
Augustus had any desire to know the resources of
Judaea, the position of Herod made him neither
willing nor able to resist. From first to last we
meet with repeated instances of subservience. He
does not dare to try or punish his sons, but refers
their cause to the emperor’s cognizance (Joseph.
Ant. xvi. 4, §1, xvii. 5, 88). He holds his king-
dom on condition of paying a fixed tribute. Per-
mission is ostentatiously given him to dispose of
the succession to his throne as he likes best (Joseph.
Ant. xvi. 4, §5). He binds his people, as we have
seen, by an oath of allegiance to the emperor (Joseph.
Ant. xvii. 2, 84). The-threat of Augustus that he
would treat Herod no longer as an ally but as a
subject (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 9, $3), would be fol-
lowed naturally enough by some such step as this,
and the desire of Herod to regain his favour would
lead him to acquiesce in it.
(9.9) We need not wonder that the measure should
have been carried into effect without any popular
outbreak. It was a return of the population only,
not a valuation of property; there was no imme-
diate taxation as the consequence. It might offend
a party like the Pharisees. It was not likely to
excite the multitude. Even if it seemed to some
the prognostication of a coming change, and of
direct government by the Roman emperor, we know
.that there was a large and influential party ready
to welcome that change as the best thing that
could happen for their country (Joseph. Ant. xvii.
ES 2:)) 30 fh
(4.) The alleged inconsistency of what St. Luke
narrates is precisely what might be expected under
the known circumstances of the case. The census,
though Roman in origin, was effected by Jewish
instrumentality, and in harmony therefore with
Jewish customs. The alleged practice is, however,
doubtful, and it has been maintained (Huschke,
tiber den Census, &c. in Winer “ Schatzung ”’)
that the inhabitants of the provinces were, as far
as possible, registered in their forwm originis—not
in the place in which they were only residents. It
may be noticed incidentally that the journey from
Nazareth to Bethlehem belongs to a time when
Galilee and Judaea were under the same ruler, and
would therefore have been out of the question (as
the subject of one prince would certainly not be
TEKOA
registered as belonging to another) after the death
of Herod the Great. The circumstances of the Nati-
vity indicate, if they do not prove, that Joseph went
there only for personal enrolment, not because he
was the possessor of house or land.
(5.) The last objection as to the presence of the
Virgin, where neither Jewish nor Roman practice
would have required it, is perhaps the most frivolous
and vexatious of all, If Mary were herself of the
house and lineage of David, there may have been
special reasons for her appearance at Bethlehem.
In any case the Scripture narrative is consistent
with itself. Nothing could be more natural, look-
ing to the unsettled state of Palestine at this period,
than that Joseph should keep his wife under his
own protection, instead of leaving her by herself
in an obscure village, exposed to danger and re-
proach. In proportion to the hopes he had been
taught to cherish of the birth of a Son of David,
in proportion also to his acceptance of the popular
belief that the Christ was to be born in the city of
David (Matt. ii. 5; John vii. 42), would be his
desire to guard against the accident of birth in the
despised Nazareth out of which “no good thing”
could come (John i. 46).
The literature connected with this subject is, as
might be expected, very extensive. Every com-
mentary contains something on it. Meyer, Words-
worth, and Alford may be consulted as giving the
latest summaries. Good articles will be found under
“Schatzung ” in Winer, Realwb.; and Herzog’s Real-
Encyclop. A very full and exhaustive discussion
of all points connected with the subject is given by
Spanheim, Dubia Evang. ii. 3-9; and Richardus,
Diss. de Censu Augusti, in Menthen’s Thesaurus,
ii. 428; comp. also Ellicott, Hulsean Lectures,
p. 57. [E. H. P.]
TE'BAH (M10: TaBéx: Tabec). Eldest of the
sons of Nahor, by his concubine Reumah (Gen. xxii.
24). Josephus calls him TaBaios (Ant. i. 6, §5).
TEBALI'AH (179930: Ταβλαί ; Alex. Ta-
βελίας : Tuabelias). Third son of Hosah of the
children of Merari (1 Chr. xxvi. 11),
TEBETH. [Monrtu.]
TEHIN'NAH (anh : Θαιμάν ; Alex. Oava:
Tehinna). The father or founder of Ir-Nahash, the
city of Nahash, and son of Eshton (1 Chr. iv. 12).
His name only occurs in an obscure genealogy of the
tribe of Judah, among those who are called “the
men of Rechah.”
TEIL-TREE. [Oax.]
TEKO'A and TEKO'AH (Y}pm, but in
2 Sam. xiv. 2 only, nyipn : Θεχουέ and Θεχωέ;
Joseph. @exwé, @exda: Thecue), a town in the
tribe of Judah (2 Chr. xi. 6, as the associated places
show), on the range of hills which rise near Hebron,
and stretch eastward towards the Dead Sea. These
hills bound the view of the spectator as he looks to
the south from the summit of the Mount of Olives.
Jerome (in Amos, Prooem.) says that Tekoa was
six Roman miles from Bethlehem, and that as he
wrote (in Jerem, vi. 1) he had that village daily
before his eyes ( Thekoam quotidie oculis cernimus).
In his Onomasticon (art. Eethei, ᾿Ἐκθευκέ) he re-
presents Tekoa as nine miles only from Jerusalem ;
(Ant. vii. 13’ make it probable that there may have
been a superstitious unwillingness to speak of this popu-
lation census, which would not apply to the property
assessment of Quirinus.
TEKOA
but, elsewhere he agrees with Eusebius in making
the distance twelve miles. In the latter case he
reckons by the way of Bethlehem, the usual course
in going from the one place to the other; but there
may have been also another and shorter way, to
which he has reference in the other computation.
Some suggest (Bachiene, Paldstina, ii. p. 60) that
an error may have crept into Jerome’s text, and
that we should read twelve there instead of nine.
In 2 Chr. xx. 20 (see also 1 Mace. ix. 33), mention
is made of “ the wilderness of Tekoa,” which must
be understood of the adjacent region on the east of
the town (see infra), which in its physical cha-
racter answers so entirely to that designation, It
is evident from the name (derived from ypn, “ to
strike,” said of driving the stakes or pins into the
ground for securing the tent), as well as from the
manifest adaptation of the region to pastoral pur-
suits, that the people who lived here must have
been occupied mainly as shepherds, and that Tekoa
in its best days could have been little more than a
cluster of tents, to which the men returned at in-
tervals from the neighbouring pastures, and in which
their families dwelt during their absence.
The biblical iftterest of Tekoa arises, not so much
from any events which are related as having occurred
there, as from its connexion with various persons
who are mentioned in Scripture. It is not enu-
merated in the Hebrew catalogue of towns in Judah
(Josh. xv. 49), but is inserted in that passage of
the Septuagint. The “ wise woman” whom Joab
employed to effect a reconciliation between David
and Absalom was obtained from this place (2 Sam.
xiv. 2). - Here also, Iva, the son of Ikkesh, one of
David’s thirty “ mighty men” (0°33) was born,
and was called on that account “the Tekoite”
(2 Sam. xxiii. 26). It was one of the places which
Rehoboam fortified, at the beginning of his reign,
as a defence against invasion from the south (2 Chr.
xi. 6). Some of the people from Tekoa took part
in building the walls of Jerusalem, after the return
from the Captivity (Neh. iii. 5, 27). In Jer. vi.
1, the prophet exclaims, ‘“ Blow the trumpet in
Tekoa and set upa sign of fire in Beth-Haccerem ’—
the latter probably the ‘‘ Frank Mountain,” the cone-
shaped hill so conspicuous from Bethlehem. It is
the sound of the trumpet as a warning of the ap-
proach of enemies, and a signal-fire kindled at night
for the same purpose, which are described here as
so appropriately heard and seen, in the hour of
danger, among the mountains of Judah. But Tekoa
is chiefly memorable as the birthplace of the prophet
Amos, who was here called by a special voice from
heaven to leave his occupation as “a herdman”
and “a gatherer of wild figs,’ and was sent forth
thence to testify against the sins of the kingdom of
Israel (Amos vii. 14). Accustomed to such pur-
suits, he must have been familiar with the solitude
of the desert, and with the dangers there incident
to a shepherd’s life. Some effect of his peculiar
training amid such scenes may be traced, as critics
think (De Wette, Hinl. ins Alte Test. p. 356), in
the contents and style of his prophecy. Jerome
(ad Am. i. 2) says, “... . etiam Amos prophetam
qui pastor de pastoribus fuit et pastor non in locis
cultis et arboribus ac vineis consitis, aut certe inter
sylvas et prata virentia, sed in lata eremi vastitate,
in qua versatur leonum feritas et interfectio pecorum,
artis suae usum esse sermonibus.” Compare Am.
ii. 13, iii. 4, 12. iv. 1, vi. 12, vii. 1; and see the
striking remarks of Dr. Pusey, /ntrod. to Amos.
TEKOA 1447
In the genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 24, and
iv. 5) Ashur, a posthumous son of Hezron and a
brother of Caleb, is there mentioned as the father
of Tekoa, which appears to mean that he was the
founder of Tekoa, or at least the owner of that vil-
lage. See Roediger in Gesen. V’hesaur. iii. p. 1518.
Tekoa is known still as Tekt’a, and, though it
lies somewhat aside from the ordinary route, has
been visited and described by several recent tra-
vellers, The writer was there on the 21st of April,
1852, during an excursion from Jerusalem by the
way of Bethlehem and Urtds. Its distance from
Beit Lahm agrees precisely with that assigned by
the early writers as the distance between Tekoa
and Bethlehem. It is within sight also of the
“ Frank Mountain,” beyond question the famous
Heredium, or site of Herod’s Castle, which Josephus
(B. J. iv. 9, §5) represents as near the ancient
Tekoa. It lies on an elevated hill, which spreads
itself out into an irregular plain of moderate ex-
tent. Its ‘high position’? (Robinson, B75. Res.
i. 486) “gives it a wide prospect. Toward the
north-east the land slopes down towards Wady
Kiireitén ; on the other sides the hill is surrounded
by a belt of level table land; beyond which are
valleys, and then other higher hills. On the south,
at some distance, another deep valley runs off south-
east towards the Dead Sea. The view in this direc-
tion is bounded only by the level mountains of
Moab, with frequent bursts of the Dead Sea, seen
through openings among the rugged and desolate
intervening mountains.” The scene, on the occa-
sion of the writer’s journey above referred to, was
eminently a pastoral one, and gave back no doubt a
faithful image of the olden times. There were two
encampments of shepherds there, consisting of tents
covered with the black goat-skins so commonly used
for that purpose ; they were supported on poles and
turned up in part on one side, so as to enable a
person without to look into the interior. Flocks
were at pasture near the tents and on the remoter
hill-sides in every direction. There were horses and
cattle and camels also, though these were not so
numerous as the sheep and goats. A well of living
water, on the outskirts of the village, was a centre
of great interest and activity ; women were coming
and going with their pitchers, and men were filling
the troughs to water the animals which they had
driven thither for that purpose. The general aspect
of the region was sterile and unattractive; though
here and there were patches of verdure, and some
of the fields, which had yielded an early crop, had
been recently ploughed up, as if for some new species
of cultivation. Fleecy clouds, white as the driven
snow, were floating towards the Dead Sea, and their
shadows, as they chased each other over the land-
scape, seemed to be fit emblems of the changes in
the destiny of men and nations, of which there was
so much to remind one at such a time and in such
a place. Various ruins exist at Tekoa, such as the
walls of houses, cisterns, broken columns, and heaps
of building stones. Some of these stones have the
so-called ‘‘ bevelled” edges which are supposed to
show a Hebrew origin. There was a convent here
at the beginning of the 6th century, and a Chris-
tian settlement in the time of the Crusaders; and
undoubtedly most of these remains belong to modern
times rather than ancient. Among these should be
mentioned a baptismal font, sculptured out of a
limestone block, three feet and nine inches deep,
with an internal diameter at the top of four feet,
and designed evidently tor baptism as administered
1448 TEKOA
in the Greek Church. It stands in the open air,
like a similar one which the writer saw at Jufna,
near Beitin, the ancient Bethel. See more fully in
the Christian Review (New York, 1853, p. 519).
Near Yeki’a, among the same mountains, on
the brink of a frightful precipice, are the ruins of
Khireitin, possibly a corruption of Kerioth (Josh.
xv, 25), and in that case perhaps the birthplace of
Judas the traitor, who was thence called Iscariot,
7. e. man of Kerioth.” It is impossible to
survey the scenery of the place, and not feel that a
dark spirit would find itself in its own element
amid the seclusion and wildness of such ἃ spot.
High up from the bottom of the ravine is an open-
ing in the face of the rocks which leads into an
immense subterranean labyrinth, which many sup-
pose may have been the Cave of Adullam, in which
David and his followers sought refuge from the
pursuit of Saul. It is large enough to contain
hundreds of men, and is capable of defence against
almost any attack that could be made upon it from
without. When a party of the Turks fell upon Tehi’a
and sacked it, A.D. 1138, most of the inhabitants,
anticipating the danger, fled to this cavern, and thus
saved their lives. It may be questioned (Robin-
son, i. 481) whether this was the actual place of
David’s retreat, but it illustrates, at all events, that
peculiar geological formation of the country, which
accounts for such frequent allusions to ‘‘ dens and
caves”’ in the narrations of the Bible. The writer
was told, as a common opinion of the natives, that
some of the passages of this particular excavation
extended as far as to Hebron, several miles distant,
and that all the cord at Jerusalem would not be
sufficient to serve as clue for traversing its wind-
ings. [ODOLLAM. |
One of the gates of Jerusalem in Christian times
seems to have borne the name of Tekoa. Arculf, at
any rate, mentions the ‘gate called Tecuitis’ in
his enumeration of the gates of the city (A.D. 700).
It appears to have led down into the valley of the
Kedron, probably near the southern end of the
East wall. But his description is not very clear.
Can it be to this that St. Jerome alludes in the
singular expression in the Hpit. Paulae (§12),
ὁ προς revertar Jerosolymam et per Thecuam atque
Amos, rutilantem montis Oliveti Crucem aspic-
iam. ‘The Church of the Ascension on the summit
of Olivet would be just opposite a gate in the East
wall, and the “ clittering cross” would be particu-
larly conspicuous if seen from beneath its shadow.
There is no more prima facie improbability in a
Tekoa gate than in a Bethlehem, Jaffa, or Da-
mascus gate, all which still exist at Jerusalem.
But it is strange that the allusions to it should be
so rare, and that the circumstances which made
Tekoa prominent enough at that period to cause a
gate to be named atter it should have escaped
preservation. [H. B. H.]
TEKO'A (YIPF: Θεκωέ: Thecue). A name
occurring in the genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 24,
iv. 5), as the son of Ashur. There is little doubt
that the town of Tekoa is meant, and that the
notice implies that the town was colonized or
founded by a man or a town of the name of
ASHUR. [G.]
TEKO'ITE, THE (YPAN; in Chron. *YIPAT :
ὁ Θεκωείτης, ὁ Θεκώ, ὁ Θεκωνείτης : de Thequa,
TELAIM
Thecuites). Ira ben-Ikkesh, one of David’s war-
riors, is thus designated (2 Sam. xxiii. 26; 1 Chr.
xi. 28, xxvii. 9). The common people among THE
TEKOITES displayed great activity in the repairs of
the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah. They
undertook two lengths of the rebuilding (Neh. iii.
5,27). 10 is however specially mentioned that their
“lords” (DAPITN) took no part in the work. [G.]
TEL-A'BIB (2aN-on: μετέωρος: ad acer-
vum novarum frugum) was probably a city of
Chaldaea or Babylonia, not of Upper Mesopotamia,
as,generally imagined. (See Calmet on Ez. iii. 15,
and Winer, ad voc.) The whole scene of Kzekiel’s
preaching and visions seems to have been Chaldaea
Proper; and the river Chebar, as already observed
[see CHEBAR ], was not the Khabour, but a branch
of the Euphrates. Ptolemy has in this region a
Thel-bencane and a Thal-atha (Geograph. v. 20);
but neither name can be identified with Tel-abib,
unless we suppose a serious corruption. he ele-
ment “Tel” in Tel-abib, is undoubtedly ‘ hill.”
It is applied in modern times by the Arabs espe-
cially to the mounds or heaps which mark the site
of ruined cities all over the Mesopotamian plain, an
application not very remote from the Hebrew use,
according to which “Tel” is especially a heap of
stones’’ (Gesen. ad voc.). It thus forms the first
syllable in many modern, as in many ancient names,
throughout Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria. (See
Assemann, Bibl, Orient. iii. pt. ii. p. 784.)
The LXX, have given a translation of the term,
by which we can see that they did not regard it as
a proper name, but which is quite inexplicable.
The Vulgate likewise translates, and correctly
enough, so far as Hebrew scholarship is concerned ;
but there seems to be no reason to doubt that the
word is really a proper name, and therefore ought
not to be translated at all. [G. R.]
TH'LAH (nbn: Θαλεές ; Alex. Θαλέ: Thale).
A descendant of Ephraim, and ancestor of Joshua
(1 Chr. vii. 25).
TEL'AIM (D NDA, with the article: ἐν Pan-
γάλοις in both MSS., and so also Josephus: quasi
agnos). The place at which Saul collected and num-
bered his forces before his attack on Amalek (1 Sam.
xv. 4, only). It may be identical with TELEM, the
southern position of which would be suitable for an
expedition against Amalek ; and a certain support is
given to this by the mention of the name (Thailam
or Thelam) in the LXX. of 2 Sam. iii. 12. On the
other hand the reading of the LXX. in 1 Sam. xv.
4 (not only in the Vatican MS., but also in the
Alex., usually so close an adherent of the Hebrew
text), and of Josephus (Anf. vi. 7, §2), who is not
given to follow® the LXX. slavishly—viz. Gilgal,
is remarkable; and when the frequent connexion of
that sanctuary with Saul’s history is recollected,
it is almost sufficient to induce the belief that in
this case the LXX. and Josephus have preserved the
right name, and that instead of Telaim we should,
with them, read Gilgal. It should be observed,
however, that the Hebrew MSS. exhibit no varia-
tion im the name, and that, excepting the LXX.
and the Targum, the Versions all agree with the
Hebrew. The Targum renders it ‘ lambs of the
Passover,” according to a curious fancy, mentioned
elsewhere in the Jewish books ( Yalkut on 1 Sam.
>
ἃ In this instance his rendering is more worthy of notice,
because it would have been easy for him to have inter-
preted the name as the Rabbis do, with whose traditions
he was well acquainted.
ἜΤ a ΜΝ
Le ee
_oo eo κι νμμν..
TELASSAR
xv. 4, &c.), that the army met at the Passover,
and that the census was taken by counting the
blambs. This is partly endorsed by Jerome in the
Vulgate. [G.]
TELASSAR (WOR: Θαεσθέν, Θεεμάθ:
Thelassar, Thalassar) i is mentioned in 2 K. xix. 12,
and in Is, xxxvii. 12 asa city inhabited by “ the
children of Eden,” which had been conquered, and
was held in the time of Sennacherib by the Assy-
rians. Jn the former passage the name is rather
differently given both in Hebrew and English,
[THELASAR.] In both it is connected with Gozan
(Gauzanitis), Haran (Carrhae, now Harran), and
Rezeph (the Razappa of the Assyrian Inscriptions),
all of which belong to the hill country above the
Upper Mesopotamian plain, the district from which
rise the A/abir and Belik rivers. [See ΜΈΒΟΡΟ-
TAMIA, GOZAN, and HaRan.] It is quite in
accordance with the indications of locality which
arise from this connection, to find Eden joined in
another passage (Ez. xxvii. 23) with Haran and
Asshur. Telassar, the chief city of a tribe known
as the Beni Eden, must have been in Western Me-
sopotamia, in the neighbourhood of Harran and
Orfa. It would be uncritical to attempt to fix the
locality more exactly. The name is one which
might have been given by the Assyrians to any
place where they had built a temple to Asshur,¢
and hence perhaps its application by the Targums to
the Resen of Gen. x. 12, which must have been on the
Tigris, near Nineveh and Calah. [RESEN.] [G. R.]
TEL'EM (051): Μαινάμ ἃ; Alex. Τελεμ: Te-
lem). One of the cities in the extreme south of
Judah (Josh. xv. 24). It occurs between ΖΙΡΗ
(not the Ziph of David’s escape) and BEALOTH:
but has not been identified. The name Dhulldm is
found in Van de Velde’s map, attached to a district
immediately to the north of the Kubbet el-Baul, south
of ef Milh and Ar’arah—a position very suitable ;
but whether the coincidence of the name is merely
accidental or not, is not at present ascertainable.
Telem is identified by some with Telaim, which is
found in the Hebrew text of 1 Sam. xv. 4; but
there is nothing to say either for or against this.
The LXX. of 2 Sam. iii. 12, in both MSS., ex-
hibits a singular variation from the Hebrew text.
Instead of “on the spot” (MANA, A. V. incor-
rectly, “on his behalf”) ) they read “to Thailam (or
Thelam) where he was.” If this variation should
be substantiated, there is some probability that
Telem or Telaim is intended, David was at the
time king, and quartered in Hebron, but there is
no reason to suppose that he had relinquished his
marauding habits; and the south country, where
Telem lay, had formerly been a favourite field for
his expeditions (1 Sam. xxvii. 8-11),
The Vat. LXX. in Josh. xix. 7, adds the name
Θαλχά, between Remmon and Ether, to the towns
of Simeon. This is said by Eusebius (Qnomast.)
and Jerome to have been then existing as a very
large village called Thella, 16 miles south of Eleu-
theropolis. It is however claimed as equivalent to
TOCHEN. [6]
/ in the same region.
TEMA
Τελμήν ;
1449
TEL‘EM (DoD: Alex. τελλήμ:
Telem). A porter or doorkeeper of the Temple in
the time of Ezra, who had married a foreign wife
(Ezr. x. 24). He is probably the same as Ta mon
in Neh, xii. 25, the name being that of a family
rather than of an individual. In 1 Esd. ix. 25 he
is called TOLBANES.
TEL-HAR'SA, or TEL-HAR'ESHA (bn
wan: Θελαρησά: Thelharsaw) was one of the
Babylonian towns, or villages, from which some
Jews, who “could not show their father’s house,
nor their seed, whether they were of Israel,” re-
turned to Judaea with Zerubbabel (Ez. ii. 59; Neh.
vii. 61). Gesenius renders the term ‘‘ Hil! of the
Wood” (Lez. ad voc.). It was probably in the
low country near the sea, in the neighbourhood of
Tel-Melah and Cherub; but we cannot identify it
with any known site. [G. R.]
TEL-ME'LAH (Mp1-OH: Θελμελέχ, Θελ-
μελέθ: Thelmala) is joined with Tel-Harsa and
Cherub in the two passages already cited under
TreL-Harsa. It is perhaps the Thelme of Ptolemy
(v. 20), which some wrongly read as Theame
(OEAMH for OEAMH), a city of the low salt tract
near the Persian Gult, whence probably the name,
which means “Hill of Salt’? (Gesen. Lex. Heb.
sub voc.). Cherub, which may be pretty surely
identified with Ptolemy’ s Chiripha ἐν τ᾽ was
[G. R.]
TE'MA (SOR: Θαιμάν : Thema). The ninth
son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 15; 1 Chr. i. 30);
whence the tribe called after him, mentioned in Job
vi. 19, “* The troops of Tema looked, the companies
of Sheba waited for them,” and by Jeremiah (xxv.
23), “ Dedan, Tema, and Buz;” and also the land
occupied by this tribe: ‘‘ The burden upon Arabia.
In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye tra-
velling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of
the land of Tema brought water to him that was
thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that
fled” (Is. xxi. 13, 14).
The name is identified satisfactorily with Teyma,
»-ᾧ -
sles, a small town on the confines of Syria,
between n° and Wadi-l-Kura, on the road of the
Damascus pilgrim-caravan (JJardsid, 5. ν.). It is
in the neighbourhood of Doomat-el-Jendel, which
agrees etymologically and by tradition with the
Ishmaelite DUMAH, and the country of Keydar, or
KEDAR. Teyma is a well-known town and district,
and is appropriate in every point of view as the
chief settlement of Ishmael’s son Tema. It is com-
manded by the castle called El-Ablak (or El-Ablak
el-Fard), of Es-Semiiw-al (Samuel) Ibn-’Adiya the
Jew, a contemporary of Imra-el-Keys (A.D. 550
cir.); but according to a tradition it was built by
Solomon, which points at any rate to its antiquity
(comp. EL Bekree, in Mardsid, iv. 23) ; now in ruins,
described as being built of rubble mae crude bricks,
and said to be named El-Ablak from having white-
ness and redness in its structure (J/arasid, s. v.
b A similar fancy in reference to the name BEZEK
( Sam. xi. 8) is found in the Midrash. It is taken lite-
rally as meaning “broken pieces of pottery,” by which,
as by counters, the numbering was effected. Bezek and
Telaim are considered by the Talmudists as two of the
ten numberiugs of Israel, past and future.
e It would signify simply “the Hill of Asshur.”
Compare Tei-ane, “the Hill of Ana,” a name which
seems to have been applied in later times to the city
called by the Assyrians “ Assbur,” and marked by the
ruins at Kileh Sherghat. (Steph. Byz. ad voc. TeAavy.)
ἃ The passage is in such confusion in the Vatican MS.,
that it is difficult rightly to assign the words, and impos-
sible to infer anything from the equivalents.
1450 TEMAN
Ablak). This fortress seems, like that of Doomat-
el-Jendel, to be one of the strongholds that must
have protected the caravan route along the northern
frontier of Arabia; and they recall the passage fol-
lowing the enumeration of the sons of Ishmael :
ἐς These [are] the sons of Ishmael, and these [are]
their names, by their towns, and by their castles ;
twelve princes according to their nations” (Gen.
xxv. 16).
Teyma signifies “a desert,” ‘an untilled dis-
trict,” &c. Freytag (s.v.) writes the name with-
out a long final alif, but not so the Marasid.
Ptolemy (xix. 6) mentions θέμμη in Arabia De-
serta, which may be the same place as the existing
Teyma. The LXX. reading seems to have a refer-
ence to TEMAN, which see. [E. 8. P.]
TE’MAN QA: Θαιμάν: Theman). 1. A
son of Eliphaz, son of Esau by Adah (Gen. xxxvi.
11; 1 Chr. i. 36, 53), afterwards named as a duke
(pkylarch) of Edom (ver. 15), and mentioned again
in the separate list (vv. 40-43) of “the names of
the rulers [that came] of Esau, according to their
families, after their places, by their names ;” end-
ing, “these be the dukes of Edom, according to
their habitations in the land of their possession: he
[is] Esau the father of the Edomites.”
Ὁ... A country, and probably a city, named after
the Edomite phylarch, or from which the phylarch
took his name, as may be perhaps inferred from the
verses of Gen. xxxvi. just quoted. The Hebrew
signifies “south,” &c. (see Job ix. 9; Is. xliii. 6;
besides the use of it to mean the south side of the
Tabernacle in Ex. xxvi. and xxvii., &c.); and it is
probable that the land of Teman was a southern
portion of the land of Edom, or, in a wider sense,
that of the sons of the East, the Beni-kedem. Te-
man is mentioned in five places by the Prophets,
in four of which it is connected with Edom,
showing it to be the same place as that indicated in
the list of the dukes; twice it is named with Dedan
— Concerning Edom, thus saith the Lord of hosts:
[Is] wisdom no more in Teman ? is counsel perished
from the prudent ? is their wisdom vanished? Flee
ye, turn back, dwell deep, Ὁ inhabitants of Dedan”
(Jer. xlix. 7, 8); and “1 will make it [Edom]
desolate from Teman; and they of Dedan shall fall
by the sword” (Ez. xxv. 13), This connection with
the great Keturahite tribe of Dedan gives addi-
tional importance to Teman, and helps to fix its
geographical position. This is further defined by a
passage in the chapter of Jer. already cited, verses
20, 21, where it is said of Edom and Teman, “The
earth is moved at the noise of their fall; at the ery
the noise thereof was heard in the Red Sea (yam
Suf).’ In the sublime prayer of Habakkuk, it is
written, ‘‘God came from Teman, and the Holy
One from mount Paran” (iii. 3). Jeremiah, it has
been seen, speaks of the wisdom of Teman; and
the prophecy of Obadiah implies the same (8, 9),
“ Shall I not in that day, saith the Lord, even
destroy the wise (men) out of Edom, and under-
standing out of the mount of Esau? And thy
[mighty] men, O Teman., shall be dismayed.” In
wisdom, the descendants of Esau, and especially the
inhabitants of Teman, seem to have been pre-eminent
among the sons of the East.
In common with most Edomite names, Teman
appears to have been lost. The occupation of the
country by the, Nabathaeans seems to have oblite-
rated almost all of the traces (always obscure) of the
migratory tribes of the desert. It is not likely that
TEMPLE
much can ever be done by mcedern research to clear
up the early history of this part of the “ east coun-
try.’ True, Eusebius and Jerome mention Teman
as a town in their day distant 15 miles (according
to Eusebius) from Petra, and a Roman post. The
identification of the existing Maan (see Burckhardt)
with this Teman may be geographically correct,
but it cannot rest on etymological grounds.
The gentilic noun of Teman is "2727 (Job ii. 11 ;
xxii. 1), and Eliphaz the Temanite was one of the
wise men of Edom. The gen. n. occurs also in
Gen. xxxvi. 34, where the land of Temani (so in the
A. V.) is mentioned. [E. S. P.]
TEMANI. [Temay.]
TE'MANITE. [Teman.]
TE'MENI (3D: Θαιμάν : Themani). Son
of Ashur, the father of Tekoa, by his wife Naarah
(1 Chr. iv. 6).
TEMPLE. There is perhaps no building of the
ancient world which has excited so much attention
since the time of its destruction as the Temple
which Solomon built at Jerusalem, and its successor
as rebuilt by Herod. Its spoils were considered
worthy of forming the principal illustration of one
of the most beautiful of Roman triumphal arches,
and Justinian’s highest architectural ambition was
that he might surpass it. Throughout the middle
ages it influenced to a considerable degree the forms
of Christian churches, and its peculiarities were the
watchwords and rallying points of all associations
of builders. Since the revival of learning in the
16th century its arrangements have employed the
pens of numberless learned antiquarians, and archi-
tects of every country have wasted their science in
trying to reproduce its forms.
But it is not only to Christians that the Temple
of Solomon is so interesting ; the whole Mahomedan
world look ‘to it as the foundation of all architec-
tural knowledge, and the Jews still recall its glories
and sigh over their loss with a constant tenacity,
unmatched by that of any other people to any other
building of the ancient world.
With all this interest and attention it might
fairly be assumed that there was nothing more to
be said on such a subject—that every source of in-
formation had been ransacked, and every form of
restoration long ago exhausted, and some settlement
of the disputed points arrived at which had been
generally accepted. This is, however, far from being
the case, and few things would be more curious
than a collection of the various restorations that
have been proposed, as showing what different
meanings may be applied to the same set of simple
architectural terms.
The most important work on this subject, and
that which was principally followed by restorers
/in the 17th and 18th centuries, was that of the
| brothers Pradi, Spanish Jesuits, better known as
| Villalpandi. Their work was published in folio at
| Rome, 1596-1604, superbly illustrated,. Their idea
of Solomon’s Temple was, that both in dimensions
and arrangement it was very like the Escurial in
Spain. But it is by no means clear whether the
Eseurial was being built while their book was in
| the press, in order to look like the Temple, or whe-
ther its authors took their idea of the Temple from
the palace. At all events their design is so much the
more beautifal and commodious of the two, that we
cannot but regret that Herrera was not employed on
the book, and the Jesuits set to build the palace.
TEMPLE
When the French expedition to Egypt, in the first
years of this century, had made the world familiar
with the wonderful architectural remains of that
country, every one jumped to the conclusion that
Solomon’s Temple must have been designed after an
Egyptian model. forgetting entirely how hateful
that land of bondage was to the Israelites, and how
completely all the ordinances of their religion were
opposed to the idolatries they had escaped from—
forgetting, too, the centuries which had elapsed |
since the Exode before the Temple was erected, and
how little communication of any sort there had
been between the two countries in the interval.
The Assyrian discoveries of Botta and Layard
have within the last twenty years given an entirely
new direction to the researches of the restorers, and
this time with a very considerable prospect of suc-
cess, for the analogies are now true, and whatever
can be brought to bear on the subject is in the right
direction. The original seats of the progenitors of
the Jewish races were in Mesopotamia. Their lan-
guage was practically the same as that spoken on
the banks of the Tigris. Their historical traditions
were consentaneous, and, so far as we can judge,
almost all the outward symbolism of their religions
was the same, or nearly so. Unfortunately, how-
ever, no Assyrian temple has yet been exhumed of
a nature to throw much light on this subject, and
we are still forced to have recourse to the later
buildings at Persepolis, or to general deductions, from
the style of the nearly contemporary secular build-
ings at Nineveh and elsewhere, for such illustrations
as are available. These, however, nearly suffice for
all that is required for Solomon’s Temple. For the
details of that erected by Herod we must look to
Rome.
Of the intermediate Temple erected by Zerubbabel
we know very little, but, from the circumstance of
its having been erected under Persian influences
contemporaneously with the buildings at Persepolis,
it is perhaps the one of which it would be most easy
to restore the details with anything like certainty.
Before proceeding, however, to investigate the
arrangements of the Temple, it is indispensable first
carefully to determine those of the Tabernacle which
Moses caused to be erected in the Desert of Sinai
immediately after the promulgation of the Law
from that mountain. For, as we shall presently
see, the Temple of Solomon was nothing more nor
less than an exact repetition of that earlier Temple,
differing only in being erected of more durable
materials, and with exactly double the dimensions of
its prototype, but still in every essential respect so
identical that.a knowledge of the one is indispen-
sable in order to understand the other.
TABERNACLE.
The written authorities for the restoration of the
Tabernacle are, first, the detailed account to be
found in the 26th chapter of Exodus, and repeated
TEMPLE 1451
in the 36th, verses 8 to 38, without any variation
beyond the slightest possible abridgement. Secondly,
the account given of the building by Josephus
(Ant. iii. 6), which is so nearly a repetition of the
account found in the Bible that we may feel
assured that he had no really important authority
before him except the one which is equally accessible
to us. Indeed we might almost put his account on
one side, if it were not that, being a Jew, and so
much nearer the time, he may have had access to
some traditional accounts which may have enabled
him to realize its appearance more readily than we
can do, and his knowledge of Hebrew technical
terms may have enabled him to understand what
we might otherwise be unable to explain. |
The additional indications contained in the Tal-
mud and in Philo are so few and indistinct, and are
besides of such doubtful authenticity, that they
practically add nothing to our knowledge, and may
safely be disregarded.
For a complicated architectural building these
written authorities probably would not suffice
without some remains or other indications to sup-
plement them ; but the arrangements of the Taber-
nacle were so simple that they are really all that
are required. Every important dimension was either
5 cubits or a multiple of 5 cubits, and all the ar-
|vangements in plan were either squares or double
squares, so that there really is no difficulty in
putting the whole together, and none would ever
have occurred were it not that the dimensions οὗ
the sanctuary, as obtained from the “ boards” that
formed its walls, appear at first sight to be one
thing, while those obtained from the dimensions of
the curtains which covered it appear to give another,
and no one has yet succeeded in reconciling these
with one another or with the text of Scripture. The
apparent discrepancy is, however, easily explained,
as we shall presently see, and never would have
occurred to any one who had lived long under
canvas or was familiar with the exigencies of tent
architecture.
Outer Enclosure.—The court of the Tabernacle
was surrounded by canvas screens—in the East
called Kannauts—and still universally used to en-
close the private apartments of important person-
ages. Those of the Tabernacle were 5 cubits in
height, and supported by pillars of brass 5 cubits
apart, to which the curtains were attached by hooks
and fillets of silver (Ex. xxvii. 9, &c.). This en-
closure was only broken on the eastern side by the
entrance, which was 20 cubits wide, and closed by
curtains of fine twined linen wrought with needle-
work, and of the most gorgeous colours.
The space enclosed within these screens was a
double square, 50 cubits, or 75 feet north® and
south, and 100 cubits or 150 ft. east and west. In
the outer or eastern half was placed the altar of
burnt-otferings, described in Ex. xxvii. 1-8, and be-
a The cubit used throughout this article is assumed to
be the ordinary cubit, of the length of a man’s fore-arm
from the elbow-joint to the tip of the middle finger, or
18 Greek inches, equal to 18ὲ English inches. There
seems to be little doubt but that the Jews also used oc-
casionally a shorter cubit of 5 handbreaths, or 15 inches,
but only (in so far as can be ascertained) in speaking of
vessels or of metal work, and never applied it to buildings.
After the Babylonish Captivity they seem also occasion-
ally to have employed the Babylonian cubit of 7 hand-
breadths, or 21 inches. This, however, can evidently
have no application to the Tabernacle or Solomon’s
Temple, which was erected before the Captivity; nor
can it be available to explain the peculiarities of Herod’s
Temple, as Josephus, who is our principal authority
regarding it, most certainly did always employ the Greek
cubit of 18 inches, or 400 to 1 stadium of 600 Greek feet ;
and the Talmud, which is the only other authority,
always gives the same number of cubits where we can be
certain they are speaking of the same thing; so that we
may feel perfectly sure they both were using the same
measure. Thus, whatever other cubits the Jews may
have used for other purposes, we may rest assured that
for the buildings referred to in this article the cubit of 18
inches, and that only, was the one employed.
TEMPLE
description of the mode in which they were applied
is the correct one :—‘** Every one,” he says (Ant. iii.
6, 89), ‘ of the pillars or boards had a ring of gold
affixed to its front outwards, into which were inserted
bars gilt with gold, each of them 5 cubits long, and
these bound together the boards ; the head of one
bar running into another after the manner of one
tenon inserted into another. But for the wall be-
hind there was only one bar that went through all
the boards, into which one of the ends of the bars on
both sides was inserted.”
So far, therefore, everything seems certain and
easily understood. The Tabernacle was an oblong
rectangular structure, 30 cubits long by 10 broad,
open at the eastern end, and divided internally into
two apartments. The Holy of Holies, into which
no one entered—not even the priest, except on very
extraordinary occasions—was a cube, 10 cubits
square in plan, and 10 cubits high to the top of the
wall. In this was placed the Mercy-seat, sur-
mounted by the cherubim, and on it was placed
the Ark, containing the tables of the Law. In front
of these was an outer chamber, called the Holy
Place—20 cubits long by 10 broad, and 10 high,
appropriated to the use of the priests. In it were
placed the golden candlestick on one side, the table
of shew-bread opposite, and between them in the
centre the altar of incense.
1452 TEMPLE
tween it and the Tabernacle the laver (Ant. iii. 6,
§2), at which the priests washed their hands and
feet on entering the Temple.
as ἀ ΒΕ
ΠΡ ἘΠ
Pale
cae Sy
—o
—2
--υ-.---.
—>—,
Pal
.----ο----᾿
ἱ
.-----ω---
ee
.--------
.---«----
---------
|
|
a
ee
|
.--- 5
ΚΡ ἱ eee
fe lee alice. ol ae
Sy 10 20 30 40 50 Cubits
er bas --ἰ- --- ---
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 75 Feet.
No. 1.—Plan of the Outer Court of the Tabernacle.
In the square towards the west was situated the
Temple or Tabernacle itself. The dimensions in
plan of this structure are easily ascertained. Jo-
sephus states them (Ant. iii. 6, §3) as 30 cubits long
by 10 broad, or 45 feet by 15, and the Bible is
scarcely less distinct, as it says that the north and
south walls were each composed of twenty upright
boards (Ex. xxvi. 15, &c.), each board one cubit
and a half in width, and at the west end there
were six boards equal to 9 cubits, which, with
the angle boards or posts, made up the 10 cubits
of Josephus,
Each of these boards was furnished with two
tenons at its lower extremity, which fitted iato
silver sockets placed on the ground. At the top at
least they were jointed and fastened together by
bars of shittim or acacia wood run through rings
of gold (Ex. xxvi. 26). Both authorities agree that
there were five bars for each side, but a little diffi-
culty arises from the Bible describing (ver. 28) a
middle bar which reached from end to end. As
we shall presently see, this bar was probably
applied to a totally different purpose, and we may
No. 2. —The Tabernacle, showing one half ground plan and one
half as covered by the curtains.
The roof of the Tabernacle was formed by 3,
or rather 4, sets of curtains, the dimensions of two
of which are given with great minuteness both in the
Bible and by Josephus. The innermost (Ex. xxvi. 1,
&c.), of fine twined linen according to our trans-
lation (Josephus calls them wool: ἐρίων, Ant. iii.
6,§ 4), were ten in number, each 4 cubits wide and
28 cubits long. These were of various colours, and
ornamented with cherubim of “cunning work.”
therefore assume for the present that Josephus’ | Five of these were sewn together so as to form larger
TEMPLE
curtains, each 20 cubits by 28, and these two again
were joined together, when used, by fifty gold buckles
or clasps.
Above these were placed curtains of goats’ hair,
each 4 cubits wide by 30 cubits long, but eleven
in number; these were also sewn together, six into
one curtain, and five into the other, and, when
used, were likewise joined together by fifty gold
buckles,
Over these again was thrown a curtain of rams’
skins with the wool on, dyed red, and a fourth cover-
ing isalso specified as being of badgers’ skins, so named
in the A. V., but which probably really consisted of
seal-skins. [BADGER-SKINS in Appendix A.] This
did not of course cover the rams’ skins, but most
probably was only used as a coping or ridge piece
to protect the junction of the two curtains of vams’
skins which were laid on each slope of the roof, and
probably only laced together at the top.
The question which has hitherto proved a stum-
bling block to restorers is, to know ΤῈ these cur-
tains were applied as a covering to the Tabernacle.
Strange to say, this has appeared so difficult that,
with hardly an exception, they have been content
to assume that they were thrown over its walls as
8 pall is thrown over a coffin, and they have thus
cut the Gordian knot in defiance of all probabi-
lities, as well as of the distinct specification of the
Pentateuch. To this view of the matter there are
several important objections.
First. Ifthe inner or ornamental curtain was so
used, only about one-third of it would be seen;
9 cubits on each side would be entirely hidden be-
tween the walls of the Tabernacle and the goats’-
hair curtain. It is true that Bahr (Symbolik des
Mosaischen Cultus), Neumann (Der Stiftshiitte,
1861), and others, try to avoid this difficulty by
hanging this curtain so as to drape the walls inside ;
but for this there is not a shadow of authority, and
the form of the curtain would be singularly awk-
ward and unsuitable for this purpose. If such a
thing were intended, it is evident that one curtain
would have been used as wall-hangings and another
as a ceiling, not one great range of curtains all
joined the same way to hang the walls all round
and form the ceiling at the same time.
A second and more cogent objection will strike
anyone who has ever lived in a tent. .It is, that
every drop of rain that fell on the Tabernacle would
fall through ; for, however tightly the curtains might
be stretched, the water could never run over the
edge, and the sheep skins would only make the
matter worse, as when wetted their weight would
depress the centre, and probably tear any curtain
that could be made, while snow lying on such a
roof would certainly tear the curtains to pieces.
But a third and fatal objection is, that this ar-
rangement is in direct contradiction to Scripture.
We are there told (Ex. xxvi. 9) that half of one of
the goats’-hair curtains shall be doubled back in
front of the Tabernacle, and only the half of another
(ver. 12) hang down behind; and (ver. 13), that
one cubit shall hang down on each side—whereas
this arrangement makes 10 cubits hang down all
round, except in front.
The solution of the difficulty appears singularly
obvious. It is simply, that the tent had a ridge,
as all tents have had from the days of Moses down
to the present day; and we have also very little
difficulty in predicating that the angle formed by
the two sides of the roof at the ridge was a right
angle—not only because it is a reasonable and usual
TEMPLE 1453
angle for such a roof, and one that would most
likely be adopted in so regular a building, but be-
cause its adoption reduces to harmony the only ab-
normal measurement in the whole building. As
mentioned above, the principal curtains were only
28 cubits in length, and consequently not a mul-
tiple of 5; but if we assume a right angle at the
ridge, each side of the slope was 14 cubits, and
142 + 142 = 392, and 202 = 400, two numbers
which are practically identical in tent-building.
ω
Ε
a
>
°
n
Ω
Ε
a
3
[
n
20 CUBITS
10 CUBITS
No, 3.—Diagram of the Dimensions of the Tabernacle in Section.
The base of the triangle, therefore, formed by the
roof was 20 cubits, or in other words, the roof of
the Tabernacle extended 5 cubits beyond the walls,
not ouly in front and rear, but on both sides; and
it may be added, that the width of the Tabernacle
thus became identical with the width of the entrance
to the enclosure; which but for this circumstance
would appear to have been disproportionately large.
With these data it is easy to explain all the other
difficulties which have met previous restorers,
First. The Holy of Holies was divided from the
Holy Place by a screen of four pillars supporting
curtains which no one was allowed to pass. But,
strange to say, in the entrance there were five
pillars in a similar space. Now, no one would put
a pillar in the centre of an entrance without a
motive; but the moment a ridge is assumed it
becomes indispensable.
It may be assumed that all the five pillars were
spaced within the limits of the 10 cubits of the
breadth of the Tabernacle, viz. one in the centre,
two opposite the two ends of the walls, and the
other two between them; but the probabilities are
so infinitely greater that those two last were beyond
those at the angles of the tent, that it is hardly
worth while considering the first hypothesis. By
the one here adopted the pillars in front would, like
every thing else, be spaced exactly 5 cubits apart.
Secondly. Josephus twice asserts (Ant. iii. 6,
84) that the Tabernacle was divided into three
parts, though he specifies only two—the Adytum
and the Pronaos. The third was of course the
porch, 5 cubits deep, which stretched across the
width of the house.
Thirdly. In speaking of the western end, the
Bible always uses the plural, as if there were two
sides there. There was, of course, at least one pillar
in the centre beyond the wall,—there may have
been five,—so that there practically were two sides
there. It may also be remarked that the Penta-
teuch, in speaking (Ex. xxyi. 12) of this after part.
calls it Mishcan, or the dwelling, as contradistin-
guished from Ohel, or the tent, which applies to
the whole structure covered by the curtains.
Fourthly. We now understand why there are 10
1454 TEMPLE
breadths in the under curtains, and 11 in the
upper. It was that they might break joint—in
other words, that the seam of the one, and espe-
cially the great joining of the two divisions, might
be over the centre of the lower curtain, so as to
prevent the rain penetrating through the joints. It
may also be remarked that, as the two cubits which
were in excess at the west hung at an angle, the
depth of fringe would be practically about the same
as on the sides.
With these suggestions, the whole description in
the Book of Exodus is so easily understood that it
is not necessary to dilate further upon it ; there are,
however, two points which remain to be noticed, but
more with reference to the Temple which succeeded
it than with regard to the Tabernacle itself.
The first is the disposition of the side bars of
shittim-wood that joined the boards together. At
first sight it would appear that there were 4 short
and one long bar on each side, but it seems impos-
sible to see how these could be arranged to accord
with the usual interpretation of the text, and very
improbable that the Israelites would have carried
about a bar 45 feet long, when 5 or 6 bars would
have answered the purpose equally well, and 5
rows of bars are quite unnecessary, besides being in
opposition to the words of the text.
The explanation hinted at above seems the most
reasonable one—that the five bars named (vers. 26
and 27) were joined end to end, as Josephus asserts,
and the bar mentioned (ver. 28) was the ridge-pole
of the roof. The words of the Hebrew text will
equally well bear the translation—“ and the middle
bar which is between,” instead of “ in the midst of
the boards, shall reach from end to end.” ‘This
would appear a perfectly reasonable solution but for
the mechanical difficulty that no pole could be made
stiff enough to bear its own weight and that of the
curtains over an extent of 45 feet, without inter-
mediate supports. A ridge-rope could easily be
stretched to twice that distance, if required for the
purpose, though it too would droop in the centre.
A pole would be a much more appropriate and likely
architectural arrangement—so much so, that it
seems more than probable that one was employed
with supports. One pillar in the centre where the
TEMPLE
back of the Holy of Holies was 15 cubits high
(which there is nothing to contradict), the whole
would be easily constructed. Still, as no internal
supports are mentioned either by the Bible or Jo-
sephus, the question of how the ridge was formed
and supported must remain an open one, incapable
of proof with our present knowledge, but it is one
to which we shall have to revert presently.
The other question is—were the sides of the
Verandah which surrounded the Sanctuary closed or
left open? The only hint we have that this was
done, is the mention of the western sides always
in the plural, and the employment of Mishcan
and Ohel throughout this chapter, apparently in
opposition to one another, Mishcan always seem-
ing to apply to an enclosed space, which was or
might be dwelt in, Ohel to the tent as a whole or
to the covering only ; though here again the point
is by no means so clear as to be decisive.
The only really tangible reason for supposing the
sides were enclosed is, that the Temple of Solomon
was surrounded on all sides but the front, by a
range of small cells 5 cubits wide, in which the
priests resided who were specially attached to the
service of the Temple.
It would have been so easy to have done this
in the Tabernacle, and its convenience—at night at
least—so great, that I cannot help suspecting it was
the case.
It is not easy to ascertain, with anything like
certainty, at what distance from the tent the tent-
pegs were fixed. It could not be less on the sides
than 7 cubits, it may as probably have been 10.
In front and year the central peg could hardly have
been at a less distance than 20 cubits; so that it
is by no means improbable that from the front to
rear the whole distance may have been 80 cubits,
and from side to side 40 cubits, measured from peg
to peg ; and it is this dimension that seems to have
governed the pegs of the enclosures, as it would
just allow room for the fastenings of the enclosure
on either side, and for the altar and laver in front.
It is scarcely worth while, however, insisting
strongly on these and some other minor points.
Enough has been said to explain with the wood-
cuts all the main points of the proposed restoration,
curtains were joined would be amply sufficient for all | and to show that it is possible to reconstruct the
practical purposes; and if the centre board at the | Tabernacle in strict conformity with every word
No. 4.—South-East View ot the Tabernacle, as restored.
‘ome
TEMPLE
and every indication of the sacred text, and at the
same time to show that the Tabernacle was a rea-
sonable tent-like structure, admirably adapted to
the purposes to which it was applied.
SOLOMON’s TEMPLE,
The Tabernacle accompanied the Israelites in all
their wanderings, and remained their only Holy
Place or Temple till David obtained possession of
Jerusalem, and erected an altar in the threshing-
floor of Araunah, on the spot where the altar of
the Temple always afterwards stood. He also
brought the Ark out of Kirjath-jearim (2 Sam. vi.
25 1 Chr. xiii. 6) and prepared a tabernacle for it
in the new city which he called after his own name.
Both these were brought up thence by Solomon
(2 Chr. v. 5); the Ark placed in the Holy of
Holies, but the Tabernacle seems to have been put
on one side as a relic (1 Chr. xxiii. 32). We have
no account, however, of the removal of the original
Tabernacle of Moses from Gibeon, nor anything
that would enable us to connect it with that one
which Solomon removed out of the City of David
(2 Chr. v.5). In fact, from the time of the build-
ing of the Temple, we lose sight of the Tabernacle
altogether. It was David who first proposed to re-
place the Tabernacle by a more permanent building,
but was forbidden for the reasons assigned by the
prophet Nathan (2 Sam, vii. 5, &c.), and though
he collected materials and made arrangements, the
execution of the task was left for his son Solomon.
He, with the assistance of Hiram king of Tyre,
commenced this great undertaking in the fourth year
of his reign, and completed it in seven years, about
1005 B.C. according to the received chronology.
On comparing the Temple, as described in 1 Kings
vi. and 2 Chronicles ii, and by Josephus vii. 3, with
the Tabernacle, as just explained, the first thing
that strikes us is that all the arrangements were
identical, and the dimensions of every part were
exactly double those of the preceding structure.
Thus the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle was a
cube, 10 cubits each way; in the Temple it was
20 cubits. The Holy Place or outer hall was 10
cubits wide by 20 long and 10 high in the Taber-
nacle. In the Temple all these dimensions were
exactly double. The porch in the Tabernacle was
5 cubits deep, in the Temple 10: its width in both
instances being the width of the house. The chambers
round the House and the Tabernacle were each 5
cubits wide on the ground-floor, the difference being
that in the Temple the two walls taken together
made up a thickness of 5 cubits, thus making 10
cubits for the chambers.
Taking all these parts together, the ground-plan
of the Temple measured 80 cubits by 40; that of
the Tabernacle, as we have just seen, was 40 by 20;
and what is more striking than even this, is that
though the walls were 10 cubits high in the ore
and 20 cubits in the other, the whole height of the
Tabernacle was 15, that of the Temple 30 cubits;
the one roof rising 5, the other 10 cubits above the
height of the internal walls.» So exact indeed is this
coincidence, that it not only confirms to the fullest
extent the restoration of the Tabernacle which has
just been explained, but it is a singular confirmation
TEMPLE 1455
of the minute accuracy which characterised the
writers of the Pentateuch and the Books of Kings
and Chronicles in this matter; for not only are we
able to check the one by the other at this distance
of time with perfect certainty, but, now that we
know the system on which they were constructed,
we might almost restore both edifices from Josephus’
account of the Temple as re-erected by Herod, of
which more hereafter.
i
30.Cuers
No. 5.—Plan of Solomon's Temple, showing the disposition of the
chambers in two stories.
The proof that the Temple, as built by Solomon,
was only an enlarged copy of the Tabernacle, goes
far also to change the form of another important
question which has been long agitated by the stu-
dents of Jewish antiquities, inasmuch as the in-
quiry as to whence the Jews derived the plan and
design of the Temple must now be transferred to the
earlier type, and the question thus stands, Whence
did they derive the scheme of the Tabernacle ?
From Egypt ?
There is not a shadow of proof that the Egyptians
ever used a moveable or tent-like temple, neither the
pictures in their temples nor any historical records
point to such a form, nor has any one hitherto ven-
tured to suggest such an origin for that structure.
From Assyria ?
Here too we are equally devoid of any authority
or tangible data, for though the probabilities cer-
tainly are that the Jews would rather adopt a form
from the kindred Assyrians than from the hated
strangers whose land they had just left, we have
nothing further to justify us in such an assumption.
From Arabia ?
It is possible that the Arabs may have used
moveable tent-like temples. They were a people
nearly allied in race with the Jews. Moses’ tather-
in-law was an Arab, and something he may have
seen there may have suggested the form he adopted.
But beyond this we cannot at present go.°
b In the Apocrypha there is a passage which bears
curiously and distinctly on this subject. In Wisd. ix. 8 it
is said, “ Thou hast commanded me (7. e. Solomon) to build
a Temple in Thy Holy mount, and an altar in the city
wherein Thou dwellest, a resemblance of the Holy ‘Taber-
nacle which Thou hast prepared from the beginning.”
Holy Tent of the Carthaginians, mentioned by Diodorus
Siculus, xx. 65, which, in consequence of a sudden change
of wind at night blowing the flames from the altar on
which victims were being sacrificed, towards τὴν ἱερὰν
σκηνήν, it took fire, a circumstance which spread such
1456
τς
a
ΓΑΕ ara,
sia Ἷ
TEMPLE
aa
mee ἢ
. No. 6.—Tomb of Darius near Persepolis.
For the present, at least, it must suffice to know
that the form of the Temple was copied from the
Tabernacle, and that any architectural ornaments
that may have been added were such as were usu-
ally employed at that time in Palestine, and more
especially at Tyre, whence most of the artificers were
ubtained who assisted in its erection.
So far as the dimensions above quoted are con-
cerned, everything is as clear and as certain as any-
thing that can be predicated of any building of
which no remains exist, but beyond this there are
certain minor problems by no means so easy to re-
solve, but fortunately they are of much less im-
portance. The first is the
Height. —That given in 1 Καὶ, vi. 2—of 30 cubits
—is so reasonable in proportion to the other dimen-
sions, that the matter might be allowed to rest
there were it not for the assertion (2 Chr. iii, 4)
that the height, though apparently only of the
porch, was 120 cubits=180 feet (as nearly as may
be the height of the steeple of St. Martin’s in the
Fields), This is so unlike anything we know of in
ancient architecture, that having no counterpart in ἢ
the Tabernacle, we might at first sight feel almost
justified in rejecting it as a mistake or interpolation,
but for the assertion (2 Chr. iii. 9) that Solomon
overlaid the upper chambers with gold, and 2 K.
xxiii. 12, where the altars on the top of the upper
chambers, apparently of the Temple, are mentioned.
In addition to this, both Josephus and the Talmud
persistently assert that there was a superstructure
on the Temple equal in height to the lower part,
and the total height they, in accordance with the
Book of eu oes call 120 cubits or 180 feet
(Ant. viii. 3, 82). It is evident, however, that he
obtains these dimensions first by doubling the
height of the lower Temple, making it 60 instead
of 30 cubits, and in like manner exaggerating
every other dimension to make up this quantity.
Were it not for these authorities, it would prety
consternation Roe the army as to lead to its
destruction.
The Carthaginians were a Shemitic people, and seem to
have carried their Holy Tent about with their armies,
and to have performed sacrifices in front of it, precisely
as was done by the Jews, excepting, of course, the nature
of the victims.
TEMPLE
all the real exigencies of the case if we assumed
that the upper chamber occupied the space between
the roof of the Holy Place and the roof of the
Temple. Ten cubits or 15 feet, even after deduct-
ing the thickness of the two roofs, is sufficient to
constitute such an apartment as history would lead
us to suppose existed there. But the evidence that
there was something beyond this is so strong that
it cannot be rejected.
In looking through the monuments of antiquity
_ for something to suggest what this might be, the
only thing that occurs is the platform or Talar that
existed on the roofs of the Palace Temples at Perse-
polis—as shown in Woodcut No. 6, which represents
the Tomb of Darius, and is an exact reproduction of
the facade of the Palace shown in plan, Woodcut
No. 9. It is true these were erected five centuries
after the building of Solomon’s Temple; but they are
avowedly copies in stone of older Assyrian forms, and
as such may represent, with more or less exactness,
contemporary buildings. Nothing in fact could re-
present more correctly “the altars on the top of the
upper chambers ” which Josiah beat down (2 K.
xxiii, 12) than this, nor could anything more fully
meet all the architectural or devotional exigencies of
the case; but its height never could have been 60
cubits, or even 30, but it might very probably be
the 20 cubits which incidentally Josephus (xv. 11,
§3) mentions as “sinking down in the failure of the
foundations, but was so left till the days of Nero.”
There can br little doubt but that the part referred
to in this paragraph was some such superstructure
as that shown in the last woodcut ; and the incidental
mention of 20 cubits is much more to be trusted
than Josephus’ heights generally are, which he seems
systematically to have exaggerated when he was
thinking about them.
Jachin and Boaz.—There are no features con-
nected with the Temple of Solomon which have
given rise to so much controversy, or been so diffi-
cult to explain, as the form of the two pillars of
brass which were set up in the porch of the house.
It has even been supposed that they were not pillars
in the ordinary sense of the term, but obelisks ; for
this, however, there does not appear to be any
authority. The porch was 30 feet in width,
and a roof of that extent, even if composed of a
4
No. 7.—Cornice of lily-work at Persepolis.
VOL. II.
TEMPLE 1457
wooden beam, would not only look painfully weak
without some support, but, in fact, almost impos-
sible to construct with the imperfect science of these
days. Another difficulty arises from the fact that
the Book of Chronicles nearly doubles the dimensions
given in Kings ; but this arises from the systematic
reduplication of the height which misled Josephus ;
and if we assume the Temple to have been 60 cubits
high, the height of the pillars, as given in the Book
of Chronicles, would be appropriate to support the
roof of its porch, as those in Kings are the proper
height for a temple 30 cubits high, which there is
every reason to believe
was the true dimension.
According to 1 K. vii. 15
et seq., the pillars were
18 cubits high and 12 in
circumference, with capi-
tals five cubits in height.
Above this was (ver. 19)
another member, called also
chapiter of lily-work, four
cubits in height, but which
from the second mention
of it in ver. 22 seems more
probably to have been an
entablature, which is neces-
sary to complete the order.
As these members make
out 27 cubits, leaving 3
cubits or 43 feet for the
slope of the roof, the whole
design seems reasonable and
proper.
If this conjecture is cor-
rect, we have no great diffi-
culty in suggesting that the
lily-work must have been
something like the Perse-
politan cornice (Woodcut
No. 7), which is probably
nearer in style to that of
the buildings at Jerusalem
than anything else we
know of.
It seems almost in vain
to try and speculate on
what was the exact form
of the decoration of these
celebrated pillars. The
nets of checker-work and
wreaths of chain-work,
and the pomegranates, &c.,
are all features applicable
to metal architecture; and 4
though we know that the EE
old Tartar races did use finn
metal architecture every- nM \
where, and especially in —T
bronze, from the very na- πο. s.—Pillar of Northern
ture of the material every Portico at Persepolis.
specimen has perished, and
we have now no representations from which we can
restore them. The styles we are familiar with were
all derived more or less from wood, or from stone
with wooden ornaments repeated in the harder
material. Even at Persepolis, though we may feel
certain that everything we see there had a wooden
prototype, and may suspect that much of their
wooden ornamentation was derived from the earlier
metal forms, still it is so far removed from the
original source that in the present state of our
aA
ἐπ
1458 TEMPLE
knowledge, it is dangerous to insist too closely on
any point. Notwithstanding this, the pillars at
Persepolis, of which Woodcut No. 8 is a type, are
probably more like Jachin and Boaz than any other
pillars which have reached us from antiquity, and
give a better idea of the immense capitals of these
columns than we obtain from any other examples ;
but being in stone, they are far more simple and
less ornamental than they would have been in wood,
and infinitely less so than their metal prototypes.
Internal Supports.—The existence of these two
pillars in the porch suggests an inquiry which has
hitherto been entirely overlooked : Were there any
pillars in the interior of the Temple? Considering
that the clear space of the roof was 20 cubits, or
30 feet, it may safely be asserted that no cedar
beam could be laid across this without sinkmg in
the centre by its own weight, unless trussed or
supported from below. There is no reason what-
ever to suppose that the Tyrians in those days were
acquainted with the scientific forms of carpentry
implied in the first suggestion, and there is no
reason why they should have resorted to them even
if they knew how; as it cannot be doubted but
that architecturally the introduction of pillars in the
interior would have increased the apparent size and
improved the artistic effect of the building to a very
considerable "degree.
If they were introduced at all, there must have
been four in the sanctuary and ten in the hall, not
necessarily equally spaced, in a transverse direction,
but probably standing 6 cubits from the walls,
leaving a centre aisle of 8 cubits.
The only building at Jerusalem whose construc-
tion throws any light on this subject is the House
of the Forest of Lebanon. [PALAcE.] There the
pillars were an inconvenience, as the purposes of the
hall were state and festivity ; but though the pillars
in the palace had nothing to support above the roof,
they were speced probably 10, certainly not more
than 124, cubits apart. If Solomon had been able
to roof a claar space of 20 cubits, he certainly
would not have neglected to do it there.
At Persepolis there is a small building, called)
the Palace or Temple of Darius (Woodcut No. 9),
which more closely resembles the Jewish Temple
than any other building we are acquainted with.
It has a porch, a central hall,.an adytum—the plan
of which cannot now be made out—and a range of
small chambers on either side.
The principal dif-|
TEMPLE
ference is that it has four pillars in its porch instead
of two, and consequently four rows in its interior
hall instead of half that number, as suggested above.
All the buildings at Persepolis have their floors
equally crowded with pillars, and, as there is no
doubt but that they borrowed this peculiarity from
Nineveh, there seems no a priori reason why Solo-
mon should not have adopted this expedient to get
over what otherwise would seem an insuperable
constructive difficulty.
The question, in fact, is very much the same that
met us in discussing the construction of the Taber-
nacle. No internal supports to the roofs of either
of these buildings are mentioned anywhere. But
the difficulties of construction without them would
have been so enormous, and their introduction so
usual and so entirely unobjectionable, that we can
hardly understand their not being employed. Either
building was possible without them, but certainly
neither in the least degree probable.
It may perhaps add something to the probability
of their arrangement fo mention that the ten bases
for the lavers which Solémon made would stand
one within each inter-column on either hand,
wheie they would be beautiful and appropriate
ornaments. Without some such accentuation of
the space, it seems difficult to understand what they
were, and why ten.
Chambers.—The only other feature which re-
mains to be noticed is the application of three tiers
of small chambers to the walls of the Temple exter-
nally on all sides, except that of the entrance.
Though not expressly so stated, these were a sort of
monastery, appropriated to the residence of the
priests who were either permanently or in turn
devoted to the service of the Temple. The lowest
storey was only 5 cubits in width, the next 6,
and the upper 7, allowing an offset of 1 cubit on
the side of the Temple, or of 9 inches on each side,
on which the flooring joists rested, so as not to
cut, into the walls of the Temple. Assuming the
wall of the Temple at the level of the upper cham-
bers to have been 2 cubits thick, and the outer
wall one—it could not well have been less—this
would exactly make up the duplication of the
dimension found as before mentioned for the verandah
of the Tabernacle.
It is, again, only at Persepolis that we find any-
thing at all analogous to this; but in the plan last
quoted as that of the Palace of Darius, we find a
similar range on either hand. ‘The
palace of Xerxes possesses this feature
also; but in the great hall there, and
its counterpart at Susa, the place of
these chambers is supplanted by lateral
porticoes outside the walls that sur-
rounded the central phalanx of pillars.
Unfortunately our knowledge of Assy-
rian Temple architecture is too limited
to enable us to say whether this feature
was common elsewheie, and though
something very like it occurs in Bud-
dhist Viharas in India, these latter are
comparatively so modern that their dis-
position hardly bears on the inquiry.
| Outer Court.—The enclosure of the
Temple consisted, according to the Bible
1 (1 K. vi. 36), of a low wall of three
courses of stones and a row of cedar
: ἘΒ- τς
TT TT
————S—_
beams, both probably highly orna-
==
No. 9.—Palace of Darius at Persepolis Scale of 50 feet to 1 inch.
=
mented. As it is more than probable
that the same duplication of dimensions
TEMPLE
took place in this as in all the other features of the
Tabernacle, we may safely assume that it was 10
cubits, or 15 feet, in height, and almost certainly
100 cubits north and south, and 200 east and west.
There is no mention in the Bible of any porti-
coes or gateways or any architectural ornaments of
this enclosure, for though names which were after-
wards transferred to the gates of the Temple do occur
in 1 Chr. ix., xxiv., and xxvi., this was before the
Temple itself was built; and although Josephus
does mention such, it must be recollected that he was
writing five centuries after its total destruction, and
he was too apt to confound the past and the pre-
sent in his descriptions of buildings which did not
then exist. There was an eastern porch to Herod’s
Temple, which was called Solomon’s Porch, and
Josephus tells us that it was built by that monarch ;
but of this there is absolutely no proof, and as neither
in the account of Solomon’s building nor in any
subsequent repairs or incidents is any mention made
of such buildings, we may safely conclude that they
did not exist before the time of the great rebuilding
immediately preceding the Christian era.
TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL.
We have very few particulars regarding the
Temple which the Jews erected after their return
from the Captivity (cir. 520 B.c.), and no descrip-
tion that would enable us to realize its appearance,
But there are some dimensions given in the Bible
and elsewhere which are extremely interesting as
atfording points of comparison between it and the
Temples which preceded it, or were erected after it.
The first and most authentic are those given in
the Book of Ezra (vi. 3), when quoting the decree of
Cyrus, wherein it is said, “ Let the house be builded,
the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the
foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height
thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof
threescore cubits, with three rows of great stones
and a row of new timber.” Josephus quotes this
passage almost literally (xi. 4, §6), but in doing so
enables us with certainty to translate the word here
called Row as “Storey ” (8du0s)—as indeed the
sense would lead us to infer—for it could only apply
to the three storeys of chambers that surrounded
Solomon’s, and atterward’s Herod’s Temple, and
with this again we come to the wooden Talar which
surmounted the Temple and formed a fourth storey.
It may be remarked in passing, that this dimension
of 60 cubits in height accords perfectly with the
words which Josephus puts into the mouth of
Herod (xv. 11, §1) when he makes him say that
the Temple built after the Captivity wanted 60
cubits of the height of that of Solomon. For as he
had adopted, as we have seen above, the height of
120 cubits, as written in the Chronicles, for that
Temple, this one remained only 60.
The other dimension of 60 cubits in breadth, is
20 cubits in excess of that of Solomon’s Temple,
but there is no reason to doubt its correctness, for
we find both from Josephus and the Talmud that
it was the dimension adopted for the Temple when
rebuilt, or rather repaired by Herod. At the same
time we have no authority for assuming that any
increase was made in the dimensions of either the
TEMPLE 1459
Holy Place or the Holy of Holies, since we find that
these were retained in Ezekiel’s description of an
ideal Tempie—and were afterwards those of Herod’s.
And as this: Temple of Zerubbabel was still standing
in Herod’s time, and was more strictly speaking re-
paired than rebuilt by him, we cannot conceive that
any of its dimensions were then diminished. We
are left therefore with the alternative of assuming
that the porch and the chambers all round were 20
cubits in width, including the thickness cf the
walls, instead of 10 cubits, as in the earlier build-
ing. This may perhaps to some extent be accounted
for by the introduction of a passage between the
Temple and the rooms of the priest’s lodgings in-
stead of each being a thoroughfare, as must cer-
tainly have been the case in Solomon’s Temple.
This alteration in the width of the Pteromata
made the Temple 100 cubits in length by 60 in
breadth, with a height, it is said, of 60 cubits, in-
cluding the upper room or Talar, though we cannot
help suspecting that this last dimension is some-
what in excess of the truth.¢
The only other description of this Temple is found
in Hecataeus the Abderite, who wrote shortiy after
the death of Alexander the Great. As quoted by Jo-
sephus (cont. Ap. i. 22), he says, that “ In Jerusalem
towards the middle of the city is a stone walled en-
closure about 500 feet in length (ὡς πεντάπλεθροΞ),
and 100 cubits in width, with double gates,” in
which he describes the Temple as being situated.
The last dimension is exactly what we obtained
above by doubling the width of the Tabernacle en-
closure as applied to Solomon’s Temple, and may
therefore be accepted as tolerably certain, but the
500 feet in length exceeds anything we have yet
reached by 200 feet. It may be that at this age it
was found necessary to add a court for the women or
the Gentiles, a sort of Narthex or Galilee for those
who could not enter the Temple. If this or these
together were 100 cubits square, it would make up
the “nearly 5 plethra” of our author. Hecataeus
also mentions that the altar was 20 cubits square
and 10 high. And although he mentions the
Temple itself, he unfortunately does not supply us
with any dimensions.
From these dimensions we gather, that if “ the
Priests and Levites and Elders of families were dis-
consolate at seeing how much more sumptuous the old
Temple was than the one which on account of their
poverty they had just been able to erect” (Ezr. iii.
12; Joseph. Ant, xi. 4, §2), it certainly was not be-
cause it was smaller, as almost every dimension had
been increased one-third ; but it may have been that
the carving and the gold, and other ornaments of
Solomon’s Temple far surpassed this, and the pillars
of the portico and the veils may all have been far
more splendid, so also probably were the vessels ;
and all this is what a Jew would mourn over far
more than mere architectural splendour. In speak-
ing of these Temples we must always bear in mind
that their dimensions were practically very far in-
ferior to those of the Heathen. Even that of Ezra
is not Jarger than an average parish church of the
last century—Solomon’s was smaller. It was the
lavish display of the precious metals, the elaboration
of carved ornament, and the beauty of the textile
ἃ In recounting the events narrated by Ezra (x. 9),
Josephus says (Ant. xi. 5, §4) that the assembly there
referred to took place in the upper room, ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ
Tov ἱεροῦ, Which would be a very curious illustration
of the use of that apartment if it could be depended
upon, but both the Hebrew and LXX. are so clear that
it was in the “street,” or “place” of the ‘l’emple, that
we cannot base any argument upon it, though it is
curious as indicating what was passing in the mind of
Josephus.
5 A 2
1460 TEMPLE
fabrics, which made up their splendour and rendered |
them so precious in the eyes of the people, and
there can consequently be no greater mistake than
to judge of them by the number of cubits they
measured. They were ‘lemples of a Shemitic, not
of a Celtic people.
TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL.
The vision of a Temple which the prophet Ezekiel
saw while residing on the banks of the Chebar in
Babylonia in the 25th year of the Captivity, does
not add much to our knowledge of the subject. It
is not a description of a Temple that ever was built
or ever could be erected at Jerusalem, and can con-
sequently only be considered as the beau ideal of
what a Shemitic Temple ought to be. As such it
would certainly be interesting if it could be correctly
restored, but unfortunately the difficulties of making
out a complicated plan from a mere veibal descrip-
tion are very great indeed, and are enhanced in this
instance by our imperfect knowledge of the exact
meaning of the Hebrew architectural terms, and it
may also be from the prophet describing not what
he actually knew, but only what he saw in a vision.
Be this as it may, we find that the Temple itself
was of the exact dimensions of that built by Solo-
mon, viz, an adytum (Hz. xl. 1-4), 20 cubits square,
anaos, 20 Χ 40, and surrounded by cells of 10 cubits’
width including the thickness of the walls, the
whole, with the porch, making up 40 cubits by 80,
or very little more than one four-thousandth part
ot the whole area of the Temple: the height un-
fortunately is not given. Beyond this wee various
courts and residences for the priests, and places for
sacrifice and other ceremonies of the Temple, till
he comes to the outer court, which measured 500
reeds on each of its sides; each reed (Kz. xl. 5) was
6 Babylonian cubits long, viz. of cubits each of one
ordinary cubit and a handbreadth, or 21 inches. The
—T
TEMPLE
reed was therefore 10 feet 6 inches, and the side con-
sequently 5250 Greek feet, or within a few feet of
an English mile, considerably more than the whole
area of the city of Jerusalem, ‘Temple included !
It has been attempted to get over this difficulty
by saying that the prophet meant cubits, not reeds;
but this is quite untenable. Nothing.can be more
clear than the specification of the length of the
reed, and nothing more careful than the mode in
which reeds are distinguished from cubits through-
out; as for instance in the two next verses (6 and 7)
where a chamber and a gateway are mentioned, each
of one reed. If cubit were substituted, it would
be nonsense.
Notwithstanding its ideal character, the whole is
extremely curious, as showing what were the aspira-
tions of the Jews in this direction, and how different
they were from those of other nations; and it is
interesting here, inasmuch as there can be little
doubt but that the arrangements of Herod’s Temple
were in a great measure influenced by the descrip-
tion here given. The outer court, for instance, with
its porticoes measuring 400 cubits each way, is an.
exact counterpart on a smaller scale of the outer
court of Ezekiel’s Temple, and is not found in either
Solomon’s or Zerubbabel’s; and so too, evidently,
are several of the internal arrangements.
TEMPLE OF HEROD.
For our knowledge of the last and greatest of the
Jewish Temples we are indebted almost wholly to
the works of Josephus, with an occasional hint from
the Talmud.
The Bible unfortunately contains nothing to assist
the revearches of the antiquary in this respect.
With true Shemitic indifference to such objects, the
writers of the New Testament do uot furnish a
single hint which would enable us to ascertain
either what the situation or the dimensions of the
er
Sc. SEL ORL
INNE
com
PORCH
ΕΙ a
SOLOMONS
SSR ER ETE TERETE CEN EE TTR TAT NT
{ul
COURT
COURT
OF CENTLLES
ae mas sO ΤΣ ΡΥ ΤῊ τὶ ΤΙ ΤΥ τ ΓΤ στ ΤΥ ΤΙ Γ ΠΤ ΤΙ ΤΥ τ ΤΊ So |
a Oe te στ ΡΣ 2: saa Ζ 2, rom a ae ad
No, 10.—Temple of Herod restored.
CATE. !
Scale of 200 feet to 1 incl.
TEMPLE
Temple were, nor any characteristic feature of its
architecture. _ But Josephus knew the spot per-
sonally, and his horizontal dimensions are so mi-
nutely accurate that we almost suspect he had
before his eyes, when writing, some ground-plan of
the building prepared in the quartermaster-general’s
department of Titus’s army. They form a strange
contrast with his dimensions in height, which,
with scarcely an exception, can be shown to be
exaggerated, generally doubled. As the buildings
were all thrown down during the siege, it was im- }
possible to convict him of error in respect to eleva-
tions, but as regards plan he seems always to have
had a wholesome dread of the knowledge of those
among whom he was living and writing.
The Temple or naos itself was in dimensions and
arrangement very similar to that of Solomon, or
rather that of Zerubbabel—more like the latter ;
but this was surrounded by an inner enclosure of
great strength and magnificence, measuring as nearly
as can be made out 180 cubits by 240, and adorned
by porches and ten gateways of great magnificence ;
and beyond this again was an outer enclosure mea-
suring externally 400 cubits each way, which was
adorned with porticoes of greater splendour than any
we know of attached to any temple of the ancient
world: all showing how strongly Roman influence
was at work in enveloping with Heathen magni-
ficence the simple templar arrangements of a Shemitic |
people, which, however, remained nearly unchanged
amidst all this external incrustation.
It has already been pointed out [JERUSALEM,
vol. i. pp. 1019-20] that the Temple was certainly
situated in the S.W. angle of the area now known as
the Haram area at Jerusalem, and it is hardly neces~
sary to repeat here the arguments there adduced to
prove that its dimensions were what Josephus states
them to be, 400 cubits, or one stadium, each way.
At the time when Herod rebuilt it he enclosed a
space ‘ twice as large” as that before occupied by the
Temple and its courts (B. J. i. 21, §1), an expres-
sion that probably must not be taken too literally,
at least if we are to depend on the measurements of
Hecataeus. According to them the whole area of
Herod’s Temple was between four and five times
greater than that which preceded it. What Herod
did apparently was to take in the whole space between
the Temple and the city wall on its eastern side, and
to add a considerable space on the north and south
to support the porticoes which he added there.
As the Temple terrace thus became the principal |
defence of the city on the east side, there were no
gates or openings in that direction,® and being situ-
ated on a sort of rocky brow—as evidenced from
its appearance in the vaults that bound it on this
side—it was at all future times considered unattack-
able from the eastward. The north side, too, where
not covered by the fortress Antonia, became part
of the defences of the city, and was likewise with-
out external gates. But it may also have been that,
as the tombs of the kings, and indeed the general
cemetery of Jerusalem, were situated immediately
to the northward of the Temple, there was
some religious feeling in preventing too ready access
TEMPLE 1461
from the Temple to the burying-places (ΕΖ, xliii.
7-9).
On the south side, which was enclosed by the
wall of Ophel, there were double gates nearly in
the centre (Ant. xv. 11, $5). These gates ‘still
exist at a distance of about 365 feet from the
south-western angle, and are perhaps the only
architectural features of the Temple of Herod which
remain im situ. This entrance consists of a double
archway of Cyclopean architecture on the level of
the ground, opening into a square vestibule mea-
suring 40 feet each way. In the centre of this is a
pillar crowned by a capital of the Greek—rather
than Roman—Corinthian order (Woodcut No. 1D)
the acanthus alternating with the water-leaf, as in
the Tower of the Winds at Athens, and other Greek
examples, but which was an arrangement abandoned
by the Romans as early as the time of Augustus, and
never afterwards employed.f From this pillar spring
four flat segmental arches, and the space between these
τ
No. 11.—Capitai of Pillar in Vestibule of southern entrance.
is roofed by flat domes, constructed apparently on
the horizontal principle. The walls of this vestibule
are of the same bevelled masonry as the exterior ;
but either at the time of erection or subsequently
the projections seem to have been chiselled off in
some parts so as to form pilasters. From this a
double tunnel, nearly 200 feet in length, leads to a
flight of steps which rise to the surface in the
court of the Temple, exactly at that gateway
of the inner Temple which led to the altar, and is
the one of the four gateways on this side by which
anyone arriving from Ophel would naturally wish
to enter the inner enclosure, It seems to have been
this necessity that led to the external gateway being
placed a little more to the eastward than the exact
centre of the enclosure, where naturally we should
otherwise have looked for it.
We learn from the Talmud ( 7714. ii. 6), that the
gate of the inner Temple to which this passage led
was called the ““ Water Gate;” and it is interesting
to be able to identify a spot so prominent in the de-
scription of Nehemiah (xii. 37). The Water Gate is
more often mentioned in the mediaeval references to
the Temple than any other, especially by Mahomedan
authors, though by them frequently confounded
with the outer gate at the other end of this passage.
e The Talmud, it is true, does mention a gate as exist-
ing in the eastern wall, but its testimony on this point is
so unsatisfactory and in such direct opposition to Jose-
phus and the probabilities of the case, that it may safely
be disregarded.
t Qwing to the darkness of the place, blocked up as it
now is, and the ruined state of the capital, it is not easy
to get a correct delineation of it. This is to be regretted,
as a considerable controversy has arisen as to its exact
character. It may therefore be interesting to mention
that the drawing made by the architectural draughtsman
who accompanied M. Renan in his late scientific expedi-
tion to Syria confirms to the fullest extent the character
of the architecture, as shown in tbe view given above
from Mr. Arundale’s drawing.
1462 TEMPLE
Towards the westward there were four gateways
to the external enclosure of the Temple (Ant. xv. 11,
§5), and the positions of three of these can still be
traced with certainty. The first or most southern led
over the bridge the remains of which were identified by
Dr. Robinson (of which a view is given in art. JERU-
‘SALEM, vol. i. p. 1019), and joined the Stoa Basi-
lica of the Temple with the royal palace (Ant. ib.).
The second was that discovered by Dr. Barclay, 270
feet from the S.W. angle, at a level of 17 feet below
that of the southern gates just described. The site
of the third is so completely covered by the build-
ings of the Meckmé that it has not yet been seen,
but it will be found between 200 and 250 feet from
the N.W. angle of the Temple area; for, owing to
the greater width of the southern portico beyond
that on the northern, the Temple itself was not in
the centre of its enclosure, but situated more
towards the north. The fourth was that which
led over the causeway which still exists at a dis-
tance of 600 feet from the south-western angle.
In the time of Solomon, and until the area was
enlarged by Herod, the ascent from the western
valley to the Temple seems to have been by an
external flight of stairs (Neh. xii. 37; 1 K. x. 5,
&c.), similar to those at Persepolis, and like them
probably placed laterally so as to form a part of the
architectural design. When, however, the Temple
came to be fortified “‘ modo arcis” (Tacit. 77. v. 12),
the causeway and the bridge were established to
afford communication with the upper city, and the
two intermediate lower entrances to lead to the
lower city, or, as it was originally called, “‘ the city
of David.”
Cloisters—The most magnificent part of the
Temple, in an architectural point of view, seems
certainly to have been the cloisters which were
added to the outer court when it was enlarged by
Herod. It is not quite clear if there was not an
eastern porch before this time, and if so, it may have
been nearly on the site of that subsequently erected ;
but on the three other sides the Temple area was so
extended at the last rebuilding that there can be no
doubt but that from the very foundations the terrace
walls and cloisters belonged wholly to the last period.
The cloisters in the west, north, and east side were
composed of double rows of Corinthian columns, 25
cubits or 37 feet 6 inches in height (B. J. v. 5, §2)
with flat roofs, and resting against the outer wall
of the Temple. These, however, were immeasurably
surpassed in magnificence by the royal porch or Stoa
Basilica which overhung the southern wall. This
is so minutely described by Josephus (Ant. xv. 11,
§5) that there is no difficulty in understanding its
arrangement or ascertaining its dimensions. It con-
sisted (in the language of Gothic architecture) of a
nave and two aisles, that towards the Temple being
open, that towards the country closed by a wall.
The breadth of the centre aisle was 45 feet; of the
side aisles 30 from centre to centre of the pillars;
their height 50 feet, and that of the centre aisle
100 feet. Its section was thus something in excess
of that of York Cathedral, while its total length
was one stadium or 600 Greek feet, or 100 feet in
excess of York, or our largest Gothic cathedrals.
z It does not appear difficult to account for this extra-
ordinary excess. ‘The Rabbis adopted the sacred number
of Ezekiel of 500 for their external dimensions of the
Temple, without caring much whether it meant reeds or
cubits, and though the commentators say that they only
meant the smaller cubit of 15 inches, or 625 feet in all,
this explanation will not hold good, as all their other
TEMPLE
This magnificent structure was supported by 162
Corinthian columns, arranged in four rows, forty in
each row—the two odd pillars forming apparently
a screen at the end of the bridge leading to the
palace, whose axis was coincident with that of the
Stoa, which thus formed the principal entrance
from the city and palace to the Temple.
At a short distance from the front of these
cloisters was a marble screen or enclosure, 3 cubits
in height, beautifully ornamented with carving, but
bearing inscriptions in Greek and Roman characters
forbidding any Gentile to pass within its boundaries.
Again, at a short distance within this was a flight
of steps supporting the terrace or platform on which
the Temple itself stood. According to Josephus
(5. J. v. 5, §2) this terrace was 15 cubits or 223
feet high, and was approached first by fourteen steps,
each we may assume about one foot in height, at
the top of which was a berm or platform, 10 cubits
wide, called the Chel; and there were again in the
depth of the gateways five or six steps more leading
to the inner court of the Temple, thus making 20
or 21 steps in the whole height of 222 feet. To the
eastward, where the court of the women was situated,
this arrangement was reversed ; five steps led to
the Chel, and fifteen from that to the court of the
Temple.
The court of the Temple, as mentioned above,
was very nearly a square. It may have been
exactly so, for we have not all the details to enable
us to feel quite certain about it. The Jfiddoth says
it was 187 cubits E. and W., and 137 N. and S.
(ii. 6). But on the two last sides there were the
gateways with their exhedrae and chambers, which
may have made up 25 cubits each way, though,
with such measurements as we have, it appears
they were something less.
To the eastward of this was the court of the
women, the dimensions of which are not given by
Josephus, but are in the Middoth, as 137 cubits
square—a dimension we may safely reject, first,
from the extreme improbability of the Jews allotting
to the women a space more than ten times greater
than that allotted to the men of Israel or to the
Levites, whose courts, according to the same au-
thority, were respectively 137 by 11 cubits; but,
more than this, from the impossibility of finding
room for such a court while adhering to the other
dimensions given. If we assume that the enclosure
of the court of the Gentiles, or the Chel, was nearly
equidistant on all four sides from the cloisters, its
dimension must have been about 37 or 40 cubits
east and west, most probably the former,
The great ornament of these inner courts seems
to have been their gateways, the three especially
on the north and south leading to the Temple court.
These, according to Josephus, were of great height,
strongly fortified and ornamented with great ela-
boration. But the wonder of all was-the great
eastern gate leading from the court of the women
to the upper court. This seems to have been the
pride of the Temple area—covered with carving,
richly gilt, having apartments over it (Ant. xv.
11, §7), more like the Gopura Β of an Indian temple
than anything else we are acquainted with in archi-
measurements agree so closely with those of Josephus
that they evidently were using the same cubit of 18
inches. The fact seems to be, that having erroneously
adopted 500 cubits instead of 400 for the external dimen-
sions, they had 100 cubits to spare, and jntroduced them
where no authority existed to show they were wrong.
h Handbook of Architecture, p. 93 et seq.
TEMPLE
tecture, It was also in all probability the one called |
the “ Beautiful Gate” in the New Testament.
Immediately within this gateway stood the altar
of burnt-offerings, according to Josephus (B. J. v.
5, $6), 50 cubits square and 15 cubits high, with
an ascent to it by an inclined plane. The Talmud
reduces this dimension to 32 cubits (Middoth, iii.
1), and adds a number of particulars, which make
it appear that it must have been like a model of the
Babylonian or other Assyrian temples. On the
north side were the rings and stakes to which the
victims were attached which were brought in to
be sacrificed ; and to the south an inclined plane led
down, as before mentioned, to the Water Gate—so
called because immediately in front of it was the
great cistern excavated in the rock, first explored
and described by Dr. Barclay (City of the Great
King, p. 526), from which water was supplied to
the Altar and the Temple. And a little beyond
this, at the S.W. angle of the Altar was an open-
ing (Middoth, iii. 3), through which the blood of
the victims flowed! westward and southward to
the king’s garden at Siloam.
Both the Altar and the Temple were enclosed by
a low parapet one cubit in height, placed so as to
keep the people separate from the priests while
the latter were performing their functions.
Within this last enclosure towards the westward
stood the Temple itself. As before mentioned, its
internal dimensions were the same as those of the
Temple of Solomon, or of that seen by the Prophet
in a vision, viz. 20 cubits or 30 feet, by 60 cubits
or 90 feet, divided into a cubical Holy of Holies, and
a holy place of 2 cubes; and there is no reason
whatever for doubting but that the Sanctuary
always stood on the identically same spot in which
it had been placed by Solomon a thousand years
before it was rebuilt by Herod.
Although the internal dimensions remained the
same, there seems no reason to doubt but that the
whole plan was augmented by the Pteromata or
surrounding parts being increased from 10 to 20
cubits, so that the third Temple like the second,
measured 60 cubits across, and 100 cubits east and
west. The width of the facade was also augmented
by wings or shoulders (B. J. v. 5, §4) projecting
20 cubits each way, making the whole breadth
100 cubits, or equal to the length. So far all
seems certain, but when we come to the height,
every measurement seems doubtful. Both Josephus
and the Talmud seem delighted with the truly
Jewish idea of a building which, without being a
cube, was 100 cubits long, 100 broad, and 100
high—and everything seems to be made to bend to
this simple ratio of proportion. It may also be
partly owing to the difficulty of ascertaining heights
as compared with horizontal dimensions, and the
tendency that always exists to exaggerate these
latter, that may have led to some confusion, but
from whatever cause it arose, it is almost impossible
to believe that the dimensions of the Temple as
i A channel exactly corresponding to that described in
the Talmud has been discovered by Signor Pierotti,
running towards the south-west. In his published ac-
counts he mistakes it for one flowing north-east, in direct
contradiction to the Talmud, which is our only authority
on the subject.
k As it is not easy always to realize figured dimensions,
it may assist those who are not in the habit of doing so
to state that the western facade and nave of Lincoln Ca-
thedral are nearly the same as those of Herod’s Temple.
Thus, the facade with its shoulders is about 100 cubits wide.
TEMPLE 1463
regards height, were what they were asserted to be
by Josephus, and specified with such minute detail
in the Middoth (iv. 6). This authority makes
the height of the floor 6, of the hall 40 cubits;
the roofing 5 cubits in thickness; then the coena-
culum or upper room 40, and the roof, parapet,
&e., 9!—all the parts being named with the most
detailed particularity.
As the Adytum was certainly not more than 20
cubits high, the first 40 looks very like a duplica-
tion, and so does the second ; for a room 20 cubits
wide and 40 high is so absurd a proportion that
it is impossible to accept it. In fact, we cannot
help suspecting that in this instance Josephus was
guilty of systematically doubling the altitude of the
building he was describing, as it can be proved he
did in some other instances.
From the above it would appear, that in so far
as the horizontal dimensions of the various parts of
this celebrated building, or their arrangement in
plan is concerned, we can restore every part with
very tolerable certainty ; and there does not appear
either to be very much doubt as to their real height.
But when we turn from actual measurement and
try to realize its appearance or the details of its
architecture, we launch into a sea of conjecture with
very little indeed to guide us, at least in regard to
the appearance of the Temple itself.
We know, however, that the cloisters of the
outer court were of the Corinthian order, and from
the appearance of nearly contemporary cloisters at
Palmyra and Baalbec we can judge of their effect.
There are also in the Haram area at Jerusalem a
number of pillars which once belonged to these colon-
nades, and so soon as any one will take the trouble to
measure and draw them, we may restore the cloisters
at all events with almost absolute certainty.
We may also realize very nearly the general ap-
pearance of the inner fortified enclosure with its
gates and their accompaniments, and we can also
restore the Altar, but when we turn to the Temple
itself, all is guess work. Still the speculation is so
interesting, that it may not be out of place to say
a few words regarding it.
In the first place we are told (Ant. xv. 11, §5)
that the priests built the Temple itself in eighteen
months, while it took Herod eight years to com-
plete his part, and as only priests apparently were
employed, we may fairly assume that it was not a
rebuilding, but only a repair—it may be with ad-
ditions—which they undertook. We know also from
Maccabees, and from the unwillingness of the priests
to allow Herod to undertake the rebuilding at all,
that the Temple, though at one time desecrated,
was never destroyed; so we may fairly assume that
a great part of the Temple of Zerubbabel was still
standing, and was incorporated in the new.
Whatever may have been the case with the Temple
of Solomon, it is nearly certain that the style of the
second Temple must have been identical with that of
the buildings we are so familiar with at Persepolis
The nave is 60 cubits wide and 60 high, and if you divide
the aisle into three storeys you can have a correct idea
of the chambers; and if the nave with its clerestory were
divided by a floor, they would correctly represent the
dimensions of the Temple and its upper rooms. The
nave, however, to the transept, is considerably more than
100 cubits long, while the facade is only between 50 and
60 cubits high. Those, therefore, who adhere to the written
text, must double its height in imagination to realize its
appearance, but my own conviction is that the Temple was
not higher in reality than the facade of the cathedral.
1464 TEMPLE
and Susa. In fact the Woodcut No. 6 correctly re-
presents the second Temple in so far as its details are
concerned ; for we must not be led away with the
modern idea that different people built in different
styles, which they kept distinct and practised only
within their own narrow limits. The Jews were
too closely connected with the Persians and Baby-
lonians at this period to know of any other style,
and in fact their Temple was built under the super-
intendence of the very parties who were erecting
the contemporary edifices at Persepolis and Susa.
The question still remains how much of this
building or of its details were retained, or how
much of Roman feeling added. We may at once
dismiss the idea that anything was borrowed from
Egypt. That country had no influence at this
period beyond the limits of her own narrow valley,
and we cannot trace one vestige of her taste or feeling
in anything found in Syria at or about this epoch.
Turning to the building itself, we find that the
only things that were added at this period were the
wings to the facade, and it may consequently be
surmised that the facade was entirely remodelled
at this time, especially as we find in the centre a
great arch, which was a very koman feature, and
very unlike anything we know of as existing before.
This, Josephus says, was 25 cubits wide and 70
high, which is so monstrous in proportion, and,
being wider than the Temple itself, so unlikely,
that it may safely be rejected, and we may adopt
in its stead the more moderate dimensions of the
Middoth (iii. 7), which makes it 20 cubits wide
by 10 high, which is not only more in accordance
with the dimensions of the building, but also with
the proportions of Roman architecture. This arch
occupied the centre, and may easily be restored ; but
what is to be done with the 37 cubits on either
hand? Were they plain like an unfinished Egyptian
propylon, or covered with ornament like an Indian
Gopura? My own impression is that the fagade on
either hand was covered with a series of small
arches and panels four storeys in height, and more
like the Tak Kesra at Ctesiphon™ than any other
building now existing. It is true that nearly five
centuries elapsed between the destruction of the one
building and the erection of the other. But Herod’s
Temple was not the last of its race, nor was
Nushirvan’s the first of its class, and its pointed
arches and clumsy details show just such a degrada-
tion of style as ‘we should expect from the interval
which had elapsed between them. We know so little
of the architecture of this part of Asia that it is im-
possible to speak with certainty on such a subject,
but we may yet recover many of the lost links which
connect the one with the other, and so restore the
earlier examples with at least proximate certainty.
Whatever the exact appearance of its details may
have been, it may safely be asserted that the triple
Temple of Jerusalem—the lower court, standing on
its magnificent terraces—the inner court, raised on
its platform in the centre of this—and the Temple
itself, rising out of this group and crowning the
whole—must have formed, when combined with the
TEN COMMANDMENTS
beauty of its situation, one of the most splendid archi-
tectural combinations of the ancient world. [J. F.]
TEN COMMANDMENTS. (1.) The po-
pular naine in this, as in so many instances, is
not that of Scripture. There we have the “ ten
words” (D217 ΠΝ; τὰ δέκα ῥήματα ; verba
decem), not the Ten Commandments (Ex. xxxiv. 28 ;
Deut. iv. 13, x. 4, Heb.). The difference is not
altogether an unmeaning one. The word of God,
the ‘‘ word of the Lord,” the constantly recurring
term for the fullest revelation, was higher than any
phrase expressing merely a command, and carried
with it more the idea of a self-fulfilling power. If on
the one side there was the special contrast to which
our Lord refers between the commandments of God
and the traditions of men (Matt. xv. 3), the arrogance
of the Rabbis showed itself, on the other, in placing
the words of the Scribes on the same level as the words
of God. [Comp. ScriBEs.] Nowhere in the later
books of the O. T. is any direct reference made to
their number. The treatise of Philo, however, wept
τῶν δέκα λογίων, shows that it had fixed itself on
the Jewish mind, and later still, it gave occasion to
the formation of a new word (“ The Decalogue” 7
δεκάλογος, first in Clem. Al. Paed. iii. 12), which
has perpetuated itself in modern languages, Other
names are even more significant. These, and these
alone, are ‘‘ the words of the covenant,” the un-
changing ground of the union between Jehovah and
His people, all else being as a superstructure, acces-
sory and subordinate (Ex. xxxiv. 28). They are
also the Tables of Testimony, sometimes simply:
“the testimony,” the witness to men of the Divine
will, righteous itself, demanding righteousness in
man (Ex. xxv. 16, xxxi. 18, &c.). It is by virtue
of their presence in it that the Ark becomes, in its
turn, the Ark of the Covenant (Num. x. 33,
&c.), that the sacred tent became the Tabernacle
of Witness, of Testimony (Ex. xxxviii. 21, &c.).
[TABERNACLE.] They remain there, throughout
the glory of the kingdom, the primeval relies of a
hoar antiquity (1 K. viii. 9), their material, the
writing on them, the sharp incisive character of the
laws themselves presenting a striking contrast to
the more expanded teaching of a later time. Not
less did the commandments themselves speak of the
earlier age when not the silver and the gold, but
the ox and the ass were the great representatives of
wealth # (comp. 1 Sam. xii. 3).
(2.) The circumstances in which the Ten great
Words were first given to the people, surrounded
them with an awe which attached to no other
precept. In the midst of the cloud, and the dark-
ness, and the flashing lightning, and the fiery
smoke, and the thunder, like the voice of a trumpet,
Moses was called to receive the Law without which
the people would cease to be a holy nation. Here,
as elsewhere, Scripture unites two facts which men
separate. God, and not man, was speaking to the
Israelites in those terrors, and yet in the language of
later inspired teachers, other instrumentality was not
excluded. The law was “ ordained by angels” (Gal.
m Handbook of Architecture, p. 375.
ἃ Ewald is disposed to think that even in the form in
which we have the Commandments there are some addi-
tions made at a later period, and that the second and the
fourth commandments were originally as briefly impe-
rative as the sixth or seventh (Gesch, Isr. ii. 206). The
difference between the reason given in Hx. xx. 11 for the
fourth commandment, and that stated to have been given
in Dent. v. 15, makes, perhaps, such a conjecture possible.
Scholia which modern annotators put into the margin are
in the existing state of the O. T. incorporated into the
text. Obviously both forms could uot haye appeared
written on the ‘'wo Tables of Stone, yet Deut. v. 15, 22
not only states a different reason, but affirms that “all
these words” were thus written. Keil (Comm. on Ex.
Xx.) seems on this point disposed to agree with Ewald.
b Buxtorf, it is true, asserts that Jewish interpreters,
with hardly an exception, maintain that ‘“ Deum verba
TEN COMMANDMENTS
iii. 19}, “spoken by angels”’ (Heb. ii. 2), received
as the ordinance of angels (Acts vii. 53). The
agency of those whom the thoughts of the Psalmist
connected with the winds and the flaming fire (Ps.
civ. 4; Heb. i. 7) was present also on Sinai. And
the part of Moses himself was, as the language of
St. Paul (Gal. iii. 19) affirms, that of ‘a mediator.”
He stood ‘* between” the people and the Lord, “ to
show them the word of the Lord” (Deut. v. 5),
while they stood afar off, to give form and distinct-
ness to what would else have been terrible and
overwhelming. The ‘voice of the Lord” which
they heard in the thunderings and the sound of the
trumpet, “full of majesty,” ‘dividing the flames
of fire”? (Ps, xxix. 3-9), was for him a Divine
word, the testimony of an Eternal will, just as in the
parallel instance of John xii. 29, a like testimony led
some to say, ‘ it thundered,” while others received
the witness.
like manner.
nearness to the awful presence, even from the very
echoes of the Divine voice. And the record was
as exceptional as the original revelation. Of no
other words could it be said that they were written
as these were written, engraved on the Tables of
Stone, not as originating in man’s contrivance or
sagacity, but by the power of the Eternal Spirit, by
the “finger of God” (Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 16;
comp. note on TABERNACLE).
(3.) The number Ten was, we can hardly doubt,
itself significant to Moses and the Israelites. The
received symbol, then and at all times, of com-
pleteness (Bahr, Symbolik, i. 175-183), it taught
the people that the Law of Jehovah was perfect
(Ps. xix. 7). The fact that they were written not
on one, but on two tables, probably in two groups
of five each (infra), taught men (though with some
variations from the classification of later ethics) the
great division of duties towards God, and duties
towards our neighbour, which we recognise as the
groundwork of every true Moral system. It taught
them also, five being the symbol of imperfection
(Bahr, i. 183-187), how incomplete each set of duties
would be when divorced from its companion. The
recurrence of these numbers in the Pentateuch is at
once frequent and striking. Ewald (Gesch. Isr. ii.
212-217) has shown by a large induction how con-
tinually laws and precepts meet us in groups of
five or ten. The numbers, it will be remembered,
meet us again as the basis of all the proportions of
the Tabernacle. [TEMPLE.] It would show an
ignorance of all modes of Hebrew thought to ex-
clude this symbolic aspect. We need not, however,
shut out altogether that which some writers (e. g.
Grotius, De Decal. p. 36) have substituted for it,
the connexion of the Ten Words with a decimal
system of numeration, with the ten fingers on which
aman counts. Words which were to be the rule of
life for the poor as well as the learned, the ground-
work of education for all children, might well be
connected withthe simplest facts and processes in
man’s mental growth, and thus stamped more in-
delibly on the memory.¢
(4.) In what way the Ten Commandments were
to be divided has, however, been a matter of much
Decalogi per se immediate locutum esse” (Diss. de
Decal.). The language of Josephus, however (Ant. xv. 5,
§3), not less than that of the N. T., shows that at one time
the traditions of the Jewish schools pointed to the opposite
conclusion.
¢ Bahr, absorbed in symbolism, has nothing for this
TEN COMMANDMENTS 1465
controversy. At least fowr distinct arrangements
present themselves.
(a.) In the received teaching of the Latin Church
resting on that of St. Augustine (Qu. in Lx. 71,
Ep. ad Januar. c. xi., De Decal. &e., &c.) the first
Table contained three commandments, the second
the other seven. Partly on mystical grounds, be-
cause the Tables thus symbolized the ‘Trinity of
Divine Persons, and the Eternal Sabbath, partly as
seeing in it a true ethical division, he adopted this
classification. It involved, however, and in part
proceeded from an alteration in the received ar-
rangement. What we know as the first and second
were united, and consequently the Sabbath law
appeared at the close of the First Table as the
third, not as the fourth commandment. The com-
pleteness of the number was restored in the Second
| Table by making a separate (the ninth) command
No other words were proclaimed in |
The people shrank even from this |
of the precept, ‘‘ Thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bour’s wife,’ which with us forms part of the
tenth. It is an almost fatal objection to this
order that in the First Table it confounds, where it
ought to distinguish, the two sins of polytheism
and idolatry; and that in the Second it introduces
an arbitrary and meaningless distinction. The
later theology of the Church of Rome apparently
adopted it as seeming to prohibit image-worship
only so far as it accompanied the acknowledgment
of another God (Cqtech. Trident. iii. 2, 20).
(6.) The familiar division, referring the first four
to our duty towards God, and the six remaining to
our duty towards man, is, on ethical grounds, simple
and natural enough. If it is not altogether satisfying,
it is because it fails to recognise the symmetry which
gives to the number five so great a prominence,
and, perhaps also, because it looks on the duty of
the ftth commandment from the point of view of
modern ethics rather than from that of the ancient
Israelites, and the first disciples of Christ (infra).
(c.) A modification of (a.) has been adopted by
later Jewish writers (Jonathan ben Uzziel, Aben
Ezra, Moses ben Nachman, in Suicer, Ties. 5. v.
dexadoyos). Retaining the combination of the first
and second commandments of the common order,
they have made a new “ word” of the opening de-
claration, ‘‘ I am the Lord thy God which brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage,” and so have avoided the necessity of the
subdivision of the tenth. The objection to this
division is, (1) that it rests on no adequate authority,
and (2) that it turns into a single precept what is
evidently given as the groundwork ot the whole
body of laws.
(d.) Rejecting these three, there remains that
recognised by the older Jewish writers, Josephus
(iii. 6, 86) and Philo (De Decul. i.), and sup-
ported ably and thoughtfully by Ewald (Gesch.
Isr. ii, 208), which places five commandments in
each Table; and thus preserves the pentad and
decad grouping which pervades the whole code.
A modern jurist would perhaps object that this
places the fitth commandment in a wrong position,
that a duty to parents is a duty towards our neigh-
bour. From the Jewish point of view, it is be-
lieved, the place thus given to that commandment
natural suggestion but two notes of admiration (!!). The
analogy of Ten Great Commandments in the moral law
of Buddhism might have shown him how naturally men
crave for a number that thus helps them. A true system
was as little likely to ignore ihe natural craving as a false,
(Comp. note in Ewald, Gesch. Isr. ii. 207.)
1466 TEN COMMANDMENTS
was essentially the right one. Instead of duties
towards God, and duties towards our neighbours,
we must think of the First Table as containing all
that belonged to the Εὐσέβεια of the Greeks, to
the P’ietas of the Romans, duties 7. 6. with no cor-
responding rights, while the Second deals with duties
which involve rights, and come therefore under
the head of Justitia. The duty of honouring, 7. 6.
supporting, parents came under the former head.
As soon as the son was capable of it, and the
parents required it, it was an absolute, uncon-
ditional duty. His right to any maintenance from
them had ceased. He owed them reverence, as
he owed it to his Father in heaven (Heb. xii. 9).
He was to show piety (εὐσεβεῖν) to them (1 Tim.
ν. 4). What made the “" Corban” casuistry of the
Scribes so specially evil was, that it was, in this
way, a sin against the piety of the First Table,
not merely against the lower obligations of the
second (Mark vii. 11; comp. PreTy). It at least
harmonises with this division that the second, third,
fourth, and fifth commandments, all stand on the
same footing as having special sanctions attaching to
them, while the others that follow are left in their
simplicity by themselves, as though the reciprocity of
rights were in itself a sufficient ground for obedience.4
(5.) To these Ten Commandments we find in
the Samaritan Pentateuch an eleventh added :—
“* But when the Lord thy God shall have brought
thee into the land of Canaan, whither thou goest to
possess it, thou shalt set thee up two great stones,
and shalt plaister them with plaister, and shalt
write upon these stones all the words of this Law.
Moreover, after thou shalt have passed over Jordan,
thou shalt set up those stones which I command
thee this day, on Mount Gerizim, and thou shalt
build there an altar to the Lord thy God, an altar
of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron thereon.
Of unhewn stones shalt thou build that altar to the
Lord thy God, and thou shalt offer on it burnt-
offerings to the Lord thy God, and thou shalt sacri-
fice peace-offerings, and shalt eat them there, and
thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God in that
mountain beyond Jordan, by the way where the
sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanite that
dwelleth in the plain country over against Gilgal,
by the oak of Moreh, towards Sichem” (Walton,
(Bibl. Polyglott.). In the absence of any direct
evidence we can only guess as to the history of
this remarkable addition. (1.) It will be seen that
the whole passage is made up of two which are
found in the Hebrew text of Deut. xxvii. 2-7, and
xi. 30, with the substitution, in the former, of
Gerizim for Ebal. (2.) In the absence of con-
firmation from any other version, Ebal must, as
far as textual criticism is concerned, be looked upon
as the true reading, Gerizim as ἃ falsification,
casual or deliberate, of the text. (3.) Probably the
choice of Gerizim as the site of the Samaritan
temple was determined by the fact that it had been
the Mount of Blessings, Ebal that of Curses. Pos-
sibly, as Walton suggests (Prolegom. c. xi.), the
difficulty of understanding how the latter should
have been chosen instead of the former, as a place
TENT
for sacrifice and offering, may have led them to look
on the reading Ebal as erroneous. They were un-
willing to expose themselves to the taunts of their
Judaean enemies by building a temple on the Hill
of Curses. They would claim the inheritance of
the blessings. They would set the authority of
their text against that of the scribes of the Great
Synagogue. One was as likely to be accepted as
the other. The “ Hebrew verity” was not then
acknowledged as it has been since. (4.) In other
repetitions or transfers in the Samaritan Pentateuch
we may perhaps admit the plea which Walton
makes in its behalf (/. c.), that in the first forma-
tion of the Pentateuch as a Codex, the transcribers
had a large number of separate documents to copy,
and that consequently much was left to the dis-
cretion ef the individual scribe. Here, however,
that excuse is hardly admissible. The interpolation
has every mark of being a bold attempt to claim
for the schismatic worship on Gerizim the solemn
sanction of the voice on Sinai, to place it on tie
same footing as the Ten great Words of God. The
guilt of the interpolation belonged of course only to
the first contrivers of it. The later Samaritans
might easily come to look on their text as the true
one, on that of the Jews as corrupted by a fraudu-
lent omission. It is to the credit of the Jewish
scribes that they were not tempted to retaliate, and
that their reverence for the sacred records prevented
them from suppressing the history which connected
the rival sanctuary with the blessings of Gerizim.
(6.) The treatment of the Ten Commandments
in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel is not with-
out interest. There, as noticed above, the first and
second commandments are united, to make up the
second, and the words “I am the Lord thy God,”
&c., are given as the first. More remarkable is the
addition of a distinct reason for the last five com-
mandments no less than for the first five. “ Thou
shalt commit no murder, for because of the sins of
murderers the sword goeth forth upon the world.”
So in like manner, and with the same formula,
**death goeth forth upon the world” as the punish-
ment of adultery, famine as that of theft, drought
as that of false witness, invasion, plunder, captivity
as that of covetousness (Walton, Bibl. Polyglott.).
(7.) The absence of any distinct reference to the
Ten Commandments as such in the Pirke Aboth
(= Maxims of the Fathers) is both strange and
significant. One chapter (ch. v.) is expressly given
to an enumeration of all the Scriptural facts which
may be grouped in decades, the ten words of Cre-
ation, the ten generations from Adam to Noah, and
from Noah to Abraham, the ten trials of Abraham, —
the ten plagues of Egypt, and the like, but the ten
divine words find no place in the list. With all their
ostentation of profound reverence for the Law, the
teaching of the Rabbis turned on other points than
the great laws of duty. In this way, as in others,
they made void the commandments of God that
they might keep their own traditions —Compare
Stanley, Jewish Church, Lect. vii., in illustration of
many of the points here noticed. [Β.- Η: aa
TENT.* Among the leading characteristics of
d A further confirmation of the truth of this division is
found in Rom. xiii. 9. St. Paul, summing up the duties
“briefly comprehended’’ in the one great Law, “Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” enumerates the last
five commandments, but makes no mention of the fifth.
eet One; οἶκος, σκηνή ; tabernaculum, tentorium ;
often in A. V. “ tabernacle.”
5. ΞΘ; σκηνή; tentorium; opposed to 17}:
« house.”
5: mad (succah), only once “ tent’’ (2 Sam. xi. 11).
᾿ Sas
Kas 3 Whence,
with art. prefixed, comes alcoba (Span.) and “ alcove”
(Russell, Aleppo, i. 30) : only once used (Num. xxv. 8).
4, ΠΞΡ; κάμινος ; lupanar; Arab.
TENT
1467
Arab Tent (Layard)
the nomade races, those two have always been num-
bered, whose origin has been ascribed to Jabal the
son of Lamech (Gen. iv. 20), viz., to be tent-
dwellers and keepers of cattle. The same may be
said of the forefathers of the Hebrew race; nor was
it until the return into Canaan from Egypt that
the Hebrews became inhabitants of cities, and it
may be remarked that the tradition of tent-usage
survived for many years later in the Tabernacle of
Shiloh, which consisted, as many Arab tents still
consist, of a walled enclosure covered with curtains
(Mishna, Zebachim, xiv. 6; Stanley, S. and P. p.
233), Among tent-dwellers of the present day must
be reckoned, (1.) the great Mongol and Tartar hordes
of central Asia, whose tent-dwellings are sometimes
of gigantic dimensions, and who exhibit more con-
trivance both in the dwellings themselves and in
their method of transporting them from place to
place than is the case with the Arab races (Marco
Polo, Trav. p. 128, 135, 211, ed. Bohn; Hor. 8
Od. xxiv. 10; Gibbon, c. xxvi., vol. iii. p. 298,
ed. Smith), (2.) The Bedouin Arab tribes, who
inhabit tents which are probably constructed on the
same plan as those which were the dwelling-places
of Abraham and of Jacob (Heb. xi. 9). A tent or
pavilion on a magnificent scale, constructed for
Ptolemy Philadelphus at Alexandria, is described
by Athenaeus, v. 196 foll.
An Arab tent is minutely described by Burckhardt.
It is called beit, “house ;” its covering consists of |
stuff, about three-quarters of a yard broad, made of
black goats’-hair (Cant. i. 5; Shaw, Trav. p. 220),
laid parallel with the tent’s length. This is sufficient
to resist the heaviest rain. The tent-poles, called
amid, or columns, are usually nine in number,
placed in three groups, but many tents have only
one pole, others two or three. The ropes which
hold the tent in its place are fastened, not to the
tent-cover itself, but to loops consisting of a leathern
thong tied to the ends of a stick, round which is
twisted a piece of old cloth, which is itself sewed to
the tent-cover. The ends of the tent-ropes are
fastened to short sticks or pins, called wed or aoutad,
which are driven into the ground with a mallet
(Judg. iv. 21). [Prx.] Round the back and sides
of the tents runs a piece of stuff removable at
pleasure to admit air. The tent is divided into
two apartments, separated by a carpet partition
drawn across the middle of the tent and fastened to
the three middle posts. The men’s apartment is
usually on the right side on entering, and the wo-
men’s on the left; but this usage varies in different
tribes, and in the Mesopotamian tribes the contrary
is the rule. Of the three side posts on the men’s
side, the first and third are called yed (hand); and
the one in the middle is rather higher than the
other two. Hooks are attached to these posts for
hanging various articles (Gen. xviii. 10; Jud. xiii.
6; Niebuhr, Voy. i. 187; Layard, Nin. and Bab.
p- 261). [Pm~ar.] Few Arabs have more than
one tent, unless the family be augmented by the
families of a son or a deceased brother, or in case
the wives disagree, when the master pitches a tent
fer one of them adjoining his own. © The separate
tents of Sarah, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and Bilhah,
may thus have been either separate tents or apart-
ments in the principal tent in each case (Gen. xxiv.
67, xxxi, 33). When the pasture near an encamp-
ment is exhausted, the tents are taken down, packed
on camels and removed (Is. xxxviii. 12; Gen.
xxvi. 17, 22, 25). The beauty of an Arab encamp-
ment is noticed by Shaw ( Zrav. p. 221; see Num.
xxiv. 5). Those who cannot afford more complete
tents, are content to hang a cloth from a tree by
way of shelter. In choosing places for encamp-
ment, Arabs prefer the neighbourhood of trees, for
the sake of the shade and coolness which they afford
(Gen. xviii. 4, 8; Niebuhr, 7. c.). In observing
the directions of the Law respecting the feast of
Tabernacles, the Rabbinical writers Jaid down as a
distinction between the ordinary tent and the booth,
succah, that the latter must in no case be covered
by a cloth, but be restricted to boughs of trees as
its shelter (Succah,i. 3). In hot weather the Arabs
of Mesopotamia often strike their tents and betake
themselves to sheds of reeds and grass on the bank
of the river (Layard, Nineveh, i. 125; Burckhardt,
Notes on Bed. i. 37, 46; Volney, Trav. i. 398;
1468 TERAH
Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 171, 175; Niebuhr, Voy.
1 ΟΣ ΠΡ Ῥῇ
TE'RAH (MM: Θάῤῥα, Θάρα in Josh. ; Alex.
Θάρα, exc. Gen. xi. 28: Thare). The father of
Abram, Nahor, and Haran, and through them the
ancestor of the great families of the Israelites, Ish-
maelites, Midianites, Moabites, and Ammonites
(Gen, xi. 24-32). The account given of him in
the Ὁ. T. narrative is very brief. We learn from
it simply that he was an idolater (Josh. xxiv. 2),
that he dwelt beyond the Euphrates in Ur of the
Chaldees (Gen. xi. 28), and that in the south-
westerly migration, which from some unexplained
cause he undertook in his old age, he went with his
son Abram, his daughter-in-law Sarai, and his
grandson Lot, “to go into the land of Canaan, and
they came unto Haran, and dwelt there”’ (Gen. xi.
31). And finally, “the days of Terah were two
hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran ”
(Gen. xi. 92). In connexion with this last-men-
tioned event a chronological difficulty has arisen
which may be noticed here. In the speech of
Stephen (Acts vii. 4) it is said that the further
migration of Abram from Haran to the land of
Canaan did not take place till after his father’s
death. Now as Terah was 205 years® old when he
died, and Abram was 75 when he left Haran (Gen.
xii. 4), it follows that, if the speech of Stephen be
correct, at Abram’s birth Terah must have been
130 years old; and therefore that the order of his
sons—Abram, Nahor, Haran—given in Gen. xi. 26,
27, is not their order m point of age. [See Lor,
143b.] Lord Arthur Hervey says (Geneal. pp. 82,
83), “The difficulty is easily got over by supposing
that Abram, though named first on account of his
dignity, was not the eldest son, but probably the
youngest of the three, born when his father was 130
years old—a supposition with which the marriage
of Nahor with his elder brother Haran’s daughter,
Milcah, and the apparent nearness of age between
Abram and Lot, and the three generations fiom
Nahor to Rebecca corresponding to only two, from
Abraham to Isaac, are in perfect harmony.”? From
the simple facts of Terah’s life recorded in the O. T.
has been constructed the entire legend of Abram
which is current in Jewish and Arabian traditions.
Terah the idolater is turned into a maker of images,
and ‘Ur of the Chaldees ” is the original of the “ fur-
nace” into which Abram was cast (comp. Ez. v. 2).
Rashi’s note on Gen. xi. 28 is as follows :—* «In
the presence of Terah his father’ in the lifetime of
his father. And the Midrash Hagada says that he
died beside his father, for Terah had complained of
Abram his son, before Nimrod, that he had broken
his images, and he cast him into a furnace of fire.
And Haran was sitting and saying in his heart, If
Abram overcome I am on his side, and it’ Nimrod
overcome | am on his side. And when Abram was
saved they said to Haran, On whose side art thou ?
He said to them, Iam on Abram’s side: So they
cast him into the furnace of fire and he was burnt;
and this is [what is meant by] Ur Casdim (Uy of
the Chaldees).” In Bereshith Rabba (Par. 17) the
story is told of Abraham being left to sell idols in
his father’s stead, which is repeated in Weil’s
Biblical Legends, p. 49. The whole lecend de-
pends upon the ambiguity of the word J3Y, which
signifies “to make” and “ to serve or worship,”
“ The Sam. text and version make him 145, and so
avoid this difficulty. ῷ
TERAPHIM
so that Terah, who in the Biblical narrative is only
a worshipper of idols, is in the Jewish tradition an
image-maker; and about this single point the whole
story has grown. It certainly was unknown to
Josephus, who tells nothing of Terah, except that
it was grief for the death of his son Haran that
induced him to quit Ur of the Chaldees (Ant. i.
6, § 6).
In the Jewish traditions Terah is a prince and a
great man in the palace of Nimrod (Jellinek, Bet ham-
Midrash, p. 27), the captain of his army (Sepher
Hayyashar), his son-in-law according to the Arabs
(Beer, Leben Abrahams, p. 97). His wite is called
in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, fol. 91a) Amtelai,
or Emtelai, the daughter of Carnebo. In the Book
of the Jubilees she is called Edna, the daughter
of Arem, or Aram; and by the Arabs Adna
(D’Herbelot, art. Abraham; Beer, p. 97). <Ac-
cording to D’Herbelot, the name of Abraham’s
father was Azar in the Arabic traditions, and
Terah was his grandfather. Elmakin, quoted by
Hottinger (Smegma Orientale, p. 281), says that,
after the death of Yuna, Abraham’s mother, Terah
took another wife, who bare him Sarah. He adds
that ia the days of Terah thie king of Babylon made
war upon the country in which he dwelt, and that
Hazrun, the brother of Terah, went out against
him and slew him; and the kingdom of Babylon
was transferred to Nineveh and Mosul. For all
these traditions, see the Book of Jashar, and the
works of Hottinger, D’Herbelot, Weil, and Beer
above quoted. Philo (De Somniis) indulges in
some strange speculations with regard to Terah’s
name and his migration, - - ΕΒ Weil
TER'APHIM (Doh: θεραφίν, τὸ θεραφείν,
τὰ θεραφίν, κενοτάφια, εἴδωλα, γλυπτά, δῆλοι,
ἀποφθεγγόμενοι : theraphim, statua, idola, simu-
lacra, figurae idolorum, idololatria), only in plural,
images connected with magical rites. ‘The subject
of teraphim has been fully discussed in art. MAGic
(ii. 195-197), and it is therefore unnecessary here
to do more than repeat the results there stated.
The derivation of the name is obscure. In one
case a single statue seems to be intended by the
pluval (1 Sam, xix. 15, 16), The teraphim carried
away trom Laban by Rachel do not seem to have
been very small; and the image (if one be in-
tended), hidden in David’s bed by Michal to deceive
Saul’s messengers, was probably of the size of
a man, and perhaps in the head and shoulders,
if not lower, of human or like form; but David’s
sleeping-room may have been a mere cell without a
window, opening from a large apartment, which
would render it necéssary to do no more than fill
the bed. Laban régarded his teraphim as gods ;
and, as he was not ignorant of the true God, it
would therefore appear that they were used by
those who added corrupt practices to the patri-
archal religion. Teraphim again are included among
Micah’s images, which were idolatrous objects con-
nected with heretical corruptions rather than with
heathen worship (Judg. xvii. 3-5, xviii. 17, 18, 20).
Teraphim were consulted for oracular answers py
the Isyaelites (Zech. x. 2; comp. Judg. xviil. 5, 6;
1 Sam), αν; 99. 959; ὙΧῚ 15, ΤῸ ΤΥ τ
xxiii, 24), and by the Babylonians, in the case of
Nebuchadnezzar (Ez. xxi. 19-22). There is no evi-
dence that they were eyer worshipped. Though
not frequently mentioned, we find they were used by
the Israelites in the time of the Judges and of Saul,
and until the reign of Josiah, who put them away
TERESH
(2 Κ΄. xxiii. 24, and apparently again after the
Captivity (Zech. x. 2). [Ras rR}
TER'ESH (WIA: om. in Vat. and Alex. ; FA.
third hand has @dpas, Θάῤῥας : Thares). One of
the two eunuchs who kept the door of the palace
of Ahasuerus, and whose plot to assassinate the king
was discovered by Mordecai (Esth. ii. 21, vi. 2).
He was hanged. Josephus calls him Theodestes
(Ant. xi. 6, §+), and says that the conspiracy -was
detected by Barnabazais, a servant of one of the
eunuchs, who was a Jew by birth, and who revealed
it to Mordecai. According to Josephus, the conspi-
rators were crucified.
TER'TIUS (Téprios: Tertius) was the amanu-
ensis of Paul in writing the Epistle to the Romans
(Rom. xvi. 22). He was at Corinth, therefore, and
Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, at the time when
the Apostle wrote to the Church at Rome. It is
noticeable that Tertius intercepts the message which
Paul sends to the Roman Christians, and inserts a
greeting of his own in the frst person singular
(ἀσπάζομαι ἐγὼ Téptios). Both that circumstance
and the frequency of the name among the Romans
may indicate that Tertius was a Roman, and was
known to those whom Paul salutes at the close of
the letter. Secundus (Acts xx. 4) is another in-
stance of the familiar usage of the Latin ordinals
employed as proper names. ‘The idle pedantry
which would make him and Silas the same person
because tertivs and wou mean the same in Latin
and Hebrew, hardly deserves to be mentioned (see
Wolf, Curae Philologicae, tom. iii. p. 295). In
regard to the ancient practice of writing letters
from dictation, see Becker’s Gallus, p. 180.
Nothing certain is known of Tertius apart from this
passage in the Romans. No credit is due to the
writers who speak of him as bishop of Iconium (see
Fabricius, Lux Evangelica, p. 117). [H.B. H.]
TE'TA (Vat. omits; Alex. Arnta: Topa). The
form under which the name HATITA, one of the
doorkeepers of the Temple, appears in the lists of
1 Esd. v. 28.
TERTUL'LUS (Τέρτυλλος, a diminutive
form from the Roman name Tertius, analogous to
Lucullus trom Lucius, Fabullus from Fabius, &c.),
“a certain orator” (Acts xxiv. 1) who was re-
tained by the High Priest and Sanhedrim to accuse
the Apostle Paul at Caesarea before the Roman
Procurator Antonius Felix. [PAuL.] He evi-
dently belonged to the class of professional orators,
multitudes of whom were to be found not only in
Rome, but in other parts of the empire, to which
they had betaken themselves in the hope of finding
occupation at the tribunals of the provincial magis-
trates. Both from his name, and from the great
probability that the proceedings were conducted in
Latin (see especially Milman, Bampton Lectures for
1827, p. 185, note), we may inter that Tertullus
was of Roman, or at all events of Italian origin.
The Sanhedrim would naturally desire to secure his
services on account of their own ignorance both of
the Latin language and of the ordinary procedure of
a Roman law-court.
The exordium of his speech is desicned to con-
ciliate the good will of the Procurator, and is ac-
cordingly overcharged with flattery. There is a
strange contrast between the opening clause—
TETRARCH 1469
πυλλῆς εἰρήνης τυγχάνοντες διὰ σοῦ --απὰ the
brief summary of the Procurator’s administration
given by Tacitus (/ist. v. 9) :—** Antonius Felix
per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem, jus regium
servili ingenio exercuit’’ (comp. Tac. Ann. xii. 54).
But the commendations of Tertullus were not
altogether unfounded, as Felix had really suc-
ceeded in putting down several seditious move-
ments. [FELIXx.] It is not very easy to deter-
mine whether St. Luke has preserved the oration
of Tertullus entire. On the one hand we have the
elaborate and artificial opening, which can hardly
be other than an accurate report of that part of
the speech; and on the other hand we have a nar-
rative which is so very dry and concise, that, if
there were nothing more, it is not easy to see why
the orator should have been called in at all. The
ditficulty is increased if, in accordance with the
greatly preponderating weight of external authority,
we omit the words in vers. 6-8, καὶ κατὰ τὸν
ἡμέτερον. . , ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ σέ. On the whole
it seems most natural to conclude that the histe-
rian, who was almost certainly an ear-witness,
merely gives an abstract of the speech, giving how-
ever in full the most salient points, and those which
had the most forcibly impressed themselves upon
him, such as the exordium, and the character
ascribed to St. Paul (ver. 5).
The doubtful reading in vers. 6-8, to which re-
ference has already been made, seems likely to re-
main an unsolved difficulty. Against the external
evidence there would be nothing to urge in favour
of the disputed passage, were it not that the state-
ment which remains after its removal is not merely
extremely brief (its brevity may be accounted for
in the manner already suggested), but abrupt and
awkward in point of construction. It may be added
that it is easier to refer map’ ov (ver, 8) to the
Tribune Lysias than to Paul. For arguments
founded on the words καὶ κατὰ. κρίνειν
(ver. 6)—arguments which are dependent on the
genuineness of the disputed words—see Lardner,
Credibility of the Gospel History, Ὁ. i. ch. 2;
Biscoe, On the Acts, ch. vi. §16.
We ought not to pass over without notice a
strange etymology for the name Tertullus proposed
by Calmet, in the place of which another has been
suggested by his English editor (ed. 1850), who
takes credit for having rejected “ fanciful and im-
probable” etymologies, and substituted improve-
ments of his own. Whether the suggestion is an
improvement in this case the reader will judge :—
“Tertullus, Τέρτυλλος, liar, impostor, from τερα-
τολόγος, α teller of stories, a cheat. [Qy. was his
true appellation Ter- Tullius, ‘ thrice Tully,’ that
is, extremely eloquent, varied by Jewish wit into
Tertullus ? |” [W. B. J.]
TESTAMENT, NEW. [New ΤΕΒΤΑΜΕΝΤ.]
TESTAMENT, OLD. [Op TesTaMeENT.}
TETRARCH (τετράρχης). Properly the sove-
reign or governor of the fourth part of a country.
On the use of the title in Thessaly, Galatia, and
Syria, consult the Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities, ‘Tetrarcha,” and the authorities
there referred to. ‘‘In the later period of the re-
public and under the empire, the Romans seem to
have used the title (as also those of ethnarch and
phylarch) to designate those tributary princes who
were not of sutticient importance t6 be called
1470 TETRARCH
kings.” In the New Testament we meet with
the designation. either actually or in the form
of its derivative tetpapxeiv, applied to three
persons :—
(1.) Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 1; Luke iii. 1,
19, ix. 7; Acts xiii. 1), who is commonly distin-
guished as ““ Herod the tetrarch,” although the title
of “king” is also assigned to him both by St.
Matthew (xiv. 9) and by St. Mark (vi. 14,
22 sqq.). St. Luke, as might be expected, inva-
riably adheres to the formal title, which would
be recognized by Gentile readers. Herod is de-
scribed by the last-named Evangelist (ch. iii. 1) as
“tetrarch of Galilee ;” but his dominions, which
were bequeathed to him by his father Herod the
Great, embraced the district of Peraea beyond the
Jordan (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 8, §1): this bequest
was confirmed by Augustus (Joseph. B. J. ii.
6, §5). After the disgrace and banishment of An-
tipas, his tetrarchy was added by Caligula to the
kingdom of Herod Agrippa I. (Ant. xviii. 7, §2).
{Herop ANTIPas.]
(2.) Herod Philip (the son of Herod the Great
and Cleopatra, not the husband of Herodias), who
is said by St. Luke (iii. 1) to have been “ tetrarch
of Ituraea, and of the region of Trachonitis.” Jo-
sephus tells us that his father bequeathed to him
Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and Paneas (Ané. xvii. 8,
§1), and that his father’s bequest was confirmed
by Augustus, who assigned to him Batanaea, Tra-
chonitis, and Auranitis, with certain parts about
Jamnia belonging to the ‘house of Zenodorus”
(Be Je ΣΤΟΝ §3). Accordingly the territories of
Philip extended eastward from the Jordan to the
wilderness, and from the borders of Peraea north-
wards to Lebanon and the neighbourhood of Da-
mascus. After the death of Philip his tetrarchy
was added to the province of Syria by Tiberius
(Ant. xviii. 4, §6), and subsequently conferred by
Caligula on Herod Agrippa I., with the title of
king (Ant. xviii. 6, 810). [Herop Puri L;
Herop ΑΘΕΙΡΡΑ I.]
(3.) Lysanias, who is said (Luke iii. 1) to have
been “ tetrarch of Abilene,” a small district sur-
rounding the town of Abila, in the fertile valley of
the Barada or Chrysorrhoas, between Damascus and
the mountain-range of Antilibanus. [ABILENE. ]
There is some difficulty in fixing the limits of this
tetrarchy, and in identifying the person of the
tetrarch. [LysaNras, ] We learn, however, from
Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6, §10, xix. 5, 81) that a
Lysanias had been tetrarch of Abila before the time
of Caligula, who added this tetrarchy to the domi-
mons of Herod Agrippa I.—an addition which was
confirmed by the emperor Claudius.
It remains to inquire whether the title of tetrarch,
as applied to these princes, had any reference to its
etymological signification. We have seen that it
was at this time probably applied to petty princes
without any such determinate meaning. But it
appears from Josephus (Ant. xvii. 11, 84; B. J.
ii. 6, §3) that the tetrarchies of Antipas and Philip
were regarded as constituting each a fourth part of
their father’s kingdom. For we are told that Au-
gustus gave one-half of Herod’s kingdom to his son
Archelaus, with the appellation of ethnarch, and
with a promise of the regal title; and that he
divided the remainder into the two tetrarchies.
Moreover, the revenues of Archelaus, drawn from
his territory, which included Judaea, Samaria, and
Idumaea, amounted to 400 talents, the tetrarchies
THANK-OFFERING
of Philip and Antipas producing 200 talents each.
We conclude that in these two cases, at least, the title
was used in its strict and literal sense. (Wes s-))
THADDAE'US (Θαδδαῖος : Thaddaeus), a-
name in St. Mark’s catalogue of the twelve Apostles
(Mark iii. 18) in the great majority of MSS.
In St. Matthew’s catalogue (Matt. x. 3) the cor--
responding place is assigned to Θαδδαῖος by the
Vatican MS. (B), and to AeBBatos by the Codex
Bezae (D). The Received Text, following the first
correction of the Codex Ephraemi (C)—where the
original reading is doubtful—as well as several
cursive MSS., reads Λεββαῖος 6 ἐπικληθεὶς Θαδ-
datos. We are probably to infer that Λεββαῖος,
alone, is the original reading of Matt. x. 3, and
Θαδδαῖος of Mark iii. 18. By these two Evangelists
the tenth place among the Apostles is given to
Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus, the eleventh place being
given to Simon the Canaanite. St. Luke, in both
his catalogues (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), places
Simon Zelotes tenth among the Apostles, and assigns
the eleventh place to ᾿Ιούδας *"IaxkéBov. As the
other names recorded by St. Luke are identical
with those which appear (though in a different
order) in the first two Gospels, it seems scarcely
possible to doubt that the three names of Judas,
Lebbaeus, and Thaddaeus were borne by one and the
same person. [JUDE; LeBBAEus.] [W. B. J.]
. THA'HASH (ΠΗ : Τοχός: Thahas). Son of
Nahor by his concubine Reumah (Gen, xxii. 24).
He is called Tavaos by Josephus (Ant. i. 6, §5).
THA MAH (MDF: Θεμά: Thema). “The
children of ‘Thamah” were a family of Nethinim
who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 53). The
name elsewhere appears in the A. V. as TAMAH.
THA'MAR (Θάμαρ: Thamar).
(Matt. i. 3).
THAM'NATHA (7 @apuvaba: Thamnata).
One of the cities of Judaea fortified by Bacchides
after he had driven the Maccabees over the Jordan
(1 Mace. ix. 50). Thamnatha no doubt represents
an ancient TIMNATH, possibly the present Tibneh,
half-way between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean.
Whether the name should be joined to Pharathoni,
which follows it, or whether they should be inde-
pendent, is matter of doubt. [PHARATHON.] [G.]
THANK-OFFERING, or PEACE-OF-
FERING (δ δ᾽ nt, or simply Ὁ δ’, and
TAMAR 1
in Amos v. 22, by : Θυσία σωτηρίου, σωτήριον,
occasionally εἰρηνική : hostia pacificorum, pacifica),
the properly eucharistic offering among the Jews,
in its theory resembling the MEAT-OFFERING, and
therefore indicating that the offerer was already re-
conciled to, and in covenant with, God. Its cere-
monial is described in Ley. iii. The nature of the
victim was left to the sacrificer; it might be male
or female, of the flock or of the herd, provided that
it was unblemished ; the hand of the sacrificer was
laid on its head, the fat burnt, and the blood
sprinkled, as in the burnt-offering ; of the flesh,
the breast and right shoulder were given to the
priest ; the rest belonged to the sacrificer, to be
eaten, either on the day of sacrifice, or on the next
day (Lev. vii. 11-18, 29-34), except in the case οἵ
the firstlings, which belonged to the priest alone
Be Neg alts
THARA THEBES 1471
(xxiii, 20). The eating of the flesh of the meat-
offering was considered a partaking of the “* table
of the Lord : and on solemn occasions, as at the
dedication of the Temple of Solomon, it was con-
ducted on an enormous scale, and became a great
national feast.
The peace-offerings, unlike other sacrifices, were
not ordained to be offered in fixed and regular
course, The meat-offering was regularly ordained
as the eucharistic sacrifice; and the only constantly
recurring peace-offering appears to have been that
of the two firstling lambs at Pentecost (Lev. xxiii.
19). The general principle of the peace-offering
seems to have been, that it should be entirely spon-
taneous, offered as occasion should arise, from the
feeling of the sacrificer himself. “ If ye offer a
sacrifice of peace-offerings to the Lord, ye shall offer
it at your own will” (Ley. xix. 5). On the first
institution (Lev. vii. 11-17), peace-offerings are
divided into ‘offerings of thanksgiving,’ and
“ vows or free-will offerings ;” of which latter class
the offering by a Nazarite, on the completion of
his vow, is the most remarkable (Num. vi. 14).
The very names of both divisions imply complete
freedom, and show that this sacrifice differed from
others, in being considered not a duty, but a
privilege.
We find accordingly peace-offerings offered for
the people on a great scale at periods of unusual
solemnity or rejoicing; as at the first inaugura-
tion of the covenant (Ex. xxiv. 5), at the first con-
secration of Aaron and of the Tabernacle (Lev. ix.
18), at the solemn reading of the Law in Canaan
by Joshua (Josh. viii. 31), at the accession of Saul
(i Sam. xi. 15), at the bringing of the ark to
Mount Zion by David (2 Sam. vi. 17), at the con-
secration of the Temple, and thrice every year after-
wards, by Solomon (1 K. viii. 63, ix. 25), and at
the great passover of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxx. 22).
In two cases only (Judg. xx, 26; 2 Sam. xxiv. 25)
peace-offerings are mentioned as offered with burnt-
offerings at a time of national sorrow and fasting.
Here their force seems to have been precatory rather
than eucharistic. [See SACRIFICE. ] [A. B.]
THA’RA (Θάρα: Thare). TERAH the father of
Abraham (Luke iii. 34).
THAR'RA (Thara), Esth. xii. 1. A corrupt
form of the name TERESH.
THAR'SHISH (Ww: Θαρσεῖς : Tharsis).
1. In this more accurate form the translators of the
A. Y. have given in two passages (1 K. x. 22, xxii.
48) the name elsewhere presented as TARSHISH.
In the second passage the name is omitted in both
MSS. of the LXX., while the Vulgate has i mart.
2. (Ῥαμεσσαί; Alex. Θαρσεις : Tharsis.) A
Benjamite, one of the family of Bilhan and the house
of Jediael (1 Chr. vii. 10 only). The variation in
the Vatican LXX. (Mai) is very remarkable. [G.]
THAS'SI (Θασσί, @accis: Thasi, Hassii: Syr.
wcos)). The surname of Simon the son of Matta-
thias (1 Mace. ii.3). [MAccaBEEs, vol. ii. p.166.]
The derivation of the word is uncertain. Michaelis
suggests WIA, Chald. ‘‘ the fresh grass springs
seems to have done before him. in Josephus (Ant.
xii. 6, §1) the surname is written Ματθῆς, with
various readings Θαδής, Θαθής. [B. F. W.]
THEATRE (θέατρον : theatron). For the
general subject, see Dict. of Ant. pp. 995-998.
For the explanation of the biblical allusions, two or
three points only require notice. The Greek term,
like the corresponding English term, denotes the
place where dramatic performances are exhibited,
and also the scene itself or spectacle which is wit-
nessed there. It occurs in the first or local sense
in Acts xix. 29, where it is said that the multitude
at Ephesus rushed to the theatre, on the occasion
of the excitement stirred up against Paul and his
associates by Demetrius, in order to consider what
should be done in reference to the charges against
them. Jt may be remarked also (although the
word does not occur in the original text or in our
English version) that it was in the theatre at Cae-
sarea that Herod Agrippa I. gave audience to the
Tyrian deputies, and was himself struck with death,
because he heard so gladly the impious acclamations
of the people (Acts xii. 21-23). See the remark-
ably confirmatory account of this event in Josephus
(Ant. xix. 8, §2). Such a use of the theatre for
public assemblies and the transaction of public bu-
siness, though it was hardly known among the
Romans, was a common practice among the Greeks.
Thus Valer. Max. ii. 2: Legati in theatrum, ut est
consuetudo Graeciae, introducti. Justin xxii. 2:
Veluti reipublicae statum formaturus in theatrum
ad contionem vocari jussit. Com. Nep. Timol. 4,
§2: Veniebat in theatrum, cum ibi concilium plebis
haberetur. ‘The other sense of the term “ theatre”
oceurs in 1 Cor. iv. 9, where the Common Version
renders: ‘*God hath set forth us the apostles last,
as it were appointed to death; for we are made
(rather, were made, θέατρον ἔγενήθημεν) a spec-
tacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.”
Instead of “spectacle” (so also Wiclif and the
Rhemish translators after the Vulgate), some might
prefer the more energetic Saxon, “ gazing-stock,”
as in Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva version.
But the latter would be now inappropriate, if it
includes the idea of scorn or exultation, since the
angels look down upon the sufferings of the martyrs
with a very different interest. Whether “ theatre”
denotes more here than to be an object of earnest
attention (θέαμα), or refers at the same time to the
theatre as the place where criminals were some-
times brought forward for punishment, is not agreed
among interpreters. In Heb. xii. 1, where the writer
speaks of our having around us “ so great a cloud of
witnesses” (τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν
νέφος μαρτύρων); he hasin mind no doubt the ago-
nistic scene, in which Christians are viewed as running
a race, and not the theatre or stage where the eyes
of the spectators are fixed on them. [Η.- B. H.]
THEBES ΡΣ : Θῆβαι, Διόσπολις,
μερὶς ᾿Αμμών; in Jer, τὸν ᾿Αμμὼν τὸν υἱὸν
αὐτῆς: Alexandriu, Al. populorum, tumultus Α416.-
andriae, No-Amon: A.V., No, the multitude “of
No, populous No).—A chief city of ancient
Egypt, long the capital of the upper country, and
the seat of the Diospolitan dynasties, that ruled
over all Egypt at the era of its highest splendour.
Upon the monuments this city bears three distinct
names—that of the Nome, a sacred name, and the
name by which it is commonly known in profane
history. Of the twenty Nomes or districts into
which Upper Egypt was divided, the fourth in
up,” i.e. “the spring is come,” in reference to the
tranquillity first secured during the supremacy of
Simon (Grimm, ad 1 Macc. ii. 3). This seems very
far-fetched. Winer (Realwb. ‘* Simon ᾽᾽) suggests a
connexion with DDA, fervere, as Grotius (ad loc.)
1472 THEBES
order, proceeding northward from Nubia, was de-
signated in the hieroglyphics as Za’m—the Pha-
thyrite of the Greeks—and Thebes appears as the
“ Zam-city,”’ the principal city or metropolis of
the Z’m Nome. In later times the name Za’m
was applied in common speech to ἃ particular
locality on the western side of Thebes.
The sacred name of Thebes was P-amen, “ the
abode of Amon,” which the Greeks reproduced in
their Diospolis (Διὸς πόλις), especially with the
addition the Great (ἢ μεγάλη), denoting that this
was the chief seat of Jupiter-Ammon, and distin-
guishing it from Diospolis the Less ( μικρά).
No-Amon is the name of Thebes in the Hebrew
Scriptures (Jer. xlvi. 25; Nah. iii. 8). Eze-
kiel uses Wo simply to designate the Egyptian
seat of Ammon, which the Septuagint translates
by Diospolis (Ez. xxx. 14, 16). Gesenius defines
this name by the phrase ‘‘ portion of Ammon,”
i. e. the possession of the god Ammon, as the chief
seat of his worship.
The name of Thebes in the hieroglyphics is
explained under No-AMON.
The origin of the city is lost in antiquity.
Niebuhr is of opinion that Thebes was much older
than Memphis, and that “after the centre of Egyp-
tian life was transferred to Lower Egypt, Memphis
acquired its greatness through the ruin of Thebes”
(Lectures on Ancient History, Lect. vii.). Other
authorities assign priority to Memphis. But both
cities date from our earliest authentic knowledge of
‘Egyptian history. The first allusion to Thebes in
classical literature is the familiar passage of the Iliad
(ix. 381-385) :—* Egyptian Thebes, where are vast
treasures laid up in the houses; where are a hun-
dred gates, and from each two hundred men go
forth with horses and chariots.” Homer—speaking
with a poet’s licence, and not with the accuracy of
a statistician—no doubt incorporated into his verse
the glowing accounts of the Egyptian capital cur-
yent in his time. Wilkinson thinks it conclusive
against a literal understanding of Homer, that no
traces of an ancient city-wall can be tound at Thebes,
and accepts as probable the suggestion of Diodorus
Siculus that the “ gates’? of Homer may have
been the propylaea of the temples: —‘‘ Non centum
portas habuisse urbem, sed multa et ingentia tem-
plorum vestibula’”’ (i. 45, 7). In the time of
Diodorus, the city-wall, if any there was, had already
disappeared, and the question of its existence in
Homer’s time was in dispute. But, on the other
hand, to regard the ‘‘ gates” of Homer as temple-
porches is to make these the barracks of the army,
since from these gates the horsemen and chariots
issue forth to war. The almost universal custom
of walling the cities of antiquity, and the poet’s
reference to the gates as pouring forth troops, point
strongly to the supposition that the vast area of
Thebes was surrounded with a wall having many
gates.
Homer's allusion to the treasures of the city, and
to the size of its standing army, numbering 20,000
chariots, shows the early repute of Thebes for
wealth and power. Its fame as a great capital had
crossed the sea when Greece was yet in its infancy
as anation. It has been questioned whether Hero-
dotus visited Upper Egypt (see Dict. of Greek
and Rom. Geog. art. ** Thebes”), but he says,
“1 went to Heliopolis and to Thebes, expressly to
try whether the priests of those places would agree
in their accounts with the priests at Memphis”
Herod. ii. 3). Afterwards he describes the features
THEBES
of the Nile valley, and the chief points and distances
upon the river, as only an eye-witness would be
likely to record them. He informs us that “ from
Heliopolis to Thebes is nine days’ sail up the river,
the distance 4800 stadia.... and the distance from
the sea inland to Thebes 6120 stadia” (Herod. ii.
8, 9). In chap. 29 of the same hook he states that
he ascended the Nile as high as Elephantiné. Hero-
dotus, however, gives no particular account of the
city, which in his time had lost much of its ancient
grandeur. He alludes to the temple of Jupiter
there, with its ram-headed image, and to the fact
that goats, never sheep, were offered in sacrifice.
In the Ist century before Christ, Diodorus visited
Thebes, and he devotes several sections of his general
work to its history and appearance. Though he
saw the city when it had sunk to quite secondary
importance, he preserves the tradition of its early
grandeur—its circuit of 140 stadia, the size of its
public edifices, the magnificence of its temples, the
number of its monuments, the dimensions of its
private houses, some of them four or five stories
high—all giving it an air of grandeur and beauty
surpassing not only all other cities of Egypt, but
of the world. Diodorus deplores the spoiling of its
buildings and monuments by Cambyses (Diod.i. 45,
46). Strabo, who visited Egypt a little later—at
about the beginning of the Christian era—thus de-
scribes (xvii. p. 816) the city under the name Dios-
polis :—* Vestiges of its magnitude still exist which
extend 80 stadia in length. There are a great number
of temples, many of which Cambyses mutilated. The
spot is at present occupied by villages, One part of
it, in which is the city, lies in Arabia; another is in
the country on the other side of the river, where is
the Memnonium.” Strabo here makes the Nile the
dividing line between Libya and Arabia. The
temples of Karnak and Luxor are on the eastern
side of the river, where was probably the main
part of the city. Strabo gives the following de-
scription of the twin colossi still standing upon the
western plain :—* Here are two colossal figures near
one another, each consisting of a single stone. One
is entire; the upper parts of the other, from the
chair, are fallen down—the effect, it is said, of an
earthquake. It is believed that once a day a noise,
as of a slight blow, issues from the part of the
statue which remains in the seat, and on its base.
When I was at those places, with Aelius Gallus,
and numerous friends and soldiers about him, I
heard a noise at the first hour of the day, but whe-
ther proceeding from the base, or from the colossus,
or produced on purpose by some of those standing
around the base, I cannot confidently assert. For,
from the uncertainty of the cause, I am inclined to
believe anything rather than that stones disposed
in that manner could send forth sound” (xvii.
§46). Simple, honest, sceptical Strabo! Eighteen
centuries later, the present writer interrogated these
same stones as to the ancient mystery of sound ;
and not at sunrise, but in the glaring noon, the
statue emitted a sharp, clear sound like the ringing
of a disc of brass under a sudden concussion. ‘This
was produced by a ragged urchin, who, for a few
piastres, clambered up the knees of the ““ vocal
Memnon,” and there effectually concealing himself
from observation, struck with a hammer a sonorous
stone in the lap of the statue. Wilkinson, who was
one of the first to describe this sounding stone,
conjectures that the priests had a secret chamber in
the body of the statue, from which they could
strike it unobserved at the instant of sunrise: thus
THEBES
producing in the credulous multitude the notion
of a supernatural phenomenon. It is difficult to
‘conceive, however, that such a trick, performed in
open day, could haye escaped detection, and we are
therefore left to share the mingled wonder and
scepticism of Strabo (see Wilkinson; also Thomp-
son’s Photographic Views of Egypt, Past and Pre-
sent, p. 156).
Pliny speaks of Thebes in Egypt as known to
fame as “a hanging city,” ἡ. e. built upon arches,
so that an army could be led forth from beneath
the city while the inhabitants above were wholly
unconscious of it. He mentions also that the river
flows through the middle of the city.
questions the story of the arches, because, “ if this
had really been the case, there is no doubt that
Homer would have mentioned it, seeing that he
has celebrated the hundred gates of Thebes.” Do
not the two stories possibly explain each other ?
May there not have been near the river-line arched
buildings used as barracks, from whose gateways
issued forth 20,000 chariots of war ?
But, in the uncertainty of these historical allu-
sions, the monuments of Thebes are the most reli-
able witnesses for the ancient grandeur of the city.
These are found in almost equal proportions upon
both sides of the river. The parallel ridges which
skirt the narrow Nile valley upon the east and west
from the northern limit of Upper Egypt, here sweep
outward upon either side, forming a circular plain
whose diameter is nearly ten miles.
centre of this plain flows the river, usually at this
point about half a mile in width, but at the inun-
dation overflowing the plain, especially upon the
western bank, for a breadth of two or more miles.
Thus the two colossal statues, which are several
hundred yards from the bed of the low Nile, have
accumulated about their bases alluvial deposit to
the depth of seven feet.
The plan of the city, as indicated by the principal
monuments, was nearly quadrangular, measuring
two miles from north to south, and four from east
to west. Its four great landmarks were, Karnak
and Luxor upon the eastern or Arabian side, and
Qoornah and Medeenet Haboo upon the western or
Libyan side. There are indications that each of
these temples may have been connected with those
facing it upon two sides by grand dromoi, lined
with sphinxes and other colossal figures. Upon the
western bank there was almost a continuous line
of temples and public edifices for a distance of two |
miles, from Qoornah to Medeenet Haboo; and Wil-
kinson conjectures that from a point near the latter,
perhaps in the line of the colossi, the “ Royal
Street’ ran down to the river, which was crossed
by a ferry terminating at Luxor on the eastern
side. The recent excavations and discoveries of
M. Mariette, now in course of publication (1863),
may enable us to restore the ground-plan of the |
city and its principal edifices with at least proxi-
mate accuracy.
It does not enter into the design, nor would it
fall within the limits of this article, to give a
minute description of these stupendous monuments.
Not only are verbal descriptions everywhere ac-
cessible through the pages of Wilkinson, Kenrick,
and other standard writers upon Egypt, but the
magnificently illustrated work of Lepsius, already
completed, the companion work of M. Mariette,
just referred to, and multiplied photographs of the
principal ruins, are within easy reach of the scholar
through the munificence of public libraries. A mere
VOL. Il,
But he |
Through the |
THEBES 1473
| outline of the groups ‘of ruins must here suffice.
Beginning at the northern extremity on the western
bank, the first conspicuous ruins are those of a
| palace-temple of the nineteenth dynasty, and there-
| fore belonging to the middle style of Egyptian
|architecture. It bears the name Menephtheion,
suggested by Champollion because it appears to
have been founded by Menephthah (the Osirei of
Wilkinson), though built principally by his son,
the great Rameses. The plan of the building is
much obscured by mounds of rubbish, but some
of the bas-reliefs are in a fine state of preservation.
There are traces of a dromos, 128 feet in length,
with sphinxes, whose fragments here and there
remain. This building stands upon a slight ele-
vation, nearly a mile from the river, in the now
deserted village of old Qoornah.
Nearly a mile southward from the Menephtheion
are the remains of the combined palace and temple
known since the days of:Strabo as the Memnonium.
An examination of its sculptures shows that this
hame was inaccurately applied, since the building
was clearly erected by Rameses II. Wilkinson
suggests that the title Miamun attached to the
name of this king misled Strabo in his designation
of the building. The general form of the Mem-
nonium is that of a parallelogram in three main
sections, the interior areas being successively nar-
rower than the first court, and the whole ter-
minating in a series of sacred chambers beautifully
sculptured and ornamented. The proportions of
this building are remarkably fine, and its remains
are in a sufficient state of preservation to enable
one to reconstruct its plan. From the first court
or area, nearly 180 feet square, there is an ascent
by steps to the second court, 140 feet by 170.
Upon three sides of this area is a double colonnade,
and on the south side a single row of Osiride
pillars, facing a row of like pillars on the north,
the other columns being circular. Another ascent
ileads to the hall, 100 x 133, which originally
had forty-eight huge columns to support its solid
roof. Beyond the hall are the sacred chambers.
The historical sculptures upon the walls and
columns of the Memnonium are among the most
nished and legible of the Egyptian monuments.
But the most remarkable feature of these ruins
is the gigantic statue of Rameses II., once a single
block of syenite carved to represent the king upon
his throne, but now scattered in fragments upon the
floor of the first hall. The weight of this statue
has been computed at 887 tons, and its height at
75 feet. By measurement of the fragments, the
writer found the body 51 feet around the shoulders,
the arm 11 feet 6 inches from shoulder to elbow,
and the foot 10 feet 10 inches in length, by 4 feet
8 inches in breadth. This stupendous monolith
must have been transported at least a hundred
miles from the quarries of Assouan. About a
third of a mile farther to the south are the two
colossal statues already referred to, one of which
is familiarly known as “ the vocal Memnon.” The
height of each figure is about 53 feet above the
plain.
Proceeding again toward the south for about the
same distance, we find at Medeenet Haboo ruins
upon a more stupendous scale than at any other
point upon the western bank of Thebes. These
consist of a temple founded by Thothmes I., but
which also exhibits traces of the Ptolemaic archi-
tecture in the shape of pyramidal towers, gate-
ways, colonnades, and vestibules, inscribed ἔχων the
5
2
1474 THEBES
memorials of the Roman era in Egypt. This
temple, even with all its additions, is compara-
tively small; but adjacent to it is the magnificent
ruin known as the southern Rameseion, the palace-
temple of Rameses III. The general plan of this
building corresponds with those above described ;
a series of grand courts or halls adorned with
columns, conducting to the inner pavilion of the
king or sanctuary of the god. The second court
is one of the most remarkable in Egypt for the
massiveness of its columns, which measure 24 feet
in height by a circumference of nearly 23. Within
this area are the fallen columns of a Christian
church, which once established the worship of the
. true God in the very sanctuary of idols and amid
their sculptured images and symbols. This temple
presents some of the grandest effects of the old
Egyptian architecture, and its battle-scenes are a
yaluable contribution to the history of Rameses III.
Behind this long range of temples and palaces
are the Libyan hills, which, for a distance of five
miles, are excavated to the depth of several hun-
dred feet for sepulchral chambers. Some of these
are of vast extent—one tomb, for instance, having
a total area of 22,217 square feet. A retired valley
in the mountains, now known as Beeban-el-Melook,
seems to have been appropriated to the sepulchres
of kings. Some of these, in the number and variety
of their chambers, the finish of their sculptures,
and the beauty and freshness of their frescoes, are:
among the most remarkable monuments of Egyptian
grandeur and skill. -It is from the tombs especially
that we learn the manners and customs of domestic
life, as from the temples we gather the record of
dynasties and the history of battles. The preserva-
tion of these sculptured and pictorial records is due
mainly to the dryness of the climate. The sacred-
ness with which the Egyptians regarded their dead
preserved these mountain catacombs from molesta-
tion during the long succession of native dynasties,
and the sealing up of the entrance to the tomb for
the concealment of the sareophagus from human
observation until its mummied occupant should re-
sume his long-suspended life, has largely secured
the city of the dead from the violence of invaders
and the ravages of time. It is from the adornments
of these subterranean tombs, often distinct and fresh
as when prepared by the hand of the artist, that }
we derive our principal knowledge of the manners
and customs of the Egyptians. Herodotus himself
is not more minute and graphic than these sileut
but most descriptive walls. The illustration and
confirmation which they bring to the sacred nar-
rative, so well discussed by Hengstenverg, Osborn,
Poole, and others, is capable of much ampler
treatment than it has yet received. Every inci-
dent in the pastoral and agricultural life of the
Israelites in Egypt and in the exactions of their
servitude, every art employed in the fabrication
of the tabernacle in the wilderness, every allusion
to Egyptian rites, customs, laws, finds some |
counterpart or illustration in this picture-history
of Egypt; and whenever the Theban cemetery |
shall be thoroughly explored, and its symbols
and hievoglyphics fully interpreted by science,
we shall have-a commentary of unrivalled interest |
and value upon the books of Exodus and Leviticus,
as well as the later historical books of the Hebrew |
Seriptures. The art of photography is already con- |
tributing to this result by furnishing scholars with |
materials for the leisurely study of the pictorial |
and monumental records of Egypt.
THEBES
The eastern side of the river is distinguished by
the remains of Luxor and Karnak, the latter being
of itself a city of temples. The main colonnade of
Luxor faces the river, but its principal entrance
looks northward towards Karnak, with which it
was originally connected by a dromos 6000 feet in
leneth, lined on either side with sphinxes. At this
entrance are two gigantic statues of Rameses II., one
upon each side of the grand gateway; and in front
of these formerly stood a pair of beautifully wrought
obelisks of red granite, one of which now graces the
Place de la Concorde at Paris.
The approach to Karnak from the south is marked
by a series of majestic gateways and towers, which
were the appendages of later times to the original
structure. The temple properly faces the river,
i. 6. toward the north-west. The courts and pro-
pylaea connected with this structure occupy a space
nearly 1800 feet square, and the buildings represent
almost every dynasty of Egypt, from Sesortasen I.
to Ptolemy Euergetes I. Courts, pylons, obelisks,
statues, pillars, everything pertaining to Karnak,
are on the grandest scale. Nearest the river is an
area measuring 275 feet by 329, which once had a
covered corridor on either side, and a double row
of columns through the centre, leading to the
entrance of the hypostyle hall, the most wonderful
monument of Egyptian architecture. This grand
hall is a forest of sculptured columns; in the cen-
tral avenue are twelve, measuring each 66 feet in
height by 12 in diameter, which formerly supported
the most elevated portion of the roof, answering to
the elerestory in Gothic architecture; on either side
of these are seven rows, each column nearly 42 feet
high by 9 in diameter, making a total of 134 pillars
in an area measuring 170 feet by 330. Most of
the pillars are yet standing in their original site,
though in many paces the roof has fallen in. A
moonlight view of this hall is the most weird and
impressive scene to be witnessed among all the ruins
of antiquity—the Coliseum of Rome not excepted.
With our imperfect knowledge of mechanic arts
among the Egyptians, it is impossible to conceive
how the outer wall of Karnak—torty feet in thick-
ness at the base, and nearly a hundred feet high—
was built ; how single blocks weighing several hun-
dred tons were lifted into their place in the wall,
or hewn into obelisks and statues to adorn its gates ;
how the majestic columns of the Grand Hall were
quarried, sculptured, and set up in mathematical
order; and how the whole stupendous structure
was reared as a fortress in which the most ancient
civilization of the world, as it were petrified or
fossilized in the very flower of its strength and
beauty, might defy the desolations of war, and the
decay of centuries. The grandeur of Egypt is here
in its architecture, and almost every pillar, obelisk,
and stone tells its historic legend of her greatest
monarchs.
We have alluded, in the opening of this article,
to the debated question of the priority of Thebes to
Memphis. As yet the data are not sufficient for
its satisfactory solution, and Egyptologists are not
agreed. Upon the whole we may conclude that
before the time of Menes there was a local sove-
reignty in the Thebaid, but the historical nationality
of Egypt dates from the founding of Memphis.
“It is probable that the priests of Memphis and
Thebes differed in their representations of early his-
tory, and that each sought to extol the glory of
their own city. The history of Herodotus turns
about Memphis as a centre; he mentions Thebes
CS ia as
νον»
THEBES
only incidentally, and does ‘not describe or allude to
one of its monuments. Diodorus, on the contrary,
is full in his description of Thebes, and says little
of Memphis. But the distinction of Upper and
Lower Egy pt exists in geological structure, in lan-
guage, in religion, and in 1 historical tradition ” (Ken-
rick). A éareful digest of the Egyptian and Greek
authorities, the Turin papyrus, and the monumental
tablets of Abydos and Karnak, gives this general
outline of the early history of Egypt:—That before
Memphis was built, the nation was mainly confined
to the valley of the Nile, and subdivided politically
into several sovereignties, of which Thebes was one ;
that Menes, who was a native of Zs in the The-
baid, centralised the government at Memphis, and
united the upper and lower countries; that Mem-
phis retained its pre-eminence, even in the hereditary
succession of sovereigns, until the twelfth and thir-
teenth dynasties of Manetho, when Diospolitan kings
appear in his lists, who brought Thebes into pro-
minence as a royal city; that when the Shepherds
or Hyksos, a nomadic race from the east, invaded
Egypt and fixed their capital at Memphis, a native
Egyptian dynasty was maintained at Thebes, at
times tributary to the Hyksos, and at times in
military alliance with Ethiopia against the invaders ;
until at length, by a general uprising of the The-
baid, the Hyksos were expelled, and Thebes became
the capital of all Egypt under the resplendent
eighteenth dynasty. ‘This was the golden era of
the city as we have already described it from its
monuments. The names and deeds of the Thothmes
and the Rameses then figure upon its temples and
palaces, representing its wealth and grandeur in
architecture, and its prowess in arms. Then it was
that Thebes extended her sceptre over Libya and
Ethiopia on the one hand, and on the other over
Syria, Media, and Persia; so that the walls of her
palaces and temples are crowded with battle-scenes
in which all contiguous nations appear as captives
or as suppliants. This supremacy continued until
the close of the nineteenth dynasty, or for a period
of more than five hundred years; but under the
twentieth dynasty—the Diospolitan house of Ra-
meses numbering ten kings of that name—the glory
of Thebes began to decline, and after the close of
that dynasty her name no more appears in the lists
of kings. Still the city was retained as the capital,
in whole or in part, and the achievements of Shi-
shonk the Bubastite, of Tirhakah the Ethiopian,
and other monarchs of celebrity, ave recorded upon
its walls. The invasion of Palestine by Shishonk
is graphically depicted upon the outer wall of the
grand hall of Karnak, and the names of several
towns in Palestine, as well as the general name of
*‘the land of the king of Judah,” have been de-
ciphered from the hieroglyphics. At the later in-
vasion of Judea by Sennacherib, we find Tirhakah,
the Ethiopian monarch of the Thebaid, a powerful
ally of the Jewish king. But a century later,
Ezekiel proclaims the destruction of Thebes by the
arm of Babylon:—* I will execute judgments in
ΝΟ: ΠῚ will cut off the multitude of Na 455. No
shall be rent asunder, and Noph [Memphis] shall
have distresses daily ”’ (Ez. xxx. 14-16); and Jere-
miah, predicting the same overthrow, says, ‘‘ The
Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel saith, Behold, I
will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and
Egypt, with their gods and their kings.” The Per-
sian invader completed the destruction that the
Babylonian had begun ; the hammer of Cambyses
levelled the proud statue of Rameses, and his torch
THEMAN 1475
consumed the temples and palaces of the city of the
hundred gates. No-Ammon, the shrine of the
Egyptian Jupiter, ‘that was situate among the
rivers, and whose rampart was the sea,” sank from
its metropolitan splendour to the position of a mere
provincial town ; and, notwithstanding the spasmodic
efforts of the Ptolemiés to revive its ancient glory,
became at last only the desolate and ruined sepule shre
of the empire it had once embodied. 16 lies to- -day
a nest of Arab hovels amid crumbling columns and
drifting sands. Js PITS}
THE'BEZ (f3M : Θήβης, Θαμασί; Alex. Θαι-
Bats, Θαμασει: Thebes). A place memorable for the
death of the bravo Abimelech (Judg. ix. 50). After
suffocating a thousand of the Shechemites in the
hold of Baal-berith by the smoke of green wood—
an exploit which recals the notorious feat of a
modern French general in Algeria (Eccl. i. 9, 10)
—he went off with his band to Thebez. The town
was soon taken, all but one tower, into which the
people of the place crowded, and which was strong
enough to hold out. To this he forced his way, and
was about to repeat the barbarous stratagem which
had succeeded so well at Shechem, when the frag-
ment of millstone descended and put an end to his
turbulent career. The story was well known in
Israel, and gave the point to a familiar maxim in
the camp (2 Sam. xi. 21).
Thebez is not mentioned again in the Bible. But
it was known to Eusebius and Jerome. In their
day the village still bore its old name, and was
situated “in the district of Neapolis,” 13 Roman
miles therefiom, on the road to Scythopolis (Onom.
Θήβη5).. There it still is; its name—Zubds—
hardly changed; the village on a rising ground to
the lett of the road, a thriving, compact, and strong-
looking place, surrounded by immense woods of
olives, and by perhaps the best cultivated land in
all Palestine. It was known to hap-Parchi in the
13th century (Zunz’s Benjamin, ii. 426), and is
mentioned occasionally by later travellers. But
Dr. Robinson appears to have been the first to recog-
nise its identity with Thebez (B. 10. iii. 305). [G.]
THECO'E, THE WILDERNESS OF (τὴν
ἔρημον Θεκωέ: desertum Thecuae). The wild un-
cultivated pastoral tract lying around the town of
Tekoa, more especially to the east of it (1 Mace. ix.
33). . In the Old Test. (2 Chr, xx. 20) it is men-
tioned by the term Midhar, which answers to the
Greek ἔρημος.
Thecoe is merely the Greek form of the name
TEKOA. [G.]
THEL'ASAR WNDM: Θαεσθέν ; Alex. Θα-
λασσαρ: Thelassar). Another form of the name
examined under THL-ASSAR. It occurs 2 K. xix.
12. , The A. V, is unfortunate in respect of this
name, for it has contrived to give the contracted
Hebrew form in the longest English shape, and
vice versa. [G.]
THELER'SAS (Θελερσᾶς: Thelharsa), 1 Esd.
vy. 36. The Greek equivalent of the name TEL-
HARSAS.
THE'MAN (Θαιμάν : Theman), Bar. iii. 22,23.
[TEMAN. |
8 In the Hebrew text Thebez occurs twice in the verse,
but in the LXX. it stands thus, “* And Abimelech went out
of Bethelberith (Vulg. inde) and fell upon Thebes,” &e.
5 B 2
1476 THEOCANUS
THEOCA'NUS (Θεωκανός ; Alex. Owkavds :
Thecam), TIKVAH the father of Jahaziah (1 Esd.
ix. 14).
THEOD’OTUS (Θεόδοτος : Theodotius, Theo-
dorus). An envoy sent by Nicanor to Judas Macc.
c. B.C. 162 (2 Mace. xiv. 19). [Bane
THEOPHILUS (Θεόφιλος). 1. The person
to whom St. Luke inscribes his Gospel and the Acts
of the Apostles (Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1), The im-
portant part played by Theophilus, as having imme-
diately occasioned the composition of these two
books, together with the silence of Scripture con-
cerning him, has at once stimulated conjecture, and
left the field clear for it. Accordingly we meet
with a considerable number and variety of theories
concerning him.
1.) Several commentators, especially among the
Fathers, have been disposed to doubt the personality
of Theophilus, revarding the name either as that of
a fictitious person, or as applicable to every Chris-
tian reader. Thus Origen (Hom. i. in Luc.) raises
the question, but does not discuss it, his object being
merely practical. He says that all who are beloved
of God are Theophili, and may therefore appropriate
to themselves the Gospel which was addressed to
Theophilus. Epiphanius ( Haeres. li. p. 429) speaks
doubtfully : εἴτ᾽ οὖν τινὶ Θεοφίλῳ τότε γράφων
ἔλεγεν, ἣ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ Θεὸν ἀγαπῶντι. Salvi-
anus ( ριϑέ. ix. ad Salonium) apparently assumes
that Theophilus had no historical existence. He
justifies the composition of a work addressed ** Ad
Keclesiam Catholicam,” under the name of Timo-
theus, by the example of the Evangelist St. Luke,
who addressed his Gospel nominally to a particular
man, but really to “ the love of God:” “ nam sicut
Theophili vocabulo amor, sic ‘Timothei honor divini-
tatis exprimitur.” Even Theophylact, who believes
in the existence of Theophilus, takes the opportunity
of moralizing upon his name: καὶ πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος
Ocomiarns, kal κράτος κατὰ τῶν παθῶν ava-
δειξάμενος, Θεόφιλός ἐστι κράτιστοπ": ὃς
καὶ ἄξιος τῷ ὄντι ἐστὶν ἀκούειν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου
(Argun, in Luc.), Among modern commentators
Hammond and Leclere accept the allegorical view:
Erasmus is doubtful, but on the whole believes
Theophilus to have had a real existence.
(2.) From the honourable epithet κράτιστε, ap-
plied to Theophilus in Luke i. 3, compared with
the use of the same epithet as applied by Claudius
Lysias and Tertullus severally to Felix, and by
St. Paul to Festus (Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi.
25), it has been argued with ‘much probability, but
not quite conclusively, that he was a person in high
official position. ‘Thus Theophylact (Argum. in
Luc.) conjectures that he was a Roman governor,
or a person of senatorial rank, grounding his con-
jecture expressly on the use of κράτιστε. Oevcu-
menius (ad Act, Apost. i. 1) tells us that he was a
governor, but gives no authority for the assertion.
he traditional connexion of St. Luke with Antioch
has, disposed some to look upon Antioch as the
abode of Theophilus, and possibly as the seat of his
government. Bengel believes him to have been an
inhabitant of Antioch, “ ut veteres testantur.’”’ The
belief may partly have grown out of a story in the
so-called Recognitions of St. Clement (lib. x.), which
represents a certain nobleman of Antioch of that
name to have been converted by the preaching of
St. Peter, and to have dedicated his own house as a
church, in which, as we are told, the Apostle fixed |
his episcopal seat. Bengel thinks that the omission
THEOPHILUS
of κράτιστε in Acts i, 1 proves that St. Luke was
on more familiar terms with Theophilus than when
he composed his Gospel.
(3.) In the Syriac Lexicon extracted from the
Lexicon Heptaglotton of Castell, and edited by
Michaelis (p. 948), the following description of
Theophilus is quoted from Bar Bahlul, a Syrian
lexicographer of the 10th century :—‘ Theophilus,
primus credentium et celeberrimus apud Alexan-
drienses, qui cum aliis Aegyptiis Lucam rogabat,
ut eis Evangelium scriberet.”’ In the inscription
of the Gospel according to St. Luke in the Syriac
version we are told that it was published at Alex-
andria, Hence it is inferred by Jacob Hase (Bibi.
Bremensis Class. iv. Fasc. iii. Diss. 4, quoted by
Michaelis, Zntrod. to the N. T., vol. iii. ch. vi. §4,
ed. Marsh) and by Bengel (Ordo Temporum, p. 196,
ed. 2), that Theophilus was, as asserted by Bar
Bahlul, a convert of Alexandria. This writer ven-
tures to advance the startling opinion that Theo-
philus, if an Alexandrian, was no other than the
celebrated Philo, who is said to have borne the
Hebrew name of Jedidiah (AY), ἡ. e. ΘεόφιλοΞ).
It hardly seems necessary to refute this theory, as
Michaelis has refuted it, by chronological argu-
ments,
(4.) Alexander Morus (Ad quaedam loca Nov.
Foed. Notae: ad Inc. i. 1) makes the rather ha-
zardous conjecture that the Theophilus of St. Luke
is identical with the person who is recorded by
Tacitus (Ann. ii. 55) to have been condemned for
fraud at Athens by the court of the Areopagus.
Grotius also conjectures that he was a magistrate
of Achaia baptized by St. Luke. The conjecture of
Grotius must rest upon the assertion of Jerome
(an assertion which, if it is received, renders that.
of Alex. Morus possible, though certainly most im-
probable), namely, that Luke published his Gospel
in the parts of Achaia and Boeotia (Jerome, Comm.
in Matt. Prooem.).
(5.) It is obvious to suppose that Theophilus
was a Christian. But a different view has been
entertained. In a series of Dissertations in the
Bibliotheca Bremensis, of which Michaelis gives a
résumé in the section already referred to, the notion
that he was not a Christian is maintained by different
writers, and on different grounds. Heumann, one of
the contributors, assuming that he was a Roman
governor, argues that he could not be a Christian,
because no Christian would be likely to have such
a charge entrusted to him. Another writer, Theo-
dore Hase, believes that the Theophilus of Luke
was no other than the deposed High Priest Theo-
philus the son of Ananus, of whom more will be
said presently. Michaelis himself is inclined to
adopt this theory. He thinks that the use of the
word κατηχήθης in Luke i. 4, proves that Theo-
philus had an imperfect acquaintance with the facts
of the Gospel (an argument of which Bishop Marsh
very properly disposes in his note upon the passage
of Michaelis), and further contends, from the ἐν
ἡμῖν of Luke i. 1, that he was not a member of the
Christian community. He thinks it probable that
the Evangelist wrote his Gospel, during the impri-
sonment of St. Paul at Caesarea, and addressed it to
Theophilus as one of the heads of the Jewish nation.
According to this view, it would be regarded as a
sort of historical apology for the Christian faith.
In surveying this series of conjectures, and of
traditions which are nothing more than conjectures,
we find it easier to determine what is to be re-
THERAS
jected than what we are to accept. In the first
place, we may safely reject the Patristie notion that
Theophilus was either a fictitious person, or a mere
personification of Christian love. Such a personifi-
cation is alien from the spirit of the New Testa-
ment writers, and the epithet κράτιστε is a sufficient
evidence of the historical existence of Theophilus. It
does not, indeed, prove that he was a governor, but it
makes it most probable that he was a person of high
rank. His supposed connexion with Antioch, Alex-
andria, or Achaia, rests on too slender evidence
either to claim acceptance or to need refutation ;
and the view of Theodore Hase, although endorsed
by Michaelis, appears to be incontestably negatived
by the Gentile complexion of the Third Gospel.
The grounds alleged by Heumann for his hypo-
thesis that Theophilus was not a Christian are not at
all trustworthy, as consisting of two very disputable
premises. For, in the first place, it is not at all
evident that Theophilus was a Roman governor ; and
in the second place, even if we assume that at that
time no Christian would be appointed to such an office
(an assumption which we can scarcely venture to
make), it does not at all follow that no person in
that position would become a Christian. In fact, we
have an example of such a conversion in the case of
Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 12). In the article on
the GOSPEL OF LUKE [vol. ii, p. 155 a], reasons
are given for believing that Theophilus was ‘not a
native of Palestine . . . not a Macedonian, nor an
Athenian, noraCretan. But that he was a native of
Italy, and perhaps an inhabitant of Rome, is probable
from similar data.” All that can be conjectured with
any degree of safety concerning him, comes to this,
that he was a Gentile of rank and consideration,
who came under the influence of St. Luke, or (not
improbably) under that of St. Paul, at Rome, and
was converted to the Christian faith. It has been
observed that the Greek of St. Luke, which else-
where approaches more nearly to the classical type
than that of the other Evangelists, is purer and
more elegant in the dedication to Theophilus than
in any other part of his Gospel.
2. A Jewish High-Priest, the son of Annas or
Ananus, brother-in-law to Caiaphas [ ANNAS; CATA-
PHAS}, and brother and immediate successor of
Jonathan. The Roman Pretect Vitellius came to
Jerusalem at the Passover (A.D. 37), and deposed
Caiaphas, appointing Jonathan in his place. In the
same year, at the feast of Pentecost, he came to
Jerusalem, and deprived Jonathan of the High
Priesthood, which he gave to Theophilus (Joseph.
Ant. xviii. 4, §3, xviii. 5, 83). Theophilus was
removed from his post by Herod Agrippa I., after
the accession of that prince to the government of
Judaea in A.D. 41, so that he must have continued
in office about five years (Joseph. Ant. xix. 6, §2).
Theophilus is not mentioned by name in the New
Testament ; but it is most probable that he was the
High Priest who granted a commission to Saul to
proceed to Damascus, and to take into custody any
believers whom he might find there. [W. B.J.]
THE'RAS (Θέρα: Thia: Syr, Tharan). The
equivalent in 1 Esd. viii. 41, 61, for the AHAVA
ot the parallel passage in Ezra. Nothing whatever
appears to be known of it.
THER MELETH (Θερμελέθ : Thelmela),
1 Esd. vy. 36. The Greek equivalent of the name
TEL-MELAH.
THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE
TO THE. 1. The date of the Epistle is made out
THESSALONIANS 1477
approximately in the following way. During the
course of his second missionary journey, probably
in the year 52, St. Paul founded the Church of
Thessalonica. Leaving Thessalonica he passed on
to Beroea. From Beroea he went to Athens, and
| from Athens to Corinth (Acts xvii. 1—xviii. 18).
With this visit to Corinth, which extends over a
period of two years or thereabouts, his second mis-
sionary journey closed, for from Corinth he returned
to Jerusalem, paying only a brief visit to Ephesus on
the way (xviii. 20,21). Now it appears that, when
this Epistle was written, Silvanus and Timotheus
were in the Apostle’s company (1 Thess, i. 1 ; comp.
2 Thess, i. 1)—a circumstance which confines the
date to the second missionary journey, for though
Timotheus was with him on several occasions after-
wards, the name of Silvanus appears for the last
time in connexion .with St. Paul during this visit
to Corinth (Acts xviii. 5; 2 Cor. i. 19). The
Epistle then must have been written in the in-
terval between St. Paul’s leaving Thessalonica and
the close of his residence at Corinth, 7. ὁ. according
to the received chronology within the years 52-54.
The following considerations however narrow the
limits of the possible date still more closely. (1.)
When St. Paul wrote, he had already visited, and
probably left Athens (1 Thess. iii. 1). (2.) Having
made two unsuccessful attempts to revisit Thessa-
lonica, he had despatched Timothy to obtain tidings
of his converts there. Timothy had returned before
the Apostle wrote (iii. 2, 6). (3.) St. Paul speaks
of the Thessalonians as ‘* ensamples to all that
believe in Macedonia and Achaia,” adding that ‘in
every place their faith to Godward was spread
abroad”’ (i. 7, 8)—language prompted indeed by
the overflowing of a grateful heart, and therefore
not to be rigorously pressed, but still implying
some lapse of time at least. (4.) There are several
traces of a growth and progress in the condition
and circumstances of the Thessalonian Church. Per-
haps the mention of “rulers” in the Church (v.
12) ought not to be adduced as proving this, since
some organisation would be necessary from the very
beginning. But there is other evidence besides.
Questions had arisen relating to the state οἵ those
who had fallen asleep in Christ, so that one or more
of the Thessalonian converts must have died in the
interval (iv. 13-18). The storm of persecution
which the Apostle had discerned gathering on the
horizon had already burst upon the Christians of
Thessalonica (iii. 4, 7). Jrregularities had crept in
and sullied the infant purity of the Church (iv. 4,
v. 14). The lapse of a few months however would
account for these changes, and a much longer time
cannot well be allowed. For (5) the letter was
evidently written by St. Paul immediately on the
return of Timothy, in the fulness of his gratitude
for the joyful tidings (iii. 6). Moreover, (6) the
Second Epistle also was written before he lett Co-
rinth, and there must have been a sufficient interval
between the two to allow of the growth of fresh
difficulties, and of such communication between the
Apostle and his converts as the case supposes. We
shall not be far wrong therefore in placing the
writing of this Epistle early in St. Paul’s residence
at Corinth, a few months after he had founded the
Church at Thessalonica, at the close of the year 52
or the beginning of 53. The statement in the sub-
scription appearing in several MSS. and versions,
that it was written “from Athens,” is a superficial
inference from 1 Thess. ili. 1, to which no weight
should be attached. The views of critics who have
1478
assigned to this Epistle a later date than the second
missionary journey are stated and refuted in the
Introductions of Koch (p. 23, &c.), and Liinemann,
($3).
2. The Epistles to the Thessalonians then (for
the second followed the first after no long interval)
are the earliest of St. Paul’s writings—perhaps the
earliest written records of Christianity. ‘They belong
to that period which St. Paul elsewhere styles “ the
beginning of the Gospel”? (Phil. iv. 15). They
present the disciples in the first flush of love and
devotion, yearning for the day of deliverance, and
straining their eyes to catch the first glimpse of
their Lord descending amidst the clouds of heaven,
till in their feverish anxiety they forget the sober
business of life, absorbed in this one engrossing
thought. It will be remembered that a period of
about five years intervenes before the second group
of Epistles—those to the Corinthians, Galatians, and
Romans—were written, and about twice that period
to the date of the Epistles of the Roman Captivity.
It is interesting therefore to compare the Thessa-
lonian Epistles. “with the later letters, and to note
the points of difference. These differences are mainly
threefold. (1.) In the general style of these earlier
letters there is greater simplicity and less exuberance
of language. ‘The brevity of the opening salutation
is an instance of this. ““ Paul to the Church
of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ, grace and peace to you” (1
Thess. i. 1; comp. 2 Thess.i.1). The closing bene-
diction is correspondingly brief :—‘‘ The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (1 Thess. v.
28; comp. 2 Thess. iii. 18). And throughout the
Epistles there is much more evenness of style,
words are not accumulated in the same way, the
syntax is less involved, parentheses are not so fre-
quent, the turns of thought and feeling are less
sudden and abrupt, and altogether there is less
intensity and variety than we find in St. Paul’s
later Epistles. (2.) The antagonism to St. Paul
is not the same. The direction of the attack has
changed in the interval between the writing of
these Epistles and those of the uext group. Here
the opposition comes from Jews. The admission
of the Gentiles to the hopes and privileges of Mes-
siah’s kingdom on any condition is repulsive to
them. They “forbad the Apostle to speak to the
Gentiles that they might be saved” (ii. 16). A
period of five years changes the aspect of the contro-
versy. The opponents of St. Paul are now no longer
Jews, so much as Judaizing Christians (Ewald,
Jahrb. iii. 249; Sendschr., p. 14). The question
of the admission of the Gentiles has been solved
by time, for they have “taken the kingdom of
heaven by storm.” But the antagonism to the
Apostle of the Gentiles, having been driven from
its first position, entrenched itself behind a second
barrier. It was now urged that though the Gen-
tiles may be admitted to the Church of Christ, the
only door of admission is the Mosaic covenant-rite
of circumcision. ‘The language of St. Paul speaking
of the Jewish Christians in this Epistle shows that
the opposition to his teaching had not at this time
assumed this second phase. He does not yet regard
them as the disturbers of the peace of the Church,
the false teachers who by imposing a bondage of
ceremonial observances frustrate the free grace of
God. He can still point to them as ex: amples to
his converts at Thessalonica (ii. 14). The change
indeed was imminent, the signs of the gathering
storm had already appeared (Gal. ii, 11), but
THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
hitherto they were faint and indistinct, and had
scarcely darkened the horizon of the Gentile
Churches. (3.) It will be no surprise that the
doctrinal teaching of the Apostle does not bear
quite the same aspect in these as in the later
Epistles. Many of the distinctive doctrines of
Christianity, which are inseparably connected with
St. Paul’s name, though implicitly contained in the
teaching of these earlier letters—as indeed they fol-
low directly from the true conception of the Person
of Christ—were yet not evolved and distinctly
enunciated till the needs of the Church drew them
out into prominence at a later date. It has often
been observed for instance, that there is in the
Epistles to the Thessalonians no mention of the
characteristic contrast of ‘ faith and works ;” that
the word “ justification ” does not once occur ; that
the idea of dying with Christ and living with
Christ, so frequent in St. Paul’s later writings, is
absent in these. It was in fact the opposition of
Judaizing Christians, insisting on a strict ritualism,
which led the Apostle somewhat later to dwell at
greater length on the true doctrine of a saving
faith, and the true conception of a godly life. But
the time had not yet come, and in the Epistles to
the Thessalonians, as has been truly observed, the
Gospel preached is that of the coming of Christ,
rather than of the cross of Christ. There are many
reasons why the subject of the second advent should
occupy a larger space in the earliest stage of the
Apostolical teaching than afterwards. It was closely
bound.up with the fundamental fact of the Gospel,
the resurrection of Christ, and thus it formed a
natural starting-point of Christian doctrine, [0
afforded the true satisfaction to those Messianic
hopes which had drawn the Jewish converts to the
fold. of Christ. It was the best consolation and
support of the infant Church under persecution,
which must have been most keenly felt in the first
abandonment of worldly pleasures and interests.
More especially, as telling of a righteous Judge who
would not overlook iniquity, it was essential to
that call to repentance which must everywhere pre-
cede the direct and positive teaching of the Gospel.
“¢ Now He commandeth all men everywhere to re-
pent, for He hath appointed a day in the which He
will judge the world in righteousness by that man
whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given
assurance unto all men in that He raised him from
the dead” (Acts xvii. 30, 31).
3. The occasion of this Epistle was as follows ;
St. Paul had twice attempted to revisit Thessa-
lonica, and both times had been disappointed. Thus
prevented from seeing them in person, he had sent
Timothy to inquire and report to him as to their
condition (iii. 1-5). Timothy returned with most
favourable tidings, reporting net only their pro-
eress in Christian faith and practice, but also their
strong attachment to their old teacher (iii, 6-10).
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians is the out-
pouring of the Apostle’s gratitude on receiving this
welcome news. At the same time the report of
Timothy was not unmixed with alloy. There were
certain features in the condition of the Thessalonian
Church which called for St. Paul’s interference, and
to which he addresses himself in his letter (1.)
The very intensity of their Christian faith, dwelling
too exclusiv ely on the day of the Lord’s coming,
had been attended with evil consequences. On the
one hand a practical inconvenience had arisen. In
their feverish expectation of this great crisis, some
had been led to neglect their ordinary business, as
THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
though the daily concerns of life were of no account
in the immediate presence of so vast a change (iv. 11 ;
comp. 2 Thess. ii: 1, iii. 6, 11, 12). On the other
hand a theoretical difficulty had been felt. Certain
members of the Church had died, and there was
great anxiety lest they should be excluded from any
share in the glories of the Lord’s advent (iv. 15-18).
St. Paul rebukes the irregularities of the former,
and dissipates the fears of the latter. (2.) The
flame of persecution had broken out, and the Thes-
salonians needed consolation and encouragement
under their sore trial (ji. 14, iii. 2-4). (3.) An
unhealthy state of feeling with regard to spiritual
gifts was manifesting itself. Like the Corinthians
at a later day, they needed to be reminded of the
superior value of “ prophesying,” compared with
other gifts of the Spirit which they exalted at its
expense (vy. 19, 20). (4.) There was the danger,
which they shared in common with most Gentile
Churches, of relapsing into their old heathen profli-
gacy. Against this the Apostle offers a word in
season (iv. 4-8). We need not suppose however
that Thessalonica was worse in this respect than
other Greek cities.
4. Yet notwithstanding all these drawbacks, the
condition of the Thessalonian Church was highly
satisfactory, and the most cordial relations existed
between St. Paul and his converts there. This
honourable distinction it shares with the other great
Church of Macedonia, that of Philippi. At all
times, and amidst every change of circumstance, it
is to his Macedonian Churches that the Apostle
turns for sympathy and support. A period of about
ten years is interposed between the First Epistle to
the Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Philippians,
and yet no two of his letters more closely resemble
each other in this respect. In both he drops his
official title of Apostle in the opening salutation,
thus appealing rather to their affection than to his
own authority ; in both he commences the body of
his letter with hearty and unqualified commendation
of his converts; and in both the same spirit of con-
fidence and warm affection breathes throughout.
5. A comparison of the narrative in the Acts
with the allusions in this and the Second Epistle to
the Thessalonians is instructive. With some striking
coincidences, there is just that degree οἱ divergence
which might be expected between a writer who
had borne the principal part in the scenes referred
to, and a narrator who derives his information from
others, between the casual half-expressed allusions
of a familiar letter and the direct account of the
professed historian.
Passing over patent coincidences, we may single
out one of a more subtle and delicate kind. It
arises out of the form which the accusation brought
against St. Paul and his companions at Thessalonica
takes in the Acts: “ All these do contrary to the
decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king,
one Jesus”’ (xvii. 7). The allusions in the Epistles
to the Thessalonians enable us to understand the
ground of this accusation. It appears that the king-
dom of Christ had entered largely into his oral teach-
ing in this city, as it does into that of the ipistles
themselves. He had charged his new converts to
await the coming of the Son of God from heaven, as
their deliverer (i. 10). He had dwelt long and
earnestly (προείπαμεν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα) on the
terrors of the judgment which would overtake the
wicked (iv. 6). He had even explained at length the
signs which would usher in the last day (2 Thess.
li. 5).
Wither from malice or in ignorance such
+ i
1479
language had been.misrepresented, and he was ac-
cused of setting up a rival sovereign to the Roman
Emperor.
On the other hand, the language of these Epistles
diverges from the narrative of St. Luke on two or
three points in such a way as to establish the inde-
pendence of the two accounts, and even to require
some explanation. (1,) The first of these relates to
the composition of the Church of Thessalonica. In
the First Epistle St. Paul addresses his readers dis-
tinctly as Gentiles, who had been converted froin
idolatry to the Gospel (i. 9, 10). In the Acts we are
told that ‘‘some (ofthe Jews) believed . . . and of
the devout Greeks (7. ὁ. proselytes) a great multi~
tude, and of the chief women not a few” (xvii. 4).
If for σεβομένων Ἑλλήνων we read σεβομένων
καὶ Ἑλλήνων, “ proselytes and Greeks,” the difli-
culty vanishes; but though internal probabilities
are somewhat in favour of this reading, the array
of direct evidence (now reinforced by the Cod. Si-
naiticus) is against it. But even if we retain the
common reading, the account of St. Luke does not
exclude a number of believers converted directly
from heathendom—indeed, if we may argue from
the parallel case at Beroea (xvii. 12), the ‘* women”
were chiefly of this class: and, if any divergence re-
mains, it is not greater than might be expected
in two independent wiiters, one of whom, not
being an eye-witness, possessed only a partial and
indirect knowledge. Both accounts alike convey
the impression that the Gospel made but little pro-
gress with the Jews themselves. (2.) In the Epistle
the persecutors of the Thessalonian Christians are
represented as their fellow-countrymen, 7. 6. as
heathens (ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν, ii. 14),
whereas in the Acts the Jews are regarded as the
bitterest opponents of the faith (xvii. 5). This is
fairly met by Paley (Horae Paul. ix. No. 5), who
points out that the Jews were the instigators of the
persecution, which however they were powerless
of themselves to carry out without aid from the
heathen, as may be gathered even from the nar-
rative of St. Luke. We may add also, that the
expression ἴδιοι συμφυλέται need not be restricted
to the heathen population, but might include many
Hellenist Jews who must have been citizens of the
free town of Thessalonica, (3.) The narrative of
St. Luke appears to state that St. Paul remained
only three weeks at Thessalonica (xvii. 2), whereas
in the Epistle, though there is no direct mention of
the length of his residence among them, the whole
language (i. 4, ii, 4-11) points to a much longer
period. ‘The latter part of the assertion seems quite
correct; the former needs to be modified. In the
Acts it is stated simply that for three Sabbath days
(three weeks) St. Paul taught in the synagogue.
The silence of the writer does not exclude subsequent
labour among the Gentile population, and indeed
as much seems to be implied in the success of his
preaching, which exasperated the Jews against him.
(4.) The notices of the movements of Silas and
Timotheus in the two documents do not accord at
first sight. In the Acts St. Paul is conveyed away
secretly from Beroea to escape the Jews. Arrived at
Athens, he sends to Silas and Timothy, whom he
had left behind at Beroea, urging them to join him
as soon as possible (xvii. 14-16). It is evident
from the language of St. Luke that the Apostle
expects them ‘to join him at Athens. Yet we hear
nothing more of them for some time, when at length
after St. Paul had passed on to Corinth, and several
incidents had occurred since his arrival there, we
1480
are told that Silas and Timotheus came from Mace-
donia (xviii. 5). From the First Epistle, on the
other hand, we gather the following facts, St. Paul
there tells us that they (ἡμεῖς, 7. ὁ. himself, and pro-
bably Silas), no longer able to endure the suspense,
“‘consented to be left alone at Athens, and sent
Timothy their brother” to Thessalonica (iii. 1, 2).
Timothy returned with good news (iii. 6) (whether
to Athens or Corinth does not appear), and when the
two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written, both
Timothy and Silas were with St. Paul (1 Thess. i.
1; 2 Thess. i. 1; comp. 2 Cor. i. 19). Now, though
we may not be prepared with Paley to construct
an undesigned coincidence out of these materials,
yet on the other hand there is no insoluble dith-
culty; for the events may be arranged in two different
ways, either of which will bring the narrative of the
Acts into accordance with the allusions of the Epistle.
(i.) Timotheus was despatched to Thessalonica, not
from Athens, but from Beroea, a supposition quite
consistent with the Apostle’s expression of ‘‘ con-
senting to be left alone at Athens.” In this case
Timotheus would take up Silas somewhere in Ma-
cedonia on his return, and the two would join St.
Paul in company; not however at Athens, where
he was expecting them, but later on at Corinth,
some delay having arisen. This explanation how-
ever supposes that the plurals ‘‘ we consented, we
sent”’ (εὐδοκήσαμεν, ἐπέμψαμεν), can refer to St.
Paul alone. ‘The alternative mode of reconciling
the accounts is as follows:—(ii.) Timotheus and
Silas did join the Apostle at Athens, where we learn
from the Acts that he was expecting them. From
Athens he despatched Timotheus to Thessalonica, so
that he and Silas (ἡμεῖς) had to forego the services
of their fellow-labourer for a time. This mission
is mentioned in the Epistle, but not in the Acts.
Subsequently he sends Silas on some other mission,
not recorded either in the history or the Epistle ;
probably to another Macedonian Church, Philippi
for instance, from which he is known to have re-
ceived contributions about this time, and with which
therefore he was in communication (2 Cor. xi. 9 ;
comp. Phil. iv. 14-16; see Koch, p.15). Silas and
Timotheus returned together from Macedonia and
joined the Apostle at Corinth. This latter solu-
tion, if it assumes more than the former, has the
advantage that it preserves the proper sense of the
plural ‘‘ we consented, we sent,” for it is at least
doubtful whether St. Paul ever uses the plural of
himself alone. ‘The silence of St. Luke may in this
case be explained either by his possessing only a
partial knowledge of the circumstances, or by his
passing over incidents of which he was aware, as
unimportant.
6. This Epistle is rather practical than doc-
trinal. It was suggested rather by personal feeling,
than by any urgent need, which might have formed
a centre of unity, and impressed a distinct character
on the whole. Under these circumstances we need
not expect to trace unity of purpose, or a continuous
argument, and any analysis must be more or less
artificial. The body of the Epistle, however, may
conveniently be divided into two parts, the former
of which, extending over the first three chapters, is
chiefly taken up with a retrospect of the Apostle’s
relation to his Thessalonian converts, and an expla-
nation of his present circumstances and feelings,
while the latter, comprising the 4th and 5th chap-
ters, contains some seasonable exhortations. At the
close of each of these divisions is a prayer, com-
mencing with the same words, “ May God Him-
THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
self,” etc., and expressed in somewhat similar lan-
guage.
The following is a table of contents :—
Salutation (i. 1).
1. Narrative portion (i. 2-iii. 15).
(1.) i. 2-10. The Apostle gratefully records
their conversion to the Gospel and pro-
. gress in the faith.
(2.) ii. 1-12. He reminds them how pure and
blameless his life and ministry among
them had been.
(3.) ii. 18-16. He repeats his thanksgiving
for their conversion, dwelling espegially
on the persecutions which they had en-
dured.
(4.) ii. 17-iii. 10. He describes his own sus-
pense and anxiety, the consequent mission
of Timothy to Thessalonica, and the en-
couraging report which he brought back.
(5.) iii, 11-13. The Apostle’s prayer for the
Thessalonians.
2. Hortatory portion (iv. 1--ν. 24).
1.) iv. 1-8. Warning against impurity.
ἐπ iv. 9-12. Exhortation to brotherly love
and sobriety of conduct.
(3.) iv. 13-v. 11. Touching the Advent of
the Lord.
(a.) The dead shall have their place in the
resurrection, iv. 13-18.
(b.) The time however is uncertain, v. 1-3.
(c.) Therefore all must be watchful, v.
4-11.
(4.) v. 12-15. Exhortation to orderly living
and the due performance of social duties.
(5.) v. 16-22. Injunctions relating to. prayer
and spiritual matters generally.
(6.) v. 23, 24. The Apostle’s prayer for the
Thessalonians.
The Epistle closes with personal injunctions and
a benediction (v. 25-28).
7. The external evidence in favour of the genwine-
ness of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians is
chiefly negative, but this is important enough,
There is no trace that it was ever disputed at any
age or in any section of the Church, or even by
any individual, till the present century. On the
other hand, the allusions to it in writers before the
close of the 2nd century are confessedly faint and
uncertain—a circumstance easily explained, when
we remember the character of the Epistle itself, its
comparatively simple diction, its silence on the most
important doctrinal questions, and, generally speak-
ing, the absence of any salient points to arrest the
attention and provoke reference. In Clement of
Rome there are some slight coincidences of language,
perhaps not purely accidental (c. 38, κατὰ πάντα
εὐχαριστεῖν αὐτῷ, comp. 1 Thess.v. 18; 10. σωζέσθω
οὖν ἡμῖν ὅλον Toxg@ua ἐν X., I., comp. 1 Thess, v
23). Ignatius in two passages (Polyc. 1, and
Ephes. 10) seems to be reminded of St. Paul’s ex-
pression ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε (1 Thess. γ΄.
17), but in both passages of Ignatius the word
ἀδιαλείπτως. in which the similarity mainly con-
sists, is absent in the Syriac, and is therefore pro-
bably spurious. The supposed references in Poly-
carp (c. iv. to 1 Thess. v. 17, and c. ii. to 1 Thess,
v. 22) are also unsatisfactory. It is more impor-
tant to observe that the Epistle was included in the
Old Latin and Syriac Versions, that it is found in
the Canon of the Muratorian fragment, and that it
was also contained in that of Marcion, ‘Towards
THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE
the close of the 2nd century from Irenaeus down-
wards, we find this Epistle directly quoted and
ascribed to St. Paul.
The evidence derived from the character of the
Epistle itself is so strong that it may fairly be
called irresistible. It would be impossible to enter |
into the question of style here, but the reader may |
be referred to the Introduction of Jowett, who has |
handled this subject very fully and satisfactorily. |
An equally strong argument may be drawn also |
from the matter contained in the Epistle. ‘Two in-
stances of this must suffice. In the first place, the |
fineness and delicacy of touch with which the |
Apostle’s relations towards his Thessalonian converts
are drawn—his yearning to see them, his anxiety
in the absence of Timothy, and his heartfelt re-
joicing at the good news—are quite beyond the reach
of the clumsy forgeries of the early Church. In
the second place, the writer uses language which,
however it may be explained, is certainly coloured
by the anticipation of the speedy advent of the
Lord—language natural enough on the Apostle’s
own lips, but quite inconceivable in a forgery
written after his death, when time had disappointed
these anticipations, and when the revival or mention
of them would serve no purpose, and might seem to
diseredit the Apostle. Such a position would be
an anachronism in a writer of the 2nd century.
The genuineness of this Epistle was first ques-
tioned by Schrader (Apostel Paulus), who was fol-
lowed by Baur (Paulus, p. 480). The latter
writer has elaborated and systematized the attack.
The arguments which he alleges in favour of his
view have already been anticipated to a great extent.
They are briefly controverted by Liinemann, and
more at length and with great fairness by Jowett.
The following is a summary of Baur’s arguments.
(i.) He attributes great weight to the general cha-
racter of the epistle, the difference of style, and espe-
cially the absence of distinctive Pauline doctrines—
a peculiarity which has already been remarked upon
and explained, § 2. (ii.) In the mention of the
“wrath” overtaking the Jewish people (ii. 16),
Baur sees an allusion to the destruction of Jeru-
salem, and therefore a proof of the later date of the
Epistle. The real significance of these words will
be considered below in discussing the apocalyptic
passage in the Second Epistle. (iii.) He urges the
contradictions to the account in the Acts—a strange
argument surely to be brought forward by Baur,
who postdates and discredits the authority of that
narrative. The real extent and bearing of these
divergences has been already considered. (iv.) He
discovers references to the Acts. which show that
the Epistle was written later. It has been seen
however that the coincidences are subtle and inci-
dental, and the points of divergence and prima
facie contradictions, which Baur himself allows, and
indeed insists upon, are so numerous as to preclude
the supposition or copying. Schleiermacher (Lin/. ins
N. 7. p. 150) rightly infers the independence of
the Epistle on these grounds. (v.) He supposes
passages in this Epistle to have been borrowed trom
the acknowledged letters of St. Paul. The resem-
blances however which he points out are not
greater than, or indeed so great as, those in other
Epistles, and bear no traces of imitation.
8. A list of the Patristic commentaries com-
prising the whole of St. Paul’s Epistles, will be
found in the article on the EPISTLE TO THE Ro-
MANS. To this list should be added the work of |
Theodore of Mopsuestia, a portion of which con-
1481
taining the shorter Epistles from Galatians onwards is
preserved in a Latin translation. The part relating
to the ‘Thessalonians is at present only accessible in
the compilation of Rabanus Maurus (where it is
quoted under the name of Ambrose), which ought
to be read with the corrections and additions given
by Dom Pitra (Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 133). This
commentary is attributed by Pitra to Hilary of
Poitiers, but its true authorship was pointed out by
Hort (Journal of Class. and Sacr. Phil. iv. p.
302). The portion of Cramer’s Catena relating to
this Epistle seems to be made up of extracts from
Chrysostom, Severianus, and Theodore of Mop-
suestia.
For the more important recent works on the
whole of St. Paul’s Epistles the reader may again
be referred to the article on the Epistle to the Ro-
mans. ‘The notes on the Thessalonians in Meyer’s
Commentary are executed by Liinemann. Of
special annotators on the Thessalonian Epistles, the
chief are, in Germany, Flatt (1829), Pelt (1830),
Schott (1834), and Koch (2nd ed. 1855, the First
Epistle alone), and in England Jowett (2nd ed.
1859) and Ellicott (2nd ed. 1862). ΠΡ ΒΡ Ive]
THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE
TO THE. 1. This Epistle appears to have been
written from Corinth not very long after the First,
for Silvanus and Timotheus were still with St.
Paul (i. 1). In the former letter we saw chiefly
the outpouring of strong personal affection, occa-
sioned by the renewal of the Apostle’s intercourse
with the Thessalonians, and the doctrinal and
hortatory portions are there subordinate. In the
Second Epistle, on the other hand, his leading
motive seems to have been the desire of correcting
errors in the Church of Thessalonica. We notice
two points especially which call forth his rebuke.
First, it seems that the anxious expectation of the
Lord’s advent, instead of subsiding, had gained
ground since the writing of the First Epistle. They
now looked upon this great crisis as imminent, and
their daily avocations were neglected in consequence.
There were expressions in the First Epistle which,
taken by themselves, might seem to favour this
view ; and at all events such was falsely represented
to be the Apostle’s doctrine. He now writes to
soothe this restless spirit and quell their apprehen-
sions by showing that many things must happen
first, and that the end was not yet, referring to
his. oral teaching at Thessalonica in confirmation of
this statement (ii. 1-12, iii. 6-12). Secondly, the
Apostle had also a personal ground of complaint.
His authority was not denied by any, but it was
tampered with, and an unauthorised use was made
of his name. It is difficult to ascertain the exact
circumstances of the case from casual and indirect
allusions, and indeed we may perhaps infer from
the vagueness of the Apostle’s own language that
he himself was not in possession of definite informa-~
tion; bnt at all events his suspicions were aroused.
Designing men might misrepresent his teaching. in
two ways, either by suppressing what he actually
had written or said, or by forging letters and in
other ways representing him as teaching what he
had not taught. St. Paul’s language hints in dif-
ferent places at both these modes of false dealing.
He seems to have entertained suspicions of this dis-
honesty even when he wrote the First Epistle. At
the close of that Epistle he binds the Thessalonians
by a solemn oath, ‘‘in the name of the Lord,” to
see that the Epistle is read “to all the holy
| brethren” (v. 27 )—a charge unintelligible in itself,
1482
and only to be explained by supposing some
misgivings in the Apostle’s mind. Before the
Second Epistle is written, his suspicions seem to
have been confirmed, for there are two passages
which allude to these misrepresentations of his
teaching. In the’ first of these he tells them in
vague language, which may refer equally well to a
false interpretation put upon his own words in the
First Epistle, or to a supplemental letter forged in
his name, “not to be troubled either by spirit or
by word or by letter, as coming from us, as if the
day of the Lord were at hand.’ They are not to
be deceived, he adds, by any one, whatever means
he employs (κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον, li. 2, 3). In the
second passage at the close of the Epistle he says, |
“The salutation of Paul with mine own hand,
which is a token in every Epistle: so I write τς
(iii. 17)—evidently a precaution against forgery.
With these two passages should be combined the
expression in iii. 14, from which we infer that he
now entertained a fear of direct opposition :—‘* If
any man obey not our word conveyed by our
Epistle, note that man.”
It will be seen tien that the teaching of the
Second Epistle is corrective of, or rather supple-
mental to, that of the First, and therefore presup-
poses it. Moreover, the First Epistle bears on its
face evidence that it is the first outpouring of his
affectionate yearnings towards his converts after his
departure from Thessalonica; while on the other
hand the Second Epistle contains a direct allusion
to a previous letter, which may suitably be referred
to the First:—“ Hold fast the tradition which ye
were taught either by word or by letter from us”
(ii. 15), We can scarcely be wrong therefore in
maintaining the received order of the two Epistles.
It is due however to the great names of Grotius
and of Ewald (Jahrb. iii. p. 250; Sendschr. p. 16)
to mention that they reverse the order, placing the
Second Epistle before the First in point of time—
on different grounds indeed, but both equally in-
sufficient to disturb the traditional order, supported
as it is by the considerations already alleged.
2. This Epistle, in the range of subject as well
as in style and general character, closely resembles
the First; and the remarks made on that Epistle
apply for the most part equally well to this. The
structure also is somewhat similar, the main body
of the Epistle being divided into two parts in the
same way, and each part closing with a prayer
(ii. 16, 17, iii. 16; both commencing with αὐτὸς
δὲ 6 Kvpios). The following is a table of con-
tents :-—
The opening salutation (i. 1, 2).
1. A general expression of thankfulness and inte-
yest, leading up to the diiliculty about the Lord’s
Advent (i. 3-ii. 17).
(1.) The Apostle pours forth his thanksgiving
for their progress in the faith; he encou-
yages them to be patient under persecu-
tion, reminding them of the judgment to
come, aud prays that they may be pre-
pared to meet it (i, 3-12).
(2.) He is thus led to correct the erroneous
idea that the judgment is imminent,
pointing out that much must happen
first (ii. 1-12). ‘
(3.) He repeats his thanksgiving and exhorta-
tion, and concludes this portion with a
prayer Gi. 13-17).
THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE
2. Direct exhortation (iii. 1-16).
(1.) He urges them to pray for him, and con-
fidently anticipates their progress in the
faith (iii. 1-5).
(2.) He reproves the idle, disorderly, and dis-
obedient, and charges the faithful to
withdraw from such (iii. 6-15).
This portion again closes with a prayer (iii. 16).
The Epistle ends with a special direction and bene-
diction (iii. 17, 18).
3. The external evidence in favour of the Second
Epistle is somewhat more definite than that which
can be brought in favour of the First. It seems to
be referred to in one or two passages of Polycarp
(iii. 15, in Polye. ὁ. 11, and possibly i. 4 in the
same chapter; cf. Polyc. c. 3, and see Lardner,
pt. ii. c. 6); and the language in which Justin
Martyr (Dial. p. 336 D) speaks of the Man of Sin
is so similar that it can scarcely be independent of
this Epistle. The Second Epistle, like the First, is
found in the canons of the Syriac and Old Latin
Versions, and in those of the Muratorian fragment
and of the heretic Marcion; is quoted expressly and
by name by Irenaeus and others at the close of the
second century, and was universally received by the
Church. The internal character of the Epistle too,
as in the former case, bears the strongest testimony
to its Pauline origin. (See Jowett, i. 143.)
Its genuineness in fact was never questioned
until the beginning of the present century. Objec-
tions were first started by Christ. Schmidt (Zi.
ins N. 1. 1804). He has been followed by Schrader
(Apostel Paulus), Kern ( Tiibing. Zeitschr. f. Theol.
1839, ii. p. 145), and Baur (Paulus der Apostel).
De Wette at first condemned this Epistle, but after-
wards withdrew his condemnation and frankly ac-
cepted it as genuine,
It will thus be seen that this Epistle has been
rejected by some modern critics who acknowledge
the First to be genuine. Such critics of course
attribute no weight to arguments brought against
the First, such as we have considered already. The
apocalyptic passage (ii. 1-12) is the great stumbling -
block to them. It has been objected to, either as
alluding to events subsequent to St. Paul’s death,
the Neronian persecution for instance ; or as betray-
ing religious views derived from the Montanism
of the second century; or lastly, as contradicting
St. Paul’s anticipations expressed elsewhere, espe-
cially in the First Epistle, of the near approach ot
the Lord’s advent. ‘(hat there is no reference to
Nero, we shall endeavour to show presently. That
the doctrine of an Antichrist did not start into
being with Montanism, is shown from the allusions
of Jewish writers even before the Christian era
(see Bertholdt, Christ. p. 69; Gfrérer, Jahrh. des
Feils, pt. ii. p. 257) ; and appears still more clearly
from the passage of Justin Martyr referred to in a
former paragraph. That the language used of the
Lord’s coming in the Second Epistle does not con-
tradict, but rather supplement the teaching of the
First—postponing the day indeed, but still antici-
pating its approach as probable within the Apostle’s
lifetime—may be gathered both from expressions
in the passage itself (e.g. ver. 7, “ is already
working”’), and from other parts of the Epistle
(i. 7,8). Other special objections to the Epistle
will scarcely command a hearing, and must neces-
sarily be passed over here.
4, The most striking feature in the Epistle is
this apocalyptic passage, announcing the revelation
THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE
of the “ Man of Sin” (ii. 1-12); and it will not be
irrelevant to investigate its meaning, bearing as it
does on the circumstances under which the Epistle
was written, and illustrating this aspect of the
Apostle’s teaching. He had dwelt much on the sub-
ject; for he appeals to the Thessalonians as knowing
this truth, and reminds them that he had told them
these things when he was yet with them.
(1.) The passage speaks of a great apostasy which
is to usher in the advent of Christ, the great judg-
ment. ‘here are three prominent figures in the
picture, Christ, Antichrist, and the Restrainer. An-
tichrist is described as the Man of Sin, the Son of
Perdition, as the Adversary who exalteth himself
above all that is called God, as making himself out
to be God. Later on (for apparently the reference
is the same) he is styled the “ mystery of lawlessness,”
“the lawless one.” The Restrainer is in one place
spoken of in the masculine as a person (6 κατέχων),
in another in the neuter as a power, an influence
(τὸ κατέχον). The “ mystery of lawlessness” is
already at work. At present it is checked by the
Restrainer ; but the check will be removed, and then
it will break out in all its violence. Then Christ
will appear, and the enemy shall be consumed by
the breath of His mouth, shall be brought to naught
by the splendour of His presence.
(Π1.) Many different explanations have been of-
fered of this passage. By one class of interpreters
it has been referred to circumstances which passed
within the circle of the Apostle’s own experience,
the events of his own lifetime, or the period im-
mediately following. Others again have seen in
it the prediction of a crisis yet to be realized, the
end of all things. The former of these, the Prae-
terists, have identified the “Man of Sin” with
divers historical characters—with Caligula, Nero,
Titus, Simon Magus, Simon son of Giora, the
high-priest Ananias, &c., and have sought for a
historical counterpart to the Restrainer in like man-
ner. The latter, the Futurists, have also given
various accounts of the Antichrist, the mysterious
power of evil which is already working, To Pro-
testants for instance it is the Papacy ; to the Greek
Church, Mohammedanism. And in the same way
each generation and each section in the Church has
regarded it as a prophecy of that particular power
which seemed to them and in their own time to be
most fraught with evil to the true faith. A good
account of these manifold interpretations will be
found in Liinemann’s Commentary on the Epistle,
Ρ. 204 ; Schlussbem. zu ii. 1-12. See also Alford,
Proleg.
(UI.) Now in arbitrating between the Praeterists
and the Futurists, we are led by the analogy of
other prophetic announcements, as well as by the
language of the passage itself, to take a middle
course, Neither is wholly right, and yet both are
to a certain extent right. It is the special charac-
teristic of prophecy to speak of the distant future
through the present and immediate. The persons
and events falling within the horizon of the pro-
phet’s own view, are the types and representatives
of greater figures and crises far off, and as yet but
dimly discerned. Thus the older prophets, while
speaking of a delivery from the temporary oppres-
sion of Egypt or Babylon, spoke also of Messiah's
kingdom. ‘hus our Lord himself, foretelling the
doom which was even then hanging over the holy
city, glances at the future judgment of the world as
typified and portrayed in this; and the two are so
interwoven that it is impossible to disentangle
1483
them. Following this analogy, we may agree with
the Praeterists that St. Panl is referring to events
which fell under his own cognizance ; for indeed the
Restrainer is said to be restraining now, and the
mystery of iniquity to be already working: while
at the same time we may accept the Futurist view,
that the Apostle is describing the end of all things,
and that therefore the prophecy has not yet re-
| ceived its most striking and complete fulfilment.
This commingling of the immediate and partial with
the final and universal manifestation of God’s judg-
ments, characteristic of all prophecy, is rendered
more easy in St. Paul’s case, because he seems to
have contemplated the end of all things as possibly,
or even probably, near at hand; and therefore the
particular manifestation of Antichrist, which he
witnessed with his own eyes, would naturally be
merged in and identified with the final Antichrist,
in which the opposition to the Gospel will cul-
minate.
(IV.) If this view be correct, it remains to inquire
what particular adversary of the Gospel, and what
particular restraining influence, St. Paul may have
had in view. But, before attempting to approximate
to an explanation, we may clear the way by laying
down two rules. First. The imagery of the passage
must be interpreted mainly by itself, and by the
circumstances of the time. ‘The symbols may be
borrowed in some cases from the Old Testament ;
they may reappear in other parts of the New. But
we cannot be sure that the same image denotes
exactly the same thing in both cases. The lan-
guage describing the Man of Sin is borrowed to some
extent from the representation of Antiochus Epi-
phanes in the Book of Daniel, but Antiochus cannot be
meant there, The great adversary in the Revelation
seems to be the Roman power; but it may be widely
different here. There were even in the Apostolic
age “many Antichrists;’? and we cannot be sure
that the Antichrist present to the mind of St. Paul
was the same with the Antichrist contemplated
by St. John. Secondly. In all figurative passages
it is arbitrary to assume that a person is denoted
where we find a personification, Thus the “ Man
of Sin” here need not be an individual man; it
may be a body of men, or a power, a spiritual in-
fluence. In the case of the Restrainer we seem to
have positive ground for so interpreting it, since in
one passage the neuter gender is used, ‘“‘ the thing
which restraineth” (τὸ κατέχον), as if syno-
nymous. (See Jowett’s Hssay On the Man of
Sin, i. p. 178, rather for suggestions as to the
mode of interpretation, than for the conclusion he
arrives at.)
(V.) When we inquire then, what St. Paul
had in view when he spoke of the ‘‘ Man of Sin”
and the Restrainer, we can only hope to get even
an approximate answer by investigating the cir-
cumstances of the Apostle’s life at this epoch.
Now we find that the chief opposition to the Gospel,
and especially to St. Paul’s preaching at this time
arose from the Jews. The Jews had conspired
against the Apostle and his companions at Thessa-
lonica, and he only saved himself by secret flight.
Thence they followed him to Beroea, which he
hurriedly left in the same way. At Corinth,
whence the letters to the Thessalonians were
written, they persecuted him still further, raising a
ery of treason against him, and bringing him before
the Roman proconsul. These incidents explain the
strong expressions he uses of them in these Epistles:
“They slew the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and per-
1484 THESSALONICA
secuted the Apostles ; they are hateful to God; they
are the common enemies of mankind, whom the
Divine wrath (7 ὀργή) at length overtakes” (1
Thess. ii. 15,16). With these facts in view, it
seems on the whole probable that the Antichrist is
represented especially by Judaism. With a pro-
phetic insight the Apostle foresaw, as he contem-
plated the moral and political condition of the race,
the approach of a great and overwhelming cata~
strophe. And it is not improbable that our Lord’s
predictions of the vengeance which threatened
Jerusalem blended with the Apostle’s vision, and
gave a colour to this passage. If it seem strange
that ““ lawlessness ” should be mentioned as the
distinguishing feature of those whose very zeal for
“the Law” stimulated their opposition to the
Gospel, we may appeal to our Lord’s own words
(Matt. xxiii. 28), describing the Jewish teachers:
“within they are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness
(ἀνομίας). Corresponding to this view of the
Antichrist, we shall probably be correct in regard-
ing the Roman Empire as the restraining power, for
so it was taken by many of the Fathers, though
without altogether understanding its bearing. It
was to Roman justice and Roman magistrates that
the Apostle had recourse at this time to shield him
from the enmity of the Jews, and to check their
violence. At Philippi, his Roman citizenship ex-
torted an ample apology for ill-treatment.
Thessalonica, Roman law secured him fair play.
At Corinth, a Roman proconsul acquitted him of
frivolous charges brought by the Jews. It was
only at a later date under Nero, that Rome became
the antagonist of Christendom, and then she also
in turn was fitly portrayed by St. John as the
type of Antichrist. Whether the Jewish opposition
to the Gospel entirely exhausted St. Paul’s con-
ception of the “‘ mystery of lawlessness ” as he saw
it ‘“‘already working’’ in his own day, or whether
other elements did not also combine with this to
complete the idea, it is impossible to say. More-
over at this distance of time and with our imper-
fect information, we cannot hope to explain the
exact bearing of all the details in the picture. But
following the guidance of history, we seem justified
in adopting this as a probable, though only a
partial, explanation of a very difficult passage.
5. A list of commentaries has been given in the
article on the First Epistle. [J. B. L.]
THESSALONI'CA (Θεσσαλονίκη). The ori-
ginal name of this city was Therma; and that part
of the Macedonian shore on which it was situated
(“ Medio flexu litoris sinus Thermaici,” Plin. 1. N.
iy. 10) retained through the Roman period the de-
signation of the Thermaic Gulf. The history of
the city under its earlier name was of no great note
(see Herod. vii. 128 seqq.; Thucyd. i. 61, ii. 29;
Aesch, De fals. Leg. p. 31). It vose into importance
with the decay of Greek nationality. Cassander
the son of Antipater rebuilt and enlarged it, and
named it after his wife Thessalonica, the sister of
Alexander the Great. The first author in which the
new appellation occurs is Polybius (xxiii. 4). The
name eyer since, under various slight moditications,
has been continuous, and the city itself has never
ceased to be eminent. Salontki (though Adrian-
* Timothy is not mentioned in any part of the direct
narrative of what happened at Thessalonica, though he
appears as St. Paul’s companion before at Philippi (Acts
Xvi. 1-13), and afterwards at Beroea (xvii. 14, 15); but
from his subsequent mission to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii.
At |
THESSALONICA
ople may possibly be larger) is still the most im-
portant town of European Turkey, next after Con-
stantinople.
Under the Romans, when MACEDONIA was divided
into four governments, Thessalonica was made the
capital of the second (Liv. xlv. 29); afterwards,
when the whole was consolidated into one province,
this city became practically the metropolis. Notices
of the place now become frequent. Cicero was here
in his exile (pro Planc. 41), and some of his letters
were written from hence during his journeys to
and from his own province of Cilicia. During
the first Civil War it was the head-quarters of the
Pompeian party and the Senate (Dion Cass. xli. 20).
During the second it took the side of Octavius
(Plut. Brut. 46; Appian, B. C. iv. 118), whence
apparently it reaped the honour and advantage of
being made a “free city’ (libera civitas, Plin.
ἰ. c.), a privilege which is commemorated on some
of its coins. Strabo in the first century speaks of
Thessalonica as the most populous city in Macedonia
(μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων εὐανδρεῖ), similar language
to which is used by Lucian in the second century
(Asin. 46).
Thus we are brought to St. Paul’s visit (with
Silas and Timothy) ἃ during his second missionary
journey, and to the introduction of Christianity
into Thessalonica. Three circumstances must here
be mentioned, which illustrate in an important man-
ner this visit and this journey, as well as the two
Epistles to the Thessalonians, which the Apostle
wrote from Corinth very soon after his departure
fiom his new Macedonian converts. (1.) This was
the chief station on the great Roman Road, called the
Via Egnatia, which connected Rome with the whole
region to the north of the Aegean Sea. St. Paul was
on this road at NEAPOLIS (Acts xvi. 11) and Pat-
LIPPI (xvi. 12-40), and his route from the latter
place (xvii. 1) had brought him through two of the
well-known minor stations mentioned in the Itine-
varies. [AMPHIPOLIS; APOLLONIA.] (2.) Placed
as it was on this great Road, and in connexion with
other important Roman ways (‘posita in gremio
imperii Romani,” to use Cicero’s words), ‘Thessa-
lonieca was an invaluable centre for the spread of
the Gospel. And it must be remembered that,
besides its inland communication with the rich
plains of Macedonia and with far more remote
regions, its maritime position made it a great empo-
rium of trade by sea. In fact it was nearly, if not
quite, on a-level with Corinth and Ephesus in its
share of the commerce of the Levant. Thus we see
the force of what St. Paul says in his First Epistle,
shortly after leaving Thessalonica—ad’ ὑμῶν ἐξή-
xnTat ὃ λόγος Tod Κυρίου ov μόνον ἐν τῇ Μακε-
δονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ (i. 8).
(3.) The circumstance noted in Acts xvii. 1, that
here was the synagogue of the Jews in this part of
Macedonia, had evidently much to do with the
Apostle’s plans, and also doubtless with his success.
Trade would inevitably bring Jews to Thessalo-
nica: and it is remarkable that, ever since, they
have had a prominent place in the annals of the
city. They are mentioned in the seventh century
during the Selavonic wars ; and again in the twelfth
by Eustathius and Benjamin of Tudela. In the
1-7; see Acts xviii. 5), and the mention of his name in
the opening salutation of both Epistles to the Thessalo-
nians, we can hardly doubt that he had been with the
Apostle throughout.
THESSALONICA 1485
Thessalonica.
fifteenth century there was a great influx of Spanish
Jews. At the present day the numbers of residents
m the Jewish quarter (in the south-east part of the
town) are estimated at 10,000 or 20,000, out of an
aggregate population of 60,000 or 70,000.
The first scene of the Apostle’s work at Thessa-
lonica was the Synagogue. According to his custom
he began there, arguing from the Ancient Scrip-
tures (Acts xvii. 2, 3): and the same general results
followed, as in other places. Some believed, both
Jews and proselytes, and it is particularly added,
that among these were many influential women
(ver. 4); on which the general body of the Jews,
stirred up with jealousy, excited the Gentile popu-
lation to persecute Paul and Silas (vers. 5-10). It
is stated that the ministrations among the Jews
continued for three weeks (ver. 2). Not that we
are obliged to limit to this time the whole stay of
the Apostles at Thessalonica. A flourishing Church
was certainly formed there: and the Epistles show
that its elements were much more Gentile than
Jewish. St. Paul speaks of the Thessalonians as
having turned “ from idols ;”’ and he does not here,
as in other Epistles, quote the Jewish Scriptures.
In all respects it is important to compare these two
letters with the narrative in the Acts; and such
references have the greater freshness from the short
interval which elapsed between visiting the Thessa-
lonians and writing to them. Such expressions as
ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ (1 Thess. i. 6), and ἐν πολλῷ
ἀγῶνι (ii. 2), sum up the suffering and conflict: |
which Paul and Silas and their converts went through
at Thessalonica. (See also 1 Thess. ii. 14,15, iii. 3, 4;
2 Thess. i. 4-7.) The persecution took place through |
the instrumentality of worthless idlers (τῶν ἀγο-
ραίων ἄνδρας τινὰς πονηρούς, Acts xvii. 5), who,
instigated by the Jews, raised a tumult. The house
of Jason, with whom the Apostles seem to have been
residing, was attacked; they themselves were not
found, but Jason was brought before the authorities
on the accusation that the Christians were trying
| to set up a new King in opposition to the Emperor ;
a guarantee (τὸ ἱκανόν) was taken from Jason and
others for the maintenance of the peace, and Paul
and Silas were sent away by night southwards to
Berowa (Acts xvii, 5-10). The particular charge
brought against the Apostles receives an illustra-
tion from the Epistles, where the kingdom of Christ
is prominently mentioned (1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess.
i. 5). So again, the doctrine of the Resurrection is
conspicuous both in St. Luke’s narrative (xvii. 3),
and in the first letter (i. 10,iv. 14,16). If we pass
from these points to such as are personal, we are
enabled from the Epistles to complete the picture of
St. Paul’s conduct and attitude at Thessalonica, as
regards his love, tenderness, and zeal, his care of
individual souls, and his disinterestedness (see 1
Thess. i. 5, ii. 1-10). As to this last point, St.
Paul was partly supported here by contributions
from Philippi (Phil. iv. 15, 16), partly by the
labour of his own hands, which he diligently prac-
tised for the sake of the better success of the Gospel,
and that he might set an example’to the idle and
|selfish. (He reters very expressly to what he had
said and done at Thessalonica in regard to this
point. See 1 Thess. 1]. 9, ἵν. 11; comparing 2 Thess.
iii, 8-12.) [THEssaLONIANS, Epistles T0.] To
complete the account of St. Paul’s connexion with
Thessalonica, it must be noticed that he was cer-
tainly there again, though the name of the city
is not specitied, on his third missionary journey,
both in going and returning (Acts xx. 1-3). Pos-
|sibly he was also there again, after his libera-
‘tion from his first imprisonment. See Phil. i. 25,
26, ii. 24, for the hope of revisiting Macedonia,
entertained by the Apostle at Rome, and 1 Tim.
i. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Tit. iii, 12, for subsequent
journeys in the neighbourhood of Thessalonica.
Of the first Christians of Thessalonica, we are able
to specify by name the above-mentioned Jason (who
may be the same as the Apostle’s own kinsman men-
tioned in Rom. xvi. 21), Demas (at least conjec-
1486 THESSALONICA
turally; see 2 Tim. iv. 10), Gaius, who shared
some of St. Paul’s perils at Ephesus (Acts xix. 29),
Secundus (who accompanied him from Macedonia
to Asia on the eastward route of his third missionary
journey, and was probably concerned in the business
of the collection; see Acts xx. 4), and especially
Aristarchus (who, besides being mentioned, here
with Secundus, accompanied St. Paul on his voyage
to Rome, and had therefore probably been with him
during the whole interval, and is also specially re-
ferred to in two of the Epistles written during the
first Roman imprisonment. See Acts xxvii.
Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; also Acts xix. 29, for his
association with the Apostle at Ephesus in the ear-
lier part of the third journey).
We must recur, however, to the narrative in the
Acts, for the purpose of noticing a singularly accu-
rate illustration which it affords of the political
constitution of Thessalonica. Not only is the demus
mentioned (τὸν δῆμον. Acts xvii. 5) in harmony
with what has been above said of its being a “ free
city,” but the peculiar title, politarchs (moArtdpxas,
ib. 6), of the chief magistrates. This term occurs
in no other writing; but it may be read to this
day conspicuously on an arch of the early Imperial
times, which spans the main street of the city.
From this inscription it would appear that the
number of politarchs was seven. ‘The whole may
be ‘seen in boeckh, Corp. Insc. No. 1967.
This seems the right place for noticing the other
remains at THessalonica. The arch first mentioned
(called the Vardar gate) is at the western extremity
of the town. At its eastern extremity is another
Roman arch of later date, and probably commemorat-
ing some victory of Constantine. The main street,
which both these arches cross, and which intersects
the city from east to west, is undoubtedly the line
of the Via Egnatia. Near the course of this street,
and between the two arches, are four Corinthian
columns supporting an architrave, and believed by
some to have belonged to the Hippodrome, which is
so famous in connection with the history of Theo-
dosius. Two of the mosques have been anciently
heathen temples. The city walls are of late Greek
construction, but resting on a much older foundation,
with hewn stones of immense thickness. The castle
contains the fragments of a shattered triumphal
arch, erected in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
A word must be said, in conclusion, on the later
ecclesiastical history of Thessalonica. For during
several centuries this city was the bulwark, not
simply of the later Greek Empire, but of Oriental
Christendom, and was largely instrumental in the
conversion of the Slavonians and Bulgarians. Thus
it received the designation of ‘‘ the Orthodox City ;”
and its struggles are very prominent in the writings
of the Byzantine historians. Three conspicuous
passages are, its capture by the Saracens, A.D. 904
(Jo. Cameniata, De Excidio Thessalonicensi, with
Theophanes Continuatus, 1838); by the Crusaders
in 1185 (Nicetas Choniates, De Andron. Comneno,
1835; also Eustath. De Thessalonica a Latinis
captad, in the same vol. with Leo Grammaticus,
1842); and finally by the Turks under Amurath
II. in 1430 (Jo. Anagnostes, De Thessalonicensi
Excidio Narratio, with Phrantzes and Cananus,
1838). The references ave to the Bonn editions.
A yery large part of the population at the present
9.
aaa
a It may not be amiss to remind the reader of some fine
remarks, in illustration of Luke’s historical accuracy, in
Tholuck’s Glaubwiirdigheit der Evang. Geschichte, pp.
THEUDAS
day is Greek; and Thessalonica may still be destined
to take a prominent part in strugsles connected
with nationality and religion.
The travellers to whom it is most important to
refer, as having given full accounts of this place,
are Clarke (Zravels in Europe, &c., 1810-1823),
Sir H. Holland (Travels in the Lonian Isles, &c.,
1815), Cousinéry ( Voyage dans la Macédoine,
1831), and Leake (Northern Greece, 1835), An
antiquarian essay on the subject by the Abbé Belley
will be found in the Mémoires de ? Académie des
Inscriptions, tom. xxxviii. Sect. Hist. pp. 121-146.
But the most elaborate work is that of Tafel, the
first part of which was published at Tiibingen in
1835. This was afterwards reprinted as “ Prole-
gomena” to the Dissertatio de Thessulonica ejusque
Agro Geographico, Berlin, 1859. With this should
be compared his work on the Via Egnatia. The
Commentaries on the Epistles to the Thessalonians
of course contain useful compilations on the subject.
Among these, two of the most copious are those of
Koch (Berlin, 1849) and Liinemann (Géttingen,
1850). PIS eet
Coin of Thessalonica.
THEU'DAS (Θευδᾶς : Theodas: and probably
=M7)A), the name of an insurgent mentioned in
ee
Gamaliel’s speech before the Jewish council (Acts
v. 35-39) at the time of the arraignment of the
Apostles. He appeared, according to Luke’s ac-
count, at the head of about four hundred men; he
sought not merely to lead the people astray by false
doctrine, but to accomplish his designs by violence;
he entertained a high conceit of himself (λέγων
εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν) ; was slain at last (ἀνῃρέθη),
and his party was dispersed and brought to nothing
(διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο eis οὐδέν). Josephus
(Ant. xx. 5, §1) speaks of a Theudas who played a
similar part in the time of Claudius, about A.p. 44,
z.e@. some ten or twelve years at least later than
the delivery of Gamaliel’s speech; and since Luke
places his Theudas, in the order of time, before
Judas the Galilean, who made his appearance soon
after the dethronement of Archelatis, 7. 6. A.D. 6 or
7 (Jos. B. J. ii. 8, §1; Ant. xviii. 1, §6, xx. 5, §2),
it has been charged that the writer of the Acts
either fabricated the speech put into the mouth of
Gamaliel, or has wrought into it a transaction
which took place thirty years or more after the
time when it is said to have occurred (see Zeller,
Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 132, seq.). Here we
may protest, at the outset, against the injustice of
hastily imputing to Luke so gross an error; for
having established his character in so many deci-
sive instances in which he has alluded, in the
course of the Acts, to persons, places, customs, and
events in sacred and profane history, he has a right
to the presumption that he was well informed also
as to the facts in this particular passage. Every
principle of just criticism demands that, instead of
161-177, 375-389. See also Ebrard, Hvangelische Kritik,
pp. 678, sq.; and Lechler, Das Apostolische Zeitalter,
pp. 6, sq.
THEUDAS
THIEVES, THE TWO 1487
distrusting him as soon as he goes beyond our means 1 himself up as king, and in that way acquired his
of verification, we should avail ourselves of any
supposition for the purpose of upholding his credi-
bility which the conditions of the case will allow.
Various ‘solutions of the difficulty have been
offered. The two following have been suggested as
especially commending themselves by their fulfil-
ment of every reasonable requisition, and as ap-
proved by learned and judicious men:—(1.) Since
Luke represents Theudas as having preceded Judas
the Galilean [see vol. i. p. 1160], it is certain that
he could not have appeared later, at all events,
than the latter part of the reign of Herod the Great.
The very year, now, of that monarch’s death was
remarkably turbulent ; the land was overrun with
belligerent parties, under the direction of insurrec-
tionary chiets or fanatics. Josephus mentions but
three of these disturbers by name; he passes over
the others with a general allusion. Among those
whom the Jewish historian has omitted to name,
may have been the Theudas whom Gamaliel cites
as an example of unsuccessful innovation and in-
subordination. The name was not an uncommon
one (Winer, Realwb. ii. 609); and it can excite
no surprise that one Theudas, who was an in-
surgent, should have appeared in the time of Au-
gustus, and another, fifty years later, in the time of
Claudius. As analogous to this supposition is the
fact that Josephus gives an account of four men
named Simon, who followed each other within forty
years, and of three named Judas, within ten years,
who were all instigators of rebellion. This mode of
reconciling Luke with Josephus is affirmed by
Lardner (Credibility, vol. i. p. 429), Bengel,
Kuinoel, Olshausen, Anger (de Teimpp. in Act.
Apost. Ratione, p. 185), Winer, and others.
(2.) Another explanation (essentially different
only as proposing to identify the person) is, that
Luke’s Theudas may have been one of the three in-
surgents whose names are mentioned by Josephus
in connexion with the disturbances which took place
about the time of Herod’s death. Sonntag ( Theol.
Stud. u. Kritik. 1837, p. 622, &c.) has advanced
this view, and supported it with much learning and
ability. He argues that the Theudas referred to by
Gamaliel is the individual who occurs in Josephus
under the name of Simon (B. J. ii. 4, 82; Ant.
xvii. 10, §6), a slave of Herod, who attempted to
make himself king, amid the confusion which at-
tended the vacancy of the throne when that monarch
died. He urges the following reasons for that
opinion: first, this Simon, as he was the most noted
among those who disturbed the public peace at that
time, would be apt to occur to Gamaliel as an illus-
tration of his point; secondly, he is described as a
man of the same lofty pretensions (εἶναι ἄξιος
ἐλπίσας παρ᾽ ὅντινοῦν -- λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν);
thirdly, he died a violent death, which Josephus
does not mention as true of the other two insur-
gents; fourthly, he appears to have had compara-
tively few adherents, in conformity with Luke’s
ὡσεὶ τετρακοσίων ; and, lastly, his having been
originally a slave accounts for the twofold appella-
tion, since it was very common among the Jews to
assume a different name on changing their occupa-
tion or mode of life. It is very possible, therefore,
that Gamaliel speaks of him as Theudas, because,
having borne that name so Jong at Jerusalem, he
was best known by it to the members of the San-
hedrim ; and that Josephus, on the contrary, who
wrote for Romans and Greeks, speaks of him as
Simon, because it was under that name that he set
foreign notoriety (see Tacit. Hist, v. 9).
There can be no valid objection to either of the
foregoing suppositions: both are reasonable, and
both must be disproved before Luke can be justly
charged with having committed an anachronism in
the passage under consideration. So impartial a
witness as Jost, the historian of the Jews ((e-
schichte der Israeliten, ii. Anh. p. 76), admits the
reasonableness of such combinations, and holds in
this case to the credibility of Luke, as well as that
of Josephus. The considerate Lardner (Credibility,
vol. i. p. 433), therefore, could well say here, ‘“ In-
deed I am surprised that any learned man should
find it hard to believe that there were two impostors
of the name of Theudas in the compass of forty
years.” It is hardly necessary to advert to other
modes of explanation. Josephus was by no means
infallible, as Strauss and critics of his school may
almost be said to take for granted ; and it is possible
certainly (this is the position of some) that Jose-
phus himself may have misplaced the time of
Theudas, instead of Luke, who is charged with that
oversight. Calvin’s view that Judas the Galilean
appeared not after but before Theudas (μετὰ
τοῦτον =insuper vel praeterea), and that the ex-
amination of the Apostles before the Sanhedrim
occurred in the time of Claudius (contrary to the
manifest chronological order of the Acts), deserves
mention only as a waymark of the progress which
has been made in Biblical exegesis since his time.
Among other writers, in addition to those already
mentioned, who have discussed this question or
touched upon it, are the following :—Wieseler,
Chronologie der Apost. Zeitalters, 138: Neander,
Geschichte der Pflanzung, i. 75, 763; Guerike,
Beitrdge zur Hinleit. ins N. Test. 90; Baum-
garten, Apostelgeschichte, i. 114; Lightfoot, Hor.
Hebr. ii. 704; Biscoe, History of the Acts, 428;
‘and Wordsworth’s Commentary, ii. 26.
[H. B. H.]
THIEVES, THE TWO. The men who under
this name appear in the history of the crucifixion
were robbers (λῃσταί) rather than thieves (κλε-
mal), belonging to the lawless bands by which
Palestine was at that time and afterwards infested
(Jos. Ant. xvii. 10, §8, xx. 8, §10). Against these
brigands every Roman procurator had to wage con~
tinual war (Jos. B. J. ii. 13, 82). The parable
of the Good Samaritan shows how common it was
for them to attack and plunder travellers even on
the high road from Jerusalem to Jericho (Luke x.
30). It was necessary to use an armed police to
encounter them (Luke xxii. 52). Often, as in the
case of Barabbas, the wild robber life was connected
with a fanatic zeal for freedom, which turned the
marauding attack into a popular insurrection (Mark
xy. 7). For crimes such as these the Romans had
but one sentence. Crucifixion was the penalty at
once of the robber and the rebel (Jos. B. J. il.
13, §2). }
Of the previous history of the two who suffered
on Golgotha we know nothing. They had been
tried and condemned, and were waiting their execu-
tion before our Lord was accused. It is probable
enough, as the death of Barabbas was clearly ex-
pected at the same time, that they were among the
συστασιασταί who had been imprisoned with him,
and had taken part in the insurrection in which
zeal, and hate, and patriotism, and lust of plunder
were mingled in wild confusion.
They had expected to die with Jesus Barabbas.
1488 THIEVES, THE TWO
[Comp. BARABBAS.} They find themselves with
one who bore the same name, but who was described
in the superscription on his cross as Jesus of Naza-
reth. They could hardly fail to have heard some-
thing of his fame as a prophet, of his triumphal
entry asa king. They now find him sharing the
same fate as themselves, condemned on much the
same charge (Luke xxiii. 5). They too would bear
their crosses to the appointed place, while He tainted
by the way. Their garments would be parted
among the soldiers. For them also there would be
the drugged wine, which He refused, to dull the
sharp pain of the first hours on the cross. They
catch at first the prevailing tone of scorn. A king
of the Jews who could neither save himself nor
help them, whose followers had not even fought
for him (John xviii. 36), was strangely unlike the
many chieftains whom they had probably known
claiming the same title (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10, §8),
strangely unlike the “ notable prisoner” for whom
they had not hesitated, it would seem, to incur the
yisk of bloodshed. But over one of them there
came a change. ‘The darkness which, at noon, was
beginning to steal over the sky awed him, and the
divine patience and silence and meekness of the
sufferer touched him. He looked back upon his
past life, and saw an infinite evil. He looked to
the man dying on the cross beside him, and saw an
infinite compassion. There indeed was one unlike all
other ** kings of the Jews” whom tke robber had
ever known. Such an one must be all that He had
claimed to be. Te be forgotten by that king seems
to him now the most terrible of all punishments ;
to take part in the triumph of His return, the most
blessed of all hopes. ‘he yearning prayer was
answered, not in the letter, but in the spirit. To
him alone, of all the myriads who had listened to
Him, did the Lord speak of Paradise [comp. Para-
DISE], waking with that word the thoughts of a
purer past and the hopes of an immediate rest.
But its joy was to be more than that of fair groves
and pleasant streams. ‘*Thou shalt be with me.”
He should be remembered there.
We cannot wonder that a history of such won-
derful interest should at all times have fixed itself
on men’s minds, and led them to speculate and ask
questions which we have no data to answer. The
simplest and truest way of looking at it has been
that of those who, from the great Alexandrian
thinker (Origen, in Rom. iii.) to the writer of the
most popular hymn of our own times, have seen in
the ‘dying thief” the first great typical instance
that ‘‘a man is justified by faith without the deeds
of the law.”’ Even those whose thoughts were less
deep and wide acknowledged that in this and other
like cases the baptism of blood supplied the place
of the outward sign of regeneration (Hilar. De
Trinit.c. x.; Jerome, Ep. xiii.). The logical spe-
culations of the Pelagian controversy overclouded,
in this as in other instances, the clear judgment
of Augustine. Maintaining the absolute necessity
of baptism to salvation, he had to discuss the ques-
tion whether the penitent thief had been baptised
or not, and he oscillates, with melancholy indecision,
between the two answers. At times he is disposed
to rest contented with the solution which had satis-
fed others. Then again he ventures on the con-
jecture that the water which sprang forth from the
pierced side had sprinkled him, and so had been a
sufficient baptism. Finally, yielding to the inex-
orable logic of a sacramental theory, he rests in the
assumption that he probably had been baptised
THIMNATHAH
before, either in his prison or before he entered on
his robber-life (comp. De Anima, i. 11, iii. 12;
Serm. de Temp. 1303; Retract. i. 26, ii. 18, 55).
Other conjectures turn more on the cireum-
stances of the history. Bengel, usually acute, here
overshoots the mark, and finds in the Lord’s words
to him, dropping al! mention of the Messianic king-
dom, an indication that the penitent thief was a
Gentile, the impenitent a Jew, and that thus the
scene on Calvary was typical of the position of the
two Churches (Gnomon N. T. in Luke xxiii.). Stier
(Words of the Lord Jesus, in loc.) reads in the
words of reproof (οὐδὲ φοβῇ σὺ τὸν θεὸν) the lan-
guage of one who had all along listened with grief
and horror to the revilings of the multitude, the
burst of an indignation previously suppressed. The
Apocryphal Gospels, as usual, do their best to lower
the divine history to the level of a legend. They
follow the repentant robber into the unseen world.
He is the first to enter Paradise of all mankind.
Adam and Seth and the patriarchs find him already
there bearing his cross. Michael the archangel had
led him to the gate, and the fiery sword had turned
aside to let him pass (Hvang. Nicod. ii. 10).
Names were given to the two robbers. Demas or
Dismas was the penitent thief, hanging on the
right, Gestas the impenitent on the left (Hvang.
Nicod. i.10; Narrat. Joseph. ec. 3). The ery of
entreaty is expanded into a long wordy prayer
(Narr. Jos. 1. c.), and the promise suffers the same
treatment. The history of the Infancy is made
prophetic of that of the Crucifixion, The holy
family, on their fight to Egypt, come upon a band
of robbers. One of them, ‘Titus (the names are
different here), has compassion, purchases the silence
of his companion, Dumachus, and the infant Christ
prophesies that after thirty years Titus shall be
crucified with him, and shall go before him into
Paradise (Hvang. Infant. c. 23). ‘As in other
instances [comp. Maci], so in this, the fancy of
inventors seems to have been fertile in names.
Bede (Collectan.) gives Matha and Joca as those
which prevailed in his time. The name given in
the Gospel of Nicodemus has, however, kept its
ground, and St. Dismas takes his place in the
hagiology of the Syrian, the Greek, and the Latin
Churches.
All this is, of course, puerile enough. The
captious objections to the narrative of St. Luke as
inconsistent. with that of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
and the inference drawn from them that both are
more or less legendary, are hardly less puerile
(Strauss, Leben Jesu, ii. 519; Ewald, Christus,
Gesch. v. 438). The obvious answer to this is
that which has been given by Origen (Hom. 35
in Matt.), Chrysostom (Hom. 88 in Matt.), and
others (comp. Suicer, s.v. λῃστής). Both began
by reviling. One was subsequently touched with
sympathy and awe. The other explanation, given
by Cyprian (De Passione Domini), Augustine (De
Cons. Evang. iii. 16), and others, which forces
the statement of St. Matthew and St. Mark into
agreement with that of St. Luke by assuming a
synecdoche, or syllepsis, or enallage, is, it is be-
lieved, far less satisfactory. The technical word
does but thinly veil the contradiction which this
hypothesis admits but does not explain. [E. H. P.]
THIMNA'THAH (ANIA : Θαμναθά; Alex.
Oauva: Themnatha). A town in the allotment of
Dan (Josh. xix. 43 only). It is named between
Elon and Ekron. The name is the same as that of
THISBE
the residence of Samson’s wife (inaccurately given
in A. V. Tumnan) ; but the position of that place,
which seems to agree with the modern Tibneh
below Zareah, is not so suitable, being fully ten
miles from Ahir, the representative of Ekron.
Timnah appears to have been almost as common a
name as Gibeah, and it is possible that there may
have been another in the allotment of Dan besides
that represented by Zibneh. [G.]
THIS'BE (Θίσβη, or Θίβη). A name found
only in Tob. i. 2, as that of a city of Naphtali from
which Tobit’s ancestor had been carried captive
by the Assyrians. The real interest of the name
resides in the fact that it is maintained by some
interpreters (Hiller, Onom. 236, 947; Reland, Pal.
1035) to be the place which had the glory of giving
%
THOMAS 1489
birth to ELIJAH THE TIsHBITE. This, however,
is, at the best, very questionable, and derives its
main support from the fact that the word employed
in 1 K. xvii. 1 to denote the relation of Elijah to
Gilead, if pointed as it now stands in the Received
Hebrew Text, signifies that he was not a native of
Gilead but merely a resident there, and came ori-
ginally from a different and foreign district. But it
is also possible to point the word so that the sentence
shall mean “ from Tishbi of Gilead,’’ in which case
all relation between the great Prophet and Thisbe of
Naphtali at once falls to the ground. [See TisHBITE. ]
There is however a truly singular variation in the
texts of the passage in Tobit, a glance at which will
show how hazardous it is to base any definite topo-
graphical conclusions upon it :—
Ais Vi VULGATE. 1ΧΧ.
Out of Thisbe which Out of the tribe
Out of Thisbe
Vetus Latina.
REVISED GREEK TEXT,
Out of Thibe which , Out of the city of Bihil
is at the right hand | and city of Neph-| which is at the/is at the right hand} which is on the right
of that city which is | thali which is in|right hand οἵ οἵ Kudién of Neph-| hand of Edisse, a city of
called properly Neph- the upper parts) Kudids of Neph-| thaleim in Upper Ga- | Nephthalim in Upper Ga-
thaliin Galilee above οἵ Galilee above | thaleim in Gali-/|lilee above Asser, be- | lilee over against Naason,
Aser.* [Marg. or | Naasson,
Kedesh of Nephthali | the road which
in Galilee, Judg. iv. | leads to the west,
6.] having on _ the
left hand the city
of Sephet.
* 3.e. probably,
Hazor.
behind | lee above Aser.
hind the setting sun| behind the road which
on the right of Pho-| leads to the west on the
gor (Peor). left of Raphain.
[Another MS, reads Ge-
briel, Cydiscus, and Ra-
phaim, for Bihil, Edisse,
and Raphain.]}
Assuming that Thisbe, and not Thibe, is the cor- |
rect reading of the name, it has been conjectured
(apparently for the first time by Keil, Comm. ἐδ
die Kénige, 247) that it originated in an erroneous
rendering of the Hebrew word ‘AWM, which word
in fact occurs in thé Hebrew version of the passage,
and may be pointed in two ways, so as to mean either
“from the inhabitants of,” or “ from Tishbi,” 7. 6.
Thisbe. The reverse suggestion, in respect of the
same word in 1 K. xvii. 1, has been already alluded
to. [TisHptre.] But this, though very ingenious,
and quite within the bounds of possibility, is at
present a mere conjecture, since none of the texts sup-
port it, and there is no other evidence in its favour.
No name resembling Thisbe or Thibe has been
yet encountered in the neighbourhood of Acdes or
Safed, but it seems impossible to suppose that the
minute definition of the Latin and Revised Greek
Texts—equalled in the sacred books only by the
well-known description of the position of, Shiloh in
Judg. xxi. 19— can be mere invention. [G.]
THISTLE. [Txorns and TuisrLes.]
THOM’'AS (Θωμᾶς : Thomas), one of the Apos-
tles. According to Eusebius (H. 2. i, 13) his real
name was Judas. This may have been a mere confu-
sion with Thaddaeus, who is mentioned in the extract.
But it may also be that Thomas was a surname.
The word SONN, Zhoma,* means “a twin ;” and so
it is translated in John xi. 16, xxi. 2, 6 δίδυμος.
Out of this name has grown the tradition that he
had a twin-sister, Lydia (Patres Apost. p. 272),
or that he was a twin-brother of our Lord (Thilo,
Acta Thomae, p. 94); which last, again, would
2 In Cant. vii. 4, it is simply ON, .exactly our
“Tom.” The frequency of the name in England is de-
rived not from the Apostle, but from St. Thomas of
Canterbury.
VOl. Τὶ.
confirm his identification with Judas (comp. Matt.
xiii. 55).
He is said to have been born at Antioch (Patres
Apost. pp. 272, 512).
In the catalogue of the Apostles he is coupled
with Matthew in Matt. x. 3, Mark iii. 18, Luke
vi. 15, and with Philip in Acts i. 13.
All that we know of him is derived from the
Gospel of St. John ; and this amounts to three traits,
which, however, so exactly agree together, that,
slight as they are, they place his character before us
with a precision which belongs to no other of the
twelve Apostles, except Peter, John, and Judas
Iscariot. ‘This character is that of a man, slow to
believe, seeing all the difficulties of a case, subject
to despondency, viewing things on the darker side,
and yet full of ardent love for his Master.
The first trait is his speech when our Lord deter-
mined to face the dangers that awaited Him in Judaea
on his journey to Bethany. Thomas said to his fellow-
disciples, ‘* Let us also go (καὶ ἡμεῖς) that we may
die with Him” (John xi. 16). He entertained no
hope of His escape—he looked on the journey as
leading to total ruin; but he determined to share
the peril. ‘Though He slay me, yet will I trust
in Him.”
The second was his speech during the Last Supper.
“*' Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not
whither thou goest, and how can we know the way ”
(xiv. 5)? It was the prosaic, incredulous doubt as
to moving a step in the unseen future, and yet an
eager inquiry to know how this step was to be taken.
The third was after the Resurrection. He was
absent—possibly by accident, perhaps characteristi-
cally—from the first assembly when Jesus had ap-
peared. ‘The others told him what they had seen.
He broke forth into an exclamation, the terms of
which convey to us at once the vehemence of his
doubt, and at the same time the vivid picture that
Ὁ
1490 THOMAS
his mind retained of his Master’s form as he had
last seen Him lifeless on the cross. ‘ Except I see
in his hands the print of the nails, and put my
finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my
hand into his side, I will not, I cannot, believe”
(ov μὴ πιστεύσω), John xx. 25.
On the eighth day he was with them at their
gathering, perhaps in expectation of a recurrence
of the visit of the previous week ; and Jesus stood
amongst them. He uttered the same salutation,
* Peace be unto you;” and then turning to Thomas,
as if this had been the special object of His appearance,
uttered the words which convey as strongly the sense
of condemnation and tender reproof, as those of
Thomas had shown the sense of hesitation and
doubt. ‘‘ Bring thy finger hither [@Se—as if Him-
self pointing to His wounds] and see my hands ;
and bring thy hand and thrust it in my side; and
do not become (μὴ γίνου) unbelieving (ἄπιστος),
but believing (πιστός). ‘* He answers to the words
that Thomas had spoken to the ears of his fellow-
disciples only ; but it is to the thought of his heart
rather than to the words of his lips that the
Searcher of hearts answers. ... . Kye, ear, and
touch, at once appealed to, and at once satisfied—
the form, the look, the voice, the solid and actual
body: and not the senses only, but the mind satis-
fied too; the knowledge that searches the very reins
and the hearts; the love that loveth to the end,
infinite and eternal’’ (Arnold’s Serm. vi, 238).
The eftect >» on Thomas is*immediate. The con-
viction produced by the removal of his doubt became
deeper and stronger than that of any of the other
Apostles. The words in which he expressed his
belief contain a far higher assertion of his Master’s
divine nature than is contained in any other ex-
pression used by Apostolic lips, ‘“* My Lord, and my
God.” Some have supposed that κύριος refers to
the human, θεός to the divine nature. ‘This is too
artificial. It is more to the point to observe the
exact terms of the sentence, uttered (as it were) in
astonished awe. “It is then my Lord and my
God!”e And the word “my” gives it a personal
application to himself. Additional emphasis is
given to this declaration from its being the last
incident narrated in the direct narrative of the
Gospel (before the supplement of ch. xxi.), thus
corresponding to the opening words of the pro-
logue. “Thus Christ was acknowledged on earth
to be what St. John had in the beginning of his
Gospel declared Him to be from all eternity; and
the words of Thomas at the end of the 20th chapter
do but repeat the truth which St. John had stated
before in his own words at the beginning of the
first” (Arnold’s Serm. vi. 401).
The answer of our Lord sums up the moral of
the whole narrative: ‘* Because? thou hast seen me,
thou hast believed: blessed are they that have
not seen me, and yet have believed”? (xx. 29).
By this incident, therefore, Thomas, ‘the Doubt-
ing Apostle,” is raised at once to the Theologian in
the original sense of the word. ‘* Ab eo dubitatum
est,” says Augustine, “ne a nobis dubitaretur.”
It is this feature of his character which has been
caught in later ages, when for the first time its
peculiar lesson became apparent. In the famous
Ὁ It is useless to speculate whether he obeyed our
Lord’s invitation to examine the wounds. ‘The im-
pression is that he did not.
ὁ It is obviously of no dogmatic importance whether
the words are an address or a description. That they are
THORNS AND THISTLES
statue of him by Thorwaldsen in the church at
Copenhagen, he stands, the thoughtful, meditative
sceptic, with the rule in his hand for the due
measuring of evidence and argument. This scene
was one of the favourite passages of the English
theologian who in this century gave so great an
impulse to the progress of free inquiry combined
with fervent belief, of which Thomas is so remark-
able an example. Two discourses on this subject
occur in Dr, Arnold’s published volumes of Ser-
mons (v. 312, vi. 233). Amongst the last words
which he repeated before his own sudden death
(Life and Correspondence, 7th ed. 617) was the
blessing of Christ on the faith of Thomas.
In the N. T. we hear of Thomas only twice again,
once on the Sea of Galilee with the seven disciples,
where he is ranked next after Peter (John xxi. 2),
and again in the assemblage of the Apostles after
the Ascension (Acts i. 13).
The close of his life is filled with traditions or
legends ; which, as not resting on Biblical grounds,
may be briefly despatched.
The earlier traditions, as believed in the 4th cen-
tury (Eus. H. #. i. 13, iii. 1; Socrat. H. Ε΄. i. 19),
represent him as preaching in Parthia or Persia,
and as finally buried at Edessa (Socr. H. 1. iv. 18).
Chrysostom mentions his grave at Edessa, as being
one of the four genuine tombs of Apostles; the
other three being Peter, Paul, and John (Hom. in
Heb, 26). With his burial at Edessa agrees the
story of his sending Thaddaeus to Abgarus with
our Lord’s letter (Hus. H. #.i. 13).
The later traditions carry him further East, and
ascribe to him the foundation of the Christian Church
in Malabar, which still goes by the name of ‘the
Christians of St. Thomas; ” and his tomb is shown
in the neighbourhood. This, however, is now usually
regarded as arising from a confusion with a later
Thomas, a missionary from the’ Nestorians.
His martyrdom (whether in Persia or India) is
said to have been occasioned by a lance; and is
commemorated by the Latin Church on Dee. 21,
by the Greek Church on Oct. 6, and by the Indians
on July 1.
(For these traditions and their authorities, see
Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Dec. 21). An apocry-
phal ‘‘ Gospel of Thomas” (chiefly relating to the
Infancy) is published in Tischendorf’s Hvangelia
Apocrypha. The Apocryphal “ Acts of Thomas” by
Thilo (Codex Apocryphus). [A. P. S.]
THOMO' (Θομοΐ: Coési), THAMAH or TAMAH
(1 Esd. v. 89).
THORNS and THISTLES. There appear
to be eighteen or twenty Hebrew words which point
to different kinds of prickly or thorny shrubs, but
the context of the passages where the several terms
occur affords, for the most part, scarcely a single
clue whereby it is possible to come to anything
like a satisfactory conclusion with regard to their
respective identifications. These words are variously
rendered in the A. V. by ‘‘ thorns,” ‘¢briers,”
“ thistles,’ &c. It were a hopeless task to enter
into a discussion of these numerous Hebrew terms ;
we shall not therefore attempt it, but confine our
remarks to some of the most important names, and
the latter, appears from the use of the nominative ὁ κύριος.
The form ὁ΄ θεός proves nothing, as this is used for the
vocative. At the same time it should be observed that
the passage is said to Christ, εἶπεν αὐτῷ.
ἃ « Thomas” (@@pa) is omitted in the best MSS.
THORNS AND THISTLES
those which seem to afford some slight indications
as to the plants they denote.
1. Atdd (TON: ἡ ῥάμνος : rhamnus) occurs as
the name of some spinous plant in Judg. ix. 14, 15,
where the A. V. renders it by “ bramble” (Marg.
“4 thistle”), and in Ps. lviii. 9 (A. V. ‘* thorns”).
The plant in question is supposed to be Lycium Lu-
ropacum, or L. afrum (Box-thorn), both of which
Species occur in Palestine (see Strand, For. Palaest.
Nos. 124, 125). Dioscorides (i. 119) thus speaks
of the ‘Pauvos: “The Rhamnus, which some call
persephonion, others leucacantha, the Romans White-
thorn, or Cerbalis, and the Carthaginians atadin,
is a shrub which grows around hedges; it has erect
branches with sharp spines, like the oryacantha
(Hawthorn ?), but with small, oblong, thick, soft
leaves.” Dioscorides mentions three kinds of
rhamnus, two of which are identified by Sprengel,
in his Commentary, with the two species of Lyciwm
‘mentioned above.* See Belon, Observations de
Plus. Sing. &e., ii. ch. 78; Rauwolff, Trav. B.
iii. ch. 8; Prosper Alpinus, De Plant. Aegypt.
p- 21; Celsius, Hierob. i. p. 199. The Arabic
Ges
name of this plant (Ab), atdd) is identical with
the Hebrew; but it was also known by the name
EO
of ’ Ausej. ‘euugs):
-
Ὁ
Lycium Europaeum,
Lycium Europacum is a native of the south of
Europe.and the north of Africa; in the Grecian
islands it is common in hedges (English Cyclop.
2 In his Hist. Ret Herb., however, he refers the ῥάμνος
to the Zizyphus vulgaris.
THORNS AND THISTLES 1491
“Lycium ”). See also the passages in Belon and
Rauwolff cited above.
2. Chédek (PIN: ἄκανθα, σὴς ἐκτρώγων :
spina, paliurus) occurs in Prov. xv. 19, “The way
of the slothful is as an hedge of Chédek (A. V.
‘thorns’),” and in Mie. vii. 4, where the A. V. has
“‘brier.”” The Alexand. LXX., in the former pas-
sage, interprets the meaning thus, “The ways of
the slothful are strewed with thorns.’ Celsius
(Hierob. ii. 35), referring the Heb. term to the
S
--=-
Arabic Chadahk (SX>), is of opinion that some
spinous species of the Solanum is intended. The
Arabic term clearly denotes some kind of Solanum ;
either the S. melongela, var. esculentum, or the
S. Sodomeum (‘apple of Sodom”). Both these
kinds are beset. with prickles; it is hardly probable,
however, that they are intended by the Heb. word.
Several varieties of the Egg-plant are found in
Palestine, and some have supposed that the famed
Dead Sea apples are the fruit of the S. Sodomeum
when suffering from the attacks of some insect ;
but see on this subject VINE oF Sopom. The
Heb. term may be generic, and intended to denote
any thorny plant suitable for hedges.
3. Chéach (MIN: ἄκαν, ἄκανθα, ἀκχούχ, κνίδη :
paliurus, lappa, spina, tribulus), a word of vei y
uncertain meaning which occurs in the sense of
some thorny plant in Is. xxxiv. 13, Hos. ix. 6,
Prov. xxvi. 9, Cant. ii. 2,2 K. xiv. 9, “ the chdach
of Lebanon sent to the cedar of Lebanon,” ἕο. See
also Job xxxi. 40: “ Let chéach (A.V. « thistles”)
grow instead of wheat.” Celsius (Hierob. i. p.
477) believes the black-thorn (Prunus sylvestris)
is denoted, but this would not suit the passage
in Job just quoted, from which it is probable that
some thorny weed of a quick growth is intended.
Perhaps the term is used in a wide sense to signify
any thorny plant; this opinion may, perhaps,
receive some slight confirmation from the various
renderings of the Hebrew word as given by the
LXX. and Vulgate:
4. Dardar (VIVA: τρίβολος : tribulus) is men-
tioned twice in connexion with the Heb. dts (VP),
viz. in Gen, iii. 18, ‘ thorns and thistles” (A. V.),
and in Hos, x. 8, “the thorn and the thistle shall -
come up on their altars.” The Greek τρίβολος
occurs in Matt. vii. 16, “Do men gather figs of
thistles ?” See also Heb. vi. 8, where it is rendered
“briers ἢ by the A. V. There is some difference
of opinion as to the plant or plants indicated by
the Greek τρίβολος and the Latin tribulus. Of
the two kinds of land tribw/i mentioned by the
Greeks (Dioscorides, iv. 15; Theophrastus, Hist.
Plant. vi. 7, §5), one is supposed by Sprengel,
Stackhouse, Royle, and others, to refer to the
Tribulus terrestris, Linn., the other to the Fagonia
Cretica; but see Schneider’s Comment. on Theo-
phrastus 7. ¢., and Du Molin (Flore Poétique
Ancienne, p. 305), who identifies the tribulus of
Virgil with the Centaurea calcitrapa, Linn.
(‘‘star-thistle”). Celsius (Hierob. ii. p. 128)
argues in favour of the Fagonia Arabica, of which
a figure is given in Shaw’s Travels (Catal. Plant.
No. 229); see also Forsk&l, Flor. Arab. p. 88. It
is probable that either the Zribulus terrestris,
which, however, is not a spiny or thorny plant, but
has spines on the fruit, or else the C. caletrapa, is
the plant which is more particularly intended by
the word dardar.
τὰ Ὁ
2
1492 THORNS AND THISTLES
THRACIA
Tribulus Terrestris.
5. Shamir (De), almost always found in con- |
nexion with the word shaith (mw), occurs in several
places of the Hebrew text; it is variously rendered
by the LXX., χέρσος, χόρτος, Séppis, ἄγρωστις,
ξηρά. According to Abu'lfadl, cited by Celsius
(Hierob. ii. 188), “ the Samur ( ) of the Arabs
is a thorny tree; it is a species of Sidra which does
not produce fruit.” No thorny plants are more
conspicuous in Palestine and the Bible Lands than
different kinds of Rhamnaceae such as Paliurus
aculeatus (Christ’s Thorn), and Zizyphus Spina
Christi; this latter plant is the nebk of the Arabs,
which grows abundantly in Syria and Palestine,
both in wet and dry places ; Dr. Hooker noticed a
specimen nearly 40 ft. high, spreading as widely as
a good Quercus ilex in England. The nebk fringes
the banks of the Jordan, and flourishes on the
marshy banks of the Lake of Tiberias; it forms
either a shrub or a tree, and, indeed, is quite com-
mon all over the country. The Arabs have the
terms Salam, Sidra, Dhal, Nabca, which appear to
denote either varieties or different species of Paliurus
and Zizyphus, or different states perhaps of the same
tree ; but it is a difficult matter to assign to each its
particular signification. The Nadtsdts (fVSY3) of
Is, vii. 19, lv. 13, probably denotes some species of
Zizyphus. The “crown of thorns” which was
put in derision upon our Lord’s head just before
his crucifixion, was probably composed of the thorny
twigs of the nebk (Zizyphus Spina Christi) men-
tioned above ; being common everywhere, they
could readily be procured. ‘This plant,” says
Hasselquist (Zrav. p. 288), “was very suitable
for the purpose, as it has many sharp thorns, and
its flexible, pliant, and round branches might easily
be plaited in the form of a crown; and what, in
my opinion, seems to be the greatest proof is, that
the leaves much resemble those of ivy, as they are
a very deep green.b Perhaps the enemies of Christ
would have a plant somewhat resembling that with
which emperors and generals were used to be
crowned, that there might be calumny even in the
punishment.” Still, as Rosenmiiller (Lib. Bot.
p- 201) remarks, “ there being so many kinds of
thorny plants in Palestine, all conjectures must
remain uncertain, and can never lead to any satis-
factory result.” Although it is not possible to fix
upon any one definite Hebrew word as the repre-
sentative of any kind of “ thistle,” yet there can be
no doubt this plant must be occasionally alluded to.
Hasselquist (7rav. p. 280) noticed six species of
Cardui and Cnici on the road between Jerusalem
and Rama; and Miss Beaufort speaks of giant
thistles of the height of a man on horseback, which
she saw near the ruins of Fellham (Lgyptian Sep.
and Syrian Shrines, ii. 45, 50). We must also
notice another thorny plant and very troublesome
weed, the rest- harrow (Ononis spinosa), which
covers entire fields and plains both in Egypt and
Palestine, and which, as Hasselquist says (p. 289),
is no doubt referred to in some parts of the Holy
Scripture.
Dr. Thomson (Zhe Land and the Book, p. 59)
illustrates Isa. xxxiii¥12, “the people shall be as
the burning of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be
burned in the fire,” by the following observation,
“Those people yonder are cutting up thorns with
their mattocks and pruning-hooks, and gathering
them into bundles to be burned in these burnings
of lime. It is a curious fidelity to real life that
when the thorns are merely to be destroyed, they
are never cut up, but set on fire where they grow.
They are cut up only for the lime-kiln.” See also
p. 342 for other Scriptural allusions. (Wesel)
THRA'CIA (Θρακία, ἢ). A Thracian horseman
is incidentally mentioned in 2 Mace. xii. 35, appa-
rently one of the bodyguard of Gorgias, governor of
Idumaea under Antiochus Epiphanes. Thrace at
this period included the whole of the country within
the boundary of the Strymon, the Danube, and the
coasts of the Aegean, Propontis, and Euxine—all
the region, in fact, now comprehended in Bulgaria
and Roumelia. In the early times it was inhabited
by a number of tribes, each under its own chief,
having a name of its own and preserving its own
customs, although the same general character of
ferocity and addiction to plunder prevailed through-
out. Thucydides describes the limits of the country
at the period of the Peloponnesian war, when Sitalces
king of the Odrysae, who inhabited the valley of
the Hebrus (Maritza), had acquired a predominant
Ὁ Hasselquist must have intended to restrict the simi-
larity here spoken of entirely to the colowr of the leaves,
for the plants do not in the slightest degree resemble each
other in the form of the leaves,
ΝΡ... wae we! a
THRASEAS
power in the country, and derived what was for
those days a large revenue from it. This revenue,
however, seems to have arisen mainly out of his
relations with the Greek trading communities esta~
blished on different points of his seaboard. Some of
the clans, even within the limits of his dominion,
still retained their independence ; but after the esta-
blishment of a Macedonian dynasty under Lysima-
chus, the central authority became more powerful ;
and the wars on a large scale which followed the
death of Alexander furnished employment for the
martial tendencies of the Thracians, who found a
demand for their services as mercenaries every-
where. Cavalry was the arm which they chiefly
furnished, the rich pastures of Roumelia abounding
in horses. rom that region came the greater part
of Sitalces’s cavalry, amounting to nearly 50,000.
The only other passage, if any, containing an
allusion to Thrace, to be found in the Bible, is Gen.
x. 2, where—on the hypothesis that the sons of
Japhet, who are enumerated, may be regarded as
the eponymous representatives of different branches
of the Japetian family of nations—Tiras has by
some been supposed to mean Thrace; but the only
ground for this identification is a fancied similarity
between the two names. A stronger likeness, how-
ever, might be urged between the name Tiras and that
of the Tyrsi or Tyrseni, the ancestors of the Italian
Etruscans, whom, on the strength of a local tradi-
tion, Herodotus places in Lydia in the ante-historical
times. Strabo brings forward several tacts to show
that, in the early ages, Thracians existed on the
Asiatic as well as the European shore; but this cir-
cumstance furnishes very little help towards the
identification referred to. (Herodotus, i. 94, v. 3,
seqq.; Thucydides, ii. 97; Tacitus, Annal. iv. 35;
Horat. Sat. i. 6.) εὐ
THRASE'AS (Θρασαῖος ; Tharsaeas). Father
of Apollonius (1). 2 Mace. iii. 5. [APOLLONIUS.] .
THREE TAVERNS (Τρεῖς TaBepvat: Tires
Tabernae),a station on the Appian Road, along which
St. Paul travelled from Puteoli to Rome (Acts xxviii.
15). The distances, reckoning southwards from Rome,
are given as follows in the Antonine Itinerury, “ to
Aricia, 16 miles; to Three Taverns, 17 miles; to
Appii Forum, 10 miles ;” and, comparing this with
what is observed still along the line of road, we
have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that
“Three Taverns” was near the modern Cisterna.
For details see the Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geog.
11. 1226 6, 1291 ὁ.
Just at this point a road came in from Antium
on the coast. This we learn fiom what Cicero says
of a journey from that place to his villa at Formiae
(Att. ii. 12), There is no doubt that “ Three Ta-
verns’’ was a frequent meeting-place of travellers,
The point of interest as regards St. Paul is that he
met here a group of Christians who (like a previous
group whom he had met at Appit FoRuM) came
from Rome to meet him in consequence of having
heard of his arrival at PuTEoLr. <A good illustra-
tion of this kind of intercourse along the Appian
Way is supplied by Josephus (Ant. xvii. 12, 81) in
his account of the journey of the pretender Herod-
Alexander. He landed at Puteoli (Dicacarchia) to
gain over the Jews that were there; and “ when
the report went about him that he was coming to
Rome, the whole multitude of the Jews that were
there went out to meet him, ascribing it to Divine
Providence that he had so unexpectedly escaped.”
[J.8. H.]
THRONE
THRESHING. [AGricuLturg, i. p. 31.]
THRESHOLD. 1. [seeGatr]. 2. Of the
two words so rendered in A. V., one, miphthan,*
seems to mean sometimes, as the Targum explains
it, a projecting beam or corbel, at a higher point
than the threshold properly so called (Ez. ix. 3
χ. 4, 18).
THRESHOLDS, THE (SDN: ἐν τῷ
συναγαγεῖν : vestibula). This word, ha-Asuppi,
appears to be inaccurately rendered in Neh. xii, 25,
though its real force has perhaps not yet been
discovered. The ‘house of the Asuppim” (M2
Ὁ ΒΌΝ ΠῚ, or simply “ the Asuppim,” is mentioned
1495
>
in 1 Chr. xxvi. 15, 17, as a part, probably a gate, of
the enclosure of the ‘‘ House of Jehovah,” 7. ὁ. the
Tabernacle, as established by David—apparently at
its S.W. corner. The allusion in Neh. xii. 25 is
undoubtedly to the same place, as is shown not
only by the identity of the name, but by the reter-
ence to David (ver. 24; compare 1 Chr. xxv, 1).
Asuppim is derived from a root signifying “6 to
gather ” (Gesenius, Thes. 151), and in the absence
of any indication of what the ‘“ house of the Asup-
pim” was, it is variously explained by the lexico-
graphers as a storechamber (Gesenius) or a place of
assembly (Fiirst, Bertheau). The LXX. in 1 Chr.
xxvi. have οἶκος Ἔσεφείν : Vulg. domus seniorum
concilium. On the other hand the Targum renders
the word by 5)Pv, “a lintel,” as if deriving it from
ἢ. [G.]
THRONE (ND3). The Hebrew term cissé
applies to any elevated seat occupied by a person in
authority, whether a high-priest (1 Sam. i. 9), a
judge (Ps. exxii. 5), or a military chief (Jer. i. 15).
The use of a chair in a country where the usual
postures were squatting and reclining, was at all
times regarded as a symbol of dignity (2 K. iv.
10; Prov. ix. 14). In order to specify a throne in
our sense of the term, it was necessary to add to
cissé the notion of royalty: hence the frequent oc-
currence of such expressions as “ the throne of the
kingdom ” (Deut. xvii. 18; 1 K. i. 46; 2 Chr. vii.
18). The characteristic feature in the royal throne
was its elevation: Solomon’s throne was approached
by six steps (1 K. x. 19; 2 Chr. ix. 18); and Je-
hovah’s throne is described as “ high and lifted up”
(Is. vi. 1). The materials and workmanship were
costly: that of Solomon is described as a “ throne
of ivory” (é.e. inlaid with ivory), and overlaid
with pure gold in all parts except where the ivory
was apparent. It was furnished with arms or
“stays,” after the manner of the Assyrian chair
of state depicted on the next page. ‘The steps
were also lined with pairs of lions, the number
of them being perhaps designed to correspond
with that of the tribes of Israel. As to the
form of the chair, we are only informed in 1 K.
x. 19 that “the top was round behind” (appa-
rently meaning either that the back was rounded
off at the top, or that there was a circular canopy
over it): in lieu of this particular we are told in
2 Chr. ix. 18 that, “there was a footstool of gold,
fastened to the throne,” but the verbal agreement
of the descriptions in other respects leads to the pre-
sumption that this variation arises out of a cor-
rupted text (Thenius, Comm. in 1 κοῖς ἃ
presumption which is favoured by the fact that the
a ἸΏ; αἴθριον ; limen (see Ges. 1141).
1494 THUMMIM
terms wap and the Hophal form DYNAN! occur
nowhere else. The king sat on his throne on state
occasions, as when granting audiences (1 K. ii. 19,
xxii. 10; Esth. v. 1), receiving homage (2 K.
_ xi, 19), or administering justice (Prov. xx. 8).
Assyrian throne or chair of state (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 301).
At such times he appeared in his royal robes (1 K.
xxii. 10; Jon. iii. 6; Acts xii. 21). The throne|
was the symbol of supreme power and dignity (Gen.
xli. 40), and hence was attributed to Jehovah both |
in respect to his heavenly abode (Ps. xi. 4, ciii. |
19; Is. Ixvi. 1; Acts vii. 49 ; Rev. iv. 2), or to his
earthly abode at Jerusalem (Jer. iii. 17), and more
particularly in the Temple (Jer, xvii. 12 ; Ez. xliii.
7). Similarly, ‘to sit upon the throne,” implied
the exercise of regal power (Deut. xvii. 18; 1 K.
xvi. 11; 2 K. x. 30; Esth. i. 2), and ‘‘ to sit upon
the throne of another person,” succession to the |
royal dignity (1 K.i. 13). In Nehemiah iii, 7, the
term cissé is applied to the official residence of the
governor, which appears to have been either on or |
near to the city wall. [W. L. B.]
THUMMIM. [Uri and THummim. |
THUNDER (Op). In a physical point of
view, the most noticeable feature in connexion with
thunder is the extreme rarity of its occurrence during
the summer months in Palestine and the adjacent
countries. From the middle of April to the middle
of September it is hardly ever heard. Robinson,
indeed, mentions an instance of thunder in the early
part of May (Researches, i. 430), and Russell in
July (Aleppo, ii. 289), but in each case it is stated
to be a most unusual event. Hence it was selected
by Samuel as a striking expression of the Divine
displeasure towards the Israelites: Is it not wheat
harvest to-day? I will call upon the Lord, and he
shall send thunder and rain” (1 Sam. xii. 17).
Rain in harvest was deemed as extraordinary as
snow in summer (Prov. xxvi. 1), and Jerome asserts
that he had never witnessed it in the latter part of
June, or in July (Comm. on Am. iv. 7): the same
observations apply equally to thunder, which is
rarely unaccompanied with rain (Russell, i. 72, ii.
285). In the imaginative philosophy of the He-
brews, thunder was regarded as the voice of Jehovah
‘the one, aud sometimes within the other.
(J6b τάχ 2514. 6. ΡΠ 5: τὴ 19, Xxix.
8-9; Is. xxx. 30, 31), who dwelt behind the
| tira,
THYATIRA
thunder-cloud (Ps. Ixxxi. 7). Hence thunder is
occasionally described in the Hebrew by the term
“voices” (Hx. ix. 23, 28; 1 Sam. xii. 17).
Hence the people in the Gospel supposed that
the voice of the Lord was the sound of thunder
(John xii. 29). Thunder was, to the mind of
the Jew, the symbol of Divine power (Ps. xxix.
3, &c.), and vengeance (1 Sam. ii. 10; 2 Sam.
ΣΧ, 14: Rss χα 18... ss xxixe θὲ: Ὑδν. ὑπ
5). It was either the sign or the instrument of
His wrath on numerous occasions, as during the
plague of hail in Egypt (Ex. ix. 23, 28), at the pro-
mulgation of the Law (Ex. xix. 16), at the discom-
fiture of the Philistines (1 Sam. vii. 10), and when
the Israelites demanded a king (1 Sam. xii. 17).
The term thunder was transferred to the war-shout
of a military leader (Job xxxix. 25), and hence Je-
hovah is described as ‘‘causing His voice to be
heard” in the battle (Is. xxx. 30). It is also used
as a superlative expression in Job xxvi. 14, where
the “ thunder of his power’’ is contrasted with the
‘little portion,” or rather the gentle whisper that
can be heard. In Job xxxix. 19, “" thunder” is a
mistranslation for ‘a flowing mane.’ [W. L. B.]
THYATI'RA (Ovareipa, τὰ: civitas Thyati-
renorum). A city on the Lycus, founded by Seleucus
| Nicator. It was one of the many Macedonian colonies
established in Asia Minor, in the sequel of the destruc-
tion of the Persian empire by Alexander. It lay to
the left of the road from Pergamus to Sardis, on
the southern incline of the watershed which sepa-
rates the valley of the Caicus (Sakyrtchai) from
that of the Hermus, on the very contines of Mysia
and Ionia, so as to be sometimes reckoned within
Tn
earlier times it had borne the names of Pelopia,
Semiramis, and Euhippia. At the commencement
of the Christian era, the Macedonian element so
_preponderated as to give a distinctive character to
the population; and Strabo simply calls it a Mace-
donian colony. The original inhabitants had pro-
bably been distributed in hamlets round about,
when Thyatira was founded. Two of these, the
inhabitants of which are termed Areni and Nagdemi,
are noticed in an inscription of the homan times.
The resources of the neighbouring region may be
inferred both from the name Euhippia and from
the magnitude of the booty which was carried off
in a foray conducted jointly by Eumenes of Per-
gamus and a force detached by the Roman admiral
from Canae, during the war against Antiochus.
During the campaign of B.c. 190, Thyatira formed
the base of the king’s operations ; and after his de-
feat, which took place only a few miles to the south
of the city, it submitted. at the same time with its
neighbour Magnesia-on-Sipylus, to the Romans, and
was included in the territory made over by them to
their ally the Pergamene sovereign.
During the continuance of the Attalic dynasty,
Thyatira scarcely appears in history; and of the
various inscriptions which have been found on the
site, now called Ak Hissar, not one unequivocally
belongs to earlier times than those of the Roman
empire. The prosperity of the city seems to have
received a new impulse under Vespasiarn, whose
acquaintance with the East, previously to mounting
the imperial throne, may have directed his attention
to the development of the resources of the Asiatic
cities. A bilingual inscription, in Greek and Latin,
belonging to the latter part of his reign, shows him
to have restored the roads in the domain of Thya-
From others, between this time and that
—
THYATIRA
of Caracalla, there is evidence of the existence of
many corporate guilds in the city. Bakers, potters,
tanners, weavers, robemakers, and dyers (of βαφεῖς),
are specially mentioned. Of these last there is a
notice in no less than three inscriptions, so that
dyeing apparently formed an important part of the
industrial activity of Thyatira, as it did of that of
Colossae and Laodicaea. With this guild there can
be no doubt that Lydia, the seller of purple stuffs
(πορφυρόπωλι:), from whom St. Paul met with so
favourable a reception at Philippi (Acts xvi. 14),
was connected.
The principal deity of the city was Apollo, wor-
shipped as the sun-god under the surname Tyrimnas.
He was no doubt introduced by the Macedonian
colonists, for the name is Macedonian. One of the
three mythical kings of Macedonia, whom the ge-
nealogists placed before Perdiccas—the first of the
Temenidae that Herodotus and Thucydides recognize,
—is so called; the other two being Caranus and
Coenus, manifestly impersonations of the chief and
the tribe. The inscriptions of Thyatira give Tyrimnas
the titles of πρόπολις and προπάτωρ θεός ; anda
special priesthood was attached to his service. A
priestess of Artemis is also mentioned, probably the
administratrix of a cult derived from the earlier
times of the city, and similar in its nature to that
ot the Ephesian Artemis. Another superstition,
of an extremely curious nature, which existed at
Thyatira, seems to have been brought thither by
some of the corrupted Jews of the dispersed tribes.
A fane stood outside the walls, dedicated to Sam- |.
batha-—the name of the sibyl who is sometimes
called Chaldaean, sometimes Jewish, sometimes
Persian—in the midst of an enclosure designated
“ the Chaldaean’s court” (τοῦ Χαλδαίου περί-
Bodos). This seems to lend an illustration to the
obscure passage in Rey. ii. 20, 21, which Grotius
interprets of the wife of the bishop. The drawback
against the commendation bestowed upon the angel
of the Thyatiran Church is that he tolerates “ that
woman, that Jezebel, who, professing herself to be
a prophetess, teaches and deludes my servants into
committing fornication and eating things offered to
idols.” Time, however, is given her to repent ;
and this seems to imply a form of religion which
had become condemnable from the admixture of
foreign alloy, rather than one idolatrous ab initio.
Now there is evidence to show that in Thyatira
there was a great amalgamation of races. Latin
inscriptions are frequent, indicating a considerable
influx of Italian immigrants; and in some Greek
inscriptions many Latin words are introduced.
Latin and Greek names, too, are found accumulated
on the same individuals,—such as Titus Antonius
Alfenus Arignotus, and Julia Severina Stratonicis.
But amalgamation of different races, in pagan na-
tions, always went together with a syncretism of
different religions, every relation of life having its
religious sanction. If the sibyl Sambatha was really
a Jewess, lending her aid to this proceeding, and
not discountenanced by the authorities of the Judaeo-
Christian Church at Thyatira, both the censure and
its qualification become easy of explanation.
It seems also not improbable that the imagery of
the description in Rev. ii.18, 6 ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς
αὐτοῦ ὡς φλόγα πυρὺς, καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι
χαλκολιβάνῳ, may have been suggested by the
current pagan representations of the tutelary deity of
the city. Seea parallel case at Smyrna. [SMYRNA.]
Besides the cults which have been mentioned,
there is evidence of a deification of Rome, of Ha-
THYINE WOOD 1495
drian, and of the imperial family. Games were
celebrated in honour of ‘l'yrimnas, of Hercules, and
of the reigning emperor. On the coins before the
imperial times, the heads of Bacchus, of Athené,
and of Cybele, are also found: but the inscriptions
only indicate a cult of the last of these.
(Strabo, xiii..c. 4; Pliny, NV. H. v. 31; Liv.
xxxvil. 8, 21, 44; Polybius, xvi. 1, xxxii. 25;
Stephanus Byzant. sub v. Θυάτειρα ; Boeckh, [n-
script. Graec. Thyatir., especially Nos. 3484-3499 ;
Suidas, Ὁ. Σαμβήθη ; Aelian, Var. Hist. xii. 35;
Clinton, F. H. ii. 221; Hoffmann, Griechenland,
ii. 1714.) ΚΕΡῚ
THYINE WOOD (ξύλον θύϊνον : lignum
thyinum) occurs once only, viz. in Rev. xviii. 12,
where the margin has “ sweet” (wood). It is men-
tioned as one of the valuable articles of commerce
that should be found no more in Babylon (Rome),
whose fall is here predicted by Sf. John. There can
be little doubt that the wood here spoken of is that
of the Thuya articulata, Desfont., the Callitris quad-
rivalvis of present botanists. This tree was much
prized by the ancient Greeks and Romans, on account
Thuya articulata.
of the beauty of its wood for various ornamental
purposes. It is the @vefa of Theophrastus (Hist.
Plant. iii. 4, §§2, 6); the θύϊνον ξύλον of Dios-
corides (i. 21). By the Romans the tree was called
citrus, the wood citrum. It is a native of Barbary,
and grows to the height of 15 to 25 feet. Pliny
(NV. H. xiii. 15) says that the citrus is found abun-
dantly in Mauretania. He speaks of a mania amongst
his countrymen for tables made of its wood ; and
tells us that when the Roman ladies were upbraided
by their husbands for their extravagance in pearls,
they retorted upon them their excessive fondness for
tables made of this wood. Fabulous prices were
given for tables and other ornamental furniture
made of citrus wood (see Pliny, /. ¢c.). The
Greek and Roman writers frequently allude to
this wood. See a number of references in Cel-
| sius, Héerob. ii. 25. The roof of the mosque at
1496 TIBERIAS
Cordova, built in the 9th cent., is of “ thyine wood ”
(Loudon’s Arboretum, iv. 2463). Lady Callcott
says the wood is dark nut-brown, close grained, and
very fragrant. The resin known by the name of
Sandarach is the produce of this tree, which belongs
to the cypress tribe (Cupressineae), of the nat. order
Coniferae. [W. H.}
TIBE'RIAS (TiBepids: Tiberias), a city in
the time of Christ, on the Sea of Galilee ; first men-
tioned in the New Testament (John vi. 1, 23, xxi.
1), and then by Josephus (Ant. xviii., Bel. Jud.
ii. 9, §1), who states that it was built by Herod
Antipas, and was named by him in honour of the
emperor Tiberius. It was probably a new town,
and not a restored or enlarged one merely; for
“Rakkath” (Josh. xix. 35), which is said in the
Talmud to have occupied the same position, lay in
the tribe of Naphtali (if we insist on the boundaries
as indicated by the clearest passages), whereas
Tiberias appears to have been within the limits
ot Zebulun (Matt. iv. 13), See Winer, Realw. ii.
p. 619. The same remark may be made respect-
ing Jerome’s statement, that Tiberias succeeded to
the place of the earlier Chinnereth (Onomasticon,
sub voce); for this latter town, as may be argued
from the name itself, must have been further north
than the site of Tiberias. The tenacity with which
its Roman name has adhered to the spot (see infra)
indicates the same fact; for, generally speaking,
foreign names in the East applied to towns pre-
viously known under names derived from the native
dialect, as 6. 4. Epiphania for Hammath (Josh. xix.
35), Palmyra for Tadmor (2 Chr. viii. 4), Ptole-
mais for Akko (Acts xxi. 7), lost their foothold as
soon as the foreign power passed away which had
imposed them, and gave place again to the original
appellations. Tiberias was the capital of Galilee
from the time of its origin until the reign of Herod
Agrippa II., who changed the seat of power back
again to Sepphoris, where it had been before the
founding of the new city. Many of the inhabitants
were Greeks and Romans, and foreign customs pre-
vailed there to such an extent as to give offence to
the stricter Jews [HERopIANS]. Herod, the founder
of Tiberias, had passed most of his early life in
Italy, and had brought with him thence a taste for
the amusements and magnificent buildings, with
which he had been familiar in that country. He
built a stadium there, like that in which the Roman
youth trained themselves for feats of rivalry and
war. He erected a palace, which he adorned with
figures of animals, « contrary,” as Josephus says
(Vit. §12, 13, 64), “to the law of our country-
men.” The place was so much the less attractive
to the Jews, because, as the same authority states
(Ant. xviii. 2, §3), it stood on the site of an ancient
burial-ground, and was viewed, therefore, by the
more scrupulous among them almost as a polluted
and forbidden locality. Coins of the city of Tiberias
are still extant, which are referred to the times of
Tiberias, Trajan, and Hadrian.
The ancient name has survived in that of the
modern Tiibarieh, which occupies unquestionably the
original site, except that it is confined to narrower
limits than those of the original city. Near Tuba-
rich, about a mile further south along the shore,
are the celebrated warm baths, which the Roman
naturalists (Plin, Hist. Nat. v. 15) reckoned among
a “Tt is highly balsamic and odoriferous, the resin, no
doubt, preventing the ravages of insects as well as the
influence of the air”? (Loudon’s Arb. 1. c.).
TIBERIAS
the greatest known curiosities of the world. [Ham-
MATH.] The intermediate space between these
baths and the town abounds with the traces of ruins,
such as the foundations of walls, heaps of stone,
blocks of granite, and the like; and it cannot’ be
doubted, therefore, that the ancient Tiberias occu-
pied also this ground, and was much more extensive
than its modern successor. From such indications,
and from the explicit testimony of Josephus, who
says (Ant. xviii. 2, §3) that Tiberias was near
Ammaus (’Aupaots), or the Warm Baths, there can
be no uncertainty respecting the identification of the
site of this important city. It stood anciently as
now, on the western shore, about two-thirds of the
way between the northern and southern end of the
Sea of Galilee. There is a margin or strip of land
there between the water and the steep hills (which
elsewhere in that quarter come down so boldly to
the edge of the lake), about two miles long and a
quarter of a mile broad. The tract in question is
somewhat undulating, but approximates to the cha-
racter of a plain. Twibarieh, the modern town,
occupies the northern end of this parallelogram, and
the Warm Baths the southern extremity ; so that
the more extended city of the Roman age must have
covered all, or nearly all of the peculiar ground
whose limits are thus clearly defined. (See Ro-
binson’s Bib. Res., ii. 380; and Porter’s Hand-
book, ii. 421.) The present Tiibarieh has a rect-
angular form, is‘ guarded by a strong wall on the
land side, but is left entirely open towards the sea.
A few palm-trees still remain as witnesses of the
luxuriant vegetation which once adorned this
garden of the Promised Land, but they are greatly
inferior in size and beauty to those seen in Keypt.
The oleander grows here profusely, almost rivalling
that flower so much admired as found on the
neighbouring Plain of Gennesaret. The people, as
of old, draw their subsistence in part from the
adjacent lake. The spectator from his position
here commands a view of almost the entire expanse
of the sea, except the southern part, which* is cut
off by a slight projection of the coast. The preci-
pices on the opposite side appear almost to overhang
the water, but on being approached are found to
stand back at some distance, so as to allow travellers
to pass between them and the water. The lofty
Hermon, the modern Jebel-esh-Sheikh, with its
glistening snow-heaps, forms a conspicuous object
of the landscape in the north-east. Many rock-
tombs exist in the sides of the hills, behind the
town, some of them no doubt of great antiquity,
and constructed in the best style of such monu-
ments. The climate here in the warm season is
very hot and unhealthy ; but most of the tropical
fruits, as in other parts of the valley of the Jordan,
become ripe very early, and, with industry, might
be cultivated in great abundance and perfection.
The article on GeNNEsaReT [vol. i. p. 675]
should be read in this connexion, since it is the rela-
tion of Tiberias to the surrounding region and the
lake, which gave to it its chief importance in the
first Christian age. The place is four and a half
hours from Nazareth, one hour from Mejdel, pos-
sibly the ancient Magdala, and thirteen hours, by the
shortest route, from Bdnids or Caesarea Philippi.
It is remarkable that the Gospels give us no in-
formation, that the Saviour, who spent so much of
his public life in Galilee, ever visited Tiberias. The
surer meaning of the expression, ‘* He went away
beyond the sea of Galilee of Tiberias” in John vi. 1
(πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβε-
TIBERIAS
piddos), is not that Jesus embarked from Tiberias,
but, as Meyer remarks, that He crossed from the
west side of the Galilean sea of Tiberias to the
opposite side. A reason has been assigned for this
singular fact, which may or may not account for it.
As Herod, the murderer of John the Baptist, resided
most of the time in this city, the Saviour may have
kept purposely away from it, on account of the
sanguinary and artful (Luke xiii. 32) character of
that ruler. It is certain, from Luke xxiii. 8, that
though Herod had heard of the fame of Christ, he
never saw Him in person until they met at Jeru-
salem, and never witnessed any of his miracles. It
is possible that the character of the place, so much
like that of a Roman colony, may have been a
reason why He who was sent to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel, performed so little labour in its
vicinity. The head of the lake, and especially the
Plain of Gennesaret, where the population was more
dense and so thoroughly Jewish, formed the central
point of his Galilean ministry. The feast of Herod
and his courtiers, before whom the daughter of
Herodias danced, and in fulfilment of the tetrarch’s
rash oath demanded the head of the dauntless re-
former, was held in all probability at Tiberias, the
capital of the province. If, as Josephus mentions
(Ant. xviii. 5, §2), the Baptist was imprisoned
at the time in the castle of Machaerus beyond
the Jordan, the order for his execution could have
been sent thither, and the bloody trophy forwarded
to the implacable Herodias at the palace where she
usualiy resided. Gams (Johannes der Taufer im
Gefdngniss, p. 47, &c.) suggests that John, instead
of being kept all the time in the same castle, may
have been confined in different places, at different
times. The three passages already referred to are
the only ones in the New Testament which men-
tion Tiberias by name, viz. John vi. 1, and xxi. 1
(in both instances designating the iris on which
the town was situated), and John vi. 23, where
boats are said to have come from Tiberias near to
the place at which Jesus had supplied miraculously
the wants of the multitude. Thus the lake in
the time of Christ, among its other appellations,
bore also that of the principal city in the neigh-
bourhood ; and in like manner, at the present day,
Bahr Tibarieh, ‘Sea of Tibarieh,” is almost the
only name under which it is known among the inha-
bitants of the country.
Tiberias has an interesting history, apart from its
strictly Biblical associations. It bore a conspicuous
part in the wars between the Jews and the Romans.
The Sanhedrim, subsequently to the fall of Jeru-
salem, after a temporary sojourn at Jamnia and
Sepphoris, became fixed there about the middle of
the 2nd century. Celebrated schools of Jewish
learning flourished there through a succession of
several centuries. The Mishna was compiled at
this place by the great Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh
(A.D. 190), The Masorah, or body of traditions,
which transmitted the readings of the Hebrew text
of the Old Testament, and preserved by means of
the vowel system the pronunciation of the Hebrew,
originated in a great measure at Tiberias. The
place passed, under Constantine, into the power of
the Christians ; and during the period of the Cru-
sades was lost and won repeatedly by the different
combatants. Since that time it has been possessed
successively by Persians, Arabs, and Turks; and
contains now, under the Turkish rule, a mixed
population of Mahommedans, Jews, and Christians,
variously estimated at trom two to four thousand.
TIBERIUS 1497
The Jews constitute, perhaps, one-fourth of the
entire number. ‘They regard Tiberias as one of the
four holy places (Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, ave the
others), in which, as they say, prayer must be
offered without ceasing, or the world would fall
back instantly into chaos. One of their singular
opinions is that the Messiah when He appears will
emerge from the waters of the lake, and, landing
at Tiberias, proceed to Safed, and there establish his
throne on the highest summit in Galilee. In addi-
tion to the language of the particular country, as
Poland, Germany, Spain, from which they or their
families emigrated, most of the Jews here speak also
the Rabbinic Hebrew, and modern Arabic. They
occupy a quarter in the middle of the town, adjacent
to the lake ; just north of which, near the shore, is
a Latin convent and church, occupied by a solitary
Italian monk. Tiberias sutiered terribly from the
great earthquake in 1837, and has not yet recovered
by any means from the effects of that disaster. In
1852, the writer of this article (later travellers
report but little improvement) rode into the city
over the dilapidated walls; in other parts of them
not overthrown, rents were visible from top to
bottom, and some of the towers looked as if they
had been shattered by battering-rams, It is sup-
posed that at least seven hundred of the inhabitants
were destroyed at that time. This earthquake was
severe and destructive in other parts of Galilee. It
was a similar calamity no doubt, such as had left
a strong impression on the minds of the people, to
which Amos refers, at the beginning of his prophecy,
as forming a well-known epoch from which other
events were reckoned. There is a place of inter-
ment near Tiberias, in which a distinguished Rabbi
is said to be buried with 14,000 of his disciples
around him. The grave of the Arabian philo-
sopher Lokman, as Burckhardt states, was pointed
out here in the 14th century. Raumer’s Paldstina
(p. 125) mentions some of the foregoing facts, and
others of a kindred nature. The later fortunes of
the place are sketched somewhat at length in Dr.
Robinson’s Biblical Researches, iii. 267-274 (ed.
1841). It is unnecessary to specify other works,
as Tiberias lies in the ordinary route of travellers
in the East, and will be found noticed more or less
fully in most of the books of any completeness in
this department of authorship.
Protessor Stanley, in his Notices of some Locali-
ties, &c. (p. 193), has added a few charming
touches to the admirable description already given
in his Sinai and Pal. (368-82). ΓΕ B. H.]
TIBE'RIAS, THE SEA OF (7 θαλάσση
τῆς Τιβεριάδος : mare Tiberiadis). This term is
found only in John xxi. 1, the other passage in
which it occurs in the A. V. (ib. vi. 1) being, if
the original is accurately rendered, ‘‘ the sea of
Galilee, of Tiberias.”’ St. John probably uses the
name as more familiar to non-residents in Palestine
than the indigenous name of the ‘sea of Galilee,”
or ‘‘sea of Gennesaret,” actuated no doubt by the
same motive which has induced him so constantly to
translate the Hebrew names and terms which he uses
(such as Rabbi, Rabboni, Messias, Cephas, Siloam,
&c.) into the language of the Gentiles. [GENNE-
SARET, SEA OF. ] [G.]
TIBE'RIUS (Τιβέριος : in full, Tiberius Clau-
dius Nero), the second Roman emperor, successor
of Augustus, who began to reign A.D. 14, and
reigned until A.D. 37. He was the son of Tiberius
Claudius Nero and Livia, and hence a stepson of
1498 TIBERIUS
Augustus. He was born at Rome on the 16th of
November, B.c. 45. He became emperor in his
fifty-fifth year, after having distinguished himself as
a commander in various wars, and having evinced
talents of a high order as an orator, and an admi-
nistrator of civil affairs. His military exploits and
those of Drusus, his brother, were sung by Horace
(Carm. iv. 4, 14). He even gained the reputation
of possessing the sterner virtues of the Roman cha-
racter, and was regarded as entirely worthy of the
imperial honours to which his birth and supposed
personal merits at length opened the way. Yet on
being raised to the supreme power, he suddenly
* became, or showed himself to be, a very different
man. His subsequent life was one of inactivity,
sloth, and self-indulgencé. He was despotic in his
government, cruel and vindictive in his disposition.
He gave up the affairs of the state to the vilest
favourites, while he himself wallowed in the very
kennel of all that was low and debasing. The only
palliation of his monstrous crimes and vices which
can be offered is, that his disgust of life, occasioned
by his early domestic troubles, may have driven him
at last to despair and insanity. Tiberius died at
the age of seventy-eight, after a reign of twenty-
three years. The ancient writers who supply most
of our knowledge respecting him are Suetonius,
Tacitus (who describes his character as one of
studied dissimulation and hypo-
crisy from the beginning), Anal.
ivi.; Vell. Paterce. L. ii. 94,
ete. ; and Dion Cass. xlvi.—xlviii.
The article in the Dict. of
Gr. and Rom. Biog. (vol. iii.
pp. 1117-1127) furnishes a co-
pious outline of the principal
events in his life, and holds him
up in his true light as deserving the scorn and
abhorrence of men.
The city of ΤΊΒΕΒΤΑΒ took its name from this
emperor. It will be seen that the Saviour’s public
life, and some of the introductory events of the
apostolic age, must have fallen within the limits
ot his administration. The memorable passage in
Tacitus (Annal. xv. 44) respecting the origin of
the Christian sect, places the crucifixion of the Re-
deemer under Tiberius: ‘Ergo abolendo rumori
(that of his having set fire to Rome) Nero subdidit
reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per fla-
gitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor
nominis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante per pro-
curatorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat.”
The martyrdom of Stephen belongs in all proba-
bility to the last year, or last but one of this reign.
In Luke iii. 1 he is termed Tiberius Caesar; John
the Baptist, it is there said, began his ministry in the
jifteenth year of his reign (ἡγεμονία). This chro-
nological notation is an impoitant one in deter-
mining the year of Christ’s birth and entrance on
his public work [Jesus CHRIST, vol. i. p. 1074].
Augustus admitted Tiberius to a share in the em-
pire two or three years before his own death; and
it is a question, therefore, whether the fifteenth
year of which Luke speaks, should be reckoned from
the time of the co-partnership, or from that when
Tiberius began to reign alone. The former is the
computation more generally adopted ; but the data
which relate to this point in the chronology of the
Saviour’s life, may be reconciled easily with the one
view or the other. Some discussion, more or less
extended, in reference to this inquiry will be found
in Kratit’s Chronologie, p. 66 ; Sepp’s Leben Christi,
Coin of Tiberius.
TIGLATH-PILESER
i. 1, &c.; Friedlieb’s Leben Jesu Christi, 47, &c. ;
Ebrard’s Aritiz, 184 ; Tischendorf’s Synopsis, xvi. ;
Greswell’s Dissertations, i. 334; and Robinson’s
Harmony of the Gospels, 181. [Ἡ- ΒΡ Η:]
TIB'HATH (30: Ματαβέθ: Thebath), a
city of Hadadezer, king of Zobah (1 Chr. xviii. 8),
which in 2 Sam. viii. 8 is called Betah, probably
by an accidental transposition of the first two
letters. Its exact position is unknown, but if
Aram-Zobah is the country between the Euphrates
and Coelesyria [see SYRIA], we must look for Tib-
hath on the eastern skirts of the Anti-Libanus, or
of its continuation, the Jebel Shahshabu and the
Jebel Richa. [G. R.]
ΤΙΒ'ΝΙ ΟΣ}: Θαμνί: Thebni). After Zimri
had burnt himself in his palace, there was a division
in the northern kingdom, half of the people follow-
ing Tibni the son of Ginath, and half following
Omri (1 K. xvi. 21, 22). Omri was the choice of
the army. Tibni was probably put forward by the
people of Tirzah, which was then besieged by Omri
and his host. The struggle between the contending
factions lasted four years (comp. 1 Καὶ, xvi. 15, 23);
but the only record of it is given in the few words
of the historian: ‘‘ The people that followed Omri
prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the
son of Ginath; so Tibni died, and Omri reigned.”
The LXX. add that Tibni was bravely seconded by
his brother Joram, for they tell us, in a clause which
Ewald pronounces to be undoubtedly genuine, ‘‘ and
Thamni and Joram his brother died at that time; and
Ambri reigned after Thamni.” [W. A. W.]
TIDAL CYT: Θαργάλ: Thadal) is men-
tioned only in Gen. xiv. 1,9. He there appears
among the kings confederated with, and subordi-
nate to, Chedorlaomer, the sovereign of Elam, who
leads two expeditions from the-country about the
mouth of the Tigris into Syria. The name, Tidal,
is certainly an incorrect representation of the ori-
ginal. If the present Hebrew text is accepted,
the king was called Yhid’al; while, if the Sep-
tuagint more nearly represents the original,* his
name was T’hargal, or perhaps Thurgal. This last
rendering is probably to be preferred, as the name
is then a significant one in the early Hamitic dialect
of the lower Tigris and Euphrates country— Thur
gal being “ the great chief "--Αασιλεὺς 6 μέγας
(naqa wazarka) of the Persians. Thargal is called
“king of nations” (D3 35), by which it is
reasonable to understand that he was a chief over
various nomadic tribes to whom no special tract of
country could be assigned, since at different times
of the year they inhabited different portions of Lower
Mesopotamia. ‘This is the case with the Arabs of
these parts at the present day. Thargal, however,
should from his name have been a Turanian. [G. R. ]
TIG'LATH - PILE'SER (pxba-nbain:
Θαλγαθφελλασάρ, OayAapardAacdp: Theylath-
Phalasar). In 1 Chr. y. 26, and again in 2 Chr. xxviii.
20, the name of this king is written ΘΟΕ ΤΩΡΗ,
“ Tilgath-pilneser ;” but in this form there is a
double corruption, The native word reads as
a The LXX. evidently read Sysn for Sysn, and
therefore wrote Θαργάλ, representing the by ay. The
Alex. Codex, however, has @AATA, which originally was
doubtless @AATA, agreeing so far with the present
Hebrew text.
TIGLATH-PILESER
Tigulti-pal-tsira, for which the Tiglath-pil-eser of
2 Kings is a fair equivalent. ‘The signification of
the name is somewhat doubtful. M. Oppert ren-
ders it, “ Adoratio [sit] filio Zodiaci,’ and ex- |
plains *‘the son of the Zodiac” as Nin, or Hercules
(Lapedition Scientifique en Mésopotamie, ii. 352).
Tiglath-Pileser is the second Assyrian king men-
tioned in Scripture as having come into contact
with the Israelites. He attacked Samaria in the
reign of Pekah, on what ground we are not told,
but probably because Pekah withheld his tribute,
and, having entered his territories, ‘‘ took Tjon, and
Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and
Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee,.and all the land of
Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria”
(2 K. xv. 29):
Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” (Is. ix. 1)—
the most northern, and so the most exposed portion
of the country. The date of this invasion cannot
at present be fixed; but it was, apparently, many
years afterwards that Tiglath-Pileser made a second |
expedition into these parts, which had more im-
portant results than his former one.
that, after the date of his first expedition, a close
league was formed between Rezin, king of Syria,
and Pekah, having for its special object the humi-
liation of J udaea, “πε intended to further generally
the interests of the two allies. At first great suc-
cesses were gained by Pekah and his confederate
proceeding to attack Jerusalem itself, and to threaten
Ahaz, who was then king,
throne, which they were about. to give to a pre-
tender, “ the son of Tabeal”’ (Is. vii. 6), the Jewish
monarch applied to Assyria for assistance, and Tig-
thus “ lichtly afflicting the land of |
It appears |
with deposition from his |
| Tiglath-Pileser of Scripture, whose date must cer-
lath-Pileser, consenting to aid him, again appeared |
at the head of an army in these regions.
marched, naturally, against Damascus, which he
took (2 K. xvi. 9), razing it (according to his own
statement) to the ground, and killing Rezin, the
Damascene monarch. Atter this, probably, he pro-
ceeded to chastise Pekah, whose country he entered
on the north-east, where it bordered upon “ Syria
of Damascus.” Here he overran the whole district
to the east of Jordan, no longer “ lightly afflicting ”
Samaria, but injuring her far ‘* more grievously, by
the way of the sea, in Galilee of the Gentiles’”’
(Is. ix. 1), carrying into captivity “the Reubenites,
the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh’’ (1 Chr.
v. 26), who had previously held this country, and
placing them in Upper Mesopotamia from Harran
to about Nisibis (ib.). Thus the result of this
expedition was the absorption of the kingdom of
Damascus, and of an important portion of Samaria,
into the Assyrian empire ; and it further brought the
kingdom of Judah into the condition of a mere tri-
butary and vassal of the Assyrian monarch.
Betore returning into his own land, Tiglath- Pileser
had an interview with Ahaz at Damascus (2 K. xvi.
10). Here doubtless was settled the amount of tri-
bute which Judaea was to pay annually; and it
may be suspected that here too it was explained to
Ahaz by his suzerain that a certain deference to the
Assyrian gods was due on the part of ‘all tributaries,
who were usually required to set up in their capital
“the Laws of Asshur,”’ or “altars to the Great
Gods” [see vol. i. p. 132 2 a]. The ““ altar”? which
Ahaz ‘“‘ saw at Damascus,” and of which he sent the
* In the Assyrian Chronological Canon, of which there
are four copies in the British Museum, all more or less
fragmentary, the reign of Tiglath-Pileser seems to be
He first |
|
TIGLATH-PILESER 1499
pattern to Urijah the priest (2 K. xvi. 10, 11), was
probably such a badge of subjection.
This is all that ‘Scripture tells us of Tiglath-
Pileser. He appears to have succeeded Pul, and to
have been succeeded by Shalmaneser; to lave been
contemporary with Rezin, Pekah, and Ahaz; and
therefore to have ruled Assyria during the latter
half of the eighth century before our era. From
| . . . . . -
his own inscriptions we learn that his reign lasted
at least seventeen years; that, besides warring in
Syria and Samaria, he attacked Babylonia, Media,
Armenia, and the independent tribes in the upper
regions of Mesopotamia, thus, like the other great
Assyrian monarchs, warring along the whole tron-
tier of the empire; and finally, that he was (pro-
bably) not a legitimate prince, but an usurper and
the founder of a dynasty. This last fact is gathered
, from the circumstance that, whereas the Assyrian
kings generally glory in their ancestry, Tiglath-
Pileser omits all mention of his, not even recording
his father’s name upon his monuments. It accords
remarkably with the statements of Berosus (in
Euseb. Chron. Can. i. 4) and Herodotus (i. 95),
that about this time, 7. 6. in the latter half of
the eighth century b.C., there was a change of
dynasty in Assyria, the old family, which had Tuled
for 520 (526) years, being superseded by another
not long before the accession of Sennacherib. The
| authority of these two writers, combined with the
(2 K. xv. 87; 2 Chr. xxviii. 6-8); but, on their |
monumental indications, justifies us in concluding
that the founder of the Lower Dynasty or Empire,
the first monarch of the New Kingdom, was the
tainly be about this time, and whose monuments
show him to have been a self-raised sovereign. The
exact date of the change cannot be positively fixed ;
but it is probably marked by the era of Nabonassar
in Babylon, which synchronises with B.c. 747.
According to this view, Tiglath-Pileser reigned cer-
tainly from B.c. 747 to B.c. 730, and possibly
a few years longer, being succeeded by Shalmaneser
at least as early as B.C. 725.4 [SHALMANESER. |
The circumstances under which Tiglath-Pileser
obtained the crown have not come down to us from
any good authority; but there is a tradition on the
subject which seems to deserve mention. Alexander
Polyhistor, the friend of Sylla, who had access to
the writings of Berosus, related that the first As-
syrian dynasty continued from Ninus, its founder,
to a certain Beletis (Pul), and that he was succeeded
by Belétaras, a man of low rank, a mere vine-
dresser (putoupyés), who had the charge of the
gardens attached to the royal palace. Belétaras,
| he said, having acquired the sovereignty in an extra-
ordinary way, fixed it in his own family, in which
it continued to the time of the destruction of Nine-
veh (Fr. Hist. Gr. iii. 210). It can scarcely be
doubted that Belétaras here is intended to represent
Tiglath-Pileser, Belétar being in fact another mode
of expressing the native Fal-tsira or Palli-tsir
(Oppert), which the Hebrews represented by
Pileser. Whether there is any truth in the tra-
dition may perhaps be doubted. It bears too near
a resemblance to the Oriental stories of Cyrus,
Gyges, Amasis, and others, to have in itself much
claim to our acceptance. On the other hand, it
harmonises with the remarkable tact—unparalleled
in the rest of the Assyrian records—that Tiglath-
reckoned at either 16 or 17 years, (See Atheneum,
No. 1812, p. 84.)
1500 TIGRIS
Pileser is absolutely silent on the subject of his
ancestry, neither mentioning his father’s name, nor
making any allusion whatever to his birth, descent,
or parentage.
Tiglath-Pileser’s wars do not, generally, appear
to have been of much importance. In Babylonia
he took Sippara (Sepharvaim), and several places of
less note in the northern portion of the country ;
but he does not seem to have penetrated far, or
to have come into contact with Nabonassar, who
reigned from B.c. 747 to B.c. 733 at Babylon. In
Media, Armenia, and Upper Mesopotamia, he ob-
tained certain successes, but made no permanent
conquests. It was on his western frontier only that
his victories advanced the limits of the empire.
The destruction of Damascus, the absorption of
Syria, and the extension of Assyrian influence over
Judaea, are the chief events of Tiglath-Pileser’s
reign, which seems to have had fewer external
triumphs than those of most Assyrian monarchs.
Probably his usurpation was not endured quite
patiently, and domestic troubles or dangers acted
as a check upon his expeditions against foreign
countries.
No palace or great building can be ascribed to
this king. His slabs, which are tolerably numerous,
show that he must have built or adorned a residence
at Calah (Nimrud), where they were found; but,
as they were not discovered in situ, we cannot say
anything of the edifice to which they originally
belonged. They bear marks of wanton defacement ;
and it is plain that the later kings purposely injured
them; for not only is the writing often erased, but
the slabs have been torn down, broken, and used
as building materials by Esar-haddon in the great
palace which he erected at Calah, the southern
capital [see vol. i. p.573.] The dynasty of Sargon
was hostile to the first two princes of the Lower
Kingdom, and the result of their hostility is that
we have far less monumental knowledge of Shal-
maneser and Tiglath-Pileser than of various kings
of the Upper Empire. [G. R.]
TIGRIS (Τίγρις : Tygris, Tigris) is used by
the LXX. as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew
Hiddekel pan); aud occurs also in several of
the apocryphal books, as in Tobit (vi. 1), Judith
G. 6), and Ecclesiasticus (xxiv. 25). The meaning,
and various forms, of the word have been considered
under HIpDEKEL. It only remains, therefore, in
the present article, to describe the course and
character of the stream.
The Tigris, like the Euphrates, rises from two
principal sources. The most distant, and therefore
the true, source is the western one, which is in
lat. 38° 10’, long. 39° 20' nearly, a little to the
south of the high mountain lake called Gé/jik or
Gélenjik, in the peninsula formed by the Euphrates
where it sweeps round between Palou and Telek.
The Tigris’ source is near the south-western angle
of the lake, and cannot be more than two or three
miles from the channel of the Euphrates. The
course of the Tigris is at first somewhat north of
east, but after pursuing this direction for about
25 miles it makes a sweep round to the south,
and descends by Arghani Maden upon Diarbekr.
Here it is already a river of considerable size, and
is crossed by a bridge of ten arches a little below
that city (Niebuhr, Voyage en Arabie, p. 326).
It then turns suddenly to the east, and Hees in this
direction, past Osman Kieui to Til, where it once
more alters its course and takes that south-easterly
TIGRIS
direction, which it pursues, with certain slight
variations, to its final junction with the Euphrates.
At Osman Kieui it receives the second or Eastern
Tigris, which descends from Niphates (the modern
Ala-Tugh) with a course almost due south, and,
collecting on its way the waters of a large number
of streams, unites with the Tigris half-way between
Diarbekr and Til, in long. 41° nearly. The courses
of the two streams to the point of junction are re-
spectively 150 and 100 miles. <A little below the
junction, and before any other tributary of im-
portance is received, the Tigris is 150 yards wide
and from three to four feet deep. Near Til a
large stream flows into it from the north-east,
bringing almost as much water as the main channel
ordinarily holds (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon,
p- 49). This branch rises near Pili’, in northern
Kurdistan, and runs at first to the north-east, but
presently sweeps round to the north, and proceeds
through the districts of Shattak and Boktan with
a general westerly course, crossing and recrossing
the line of the 38th parallel, nearly to Sert, whence
it flows south-west and south to 711. From Til
the Tigris runs southward for 20 miles through
a long, narrow, and deep gorge, at the end of
which it emerges upon the comparatively low but
still hilly countiy of Mesopotamia, near Jezirch.
Through this it flows with a course which is south-
south-east to Mosu/, thence nearly south to Aileh-
Sherghat, and again south-south-east to Samara,
where the hills end and the river enters on the great
alluvium. The course is now more irregular.
Between Samara and Baghdad a consider able bend
is made to the east; and, after the Shat-el-Hie is
thrown off in lat. 32° 30', a second bend is made
to the north, the regular south- -easterly course
being only resumed a little above the 52nd pavallel,
from which point the Tigris runs in ἃ toler-
ably direct line to its junction with the Euphrates
at Kurnah. The length of the whole stream, ex-
clusive of meanders, is reckoned at 1146 miles. It
can be descended on rafts during the flood season
from Diarbekr, which is only 150 miles from its
source ; and it has been navigated by steamers of
small draught nearly up to Mosul. From Diarbekr
to Samara the navigation is much impeded by
rapids, rocks, and shallows, as well as by artificial
bunds or dams, which in ancient times were thrown
across the stream, probably for purposes of irriga-
tion. Below Samara there are no obstructions ;
the river is deep, with a bottom of soft mud; the
stream moderate; and the course very meandering.
The average width of the Tigris in this part of its
course is 200 yards, while its depth is very con-
siderable,
Besides the three head-streams of the Tigris,
which have been already described, the river re-
ceives, along its middle and lower course, no fewer
than five important tributaries. These are the
river of Zakko or Eastern Khabour, the Great Zab
(Zab Ala), the Lesser Zab (Zab Asfal), the
Adhem, and the Diyaleh or ancient Gyndes. ΑἹ]
these rivers flow from the high range of Zagyos,
which shuts in the Mesopotamian valley on the
east, and is able to sustain so large a number of
great streams from its inexhaustible springs and
abundant snows. From the west the Tigris obtains
no tributary of the slightest importance, for the
Tharthar, which is said to have once reached it,
now ends in a salt lake, a little below Tehrit.
Its volume, however, is continually increasing as it
descends, in consequence of the great bulk of water
TIGRIS
brought into it from the east, particularly by the
Great Zab and the Diyaleh ; and in its lower course
it is said to bea larger stream and to carry a greater
body than the Euphrates (Chesney, Huphrates
Hapedition, i. 62),
The Tigris, like the Euphrates, has a flood
season. Karly in the month of March, in conse-
quence of the melting of the snows on the southern
flank of Niphates, the river rises rapidly. Its
breadth gradually increases at Diarbekr from 100
or 120 to 250 yards. The stream is swift and
turbid. The rise continues through March and
April, reaching its full height generally in the first
or second week of May. At this time the country
about Baghdad is often extensively flooded, not,
however, so much from the T igris as from the
overflow of the Euphrates, which is here poured
into the eastern stream through a canal, Further
down the river, in the territory of the Beni-Lam
Arabs, between the 32nd and 31st parallels, there
1s a great annual inundation on both banks. About
the middle of May the Tigris begins to fall, and by
midsummer it has reached its natural level. In
October and November there is another rise and
fall in consequence of the autumnal rains; but com-
pared with the spring flood that of autumn is in-
significant.
The Tigris is at present better fitted for pur-
poses of traffic than the Euphrates (Layard, Nineveh
and Babylon, p. 475) ; but in ancient times it does
not seem to have been much used as a line of trade.
The Assyrians probably floated down it the timber
which they were in the habit of cutting in Amanus
and Lebanon, to be used for building purposes in
their capital; but the general line of communica-
tion between the Mediterranean and the Persian
Gulf was by the Euphrates. [See vol. i. p. 591. ]
According to the historians of Alexander (Arrian,
Exp. Al. vii. 7; comp. Strab. xv. 3, §4), the
Persians purposely obstructed the navigation of the
lower Tigris by a series of dams which they threw
across from bank to bank between the embouchure
and the city of Opis, and such trade as there was
along its course proceeded by land (Strab. ibid.).
It is probable that the dams were in reality made
for another purpose, namely, to raise the level of the
waters for the sake of irrigation ; but they would
undoubtedly have also the effect ascribed to them,
unless in the spring flood time, when they might
have been shot by boats descending the river. Thus
there may always have been a certain amount of
traffic down the stream; but up it trade would
scarcely have been practicable at any time further
than Samara or Tekrit, on account of the natural
obstructions, and of the great force of the stream.
The lower part of the course was opened by Alex-
ander (Arrian, vii. 7) ; and Opis, near the mouth of
the Diyaleh, became thenceforth known as a mart
(ἐμπόριον), from which the neighbouring districts
drew the merchandise of India and Arabia (Strab.
xvi. 1, §9). Seleucia, too, which grew up soon
after Alexander, derived no doubt a portion of its
prosperity from the facilities for trade offered by
this great stream.
We find but little mention of the Tigris in
Scripture. It appears indeed under the name of
Hiddekel, among the rivers of Eden (Gen. ii. 14),
and is there correctly described as « running east-
ward to Assyria.” But after this we hear no more
of it, if we except one doubtful allusion in Nahum
(ii. 6), until the Captivity, when it becomes well
known to the prophet Daniel, who had to cross it
ΠΥ. Ψ ~- ΤΡ ΡΟ nr? oe
TILE 1501
in his journeys to and from Susa (Shushan). With
Daniel itis “ the Great River” —b}439 9A37—an
expression commonly applied to the Eu phrates ; and
by its side he sees some of his most important. visions
(Dan. x. to xii.). No other mention of the Tigris
seems to occur except in the apocryphal books; and
there it is unconnected with any real history.
The Tigris, in its upper course, anciently ran
through Armenia and Assyria. Lower down, from
about the point where it enters on the alluvial plain,
it separated Babylonia from Susiana. In the wars
between the Romans and the Parthians, we find it
constituting, for a short time (from A.D. 114 to
A.D. 117), the boundary line between these two
empires. Otherwise it has scarcely been of any
political importance. ‘The great chain of Zagros is
the main natural boundary between Western and
Central Asia; and beyond this, the next defensible
line is the Euphrates. Historically it is found that
either the central power pushes itself westward to
that river; or the power ruling the west advances
eastward to the mountain barrier.
The water of the Tigris, in its lower course, is
yellowish, and is regarded as unwholesome. The
stream abounds with fish. of many kinds, which are
often of a large size (see Tobit vi. 11, and compare
Strab. xi. 14, 88). Abundant water-fowl float on
the waters. The banks are fringed with palm-
trees and pomegranates, or clothed with jungle and
reeds, the haunt of the wild-boar and the lion.
(The most important notices of the Tigris to be
found in the classical writers are the following:
Strabo, xi. 14, §8, and xvi. 1, §9-13; Arrian,
Exped. Alex. vii. 7; and Plin. H. WN. vi. 27.
The best modern accounts are those of Col. Chesney,
Euphrates Expedition, i. 16, &c., and Winer, Real-
worterbuch, ii. 622, 623; with which may be
compared Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 49-51,
and 464-476; Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana,
3-8; Jones in Transactions of the Geographical
Society of Bombay, vol. ix. ; Lynch in Journal of
Geographical Society, vol. ix.; and Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, i. 552, 553.) [G. ἘΠῚ
TIK'VAH (MPF): Ockovdy; Alex. Θεκκοέ:
Thecua). 1. The father of Shallum the husband
of the prophetess Huldah (2 K. xxii. 14). He is
called TIKVATH in the A. V. of 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22.
2. (Θεκωέ; Alex. Θεκουέ: Thecue.) The father
of Jahaziah (Ezr. x. 15). In 1 Esd. ix, 14 he is
called THEOCANUS.
TIK'VATH (nApin; Keri, NPA ; properly
Tohkehath or Tokhath: @ekwé; Alex. Θακουάθ :
Thecuath). 'Trxv au the father of Shallum (2 Chr.
xxxiv. 22).
TILE. For general information on the subject
see the articles Brick, Porrery, SEAL. The ex-
pression in the A. V. rendering of Luke συ. 19,
‘*through® the tiling,’ has given much trouble to
expositors, from the fact that Syrian houses are in
general covered, not with tiles, but with plaster
terraces. Some suggestions towards the solution of
this difficulty have been already given. [House, vol.
i. p. 837.] An additional one may here be offered.
1. Terrace-roofs, if constructed improperly, or at
the wrong season of the year, are apt to crack, and
to become so saturated with rain as to be easily
penetrable. May not the roof of the house in which
our Lord performed his miracle, have been in this
ἃ διὰ τῶν κεράμων.
1502 TILGATH-PILNESER
condition, and been pierced, or, to use St. Mark’s >
word, “ broken up,” by the bearers of the paralytic ?
(Arundell, Zrav. in Asia Minor, i. 171; Russell,
Aleppo, i. 168).
2. Or may the phrase “ through the tiling” be
accounted for thus? Greek houses were often, if
not always, roofed with tiles (Pollux, vii. 161 ;
Vitruvius, iii. 3). Did not St. Luke, a native, pro-
bably, of Greek Antioch, use the expression “ tiles,”
as the form of roof which was most familiar to
himself and to his Greek readers without reference
to the particular material of the roof in question ?
(Euseb. H. 1. iii. 4; Jerome, Pro/. to Com. on
St. Matth. vol. vii. p. 43; Conybeare and Howson,
St. Paul, i. 367.) It may perhaps be worth re-
marking that houses in modern Antioch, at least
many of them, have tiled roofs (Fisher, Views in
* Syria, i. 19, vi. 56). π᾿ ΕΡῚ
TIL'GATH-PILNE'SER (NPB 7A;
Ξ naon ; "D208 nin: Βαλα Βα να τ, Θαγ-
apapacdp, Θαλγαφελλαδάρ; Alex. Θαγλαθ φαλ-
νασαρ: Theglatphalnasar, Thelgathphalnasar). A
variation, and probably a corruption, of the name
TIGLATH-PILESER. It is peculiar to the Books of
Chronicles, being found in 1 Chr. v. 6, 26; 2 Chr.
xxviii. 20. [G.]
TI'LON cidin ; Keri, ion: Ivey; Alex.
Θιλών : Thilon). One of the four sons of Shimon,
whose family is reckoned in the eae of
Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20).
TIMAE'US (Τίμαιος : Timaeus). The father
of the blind man, Bar-timaeus, who was restored to
sight by Jesus as He left Jericho (Mark x. 46).
TIMBREL, TABRET. By these words the
A. Y. translates the Heb. 9A, téph, which is de-
rived from an imitative root occurring in many
languages not immediately connected with each other.
Ae)
It is the same as the Arabic and Persian C34, duff,
which in Spanish becomes adufe, a tambourine.
The root, which signifies to beat or strike, is found
in the Greek τύπανον or τύμπανον, Lat. tympanum,
It. tamburo, Sp. tambor, Fr. tambour, Prov. tabor,
Eng. tabor, tabouret, timbrel, tambourine, A. 8.
dubban, to strike, Eng. tap, and many others.¢ In
Old English tabor was used for any drum. Thus
Rob. of Gloucester, p. 396 (ed. Hearne, 1810) :
“Vor of trompes and of tabors the Saracens made there
So gret noise, that Cristenmen al distourbed were.”
In Shakspere’s time it seems to have become an
instrument of peace, and is thus contrasted with the
drum: “I have known when there was no music
with him but the drum and fife; and now had he
rather hear the tabor and the pipe’’ (Much Ado,
ii. 3). Yabouret and tabourine are diminutives of
tabor, and denote the instrument now known as the
tambourine :—
“ Or Mimoe’s whistling to his tabouret,
Selling a laughter for a cold meal’s meat.”
HA, Sat. iv. 1, 78.
Tabret is a contraction of tabouret. The word is
retained in the A. V. from Coverdale’s translation
b ἐξορύξαντες (Mark ii. 4),
¢ It is usual for etymologists to quote the Arab. tunbir
as the original of tambour and tabor; but unfortunately
the tunbir is a guitar, and not a dram (Russell’s Aleppo,
i. 152, 2nd ed.), The parallel Arabic word is tabl, which
TIMBREL
in all passages except Is. xxx. 32, where it is
omitted in Coverdale, and Ez. xxviii. 13, where it
is rendered “ beauty.”
The Heb. téph is undoubtedly the instrument
described by travellers as the duff or diff of the
Arabs. It was used in very early times by the
Syrians of Padan-aram at their merry-makings
(Gen. xxxi. 27). It was played principally by
women (Ex. xv. 20; Judg. xi. 345 1 Sam. xviii. Ὁ ;
Ps. Ixviii. 25 [26]) as an accompaniment to the
song and dance (comp. Jud. iii. 7), and appears to
have been worn by them as an ornament (Jer. xxxi.
4). The téph was one of the instruments played
by the young prophets whom Saul met on his
return from Samuel (1 Sam. x. 5), and by the
Levites in the Temple-band (2 Sam. vi. 5; 1 Chr.
slii. 8). ΤῸ accompanied the merriment of feasts
(Is. ν. 12, xxiv. 8), and the joy of triumphal pro-
cessions (Judg. xi. 34; 1 Sam. xviii. 6), when the
women came out to meet the warriors returning
from victory, and is everywhere a sign of happiness
and peace (Job xxi. 12; Is. xxx. 32; Jer. xxxi. 4).
So in the grand triumphal entry of God into His
Temple, described in strong figures in Ps. lxviii.,
the procession is made up by the singers who
marched in front, and the players on stringed in-
struments who brought up the rear, while round
them all danced the young maidens with their
timbrels (Ps. Ixviii. 25 [26 ])
The diff of the Arabs is described by Russell
(Aleppo, p. 94, Ist ed.) as “ἃ hoop (sometimes
with pieces of brass fixed in it to make a jingling)
over which a piece of parchment is distended. It
is beat with the fingers, and is the true tympanum
of the ancients, as appears from its figure in several
relievos, representing the orgies of Bacchus and
rites of Cybele.” The same instrument was used
by the Egyptian dancing-women whom Hasselquist
saw (Trav. p. 59, ed. 1766). In Barbary it is
called tar, and ‘‘is made like a sieve, consisting
(as Isidore? describes the tympanum) of a rim or
thin hoop of wood with a skin of parchment
stretched over the top of it. This serves for the
bass in all their concerts, which they accordingly
touch very artfully with their fingers, or with the
knuckles or palms of their hands, as the time and
measure require, or as force and softness are to be
communicated to the several parts of the perform-
ance” (Shaw, Zrav. p. 292).
Tar.
(Lane’s Modern Egyptians, 366, 5th ed.)
The tympanum was used in the feasts of Cybele
(Her. iv. 76), and is said to have been the inven-
tion of Dionysus and Rhea (Eur. Bacch. 59). It
was played by women, who beat it with the au
denotes a kind of drum, and is the same with the Rabb.
Heb. tabla, and Span. atabal, a kettle-drum. The instru-
ment and the word may haye come to us through the
Saracens.
ἃ Orig. iii. 31.
TIMNA
of their hands (Ovid, Met. iv. 29), and Juvenal
(Sat. iii. 64) attributes to it a Syrian origin :
“ Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes
Kt linguam, et mores et cum tibicine chordas
Obliquas, necnon gentilia tympana secum
Vexit.””
In the same way the tabor is said to have been
introduced into Europe by the Crusaders, who
adopted it from the Saracens, to whom it was
peculiar (see Du Cange’s note on De Joinville’s
Hist. du Roy Saint Louis, p. 61).
The author of Shilte Haggibborim (ec. 2) gives
the Greek κύμβαλον as the equivalent of toph, and
says it was a hollow basin of metal, beaten with a
stick of brass or iron.
The passage of Ezekiel (xxviii. 13) is obscure, and
appears to have been early corrupted. Instead of
SM, “thy tabrets,’ the Vulg. and Targum
read 775", “thy beauty,” which is the rendering
adopted in Coverdale’s and Cranmer’s Bibles. The
LXX. seem to have read 435A, as in ver. 16. If
the ordinary text be adopted, there is no reason
for taking téph, as Jerome suggests, in the sense
of the setting of a gem, “ pala qua gemma conti-
netur.”” Wi AS Wi]
TIM'NA, TIM’NAH ( DIN :
Thamna). 1. A concubine of Eliphaz son of
Esau, and mother of Amalek (Gen. xxxvi. 12; in
1 Chr. i. 36 named asa son of Eliphaz): it may
be presumed that she was the same as Timna, sister
of Lotan, and daughter of Seir the Horite (ver. 22,
and 1 Chr. i. 39).
2. A duke, or phylarch, of Edom in the last list
in Gen, xxxvi. 40-43 (1 Chr. i. 51-54), where the
dukes are named “ according to their families, after
their places, by their names... . according to
their habitations :” whence we may conclude, as in
the case of TeMAN, that Timnah was also the name
of a place or a district. [E.S. P.]
TIM'NAH (A227). A name which occurs,
simple and compounded, and with slight variations
of form, several times, in the topography of the Holy
Land. The name is derived by the lexicographers
(Gesenius, Simonis, Fiirst) from a root signifying
to “portion out, or *divide;” but its frequent
occurrence, and the analogy of the topographical
names of other countries, would rather imply that
it referred to some natural feature of the country.
1. (λίβα, @auva; Alex. vorov, @auva; Joseph.
Θαμνά: Thamna, Thamnan.) A place which
formed one of the landmarks on the north boun-
dary of the allotment of Judah (Josh. xv. 10). It
was obviously near the western end of the boundary,
being between Bethshemesh and the “shoulder of
Ekyon.” It is probably identical with the THm-
NATHAH of Josh, xix. 43, one of the towns of Dan,
also named in connexion with Ekron, and that again
with the Timnath, or more accurately Timnathah, of
Samson, and the Thamnatha of the Maccabees. Its
belonging at that time to Dan would explain its
absence from the list of the towns of Jadah (Josh.
xv.), though mentioned in describing the course of
the boundary. The modern representative of all
these various forms of the same name is probably
Tibneh, a village about two miles west of Ain Shems
(Bethshemesh), among the broken undulating coun-
try by which the central mountains of this part of
Θαμνά:
* The LXX., as above, derived it from teman, the
South.
TIMNATH 1503
Palestine descend to the maritime plain. It has been
shown in several other cases [ KniLan, &e. | that this
district contained towns which in the lists are enu-
merated as belonging to the plain. Timnah is pro-
bably another instance of the same thing, for in 2 Chr.
xxvill, 18 a place of the same name is mentioned
as among the cities of the Shefelah, which from its
occurrence with Bethshemesh, Gideroth, Gimzo, all
more or less in the neighbourhood of Ekron, is pro-
bably the same as that just described as in the
hills. After the Danites had deserted their original
allotment for the north, their towny would naturally
fall into the hands of Judah, or of the Philistines, as
the continual struggle between them might happen
to fluctuate.
In the later history of the Jews Timnah must
have been a conspicuous place. It was fortified by
Bacchides as one of the most important military
| posts of Judaea (1 Mace. ix. 50), and it became
the head of a district or toparchy, which was called
after its name, and was reckoned the fourth in
order of importance among the fourteen into which
the whole country was divided at the time of Ves-
pasian’s invasion (Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, §5; and see
Pliny, v. 14).
Tibnch is now spoken of as “a deserted site”
(Rob. ii. 16), and not a single Western traveller
appears to have visited it, or even to have seen it,
though its position is indicated with tolerable cer-
tainty. [TIMNATH.]
2. (Θαμνάθα ; Alex. Θαμνα: Thamna.) A town
in the mountain district of Judah (Josh. xv. 57).
It is named in the same group with Maon, Ziph,
and Carmel, which are known to have been south
of Hebron. It is, therefore, undoubtedly a distinet
place from that just examined. [G.]
TIM'NATH. The form in which the translators
of the A. V. inaccurately present two names which
are certainly distinct, though it is possible that they
refer to the same place.
1. ΤΊΜΝΑΗ (ΠΣ ΘΠ, ἡ. 6. Timnah: Θαμνᾷ :
Thamnatha). The scene of the adventure of Judah
with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 12,
13, 14). There is nothing here to indicate its
position. The expression ‘‘ went up to Timnah ἢ
(ver. 12) indicates that it was on higher ground
than the spot from which Judah started. But as
we are ignorant where that was, the indication is
of no service. It seems to have been the place
where Judah’s flocks were kept. There was a road
to it (A. V. “ way”). It may be identified either
with the Timnah in the mountains of Judah, which
was in the neighbourhood of Carmel where Nabal
kept his huge flocks of sheep; or with the Tim-
nathah so familiar in the story of Samson’s con-
flicts. In favour of the latter is the doubtful
suggestion named under ENAM and TAPPUAH,
that in the words translated “an open place”
there is a reference to those two towns. In favour
of the former is the possibility of the name in
Gen, xxxviii. being not Timnah but Timnathah
(as in the Vulgate), which is certainly the name
of the Philistine place connected with Samson.
More than this cannot be said.
The place is named in the specification of the
allotment of the tribe of Dan, where the A. V.
exhibits it accurately as THIMNATHAH, and its
name doubtless survives in the modern Tibneh
which is said to lie below Zareah, about three
miles to the S.W. of it, where the great Wady es-
Stirdr issues upon the plain.
1504 TIMNATH-HERES
2. TIMNATHAH (ANIA : Θαμναθᾶ ; Joseph.
Θαμνά: Thamnatha). The residence of Samson’s
wife (Judg. xiv. 1, 2,5). It was then in the oc-
cupation of the Philistines. It contained vineyards,
haunted however by such savage animals as indi-
cate that the population was but sparse. It was on
higher ground than Ashkelon (xiv. 19), but lower
than Zorah, which we may presume was Samson’s
starting point (xiii. 25). [G.]
TIM'NATH-HE'RES (DIN NINA: Θαμνα-
Oapés; Alex. Oauvabap ews: ‘Thamnath Sare).
The name under which the city and burial place of
Joshua, previously called TIMNATH-SERAH, is men-
tioned in Judg. ii. 9. The constituent consonants
of the word are the same, but their order is reversed.
The authorities differ considerably in their explana-
tions. The Jews adopt Heres as the real name ;
interpret it to mean the sun; and see in it a
reference to the act of making the sun stand still,
which is to them the greatest exploit of Joshua’s life.
Others (as Fiirst, i. 442), while accepting Heres as
the original form, interpret that word as “ clay,”
and as originating in the character of the soil.
Others again, like Ewald (Gesch. ii. 347, 8), and
Bertheau (On Judges), take Serah to be the ori-
ginal form, and Heres an ancient but unintentional
error. [G.]
TIM'NATH-SE'RAH (ΠῚ ΠΣ : Θαμαρ-
χαρής, Sauvabacaxdpa; Alex. Θαμναθ capa,
Oauvacaxap; Joseph. Θαμνά: Thamnath Seraa,
Thamnath Sare). The name of the city which at
his request was presented to Joshua after the par-
tition of the country was completed (Josh. xix. 50);
and in ‘‘ the border” of which he was buried (xxiv.
30). It is specified as “in Mount Ephraim on the
north side of Mount Gaash.” In Jude. ii. 9, the
name is altered to TIMNATH-HERES. The latter form
is that adopted by the Jewish writers, who inter-
pret Heres as meaning the sun, and account for the
name by stating that the figure of the sun (temu-
nath ha-cheres) was carved upon the sepulchre, to
indicate that it was the tomb of the man who had
caused the sun to stand still (Rashi, Comment. on
both passages). Accordingly, they identify the
place with Aefar cheres, which is said by Rabbi
Jacob (Carmoly, Itinéraires, &c., 186), hap-Parchi
(Asher’s Benj. 434), and other Jewish travellers
down to Schwarz in our own day (151), to be
about 5 miles 8. of Shechem (Nablus). No place
with that name appears on the maps, the closest
approach to it being Kefr-Hurit, which is more
nearly double that distance S.S.W. of Nablus.
Wherever it be, the place is said by the Jews still
to contain the tombs of Joshua, of Nun, and of
Caleb (Schwarz, 151).
Another and more promising identification has,
however, been suggested in our own day by Dr.
Eli Smith (Bibl. Sacra, 1843). In his journey
from Jifna to Mejdel-Yaba, about six miles from
the former, he discovered the ruins of a considerable
town on a gentle hill on the left (south) of the
road. Opposite the town (apparently to the south)
was a much higher hill, in the north side of which
are several excavated sepulchres, which in size and
in the richness and character of their decorations
resemble the so-called ** Tombs of the Kings” at
Jerusalem. The whole bears the name of Tibneh,
and although without further examination it can
hardly be affirmed to be the Timnah of Joshua, yet
the identification appears probable.
TIMOTHEUS
Timnath-Serah and the tomb of its illustrious
owner were shown in the time of Jerome, who
mentions them in the Hpitaphium Paulae (815).
Beyond its being south of Shechem, he gives no indi-
cation of its position, but he dismisses it with the
following characteristic remark, a fitting tribute to
the simple self-denial of the creat soldier of Israel :—
‘«Satisque mirata est, quod distributor possessionum
sibi montana et aspera delevisset.” [G.]
TIM'NITE, THE ($319F\7: τοῦ @auvet; Alex.
6 Θαμναθαιος : Thamnathaeus), that is, the Tinna-
thite (as in the Alex. LXX., and Vulg.). Samson’s
father-in-law (Judg. xv. 6).
TI'MON (Τίμων: Timon). One of the seven,
commonly called “ deacons’ [DEACON], who were
appointed to act as almoners on the occasion of com-
plaints of partiality being raised by the Hellenistic
Jews at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1-6). Like his col-
leagues, Timon bears a Greek name, from which,
taken together with the occasion of their appoint-
ment, it has been inferred with much probability that
the seven were themselves Hellenists. The name of
Timon stands fifth in the catalorue. Nothing fur-
ther is known of him with certainty; but in the
‘Synopsis de Vita et Morte Prophetarum Apostolo-
rum et Discipuloram Domini,’ ascribed to Dorotheus
of Tyre (Bibl. Patrum, iii. p. 149), we are in-
formed that he was one of the ““ seventy-two” dis-
ciples (the catalorue of whom is a mere congeries
of New Testament names), and that he afterwards
became bishop of Bostra (? ‘* Bostra Arabum”’),
where he suffered martyrdom by fire. [W.B.J.]
TIMO’THEUS (Τιμόθεος). 1. A “captain
of the Ammonites” (1 Mace. v. 6), who was de-
feated on several occasions by Judas Maccabaeus,
B.C. 164 (1 Mace. v. 6, 11, 54-44). He was pro-
bably a Greek adventurer (comp. Jos. And. xii. 8,
81), who had gained the leadership of the tribe.
Thus Josephus (Ant. xiii. 8, §1, quoted by Grimm,
on 1 Mace. v. 6) mentions one ‘‘ Zeno, surnamed
Cotylas, who was despot of Rabbah” in the time of
Johannes Hyrcanus.
2. In 2 Mace. a leader named Timotheus is men-
tioned as having taken part in the invasion of Nica-
nor (B.C. 166: 2 Mace. viii. 30, ix. 3). Ata later
time he made great preparations for a second attack
on Judas, but was driven to a stronghold, Gazara,
which was stormed by Judas, and there Timotheus
was taken and slain (2 Macc. x. 24-37). It has
been supposed that the events recorded in this latter
narrative are identical with those in 1 Mace. ν. 6-8,
an idea rendered more plausible by the similarity
of the names Jazer and Gazara (in Lat. Gazer,
Jazare, Gazava). But the name Timotheus was
very common, and it is evident that Timotheus the
Ammonite leader was not slain at Jazer (1 Mace.
v. 34); and Jazer was on the east side of Jordan,
while Gazara was almost certainly the same as
Gezer. [JAAZER; GAZARA.] It may be urged
further, in support of the substantial accuracy of
2 Macc., that the second campaign of Judas against
Timotheus (1) (1 Mace. v. 27-44) is given in
2 Mace. xii. 2-24, after the account of the capture
of Gazara and the death of Timotheus (2) there.
Wernsdorff assumes that all the differences in the
narratives ave blunders in 2 Mace. (De fide Libr.
Mace. §\xx.), and in this he is followed by Grimm
(on 2 Macc. x. 24, 32). But, if any reliance is to
be placed on 2 Mace., the differences of place and
circumstances are rightly taken by Patritius to
- TIMOTHEUS
mark different events (De Libr. Macc. § xxxii.
p: 259).
8. The Greek name of ἹΊΜΟΤΗΥ (Acts xvi. 1,
xvii. 14, &c.). He is called by this name in the
A. V. in every case except 2 Cor, i, 1, Philem. 1,
Heb, xiii. 23, and the Epistles addressed to him.
[B. F. W.]
TIM'OTHY (Τιμόθεος : Timotheus). The dis-
ciple thus named was the son of one of those mixed
marriages which, though condemned by stricter
Jewish opinion, and placing their offspring on all
but the lowest step in the Jewish scale of prece-
dence,* were yet not uncommon in the later periods
of Jewish history. The father’s name is unknown:
he was a Greek, 7. e. a Gentile by descent (Acts |
xvi. 1, 3). If in any sense a proselyte, the fact that
the issue of the marriage did not receive the sign
of the covenant would render it probable that he
belonged to the class of half-converts, the so-called
Proselytes of the Gate, not those of Righteousness
[comp. PROSELYTES ].
sonal allusion to the father in the Acts or Epistles
suggests the inference that he must have died or
disappeared during his son’s infancy. The care of
the boy thus devolved upon his mother Eunice and
her mother Lois (2 Tim. i. 5). Under their
training his education was emphatically Jewish.
“Fyrom a child” he learnt (probably in the LXX.
version) to “know the Holy Scriptures” daily.
The language of the Acts leaves it uncertain whe-
ther Lystra or Derbe were the residence of the
devout family. The latter has been inferred, but
without much likelihood, from a possible construc-
tion of Acts xx. 4, the former from Acts xvi. 1, 2
(comp. Neander, Pfl. und Leit. i. 288 ; Alford and
Huther, in loc,). In either case the absence of any
indication of the existence of a synagogue makes
this devout consistency more noticeable. We may
think here, as at Philippi, of the few devout
women going forth t6 their daily worship at some
river-side oratory (Conybeare and Howson, i. 211).
The reading παρὰ τίνων, in 2 Tim. iii. 14, adopted
by Lachmann and Tischendorf, indicates that it
was from them as well as from the Apostle that
the young disciple received his first impression of
Christian truth. It would be natural that a cha-
racter thus fashioned should retain throughout
something of a feminine piety. A constitution far
from robust (1 Tim. v. 23), a morbid shrinking
from opposition and responsibility (1 Tim. iv. 12-
UG ΣΟ: Ὁ τὶ: lade Sina ion) ea
sensitiveness even to tears (2 Tim. i. 4), a ten-
dency to an ascetic rigour which he had not
strength to bear (1 Tim. v. 23), united, as it often
is, with a temperament exposed to some risk from
“ youthful lusts’? >» (2 Tim. ii. 22) and the softer
emotions (1 Tim. v. 2)—these we may well think |
of as characterising the youth as they afterwards
characterised the man.
The arrival of Paul and Barnabas in Lycaonia
(Acts xiv. 6) brought the message of glad-tidings
to Timotheus and his mother, and they received it
with ‘‘unfeigned faith’ (2 Tim. i. 5).
Lystra, as seems probable from 2 Tim. iii. 11, he
The absence of any per- |
If at}
TIMOTHY 1505
may have witnessed the half-completed sacrifice,
the half-finished martyrdom, of Acts xiv. 19. The
preaching of the Apostle on his return from his
short circuit prepared him for a life of suffering
(Acts xiv. 22). From that time his life and
education must have been under the direct super-
intendence of the body of elders (ib. 23). During
the interval of seven years between the Apostle’s
first and second journeys, the boy grew up to
manhood. His zeal, probably his asceticism, be-
came known both at Lystra and Iconium, The
mention of the two Churches as united in testifying
to his character (Acts xvi. 2), leads us to believe
that the early work was prophetic of the later, that
he had been already employed in what was after-
wards to be the great labour of his life, as ‘“ the
messenger of the Churches,” and that it was his
tried: fitness for that office which determined St.
Paul’s choice. Those who had the deepest insight
into character, and spoke with a prophetic utter-
ance, pointed to him (1 ‘Tim. i. 18, iv. 14), as others
had pointed before to Paul and Barnabas (Acts
xiii. 2), as specially fit for the missionary work in
which the Apostle was engaged. Personal feeling
led St. Paul to the same conclusion (Acts xvi. 3),
and he was solemnly set apart (the whole assembly
of the elders laying their hands on him, as did
the Apostle himself) to do the work and possibly
to bear the title of Evangelist (1 Tim, iv. 14;
2‘Tim. i. 6, iv. 5).¢ A gieat obstacle, however,
presented itself. Timotheus, though inheriting, as
it were, from the nobler side (Wetstein, 7m loc.),
and therefore reckoned as one of the seed of
Abraham, had been allowed to grow up to the
age of manhood without the sign of circumcision,
and in this point he might seem to be disclaiming
the Jewish blood that was in him and choosing to
take up his position as a heathen, Had that been
his real position, it would have been utterly incon-
sistent with St. Paul’s principle of action to urge
on him the necessity of circumcision (1 Cor. vii.
18; Gal. ii. 8, v. 2). As it was, his condition
was that of a negligent, almost of an apostate
Israelite; and, though circumcision was nothing,
and uncireumcision was nothing, it was a serious
question whether the scandal of such a position
should be allowed to frustrate all his efforts as an
Evangelist. The fact that no offence seems 10
have been felt hitherto is explained by the pre-
dominance of the Gentile element in the churches
of Lycaonia (Acts xiv. 27). But his wider work
would bring him into contact with the Jews, who
had already shown themselves so ready to attack,
and then the scandal would come out. They
might tolerate a heathen, as such, in the synagogue
or the church, but an uncircumcised Israelite would
be to them a horror and a portent. With a special
view to their feelings, making no sacrifice of prin-
ciple, the Apostle, who had refused to permit the
circumcision of Titus, “took and circumcised”
Timotheus (Acts xvi. 3); and then, as conscious
of no inconsistency, went on his way distributing
the decrees of the council of Jerusalem, the great
charter of the freedom of the Gentiles (ib. 4).
Henceforth Timotheus was one of his most constant
8 The children of these marriages were known as
Mamzerim (bastards), and stood just above the ΝΈΨΗΙΝΙΜ.
This was, however, caeteris puribus. A bastard who was
a wise student of the Law was, in theory, above an
ignorant high-priest (Gem. Hieros. Horajoth, fol. 84, in
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matt. xxiii. 14); and the education
of Timotheus (2 Tim. iii. 15) may therefore have helped
VOL. II.
to overcome the prejudice which the Jews would naturally
have against him on this ground.
b Comp. the elaborate dissertation, De νεωτερικαῖς ἐπι-
θυμίαις, by Bosius, in Hase’s Thesaurus, vol. 11.
c Iconium has been suggested by Conybeare and How-
| son (i, 289) as the probable scene of the ordination.
ἘΣ
1506 TIMOTHY
companions. Not since he parted from Barnabas
had he found one whose heart so answered to his
own. If Barnabas had been as the brother and
friend of early days, he had now found one whom
he could claim as his own true son by a spiritual
parentage (1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim.
i. 2). They and Silvanus, and probably Luke
also, journeyed to Philippi (Acts xvi. 12), and
there already the young Evangelist was conspicuous
at once for his filial devotion and his zeal (Phil.
ii, 22). His name does not appear in the account
of St. Paul’s work at Thessalonica, and it is possible
that he remained some time at Philippi, and then
acted as the messenger by whom the members of
that Church sent what they were able to give for
the Apostle’s wants (Phil. iv. 15). He appears,
however, at Beroea, and remains there when Paul
and Silas are obliged to leave (Acts xvii. 14), going
on afterwards to join his master at Athens (1
Thess. iii. 2). From Athens he is sent back to
Thessalonica (ib.), as having special gifts for com-
forting and teaching. He returns from Thessa-
lonica, not to Athens but to Corinth,4 and_ his
hame appears united with St. Paul’s in the opening
words of both the letters written from that city to
the Thessalonians (1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1).
Here also he was apparently active as an Evan-
gelist (2 Cor. i..19), and on him, probably, with
some exceptions, devolved the duty of baptising
the new converts (1 Cor. i. 14). Of the next five
years of his life we have no record, and can infer
nothing beyond a continuance of his active service
as St. Paul’s companion. When we next meet
with him it is as being sent on in advance when
the Apostle was contemplating the long journey
which was to include Macedonia, Achaia, Jeru-
salem, and Rome (Acts xix. 22). He was sent to
“bring” the churches “ὁ into remembrance of the
ways’ of the Apostle (1 Cor. iv. 17). We trace
in the words of the “father” an anxious desire to
guard the son from the perils which, to his eager
but sensitive temperament, would be most trying
(1 Cor. xvi. 10). His route would take him
through the churches which he had been instru-
mental in founding, and this would give him scope
for exercising the gifts which were afterwards to
be displayed in a still more responsible office. It
is probable, from the passages already referred to,
that, after accomplishing the special work assigned
to him, he returned by the same route and met
St. Paul according to a previous arrangement (1
Cor. xvi. 11), and was thus with him when the
second epistle was written to the Church of
Corinth (2 Cor. i. 1). He returns with the
Apostle to that city, and joins in messages of
greeting to the disciples whom he had known
personally at Corinth and who had since found
their way to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). He forms
one of the company of friends who go with St.
TIMOTHY ;
i to Philippi and then sail by themselves,
yaiting for his arrival by a different ship (Acts
XX. ὃ- 1G), Whether he continued his journey to
Jerusalem, and what became of him during St.
Paul’s two years’ imprisonment, are points on
which we must remain uncertain. The language
of St. Paul’s address to the elders of Ephesus
(Acts xx. 17-35) renders it unlikely that he was
then left there with authority. The absence of
his name from Acts xxvii. in like manner leads to
the conclusion that he did not share in the perilous
voyage to Italy. He must have joined him, how=
ever, apparently soon after his arrival in Rome,
and was with him when the Epistles to the Phi-
lippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon were
written (Phil. i. 1, ii. 19; Col. i. 1; Philem. 1).
All the’ indications of this period point to incessant
missionary activity. As before, so now, he is to
precede the personal coming of the Oe in-
specting, advising, reporting (Phil. ii. 19-23), car-
ing especially for the Macedonian Churches as no
one else could care. The special messages of ereeting
sent to him ata later date (2 ‘Tim. iv. 21) show
that at Rome also, as elsewhere, he had gained
the warm affection of those among whom he minis-
tered. Among those most eager to be thus
remembered to him, we find, according to a fairly
supported hypothesis, the names of a Roman noble
[PupENs], of a future bishop of Rome [Linus],
and of the daughter of a British king [Cuaupta |
(Williams, Claudia and Pudens ; Conybeare and
Howson, ii. 501 5 Alford, Hacwrsus in Greek Test.
iii. 104). It is interesting to think of the young
Evangelist as having been the instrument by which
one who was surrounded by the fathomless impurity
of the Roman world was called to a higher lite, and
the names which would otherwise have appeared
only in the foul epigrams of Martial (1. 32, iv. 13,
γ. 48, xi. 53) raised to a perpetual honour in the
salutations of an apostolic epistle.¢ To this period
of his life (the exact time* and place being un-
certain) we may probably refer the imprisonment
of Heb. xiii. 23, and the trial at which he “ wit-
nessed the good confession” not unworthy to be
likened to that of the Great Confessor before Pilate
(1 Tim. vi. 13).
Assuming the genuineness and the later date of
the two epistles addressed to him (comp. the following
article], we are able to put together a few notices
as to his later life. It follows from 1 Tim. i. 3
that he and his master, after the release of the
latter from his imprisonment, revisited the pro-
consular Asia, that the Apostle then continued his
journey to Macedonia,f while the disciple remained,
half-reluctantly, even weeping at the separation
(2 Tim. i. 4), at Ephesus, to check, if possible,
the outgrowth of heresy and licentiousness which
had sprung up there. ‘The time during which he
was thus to exercise authority as the delewate of an
4 Dr. Wordsworth infers from 2 Cor, ix. 11, and je
xviii. 5, that he brought contributions to the support of
the Apostle from the Macedonian Churches, and thus re-
leased him from his continuous labour as a tent-maker.
e The writer has to thank Prof. Lightfoot for calling his
attention to an article (They of Caesar’s Household’’) in
Journ. of Class. and Sacred Philology, No. X., in which the
hypothesis is questioned, on the ground that the Epigrams
are later than the Epistles, and that they connect the
name of Pudens with heathen customs and vices. On the
other hand it may be urged that the bantering tone of the
Kpigrams forbids us to take them as evidences of cha-
racter. Pudens tells Martial that he does not “like his
poems.” “Qh, that is because you read too many at a
time ” (iv. 29). He begs him to correct, their blemishes.
“You want an autograph copy then, do you?’ (vii. 11).
The slave En- or Eucolpos (the name is possibly a wilful
distortion of Eubulus) does what might be the fulfilment
of a Christian vow (Acts xviii 18), and this is the occa-
sion of the suggestion which seems most damnatory (vy. 48).
With this there mingles however, as in iv. 13, vi. 58,
the language of a more real esteem than is common in
Martial (comp. some good remarks in Rev, W. B. Gal-
loway, A Clergyman’s Holidays, pp. 35-49).
f Dr. Wordsworth, in an interesting note on 2 Tim.
. 15, supposes the parting to have heen in consequence of
St. Paul’s second arrest, and sees in this the explanation
of the tears of Timotheus.
TIMOTHY
Apostle—a vicar apostolic rather than a bishop— |
was of uncertain duration (1 Tim. iii. 14). The)
position in which he found himself might well
make him anxious. He had to rule presbyters,
most of whom were older than himself (1 Tim.
iv. 12), to assign to each a stipend in proportion
to his work (ib. v.17), to receive and decide on
charges that might be brought against them (ib. v.
1, 19. 20); to reculate the almsgiving and the
sisterhoods of the Church (ib. v. 3-10), to ordain
presbyters and deacons (ib. iii. 1-13), There was
the risk of being entangled in the disputes, preju-
dices, covetousness, sensuality of a great city. There
was the risk of injuring health and strength by an |
overstrained asceticism (ib. iv. 4, v. 23). Leaders
of rival sects were there—-Hymenaeus, Philetus,
Alexander—-to oppose and thwart him (1 Tim. i.
20; 2 Tim. ii. 17, iv. 14, 15). The name of his
beloved teacher was no longer honoured as it had
been ; the strong affection of former days had
vanished, and ‘* Paul the aged” had become un-
popular, the object of suspicion and dislike (comp.
Acts xx. 37 and 2 Tim. i. 15). Only in the
narrowed circle of the faithful few, Aquila, Pris-
cilla, Mark, and others, who were still with him,
was he likely to find sympathy or support (2 Tim.
iv. 19). We cannot wonder that the Apostle,
knowing these trials, and, with his marvellous
power of bearing another's burdens, making |
them his own, should be full of anxiety and
fear for his disciple’s steadfastness; that admoni-
tions, appeals, warnings should follow each other
in rapid and vehement succession (1 Tim. i. 18,
iii. 15, iv. 14, v. 21, vi. 11). In the second
epistle to him this deep personal feeling utters
itself yet more fully. The friendship of fifteen
years was drawing to a close, and all memories
connected with it throng upon the mind of the
old man, now ready to be offered, the blameless
youth (2 Tim. iii. 15), the holy household (ib. i
5), the solemn ordination (ib. i. 6), the tears at
parting (ib. i. 4). The last recorded words of
the Apostle express the earnest hope, repeated yet
more earnestly, that he might see him once again
(ib. iv. 9, 21). imotheus is to come before
winter, to bring with him the cloak for which in
that winter there would be need (2 Tim. iv. 13).
We may hazard the conjecture that he reached
him in time, and that the last hours of the teacher
were soothed by the presence of the disciple whom
he loved so truly. Some writers have even seen
in Heb. xiii. 25 an indication that he shared St.
Paul’s imprisonment and was released from it by
the death of Nero (Conybeare and Howson, ii. 502 ;
Neander, Pfl. und Lett. i. 552), Beyond this all is
apocryphal and uncertain. He continues, according
to the old traditions, to act as bishop of Ephesus
(Kuseb. H. 46. iii. 14), and dies a martyr’s death
under Domitian or Nerva (Niceph. H. 1. iii. 11).
The great festival of Artemis (the καταγώγιον of
that goddess) led him to protest against the licence
and frenzy which accompanied it. The mob were
roused to fury, and put him to death with clubs
(comp. Polycrates and Simeon Metaphr. in Hen-
schen’s Acta Sunctorum, Jan. 24). Some later
eritics—Schleiermacher, Mayerhoff—have seen in
him the author of the whole or part of the Acts
(Olshausen, Commentar. ii. 612).
A somewhat startling theory as to the inter-
vening period of his life has found favour with
Calmet (s. v. Zimothée), Tillemont (ii. 147), and
others, If he continued, according to the received
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO 1507
tradition, to be bishop of Ephesus, then he, and no
other, must have been the “angel” of that church
to whom the message of Rev. ii. 1-7 was ad-
dressed. It may be urged, as in some degree
confirming this view, that both the praise and the
blame of that message are such as harmonise with
the impressions as to the character of Timotheus
derived from the Acts and the Epistles. The
refusal to acknowledge the self-styled Apostles,
the abhorrence of the deeds of the Nicolaitans, the
unwearied labour, all this belongs to “‘the man of
God” of the Pastoral Epistles. And the fault is
no less characteristic. The strong language of St.
Paul’s entreaty would lead us to. expect that the
temptation of such a man would be to fall away
from the glow of his “ first love,’ the zeal of his
first faith. The promise of the Lord of the
Churches is in substance the same as that implied
in the language of the Apostle (2 Tim. ii. 4-6).
The conjecture, it should be added, has been
passed over unnoticed by most of the recent com-
mentators on the Apocalypse (comp. Alford and
Wordsworth, in loc.). Trench (Seven Churches of
Asia, p. 64) contrasts the ‘angel’ of Rev. ii.
with Timotheus as an “ earlier angel” who, with
the generation to which he belonged, had passed
away when the Apocalypse was written. It must
be remembered, however, that, at the time of
St. Paul’s death, Minotheus was still ‘ young,”
probably not more than thirty-five, that he might,
therefore, well be living, even on the assumption of
the later date of the Apocalypse, and that the
traditions ( valeant quantwn) place his death after
that date. Bengel admits this, but urges the
objection that he was not the bishop of any single
diocese, but the superintendent of many churches.
This however may, in its turn, be traversed, by
the answer that the death of St. Paul may have
made a great difference in the work of one who had
hitherto been employed in travelling as his repre-
sentative. The special charge committed to him
in the Pastoral Epistles might not unnaturally
give fixity to a life which had previously been
wandering.
An additional fact connected with the name of
Timothy is that two of the treatises of the Pseudo-
Dionysius the Areopagite are addressed to him (De
Hierarch. Coel. i. 1; comp. Le Nourry, Dissert.
c. ix., and Halloix, Quaest. iv. in Migne’s edition).
[ΡΉ Pa
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. Authorship.
—The question whether these Epistles were written
by St. Paul was one to which, till within the last
half-century, hardly any answer but an aflirmative
one was thought possible. They are reckoned among
the Pauline Epistles in the Muratorian Canon and
the Peshito version. Eusebius (4. #. iii. _25)
places them among the ὁμολογούμενα of the N. T.,
and, while recording the doubts which aflected the
2nd Epistle of St. ‘Peter and the other ἀντιλεγό-
μενα, knows of none which affect these. They are
cited as authoritative by Tertullian (De Praescr.
c. 25; ad Uxorem, i. 7), Clement of ewe
(Strom. ii, 11), Irenaeus (Adv. Πα». iv. 16, δῦ,
ii. 14, 88). Pavallelisms, implying conan in
some cases with close verbal agreement, ave found
in Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. c. 29 (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 8);
Ignat. ad Magn. ¢. 8 (1 Tim. i.4) 3 Polycarp, ο. 4
(comp. 1 Tim. vi. 7, *8); Theophilus ἯΙ Antioch
ad Autol. iti. 126 (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 1, There
were indeed some notable exceptions ‘to this con-
sensus. The three Pastoral Epistles were all re-
Ὁ Δ
1508 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
jected by Marcion (Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 21;
Iven. i. 29), Basilides, and other Gnostic teachers
(Hieron. Praef. in Titum). Tatian, while strongly
maintaining the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus,
denied that of the other two (Hieron. i.). In
these instances we are able to discern a dogmatic
reason for the rejection. The sects which these
leaders represented could not but feel that they
were condemned by the teaching of the Pastoral
Epistles. Origen mentions some who excluded
2 Tim. from the Canon for a very different reason,
The names of Jannes and Jambres belonged to
an Apocryphal history, and from such a history
St. Paul never would have quoted (Origen, Comm.
in Matt. 117).
The Pastoral Epistles have, however, been sub-
jected to a more elaborate scrutiny by the criticism
of Germany. The first doubts were uttered by
J.C. Schmidt. These were followed by the Send-
schreiben of Schleiermacher, who, assuming the
genuineness of 2 Tim. and Titus, undertook, on
that hypothesis, to prove the spuriousness of 1 Tim.
Bolder critics saw that the position thus taken was
untenable, that the three Epistles must stand or
fall together. Eichhorn (Zinl. iii.) and De Wette
(Hinleit.) denied the Pauline authorship of all three.
There was still, however, an attempt to maintain
their authority as embodying the substance of the
Apostle’s teaching, or of letters written by him,
on the hypothesis that they had been sent forth
after his death by some over-zealous disciple, who
wished, under the shadow of his name, to attack
the prevailing errors of the time (Kichhorn, %b.).
One writer (Schott, Zsagoye Hist. Crit. p. 324)
ventures on the hypothesis that Luke was the
writer. Baur (Die sogenannten Pastoral-Lriefe),
here as elsewhere more daring than others, assigns
them to no earlier period than the latter half of
the second century, after the death of Polyearp in
A.D. 167 (p. 138). On this hypothesis 2 Tim. was
the earliest, 1 Tim. the latest of the three, each
probably by a different writer (p. 72-76). They
grew out of the state of parties in the Church of
Rome, and, like the Gospel of St. Luke and the
Acts, were intended to mediate between the extreme
Pauline and the extreme Petrine sections of the
Church (p. 58). Starting from the data supplied
by the Epistle to the Philippians, the writers, first
of 2 Tim., then of Titus, and lastly of 1 Tim.,
aimed, by the insertion of personal incidents, mes-
sages, and the like, at giving to their compilations
an air of verisimilitude (p. 70).
It will be seen from the above statement that
the question of authorship is here more than usually
important. There can be no solution as regards
these Epistles like that of an obviously dramatic
and therefore legitimate personation of character,
such as is possible in relation to the authorship
of Eeclesiastes. If the Pastoral Epistles are not
Pauline, the writer clearly meant them to pass
as such, and the animus decipiendi would be there
in its most flagrant form. They would have
to take their place with the Pseudo-Clementine
Homilies, or the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles. Where
we now see the traces, full of life and interest, of
the character of “‘ Paul the aged,” firm, tender,
zealous, loving, we should have to recognise only
the tricks, sometimes skilful, sometimes clumsy,
of some unknown and dishonest controversialist.
Consequences such as these ought not, it is true,
to lead us to suppress or distort one iota of evi-
dence, ‘They may well make us cautious, in ex-
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
amining the evidence, not to admit conclusions that
are wider than the premises, nor to take the pre-
mises themselves for granted. The task of ex-
amining is rendered in some measure easier by the
fact that, in the judgment of most critics, hostile as
well as friendly, the three Pastoral Epistles stand
on the same ground. The intermediate hypotheses
of Schleiermacher (supra) and Credner (Pini. ins
N. T.), who looks on Titus as genuine, 2 Tim. as
made up out of two genuine letters, and 1 Tim. as
altogether spurious, may be dismissed as individual
eccentricities, hardly requiring a separate notice.
In dealing with objections which take a wider range,
we are meeting those also which are confined to
one or two out of the three Epistles.
The chief elements of the alleged evidence of
spuriousness may be arranged as follows :—
I. Language. —The style, it is urged, is different
from that of the acknowledged Pauline Epistles.
There is less logical continuity, a want of order
and plan, subjects brought up, one after the other,
abruptly (Schleiermacher). Not less than fifty
words, most of them striking and characteristic,
are found in these Epistles which are not found in
St. Paul’s writings (see the list in Conybeare and
Howson, App. I., and Huther’s Linleit.). The
formula of salutation (χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη), half-
technical words and phrases, like εὐσέβεια and its
cognates (1 Tim. ii. 2, iii. 16, vi. 6, et al.), mapa-
καταθηκ (1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 20; 2 Tim. 1. 12, 14,
ii, 2), the frequently-recurring πιστὸς 6 λόγος
(1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 11), the use
of ὑγιαίνουσα as the distinctive epithet of a true
teaching, these and others like them appear here
for the first time (Schleierm. and Baur). Some of
these words, it is urged, φανεροῦν, ἐπιφάνεια,
σωτήρ, φῶς ἀπρόσιτον, belong to the Gnostic ter-
minology of the 2nd century.
On the other side it may be said, (1) that there
is no test so uncertain as that of language and style
thus applied; how uncertain we may judge fiom
the fact that Schleiermacher and Neander find no
stumbling-blocks in 2 Tim. and Titus, while they
detect an un-Pauline character in 1 Tim. A dif
ference like that which marks the speech of men
divided from each other by a century may be con-
clusive against the identity of authorship, but short
of that there is hardly any conceivable divergency
which may not coexist with it. The style of one
man is stereotyped, formed early, and enduring long.
The sentences move after an unvarying rhythm; the
same words recur. That of another changes, more
or less, from year to year. As his thoughts expand
they call for a new vocabulary. The last works
of such a writer, 4s those of Bacon and of Burke,
may be florid, redundant, figurative, while the
earlier were almost meagre in their simplicity. In
proportion as the man is a solitary thinker, or a
strong assertor of his own will, will he tend to the
former state. In proportion to his power of re-
ceiving impressions trom without, of sympathising
with others, will be his tendency to the latter.
Apart from all knowledge of St. Paul’s character.
the alleged peculiarities are but of little weight in
the adverse scale. With that knowledge we may
see in them the natural result of the intercourse
with men in many lands, of that readiness to be-
come all things to all men, which could hardly fail
to show itself in speech as well as in action. Each
group of his Epistles has, in like manner, its cha-
racteristic words and phrases. (2) If this is true
generally, it is so yet more emphatically when the
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
circumstances of authorship are different. The
language of a Bishop’s Charge is not that of his
letters to his private friends. The Epistles, which
St. Paul wrote to the churches as societies, might
well differ from those which he wrote, in the
full freedom of open speech, to a familiar friend,
to his own “true son.” It is not strange that we
should find in the latter a Luther-like vehemence
of expression (6. 4. κεκαυστηριασμένων, 1 ‘Tim. iv.
2, διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν
νοῦν, 1 Tim. vi. 5, σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις, 2 Tim.
iii. 6), mixed sometimes with words that imply that
which few great men have been without, a keen
sense of humour, and the capacity, at least, for satire
(ὁ. g- γραώδεις μύθους, 1 Tim. iv. 7; φλύαροι
καὶ περίεργοι, 1 Tim. v.13; τετύφωται, 1 Tim.
vi.4; γαστέρες ἀργαί, Tit. i. 12). (3) Other
letters, again, were dictated to an amanuensis. ‘These
have every appearance of having been written with
his own hand, and this can hardly have been with-
out its influence on their style, rendering it less
diffuse, the transitions more abrupt, the treatment
of each subject more concise. In this respect it
may be compared with the other two autograph
Epistles, those to the Galatians and Philemon. <A
list of words given by Alford (iii. Proleg. c. vii.)
shows a considerable resemblance between the former
of the two and the Pastoral Epistles. (4) It may
be added, that to whatever extent a forger of spu-
rious Hpistles would be likely to form his style
atter the pattern of the recognised ones, so that
men might not be able to distinguish the counterfeit
from the true, to that extent the diversity which
has been dwelt on is, within the limits that have
been above stated, not against, but for the genuine-
ness of these Epistles. (5) Lastly, there is the
positive argument that there is a large common
element, both of thoughts and words, shared by
these Epistles and the others. The grounds of faith,
the law of life, the tendency to digress and go off
at a word, the personal, individualising affection,
the free reference to his own sufferings for the
truth, all these are in both, and ‘by them we
recognise the identity of the writer. The evidence
can hardly be given within the limits of this article,
but its weight will be felt by any careful student.
The coincidences are precisely those, in most in-
stances, which the forger of a document would
have been unlikely to think of, and give but scanty
support to the perverse ingenuity which sees in
these resemblances a proof of compilation, and there-
fore of spuriousness.
Il. It has been urged (chiefly by Eichhorn,
Hinl. p. 315) against the reception of the Pastoral
Epistles that they cannot be fitted in to the records
of St. Paul’s lite in the Acts. ‘To this there is a
threefold answer. (1) The difficulty has been
enormously exaggerated. If the dates assigned to
them must, to some extent, be conjectural, there
are, at least, two hypotheses in each case (infra)
which rest on reasonably good grounds. (2) If
the difficulty were as great as it is said to be, the
mere tact that we cannot fix the precise date of
three letters in the life of one of whose ceaseless
labours and journeyings we have, after all, but
fragmentary records, ought not to be a stumbling-
block. The hypothesis of a release from the im-
prisonment with which the history of the Acts
ends removes all difficulties; and if this be rejected
(Baur, p. 67), as itself not resting on sufficient evi-
dence, there is, in any case, a wide gap of which we
know nothing. It may at least claim to be a theory
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO 1509
which explains phenomena. (3) Here, as before, the
reply is obvious, that a man composing counterfeit
Epistles would have been likely to make them
square with the acknowledged records of the life.
Ill. The three Epistles present, it is said, a more
developed state of Church organisation and doctrine
than that belonging to the lifetime of St. Paul.
(1) The rule that the bishop is to be ‘* the husband
of one wife” (1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 6) indicates the
strong opposition to second marriages which cha-
racterised the 2nd century (Baur, pp. 115-120).
(2) The “ younger widows” of 1 Tim. vy. 11 can-
not possibly be literally widows. If they were, St.
Paul, in advising them to marry, would be ex-
cluding them, according to the rule of 1 Tim. ν. 9,
from all chance of sharing in the Church’s bounty.
It follows therefore that the word χῆραι is used,
as it was in the 2nd century, in a wider sense, as
denoting a consecrated lite (Baur, pp. 42-49).
(3) The rules affecting the relation of the bishops
and elders indicate a hierarchic development cha-
racteristic of the Petrine element, which became
dominant in the Church of Rome in the post-
Apostolic period, but foreign altogether to the
genuine Hpistles of St. Paul (Baur, pp. 80-89),
(4) The term αἱρετικός is used in its later sense,
and a formal procedure against the heretic is recog-
nised, which belongs to the 2nd century rather than
the Ist. (5) The upward progress from the ottice
of deacon to that of presbyter, implied in 1 Tim.
iii. 13, belongs to a later period (Baur, /. c.).
It is not difficult to meet objections which con-
tain so large an element of mere arbitrary assump-
tion. (1) Admitting Baur’s interpretation of 1
Tim. iii. 2 to be the right’ one, the rule which
makes monogamy a condition of the episcopal office
is very far removed trom the harsh, sweeping cen-
sures of all second marriages which we find in
Athenagoras and Tertullian. (2) There is not a
shadow of proof that the “* younger widows ” were
not literally such. The χῆραι of the. Pastoral
Epistles are, like those of Acts vi. 1, ix. 59, women
dependent on the alms of the Church, not necessarily
deaconesses, or engaged in active labours. The rule
fixing the age of sixty for admission is all but con-
clusive against Baur’s hypothesis. (3) The use of
ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι in the Pastoral Epistles
as equivalent (Tit. i. 5, 7), and the absence of any
intermediate order between the bishops and deacons
(1 Tim. iii. 1-8), are quite unlike what we find in
the Ignatian Epistles and other writings of the 2nd
century. They are in entire agreement with the
language of St. Paul (Acts xx. 17, 28; Phil. i. 1).
Few features of these Epistles are more striking
than the absence of any high hierarchic system.
(4) The word αἱρετικός has its counterpart in the
αἱρέσεις of 1 Cor. xi. 19. The sentence upon
Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. i. 20) has a
precedent in that of 1 Cor. v. 5. (5) The best
interpreters do not see in 1 Tim, iii. 13 the tran-
sition from one office to another (comp. Ellicott,
in loc., and DEACON). If it is there, the assump-
tion that such a change is foreign to the Apostolic
age is entirely an arbitrary one.
IV. Still greater stress is laid on the indica-
tions of a later date in the descriptions of the false
teachers noticed inthe Pastoral Eistles. These
point, it is said, unmistakeably to Marcion and his
followers. In the ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου
γνώσεως (1 Tim. vi. 20) there is a direct reference
to the treatise which he wrote under the title of
᾿Αντιθέσεις, setting forth the contradiction between
1510 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
the Old and New Testament (Baur, p. 26). The
‘‘ venealogies” of 1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. iii. 9, in like
manner, point to the Aeons of the Valentinians and
Ophites (ibid. p. 12). The ‘* forbidding to marry,
and commanding to abstain from meats,’ fits in
to Marcion’s system, not to that of the Judaizing
teachers of St. Paul’s time (ibid. p. 24). The
assertion that “the law is good” (1 Tim, i. 8) im-
plies a denial, like that of Marcion, of its divine
authority. The doctrine that the ‘* Resurrection
was past already ” (2 Tim. ii. 18), was thoroughly
Gnostic in its character. In his eagerness to find
tokens of a later date everywhere, Baur sees in the
writer of these Epistles not merely an opponent of
Gnosticism, but one in part infected with their
teaching, and appeals to the doxologies of 1 Tim. i. 17,
yi. 15, and their Christology throughout, as having
’ a Gnostic stamp on them (pp. 28-33).
Carefully elaborated as this part of Baur’s attack
has been, it is perhaps the weakest and most capri-
cious of all. ‘The false teachers of the Pastoral
Epistles are predominantly Jewish, νομοδιδάσκαλοι
(1 Tim. i. 7), belonging altogether to a different
schoo! from that of Marcion, giving heed to ‘* Jewish
fables ” (Tit. i. 4) and *‘disputes connected with the
Law”? (Tit. iii. 9). Of all monstrosities of Exegesis
few are more wilful and fantastic than that which
finds in νομοδιδάσκαλοι Antinomian teachers and
in paxat νομικαί Antinomian doctrine (Baur, p.
17). The natural suggestion that in Acts xx, 30,
31,St. Paul contemplates the rise and progress of a
like perverse teaching, that in Col. ii. 8-23 we have
the same combination of Judaism and a self-styled
γνῶσις (1 Tim. vi. 20) or φιλοσοφία (Col. ii. 8),
leading to a like false asceticism, is set aside sum-
marily by the rejection both of the Speech and the
Epistle as spurious. Even the denial of the Resur-
rection, we may remark, belongs as naturally to
the mingling of a Sadducaean element with an Eastern
mysticism as to the teaching of Marcion, The self-
contradictory hypothesis that the writer of 1 Tim.
is at once the strongest opponent of the Gnosties,
and that he adopts their language, need hardly be
refuted. The whole line of argument, indeed, first
misrepresents the language of St. Paul in these
Epistles and elsewhere, and then assumes the entire
absence from the first century of even the germs of
the teaching which characterised the second (comp,
Neander, Pfl. und Leit. i. p. 401; Heydenreich,
p- 64).
Date.—Assuming the two Epistles to Timothy to
have been written by St. Paul, to what period of his
life are they to be referred? The question as it
affects each Epistle may be discussed separately.
First Epistle to Timothy.—The direct data in this
instance ave very few. (1) i, 3, implies a journey
of St. Paul from Ephesus to Macedonia, Timothy
remaining behind. (2) The age of Timothy is
described as νεότης (iv. 12), (3) The general
resemblance between the two Epistles indicates that
they were written at or about the same time.
Three hypotheses haye been maintained as fulfilling
these conditions,
(A) The journey in question has been looked on
as an unrecorded episode in the two years’ work
at Ephesus of Acts xix. 10. ;
(B) It has been identified with the journey of
Acts xx. 1, after the tumult at Ephesus.
On either of these suppositions the date of the
Epistle has been fixed at various periods after St.
Paul’s arrival at Ephesus, before the conclusion of
his first imprisonment at Rome.
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
(C) It has been placed in the interval between
St. Paul’s first and second imprisonments at
Rome. ’
Of these conjectures, A and B have the merit
of bringing the Epistle within the limit of the au-
thentic records of St. Paul’s life, but they have
scarcely any other. Against A, it may be urged
that a journey to Macedonia would hardly have been
passed over in silence either by St. Luke in the
Acts, or by St. Paul himself in writing to the Co-
rinthians. Against B, that Timothy, instead of
remaining at phesus when the Apostle left, had
gone on into Macedonia before him (Acts xix. 22),
The hypothesis of a possible return is traversed by
the fact that he is with St. Paul in Macedonia at
the time when 2 Cor. was written and sent off.
In favour of C as compared with A or B, is the
internal evidence of the contents of the Epistle.
The errors against which ‘Timothy is warned are
present, dangerous, portentous. At the time of St,
Paul’s visit to Miletus in Acts xx., 7, e., according
to those hypotheses, subsequent to the Epistle, they
are still only looming in the distance (ver. 30), All
the circumstances referred to, moreover, imply the
prolonged absence of the Apostle. Discipline had
become lax, heresies rife, the economy of the Church
disordered. It was necessary to check the chief
offenders by the sharp sentence of excommunication
(1 Tim. i. 20). Other Churches called for his
counsel and directions, or a sharp necessity took
him away, and he hastens on, leaving behind him,
with full delegated authority, the disciple in whom
he most confided. The language of the Epistle
also has a bearing on the date, According to the
hypotheses A and B, it belongs to the same periods
as 1 and 2 Cor, and the Ep. to the Romans, or,
at the latest, to the same group as Philippians and
Ephesians ; and, in this case, the differences of
style and language are somewhat difficult to explain,
Assume a later date, and then there is room for
the changes in thought and expression which, in a
character like St. Paul’s, were to be expected as
the years went by. The only objections to the
position thus assigned are—(1) the doubtfulness of
the second imprisonment altogether, which has been
discussed in another place [PAuL]; and (2), the
* youth” of Timothy at the time when the letter
was written (iv. 12). In regard to the latter, it is
sufficient to say that, on the assumption of the later
date, the disciple was probably not more than 34
or 35, and that this was young enough for one
who was to exercise authority over a whole body
of Bishop-presbyters, many of them older than
himself (v. 1).
Second Epistle to Timothy.—The number of
special names and incidents in the 2nd Epistle make
the chronological data more numerous. It will be
best to bring them, as far as possible, together,
noticing briefly with what other facts each connects
itself, and to what conclusion it leads. Here also
there are the conflicting theories of an earlier and
later date, (A) during the imprisonment of Acts
xxviii, 30, and (B) during the second imprison-
ment already spoken of.
(1) A parting apparently recent, under circum-
stances of special sorrow (i. 4). Not decisive. The
scene at Miletus (Acts xx. 37) suggests itself, if we
assume A, The parting referred to in 1 Tim, i. 3,
might meet B.
(2) A general desertion of the Apostle even by
the disciples of Asia (i. 15). Nothing in the Acts
indicates anything like this before the imprison-
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO
ment of Acts xxviii, 30.
and xx., and not less the language or the Epistle to
the Ephesians, speaks of general and strong aflec-
tion. This, therefore, so far as it goes, must be
placed on the side of B.
(3) The position of St. Paul as suffering (i. 12),
in bonds (ii, 9), expecting “the time of his de-
parture” (iv. 6), forsaken by almost all (iv. 16).
Not quite decisive, but tending to B rather than A.
The language of the Epistles belonging to the first
imprisonment imply, it is true, bonds (Phil. i. 13,
16; Eph. iii. 1, vi. 20), but in all of them the Apostle
is surrounded by many friends, and is hopeful, and
confident of release (Phil. i. 25; Philem. 22).
(4) The mention of Onesiphorus, and of services
rendered by him both at Rome and Ephesus (i. 16-
18). Not decisive again, but the tone is rather
that of a man looking back on a past period of his
lite, and the order of the names suggests the thought
of the ministrations at Ephesus being subsequent to
those at Rome. Possibly too the mention of ‘ the
household,” instead of Onesiphorus himself, may
imply his death in the interval. This therefore
tends to B rather than A.
(5) The abandonment of St, Paul by Demas
(iv. 10). Strongly in favour of B. Demas was
with the Apostle when the Epistles to the Colossians
(iv. 14) and Philemon (24) were written. 2 Tim.
must therefore, in all probability, have been written
after them; but, if we place it anywhere in the
first imprisonment, we are all but compelled* by
the mention of Mark, for whose coming the Apostle
asks in 2 Tim. iv. 11, and who is with him in
Col. iv. 10, to place it at an earlier age.
(6) The presence of Luke (iv, 11). Agrees well
enough with A (Col. iv. 14), but is perfectly com-
patible with B.
(7) The request that Timothy would bring Mark
(iv. 11). Seems at first, compared as above, with
Col. iv. 14, to support A, but, in connexion with
the mention of Demas, tends decidedly to B.
(8) Mention of Tychicus as sent to Ephesus (iv.
12). Appears, as connected with Eph. vi. 21, 22,
Col. iv. 7,-in favour of A, yet, as Tychicus was
continually employed on special missions of this
kind, may just as well fit in with B.
(9) The request that Timothy would bring the
cloak and books left at Troas (iv. 13). On the as-
sumption of A, the last visit of St. Paul to Troas
would have been at least four or five years before,
during which there would probably have been oppor-
tunities enough for his regaining what he had left.
In that case, too, the circumstances of the journey
present no trace of the haste and suddenness which
the request more than half implies. On the whole,
then, this must be reckoned as in favour of B,
(10) “ Alexander the coppersmith did me much
evil,’ “ greatly withstood our words”’ (iv. 14, 15).
The part taken by a Jew of this name in the uproar
of Acts xix., and the aatural connexion of the xaA-
κεὺς with the artisans represented by Demetrius,
suggest a reference to that event as something recent,
and so far support A. On the other hand, the name
Alexander was too common to make us certain as to
the identity, and if it were the same, the hypothesis
of a later date only requires us to assume what was
probable enough, a renewed hostility.
(11) The abandonment of the Apostle in his first
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO 1511
Everything in Acts xix. | defence (ἀπολογία), and his deliverance “ from the
mouth of the lion” (iv. 16,17). Fits in as a pos-
sible contingency with either hypothesis, but, like
the mention of Demas in (5), must belong, at any
rate, to a time much later than any of the other
Epistles written from Rome.
(12) “ Krastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus
I left at Miletus sick” (iv. 20). Language, as in
(9), implying a comparatively recent visit to both
places. If, however, the letter were written during
the first imprisonment, then ‘Trophimus had not
been left at Miletus, but had gone on with St. Paul
to Jerusalem (Acts xxi, 29), and the mention of
Erastus as remaining at Corinth would have been
superfluous to one who had left that city at the
same time as the Apostle (Acts xx. 4).
(13) ‘* Hasten to come before winter.” Assum-
ing A, the presence of Timothy in Phil. i. 1; Col. i.
1; Philem. 1, might be regarded as the consequence
of this; but then, as shown in (5) and (7), there
are almost insuperable difficulties in supposing this
Epistle to have been written before those three.
(14) The salutations from Eubulus, Pudens,
Linus, and Claudia. Without laying much stress
on this, it may be said that the absence of these
names from all the Epistles, which, according to A,
belong to the same period, would be difficult to
explain. B leaves it open to conjecture that they
were converts of more recent date. They are men-
tioned too as knowing Timothy, and this implies, as
at least probable, that he had already been at Rome,
and that this letter to him was consequently later
than those to the Philippians and Colossians.
On the whole, it is believed that the evidence
preponderates strongly in favour of the later date,
and that the Epistle, if we admit its genuineness, is
therefore a strong argument for believing that the
imprisonment of Acts xxviii. was followed by a
period first of renewed activity and then of suffering.
Places.—In this respect as in regard to time,
1 Tim. leaves much to conjecture. The absence of
any local reference but that in i. 3, suggests Mace-
donia or some neighbouring district. In A and other
MSS. in the Peshito, Ethiopic, and other versions,
Laodicea is named in the inscription as the place
whence it was sent, but this appears to have grown
out of a traditional belief 1esting on very insutlicient
grounds, and incompatible with the conclusion which
has been above adopted, that this is the Epistle
referred to in Col. iv. 16 as that from Laodicea
(Theophyl. in /oc.). The Coptic version with as
little likelihood states that it was written from
Athens (Huther, Hin/eit.).
The Second Epistle is free from this conflict of
conjectures. With the solitary exception of Bottger,
who suggests Caesarea, there is a consensus in favour
of Rome, and everything in the circumstances and
names of the Epistle leads to the same conclusion
(ibid.).
Structure and Charactertstics.—The peculiarities
of language, so far as they affect the question of au-
thorship, haye been already noticed. Assuming
the genuineness of the Epistles, some characteristic
features remain to be noticed.
(1) The ever-deepening sense in St. Paul’s heart
of the Divine Mercy, of which he was the object,
as shown in the insertion of ἔλεος in the salutations
of both Epistles, and in the ἠλεήθην of 1 Tim. i. 13.
® The qualifying words might have been omitted, but
for the fact that it has been suggested that Demas, having
orsaken St. Paul, repented and returned (Lardner, vi. 368).
b The conjecture that the “leaving” referred to took
place during the voyage of Acts xxvii. is purely arbitrary,
and at variance with vers. 5 and 6 of that chapter,
1512 TIN
(2) The greater abruptness of the Second Epistle.
From first to last there is no plan, no treatment of
subjects carefully thought out. ΑἸ] speaks of strong
overflowing emotion, memories of the past, anxieties
about the future.
(3) The absence, as compared with St. Paul’s
other Epistles, of Old Testament references. This
may connect itself with the fact just noticed, that
these Epistles are not argumentative, possibly also
with the request for the “books and parchments ”
which had been left behind (2 Tim. iv. 13). He
may have been separated for a time from the ἱερὰ
γράμματα, which were commonly his companions.
(4) The conspicuous position of the “faithful
sayings” as taking the place occupied in other
Epistles by the O. T. Scriptures. The way in
which these are cited as authoritative, the variety
of subjects which they cover, suggest the thought
that in them we have specimens of the prophecies
of the Apostolic Church which had most impressed
themselves on the mind of the Apostle, and of the
disciples generally. 1 Cor. xiv. shows how deep a
reverence he was likely to feel for such spiritual
utterances. In 1 Tim. iv. 1, we have a distinct
reference to them.
(5) The tendency of the Apostle’s mind to dwell
more on the universality of the redemptive work of
Christ (1 Tim. ii. 3-6, iv. 10), his strong desire that
all the teaching of his disciples should be “sound”
(ὑγιαίνουσα), commending itself to minds in a
healthy state, his fear of the corruption of that
teaching by morbid subtleties.
(6) The importance attached by him to the
practical details of administration. The gathered
experience of a long life had taught him that the
lite and well-being of the Church required these for
its safecuards.
. (7) The recurrence of doxologies (1 Tim. i. 17,
vi. 15, 16; 2 Tim. iv. 18) as from one living
perpetually in the presence of God, to whom the
language of adoration was as his natural speech.
It has been thought desirable, in the above dis-
cussion of conflicting theories, to state them simply
as they stand, with the evidence on which they rest,
without encumbering the page with constant re-
ference to authorities. The names of writers on the
N. T. in such a case, where the grounds of reason-
ing are open to all, add little or nothing to the
weight of the conclusions drawn from them. Full
particulars will, however, be found in the intro-
ductions of Alford, Wordsworth, Huther, Davidson,
Wiesinger, Hug. Conybeare and Howson (App. i.)
give a good tabular summary both of the objections
to the genuineness of the Epistles and of the answers
to them, and a clear statement in favour of the later
date. The most elaborate argument in favour of the
earlier is to be found in N. Lardner, History of Apost.
and Evang. ( Works, vi. pp. 315-375). [E. H. P.]
TIN (3: κασσίτερος : stannum). Among
the various metals found among the spoils of the
Midianites, tin is enumerated (Num. xxxi.° 22).
It was known to the Hebrew metal-workers as an
alloy of other metals (Is. i. 25; Ez. xxii. 18, 20).
The markets of Tyre were supplied with it by the
ships of Tarshish (Ez. xxvii. 12). It was used for
plummets (Zech. iv. 10), and was so plentiful as to
furnish the writer of Ecclesiasticus (xlvii. 18) with
a figure by which to express the wealth of Solomon,
whom he apostrophizes thus: “Thou didst gather
gold as tin, and didst multiply silver as lead.” In
the Homeric times the Greeks were familiar with it.
TIN
Twenty layers of tin were in Agamemnon’s cuirass
given him by Kinyres (//. xi, 25), and twenty bosses
of tin were upon his shield (Z/. xi. 34). Copper,
tin, and gold were used by Hephaestus in welding
the famous shield of Achilles (Z/. xviii. 474). The
fence round the vineyard in the device upon it was
of tin (Z/. xviii. 564), and the oxen were wrought
of tin and gold (ibid. 574). The greaves of Achilles,
made by Hephaestus, were of tin beaten fine, close
fitting to the limb (J/. xviii. 612, xxi. 592). His
shield had two folds or layers of tin between two
outer layers of bronze and an inner layer of gold
(Τί, xx. 271). Tin was used in ornamenting chariots
(Zl. xxiii. 503), and a cuirass of bronze overlaid
with tin is mentioned in 7|. xxiii. 561. No allu-
sion to it is found in the Odyssey. The melting
of tin in a smelting-pot is mentioned by Hesiod
(Theogq. 862).
Tin is not found in Palestine. Whence, then, did
the ancient Hebrews obtain their supply? ‘ Only
three countries are known to contain any consider-
able quantity of it: Spain and Portugal, Cornwall
and the adjacent parts of Devonshire, and the islands
of Junk, Ceylon, and Banca, in the Straits of Ma-
lacca” (Kenrick, Phoenicia, p. 212). According
to Diodorus Siculus (v. 46) there were tin-mines in
the island of Panchaia, off the east coast of Arabia,
but the metal was not exported. There can be .
little doubt that the mines of Britain were the
chief source of supply to the ancient world. Mr.
Cooley, indeed, writes very positively (Maritime
and Inland Discovery, i. 131): “ There can be no
difficulty in determining the country from which
tin first arrived in Egypt. That metal has been in
all ages a principal export of India: it is enume-
rated as such by Arrian, who found it abundant in
the ports of Arabia, at a time when the supplies of
Rome flowed chiefly through that channel. The
tin-mines of Banca are probably the richest in the
world; but tin was unquestionably brought from
the West at a later period.” But it has been
shown conclusively by Dr. George Smith ( Zhe Cas-
siterides, Lond. 1863) that, so far fiom such a
statement being justified by the authority of Arrian,
the facts are all the other way. After examining
the commerce of the ports of Abyssinia, Arabia, and
India, it is abundantly evident that, “ instead of its
coming from the East to Egypt, it has been invari-
ably exported from Egypt to the East” (p. 23),
With regard to the tin obtained from Spain, although
the metal was found there, it does not appear to
have been produced in sufficient quantities to supply
the Phoenician markets. Posidonius (in Strab. iii.
p- 147) relates that in the country of the Artabri,
in the extreme N.W. of the peninsula, the ground
was bright with silver, tin, and white gold (mixed
with silver), which were brought down by the
rivers ; but the quantity thus obtained could not
have been adequate to the demand. At the present
day the whole surface bored for mining in Spain is
little more than a square mile (Smith, Cassiterides,
p- 46). We are therefore driven to conclude that
it was from the Cassiterides, or tin districts of
Britain, that the Phoenicians obtained the great
bulk of this commodity (Sir G. C. Lewis, Hist.
Survey of the Astr. of the Anc. p. 451), and that
this was done by the direct voyage from Gades. It
is true that at a later period (Strabo, iii. 147) tin
was conveyed overland to Marseilles by a thirty
days’ journey (Diod. Sic. v. 2); but Strabo (iii.
175) tells us that the Phoenicians alone carried on
this traffic in former times from Gades, concealing
TIPHSAH
the passage from every one; and that on one occa-
sion, when the Romans followed one of their vessels
in order to discover the source of supply, the master
of the ship ran upon a shoal, leading those who
followed him to destruction. In course of time,
however, the Romans discovered the passage. In
Ezekiel, ‘ the trade in tin is attributed to Tarshish,
as ‘the merchant’ for the commodity, without any
mention of the place whence it was procured”
(Cassiterides, p. 74); and it is after the time of
Julius Caesar that we first hear of the overland
traffic by Marseilles.
Pliny (vi. 36) identifies the cassiteros of the
Greeks with the plumbum album or candidum of
the Romans, which is our tin. Stannwm, he says,
is obtained from an ore containing lead and silver,
and is the first to become melted in the furnace.
It is the same which the Germans call Werk, and is
apparently the meaning of the Hebr. bedi in Is. i.
25. The etymology of cassiteros is uncertain.
From the fact that in Sanscrit astira signifies
“tin,” an argument has been derived in favour of
India being the source of the ancient supply of this
metal, but too much stress must not be laid upon
it. [LeEap.] λα ναι
TIPH'SAH (NDA: Thaphsa,
Thapsa) is mentioned in 1 K. iv. 24 as the limit
of Solomon’s empire towards the Euphrates, and in
2 K. xv. 16 it is said to have been attacked by
Menahem, king of Israel, who “ smote Tiphsah and
all that were therein, and all the coasts thereof.”
It is generally admitted that the town intended, at
any rate in the former passage, is that which the
Greeks and Romans knew under the name of
Thapsacus (Odwaros), situated in Northern Syria,
at the point where it was usual to cross the
Euphrates (Strab. xvi. 1, 821). The name is
therefore, reasonably enough, connected with nD,
“to pass over” (Winer, Realwérterbuch, ii. 613),
and is believed to correspond in meaning to the
Greek πόρος, the German furt, and our “ ford.”
Thapsacus was a town of considerable importance
in the ancient world. Xenophon, who saw it in
the time of Cyrus the younger, calls it ‘* great and
prosperous” (μεγάλη καὶ εὐδαίμων, Anab. i. 4,
$11). It must have been a place of considerable
trade, the land-tratfic between East and West pass-
ing through it, first on account of its foraway
(which was the lowest upon the Euphrates), and
then on account of its bridge (Strab. xvi. 1, §23),
while it was likewise the point where goods were
both embarked for transport down the stream (Q.
Curt. x. 1), and also disembarked from boats which
had come up if, to be conveyed on to their final
destination by land (Strab. xvi. 3, 84). It is a
fair conjecture that Solomon’s occupation of the
place was connected with his efforts to establish a
line of trade with Central Asia directly across the
continent, and that Tadmor was intended as a
resting-place on the journey to Thapsacus.
Thapsacus was the place at which armies march-
ing east or west usually crossed the “‘ Great River.”
It was there that the Ten Thousand first learnt the
real intentions of Cyrus, and, consenting to aid him
in his enterprise, passed the stream (Xen. Anab. i.
4, 811). here too Darius Codomannus crossed on
Ocpoa :
TIRAS 1513
his flight from Issus (Arr. Hxp. Al. ii. 13); and
Alexander, following at his leisure, made his pas-
sage at the same point (ib. iii. 7). A bridge of
boats was usually maintained at the place by the
Persian kings, which was of course broken up when
danger threatened. Even then, however, the stream
could in general be forded, unless in the flood-
season.
It has been generally supposed that the site of
Thapsacus was the modern Deir (D’Anville, Ren-
nell, Vaux, &c.). But the Euphrates expedition
proved that there is no ford at Deir, and indeed
showed that the only ford in this part of the course
of the Euphrates is at Suriyeh, 45 miles below
Balis, aud 165 above Deir (Ainsworth, Zravels in
the Track of the Ten Thousand, p.70). This then
must have been the position of Thapsacus. Here
the river is exactly of the width mentioned by
Xenophon (4 stades or 800 yards), and here for
four months in the winter of 1841-1842 the river
had but 20 inches of water (ib. p. 72).
“The Euphrates is at this spot full of beauty
and majesty. Its stream is wide and its waters
generally clear and blue. Its banks are low and
level to the left, but undulate gently to the right.
Previous to arriving at this’ point the course of the
river is southerly, but here it turns to the east,
expanding more like an inland lake than a river,
and quitting (as Pliny has described it) the Pal-
myrean solitudes for the fertile Mygdonia” (ib.).
A paved causeway is visible on either side of the
Euphrates at Suriyeh, and a long line of mounds
may be traced, disposed, something like those of
Nineveh, in the form of an irregular parallelogram.
These mounds probably mark the site of the ancient
city. [G. R.]
TI'RAS (DIF : Thiras). The
youngest son of Japheth (Gen. x. 2). As the name
occurs only in the ethnological table, we have no
clue, as far as the Bible is concerned, to guide us
as to the identification of it with any particular
people. Ancient authorities generally fixed on the
Thracians, as presenting the closest verbal approxi-
mation to the name (Joseph. Ant. i. 6, §1; Jerome,
m Gen, x. 2; Targums Pseudoj. and Jerus. on
Gen. l.¢.; Targ. on 1 Chr, i. 5): the occasional
rendering Persia probably originated in a corruption
of the original text. The correspondence between
Thrace and Tiras is not so complete as to be con-
vincing ; the gentile form Θρᾷξ brings them nearer
together, but the total absence of the 7 in the
Greek name is observable. Granted, however, the
verbal identity, no objection would arise on ethno-
logical grounds to placing the Thracians among
the Japhetic races. Their precise ethnic position
is indeed involved in great uncertainty; but all
authorities agree in their general Indo-European
character. The evidence of this is circumstantial
rather than direct. ‘The language has disappeared,
with the exception of the ancient names and the
single word bria, which forms the termination of
Mesembria, Selymbria, &c., and is said to signify
“town” (Strab. vii. p. 319). The Thracian stock
was represented in later times by the Getae, and
these again, still later, by the Daci, each of whom
inherited the old Thracian tongue (Strab. vii.
p- 303). But this circumstance throws little light
Θείρας :
a This is clear from the very name of the place, and is
confirmed by modern researches. When the natives told
Cyrus that the stream had acknowledged him as its king,
having never been forded until his army waded through it, |
they calculated on his ignorance, or thought he would not
examine too strictly into the groundwork of a compliment,
(See Xen. Anab. i. 4, $11.)
1514 TIRATHITES, THE
on the subject; for the Dacian language has also
disappeared, though fragments of its vocabulary
may possibly exist either in Wallachian dialects or
perhaps in the Albanian language (Diefenbach, Or.
Eur. p. 68). If Grimm’s identification of the
Getae with the Goths were established, the Teu-
tonic affinities of the Thracians would be placed
beyond question (Gesch. Deuts. Spr. i. 178) ; but
this view does not meet with general acceptance.
The Thracians are associated in ancient history with
the Pelasgians (Strab. ix. p. 401), and the Trojans,
with whom they had many names in common
(Strab. xiii. p. 590); in Asia Minor they were
represented by the Bithynians (Herod. i. 28, vii.
75). These circumstances lead to the conclusion
that they belonged to the Indo-European family,
but do not warrant us in assigning them to any
particular branch of it. Other explanations have
been offered of the name Tiras, of which we may notice
the Agathyrsi, the first part of the name (Aga)
being treated as a prefix (Knobel, Vé/kert. p. 129) ;
Taurus and the various tribes occupying that range
(Kalisch, Comm. p. 246); the river Tyras, Dnies-
ter, with its cognominous inhabitants, the Tyritae
(Havernick, Hinleit. ii. 231; Schulthess, Parad.
p. 194); and, lastly, the maritime Tyrrheni (Tuch,
im Gen. ἰ. ο.). [W. L. B.]
TIRATHITES, THE (ONY A : Γαθιείμ ;
Alex. Αργαθιειμ: Canentes). One of the three
families of Scribes residing at Jabez (1 Chr. ii. 55),
the others being the Shimeathites and Suchathites.
The passage is hopelessly obscure, and it is perhaps
impossible to discover whence these three families
derived their names. The Jewish commentators,
playing with the names in true Shemitic fashion, in-
terpret them thus: —‘ They called them Tira-
thim, because their voices when they sung resounded
loud (YAF)); and Shimeathites because they made
themselves heard (YYOW) in reading the Law.”
The SHIMEATHITES having been inadvertently
omitted in their proper place, ‘it may be as well to
give- here the equivalents of the name (nyo:
Σαμαθιείμ: Resonantes). {G. 1
TIRE (ΝΒ). An ornamental headdress worn
on festive occasions (Ez. xxiv. 17, 23). The term
peér is elsewhere rendered « goodly ” (Ex. xxxix.
28); “bonnet” (Is. iii. 20; Ez. xliv. 18); and
“ornament ᾿᾿ (Is. Ixi. 10). "For the character of
the article, see HEADDRESS. Wesley]
TIR'HAKAH (APN: Θαρακά: Tharaca).
King of Ethiopia, Cush ‘(Bactaeds Aididmwy, LXX.),
the opponent of Sennacherib (2 K. xix. 9; Is.
xxxvii. 9). W hile the king of Assyria was “ warring
against Libnah,” in the south of Palestine, he heard
of ‘Tirhakah’s "advance to fight him, and sent a
second time to demand the surrender of Jerusalem.
This was B.C. cir. 713, unless we suppose that the
expedition took place in the 24th instead of the
14th year of Hezekiah, which would bring it to
Bc. cir. 705. If it were an expedition later than
that of which the date is mentioned, it must have
been before B.C. cir. 698, Hezékiah’s last year,
But if the reign of Menacehi is reduced to 35
years, these dates would be respectively B.C. cir.
693, 683, and 678, and these numbers might have
to be slightly modified, the fixed date of ‘the cap-
ture of Samaria, B.c. 721, being abandoned.
According to Manette epitomists, Tarkos_ or
Tarakos was the third and last king of the xxvth
| lived longer than 26,
TIRSHATHA
dynasty, which was of Ethiopians, and reigned 18
(Afr.) or 20 (Eus.) years. [So.] From one of the
Apis-Tablets we learn that a bull Apis was born in
his 26th year, and died at the end of the 20th of
Psammetichus I. of the xxvith dynasty. Its life
exceeded 20 years, and no Apis is stated to have
Taking that sum as the
most probable, we should date Tirhakah’s accession
B.C. cir. 695, and assign him a reign of 26 years.
In this case we should be obliged to take the later
reckoning of the Biblical events, were it not for the
possibility that Tirhakah ruled over Ethiopia before
becoming king of Egypt. In connexion with this
theory it must be observed, that an earlier Ethi-
opian of the same dynasty is called in the Bible
“So, king of Egypt,” while this ruler is called
“ Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia,” and that a Pharaoh is
spoken of in Seripture at the period of the latter, and
also that Herodotus represents the Egyptian opponent
of Sennacherib as Sethos, a native king, who may
however have been a vassal under the Ethiopian.
The name of Tirhakah is written in hieroglyphics
TEHARKA. Sculptures at Thebes commemorate
his rule, and at Gebel-Berkel, or Napata, he con-
structed one temple and part of another. Of the
events of his reign little else is known, and the ac-
count of Megasthenes (ap. Strabo xv. p. 686), that
he rivalled Sesostris as a warrior and reached the
Pillars of Hercules, is not supported by other evi-
dence. It is probable that at the close of his reign
he found the Assyrians too powerful, and retired to
his Ethiopian dominions. πὸ Sse a
TIR'HANAH (T3057: Oapdu; Alex. Θαρχνά:
Tharana). Son of Caleb ben-Hezron by his con-
cubine Maachah (1 Chr. ii. 48).
ΤΙΒΊΑ (Δ ἢ : Θιριά ; Alex..Onpid: Thiria).
Son of Jehaleleel of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr.
iv. 16).
TIRSHA’THA (always written with the article,
Savana : hence the LXX. give the word ᾿᾽Αθερ-
σασθά (Hzr.ii.63; Neh. vii. 65), and ᾿Αρταρσασθά
(Neh. x. 1): Vulg. Athersatha). The title of the
governor of Judaea under the Persians, derived by
Gesenius from a Persian root signifying ‘‘ stern,”
‘“ severe.” He compares the title Gestrenger Herr,
formerly given to the magistrates of the free and
imperial cities of Germany. Compare also our ex-
pression, ‘* most dread sovereign.” It is added as
a title after the name of Nehemiah (Neh. viii. 9,
x. 1 [Heb. 2]); and occurs also in three other
places, Ezr. ii. (ver. 63), and the repetition of that
account in Neh. vii. (vers. 65-70), where probably it
is intended to denote Zerubbabel, who had held the
office before Nehemiah. In the margin of the
A.V. (Ezr. ii. 63; Neh. vii. 65, x. 1) it is rendered
“governors” an ΒΥ ΔΒΑ ΠΟΤ ΠῚ τὴ by Neh. xii. 26,
where ΟΕ the governor,’ "Anas (Pecha,
possibly from the same root as the word we write
Pacha, or Pasha), occurs instead of the more usual
expression, « Nehemiah the Tirshatha.”’? This word,
nine, is one of very common occurrence. It ‘is
twice applied by Nehemiah to himself a 14, 18),
and by the pr ophet Haggai (i. 1, ii. 2, 21) to Zerub-
babel. According to Gesenius, it denotes the prefect
or governor of a province of less extent than a
satrapy. The word is used of officers and governors
under the Assyrian (2 K. xviii. 24, Is. xxxvi. 9),
Babylonian (Jer. li. 57, Ez. xxiii. 6, 255 see also
Ezr, v. 3, 14, vi. 7, Dan. iii. 2, 3, 27 7 [ Heb.
2) ὃ) al, vi.
TIRZAH
87), Median (Jer. li, 28), and Persian (sth. viii. 9,
ix. 3) monarchies, And under this last we find
it applied to the rulers of the provinces bordered
by the Kuphrates (Ezr. viii. 36, Neh. ii. 7, 9, iii.
7), and to the governors of Judaea, Zerubbabel and
Nehemiah (compare Mal. i. 8). [10 is found also at
an earlier period in the times of Solomon (1 K. x.
15, 2 Chr. ix. 14) and Benhadad king of Syria
( K, xx. 24): from which last place, compared
with others (2 K. xviii. 24, Is. xxxvi. 9), we find
that military commands were often held by these
goverhors ; the word indeed is often rendered by the
A.V., either in the text or the margin, “ captain.”
By thus briefly examining the sense of Pecha,
which (though of course a much more general and
less distinctive word) is given as an equivalent to
Tirshatha, we have no difficulty in forming an opinion
as to the general notion implied in it. We have, how-
ever, no sufficient information to enable us to explain
in detail in what consisted the special peculiarities
in honour or functions which distinguished the Tir-
shatha from others of the same class, governors,
captains, princes, rulers of provinces. [E. P. E.]
TIR'ZAH (ANA, ἡ 6. Thirza: Θερσά:
Thersa). The youngest of the five daughters of
Zelophehad, whose case originated the law that in
the event of a man dying without male issue his
property should pass to his daughters (Num. xxvi.
33, xxvii. 1, xxxvi.°1J; Josh. xvii. 3). [ZELO-
PHEHAD. | [G.]
TIR'ZAH (TSA: Θαρσᾶ, Θερσᾶ, Θαρσείλα:;
Alex. Θερμα, Θερσα, Θερσιλα: Thersa). An
ancient Canaanite city, whose king is enumerated
amongst the twenty-one overthrown in the conquest
of the country (Josh. xii. 24). From that time
nothing is heard of it till after the disruption of
Israel and Judah. It then reappears as a royal
city—the residence of Jeroboam (1 K. xiv.» 17), and
of his successors, Baasha (xv. 21, 33), Elah (xvi.
8, 9), an. Zimri (ib. 15). It contained the royal
sepulchres of one (xvi. 6), and probably all the
first four kings of the northern kingdom. Zimri
was besieged there by Omri, and perished in the
flames of his palace (ib. 18). The new king con-
tinued to reside there at first, but after six years he
yemoyed to a new city which he built and named
Shomron (Samaria), and which continued to be the
capital of the northern kingdom till its fail, Once,
and once only, does Tirzah reappear, as the seat of
the conspiracy of Menahem ben-Gaddi against the
wretched Shallum (2 K. xv. 14, 16); but as soon
as his revolt had proved successful, Menahem re-
moved the seat of his government to Samaria, and
Tirzah was again left in obscurity.
Its reputation for beauty throughout the country
must have been wide-spread. It is in this sense
that it is mentioned in the ©Song of Solomon, where
the juxtaposition of Jerusalem is sufficient proof of
a In this passage the order of the names is altered
in the Hebrew text from that preserved in the other
passages —and still more so in the LXX.
b The LXX. version of the narrative of which this verse
forms part, amongst other remarkable variations from the
Hebrew text, substitutes Sarira, that is, Zereda, for Tirzah.
In this they are supported by no other version.
© Its occurrence here on a level with Jerusalem has
been held to indicate that the Song of Songs was the
work of a writer belonging to the northern kingdom.
But surely a poet, and so ardent a poet as the author
of the Song of Songs, may have been sufficiently in-
TISHBITE, THE 1515
the estimation in which it was held—* Beautiful
as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem” (Cant. vi. 4). The
LXX, (εὐδοκία) and Vulg, (suavis) do not, however,
take ¢irtsah as a proper name in this passage.
Eusebius (Onomast. Θαρῤσιλά 4) mentions it in
connexion with Menahem, and identifies it with a
“ village of Samaritans in Batanaea.’”’ There is,
however, nothing in the Bible to lead to the inference
that the Tirzah of the Israelite monarchs was on the
east of Jordan. It does not appear to be mentioned
by the Jewish topographers, or any of the Christian
travellers of the middle ages, except Brocardus,
who places ‘‘Thersa on a high mountain, three
leagues (/eucae) from Samaria to the ὁ east” (De-
scriptio, cap. vii.). This is exactly the direction,
and very nearly the distance, of Tellizah, a place
in the mountains north of Nablus, which was visited
by Dr. Robinson and Mr, Van de Velde in 1852
(B. KR. iii. 302; Syr. and Pal. iii. 334). The
town is on an eminence, which towards the east is
exceedingly lofty, though, being at the edge of the
central highlands, it is more approachable from the
west. he place is large and thriving, but with-
out any obvious marks of antiquity. The name
may very probably be a corruption of Tirzah; but
beyond that similarity, and the general agreement
of the site with the requirements of the narrative,
there is nothing at present to establish the identifi-
cation with certainty. [G.]
TISH'BITE, THE (‘AWAN: ὁ θεσβείτης ;
Alex. ἐθεσβίτης : Thesbites). The well-known de-
signation of Elijah (1 K. xvii. 1, xxi. 17, 28; 2 K.
i. 3, 8, ix. 36).
(1.) The name naturally points to a place called
Tishbeh (Fiirst), Tishbi, or rather perhaps Tesheb,
as the residence of the prophet. And indeed the
word ΓΙ, which follows it in 1 K. xvii. 1,
and which in the received Hebrew Text is so pointed
as to mean ‘‘from the residents,” may, without
violence or grammatical impropriety, be pointed to
read “from Tishbi.” his latter reading appears
to have been followed by the LXX. (6 Θεσβείτης
6 ἐκ Θεσβῶν); Josephus (Ant. viii. 13, §2, πό-
λεὼς ΘεσβώνηΞς), and the Targum (AWARD,
“from out of Toshab’’); and it has the support of
Ewald (Gesch. iii. 468 note). It is also supported
by the fact, which seems to have escaped notice,
that the word does not in this passage contain
the 1 which is present in each one of the places
where ILM is used as a mere appellative noun.
Had the } been present in 1 Κα, xvii. 1, the inter-
pretation ‘‘from Tishbi’’ could never haye been
proposed.
Assuming, however, that a town is alluded to,
as Elijah’s native place, it is not necessary to infer
that it was itself in Gilead, as Epiphanius, Adricho-
mius, § Castell, and others have imagined; for the
dependent of political considerations to go out of his
own country—if Tirzah can be said to be out of the
country of a native of Judah—for a metaphor.
ἃ It will be observed that the name stood in the LXX.
of 2 K. xv. 14 in Eusebius’ time virtually in the same
strange un-hebrew form that it now does.
e Schwarz (150) seems merely to repeat this passage.
f The Alex. MS. omits the word in 1 Κα. xvii. 1, and
both MSS. omit it in xxi. 28, which they cast, with the
whole passage, in a different form from the Hebrew text.
8 Thislexicographer pretends to have been in possession
of some special information as to the situation of the place.
1516 TITANS
word AWM, which in the A. V, is rendered by the
general term « inhabitant,” has really the special
force of ‘ resident” or even! “ stranger.” This,
and the fact that a place with a similar name is not
elsewhere mentioned, has induced the commentators!
and lexicographers, with few exceptions, to adopt
the name ‘“ Tishbite” as referring to the place
THIsBE in Naphtali, which is found in the LXX.
text of Tobit i. ὦ. The difficulty in the way of this
is the great uncertainty in which the text of that
passage is involved, as has already been shown under
the head of THISBE; an uncertainty quite sufficient
to destroy any dependence on it as a topographical
record, although it bears the traces of having ori-
ginally been extremely minute. Bunsen (bibelwerk,
note to 1 K. xvii. 1) suggests in support of the reading
“the Tishbite from Tishbi of Gilead”? (which how-
ever he does not adopt in his text), that the place
may have been purposely so described, in order to
distinguish it from the town of the same name in
Galilee,
(2.) But ‘2WNT7 has not always been read as a
proper name, referring to a place. Like ‘WN,
though exactly in reverse, it has been pointed so as
to make it mean “ the stranger.” This is done by
Michaelis in the Text of his interesting Bibel fir
Ungelehrten—* der Fremdling Elia, einer von den
Fremden, die in Gilead wohnhaft waren ;”’ and it
throws a new and impressive air round the prophet,
who was so emphatically the champion of the God of
Israel. But this suggestion does not appear to have
been adopted by any other interpreter, ancient or
modern,
The numerical value of the letters 5AWM is 712,
on which account, and also doubtless with a view to
its correspondence with his own name, Elias Levita
entitled his work, in which 712 words are explained,
Sepher Tishbi (Bartolocci, i. 140 ὁ). [G.|
TITANS (Τιτᾶνες, of uncertain derivation).
These children of Uranus (Heaven) and Gaia (Earth)
were, according to the earliest Greek legends, the
vanquished predecessors of the Olympian gods, con-
demned by Zeus to dwell in Tartarus, yet not with-
out retaining many relics of their ancient dignity
(Aesch. Prom. Vinct. passim). By later (Latin)
poets they were confounded with the kindred Gi-
gantes (Hor. Od. iii. 4, 42, &c.), as the traditions
of the primitive Greek faith died away ; and both
terms were transferred by the Seventy to the Ke-
phaim of ancient Palestine. [G1aNT.] The usual
Greek vendering of Rephaim is indeed Γίΐγαντες
(Gen. xiv. 5; Josh. xii. 4, &c.), or, with a yet
clearer reference to Greek mythology, γηγενεῖς
(Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18), and θεομάχοι. (Symmach.
Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16; Job xxvi. 5). But in 2 Sam.
v. 18, 22, “the valley of Rephaim” is represented
by ἡ κοιλὰς τῶν τιτάνων instead of ἡ κοιλὰς τῶν
γιγάντων, 1 Chr, xi. 15, xiv. 9, 13; and the same
rendering occurs in a Hexapl. text in 2 Sam. xxiii.
13.
allusion by a reference to the Old Latin version of
2 Sam. v., which preserved the LXX. rendering
(De fide, iii. 1, 4, Nam et gigantes et vallem Ti-
Thus Ambrose defends his use of a classical |
)
TITHE
tanum prophetici sermonis series non refugit. Et
Ksaias Sirenas . . . dixit). It can therefore occa-
sion no surprise that in the Greek version of the
triumphal hymn of Judith, ‘* the sons of the Titans”
(viol Τιτάνων : Vulg. filii Titan: Old Latin, filit
Dathan; f. Tela; f. bellatorum) stands parallel
with ‘high giants,” ὑψηλοὶ Γΐγαντες, where the
original text probably had D°N5") and oraz. The
word has yet another interesting point of connexion
with the Bible; for it may have been from some
vague sense of the struggle of the infernal and
celestial powers, dimly shadowed forth in the clas--
sical myth of the Titans, that several Christian
| fathers inclined to the belief that Τειτάν was the
mystic name of “the beast” indicated in Rev. xiii.
18 (Iren. v. 30,3... “divinum putatur apud
| multos esse hoc nomen. . . et ostentationem quan-
/dam continet ultionis . . . et alias autem et anti-
| quum, et fide dignum, et regale, magis autem et
tyrannicum nomen... ut ex multis colligamus
ne forte Titan vocetur qui veniet”). [B. F. W.]
TITHE." Without inquiring into the reason
for which the number ten» has been so frequently
preferred as a number of selection in the cases of
tribute-offerings, both sacred and secular, voluntary
and compulsory, we may remark that numerous
instances of its use are found both in profane and
also in Biblical history, prior to or independently
| of the appointment of the Levitical tithes under
the Law. In Biblical history the two prominent
instances are—l1l, Abram presenting the tenth of all
his property, according to the Syriac and Arabic
versions of Heb. vii. and 8. Jarchi in his Com., but
as the passages themselves appear to show, of the
spoils of his victory, to Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 20 ;
| Heb. vii. 2, 6; Joseph. Ant. i. 10, §2 5 Selden, On
Tithes,c. 1). 2. Jacob, after his vision at Luz,
devoting a tenth of all his property to God in case
he should return home in safety (Gen. xxviii. 22).
These instances bear witness to the antiquity of
tithes, in some shape or other, previous to the
Mosaic tithe-system. But numerous instances are
to be found of the practice of heathen nations,
Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Arabians, of apply-
ing tenths derived from property in ‘general, from
spoil, from confiscated goods, or from commercial
profits, to sacred, and quasi-sacred, and also to fiscal
purposes, viz. as consecrated to a deity, presented
as a reward to a successful general, set apart as a
tribute to a sovereign, or as a permanent source of
revenue. Among other passages, the following may
be cited: 1 Macc. xi. 35; Herod. i. 89, iv. 152, v.
77, vii. 132, ix. 81; Diod. Sic. v. 42, xi. 33, xx.
14; Paus. v. 10, §2, x. 10, §1; Dionys. Hal. i.
19, 23; Justin xviii. 7, xx. 3; Arist. Oecon. ii. 2;
Liv. v. 21; Polyb. ix. 39; Cie. Verr. 1. 3, 6, and
7 (where tithes of wine, oil, and ‘¢ minutae fruges,”
ave mentioned), Pro Leg. Manil. 6; Plut. Ages. ec.
19, p. 389; Pliny, WV. H. xii. 14; Macrob. Sat.
iii. 6; Xen. Hell. i. 7, 10, iv. 3, 21; Rose, Znser.
Gr. p. 215; Gibbon, vol. iii. p. 301, ed. Smith ;
and a remarkable instance of fruits tithed and
offered to a deity, and a feast made, of which the
He says (Lex. Hebr. ed. Michaelis), “Urbs in tribu Gad,
Jebaa inter et Saron.” Jebaa should be Jecbaa (7. 6. Jog-
behah) and this strange bit of confident topography is
probably taken from the map of Adrichomius, made on
the principle of inserting every name mentioned in the
Bible, known or unknown. 4
h There is no doubt that this is the meaning of WM.
See Gen. xxiii. 4 (“sojourner’’), Ex. xii. 45 (“* foreigner 408
Ley. xxv. 6 (“‘stranger’’), Ps. xxxix. 12 (“sojourner”).
It often occurs in connexion with ark “an alien,’ as in
Ley. xxv. 23, 35, 40, 47 b, 1 Chr. xxix. 15. Besides the above
passages, téshab is found in Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 45, 47a.
i Reland, Pal. 1035; Gesenius, Thes. 1352b, &c. ἕο.
a WYP; δεκάτη ; decimae: and plur. NW YI ; ai
δέκαται ; decimae; from WY, “ten.”
b Philo derives δέκα from δέχεσθαι (De X. Orac. ii. 184),
TITHE
people of the district partook, in Xen, Lxp. Cyr. |
v. 3, 9, answering thus to the Hebrew poor man’s
fithe-feast to be mentioned below.
The first enactment of the Law in respect of
tithe is the declaration that the tenth of all pro-
duce, as well as of flocks and cattle, belongs to
Jehovah, and must be offered to Him. 2. That the
tithe was to be paid in kind, or, if redeemed, with an
addition of one-fifth to its value (Lev. xxvii. 30-33).
This tenth, called Terumoth, is ordered to be assigned
to the Levites, as the reward of their service, and it
is ordered further, that they are themselves to de- |
dicate to the Lord a tenth of these receipts, which
is to be devoted to the maintenance of the high-
priest (Num. xviii. 21-28).
This legislation is modified or extended in the
Book of Deuteronomy, 7. 6. from thirty-eight to forty
years later. Commands are given to the people,
1, to bring their tithes, together with their votive
and other offerings and first-fruits, to the chosen
centre of worship, the metropolis, there to be eaten
in festive celebration in company with their children,
their servants, and the Levites (Deut. xii. 5-18).
2. After warnings against idolatrous or virtually
idolatrous practices, and the definition of clean as
distinguished from unclean animals, among which |
latter class the swine is of obvious importance in
reference to the subject of tithes, the legislator
proceeds to direct that all the produce of the soil
shall be tithed every year (ver. 17 seems to show
that corn, wine, and oil, alone are intended), and
that these tithes with the firstlings of the flock and
herd are to be eaten in the metropolis. 3. But in
case of distance, permission is given to convert the
produce into money, which is to be taken to the
appointed place, and there laid out in the purchase
of food for a festal celebration, in which the Levite
is, by special command, to be included (Deut. xiv.
22-27). 4. Then follows the direction, that at
the end of three years, 7. 6. in the course of the
third and sixth years of the Sabbatical period, all the
tithe of that year is to be gathered and laid up
“‘ within the gates,” 7. e. probably in some central
place in each district, not ‘at the metropolis; and
that a festival is to be held, in which the stranger,
the fatherless, and the widow, together with the
Levite, are to partake (7b. vers. 28, 29). 5. Lastly,
it is ordered that atter taking the tithe in each third
year, “which is the year of tithing,’ © an excul-
patory declaration is to be made by every Israelite,
that he has done his best to fulfil the divine com-
mand (Deut. xxvi. 12-14).4
From all this we gather, 1. That one-tenth of the
whole produce of the soil was to be assigned for the
maintenance of the Levites. 2. That out of this
the Levites were to dedicate a tenth to God, for
the use of the high-priest. 3. That a tithe, in all
probability a second tithe, was to be applied to
festival purposes. 4. That in every third year,
either this festival tithe or a third tenth was to be
eaten in company with the poor and the Levites.
The question arises, were there three tithes taken
in this third year; or is the third tithe only the
second under a different description? That there
were two vearly tithes seems clear, both from the
general tenor of the directions and from the LXX.
rendering of Deut. xxvi. 12. But it must be allowed
that the third tithe is not without support. 1. Jo-
e yon maw.
4 The LXX. has here ἐὰν συντελέσῃς ἀποδεκατῶσαι
TITHE 1517
sephus distinctly says that one-tenth was to be given
to the priests and Levites, one-tenth was to be ap-
plied to feasts in the metropolis, and that a tenth
besides these (τρίτην πρὸς αὐταῖς) was every third
year to be given to the poor (Ant. iv. 8, §8, and
22), 2. Tobit says, he gave one-tenth to the priests,
one-tenth he sold and spent at Jerusalem, ἧ. 6. com-
muted according to Deut. xiv. 24, 25, and another
tenth he gave away (Tob. i. 7,8). 3. St. Jerome
says one-tenth was given to the (ee out of which
they gave one-tenth to the priests (δευτεροδεκάτη);
a second tithe was applied to festival purposes, and
a third was given to the poor (πτωχοδεκάτη)
(Com, on Ezek. xly. vol. i. p. 565). Spencer thinks
there were three tithes. Jennings, with Mede,
thinks there were only two complete tithes, but
that in the third year an addition of some sort was
made (Spencer, De Leg. Hebr. p. 727; Jennings,
Jew. Ant. p. 183).
On the other hand, Maimonides says the third and
sixth years’ second tithe was shared between the poor
and the Levites, ἡ. e. that there was no third tithe
(De Jur. Paup. vi. 4). Selden and Michaelis re-
mark that the burden of three tithes, besides the
first-fruits, would be excessive. Selden thinks that
the third year’s tithe denotes only a different appli-
cation of the second or festival tithe, and Michaelis,
that it meant a surplus after the consumption ot
the festival tithe (Selden, On Tithes, c. 2, p. 13;
Michaelis, Laws of Moses, §192, vel. iii. p. 143,
ed. Smith). Against a third tithe may be added
Reland, Ant. Hebr. p. 359; Jahn, Ant. §389;
Godwyn, Moses and Aaron, p. 136, and Carpzov,
p- 621, 622; Keil, Bibl. Arch. §71, i. 337; Saal-
schiitz, Hebr. Arch. i. 70; Winer, Realwbd. s. v.
Zehnte. (Knobel thinks the tithe was never taken
in full, and that the third year’s tithe only meant
the portion contributed in that year (Com. on Deut.
xiv. 29, in Kurzgef. Exeg. Hdbuch.). Ewald
thinks that for two years the tithe was left in great
measure to free-will, and that the third year’s tithe
only was compulsory (Alterthiim. p. 346).
Of these opinions, that which maintains three
separate and complete tithings seems improbable, as
imposing an excessive burden on the land, and not
easily reconcileable with the other directions; yet
there seems no reason for rejecting the notion of
two yearly tithes, when we recollect the especial
promise of fertility to the soil, conditional on ob-
servance of the commands of the Law (Deut. xxviii.).
There. would thus be, 1. a yearly tithe for the
Levites ; 2. a second tithe for the festivals, which
last would every third year be shared by the Levites
with the poor. It is this poor man’s tithe which
Michaelis thinks is spoken of as likely to be con-
verted to the king’s use under the regal dynasty
(1 Sam. viii. 15, 17; Mich. Laws of Moses, vol. i.
p. 299). Ewald thinks that under the kings the
ecclesiastical tithe system reverted to what he sup-
poses to have been its original free-will character.
It is plain that during that period the tithe-system
partook of the general neglect into which the ob-
servance of the Law declined: and that Hezekiah,
among his other reforms, took effectual meats to
revive its use (2 Chr. eal 5, 12, 19). Similar
| measures were taken after the Captivity by Nehe-
miah (Neh. xii. 44), and in both these cases special
officers were pampointed to take charge of the stores
πᾶν τὸ ἐπιδέκατον τῶν γεννημάτων τῆς γῆς Tov ἐν τῷ
ἔτει τῷ τρίτῳ τὸ δεύτερον ἐπιδέκατον δώσεις
~ ,
| τῷ Aevitn, κ' τ. A.
1518 TITUS MANLIUS
and storehouses for the purpose. The practice of
tithing especially for relief of the poor, appears to
have subsisted even in Israel, for the prophet Amos
speaks of it, though in an ironical tone, as existing
in his day (Am. iv. 4). But as any degeneracy in
the national faith would be likely to have an ettect
on the tithe-system, we find complaint of neglect in
this respect made by the prophet Malachi (iii. 8,
10). Yet, notwithstanding partial evasion or omis-
sion, the system itself was continued to a late period
in Jewish history, and was even carried to excess
by those who, like the Pharisees, affected peculiar
exactness in observance of the Law (Heb. vii. 5-8 ;
Matth. xxiii. 23; Luke xviii. 12; Josephus, Azt.
ὙΣ- 9. $255 Vitec. σὴν
Among details relating to the tithe payments
mentioned by Rabbinical writers may be noticed: |
(1) That in reference to the permission given in |
case of distance (Deut. xiv. 24), Jews dwelling in
Babylonia, Ammon, Moab, and Evypt, were consi-
dered as subject to the law of tithe in kind (Reland,
iii. 9, 2, p. 355). (2) In tithing sheep the custom
was to enclose them in a pen, and as the sheep
went out at the opening, every tenth animal was
marked with a rod dipped in vermilion. This was
the “passing under the rod.’ The Law ordered |
that no inquiry should be made whether the animai
were good or bad, and that if the owner changed it,
both the original and the changeling were to be re-
garded as devoted (Lev. xxvii. 32, 335 Jer. xxxiii.
13; Becoroth, ix. 7; Godwyn, M. and A. p. 136,
vi. 7). (3) Cattle were tithed in and after Au-
gust, corn in and after September, fruits of trees
in and after January (Godwyn, p. 137, §9);)
Buxtorf, Syn. Jud. c. xii. p. 282, 283. (4)
“Corners”? were exempt from tithe (Peah, i. 6).
(5) The general rule was that all edible articles
not purchased, were titheable, but that products
not specified in Deut. xiv. 23, were regarded as |
doubtful. Tithe of them was not forbidden, but
was not required (Muaseroth, i. 1; Demai, i. 1; |
Carpzov, App. Bibl. p. 619, 620), [Π. W. P.]
TI'TUS MAN'LIUS. [Manu1vs.]
TI'TUS (Tiros : Titus). Our materials for the |
biography of this companion of St. Paul must be
drawn entirely from the notices of him in the Second |
Epistle to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and to
Titus himself, combined with the Second Epistle to
Timothy. He is not mentioned in the Acts at all.
The reading Τίτου ᾿Ιούστου in Acts xviii. 7 is too
precarious for any inference to be drawn from it.
Wieseler indeed lays some slight stress upon it
(Chronol. des Apost. Zeit. Gott. 1848, p. 204),
but this is in connexion with a theory which needs
every help. As to a recent hypothesis, that Titus
and Timothy were the same person (R. King, Who
was St. Titus? Dublin, 1853), it is certainly in-
genious, but quite untenable.
Taking the passages in the Epistles in the chrono-
logical order of the events referred to, we turn first
to Gal. ii. 1, 3. We conceive the journey men-
tioned here to be identical with that (recorded in
Acts xv.) in which Paul and Barnabas went from
Antioch to Jerusalem to the conference which was
to decide the question of the necessity of cireum-
cision to the Gentiles. Here we see Titus in close
association with Paul and Barnabas at Antioch." He |
goes with them to Jerusalem. He is in fact one of |
a His birth-place may have been here ; but this is quite
uncertain, The name, which is Roman, proves nothing.
TITUS
the τινες ἄλλοι of Acts xv. 2, who were deputed to
accompany them from Antioch. His circumcision
was either not insisted on at Jerusalem, or, if de-
manded, was firmly resisted (οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη
περίτμηθῆναι). He is very emphatically spoken of
as a Gentile (“EAAny), by which is most, probably
meant that both his parents were Gentiles. Here
is a double contrast from Timothy, who was circum-
cised by St. Paul’s own directions, and one of whose
parents was Jewish (Acts xvi. 1,3; 2 Tim. i. 5,
iii. 15). Titus would seem, on the occasion of the
counvil, to have been specially a representative of
the chureh of the uncireumcision.
It is to our purpose to remark that, in the pas-
sage cited above, Titus is so mentioned as apparently
to imply that he had become personally known to
the Galatian Christians. This, again, we combine
with two other circumstances, viz. that the Epistle
to the Galatians and the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians were probably written within a few
months of each other [GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO],
and both during the same journey. From the latter
of these two Epistles we obtain fuller notices of
Titus in connexion with St. Paul.
After leaving Galatia (Acts xviii. 23), and spend-
ing a long time at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-xx. 1),
the Apostle proceeded to Macedonia by way of Troas.
Here he expected to meet Titus (2 Cor. ii. 13), who
had been sent on a mission to Corinth. In this hope
he was disappointed [TroAs], but in Macedonia
Titus joined him (2 Cor. vii. 6, 7, 13-15). Here
we begin to see not only the above-mentioned fact
of the mission of this disciple to Corinth, and the
strong personal affection which subsisted between
him and St. Paul (ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Vil. 7),
but also some part of the purport of the mission
itself. It had reference to the immoralities at
Corinth rebuked in the First Epistle, and to the
effect of that First Epistle on the offending church.
We learn further that the mission was so far suc-
cessful and satisfactory: ἀναγγέλλων τὴν ὑμῶν
ἐπιπόθησιν (vii. 7), ἐλυπήθητε εἰς μετάνοιαν (Vil.
9), τὴν πάντων ὑμῶν ὑπακοήν (vii. 15); and we
are enabled also to draw from the chapter a strong
conclusion regarding the warm zeal and sympathy
of Titus, his grief for what was evil, his rejoicing
over what was good: τῇ παρακλήσει ἣ παρεκλήθη
ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν (vil. 7); ἀναπέπαυται Td πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ
ἀπὸ πάντων ὑμῶν (vii. 18); τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ
περισσοτέρως εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐστιν (vii. 15). Butif we
proceed further, we discern another part of the
mission with which he was entrusted. This had
reference to the collection, at that time in progress,
for the poor Christians of Judaea (καθὼς mpo-
ενήρξατο, viii. 6), a phrase which shows that he
had been active and zealous in the matter, while
the Corinthians themselves seem to have been rather
remiss. This connexion of his mission with the
gathering of these charitable funds is also proved by
another passage, which contains moreover an im-
plied assertion of his integrity in the business (μή
τι ἐπλεονέκτησεν ὑμᾶς Tiros; xii. 18), and a
statement that St. Paul himself had sent him on
the errand (παρεκάλεσα Τίτον, ib.). Thus we
are prepared for what the Apostle now proceeds to
do after his encouraging conversations with Titus
regarding the Corinthian Church. He sends him
back from Macedonia to Corinth, in company with
two other trustworthy Christians { fRopHIMus,
Tycuicus], bearing the Second Epistle, and with
an earnest request (παρακαλέσαι, vill. 6, Thy
| παράκλησιν, viii. 17) that he would see to the
TITUS
completion of the collection, which he had zealously
promoted on his late visit ἵνα καθὼς προενήρξατο,
οὕτως καὶ ἐπιτελέσῃ, Vili. 6), Titus himself being
in nowise backward in undertaking the commission.
On a review of all these passages, elucidating as they
do the characteristics of the man, the duties he dis-
charged, and his close and faithful co-operation with
St. Paul, we see how much meaning there is in
the Apostle’s short and forcible description of him
(εἴτε ὑπὲρ Τίτου, κοινωνὸς ἐμὸς καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς
συνεργός, viii. 23),
All that has preceded is drawn from direct state-
ments in the Epistles; but by indirect though fair
inference we can arrive at something further, which
gives coherence to the rest, with additional elucida-
tions of the close connexion of Titus with St. Paul
and the Corinthian Church. It has generally been
considered doubtful who the ἀδελφοί were (1 Cor.
xvi, 11, 12) that took the First Epistle to Corinth.
Timothy, who had been recently sent thither from
Ephesus (Acts xix, 22), could not have been one of
them (ἐὰν ἔλθη Ti. 1 Cor. xvi. 10), and Apollos
declined the commission (1 Cor. xvi. 12). There can
be little doubt that the messengers who took that
first letter were Titus and his companion, whoever
that might be, who is mentioned with him in the
second letter (παρεκάλεσα Τίτον, καὶ συναπέ-
στειλα τὸν ἀδελφόν, 2 Cor. xii. 18). This view
was held by Macknight, and very clearly set forth
by him (Transl, of the Apostolical Epistles. with
Comm. Edinb. 1829, vol. i. pp. 451, 674, vol. ii.
pp- 2, 7, 124). It has been more recently given
by Professor Stanley (Corinthians, 2nd ed. pp.
548, 492),> but it has been worked out by no one
so elaborately as by Professor Lightfoot (Camb.
Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, ii. 201,
202). As to the connexion between the two con-
temporaneous missions of Titus and Timotheus,
this observation may be made here, that the dif+
ference of the two errands may have had some con-
nexion with a difference in the characters of the two
agents. If Titus was the firmer and more energetic
of the two men, it was natural to give him the task
of enforcing the Apostle’s rebukes, and urging on
the flagging business of the collection.
A considerable interval now elapses before we
come upon the next notices of this disciple. St.
Paul’s first imprisonment is concluded, and his
last trial is impending. In the interval between
the two, he and Titus were together in Crete
(ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, Tit. i. 5). We see Titus
remaining in the island when St. Paul left it, and
receiving there a letter written to him by the
Apostle. From this letter we gather the following
biographical details:—In the first place we learn
_ that he was originally converted through St. Paul’s
instrumentality: this must be the meaning of the
phrase γνήσιον τέκνον, which occurs so empha-
tically in the opening of the Epistle (i. 4). Next
we learn the various particulars of the responsible
duties which he had to discharge in Crete. He is
to complete what St. Paul had been obliged to leave
unfinished (ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ. i. 5),
and he is to organise the Church throughout the
island by appointing presbyters in every city [GoR-
TYNA; LASAEA]. Instructions are given as to the
suitable character of such presbyters (vers. 6-9) ;
and we learn further that we have here the repeti-
Ὁ There is some danger of confusing Titus and the
brother (2 Cor, xii. 18) i. e. the brethren of 1 Cor. xvi. 11,
12, who (according to this view) took the first letter, with
TITUS 1519
tion of instructions previously furnished by word of
mouth (ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην, ver. 5). Next
he is to control and bridle (ἐπιστομίζειν, ver. 11)
the restless and mischievous Judaizers, and he is to
be peremptory in so doing (ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτό-
pws, ver. 13). Injunctions in the same spirit are
reiterated (ii. 1, 15, ili. 3). He is to urge the
duties of a decorous and Christiqn life upon the
women (ii, 3-5), some of whom (πρεσβύτιδας,
ii. 3) possibly had something of an official character
(καλοδιδασκάλους, ἵνα σωφρονίζωσι τὰς νέας,
vers. 3, 4). He is to be watchful over his own
conduct (ver. 7); he is to impress upon the slaves
the peculiar duties of their position (ii. 9, 10); he
is to check all social and political turbulence (iii. 1),
and also all wild theological speculations (iii. 9);
and to exercise discipline on the heretical (iii. 10).
When we consider all these particulars of his duties,
we see not only the confidence reposed in him by
the Apostle, but the need there was of determination
and strength of purpose, and therefore the proba-
bility that this was his character; and all this is
enhanced if we bear in mind his isolated and unsup-
ported position in Crete, and the lawless and immoral
character of the Cretans themselves, as testified by
their own writers (i. 12,13). [CRETE. ]
The notices which remain are more strictly per-
sonal. Titus is to look for the arrival in Crete of
Artemas and Tychicus (iii. 12), and then he is to
hasten (σπούδασον) to join St. Paul at Nicopolis,
where the Apostle is proposing te pass the winter
(ib.). Zenas and Apollos are in Crete, or expected
there; for Titus is to send them on their journey,
and supply them with whatever they need for it
(iii, 13). It is observable that Titus and Apollos
are brought into juxtaposition here, as they were
before in the discussion of the mission from Ephesus
to Corinth.
The movements of St. Paul, with which these
later instructions to Titus are connected, are con-
sidered elsewhere. [PauL; Timorfy.] We
need only observe here that there would be great
difficulty in inserting the visits to Crete and Nico-
polis in any of the journeys recorded in the Acts,
to say nothing of the other objections to giving the
Epistle any date anterior to the voyage to Rome.
[‘Tirus, EpIstLe T0.] On the other hand, there
is no difficulty in arranging these circumstances, if
we suppose St. Paul to have travelled and written
after being liberated from Rome, while thus we
gain the further advantage of an explanation of
what Paley has well called the aflinity of this
Epistle and the first to Timothy. Whether Titus
did join the Apostle at Nicopolis we cannot tell.
But we naturally connect the mention of this place
with what St. Paul wrote at no great interval of
time afterwards, in the last of the Pastoral Epistles
(Τίτος εἰς Δαλματίαν, 2 Tim. iv. 10); for
Dalmatia lay to the north of Nicopolis, at no great
distance from it. [Nicopouis.]| From the form
of the whole sentence, it seems probable that this
disciple had been with St. Paul in Rome during his
final imprisonment: but this cannot be asserted
confidently. The touching words of the Apostle
in this passage might seem to imply some repioach,
and we might draw from them the conclusion that
Titus became a second Demas: but on the whole
this seems a harsh and unnecessary judgment.
Titus and the brethren (2 Cor. viii. 16-24) who took the
second letter.
1520 TITUS, EPISTLE TO
Whatever else remains is legendary, though it |
may contain elements of truth. ‘Titus is connected |
by tradition with Dalmatia, and he is said to have |
been an object of much reverence in that region. |
This, however, may simply be a result of the pas-
sage quoted immediately above: and it is observable
that of all the churches in modern Dalmatia (Neale’s
Lcclesiological Notes on Dalm. p. 175) not one is
dedicated to him. The traditional connexion of |
Titus with Crete is much more specific and con- |
stant, though here again we cannot be certain of
the facts. He is said to have been permanent |
bishop in the island, and to have died there at an |
advanced age. The modern capital, Candia, appears
to claim the honour of being his burial-place (Cave’s |
Apostolici, 1716, p. 42). In the fragment, De Vita
et Actis Titi, by the lawyer Zenas (Fabric. Cod.
Apoc. N. T. ii. 831, 832), Titus is called Bishop |
of Gortyna: and on the old site of Gortyna is a
ruined church, of ancient and solid masonry, which
bears the name of St. Titus, and where service is
occasionally celebrated by priests from the neigh- |
bouring hamlet of Jetropolis (E. Falkener, Re-
mains in Crete, from a MS. History of Candia
by Onorio Belli, p. 23). The cathedral of Megalo-
Castron, in the north of the island, is also dedicated
to this saint. Lastly, the name of Titus was the
watchword of the Cretans when they were invaded
by the Venetians: and the Venetians themselves,
atter their conquest cf the island, adopted him to
some of the honours of a patron saint; for, as the
response after the prayer for the Doge of Venice
was ‘ Sancte Maree, tii nos adjuva,” so.the response
after that for the Duke of Candia was “ Sancte
Tite, tu nos adjuva” (Pashley’s Zravels in Crete,
ἢ ὁ. LZ Ee
We must not leave unnoticed the striking, though
extravagant, panevyric of Titus by his successor in
the see of Crete, Andreas Cretensis (published, with |
Amphilochius and Methodius, by Combefis, Paris,
1644). This panegyric has many excellent points:
6. g. it incorporates well the more important pas-
sages from the 2nd Ep. to the Corinthians. The
following are stated as facts. Titus is related to
the Proconsul of the island: among his ancestors
are Minos and Rhadamanthus (of ἐκ Διός). Early
in life he obtains a copy of the Jewish Scriptures, |
and learns Hebrew in a short time. He goes to |
Judaea, and is present on the occasion mentioned
in Acts i. 15. His conversion takes place before
that of St. Paul himself, but afterwards he attaches
himself closely to the Apostle. Whatever the value
of these statements may be, the following descrip-
tion of Titus (p. 156) is worthy of quotation :—
6 πρῶτος τῆς Κρήτων ἐκκλησίας θεμέλιος" τῆς
ἀληθείας ὃ στῦλος: τὸ τῆς πίστεως ἔρεισμα:
τῶν κηρυγμάτων ἡἣ ἀσίγητος
εὐαγγελικῶν
σἀάλπιγξ' τὸ ὑψηλὺν τῆς Παύλου γλώττης ἀπή-
xno. Mois 185]
TITUS, EPISTLE TO. There are no spe-
cialties in this Epistle which require any very ela-
borate treatment distinct from the other Pastoral
Letters of St. Paul. [Timorny, Episries ro. ]
If those two were not genuine, it would be diffi-
cult confidently to maintain the genuineness of this.
On the other hand, if the Epistles to Timothy are
received as St. Paul’s, there is not the slightest |
reason for doubting the authorship of that to Titus.
Amidst the various combinations which are found
e¢ The day on which Titus is commemorated is Jan, |
4th in the Latin Calendar, and Aug. 25th in the Greek.
Ι Ῥ
firmer ground .
TITUS, EPISTLE TO
among those who have been sceptical on the sub-
ject of the Pastoral Epistles, there is no instance of
the rejection of that before us on the part of those
who have accepted the other two. So far indeed
as these doubts are worth considering at all, the
argument is more in favour of this than of either
of those. Tatian accepted the Epistle to Titus,
and rejected the other two. Origen mentions some
who excluded 2 Tim., but kept 1 Tim. with Titus.
Schleiermacher and Neander invert this process of
doubt in regard to the letters addressed to Timothy,
but believe that St. Paul wrote the present letter
to Titus. Cyredner too believes it* to be genuine,
though he pronounces 1 Tim. to be a forgery, and
2 Tim. a compound of two epistles.
To turn now from opinions to direct external
evidence, this Epistle stands on quite as firm a
ground as the others of the Pastoral group, if not a
Nothing can well be more explicit
than the quotations in Irenaeus, C. Haeres. i. 16, 3
(see Tit. iii, 10), Clem. Alex. Strom. .i. 350 (see
i. 12), Tertull. De Praescr. Haer. c. 6 (see iii. 10,
11), and the reference, also Adv. Mare. v. 21; to
say nothing of earlier allusions in Justin Martyr,
Dial. c. Tryph, 47 (see iii. 4), which can hardly
be doubted, Theoph. Ad Autol. ii. p. 95 (see iii. 5),
iii, p. 126 (see iii. 1), which are probable, and Clem.
Rom. i. Cor, 2 (see iii. 1), which is possible.
As to internal features, we may notice, in the first
place, that the Epistle to ‘Titus has all the charac-
teristics of the other Pastoral Epistles. See, for in-
stance, πιστὸς 6 λόγος (iii. 8) ὑγιαίνουσα διδα-
σκαλία (i. 9, ii.1, comparing i. 13, ii. 8), σωφρονεῖν,
σώφρων, σωφρόνως (i. 8, ii. 5, 6, 12), σωτήριος,
σωτήρ, σώζω (i. 3, 4, ii. 10, 11, 13, iii. 4, 5, 7),
᾿Ιουδαϊκοὶ μῦθοι (i. 14, comparing iii, 9), ἐπιφάνεια
Gi. 13), εὐσέβεια (i. 1), ἔλεος (iii. 5; in 1. 4 the
word is doubtful). All this tends to show that this
Letter was written about the same time and under
similar circumstances with the other two. But,
on the other hand, this Epistle has marks in its
phraseology and style which assimilate it to the
| general body of the Epistles of St. Paul. Such may
fairly be reckoned the tollowing :---κηρύγματι ὃ
ἐπιστεύθην eye (i. 3); the quotation from a
heathen poet (i.12); the use of ἀδόκιμος (i. 16) ;
the ““ going off at a word” (σωτῆρος .. . ἐπεφάνη
yap... σωτήριος ... ii. 10, 11); and the modes
in which the doctrines of the Atonement (ii. 13)
and of Free Justification (iii. 5-7) come to the sur-
face. As to any difficulty arising from supposed
indications of advanced hierarchical arrangements, it
is to be observed that in this Epistle πρεσβύτερος
and ἐπίσκοπος are used as synonymous (ἵνα κατα-
στήσῃς πρεσβυτέρους... δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπί-
okomov....i.5,7), just ἃ5 they are in the address
at Miletus about the year 58 A.D. (Acts xx. 17, 28).
At the same time this Epistle has features of its
own, especially a certain tone of abruptness and
severity, which probably arises partly out of the
cireumstances of the Cretan population [CRETE],
partly out of the character of Titus himself. If all
these things are put together, the phenomena are
seen to be very unlike what would be presented by
a forgery, to say nothing of the general overwhelm-
ing difficulty of imagining who could have been the
writer of the Pastoral Epistles, if it were not St.
| Paul himself,
Concerning the contents of this Epistle, some-
thing has already been said in the article on
Trrus. No very exact subdivision is either neces-
sary or possible. After the introductory salutation,
TITUS, EPISTLE TO
which has marked peculiarities (i. 1-4), Titus is
enjoined to appoint suitable presbyters in the Cretan
Church, and specially such as shall be sound in
doctrine and able to refute error (5-9). The
Apostle then passes to a description of the coarse
character of the Cretans, as testified by their own
writers, and the mischief caused by Judaizing error
among the Christians of the island (10-16). In
opposition to this, Titus is to urge sound and prac-
tical Christianity on all classes (ii, 1-10), on the
older men (ii. 2), on the older women, and espe-
cially in regard to their influence over the younger
women (3-5), on the younger men (6-8), on slaves
(9, 10), taking heed meanwhile that he himself is a |
pattern of good works (ver. 7). The grounds of all |
this are given in the free grace which trains the
Christian to self-denying and active piety (11, 12),
in the glorious hope of Christ’s second advent (ver.
13), and in the atonement by which He has pur-
chased us to be His people (ver. 14). All which
lessons Titus is to urge with fearless decision (ver.
15). Next, obedience to rulers is enjoined, with gen-
tleness and forbearance towards all men (iii. 1, 2),
these duties being again rested on our sense of past
sin (ver. 3), and onthe gift of new spiritual life
and free justification (4-7). With these practical
duties are contrasted those idle speculations which
are to be carefully avoided (8,9); and with regard
to those men who are positively heretical, a peremp-
tory charge is given (10, 11). Some personal allu-
sions then follow: Artemas or Tychicus may be
expected at Crete, and on the arrival of either of
them Titus is to hasten to join the Apostle at Nico- |
polis, where he intends to winter; Zenas the lawyer
also, and Apollos, are to be provided with all that is
necessary for a journey in prospect (12, 13). Finally,
before the concluding messages of salutation, an ad-
monition is given to the Cretan Christians, that |
they give heed to the duties of practical useful
piety (14, 15).
As to the time and place and other circumstances
of the writing of this Epistle, the following scheme
of filling up St. Paul’s movements after his first
imprisonment will satisfy all the conditions of the
case :——-We may suppose him (possibly after accom-
plishing his long-projected visit to Spain) to have
gone to Ephesus, and taken voyages from thence,
first to Macedonia and then to Crete, during the
former to have written the First Epistle to Timothy,
and after returning from the latter to have written
the Epistle to Titus, being at the time of despatching
it on the point of starting for Nicopolis, to which
place he went, taking Miletus and Corinth on the
way. At Nicopolis we may conceive him to have
been finally apprehended and taken to Rome, whence
he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, ~ Other
possible combinations may be seen in Birks ( Horae
Apostolicae, at the end of his edition of the
Horae Paulinae, pp. 299-301), and in Wordsworth
(Greek Testament, Pt. iii, pp. 418, 421). It is
an undoubted mistake to endeavour to insert this
Epistle in any period of that part of St. Paul’s life
which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.
There is in this writing that unmistakeable dif-
ference of style (as compared with the earlier
Epistles) which associates the Pastoral Letters
with one another, and with the latest period of
St. Paul’s life; and it seems strange that this
should have been. so slightly observed by good
scholars and exact chronologists, e. g. Archdn.
Evans (Seript. Biog. iii. 327-333), and Wieseler
(Chronol. des Apost, Zeitalt, 329-355), who, ap-
VOL. 11.
TOB, THE LAND OF 1521
proaching the subject in very different ways, agree
in thinking that this letter was written at [phesus
(between 1 and 2 Cor.), when the Apostle was in
the early part of his third missionary journey
(Acts xix.).
The following list of Commentaries on the Pas-
toral Epistles may be useful for 1 and 2 Tim., as
well as for Titus. Besides the general Patristic
commentaries on all St. Paul’s Epistles (Chryso-
stom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Bede, Al-
cuin), the Mediaeval (Oecumenius, Muthymius,
Aquinas), those of the Retormation period (Luther,
Melancthon, Calvin), the earlier Roman Catholic
(Justiniani, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Estius), the Pro-
testant commentaries of the 17th century (Cocceius,
Grotius, &c.), and the recent annotations on the
whole Greek Testament (Rosenmiiller, De Wette,
Alford, Wordsworth, &c.), the following on the
Pastoral Epistles may be specified :—Daillé, Eapo-
sition (1 Tim, Genev. 1661, 2 Tim, Genev. 1659,
Tit. Par. 1655); Heydenreich, Die Pastoralbriefe
Pauli erléutert (Hadam. 1826, 1828); Flatt,
Vorlesungen tiber die Br. ἢ. an Tim. u. Tit.
(Tiib. 1831); Mack (Roman Catholic), Comm.
tiber die Pastoralbriefe (Tiib. 1836); Matthies,
Lirklirung der Pastoralbr. (Greifsw. 1840); Huther
(part of Meyer’s Commentary, Gott. 1850); Wies-
inger (in continuation of Olshausen, Koenigsb.
1850), translated (with the exception of 2 Tim.)
in Clark’s Foreign Theolog. Lib. (Kdinb, 1851),
and especially Ellicott (Pastoral Epistles, 2nd Ed.
London, 1861), who mentions in his Preface a Danish
commentary by Bp. Moller, and one in modern
Greek, Suvexdnuos Ἱερατικός, by Coray (Par.
1831). Besides these, there are commentaries on
1 Tim, and 2 ‘Tim. by Mosheim (Hamb. 1755),,and
Leo (Lips. 1837, 1850), on 1 Tim. by Fleischmann
(ΤΡ. 1791), and Wegscheider (G6tt. 1810), on
|2 Tim. by J. Barlow and T. Hall (Lond. 1632
and 1658), and by Bréchner (Hafn. 1829), on
| Tit. by T. Taylor (London, 1668), Van Haven
(Hal. 1742) and Kuinoel (Comment. Theol. ed.
Velthusen, Ruperti et Kuinoel). To these must
ii., v., vii., and a still fuller list is given in Darling’s
Cyclopaedia Biblioyraphica, Pt, ii. Subjects, pp.
1535, 1555, 1574. [J.S. ἘΠῚ
TUZITE, THE (S'Fit: Vat. and FA. 6
*Teavel ; Alex. Θωσαει: Thosaites). The desiyna-
tion of Joha. the brother of Jediael and son of
Shimii, one of the heroes of David’s army named in
the supplementary list of 1 Chr. xi. 45. 10 occurs
nowhere else, and nothing is known of the place
or family which it denotes. [G.]
TO'AH (min: @oot; Alex. @oové: Thohu).
A Kohathite Levite, ancestor of Samuel and Heman
(1 Chr. vi. 34 [19]). The name as it now stands may
be a fragment of ‘* Nahath” (comp. ver. 26, 94).
TOB-ADONI'JAH (TITS 3D: Τωβαδο-
vias: Thobadonias). One of the Levites ‘ent by
Jehoshaphat through the cities of Judah to teach
the Law to the people (2 Chr. xvii. 8).
TOB, THE LAND OF (210 ys : γῆ THB:
terra Tob). The place in which Jephthah took
refuge when expelled from home by his half-
brother (Judg. xi. 3); and where he remained,
at the head of a band of freebooters, till he was
broucht back by the sheikhs* of Gilead (ver. 5).
ἃ The word is Ἴ2 27, which exactly answers to sheikhs,
2 By 19}
1522 TOBIAH
The narrative implies that the land of Tob was
not far distant from Gilead: at the same time, from
the nature of the case, it must have lain out towards
the eastern deserts. It is undoubtedly mentioned
again in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8, as one of the petty Aramite |
kingdoms or states which supported the Ammonites
in their great conflict with David. In the Autho-
rized Version the name is presented literatim as |
Ishtob, 7. e. Man of Tob, meaning, according to a
common Hebrew idiom, the ‘men of Tob.” After
an immense interval it appears again in the Macca-
baean history (1 Mace. v. 13). ‘Tob or Tobie was
then the abode of a considerable colony of Jews,
numbering at least a thousand males. In 2 Mace.
xii. 17 its position is defined very exactly as at. or
near Charax, 750. stadia from the strong town
Caspis, though, as the position of neither of these
places is known, we are not thereby assisted in the
recovery of Tob. [TobBre; TUBIENT. |
Ptolemy (Geogr. v. 19) mentions a place called
Θαῦβα as lying to the S.W. of Zobah, and therefore
possibly to the E. or N-E. of the country of Ammon
proper. In Stephanus of Byzantium and in Eckhel
(Doctr. Numm. iii. 352), the names Tubai and
Tabeni occur.
No identification of this ancient district with
any modern one has yet been attempted. ‘The
name Yell Dobbe (Burckhardt, Syria, April 25),
or, as it is given by the latest explorer of those
regions, Tell Dibbe (Wetzstein, Mup), attached to a
ruined site at the south end of the Leja, a few
miles N.W. of Kendwat, and also that of ed Dab, |
some twelve hours east of the mountain οἱ Auleib, are
both suggestive of Tob. But nothing can be said,
at present, as to their connexion with it. [G.]
TOBIAH (9310: Τωβίας, Τωβία : Tobia).
’
1. “ The children of Tobiah” were a family who
returned with Zerubbabel, but were unable to
prove their connexion with Israel (Εν. ii. 60; Neh.
vii. 62).
2. ( Tobias.) “ Tobiah the slave, the Ammonite,” |
played a conspicuous part in the rancorous oppo- |
sition made by Sanballat the Moabite and his ad-
herents to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The two
races of Moab and Ammon found in these men fit |
representatives of that hereditary hatred to the |
Israelites which began before the entrance into | 3 Σ
: Ξ : | generations makes it more probable that the Hyr-
Canaan, and was not extinct when the Hebrews
had ceased to exist as a nation. The horrible story
of the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites, as it
was told by the Hebrews, is an index of the feeling
of repulsion which must have existed between these
hostile families of men. In the dignified rebuke of
Nehemiah it received its highest expression: “ ye
have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jeru-
salem ” (Neh. ii. 20). But Tobiah, though a slave
(Neh. ii. 10, 19), unless this is a title of oppro-
brium, and an Ammonite, found means to ally him-
self with a priestly family, and his son Johanan
married the daughter of Meshullam the son of
Berechiah (Neh. vi. 18). He himself was the son-
in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah (Neh. vi. 17),
and these family relations created for him a strong
faction among the Jews, and may have had some-
thing to do with the stern measiwes which Ezra
found it necessary to take to repress the inter-
marriages with foreigners. Kyen a grandson of the
high-priest Eliashib had married a daughter of San-
ballat (Neh. xiii. 28). In xiii. 4 Eliashib is said to
have been allied to Tobiah, which would imply a
relationship of some kind between Tobiah and San-
| him in defiance of the Mosaic statute.
| Tobiah out of the chamber,”
TOBIJAH
ballat, though its nature is not mentioned. The
evil had spread so far that the leaders of the people
| were compelled to rouse their religious antipathies
by reading from the law of Moses the strong’ pro-
hibition that the Ammonite and the Moabite should
not come into the congregation of God for ever
(Neh. xiii. 1). Ewald (Gesch. iv. 173) conjectures
that Tobiah had been a page (“slave”) at the Per-
sian court, and, being in favour there, had been
promoted to be satrap of the Ammonites. But it
almost seems that against Tobiah there was a
stronger feeling of animosity than against Sanballat,
and that this animosity found expression in the
epithet ‘* the slave,” which is attached to his name.
| It was Tobiah who gave venom to the pitying scorn
of Sanballat (Neh. iv. 3), and provoked the bitter
ery of Nehemiah (Neh. iv. 4, 5); it was Tobiah
who kept up communications with the factious
Jews, and who sent letters to put their leader in
fear (Neh. vi. 17, 19); but his crowning act of
insult was to take up his residence in the Temple
in the chamber which Eliashib had prepared for
Nehemiah’s
patience could no longer contain itself, ‘ therefore,” Ὁ
he says, “I cast forth all the household stuff of
and with this sum-
mary act Tobiah disappears from history (Neh. xiii.
78) rw. A. W.]
TOBIAS. The Greek form of the name TOBIAH
or ToBiyAH. 1. (Τωβίας: Thobias, Tobias.) The
son of Tobit, and central character in the book of
that name. [Tosrr, Book or. ]
2. The father of Hyrcanus, apparently a man of
great wealth and reputation at Jerusalem in the
time of Seleucus Philopator (cir, B.c. 187). In the
high-priestly schism which happened afterwards
[MrneLAus], “the sons of Tobias” took a con-
spicuous part (Joseph. Ant. xii. 5, §1). One of these,
Joseph, who raised himself by intrigue to high
favour with the Egyptian court, had a son named
Hyreanus (Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, 82). It has been
supposed that this is the Hyrcanus referred to in
2 Mace. iii. 11; and it is not impossible that, for some
unknown reason (as in the case of the Maccabees),
the whole family were called after their grandfather;
to the exclusion of the father’s name. On the other
hand, the natural recurrence of names in successive
canus mentioned in Josephus was a nephew of the
Hyrcanus in 2 Mace. (Comp. Ewald, Gesch. d. V. I.
iv. 309; Grimm, ad Macc. 1. c.) [8 ἢ
TOBIE, THE PLACES OF (ἐν τοῖς Του-
βίου: in locis Tubin: Syr. Tubin), A district which
in the time of the Maccabees was the seat of an
extensive colony of Jews (1 Mace. v. 139). It is in
all probability identical with the Land of Tob men-
tioned in the history of Jephthah. [See also Tu-
BIENI. | [G.]
TOBI'EL Syrain, “the goodness of God :”
TwBind: Thobiel, Tobiel), the father of Tobit and
grandfather of Tobias (1), Tob. i. 1. The name may
be compared with Tabael (Ταβεήλ). [TABAEL. |
ΓΒ πὰ)
TOBI'JAH (F310: Τωβίας : Thobias). 1.
One of the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat to teach
the Law in the cities of Judah (2 Chr. xvii. 8).
2. (οἱ χρήσιμοι αὐτῆς: Tobias.) One of the
Captivity in the time of Zechariah, in whose pre-
sence the prophet was commanded to take crowns
of silver and gold and put them on the head of
TOBIT
Teshiia the high-priest (Zech. vi. 10). In ver. 14
his name appeays in the shortened form ΠΡ Ὁ.
Rosenmiiller conjectures that he was one of ἃ ‘depu-
tation who came up to Jerusalem, from the Jews
who still vemained in Babylon, with contributions
of gold and silver for the Temple. 3ut Maurer
considers that the offeri ings were presented by Tobijah
and his companions, because the crowns were com-
mauded to be placed in the Temple as a memorial of
their visit and generosity. [w. A. W.]
TO'BIT (Τωβείθ, Τωβείτ, Τωβίτ: Vv ulg. 70-
bias; Vet. Lat. Tobi, Thobi, Tobis), the son of To-
biel ( (τοβιήλ: Thobiel, Tobiel) and father of Tobias
(Tob. i. 1, ΠΣ [Tonrr, Book or.|] The name
appears to answer to 15D, which occurs frequently
in later times (Fritzsche, ad Tob. i. 1), and not (as
Welte, Hinl. 65) to main ; yet in that case TwBis,
according to the analogy of Aevis (*)2), would have
been the more natural form.
the word is obscure. Ilgen translates it simply
“my goodness ;”’ Fritzsche, with greater probability,
regards it as an abbreviation of mip, comparing
Μελχί (Luke iii. 24, 28), ‘PIN, Χο, (ad Tob. 1. ¢.).
The form in the Vulgate is of no weight against
the Old Latin, except so far as it shows the reading
of the Chaldaic text which Jerome used, in which
the identity of the names of the father and son is
directly affirmed (i. 9, Vulg.). [B. F. W.]
TO'BIT, BOOK OF. The book is called
simply Tobit (Τωβίτ, Τωβείτ) in the old Mss.
At a later time the opening words of the book, Bi-
Bros λόγων Τωβίτ, were taken as a title. In Latin
MSS. it is styled Yobis, Liber Thobis, Liber Tobiae
(Sabatier, 706), Tobit et Tobias, Liber utriusque
Tobiae (Fritzsche, inl. §1).
1. Yext.—The book exists at present in Greek, | 2
Latin, Syriac, and Hebrew texts, which differ more
or ies from one another in detail, but yet on the
whole are so far alike that it is reasonable to sup-
pose that all were derived from one written original,
which was modified in the course of translation or
transcription. The Greek text is found in two
distinct recensions. The one is followed by the
mass of the MSS. of the LXX., and gives the oldest
text which remains. The other is only fragmentary,
and manifestly a revision of the former. Of this,
one piece (i. 1-ii. 2) is contained in the Cod. Sinai-
ticus (=Cod. Frid. Augustanus), and another in
three later MSS. (44, 106, 107, Holmes and Par-
sons; vi. 9-xili.; Fritzsche, Hxeg. Handb. 71-
110). The Latin texts are also of two kinds.
The common (Vulgate) text is due to Jerome, who
formed it by a very hasty revision of the old Latin
version with the help of a Chaldee copy, which was
translated into Hebrew tor him by an assistant who
was master of both languages. The treatment of
the text in this recension is very arbitrary, as might
be expected from the description which Jerome gives
of the mode in which it was made (comp. Praef.
in Tob. 84); and it is of very little critical value,
for it is impossible to distinguish accurately the
different elements which are incorporated in it.
The ante-Hieronymian (Vetus Latina) texts are
far more valuable, though these present consider-
able variations among themselves, as generally hap-
pens, and represent the revised and not the original
Greek text. Sabatier has given one text from these
Mss. of the eighth century, and also added various
readings from another MS., formerly in the possession
The etymology of
TOBIT, BOOK OF 1523
of Christina of Sweden, which contains a distinet.
version of a considerable part of the book, ivi. 12
(Bibl. Lat. ii. p. 706). A third text is found in the
quotations of the Speculum, published by Mai, Spi-
cileg. Rom. ix, 21-23. The Hebrew versions are of
no great weight. One, which was published by P.
Fagius (1542) after a Constantinopolitan edition of
1517, is closely moulded on the common Greek
text without being a servile translation (Fritzsche,
84). Another, published by S. Munster (1542,
&c.), is based upon the revised text, but is extremely
free, and is rather an adaptation than a version,
Both these versions, with the Syriac, are reprinted
in Walton’s Polyglott, and are late Jewish works of
uncertain date (Fritzsche, /.c. Ilgen, ch. xvii. ff.).
The Syriac version is of a composite character. As
far as ch. vii. 9 it is a close rendering of the common
Greek text of the LXX., but from this point to the
end it follows the revised text, a fact which is no-
ticed in the margin of one of the MSS.
2. Contents.—The outline of the book is as fol-
lows. ‘Tobit, a Jew of the tribe of Naphtali, who
strictly observed the law and remained faithful to
the Temple-service at Jerusalem (i. 4-8), was carried
captive to Assyria by Shalmaneser, While in cap-
tivity he exerted himself to relieve his countrymen,
which his favourable position at court (ἀγοραστής,
13, “ purveyor ’’) enabled him to do, and at this
time he was rich enough to lend ten talents of silver
to a countryman, Gabael of Rages in Media. But
when Sennacherib succeeded his father Shalmaneser,
the fortune of Tobit was changed. He was accused
of burying the Jews whom the king had put to
death, and was only able to save himself, his wife
Anna, and his son Tobias, by flight. On the accession
of Esarhaddon he was allowed to return to Nineveh,
at the intercession of his nephew, Achiacharus, who
ope pied a high place in the king’s household (i.
22); but his zeal for his countrymen brought him
inito a strange misfortune. As he lay one night in
the court of his house, being unclean from having
buried a Jew whom his son had found strangled in
the market-place, sparrows “muted warm dung
into his eyes,’ and he became blind. Being thus
disabled, he was for a time supported by Achi-
acharus, and after his departure (ead ἐπορεύθη, ii.
10) by the labour of his wife. On one occasion
he falsely accused her of stealing a kid which had
been added to her wages, and in return she re-
proached him with the miserable issue of all his
righteous deeds. Grieved by her taunts he prayed
to God for-help; and it happened that on the same
day Sara, his kinswoman (vi. 10, 11), the only
daughter of Raguel, also sought help fiom God
against the reproaches of her father’s household.
For’ seven young men wedded to her had perished
on their marriage night, by the power of the evil
spirit Asmodeus [AsMODEUS]; and she thought
that she should “ bring her tather’s old age with
sorrow unto the grave” (iii. 10). So Raphael was
sent to deliver both from their sorrow. In the
mean time Tobit called to mind the money which he
had lent to Gabael, and despatched Tobias, with
many wise counsels, to reclaim it (iv.). On this
Raphael (under the form of a kinsman, Azarias)
offered himself as a guide to Tobias on his journey
to Media, and they “went forth both, and the
young man’s dog with them,” and Anna was com-
forted for the absence of her son (v.). When they
reached the Tigris, Tobias was commanded by Ra-
phael to take ‘the heart, and liver, and gall” of “a
fish which leaped out of the river and would have
5 E 2
1524 TOBIT, BOOK OF
devoured him,” and instructed how to use the
first two against Asmodeus, for Sara, Raphael said,
was appointed to be his wife (vi.). So when they
reached Ecbatana they were entertained by Raguel,
and in accordance with the words of the angel, Sara
was given to Tobias in marriage that night, and
Asmodeus was ‘driven to the utmost parts of
Kgypt,” where ‘‘ the angel bound him ” (vii., viii.).
After this Raphael recovered the loan from Gabael
(ix.), and Tobias then returned with Sara and half
her father’s goods to Nineve (x.). Tobit, informed
by Anna of their son’s approach, hastened to meet
him. ‘Tobias by the command of the angel applied
the fish’s gall to his father’s eyes and restored his
sight (xi.).. After this Raphael addressing to both
words of good counsel revealed himself, and ‘ they
saw him no more” (xii.). On this Tobit expressed
his gratitude in a fine psalm (xiii.) ; and he lived to
see the long prosperity of his son (xiv. 1,2). After
. his death ‘Tobias, according to his instruction, re-
turned to Ecbatana, and “ before he died he heard of
the destruction of Nineve,” of which “ Jonas the
prophet spake” (xiv. 15, 4).
3. Historical character.—The narrative which
has been just sketched, seems to have been received
without inquiry or dispute as historically true till
the rise of free criticism at the Reformation. Luther,
while warmly praising the general teaching of the
book (comp. §6), yet expressed doubts as to its
literal truth, and these doubts gradually gained a
wide currency among Protestant writers. Bertholdt
( Binl. §579) has given a summary of allezed errors
in detail (e.g. i. 1, 2, of Napthali, compared with
2K. xv. 29; vi. 9, Rages, said to have been founded
by Sel. Nicator), but the question turns rather
upon the general complexion of the history than
upon minute objections, which are often captious
and rarely satisfactory (comp. Welte, Zinl. pp.
84-94). This, however, is fatal to the supposition
that the book could have been completed shortly
after the fall of Nineveh (B.c. 606; ΤῸ}. xiv. 15),
and written in the main some time before (Tob.
xii. 20). The whole tone of the narrative bespeaks
a later age; and above all, the doctrine of good and
evil spirits is elaborated in a form which belongs to
a period considerably posterior to the Babylonian
Captivity (Asmodeus, iii. 8, Vi. 14, viii. 3; Raphael,
xii. 15). The incidents again, are completely iso-
lated, and there is no reference to them in any part
of Scripture (the supposed parallels, Tob. iv. 15
(16) {| Matt. vii. 12; Tob. xiii. 16-18 1] Rev.
xxi. 18, are mere general ideas), nor in Josephus
or Philo, And though the extraordinary character
of the details, as such, is no objection against the
reality of the occurrences, yet it may be fairly
urged that the character of the alleged miraculous
events, when taken together, is alien from the ge-
neral character of such events in the historical books
of Scripture, while there is nothing exceptional in
the circumstances of the persons, as in the case of
Daniel [DANIEL, vol. i. p. 394], which might serve
to explain this difference. On all these grounds it
may certainly be concluded that the narrative is
not simply history, and it is superfluous to inquire
how far it is based upon facts, It is quite possible
that some real occurrences, preserved by tradition,
furnished the basis of the narrative, but it does not
follow by any means that the elimination of the
extraordinary details will leave behind pure history
(so Ilgen), As the book stands it is a distinctly
didactic narrative. Its point lies: in the moral
lesson which it conveys, and not in the incidents.
TOBIT, BOOK OF
The incidents furnish lively pictures of the truth
which the author wished to inculeate, but the
lessons themselves are independent of them. Nor
can any weight be laid on the minute exactness
with which apparently unimportant details are
described (e.g. the genealogy and dwelling-place
of Tobit, i. 1,25; the marriage festival, viii. 20,
xi. 18, 19, quoted by Ilgen and Welte), as prov-
ing the reality of the events, for such particularity
is characteristic of Kastern romance, and appears
again in the Book of Judith. The writer in com-
posing his story necessarily observed the ordinary
form of a historical narrative.
4. Original Language and Revisions.—In the
absence of all direct evidence, considerable doubt has
been felt as to the original language of the book.
The superior clearness, simplicity, and accuracy of
the LXX. text prove conclusively that this is nearer
the original than any other text which is known, if
it be not, as some have supposed (Jahn and Fritzsche
doubtfully), the original itself. Indeed, the argu-
ments which have been brought forward to show
that it is a translation are far from conclusive. The
supposed contradictions between different parts of the
book, especially the change from the first (i.-iii. 6)
to the third person (iii. 7—xiv.), from which IHgen
endeavoured to prove that the narrative was made
up of distinct Hebrew documents, carelessly put
together, and afterwards rendered by one Greek
translator, are easily explicable on other grounds ;
and the alleged mistranslations (iii. 6; iv. 19, &c.)
depend rather on errors in interpreting the Greek
text, than on errors in the text itself. The style,
again, though harsh in parts, and far from the
classical standard, is not more so than some books
which were undoubtedly written in Greek (6. g. the
Apocalypse) ; and there is little, if any thing, in it
which points certainly to the immediate influence
of an Aramaic text. (i. 4, εἰς πάσας τὰς yevéas
Tov αἰῶνος, comp. Eph. ili. 213 i. 22, ἐκ δευτέρας ;
iii. 15, ἵνα τί μοι Gv; v.15, τίνα σοι ἔσομαι
μισθὸν διδόναι; xiv. 3, προσέθετο φοβεῖσθαι, δε.)
To this it may be added that Origen was not ac-
quainted with any Hebrew original (Zp. ad Afric.
13); and the Chaldee copy which Jerome used,
as far as its character can be ascertained, was evi-
dently a later version of the story. On the other
hand, there is no internal evidence against the sup-
position that the Greek text is a translation. Some
difficulties appear to be removed by this supposition
(e. g. ix. 6); and if the consideration of the date
and place of the composition of the book favour this
view, it may rightly be admitted. The Greek offers
some peculiarities in vocabulary :—i. 6, πρωτο-
κουρία, ἱ. 6. ἣ ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κουρῶν, Deut. xviii. 4;
i. 7, ἀποπρατίζομαι; i. 21, ἐκλογιστία ; ii. 3,
στραγγαλόω, &e.: and in construction, xiii. 7,
ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι τὴν μεγαλωσύνην ; xii. 4, δικαιοῦσθαί
τινι; vi. 19, προσάγειν τινί (intrans.); vi. 6,
ἐγγίζειν ἐν, &c. But these furnish no argument
on either side.
The various texts which remain have already
been enumerated. Of these, three varieties may be
distinguished: (1) the LXX.; (2) the revised Greek
text, followed by the Old Latin in the main, and by
the Syriac in part; and (3) the Vulgate Latin.
The Hebrew versions have no critical value.
(1) The LXX. is followed by A. V., and has been
already characterized as the standard to which the
others are to be referred. (2) The revised text,
first brought distinctly into notice by Fritzsche
(Hinl. §5), is based on the LXX. Greek, which is
TOBIT, BOOK OF
at one time extended, and then compressed, with a
view to greater fulness and clearness. A few of
the variations in the first chapter will indicate its
character :—Ver. 2, Θίσβης, add. ὀπίσω δυσμῶν
ἡλίου ἐξ ἀριστερῶν Φογώρ; ver. 8, ois καθήκει,
given at length τοῖς ὀρφανοῖς καὶ ταῖς χήραις,
κιτιλο; Ver. 18, ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, add. ἐν ἡμέραις
τῆς κρίσεως Hs ἐποίησεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ βασιλεὺς
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ περὶ τῶν βλασφημιῶν ὧν ἐβλασ-
φήμησεν ; ver. 22, οἰνοχόος, ἀρχιοινοχόος.
(9) The Vulgate text was derived in part from a
Chaldee copy which was translated by word of
mouth into Hebrew for Jerome,who in turn dictated
a Latin rendering to a secretary. (Praef. in Tob.:
.... Exigitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone con-
scriptum ad Latinum stylum traham.... Feci
satis desiderio vestro, non tamen meo studio... .
Kt quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni
Hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem
reperiens unius diet laborem arripui, et quidquid
ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego, accito
notario, sermonibus Latinis exposui.). It is evident
that in this process Jerome made some use of the
Old Latin version, which he follows almost verbally
in a few places: iii. 3-65; iv. 6, 7, 11, 23, &.;
but the greater part of the version seems to be an
independent work. On the whole, it is more concise
than the Old Latin; but it contains interpolations
and changes, many of which mark the asceticism of
a late age: ii. 12-14 (parallel with Job) ; iii. 17-23
(expansion of iii. 14); vi. 17 ff. (expansion of vi.
18); ix. 11, 12; xii. 13 (et quia acceptus eras
Deo, necesse fuit ut tentatio probaret te).
5. Date and place of Composition.—The data
for determining the age of the book and the place
where it was compiled are scanty, and conse-
quently very different opinions have been enter-
tained on these points. Eichhorn (int. pp. 408 ff.)
places the author after the time of Darius Hystaspis
without fixing any further limit of age or country.
Bertholdt, insisting (wrongly) on the supposed date
of the foundation of Rages [RAGES], brings the book
considerably later than Seleucus Nicator (cir. B.C.
250-200), and supposes that it was written by a Ga-
lilaean or Babylonian Jew, from the prominence given
to those districts in the narrative (Ziml. pp. 2499,
2500). De Wette leaves the date undetermined, but
argues that the author was a native of Palestine
(λα. 8511). Ewald (Geschichte, iv. 233-238)
fixes the composition in the far East, towards the
close of the Persian period (cir. 350 B.c.). This
last opinion is almost certainly correct. The su-
‘perior and inferior limits of the date of the book
seem to be defined with fair distinctness. On the
one hand the detailed doctrine of evil spirits points
clearly to some time after the Babylonian Captivity ;
and this date is definitely marked by the reference
to a new Temple at Jerusalem, “ not like the first ”
(Tob. xiv. 5; comp. Ezr. iii. 12). On the other
hand, there is nothing to show that the Jews were
threatened with any special danger when the narra-
tive was written (as in Judith), and the manner in
which Media is mentioned (xiv. 4) implies that the
Persian monarchy was still strong. Thus its date
will fall somewhere within the period between the
close of the work of Nehemiah and the invasion of
Alexander (cir. B.c. 430-334). The contents of the
book furnish also some clue to the place where it
was written. Not only is there an accurate know-
ledge of the scenes described (Ewald, 233), but the
incidents have a local colouring. The continual
reference to almsgiving and the burial of the dead,
TOBIT, BOOK OF 1525
and the stress which is laid upon the right per=
formance of worship at Jerusalem by those who
are afar off (i.-4), can scarcely be due to an effort
of imagination, but must rather have been occa-
sioned by the immediate experience of the writer,
This would suggest that he was living out of Pales-
tine, in some Persian city, perhaps Babylon, where
his countrymen were exposed to the capricious
cruelty of heathen governors, and in danger of neg-
lecting the Temple-service. Glimpses are also given
of the presence of the Jews at court, not only in
the history (Tob. i. 22), but also in direct counsel
(xii. 7, μυστήριον βασίλεως καλὸν κρύψαι), which
better suit such a position than any other (comp.
xiii. 3). If these conjectures as to the date and
place of writing be correct, it follows that we must
assume the existence of a Hebrew or Chaldee ori-
ginal. And even if the date of the book be brought
much lower, to the beginning of the second century
B.C., which seems to be the latest possible limit,
it is equally certain that it must have been written
in some Aramaic dialect, as the Greek literature of
Palestine belongs to a much later time; and the re-
ferences to Jerusalem seem to show that the book
could not have been composed in Egypt (i. 4, xiv.
5), an inference, indeed, which may be deduced
from its general contents. As long as the book
was held to be strict history it was supposed that it
was written by the immediate actors, in accordance
with the direction of the angel (xii. 20). ‘The pas-
sages where Tobit speaks in the first person (i.-iii.
6, xiii.) were assigned to his authorship. The in-
tervening chapters to Tobit or Tobias. The descrip-
tion of the close of the life of Tobit to Tobias (xiv.
1-11); and the concluding verses (xiv. 12-15) to
one of his friends who survived him. If, however,
the historical character of the narrative is set aside,
there is no trace of the person of the author.
6. History.—The history of the book is in the
main that of the LXX. version. While the con-
tents of the LXX., as a whole, were received as ca-
nonical, the Book of Tobit was necessarily included
without further inquiry among the books of Holy
Scripture. [CANON.] The peculiar merits of the
book contributed also in no small degree to gain for
it a wide and hearty reception. There appears to
be a clear reference to it in the Latin version of the
Epistle of Polycarp (6. 10, eleemosyna de morte
liberat, Tob. iv. 10, xii. 9). In a scheme of the
Ophites, if there be no corruption in the text, To-
bias appears among the prophets (Iren. i. 30, 11).
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 23, §139, τοῦτο
βραχέως 7 γραφὴ δεδήλωκεν εἰρηκυῖα, Tob. iv.
16) and Origen practically use the book as ca-
nonical ; but Origen distinctly notices that neither
Tobit nor Judith were received by the Jews, and
rests the authority of Tobit on the usage of the
Churches (Ep. ad Afric. 13, Ἕ βραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ
οὐ χρῶνται. . . GAA’, ἐπεὶ χρῶντα! τῷ Τωβίᾳ
αἱ ἐκκλησίαι... De Orat. 1, 814, τῇ τοῦ Τωβὴτ
βίβλῳ ἀντιλέγουσιν of ἐκ περιτομῆς ὡς μὴ ἐν-
διαθήκῳ. . .). Even Athanasius when writing
without any critical regard to the Canon quotes
Tobit as Scripture (Apol. c. Arian. §11, ὡς γέ-
ypamrat, Tob. xii. 7); but when he gives a formal
list of the Sacred Books, he definitely excludes it
from the Canon, and places it with other apocry-
phal books among the writings which were “ to be
read by those who were but just entering on Chris-
tian teaching, and desirous to be instructed in the
rules of piety” (Zp. Fest. p. 1177, ed. Migne).
In the Latin Church Tobit found a much more de-
1526 TOBIT, BOOK OF
cided acceptance. Cyprian, Hilary, and Lucifer,
quote it as authoritative (Cypr. De Orat. Dom.
32; Hil. Pict. Zn Psalm. exxix.-7; yet comp.
Prot. τὴν Ps. xv.; Lucit. Pro Athan. i. p. 871).
Augustine includes it with the other apocrypha of
the LXX. among “ the books which the Christian
Church received” (De Doctr. Christ. ii. 8),* and in
this he was followed by the mass of the later Latin
fathers [comp. CANON, vol. i. p. 256, &e.]. Am-
brose in especial wrote an essay on Tobias, treat-
ing of the evils of usury, in which he speaks of
the book as ‘*‘ prophetic” in the strongest terms
(De Tobid, 1,1; comp. Hexaem.vi. 4). Jerome
however, followed by Ruffinus, maintained the
purity of the Hebrew Canon of the O. T., and, as
has been seen, treated it very summarily (for later
authorities see CANON). In modern times the
moral excellence of the book has been rated highly,
except in the heat of controversy. Luther pro-
nounced it, if only a fiction, yet ‘‘a truly beautiful,
wholesome, and profitable fiction, the work of a
gifted poet. . . . A book useful for Christian read-
ing” (ap. Fritzsche, Hinl.§11). The same view
is held also in the English Church. A passage from
Tobit is quoted in the Second Book of Homilies as
the teaching ‘of the Holy Ghost in Scripture”
(Of Almsdeeds, ii. p. 391, ed. Corrie); and the
Prayer-book offers several indications of the same
feeling of vespect for the book. Three verses are
retained among the sentences used at the Offertory
(Tob. iv. 7-9); and the Preface to the Marriage
Service contains a plain adaptation of Jerome’s
version of Tob. vi. 17 (Hi namque qui conjugium
ita suscipiunt ut Deum a se et a sua mente exclu-
mulus quibus non est intellectus, habet potestatem
daemonium super eos). In the First Book of Edward
VI. a reference to the blessing of Tobias and Sara
by Raphael was retained in the same service from
the old office in place of the present reference to
Abraham and Sarah ; and one of the opening clauses
of the Litany, introduced from the Sarum Breviary,
is a reproduction of the Vulgate version of Tob.
iii. 3 (Ne vindictam sumas de peccatis meis, neque
reminiscaris delicta mea vel parentum meorum).
7. Keligious character.—Few probably can read
the book in the LXX. text without assenting heart-
ily to the favourable judgment of Luther on its
merits. Nowhere else is there preserved so complete
and beautiful a picture of the domestic lite of the
Jews after the Return, There may be symptoms
of a tendency to formal righteousness of works, but
as yet the works are painted as springing from
a living faith. The devotion due to Jerusalem is
united with definite acts of charity (i. 6-8) and
with the prospect of wider blessings (xiii. 11). The
giving of alms is not a mere scattering of wealth,
but a real service of love (i. 16, 17, ii. 1-7, iv.
7-11, 16), though at times the emphasis which is
laid upon the duty is exagverated (as it seems) from
the special circumstances in which the writer was
placed (xii. 9, xiv. 10). Of the special precepts
one (iv. 15, ὃ μισεῖς μηδενὶ ποιήσῃς) contains the
negative side of the golden rule of conduct (Matt.
vii. 12), which in this partial form is found among
TOBIT, BOOK OF
the maxims of Confucius. But it is chiefly in the
exquisite tenderness of the portraiture of domestic
life that the book excels. The parting of Tobias
and his mother, the consolation of Tobit (v. 17-22),
the atlection of Raguel (vii. 4-8), the anxious wait-
ing of the parents (x. 1-7), the son’s return (ix. 4,
xi. ), and even the unjust suspiciousness of the sorrow
of Tobit and Anna (ii.11-14) are painted with a
simplicity worthy of the best times of the patriarchs.»
Almost every family relation is touched upon with
natural grace and affection : husband and wite, parent
and child, kinsmen, near or distant, masterand servant,
are presented in the most varied action, and always
with life-like power (ii. 13, 14, v. 17-22, vii. 16,
viii. 4-8, x. 1-7, xi. 1-13, i. 22, ii. 10, vii. 3-8, v.
14, 15, xii. 1-5, &c.). Prayer hallows the whole
conduct of life (iv. 19, vi. 17, viii. 5-8, &e.); and
even in distress there is confidence that in the end
all will be well (iv. 6, 14, 19), though there is no
clear anticipation of a future personal existence
(iii. 6). The most remarkable doctrinal feature in
the book is the prominence given to the action of
spirits, who, while they are conceived to be subject
to the passions of men and material influences (As-
modeus), are yet not affected by bodily wants, and
manifested only by their own will (Raphael, xii. 19).
Powers of evil (δαιμόνιον, πνεῦμα πονηρόν, iii. 8,
17, vi. 7, 14, 17) are represented as gaining the means
of injuring men by sin [AsmopEUS], while they
are driven away and bound by the exercise of faith
and prayer (viii, 2,3). On the other hand Raphael
comes among men as “the healer’? (comp. Dill-
mann, Das Buch Henoch, c. 20), and by the mis-
sion of God (iii. 17, xii. 18), restores those whose
good actions he has secretly watched (xii. 12, 13),
and ‘*the remembrance of whose prayers he has
brought before the Holy One” (xii. 12). This
ministry of intercession is elsewhere expressly re-
cognized. Seven holy angels, of whom Raphael is
one, are specially described as those “ which present
the prayers of the Saints, and which go in and out
before the glory of God” (xii. 15). It is charac-
teristic of the same sense of the need of some being
to interpose between God and man that singular
prominence is given to the idea of “ the glory of
God,’ before which these archangels appear as
priests in the holiest place (viii. 15, xii. 15) ; and in
one passage “ the angel of God” (v. 16, 21) oceu-
pies a position closely resembling that of the Word
in the Targums and Philo (De mut. nom. §13,
&c.). Elsewhere blessing is rendered to “all the
holy angels” (xi. 14, εὐλογημένοι as contrasted
with εὐλογητός : comp. Luke i. 42), who are them-
selves united with ‘the elect” in the duty of
praising God for ever (viii. 15). This mention of
“the elect”? points to a second doctrinal feature of
the book, which it shares with Baruch alone of the
apocryphal writings, the firm belief in a glorious
restoration of the Jewish people (xiv. 5, xiii. 9-18).
But the restoration contemplated is national, and
not the work of a universal Saviour. The Temple
is described as ‘ consecrated and built for all ages”
(i. 4), the feasts are “fan everlasting decree”
(i. 6), and when it is restored “ the streets of Jeru-
salem shall say . . . Blessed be God which hath
a This is expressed still more distinctly in the Speculum
(Ὁ. 1127, C., ed. Par. 1836): “ Non sunt omittendi et hi
[libri] quos quidem ante Salvatoris adventum constat esse
conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judaeis recipit tamen
ejusdem Salvatoris ecclesia.” ‘The preface from which
these words are taken is followed by quotations from
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and ‘Tobit.
b In this connexion may be noticed the incident, which
is without a parallel in Scripture, and seems more natural
to the West than to the East, the companionship of the
dog with Tobias (v. 16, xi. 4: comp. Ambr. Hexaem. vi.
4,17: “ Mutae specie bestiae sanctus Raphael, angelus
Tobiae juvenis ad relationem gratiae erudiebat
affectum ’”).
TOCHEN
extolled it for ever” (xiii. 18). In all there is not
the slightest trace of the belief in a personal Messiah.
8. Comparisons have often been made between
the Book of Tobit and Job, but from the outline
which has been given it is obvious that the resem-
blance is only superficial, though Tob. ii, 14 was
probably suggested by Job ii. 9, 10, while the
differences are such as to mark distinct periods. In
Tobit the sorrows of those who are afflicted are laid
at once in prayer before God, in perfect reliance on
His final judgment, and then immediately relieved
by Divine interposition. In Job the real contlict is
in the soul of the sufferergand his relief comes af
length with humiliation and repentance (alii. 6).
The one book teaches by great thoughts; the other
by clear maxims translated into touching incidents.
The contrast of Tobit and Judith is still more
instructive. These books present two pictures οἵ"
Jewish lite and feeling, broadly distinguished in all
their details, and yet mutually illustrative. The
one represents the exile prosperous and even power-
ful in a strange land, exposed to sudden dangers,
cherishing his national ties, and looking with un-
shaken love to the Holy City, but still mainly
occupied by the common duties of social life; the
other portrays a time of reproach and peril, when
national independence was threatened, and a righteous
cause seemed to justify unscrupulous valour. ‘The
one gives the popular ideal of holiness of living,
the other of courage in daring. The one reflects
the current feeling at the close of the Persian rule,
the other duiing the struggles for freedom.
9. The first complete edition of the beok was by
K. D. Ilgen (Die Gesch. Tobi’s ... mit... emer
Einleituny versehen, Jen. 1800), which, iu spite of
serious defects due to the period at which it was pub-
lished, contains the most full discussion of the con-
tents. The edition of Fritzsche (Zxeget. Handb. ii.,
Leipzig, 1853) is concise and scholarlike, but leaves
some points without illustration. In England the
book, like the rest of the Apocrypha, seems to have
fallen into most undeserved neglect. [B.F.W.]
TO'CHEN (3: Θοκκᾶ; Alex. Θοχχαν :
Thochen). A place mentioned (1 Chr. iv. 32 only)
amongst the towns of Simeon. In the parallel list
of Josh. (xix. 7) there is nothing corresponding
to Tochen, The LXX., however, adds the name
Thalcha between Remmon and Ether in the latter
passage; and it is not impossible that this may be
the remnant of a Tochen anciently existing in the
Hebrew text, though it has been considered as’ an
indication of Telem. [G.]
TOGARMAH (i1993F: Θοργαμά: Thogor-
ma). A son of Gomer, and brother of Ashkenaz
and Riphath (Gen. x. 3). It has been already
shown that Togarmah, as a geographical term, is
connected with Armenia,? and that the subseqnent
notices of the name (Ez. xxvii. 14, xxxviii. 6)
accord with this view. [ARMENTA.] It remains
for us to examine into the ethnology of the Arme-
nians with a view to the position assigned to them
in the Mosaic table. The most decisive statement
respecting them in ancient literature is furnished by
Herodotus, who says that they were Phrygian
colonists, that they were armed in the Phrygian
fashion, and were associated with the Phrygians
under the same commander (Herod. vii. 73). The
TOL 1527
remark of Eudoxus (Steph. Byz. s. v. ᾿Αρμενία)
that the Armenians resemble the Phrygians in many
respects in language (τῇ φωνῇ πολλὰ φρυγίζουσὴ
tends in the same direction. [Ὁ is hardly necessary
to understand the statement of Herodotus as imply-
ing more than a common origin of the two
peoples; for, looking at the general westward pro-
gress of the Japhetie races, and on the central
position which Armenia held in regaid to their
movements, we should rather infer that Phrygia
was colonized from Armenia, than vice versd. ‘The
Phrygians were indeed reputed to haye had their
first settlements in Europe, and thence to have
crossed into Asia (Herod, vii. 73), but this must
be regarded as simply a retrograde movement of a
section of the great Phrygian race in the direction
of their original home. he period of this move-
ment is fixed subsequently to the Trojan war (Strab.
xiv. p. 680), whereas the Phrygians appear as an
important race in Asia Minor at a far earlier period
(Strab. vii. p. 321 ; Herod. vii, 8,11), There can be
little doubt but that they were once the dominant
race in the peninsula, and that they spread west-
ward from the confines of Armenia to the shores of
the Aegaean. The Phrygian language is undoubt-
edly to be classed with the Indo-European family.
The resemblance between words in the Phrygian
and Greek tongues was noticed by the Greeks them-
selves (Plat. Cratyl. p. 410), and the inscriptions
still existing in the former are decidedly Indo-
European (Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 666). The Ar-
menian language presents many peculiarities which
distinguish it from other branches of the Indo-
European family ; but these may be accounted for
partly by the physical character of the country,
and partly by the large amount of foreign admix-
ture that it has experienced. In spite of this,
however, no hesitation is felt by philologists in
placing Armenian among the Indo-European lan-
guages (Pott, Ltym. Forsch. Introd. p. 32; Die-
fenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 45). With regard to the
ancient inscriptions at Wan, some doubt exists;
some of them, but apparently not the most
ancient, are thought to bear a Turanian character
(Layard’s Nin. and Bab. p. 402; Rawlinson’s
Herod, i. 652); but, even were this fully estab-
lished, it fails to prove the Turanian character of
the population, inasmuch as they may have been
set up by foreign conquerors. The Armenians
themselves have associated the name of Togarmah
with their early history in that they represent the
founder of their race, Haik, as a son of Thorgom
(Moses Choren. i. 4, §9-11). LW. L. B.]
TO'HU (IAM: Θοκέ; Alex. @ood: Thohu).
An ancestor of Samuel the prophet, perhaps the
same as TOAH (1 Sam. 1. 13 comp. 1 Chr. vi. 54).
Od ODA: @oov; Alex. Θαεί: Thov). King
of Hamath on the Orontes, who, after the defeat of
his powerful enemy the Syrian king Hadadezer by
the army of David, sent his son Joram, or Hadoram,
to congratulate the victor and do him homage with
presents of gold and silver and brass (2 Sam. viil.
9,10). ‘For Hadadezer had wars with Toi,” and
Ewald (Gesch, iii. 199) conjectures that he may
have even reduced him to a state of vassalage.
There was probably some policy in the conduct of
Toi, and his object may have been, as Josephus says
8 The name itself may possibly have reference to Ar-
menia, for, according to Grimm (Gesch. Deutsch. Spr. ii.
825), Togarmah comes from the Sanscrit toka, “ tribe,”
and Arma— Armenia, which he further connects with
Hermino the son of Mannus.
1528 TOLA
it was (Ant. vii. 5, 84), to buy off the conqueror
with the ‘ vessels of ancient workmanship” (σκεύη
τῆς ἀρχαίας κατασκευῆ5) which he presented.
TO'LA (YOM: Θωλά: Thola). 1. The first-
born of Issachar, and ancestor of the Tolaites (Gen.
xlvi. 13; Num. xxvi. 23; 1 Chr. vii. 1,2); who in
the time of David numbered 22,600 men of valour.
2. Judge of Israel after Abimelech (Judg. x. 1,
2). He is described as “‘ the son of Puah, the son
of Dodo, a man of Issachar.” In the LXX. and
Vulg. he is made the son of Abimelech’s uncle,
Dodo (Ἶ 111) being considered: an appellative. But
Gideon, Abimelech’s father, was a Manassite. Tola
judged Israel for twenty-three years at Shamir in
Mount Ephraim, where he died and was buried.
TO'LAD (TIM: @ovaadu; Alex. Θωλαδ:
Tholad). One of the towns of Simeon (1 Chr.
iv. 29), which was in the possession of the tribe
up to David’s reign, probably to the time of the
census taken by Joab. In the lists of Joshua the
name is given in the fuller form of EL-TOLAD. [G.]
TO'LAITES, THE (YinT: 6 Θωλαΐ:
Tholaitae). The descendants of Tola the son of
Issachar (Num. xxvi. 29).
TOL'BANES (Τολβάνης : Tolbanes). TELEM, !
one of the porters in the days of Ezra (1 Esd.
ix, 25).
TOMB. Although the sepulchral arrange-
ments of the Jews have necessarily many points of
contact with those of the surrounding nations, they
are still on the whole—like everything else that
people did—so essentially different, that it is most
unsafe to attempt to elucidate them by appealing to
the practice of other races.
It has been hitherto too much the fashion to }
look to Egypt for the prototype of every form of
Jewish art; but if there is one thing in the Old
Testament more clear than another, it is the abso-
lute antagonism between the two peoples, and the
abhorrence of everything Egyptian that prevailed
from first to last among the Jewish people. From
the burial of Sarah in the cave of Machpelah (Gen.
xxiii. 19) to the funeral rites prepared for Dorcas
(Acts ix. 37), there is no mention of any sarco-
phagus, or even coffin, in any Jewish burial. No
pyramid was raised—no separate hypogeum of any
individual king, and what is most to be regretted
by modern investigators, no inscription or painting
which either recorded the name of the deceased,
or symbolized the religious feeling of the Jews
towards the dead. It is true of course that Jacob
dying in Egypt was embalmed (Gen. 1. 2), but it
was only in order that he might be brought to
be entombed in the cave at Hebron, and Joseph
as a naturalized Egyptian and a ruler in the land
was embalmed ; and it is also mentioned as some-
thing exceptional that he was put into a coffin, and
was so brought by the Israelites out of the land
and laid with his forefathers. But these, like the
burning of the body of Saul [see BuriAL], were
clearly exceptional cases.
Still less were the rites of the Jews like those of
the Pelaszi or Etruscans. With that people the
craves of the dead were, or were intended to be, in
every respect similar-to the homes of the living.
The lucumo lay in his robes, the warrior in his
armour, on the bed on which he had reposed in life,
surrounded by the furniture, the vessels, and the
TOMB
ornaments which had adorned his dwelling when
alive, as if he were to live again in a new world,
with the same wants and feelings as before. Besides
this, no tall stelé, and no sepulchral mound, has
yet been found in the hills or plains of Judaea,
nor have we any hint either in the Bible or Jose-
phus of any such having existed which could be
traced to a strictly Jewish origin.
In very distinct contrast to all this, the sepul-
chral rites of the Jews were marked with the same
simplicity that characterized all their religious ob-
servances. The body was washed and anointed
(Mark xiv. 8, xvi. 1; John xix. 39, &c.), wrapped
in a clean linen cloth, and borne without any funeral
pomp to the grave, where it was laid without any
ceremonial or torm of prayer. In addition to this,
with kings and great persons, there seems to have
been a “great burning” (2 Chr. xvi. 14, xxi. 19;
Jer. xxxiv. 5): all these being measures more
suggested by sanitary exigencies than by any hank-
ering after ceremonial pomp.
This simplicity of rite led to what may be
called the distinguishing characteristic of Jewish se-
pulchres—the deep loculus—which, so far as is
now known, is universal in all purely Jewish rock-
cut tombs, but hardly known elsewhere. Its form
will be understood by referring to the annexed dia-
gram, representing the forms of Jewish sepulture.
Son
No. 1.—Diagram of Jewish Sepulchre.
In the apartment marked A, there are twelve such
loculi, about 2 feet in width by 3 feet high. On
the ground-floor these generally open on the level of
the floor; when in the upper storey, as at C, on a
ledge or platform, on which the body might be laid
to be anointed, and on which the stones might rest
which closed the outer end of each loculus.
The shallow loculusis shown in chamber B, but
was apparently only used when sarcophagi were
employed, and therefore, so far as we know, only
during the Graeco-Roman period, when foreign cus-
toms came to be adopted. The shallow loculus
would have been singularly inappropriate and incon-
venient, where an unembalmed body was laid out -
to decay—as there would evidently be no means of
shutting it off from the rest of the catacomb. The
deep loculus on the other hand was as strictly con-
formable with Jewish customs, and could easily be
closed by a stone fitted to the end and luted into
the groove which usually exists there.
This fact is especially interesting as it affords a
key to much that is otherwise hard to be understood
in certain passages in the New Testament. Thus
in John xi. 39, Jesus says, “Take away the stone,”
and (ver. 40) “they took away the stone” with-
out difficulty, apparently ; which could hardly have
TOMB
been the case had it been such a rock as would be
required to close the entrance of a cave. And chap.
xx. 1, the same expression is used, ‘* the stone is
taken away ;” and though the Greek word in the
other three Evangelists certainly implies that it
was rolled away, this would equally apply to the
stone at the mouth of the loculus, into which the
Maries must have then stooped down to look in.
In fact the whole narrative is infinitely more clear
and intelligible if we assume that it was a stone
closing the end of a rock-cut grave, than if we sup-
pose it to have been a stone closing the entrance
or door of a hypogeum, In the latter case the
stone to close a door—say 6 feet by 3 feet, could
hardly have weighed less than 3 or 4 tons, and
could not have been moved without machinery.
There is one catacomb—that known as the
““Tombs of the Kings ”—which is closed by a stone
rolling across its entrance; but it is the only one,
and the immense amount of contrivance and fitting
which it has required is sufficient proof that such
an arrangement was not applied to any other of the
numerous rock tombs around Jerusalem, nor could
the traces of it have been obliterated had it anywhere
existed. From the nature of the openings where they
are natural caverns, and the ornamental form of their
doorways where they are architecturally adorned, it
is evident, except in this one instance, that they could
not have been closed by stones rolled across their en-
trances ; and consequently it seems only to be to the
closing of the loculi that these expressions can refer.
But until a more careful and more scientific ex-
ploration of these tombs is made than has hitherto
been given to the public, it is difficult to feel quite
certain on this point.
Although, therefore, the Jews were singularly
free from the pomps and vanities of funereal mag-
nificence, they were at all stages of their independent
existence an eminently burying people.
From the time of their entrance into the Holy
Land till their expulsion by the Romans, they seem
to have attached the greatest importance to the
possession of an undisturbed resting-place for the
bodies of their dead, and in all ages seem to have
shown the greatest respect, if not veneration, for
the sepulchres of their ancestors. Few, however,
could enjoy the luxury of a rock-cut tomb. Taking
all that are known, and all that are likely to be
discovered, there are not probably 500, certainly
not 1000, rock-cut loculi in or about Jerusalem,
and as that city must in the days of its prosperity
have possessed a population of from 30,000 to 40,000
souls, it is evident that the bulk of the people must
then, as now, have been content with graves dug in
the earth; but situated as near the Holy Places as
their means would allow their obtaining a place.
The bodies of the kings were buried close to the
Temple walls (Ezek. xliii. 7-9), and however little
they may have done in their life, the place of their
burial is carefully recorded in the Chronicles of the
Kings, and the cause why that place was chosen is
generally pointed ont, as if that record was not only
the most important event, but the final judgment
on the life of the king.
Tombs of the Patriarchs.—Turning from these
considerations to the more strictly historical part
of the subject, we find that one of the most striking
events in the life of Abraham is the purchase of
the field of Ephron the Hittite at Hebron, in which
was the cave of Machpelah, in order that he
might therein bury Sarah his wife, and that it
might be a sepulchre for himself and his children.
TOMB 1529
His refusing to accept the privilege of burying there
as a gift when offered to him, shows the import-
ance Abraham attached to the transaction, and his
insisting on purchasing and paying for it (Gen.
xxiii. 20), in order that it might be “made sure
unto him for the possession of a burying-place.”
There he and his immediate descendants were laid
3700 years ago, and there they are believed to
rest now; but no one in modern times has seen
their remains, or been allowed to enter into the cave
where they rest.
A few years ago, Signor Pierotti says, he was
allowed, in company with the Pasha of Jerusalem,
to descend the steps to the ivon-grating that closes
the entrance, and to look into the cave. What he
seems to have seen was—that it was a natural
cavern, untouched by the chisel and unaltered by
art in any way. ‘Those who accompanied the
Prince of Wales in his visit to the Mosque were not
permitted to see even this entrance. All they saw
was the round hole in the floor of the Mosque
which admits light and air to the cave below. ‘The
same round opening exists at Neby Samwil in the
roof of the reputed sepulchre of the Prophet Samuel,
and at Jerusalem there is a similar opening into
the tomb under the Dome of the rock. In the
former it is used by the pious votaries to drop pe-
titions and prayers into the tombs of patriarchs and
prophets. The latter having lost the tradition of
its having been a burying-place, the opening only
now serves to admit light into the cave below.
Unfortunately none of those who have visited
Hebron have had sufficient architectural knowledge
to be able to say when the church or mosque which
now stands above the cave was erected; but there —
seems no great reason for doubting that it is a
Byzantine church erected there between the age of
Constantine and that of Justinian. From such in-
dications as can be gathered, it seems of the later
period. On its floor are sarcophagi purporting to
be those of the patriarchs ; but, as is usual in Eastern
tombs, they are only cenotaphs representing those
that stand below, and which are esteemed too sacred
for the vulgar to approach,
Though it is much more easy of access, it is
almost as difficult to ascertain the age of the wall
that encloses the sacred precincts of these tombs.
From the account of Josephus (5. J. iv. 7), it does
not seem to have existed in his day, or he surely
would have mentioned it ; and such a citadel could
hardly fail to have been of warlike importance in
those troublous times. Besides this, we do not
know of any such enclosure encircling any tombs
or sacred place in Jewish times, nor can we conceive
any motive for so secluding these graves.
There are not any architectural mouldings about
this wall which would enable an archaeologist to
approximate its date; and if the bevelling is as-
sumed to be a Jewish arrangement (which is very
far from being exclusively the case), on the other
hand it may be contended that no buttressed wall
of Jewish masonry exists anywhere. There is in
fact nothing known with sufficient exactness to
decide the question, but the probabilities certainly
tend towards a Christian or Saracenic origin for the
whole structure both internally and externally.
Aaron died on the summit of Mount Hor (Num.
xx. 28, xxxiii. 39), and we are led to infer he was
buried there, though it is not so stated; and we
have no details of his tomb which would lead us to
suppose that anything existed there earlier than the
Mahomedan Kubr that now crowus the hill over-
1530 TOMB
looking Petra, and it is at the same time extremely
doubtful whether that is the Mount Hor where the
-High-Priest died.
Moses died in the plains of Moab (Deut. xxxiv. 6),
and was buried there, “ but no man knoweth his
sepulchre to this day,” which is a singular utterance,
as being the only instance in the Old Testament of a
sepulchre being concealed, or of one being admitted
to be unknown.
Joshua was buried in his own inheritance in
Timnath-Serah (Josh. xxiv. 30), and Samuel in his
own house at Ramah (1 Sam, xxv. 1), an expression
which we may probably interpret as meaning in
the garden attached to his house, as it is scarcely
probable it would be the dwelling itself. We know,
however, so little of the feelings of the Jews of that
age on the subject that it is by no means impro-
bable but that it may have been in a chamber or
loculus attached to the dwelling, and which, if
closed by a stone carefully cemented into its place,
would have prevented any annoyance fiom the cir-
cumstance. Joab (1 K. ii. 34) was also buried “ in
his own house in the wilderness.” In fact it appears
that from the time when Abraham established the
burying-place of his family at Hebron till the time
when David fixed that of his family in the city
which bore his name, the Jewish rulers had no fixed
or favourite place of sepulture. Hach was buried
on his own property, or where he died, without
much caring either for the sanctity or convenience
of the place chosen.
Tomb of the Kings.—Of the twenty-two kings of
Judah who reigned at Jerusalem from 1048 to 590
B.C., eleven, or exactly one-half, were buried in one
hypogeum in the “ city of David.’ The names of
the kings so lying together were David, Solomon,
Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Ahaziah,
Amaziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah, together
with the good priest Jehoiada. -Of all these it is
merely said that they were buried in ‘ the sepul-
chres of their fathers’’ or “of the kings” in the
city of David, except of two—Asa and Hezekiah.
Of the first it is said (2 Chr. xvi. 14), “ they
buried him in his own sepulchres which he had made
for himself in the city of David, and laid him in
the bed [loculus Ὁ], which was filled with sweet
odours and divers spices prepared by the apothe-
caries’ art, and they made a very great burning for
him.” It is not quite clear, however, from “this,
whether this applies to a new chamber attached to
the older sepulchve, or to one entirely distinct,
though in the same neighbourhood. Of Hezekiah it
is said (2 Chr, xxxii. 33), they buried him in ‘ the
chiefest [or highest] of the sepulchres of the sons of
David,” as if there were several apartments in the
hypogeum, though it may merely be that they ex-
cavated tor him | achamber above the others, as we
tind frequently done in Jewish sepulchyes,
Two more of these kings (Jehoram and Joas h)
were buried also in the city of David, “ but not in
the sepulchres of the kings.” The first because
of the sore diseases of which he died (2 Chr.: xxi.
20); the second apparently in consequence of his
disastrous end (2 Chr. xxiv. 25); and one king,
Uzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 23), was buried with his
fathers in the * field of the burial of the kings,’? be-
cause he was a leper. All this evinces the ex-
treme care the Jews took in the selection of the
burying-places of their kings, and the importance
they attached to the record. It should also be borne
in mind that the highest honour which could be be-
stowed on the good priest Jehoiada (2 Chr. xxiv. 16)
TOMB
was that ‘they buried him in the city of David
among the kings, because he had done good in
Israel, both toward God and toward His House.”
The passage in Nehemiah iii. 16, and in Ezekiel
xliii. 7, 9, together with the reiterated assertion of
the Books of Kings and Chronicles that these
sepulchres were situated in the city of David, leave
no doubt but that they were on Zion [see JERU-
SALEM], or the Eastern Hill, and in the immediate
proximity of the Temple. They were in fact certainly
within that enclosure now known as the “ Haram
Area ;” but if it is asked on what exact spot, we
must pause for further information before a reply
can be given.
This area has been so altered by Roman, Christian,
and Moslem, during the last eighteen centuries,
that, till we can explore freely below the surface,
much that is interesting must bef hidden from us.
It is quite clear, however, that the spot was well
known during the whole of the Jewish period, in-
asmuch as the sepulchres were again and again
opened as each king died; and from the tradition
that Hyrcanus and Herod opened these sepulchres
(Ant. xiii. 8, §4; xvi. 7, 81). The accounts of these
last openings are, it must be confessed, somewhat
apocryphal, resting only on the authority ot Jo-
sephus; but they prove at least that he considered
there could be no difficulty in finding the place.
It is very improbable, however, from what we
know of the extreme simplicity of the Jewish
sepulchral rites, that any large sum should have
been buried in David’s tomb, and have escaped not
only the Persian invaders, but their own necessitous
rulers in the time of their extremest need. It is
much more probable that Hyrcanus borrowed the
treasure of the Temple, and invented this excuse ;
whereas the stoiy of Herod’s descent is so like that
told more than 1000 years afterwards, by Benjamin
of Tudela, that both may be classed in the same
category. It was a secret transaction, if it took
place, recarding which rumour might fashion what
wondrous tales it pleased, and no one could contra-
dict them; but his having built.a marble stelé
(Ant. xvi. 7, §1) in front of the tomb may have
been a fact within the cognisance of Josephus, and
would at all events serve to indicate that the sepul-
chre was rock-cut, and its site well known.
So far as we can judge from this and other indi-
cations, it seems probable there was originally a
natural cavern in the rock in this locality, which
may afterwards have been improved by art, and in
the sides of which loculi were sunk, in which the
bodies of the eleven kings and of the good High-
Priest were laid, without sarcophagi or coffin, but
‘wound in linen clothes with the spices, as the
manner of the Jews is to bury ” (John xix. 40).
Besides the kings above enumerated, Manasseh
was, according to the Book of Chronicles (2 Chr.
xxxiii. 20) buried in his own house, which the Book
of Kings (2 K. xxi. 18) explains as the ‘ garden of
his own house, the garden of Uzza,’’ where his
son Amon was buried, also, it is said, in his own
sepulchre (ver. 26), but we have nothing that would
enable us to indicate where this was; and Ahaz,
the wicked king, was, according to the Book of
Chronicles (2 Chr. xxviii. 27) ‘‘ buried in the city,
even in Jerusalem, and they brought him ποῦ into
the sepulchres of the kings of Israel.” The fact of
these three last kings having been idolaters, though
one yeformed, and their having all three been buried
apparently in the city, proves what importance the
Jews attached to the locality of the sepulchre, but
1531
7 yyy,
7 Yj, UL
7 Δ ype
Ὑ No. 2.—Plan of the ‘‘ Tombs of the Prophets.” From De Saulcy.
also tends to show that burial within the city, or
the enclosure of a dwelling, was not so repulsive to
their feelings as is generally supposed. It is just
possible that the rock-cut sepulchre under the
western wall of the present Church of the Holy
Sepulchre may be the remains of such a cemetery
as that in which the wicked kings were buried.
This, with many other cognate questions, must
be relegated for further information; for up to the
present time we have not been able to identify one
single sepulchral excavation about Jerusalem which
can be said with certainty to belong to a period
anterior to that of the Maccabees, or, more cor-
rectly, to have been used for burial before the time
of the Romans.
The only important hypogeum which is wholly
Jewish in its arrangements, and may consequently
belong to an earlier or to any epoch, is that known
as the Tombs of the Prophets in the western flank
of the Mount of Olives. It has every appearance of
having originally been a natural cavern improved by
art, and with an external gallery some 140 feet in ex-
tent, into which twenty-seven deep or Jewish loculi
open. Other chambers and loculi have been com-
menced in other parts, and in the passages there are
spaces where many other graves could have been
located, all which would tend to show that it had
been disused before completed, and consequently was
very modern; but be this as it may, it has no
architectural mouldings—no sarcophagi or shallow
loculi, nothing to indicate a foreign origin, and
may therefore be considered, if not an early, at
least as the most essentially Jewish of the sepul-
chral excavations in this locality—every other im-
portant sepulchral excavation being adorned with
architectural features and details betraying most
‘unmistakeably their Greek or Roman origin, and
fixing their date consequently as subsequent to that
of the Maccabees; or in other words, like every
other detail of pre-Christian architecture in Jeru-
salem, they belong to the 140 years that elapsed
from the advent of Pompey till the destruction of
the city by Titus.
Graeco-Roman Tombs.—Besides the tombs above
enumerated, there are around Jerusalem, in the
Valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat, and on the pla-
teau to the north, a number of remarkable rock-cut
sepulchres, with more or less architectural decora-
tion, sufficient to enable us to ascertain that they
are all of nearly the same age, and to assert with
very tolerable confidence that the epoch to which
they belong must be between the introduction of
Roman influence and the destruction of the city by
Titus. The proof of this would be easy if it were
not that, like everything Jewish, there is a remark-
able absence of inscriptions which can be assumed
to be integral. The excavations in the Valley of
Hinnom with Greek inscriptions are comparatively
modern, the inscriptions being all of Christian im-
port and of such a nature as to render it extremely
doubtful whether the chambers were sepulchral at
all, and not rather the dwellings of ascetics, and
originally intended to be used for this purpose.
These, however, are neither the most important nor
the most architectural—indeed none of those in that
valley are so remarkable as those in the other locali-
ties just enumerated. The most important of those
in the Valley of Hinnom is that known as the
“ Retreat-place of the Apostles.’ It is an unfinished
excavation of extremely late date, and many of the
others look much more like the dwellings for the
living than the resting-places of the dead.
In the village of Siloam there is a monolithic cell
of singularly Egyptian aspect, which De Sauley
(Voyage autour de la Mer Morte, ii. 306) assumes
to be a chapel of Solomon’s Egyptian wife. It is
1532 TOMB
probably of very much more modern date, and is
more Assyrian than Egyptian in character; but as
he is probably quite correct in stating that it is not
sepulchral, it is only necessary to mention it here
in order that it may not be confounded with those
that are so. It is the more worthy of remark as
one of the great difficulties of the subject arises
from travellers too readily assuming that every
cutting in the rock must be sepulchral. It may
be so in Egypt, but it certainly was not so at
Cyrene or Petra, where many of the excavations
were either temples or monastic establishments, and
it certainly was not universally the case at Jeru-
salem, though our information is frequently too
scanty to enable us always to discriminate exactly
to which class the cutting in the rock may belong.
The principal remaining architectural sepulchres
may be divided into three groups.
First, those existing in the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
and known popularly as the Tombs of Zechariah,
of St. James, and of Absalom.
Second, those known as the Tombs of the Judges,
and the so-called Jewish tomb about a mile north
of the city.
Third, that known as the Tombs of the Kings,
about half a mile north of the Damascus Gate.
Of the three first-named tombs the most southern
No. 3.—So-called ‘* Tomb of Zechariah.”
is known as that of Zechariah, a popular name
which there is not even a shadow of tradition
to justify. It consists of
a square solid basement,
measuring 18 feet 6 inches
each way, and 20 feet high
to the top of the cornice.
On each face are four en-
gaged Ionic columns be-
tween antae, and these are
surmounted, -not by an
Egyptian cornice, as is
usually asserted, but by
one of purely Assyrian
type, such as is found at
Khorsabad (Woodcut No. 4). As the Ionic or voluted
order came also from Assyria, this example is in
No. 4.—Section of Stylobate
at Khorsabad.
to the top of the cornice.
TOMB
fact a more pure specimen of the Jonic order than
any found in Europe, where it was always used
by the Greeks with a quasi-Doric cornice. Not-
withstanding this, in the form of the volutes—the
egg-and- -dart moulding beneath, and every detail—
it is so distinctly Roman that it is impossible to
assume that it belongs to an earlier age ee that
of their influence.
Above the cornice is a pyramid rising at fatliee a
sharp angle, and hewn like all the rest out of the
solid rock. It may further be remarked that only
the outward face, or that fronting Jerusalem, is
completely finished, the other three being only
blocked out (De Sauley, ii. 303), a circumstance
that would lead us to suspect that the works may
have been interrupted by the fall of Jerusalem, or
some such catastrophe, and this may possibly also
account for there being no sepulchre on its rear, if
such be really the case.
To call this building a tomb is evidently a mis-
nomer, as it is absolutely solid—hewn out of the
living rock by cutting a passage round it. It has
no internal chambers, nor even the semblance of a
doorway. From what is known of the explorations
carried on by M. Renan about Byblus, we should
expect that the tomb, properly so called, would be
an excavation in the passage behind the monolith—
but none such has been found, probably it was
never looked for—and that this monolith is the
stelé or indicator of that fact. If it is so, it is very
| singular, though very Jewish, that any one should
take the trouble to carve out such a monument
without putting an inscription or symbol on it to
mark its destination or to tell in whose honour it
was erected.
The other, or so-called Tomb of Absalom, figured
in vol. i. p. 14, is somewhat larger, the base being
about 21 teet square in plan, and probably 23 or 24
No. 5.—Angle of Tomb of Absalom.
From De Sauley.
Like the other, it is of the
Roman Ionic order, surmounted by a cornice of lonic
TOMB
type; but between the pillars and the cornice a
frieze, unmistakeably of the Roman Doric order, is
introduced, so Roman as to be in itself quite sufficient
to fix its epoch. It is by no means clear whether
it had originally a pyramidical top like its neigh-
bour. The existence of a square blocking above
the cornice would lead us to suspect it had not; at
all events, either at the time of its excavation or
subsequently, this was removed, and the present
very peculiar termination erected, raising its height
to over 60 feet. At the time this was done a
chamber was excavated in the base, we must
assume for sepulchral purposes, though how a body
could be introduced through the narrow hole above
the cornice is by no means clear, nor, if inserted,
how disposed of in the two very narrow loculi that
exist.
The great interest of this excavation is that im-
mediately in rear of the monolith we do find just
such a sepulchral cavern as we should expect. It
is called the Tomb of Jehoshaphat, with about the
same amount of discrimination as governed the
nomenclature of the others, but is now closed by
the rubbish and stones thrown by the pious at the
Tomb of the Undutiful Son, and consequently its
internal arrangements are unknown; but externally
it is crowned by a pediment of considerable beauty,
and in the same identical style as that of the Tombs
of the Judges, mentioned further on—showing that
these two at least are of the same age, and this one |
at least must have been subsequent to the excava- |
tion of the monolith ; so that we may feel perfectly |
eertain that the two groups are of one age, even
if it should not be thought quite clear what that
age may be.
The third tomb of this group, called that of St.
James, is situated between the other two, and is of
No. 6.—-Plan of Tomb of St. James.
a very different character. It consists (see Plan)
of a verandah with two Doric pillars in antis,
which may be characterised as belonging to a very
late Greek order rather than a Roman example. |
Behind this screen are several apartments, which in
another locality we might be justified in calling a
rock-cut monastery appropriated to sepulchral pur-
poses, but in Jerusalem we know so little that it is
necessary to pause before applying any such desig-
nation. In the rear of all is an apartment, appa-
rently unfinished, with three shallow loculi meant
ἃ Pierotti, in his published Plan of Jerusalem, adds al
sarcophagus chamber with shallow loculi, but as both |
| Caverns of the Wings,” &c.
Scoles and De Saulcy omit this, it is probable the Italian |
TOMB 1533
for the reception of sarcophagi, and so indicating a
post-Jewish date for the whole or at least for that
part of the excavation.
The hypogeum known as the Tombs of the
Judges is one of the most remarkable of the cata-
combs around Jerusalem, containing about sixty
deep loculi, arranged in three storeys; the upper
storeys with ledges in front to give convenient
access, and to support the stones that closed them ;
the lower flush with the ground:* the whole, con-
sequently, so essentially Jewish that it might be
of any age if it were not for its distance from the
town, and its architectural character. The latter,
as before stated, is identical with that of the Tomb
of Jehoshaphat, and has nothing Jewish about: it.
It might of course be difficult to prove this, as we
know so little of what Jewish architecture really
is; but we do know that the pediment is more
essentially a Greek invention than any other part
of their architecture, and was introduced at least
not previously to the age of the Cypselidae, and this
peculiar form not till long afterwards, and this pay-
ticular example not till after an age when the de-
based Roman of the Tomb of Absalom had become
possible.
me
a
No. 7.—Fagade of the Tombs of the Judges.
| | ᾿ |
μὸν eo ΚΌΤΤΤῚ
ue
|
i
2
The same remarks apply to the tomb without
a name, and merely called “a Jewish Tomb,” in
this neighbourhood, with bevelled facets over its
facade, but with late Roman Dorie details at its
angles, sufficient to indicate its epoch; but there is
nothing else about these tombs requiring especial
mention. ,
Tombs of Herod.—The last of the great groups
enumerated above is that known as the Tombs of
the Kings—Aebir es Sultan—or the Royal Caverns,
so called because of their magnificence, and also
because that name is applied to them by Josephus,
who in describing the third wall mentions them
(B. J. v. 4, §2). He states that “the wall
reached as far as the Tower Psephinus, and then
extended till it came opposite the Monuments
(μνημείων) of Helena. It then extended further
to a great length till it passed by the Sepulchral
We have thus first
the Tower Psephinus, the site of which is very
tolerably ascertained on the ridge above the Pool
Birket Mamilla; then the Monument of Helena,
and then at some distance eastward these Royal
Caverns.
They are twice again mentioned under the title
of Ἡρώδου μνημείων. First, when Titus, ap-
proaching from the north, ordered the ground to
is mistaken. Woodcut No. 1 is taken from his plan, but
used as a diagram rather than as representing the exact
facts of the case.
1534 TOMB
be cleared from Scopus—which is tolerably well
known—up to those Monuments of Herod (B. J.
v. 3, §2); and lastly in the description of the |
circumvallation (B. J. v. 12, 82), where they are |
mentioned after passing the Monument of Ananus | |
and Pompey’s Camp, evidently on the ridge where |
Psephinus afterwards stood, and on the north of |
the city.
These three passages refer so evidently to one |
and the same place, that no one would probably
ever have doubted—especially when taken in con-
junction with the architecture—but that these |
caverns were the tombs of Herod and his family, |
were it not for a curious contradiction of himself |
in the works of Josephus, which has led to con-
siderable confusion. Herod died at Jericho, and
the most probable account (Ant. xvii. 8, §3) would
lead us to suppose (it is not so stated) that his body
was brought to Jerusalem, where the funeral pro-
cession was formed on a scale and with a magnifi-
cence which would have been impossible at such a
place as Jericho without long previous preparation ;
and it then goes on to say, “and so they went
eight stadia to [the] Herodium, for there, by his
own command, he was to be buried ”—eight stadia,
or one mile, being the exact distance between the
royal palace and these tombs.
The other account (B. J. i. 33, §9) repeats the
details of the procession, and nearly in the same
words, but substitutes 200 for 8, which has led
to the belief that he was buried at Jebel Fur-
reidis, where he had erected a palace 60 stadia
south of Jerusalem, and 170 from Jericho. Even
then the procession must have passed through Jeru-
salem, and this hardly would have been the case
without its being mentioned ; but the great difficulty
is that there is no hint anywhere else of Herod’s
intention to be buried there, and the most extreme
improbability that he should wish to be interred so
far from the city where all his predecessors were
laid. Though it would be unpardonable to alter
the text in order to meet any particular view, still
when an author makes two statements in direct
contradiction the one to the other, it is allowable to
choose the most conformable with probability ; and
this, added to his assertion that Herod’s ‘Tombs were
in this neighbourhood, seems to settle the question.
The architecture (Woodeut No. 8) exhibits the
same ill-understood Roman Doric arrangements as
No. 8.—lFacade of He od’s Tombs, from a Photograph.
are found in all these tombs, mixed with bunches of
grapes, which first appear on Maccabean coins, and
TOMB
foliage which is local and peculiar, and, so far as
anything i is known elsewhere, might be of any age.
Its connexion, however, with that of the Tombs of
Jehoshaphat and the Judges fixes it to the same
epoch.
The entrance doorway of this tomb is below the
level of the ground, and concealed, as far as any-
thing can be said to be so which is so archi-
tecturally adorned; and it is remarkable as the
only instance of this quasi-concealment at Jeru-
salem, It is closed by a very curious and elabo-
rate contrivance of a rolling stone, often described,
| but very clumsily answering its purpose. This
also is characteristic of its age, as we know frem
Pausanias that the structural marble monument of
Queen Helena of Adiabene was remarkable for a
similar piece of misplaced ingenuity. Within, the
tomb consists of a vestibule or entrance-hall about.
20 feet square, from which three other square
apartments open, each surrounded by deep loculi.
These again possess a peculiarity not known in any
other tomb about Jerusalem, of having a square
apartment either beyond the head of the loculus or
on one side: as, for instance (Woodeut No. 9),
A A have their inner chambers A’ A’ within, but
B and B, at B’ Β΄, on one side. What the purpose
of these was it is difficult to guess, but at all
events it was not Jewish.
But perhaps the most remarkable peculiarity of
the hypogeum is the sarcophagus chamber D, in
which two sarcophagi were found, one of which
‘was brought home by De Sauley, and is now in
the Louvre. It is of course quite natural that a
Roman king who was buried with such Roman
pomp should have adopted the Roman mode of
sepulture ; and if this and that of St. James are the
only sarcophagi chambers at Jerusalem, this alone
should settie the controversy; and all certainly
tends to make it more and more probable that this
was really the sepulchre of Herod.
If the sarcophagus now in the Louvre, which
came from this chamber, is that of Herod, it is the
most practical illustration that has yet come to
light of a theory which has recently been forcing
itself on the attention of antiquarians. According
to this new view, it is not necessary that furniture,
or articles which can be considered as such, must
always follow the style of the architecture of the
day. They must have done so always in Egypt,
in Greece, or in the Middle Ages; but might have
deviated from it at Rome, and may probably have
done so at Jerusalem, among a people who had no
art of their own, as was the case with the Jews.
The discord in fact may not have been more offensive
to them than the Louis Quatorze furniture is to us,
with which we adoin our Classical and Gothic
buildings with such cosmopolite impartiality. If
this is so, the sarcophagus may have been made for
Herod. If this hypothesis is not tenable, it may
belong to any age from the time of the Maccabees
to that of Justinian, most probably the latter, for
it certainly is not Roman, and has no connexion
| with the architecture of these tombs,
Be this as it may, there seems no reason for
doubting but that all the architectural tombs of
| Jerusalem belong to the age of the Romans, like
everything that has yet been found either at Petia,
| Baalbec, Palmyra, or Damascus, or even among the
stone cities of the Hauran. Throughout Syria, in
fact, there is no important architectural example
which is anterior to their day; and all the speci-
mens which can be called Classical are strongly
————
No. 9.—Plan of Tombs of Herod. From De Sauley.
marked with the impress of the peculiar forms of
Roman art.
Tomb of Helena of Adiabene.—There was one
other very famous tomb at Jerusalem, which can-
not be passed over in silence, though not one vestige
of it exists—for the simple reason, that though
Queen Helena of Adiabene was converted to the
Jewish faith, she had not so fully adopted Jewish
feelings as to think it necessary she should be
buried under ground. On the contrary, we are
told that ‘‘ she with her brother were buried in the
pyramids which she had ordered to be constructed
at a distance of three stadia from Jerusalem ”
(Ant. xx. 4, §3). This is confirmed by Pausanias
(viii. 16), who, besides mentioning the marble door
of very apocryphal mechanism which closed its
entrance, speaks of it as a Τάφος in the same sense
in which he understands the mausoleum at Hali-
carnassus to have been a structured tomb, which
he could not have done if this were a cave, as some
have supposed.
The specification of the locality by Josephus is so
minute that we have no difficulty in ascertaining
whereabouts the monument stood. It was situated
outside the third wall, near a gate between the
Tower Psephinus and the Royal Caverns (B. J. v.
22, and v. 4, §2). These last are perfectly known,
and the tower with very tolerable approximate
the ridge between the hollow in which the Birket
Mamilla is situated and the upper valley of the
Kedron; they were consequently either exactly
where marked on the plan in vol. i. p, 1018, or it
may be a little more to the eastward.
They remained sufficiently entire in the 4th
century to form a conspicuous object in the land-
yemarked by those who accompanied Sta. Paula
(Euseb. ii. 12; Hieron. Epitaph. Paulae) on her
joimney to Jerusalem.
There is no difficulty in forming a tolerably dis-
characteristic of the East.
certainty, for it was placed on the highest point of |
tinct idea of what the appearance of this remarkable
monument must have been, if we compare the
words descriptive of it in the various authors who
have mentioned it with the contemporary monu-
ments in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. If we place
together in a row three such monuments as the
Tomb of Zechariah, or rather two such, with the
monument of Absalom between them, we have
such an edifice as will answer to the Pyramid of
Josephus, the Taphos of Pausanias, the Stelés of
Eusebius, or the Mausoleum of Jerome. But it
need hardly be added, that not one of these expres-
sions applies to an underground excavation. Accord-
ing to this view of the matter, the entrance would
be under the Central Cippus; which would thus
form the ante-room to the two lateral pyramids,
in one of which Helena herself reposed, and in the
other the remains of her brother.
Since the destruction of the city by Titus, none
of the native inhabitants of Jerusalem have been
in a position to indulge in much sepulchral mag-
nificence, or perhaps had any taste for this class
of display; and we in consequence find no rock-
cut hypogea, and no structural monuments that
arrest attention in modern times. The people, how-
ever, still cling to their ancient cemeteries in the
Valley of Jehoshaphat with a tenacity singularly
The only diflerence
being, that the erection of the Wall of Agrippa,
which now forms the eastern boundary of the
Haram Area, has pushed the cemetery further
towards the Kedron, or at least cut off the upper
and nobler part of it. And the contraction of the
icity on the north has enabled the tombs to ap-
proach nearer the limits of the modern town than
was the case in the days when Herod the Great and
scape, to be mentioned by Eusebius, and to be,
Helena of Adiabene were buried ‘‘on the sides of
the north.”
The only remarkable exception to this assertion
is that splendid Mausoleam which Constantine
/erected over what he believed to be the Tomb of
΄
1536 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
Christ, and which still exists at Jerusalem, known
to Moslems as the Dome of the Rock ; to Christians
as the Mosque of Omar.
The arguments for its authenticity have already
been sufficiently insisted upon in the article JERU-
SALEM, in the first volume, and its general form
and position shown in the woodcut, p. 1022. It
will not, therefore, be necessary to go over this
ground again. Externally its appearance was very
much altered by the repairs of Suleiman the Mag-
nificent, when the city had returned to the posses-
sion of the Moslems after the retreat of the Cru-
saders, and it has consequently lost much of its
original Byzantine character ; but internally it re-
mains much as it was left by its founder; and is
now—with the exception of a few Indian tombs—-
the most magnificent sepulchral monument in Asia,
and is, as it ought to be, the most splendid Chris-
tian sepulchre in the world. [J. Ε.]
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. The unity
of the human race is most clearly implied, if not
positively asserted, in the Mosaic writings. The
general declaration, “So God created man in His own
image, . . . male and female created He them”
(Gen. i. 27), is limited as to the mode in which the
act was carried out, by the subsequent narrative of
the creation of the protoplast Adam, who stood alone
on the earth amidst the beasts of the field, until it
pleased Jehovah to create “an help meet for him”
out of the very substance of his body (Gen. ii. 22).
From this original pair sprang the whole ante-
diluvian population of the world, and hence the
author of the Book of Genesis conceived the unity of
the human race to be of the most rigid nature—not
simply a generic unity, nor again simply a specific
unity (for unity of species may not be inconsistent
with a plurality of original centres), but a specific
based upon a numerical unity, the species being
nothing else than the enlargement of the individual.
Such appears to be the natural meaning of the first
chapters of Genesis, when taken by themselvyes—
much more so when read under the reflected light
of the New Testament; for not only do we meet
with references to the historical fact of such an
origin of the humap race—e. g. in St. Paul’s de-
claration that God ‘‘hath made of one blood every
nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth”’®
(Acts xvii. 26 )—but the same is evidently implied
in the numerous passages which represent Jesus
Christ as the counterpart of Adam in regard to the
universality of His connection with the human race,
Attempts have indeed been made to show that the
idea of a plurality of original pairs is not incon-
sistent with the Mosaic writings ; but there is a
wide distinction between a view not inconsistent
with, and a view drawn from, the words of the
author ; the latter is founded upon the facts he re-
lates, as well as his mode of relating them; the
former takes advantage of the weaknesses arising
out of a concise or unmethodical style of composi-
tion. Even if such a view could be sustained in
reference to the narrative of the original creation of
man, it must inevitably fail in reference to the
history of the repopulation of the world in the post-
diluvian age ; for whatever objections may be made
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
to the historical accuracy of the history of the Flood,
it is at all events clear that the historian believed
in the universal destruction of the human race
with the exception of Noah and his family, and
consequently that the unity of the human race was
once more reduced to one of a numerical character.
To Noah the historian traces up the whole post-
diluvian population of the world :—‘‘ These are the
three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole
earth overspread ” (Gen, ix. 19).
Unity of language is assumed by the sacred his-
torian apparently as a corollary of the unity of
race, No explanation is given of the origin of
speech, but its exercise is evidently regarded as co-
eval with the creation of man. No support can be
obtained in behalf of any theory on this subject
from the first recorded instance of its exercise
(** Adam gave names to all cattle’’), for the simple
reason that this notice is intr oductory to what tol-
lows: ‘“ but for Adam there was not found an help
meet for him” (Gen. ii. 20). It was not so much
the intention of the writer to state the fact of man’s
power of speech, as the fact of the inferiority of all
other animals to him, and the consequent necessity
for the creation of woman. The proof of that in-
feriority is indeed most appropriately made to con-
sist in the authoritative assignment of names, im-
plying an act of reflection on their several natures
and capacities, and a recognition of the offices which
they were designed to fill in the economy of the
world. The exercise of speech is thus most hap-
pily connected with the exercise of reflection, and
the relationship between the inner act of the mind
(λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and the outward expression
(λόγος προφορικός) is fully recognized. Speech
being thus inherent in man as a reflecting being,
was regarded as handed down fiom father to son by
the same process of imitation, by which it is still per-
petuated. Whatever divergences may have arisen
in the antediluvian period, no notice is taken of
them, inasmuch as their effects were obliterated
by the universal catastrophe of the Flood. The
original unity of speech was restored in Noah,
and would naturally be retained by his descendants
as long as they were held together by social and
local bonds. Accordingly we are informed that for
some time ‘ the whole earth was of one lip and the
same words” (Gen. xi. 1), ἡ, 6. both the vocal
sounds and the vocables were identical—an ex-
haustive, but not, as in the A. V., a tautologous
description of complete unity. Disturbing causes
were, however, early at work to dissolve this two-
fold union of community and speech. The human
family > endeavoured to check the tendency to
separation by the establishment of a great cen-
tral edifice, and a city which should serve as the
metropolis of the whole world. They attempted to
carry out this project in the wide plain of Baby-
lonia, a locality admirably suited to such an object
from the physical and geographical peculiarities of
the country. ‘The project was defeated by the in-
terposition of Jehovah, who determined to ‘‘ con-
found their language, so that they might not under-
stand one another’s speech.’’ Contemporaneously
with, and perhaps as the result of, this confusion
4 The force of the Apostle’s statement is inadequately
given in the A.V., which gives “ for to dwell” as the
result, instead of the direct object of the principal verb.
b The project has been restricted by certain critics to
the Hamites, or, at all events, to a mere section of the
human race. This and various other questions arising
out of the narrative are discussed by Vitringa in his
Observ. Sacr. i. 1, §2-8; 6, §1-4, Although the restriction
above noticed is not irreconcilable with the text, it inter-
feres with the ulterior object for which the narrative
was probably inserted, viz., to reconcile the manifest
diversity of language with the idea of an original unity.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
of tongues, the people were scattered abroad from
thence upon the face of all the earth, and the
memory of the great event was preserved in the
naime Babel (=confusion). The ruins of the tower
are identified by M. Oppert, the highest authority
on Babylonian antiquities, with the basement of
the great mound of Birs-Nimrid, the ancient Bor-
sippa.¢
Two points demand our attention in reference
to this narrative, viz. the degree to which the con-
fusion of tongues may be supposed to have extended,
and the connection between the confusion of tongues
and the dispersion of nations. (1.) It is unneces-
sary to assume that the judgment inflicted on the
builders of Babel amounted to a loss, or even a sus-
pension, of articulate speech. The desired object
would be equally attained by a miraculous fore-
stalment of those dialectical differences of language
which are constantly in process of production, but
which, under ordinary circumstances, require time
and variations of place and habits to reach such a
point of maturity that people are unable to under-
stand one another's speech. ‘The elements of the
one original language may have remained, but so
disguised by variations of pronunciation, and by the
introduction of new combinations, as to be practically
obliterated. Each section of the human family
may have spoken a tongue unintelligible to the re-
mainder, and yet containing a substratum which
was common to all, Our own experience suffices
to show how completely even dialectical differences
render strangers unintelligible to one another; and
if we further take into consideration the differences
of habits and associations, of which dialectical dif-
ferences are the exponents, we shall have no diffi-
culty in accounting for the result described by the
sacred historian. (2.) The confusion of tongues
and the dispersion of nations are spoken of in the
Bible as contemporaneous events. ‘So the Lord
scattered them abroad” is stated as the execution
of the Divine counsel, “ Let us confound their lan-
guage.” The divergence of the various families
into distinct tribes and nations ran parallel with
the divergence of speech into dialects and languages,
and thus the 10th chapter of Genesis is posterior in
historical sequence to the events recorded in the
11th chapter. Both passages must be taken into
consideration in any disquisition on the early for-
tunes of the human race. We propose therefore to
inquire, in the first place, how far modern re-
searches into the phenomena of language favour the
idea that there was once a time when “ the whole
earth was of one speech and language ;” and, in the
second place, whether the ethnological views exhi-
bited in the Mosaic tabie accord with the evidence
furnished by history and language, both in regard
‘to the special facts recorded in it, and in the general
Scriptural view of a historical or, more properly, a
gentilic unity of the human race. These questions,
though independent, yet exercise a reflexive influ-
ence on each other’s results. Unity of speech does
not necessarily involve unity of race, nor yet vice
versa ; but each enhances the probability of the
other, and therefore the arguments derived from
language, physiology, and history, may ultimately
furnish a cumulative amount of probability which
will fall but little below demonstration.
(A.) The advocate of the historical unity of lan-
guage has to encounter two classes of opposing
arguments; one arising out of the differences, the
ς See the Appendix to this article.
VOL. 11.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1537
other out of the resemblances of existing Jan-
guages, On the one hand, it is urged that the
differences are of so decisive and specific a character
as to place the possibility of a common origin
wholly out of the question ; on the other hand that
the resemblances do not necessitate the theory of a
historical unity, but may be satisfactorily accounted
for on psychological principles. It will be our
object to discuss the amount, the value, and the
probable origin of the varieties exhibited by lan-
guages, with a view to meet the first class of objec-
tions. But before proceeding to this, we will make
a few remarks on the second class, inasmuch as
these, if established, would nullify any conclusion
that might be drawn from the other.
A psychological unity is not necessarily opposed
to a gentilic unity. It is perfectly open to any
theorist to combine the two by assuming that the
language of the one protoplast was founded on
strictly psychological principles. But, on the other
hand, a psychological unity does not necessitate a
gentilic unity. It permits of the theory of a plu-
rality of protoplasts, who under the influence of
the same psychological laws arrived at similar inde-
pendent results. Whether the phenomena of lan-
guage are consistent with such a theory, we think
extremely doubtful ; certainly they cannot furnish
the basis of it. The whole question of the origin
of language lies beyond the pale of historical proof,
and any theory connected with it admits neither
of being proved nor disproved. We know, as a
matter of fact, that language is communicated frem
one generation to another solely by force of imita-
tion, and that there is no play whatever for the
inventive faculty in reference to it. But in what
manner the substance of language was originally pro-
duced, we donot know. No argument can be derived
against the common origin from analogies drawn
from the animal world, and when Professor Agassiz
compares similarities of language with those of the
cries of animals (v. Bohlen’s Zntrod. to Gen. ii.
278), he leaves out of consideration the important
fact that language is not identical with sound, and
that the words of a rational being, however origi-
nally produced, are perpetuated in a manner wholly
distinct from that whereby animals learn to utter
their cries. Nor does the internal evidence of lan-
guage itself reveal the mystery of its origin; for
though a very large number of words may be
referred either directly or mediately to the prin-
ciple of onomatopoeia, there are others, as, for
instance, the first and second personal pronouns,
which do not admit of such an explanation. In
short, this and other similar theories cannot be
reconciled with the intimate connexion evidently
existing between reason and speech, and which is
so well expressed in the Greek language by the
application of the term λόγος to each, reason being
nothing else than inward speech, and speech nothing
else than outward reason, neither of them pos-
sessing an independent existence without the other.
As we conceive that the psychological, as opposed
to the gentilic, unity involves questions connected
with the origin of language, we can only say that
in this respect it falls outside the range of our
inquiry.
Reverting to the other class of objections, we
proceed to review the extent of the differences
observable in the languages of the world, in order
to ascertain whether they are such as to preclude
the possibility of a common origin. Such a review
must necessarily be imperfect, both from ps mag-
5
1538 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
nitude of the subject, and also from the position of
the linguistic science itself, which as yet has hardly
advanced beyond the stage of infancy. On the
latter point we would observe that the most im-
portant links between the various language fami-
lies may yet be discovered in languages that are
either unexplored, or, at all events, unplaced. Mean-
while, no one‘can doubt that the tendency of all
linguistic research is in the direction of unity.
Already it has brought within the bonds of a well
established relationship languages so remote from
each other in external guise, in age, and in geo-
graphical position as Sanscrit and English, Celtic
and Greek. It has done the same for other groups
of languages equally widely extended, but present-
ing less opportunities of investigation.’ It has re-
cognised affinities between languages which the
ancient Greek ethnologist would have classed . under
the head of ‘“‘ barbarian” in reference to’each ‘other,
and even in many instances where the modern phi-
lologist has anticipated no relationship. The lines
of discovery therefore point in one direction, and
favour the expectation that the various families
may be combined by the discovery of connecting
links into a single family, comprehending in its
capacious bosom all the languages of the world.
But should such a result never be attained, the
probability of a common origin would still remain
unshaken ; for the failure would probably be due to
the absence, in many classes and families, of that
chain of historical evidence, which in the case of the
Indo-European and Shemitic families enables us to
trace their progress for above 3000 years. In
many languages no literature at all, in many others
no ancient literature exists, to supply the philo-
logist with materials for comparative study: in
these cases it can only be by laborious research into
existing dialects, that the original forms of words
can be detected amidst the incrustations and’ trans-
mutations with which time has obscured them.
In dealing with the phenomena of language, we
should duly consider the plastic nature of the ma-
terial out of which it is formed, and the numerous
influences to which it is subject. Variety in unity
is a general law of nature, to which even the most
stubborn physical substances yield a ready obe-
dience. In the case of language it would be difficult
to lay any bounds to the variety which we might
ἃ priori expect it to assume. For in the first place
it is brought into close contact with the spirit of
man, and reflects with amazing fidelity its endless
variations, adapting itself to the expression of each
feeling, the designation of each object, the working
of each cast of thought or stage of reasoning power.
Secondly, its sounds are subject to external influ-
ences, such as peculiarities of the organ of speech,
the result either of natural conformation, of geo-
graphical position, or of habits of life and associa-
tions of an accidental character. In the third place,
it is generally affected by the state of intellectual
and social culture of a people, as manifested more
especially in the presence or absence of a standard
literary dialect, and in the processes of verbal and
syntactical structure, which again react on the ver Υ͂
core of the word, and produce a variety of sound-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
mutations, Lastly, it is subjected to the wear and
tear of time and use, obliterating, as in an old
coin, the original impress of the word, reducing it
in bulk, producing new combinations, and occa-
sionally leading to singular interchanges of sound
and idea, The varieties, resulting from the modi-
fying influences above enumer ated, may be reduced
to two classes, according as they πῆξον the formal
or the radical elements of language, On each of
these subjects we propose to make a few remarks.
I. Widely as languages now differ from each
other in external form, the raw material (if we
may use the expression) out of which they have
sprung appears to have been in all cases the same.
A substratum of significant monosyllabic roots
underlies the whole structure, supplying the mate-
rials necessary not only for ordinary predication,
but also for what is usually termed the “ growth”’
of language out of its primary into its more com-
plicated forms. It is necessary to point this out
clearly in order that we may not be led to suppose
that the elements of one language are in them-
selves endued with any greater vitality than those
of another. Such a distinction, if it existed, would
go far to prove a specific difference between lan-
guages, which could hardly be reconciled with the
idea of their common origin. The appearance of
vitality arises out of the manipulation of the roots
by the human mind, and is not inherent in the
roots themselves.
The proofs of this original equality are furnished
by the languages themselves. Adopting for the
present the threefold morphological classification
into isolating, agelutinative, and inflecting lan-
guages, we shall find that no original element exists
in the one which does not also exist in the other.
With regard to the isolating class, the terms ‘* mo-
nosyllabic ἡ and “ radical,” by: which it is other-
wise described, are decisive as to its character.
Languages of this class are wholly unsusceptible
of grammatical mutations: there is no formal dis-
tinction between verb and noun, substantive and
adjective, preposition and conjunction: there are no
inflections, no case- or persou-terminations of any
kind: the bare root forms the sole and whole sub-
stance of the language. In regard to the other two
classes, it is necessary to establish the two distinct
points, (1) that the formal elements represent
roots, avd (2) that the roots both of the formal
and the radical elements of the word are mono-
syllabic. Now, it may be satisfactorily proved
by analysis that all the component parts of both
inflecting and agglutinative languages are reducible
to two kinds of roots, predicable and pronominal ;
the former supplying the material element of verbs,
substantives, and adjectives, the latter that of con-
junctions, prepositions, and particles; while each
kind, but more particularly the pronominal, supply
the formal element, or, in other words, the termi-
nations of verbs, substantives, and adjectives. The
full proofs of these assertions would involve nothing
less than a treatise on comparative grammar: we
can do no more than adduce in the accompanying
note a few illustrations of the various points to
which we have adverted.4 Whether the two classes
41. That prepositions are reducible to pronominal
roots may be illustrated by the following instances. The
Greek ἀπό, with its cognates the German ab and our of,
is derived from the demenstrative base a, whence also
the Sanscrit apa (Bopp, $1000); πρό and παρά are akin
to the Sanse. prdé and pari, secondary formations of the
aboye mentioned apa (Bopp, §1009). The only prepo-
sition which appears to spring from a predicable base is
trans, with its cognates durch and through, which are
referred to the verbal root tar (Bopp, 1018).
2. That conjunctions are similarly reducible may be
illustrated by the familiar instances of ὅτι, quod, and
“ that,’’ indifferently used as pronouns or conjunctions.
The Latin si is connected with the pronoun si-bi; and et,
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
of roots, predicable and pronominal, are further
reducible to one class, is a point that has been dis-
cussed, but has not as yet been established (Bopp’s
Compar. Gram. §105; Max Miiller’s Lectures, p.
269). We have further to show that the roots of
agglutinative and inflecting languages are mono-
syllabic. This is an acknowledged characteristic ct
the Indo-European family ; monosyllabism is indeed
the only feature which its roots have in common ;
in other respects they exhibit every kind of varia-
tion from a uniliteral root, such as ὁ (ire), up to
combinations of five letters, such as scand (scan-
dere), the total number-of admissible forms of root
amounting to no less than eight (Schleicher, §206).
In the Shemitic family monosyllabism is not a
prima facie chayacteristic of the root: on the con~
trary, the verbal® stems exhibit bisyllabism with
such remarkable uniformity, that it would lead to
the impression that the roots also must have been
bisyllabic. The bisyllabism, however, of the She-
mitic stem is in reality triconsonantalism, the
vowels not forming any part of the essence of the
root, but being wholly subordinate to the conso-
nants. It is at once apparent that a triconsonantal
and even a quadriconsonantal root may be in cer-
tain combinations unisyllabic. But turther, it is
more than probable that the triconsonantal has been
evolved out of a biconsonantal root, which must
necessarily be unisyllabic if the consonants stand,
as they invariably do in fShemitic roots, at the
beginning and end of the word. With regard to
the agglutinative class, it may be assumed that the
same law which we have seen to prevail in the
isolating and inflecting classes, prevails also in this,
holding as it does an intermediate place between
those opposite poles in the world of language.
From the consideration of the crude materials of
language, we pass on to the varieties exhibited in
its structure, with a view to ascertain whether in
these there exists any bar to the idea of δὴ original
unity. (1.) Reverting to the classification already
noticed, we have to observe, in the first place, that
the principle on which it is based is the nature of
the connection existing between the predicable and
the relational or inflectional elements of a word. In
the isolating class these two are kept wholly dis-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1539,
tinct: relational ideas are expressed by juxta-
position or by syntactical arrangement, and not by
any combination of the roots. In the agglutinative
class the relational elements are attached to the
principal or predicable theme by a mechanical kind
of junction, the individuality of each being pre-
served even in the combined state. In the inflecting
class the junction is of a more perfect chavacter,
and may be compared to a chemical combination,
the predicable and relational elements being so fused
together as to present the appearance of a single
and indivisible word. It is clear that there exists
no insuperable barrier to original unity in these
differences, from the simple fact that every inflect-
ing language must once have been agglutinative,
and every agglutinative language once isolating.
If the predicable and relational elements of an iso-
lating language be linked together, either to the
eye or the ear, it is rendered agglutinative; if the
material and formal parts are pronounced as one
word, eliminating, if necessary, the sounds that
resist incorporation, the language becomes inflecting.
(2.) In the second place, it should be noted that
these three classes are not separated fiom each
other by any sharp line of demarcation. Not only
does each possess in a measure the quality pre-
dominant in each other, but moreover each gra-
duates into its neighbour through its bordering
members. The isolating languages are not wholly.
isolating: they avail themselves of certain words as
relational particles, though these still retain else-
where their independent character: they also use
composite, though not strictly compound words.
The agglutinative ave not wholly agglutinative: the
Finnish and Turkish classes of the Ural-Altaian
family are in certain instances inflectional, the rela-
tional adjunct being fully incorporated with the
predicable stem, and having undergone a large
amount of attrition for that purpose. Nor again
are the inflectional languages wholly inflectional:
Hebrew, for instance, abounds with agglutinative
forms, and also avails itself largely of separate
particles for the expression of relational ideas: our
own language, though classed as inflectional, retains
nothing more than the vestiges of inflection, and is
in many respects as isolating and juxtapositional as
together with the Sansc. yddi, with the relative base ya
(Bopp, §994). t
3. That the suffixes forming the inflections of verbs
and nouns are nothing else than the relics of either
predicable or pronominal roots, will appear from the
following instances, drawn (1) from the Indo-European
languages, and (2) from the Ural-Altaian languages.
(1) The ~ in δίδωμι is connected with the root whence
spring the oblique cases of the personal pronoun ἐγώ ;
the -o in δίδως is the remains of ov; and the τ in ἐστί
(for which an o is substituted in δίδωσι) represents the
Sanscrit ta, which reappears in αὐτός and in the oblique.
cases of the article (Bopp, §§434, 443, 456). So again,
the -o in the nominative λόγος represents the Sanscrit
pronominal root sa, and the -d of the neuter quid the
Sanscrit ta (Schleicher’s Compend. §246); the genitive
terminations τος, ποιὸ (originally -οσοιο), and hence -ov
= the Sanscrit sya, another form of sa (Schleicher, §252) ;
the dative (or more properly the locative) -w or τοι is
referable to the demonstrative root ὁ (Schleicher, §254) ;
and the accusative -ν (originally -~) to a pronominal
base, probably am, which no longer appears in its simple
form (Schleicher, 4.249). (2) In the Ural-Altaian languages,
we find that the terminations of the verbs, gerunds, and
participles are referable to significant roots; as in Turkish
the active affix ¢ or d to a root signifying “to do”
(Ewald, Sprachw. Abi. ii. 27), and in Hungarian the fac-
titive affix ¢ to te, “to do,” the passive affix 1 to le, “to
become ;” the affix of possibility hac to hat, “to work,’
ἄς. (Pulszky, in Philol. Trans. 1859, p. 115).
© Monosyllabic substantives are not unusual in Hebrew,
as instanced in IN» 13» &c. It is unnecessary to regard
these as truncated forms from bisyllabic roots.
f That the Shemitic languages ever actually existed in
a state of monosyllabism is questioned by Renan, partly
because the surviving monosyllabic languages have never
emerged from their primitive condition, and partly be-
cause he conceives synthesis and complexity to be ante-
rior in the history of language to analysis and simplicity
(Hist. Gén. i. 98-100). The first of these objections is
based upon the assumption that languages are developed
only in the direction of syntheticism; but this, as we
shall hereafter show, is not the only possible form of
development, and it is just because the monosyllabic lan-
guages have adopted another method of perfecting them-
selves, that they have remained in their original stage.
The second objection seems to involve a violation of the
natural order of things, and to be inconsistent with the
evidence afforded by language itself; for, though there is
undoubtedly a tendency in language to pass from the
synthetical to the analytical state, it is no less clear from
the elements of synthetic forms that they must have
originally existed in an analytical state,
oF 2
1540 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
any language of that class. While, therefore, the
classification holds good with regard to the pre-
dominant characters of the classes, it does not imply
differences of a specific nature. (3.) But further,
the morphological varieties of language are not con-
fined to the exhibition of the single principle hitherto
described. A comparison between the westerly
branches of the Ural-Altaian on the one hand, and
the Indo-European on the other, belonging respec-
tively to the agelutinative and inflectional classes,
will show that the quantitative amount of syn-
thesis is fully as prominent a point of contrast as
the qualitative. ‘The combination of primary and
subordinate terms may be more perfect in the
Indo-European, but it is more extensively employed
in the Ural-Altaian family. The former, for in-
stance, appends to its verbal stems the notions of
time, number, person, and occasionally of interro-
gation; the latter further adds suffixes indicative
of negation, hypothesis, causativeness, reflexiveness,
and other similar ideas, wherebv the word is built
up tier on tier to a marvellous extent. The former
appends to its substantival stems suffixes of case
and number; the latter adds governing particles,
rendering them post-positional instead of pre-posi-
tional, and combining them synthetically with the
predicable stem. If, again, we compare the Shemitic
with the Indo-European languages, we shall find a
morphological distinction of an equally diverse
character. In the former the grammatical category
is expressed by internal vowel-changes, in the latter
by external suffixes. So marked a distinction has
not unnaturally been constituted the basis of a
classification, wherein the languages that adopt this
system of internal flection stand by themselves as a
separate class, in contradistinction to those which
either use terminational additions for the same pur-
pose, or which dispense wholly with inflectional
forms (Bopp’s Comp. Gr. i. 102). The singular
use of pretormatives in the Coptic language is,
again, a morphological peculiarity of a very decided
character. And even within the same family, say
the Indo-European, each language exhibits an idio-
syncrasy in its morphological character, whereby it
stands out apart from the other members with a
decided impress of individuality. The inference to
be drawn from the number and character of the
differences we have noticed, is favourable, rather than
otherwise, to the theory of an original unity. Start-
ing from the same common ground of monosyllabic
roots, each language-family has carried out its own
special line of development, following an original im-
pulse, the causes and nature of which must remain
probably for ever a matter of conjecture. We can
perceive, indeed, in a general way, the adaptation of
certain forms of speech to certain states of society.
The agglutinative languages, for instance, seem to
be specially adapted to the nomadic state by the pro-
minence and distinctness with which they enunciate
the leading idea in each word, an arrangement
whereby communication would be facilitated be-
tween tribes or families that associate only at inter-
vals. We might almost imagine that these languages
derived their impress of uniformity and solidity
from the monotonous steppes of Central Asia, which
have in all ages formed their proper habitat. So,
again, the inflectional class reflects cultivated thought
and social organisation, and its languages have hence
been termed “" state ” or “ political.”
on the other hand, is pronounced to be suited to the
most primitive stage of thought and society, wherein
the family or the individual is the standard by
Monosyllabism, |
| solvable into either relative or personal pronouns,
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
which things are regulated (Max Miiller, in Philos.
of Hist. i. 285). We should hesitate, however, to
press this theory as furnishing an adequate ex-
planation of the differences observable in language-
families. The Indo-European languages attained
their high organisation amid the same scenes and
in the same nomad state as those wherein the
agglutinative languages were nurtured, and we
should be rather disposed to regard both the lan-
guage and the higher social status of the former as
the concurrent results of a higher mental organisa-
tion,
If from words we pass on to the varieties of syn-
tactical arrangement, the same degree of analocy
will be found to exist between class and class, or
between family and family in the same class; in
other words, no peculiarity exists in one which does
not admit of explanation by a comparison with
others. The absence of all grammatical forms in
an isolating language necessitates a rigid collocation
of the words in a sentence according to logical prin-
ciples. The same law prevails to avery great extent
in our own language, wherein the subject, verb, and
object, or the subject, copula, and predicate, gene-
rally hold their relative positions in the order ex-
hibited, the exceptions to such an arrangement being
easily brought into harmony with that general law.
In the agglutinative languages the law of arrange-
ment is that the principal word should come last
in the sentence, every qualifying clause or word
preceding it, and being as it were sustained by it.
The syntactical is thus the reverse of the verbal
structure, the principal notion taking the precedence
in the latter (Ewald, Sprachw. Abh, ii. 29). There
is in this nothing peculiar to this class of languages,
beyond the greater uniformity with which the ar-
rangement is adhered to: it is the general rule in
the classical, and the occasional rule in certain of the
Teutonic languages. In the Shemitic family the
reverse arrangement prevails: the qualifying adjec-
tives follow the noun to which they belong, and
the verb generally stands first: short sentences are
necessitated by such a collocation, and hence more
room is allowed for the influence of emphasis in
deciding the order of the sentence. In illustration
of grammatical peculiarities, we may notice that
in the agglutinative class adjectives qualifving
substantives, or substantives placed in apposition
with substantives, remain undeclined: in this case
the process may be compared with the formation
of compound words in the Indo-European languages,
where the final member alone is inflected. So again
the omission of a plural termination in nouns fol-
lowing a numeral may be paralleled with a similar
usage in our own language, where the terms
“pound” or “ head” are used collectively after a
numeral. We may again cite the peculiar manner
of expressing the genitive in Hebrew. This is
effected by one of the two following methods—
placing the governing noun in the status con-
structus, or using the relative pronoun § with a pre-
position before the governed case. ‘The first of
these processes appears a strange inversion of the
laws of language; but an examination into the
origin of the adjuncts, whether prefixes or affixes,
used: in other languages for the indication of the
genitive, will show that they have a more intimate
connection with the governing than with the
governed word, and that they are generally re-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
which serve the simple purpose of connecting the
two words together (Garnett’s L’ssays, pp. 214-227).
The same end may be gained by connecting the
words in pronunciation, which w ould lead to a ‘rapid
utterance of the first, and consequently to the changes
which are witnessed in the status constructus. The
second or periphrastic process is in accordance with
the general method of expressing the genitive; for
the expression ‘‘ the Song which is to Solomon”
strictly answers to ‘‘ Solomon’s Song,” the s repre-
senting (according to Bopp’s explanation) a com-
bination of the demonstrative sa and the relative ya.
It is thus that the varieties of construction may be
shown to,be consistent with unity of law, and that
they therefore furnish no argument against a com-
mon origin.
Lastly, it may be shown that the varieties of
language do not arise from any constitutional in-
equality of vital energy. Nothing is more remark-
able than the compensating power apparently in-
herent in all language, whereby it finds the means
of reaching the level of the human spirit through
a faithful adherence to its own guiding principle.
The isolating languages, being shut out from the
manifold advantages ot verbal composition, attain
their object by multiplied combinations of radical
sounds, assisted by an elaborate system of accentua-
tion and intonation. In this manner the Chinese
language has framed a vocabulary fully equal to
the demands made upon it; and though this mode
of development may not commend itself to our
notions as the most eflective that can be devised,
yet it plainly evinces a high susceptibility on the
part of the linguistic faculty, and a keen perception
of the correspondence between sound and sense.
Nor does the absence of inflection interfere with
the expression even of the most delicate shades of
meaning in a sentence; a compensating resource is
found partly in a multiplicity of subsidiary terms
expressive of plurality, motion, action, &c., and
partly in strict attention to syntactical arrange-
ment. The agelutinative languages, again, are de-
ficient in compound words, and in this respect lack
the elasticity and expansiveness of the Indo-European
family ; but they are eminently synthetic, and no
one can fail to admire the regularity and solidity
with which its words are built up, suffix on suffix,
and, when built up, are suffused with an uniformity
of tint by the law of vowel-harmony.4 The Shemitic
languages have worked out a different principle of |
growth, evolved, not improbably, in the midst of a
conflict between the systems of prefix and suffix,
whereby the stem, being as it were enclosed at both
extremities, was precluded from all external incre-
ment, and was forced back into such changes as could
be effected by a modification of its vowel sounds.
But whatever may be the origin of the system of
internal inflection, it must be conceded that the
results are very effective, as regards both economy
of material, and simplicity and dignity of style.
The result of the foregoing observations is to
'a substitute for complete radical agreement:
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1541
show that the formal varieties of language present
no obstacle to the theory of a common origin.
Amid these varieties there may be discerned meni-
fest tokens of unity in the original material out of
which language was formed, in the stages of forma-
tion through which it has passed, in the general
principle of grammatical expression, and, lastly, in
the spirit and power displayed in the development
of these varions formations. Such a result, thongh
it does not prove the unity of language in respect to
its radical elements, nevertheless “tends to establish
the ἃ priori probability of this unity; for if all
connected with the forms of language may be
referred to certain general laws, if nothing in that
department owes its origin to chance or arbitrary
appointment, it surely favours the presumption that
the same principle would extend to the formation
of the roots, which are the very core and kernel of
language. Here too we might expect to find the
operation of fixed laws of some kind or other, pro-
ducing results of an uniform character; here too
actual variety may not be inconsistent with original ,
unity.
II. Before entering on the subject of the radical
identity of languages, we must express our con-
viction that the time has not yet arrived for a
decisive opinion as to the possibility of establishing
it by proof. Let us briefly review the dithculties
that beset the question. Every word as it appears
in an organic language, whether written or spoken,
is resolvable into two distinct elements, which we
have termed predicable and formal, the first being
what is commonly cailed the root, the second the
grammatical termination. In point of fact both of
these elements consist of independent roots ; and in
order to prove the radical identity of two languages,
it must be shown that they agree in both respects,
that is, in regard both to the predicable and the
formal roots. As a matter of experience it is found
that the formal elements, consisting for the most part
of pronominal bases, exhibit a greater tenacity of life
than the others; and hence agreement of inflectional
forms is justly regarded as furnishing a strong pre-
sumption of general radical identity. Even foreign
elements are forced into the formal mould of the
language into which they are adopted, and thus
bear testimony to the original character of that
language. But though such a formal agreement
supplies the philologist with a most valuable instru-
ment of investigation, it cannot be accepted as
this
would still remain to be proved by an independent
examination of the predicable elements. The dith-
culties connected with these latter are many and
varied. Assuming that two languages or lancuage-
families are under comparison, the phonological
laws of each must be investigated in order to arrive,
in the first place, at the primary forms of words in
the language in which they occur, and, in the
second:place, at the corresponding forms in the lan-
guage which constitutes the i other member of com-
h The action of this law is as follows:—The vowels are
divided into three classes, which we may term sharp,
medial, and flat: the first and the last cannot be com-
bined in any fuily formed word, but all the vowels must
be either of the two first, or of the two last classes,
suffixes must always accord with the root in regard to the
quality of its vowel-sounds, and hence the necessity of
having double forms for all the suffixes to meet the sharp
or the flat character of the root. ‘The practice is probably
referable to the same principle which assigned so remark-
able a prominence to the root. As the root sustains the
The |
|
|
series of suffixes, its vowel-sound becomes not unnaturally
the key-note of the whole strain, facilitating the processes
of utterance to the speaker, and of perception to the hearer,
and communicating to the word the uniformity which
is so characteristic of the whole structure of these lan-
| guages.
i Grimm was the first to discover a regular system of
displacement of sounds (/autverschiebung) pervading the
Gothic and Low German languages as compared with
Greek and Latin. According to this system, the Gothic
substitutes aspirates for tenues (ὦ for Gr. k or Lat. c, th
1542 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
parison, as done by Grimm for the Teutonic as
compared with the Sanscrit and the classical Jan- |
guages. ‘The genealogy of sound, as we may term
it, must be followed up by a genealogy of significa- |
tion, a mere outward accordance of sound and sense
in two terms being of no value whatever, unless a |
radical affinity be proved by an independent ex-
It |
amination of the cognate words in each case.
still remains to be inquired how far the ultimate
accordance of sense and sound may be the result of
onomatopoeia,‘ of mere borrowing, or of a possible
mixture of languages on equal terms. ‘The final
stage in etymological inquiry is to decide the limit
to which comparison may be carried in the primi-
tive strata of language—in other words, how far
roots, as as ascertained from groups of words, may be
compared with roots, and reduced to yet simpler
elementary forms, Any flaw in the processes above
described will of course invalidate the whole result.
Even where the philologist is provided with ample
materials for inquiry in stores of literature ranging
_over long periods of time, much difficulty is experi- |
enced in making good each link in the chain of
agreement ; and yet in such cases the dialectic
varieties have been kept within some degree of re-
straint by the existence of a literary language
which, by impressing its authoritative stamp on
certain terms, has secured both their general use |
and their external integrity. Where no literature
exists, as is the case with the general mass of lan- |
guages in the world, the difficulties are infinitely
increased by the combined effects of a prolific growth
of dialectic forms, and an absence of all means of
tracing out their progress. Whether under these
circumstances we may reasonably expect to esta-
blish a radical unity of language, is a question
which each person must decide for himself. Much
may yet be done by a larger induction and a scien-
tific analysis of languages that are yet compara-
tively unknown.
to enlarge the limits of a “ family ” according as
the elements of affinity have been recognised in
outlying members. These limits may perchance be
still more enlarged by the discovery of connecting
links between the language-families, whereby the |
criteria of relationship will be modified, and new
elements of internal unity be discovered amid the
manifold appearances of external diversity.
Meanwhile we must content ourselves with stating
ference to this important topic. In the first place |
the Indo- 0 languages have been reduced to
, | families.
The tendency hitherto has been |
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
| an acknowledged and well-defined relationship: they
form one of the two families included under the
head of “inflectional”? in the morphological classi-
fication. The other family in this class is the (so-
_ called) Shemitic, the limits of which are not equally
well defined, inasmuch as it may be extended over
what are termed the sub-Shemitic languages, in-
cluding the Egyptian or Coptic. The criteria of
the proper Shemitic family (ἡ. e. the Aramean,
Hebrew, Arabic, and Ethiopic languages) are dis-
_tinctive enough; but the connexion between the
Shemitic and the Egyptian is not definitely esta-
| blished. Some philologists are inclined to claim
for the latter an independent position, intermediate
between the Indo-European and Shemitic families
(Bunsen’s Phil. of Hist. i: 185, ff.). The ageluti-
native languages of Europe and Asia are combined
by Prof. M. Miiller in one family named “ Tur-
anian.” It is conceded that the family bond in this
| case is a loose one, and that the agreement in roots
is very partial (Lectures, pp. 290-292). Many
philologists of high standing, and more particularly
Pott ( Ungleich. Mensch. lassen, p. 232), deny the
family relationship altogether, and break up the
agglutinative languages into a great number of
Certain it is that within the Turanian
circle there are languages, such, for instance, as
the Ural-Altaian, which show so close an affinity
to each other as to be entitled to form a separate
division, either as a family or a subdivision of a
family: and this being the case, we should hesitate
to put them on a parity of footing with the re-
mainder of the Turanian languages. The Caucasian
group again differs so widely from the other mem-
bers of the family as to make the relationship very
dubious. The monosyllabic languages of south-
eastern Asia are not included in the ‘luranian family
by Prof. M. Miiller (Zect. pp. 290, 326), apparently
on the ground that they are not agglutinative ; but
as the Chinese appears to be connected radically
with the Burmese (Humboldt’s Verschied. p. 368),
with the Tibetan (Ph. of Hist. i. 393-395), and
| with the Ural-Altaian languages (Schott in Abh,
| Ab. Berl. 1861, p. 172), 4 it seems to have a good
title to be placed in the Turanian family. With
| regard to the American and the bulk of the African
languages, we are unable to say whether they can
be brought under any of the heads already men-
g tioned, or whether they stand by themselves as
the present position of the linguistic science in re- |
distinct families. The former are referred by writers
of high eminence to an Asiatic or Turanian origin
_(Bunsen, Phil. of Hist. ii. 111; Latham’s Man
for t, and f for p);
and k for g); and mediais for aspirates (g for Gr. ch or
Lat. h, d for Gr. th, and b for Lat. f or Gr. ph) (Gesch.
Deuts. Spr. i. 393). We may illustrate the changes by
comparing heart with cor or καρδία: thow with tu; five
with πέμπε (πέντε), or father with pater; two with duo;
knee with γόνυ ; goose with χήν; dare with θαρσέω ; bear
with fero or φέρω. What has thus been done for the
Teutonic languages, has been carried out by Schleicher
in his Compendium for each class of the Indo-European
family.
k Jt is a delicate question to decide whether in any
given language the onomatopoétic words that may occur
are original or derived. Numerous coincidences of sound
and sense occur in different languages to which little or |
no value is attached by etymologists on the ground that
they are oncmatopoétic. But evidently these may have
been handed down from generation to generation, and
from language to language, and may have as true a
genealogy as any other terms not bearing that character.
tenues for medials (¢ for d, p for }, |
| For instance, the Hebrew Τα and) expresses in its very
sound the notion of swallowing or gulping, the word con-
sisting, as Renan has remarked (H. G. i. 460), of a lingual
and a guttural, representing respectively the tongue and
the throat, which are chiefly engaged in the operation of
swallowing. In the Indo-European languages we meet
with a large class of words containing the same elements
and conveying, more or less, the same meaning, such as
λείχω, λιχμάω, Ligurio, lingua, gula, “lick,” and others.
These words may have had a common source, but, because
_ they are onomatopoétic in their character, they are ex-
cluded as evidence of radical affinity. This exclusion
may be carried too far, though it is difficult to point out
where it should stop. But even onomatopoétic words
bear a specific character, and the names given in imita-
tion of the notes of birds differ materially in different
, languages, apparently from the perception of some subtle
| analogy with previously existing sounds or ideas. The
subject is one of great interest, and may yet play an im-
portant part in the history of language.
ἱ
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
and his Migrat, p. 186); the latter to the Shemitic
family (Latham, p. 148).
The problem that awaits solution is whether the
several families above specified can be reduced to a
single family by demonstrating their radical identity.
It would be unreasonable to expect that this identity
should be coextensive with the vocabularies of the
various languages; it would naturally be confined
to such ideas and objects as are common to mankind
generally. Even within this circle the difficulty of
proving the identity may be infinitely enhanced by
the absence of materials. There are indeed but two
families in which these materials are found in any-
thing like sutliciency, viz. the Indo-European and
the Shemitic, and even these furnish us with no
historical evidence as to the earlier stages of
their growth. We find each, at the most remote
literary period, already exhibiting its distinctive
character of stem- and word-formation, leaving us
to infer, as we best may, from these phenomena the
processes by which they had reached that point.
Hence there arises abundance of room for difference
of opinion, and the extent of the radical identity
will depend very much on the view adopted as to
these earlier processes. If we could accept in its
entirety the system of etymology propounded by
the analytical school of Hebrew scholars, it would
not be difficult to establish a very large amount of
radical identity; but we cannot regard as esta-
blished the prepositional force of the initial letters,
as stated by Delitzsch in his Jeshurun (pp. 166,
173, note), still less the correspondence hetween
these and the initial letters of Greek and Latin
words® (pp. 170-172). The striking uniformity
of bisyllabism in the verbal stems is explicable
only on the assumption that a single principle
underlies the whole ; and the existence of groups®
of words differing slightly in form, and having the
same radical sense, leads to the presumption that
this principle was one ποῦ of composition, but of
euphonism and practical convenience. This pre-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1543
sumption is still further favoured by an analysis of
the letters forming the stems, showing that the
third letter is in many instances a veduplication,
and in others a liquid, a nasal, or a sibilant, intro-
duced either as the initial, the medial, or the final
letter. The Hebrew alphabet admits of a classi-
fication® based on the radical character of the
letter according to its position in the stem. The
effect of composition would have Leen to produce,
in the first place, a greater inequality in the length
of the words, and, in the second place, a greater
equality in the use of the various organic sounds.
After deducting largely from the amount of ety-
mological correspondence based on the analytical
tenets, there still remains a considerable amount of
radical identity which appears to be aboye suspi-
cion. It is impossible to produce in this place a
complete list of the terms in which that identity is
manifested. In the subjoined note P je cite some
instances of agreement, which cannot possibly be
explained on the principle of direct onomatopoeia,
and which would therefore seem to be the common
inheritance of the Indo-European and Shemitic
families. Whether this agreement is, as Renan
suggests, the result of a keen susceptibility of the
onomatopoetic faculty in the original framers of
the words (Hist. Gén. i. 465), is a point that can
neither be proved nor disproved. But even if it
were so, it does not follow that the words were not
framed before the separation of the families. Our
list of comparative words might be much enlarged,
if we were to include comparisons based on the
reduction of Shemitic roots to a bisyllabie form.
A list of such words may be found in Delitzsch’s
Jeshurun, pp. 177-180. In regard to pronouns
and numerals, the identity is but partial. We
may detect the ¢ sound, which forms the dis-
tinctive sound of the second personal pronoun in
the Indo-European languages, in the Hebrew attah,
and in the personal terminations of the perfect
tense; but the m, which is the prevailing sound of
m Several of the terms compared by him are onomato-
poétic, as parak (frac-ture), pdtash (πατάσσειν), and
kalap, and in each of these cases the initial letter forms
part of the onomatopoeia. In others the initial letter in
the Greek is radical, as in βασιλεύειν (Pott’s Et. Forsch.
li. 272), δρύπτειν (i. 229), and σταλάζειν (i. 197). In
others again it is euphonic, as in βδάλλειν. Lastly, we
are unable to see how ἐᾶγα} and tarep admit of close
comparison with δρύφειν and τρέφειν. It shows the un-
certainty of such analogies that Gesenius compares
ἐᾶγαρ with δρύπτειν, and kélap G23) with γλύφειν,
which Delitzsch compares with khdlap (|2M). An at-
Seep
tempt to establish a large amount of radical identity by
means of a resolution of the Hebrew word into its compo-
nent and significant elements may be seen in the Philo-
log. Trans. for 1858, where, for instance, the ba in the
Hebrew bakash, is compared: with the Teutonic prefix
be; the dar in dar-kash with the Welsh dar in dar-paru ;
and the chaph in chaphash with the Welsh cyf in cyfaros.
Ὁ These groups are sufficiently common in Hebrew.
We will take as an instance the following one PP,
wD}, win», wD), and WDB, all conveying the idea
of “dash” or “ strike.’ Or, again, the following group,
,
with the radical sense of slipperiness: _ 9h, rials}
: fi me,
mad, 235, an. mbn. abp. movi xc A classifi
“4 Sit av oo pak |S = th
catory lexicon of such groups would assist the etymolo-
gical inquiry.
Bunsen, Philos. of Hist. ii. 357. After stating what letters
may be inserted either at the beginning, middle, or end of
the root, he enumerates those which are always radical in
the several positions ; 4, for instance, in the beginning
and middle, but not at the end; 5 and 1D in the begin-
ning only; { and Ὁ in the middle and at the end, but
not in the beginning. We are not prepared to accept
this classification as wholly correct, but we adduce it in
illustration of the point above noticed.
Pp JP, cornu, horn.
D0, μίσγω, misceo, mix.
JID, circa, circle.
Vos, Germ. erde, earth.
pon, glaber, glisco, Germ. glatt, glide.
DID, Da, DY, cum, σύν, κοινός.
Non, πλέος, plenus, Germ. voll, full.
“3, purus, pure.
N72) ΠΣ, vorare, βορά.
m8, φέρω, βαρύς, fero, bear,
nds, ἕψω, epula.
‘7, amarus.
nia, curtus.
ym, serere.
NAD, Sanse. math, mith, mith (First, Lex. s. v.),
° Such a classification is attempted by Boetticher, in | whence by the introduction of 7 the Latin mors.
1544 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
the first personal pronoun in the former, is sup- |
planted by an nin the latter. ‘The numerals shesh |
and sheba, for “six” and “seven,” accord with
the Inde-European forms: those representing the
numbers from ὁ“ one” to ‘five’ are possibly,
though not evidently, identical.4 With regard to
the other language-families, it will not be expected,
after the observations already made, that we should
attempt the proof of their radical identity. The
Ural-Altaian languages have been extensively.
studied, but are hardly ripe for comparison.
Occasional resemblances have been detected in)
grammatical forms* and in the vocabularies; § but
the value of these remains to be proved, and we,
must await the results of a more extended research |
into this and other regions of the world of language. |
(B.) We pass on to the second point proposed for |
consideration, viz., the ethnological views expressed
in the Bible, and more particularly in the 10th |
chapter of Genesis, which records the dispersion of |
nations consequent on the Confusion of Tongues,
I. The Mosaic table does not profess to describe
the process of the dispersion; but assuming that
dispersion as a fait accompli, it records the ethnic
relations existing between the various nations at-
fec'ed by it. These relations ave expressed under
the guise of a genealogy ; the ethnological character
of the document is, however, clear both from the
names, some of which are gentilic in form, as Lu-
dim, Jebusite, &c., others geographical or local, as
Winn, Sidon, be. ; and again from the fogs
lary, which concludes each section of the subject
“after their families, after their tongues, in their
countries, and in their nations”’ (vers. 5, 20, 31).
Incidentally, the table is geographical as well as
ethnological; but this arises out of the practice of
designating nations by the countries they occupy.
It has indeed been fr equently surmised that the ar- |
rangement of the table is purely geographical, and
this idea is to a certain extent favomed by the pos-
sibility of explaining the names Shem, Ham, and
Japheth on this principle; the first Sout the
“high”? lands, the second the “hot” or ‘‘ low”
Jands, and the third the ‘ broad,” apical regions
of the north. The three families may have been
so located, and such a circumstance could not
have been unknown to the writer of the table.
But neither internal nor external evidence satis-
factorily prove such to have been the leading
idea or principle embodied in it; for the Japhetites
are mainly assigned to the “isles” or maritime
districts of the west and north-west, while the
Shemites press down into the plain of Mesopo-
tamia, and the Hamites, on the other hand, occupy
the high lands of Canaan and Lebanon. We hold,
therefore, the geographical as subordinate to the
ethnographical element, and avail ourselves of the
former only as an instrument for the discovery of
the latter.
The general arrangement of the table is as fol-
lows :—The whole human race is referred back to
Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and J Japheth. The
Shemites ave described last, apparently that the
| other.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
. i)
continuity of the narrative may not be further dis-
turbed; and the Hamites stand next to the Shemites,
in order to show that these were more closely related
to each other than to the Japhetites. The compa-
rative degrees of affinity are expressed, patly by
coupling the names together, as in the cases of Eli-
shah and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim (ver. 4),
and partly by representing a genealogical descent,
as, when the nations just mentioned are said to be
‘sons of Javan.” An inequality may be observed
in the length of the genealogical lines, which in the
case of Japheth extends only to one, in Ham to two,
in Shem to three, and even four degrees. ‘This in-
equality clearly arises out of the varying interest
taken in the several lines by the author of the table,
and by those for whose use it was designed, We
may lastly observe, that the occurrence of the same
name in two of the lists, as in the case of Lud
(vers. 13, 22), and Sheba (vers. 7, 28), possibly
indicates a fusion of the races.
The identification of the Biblical with the histo-
rical or classical names of nations, is by no means
an easy task, particularly ‘where the names are not
subsequently noticed in the Bible. In these cases
comparisons with ancient or modern designations
are the only resource, and where the designation is
one of a purely geographical character, as in the
case of Riphath compared with Fipaei montes, or
Mash compared with Masius mons, great doubt
must exist as to the ethnic force of the title, inas-
much as several nations. may have successively
occupied the same district. Equal doubt arises
where names admit of being treated as appellatives,
and so of being transferred from one district to an-
Recent research into Assyrian and Egyptian
records has in many instances thrown light on the
Biblical titles. In the former we find Meshech and
Tubal noticed under the forms Muskai and Tuplai,
while Javan appears as the appellation of Cyprus,
where the Assyrians first met with Greek civiliza-
tion. In the latter the name Phut appears under
the form of Pount, Hittite as A/ita, Cush as Keesh,
| Canaan as Kanana, &e.
1. The Japhetite list contains fourteen names, of
which seven represent independent, and the remainder
affiliated nations, as follows:—(i.) Gomer, con-
nected ethnically with the Cimmerit, Cimbri (?),
and Oymry ; and geographically with Crimea. As-
sociated with Gomer are the three following :—(a)
Ashkenaz, generally compared with lake Ascanius
in Bithynia, but by Knobel with the tribe Asaei, As,
or Ossetes in the Caucasian district. On the whole
we prefer Hasse’s suggestion of a connexion between
this name and that of the Axenus, later the Hux-
mus Pontus. (ὁ) Riphath, the Ripaei Montes, which
Knobel connects etymologically. and geographically
with Carpates Mons. (6) Togarmah, undoubtedly
Armenia, or a portion of it. (ii.) Magog, the Scy-
thians. (iii.) Madai, Media. (iv.) Javan, the Jonions,
as a general appellation for the Hellenic race, with
whom are associated the four following :— (α)
Elishah, the Aeolians, less probably identified with
the district 28. (b) Tarshish, at a later period
a See Roédiger'’s note in Gesen. Gramm. p.165. The
identity even of shesh and “six” has been questioned, on |
the ground that the original form of the Hebrew word
was shet and of the Aryan ksvaks (Philol. Trans. 1860,
p- 131).
ΤΟ Several such resemblances are pointed out by Ewald
in his Sprachw. Abhand., ii. p. 18, 34 note.
* The following verbal resemblances in Hungarian and
Sapscrit have been noticed:—egy and eka, “ one;” hat
and shash, ‘six ;’ hét and saptan, “seven;” tiz and
dasan, “ten,” ezer and sahasra, “ thousand ;” beka and
‘bheka, “frog;’ arany and hiranja, “gold” (Philol.
Trans. for 1858, p. 25). Proofs of a more intimate rela-
tionship between the Finnish and Indo-European lan-
guages are adduced in a paper on the subject in the
Philol. Trans. for 1860, p. 281 ff
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
of Biblical history certainly identical with Zurtessus
in Spain, to which, however, there are objections as
regards the table, partly from the too extended area
thus given to the Mosaic world, and partly because
Tartessus was a Phoenician, and consequently not a
Japhetic settlement. Knobel compares the Tyrseni,
yrrheni, and Tusci of Italy ; but this is preca-
rious. (c) Kittim, the town Citéwm in Cyprus.
(d) Dodanim, the Dardani of Illyria and Mysia:
Dodona is sometimes compared. (v.) Tubal, the
Tibareni in Pontus. (vi.) Meshech, the Moschi in
the north-western part of Armenia. (vii.) Tiras,
pethaps Dhracia. ;
2. The Hamitie list contains thirty names, of
which four represent independent, and the remainder
attiliated nations, as follows:—(i.) Cush, in two
branches, the western or African representing
Aethiopia, the Keesh of the old Egyptian, and the
eastern or Asiatic being connected with the names
of the tribe Cossaei, the district Cissia, and the
province Susiana or Khuzistan. With Cush are
qssociated :—(a) Seba, the Sabaci of Yemen in
south Arabia. (6) Havilah, the district hdwlan
in the same part of the peninsula. (6) Sabtah, the
town Sabatha in Hadramaut. (d) Raamah, the
town Rhegma on the south-eastern coast of Arabia,
with whom are associated:—(a*) Sheba, a tribe
probably connected ethnically or commercially with
the one of the same name already mentioned, but
located on the west coast of the Persian Gulf. (6?)
Dedan, also on the west coast of the Persian Gulf,
where the name perhaps still survives in the island
Dadan. (6) Sabtechah, perhaps the town Samy-
dace on the coast of the Indian Ocean eastward of
the Persian Gulf. (f) Nimrod, a personal and
not a geographical name, the representative of the
eastern Cushites. (ii.) Mizraim, the two Misrs, i.e.
Upper and Lower Egypt, with whom the following
seven are connected :—(a) Ludim, according to
Knobel a tribe allied to the Shemitic Lud, but settled
in Egypt; others compare the river Laud (Plin. v.
2), and the Lewdtah, a Berber tribe on the Syrtes.
(b) Anamim, according to Knobel the inhabitants
of the Delta, which would be described in Egyptian
by the term sanemhit or tsanem/it, “ northern dis-
trict,” converted by the Hebrews into Anamim.
(c) Naphtuhim, variously explained as the people
of Nephthys, 7. e. the northern coast district (o-
chart), and as the worshippers of Phthah, meaning
the inhabitants of Memphis. (d@} Pathrusim, Upper
Kgypt, the name being explained as meaning in the
Egyptian “the south” (Knobel). (ὁ) Casluhim,
Casius mons, Cassiotis, and Cassium, eastward of
the Delta (Knobel): the Colchians, according to Bo-
chart, but this is unlikely. (f) Caphtorim, most
probably the district about Coptos in Upper Egypt
[CAPHTOR] ; the island of Crete according to many
modern critics, Cappadocia according to the older
interpreters. (4) Phut, the Pint of the Egyptian
inscriptions, meaning the Libyans. (iii.) Canaan,
the geographical position of which calls for no re-
mark in this place. ‘The name has been variously
explained as meaning the “low”’ land of the coast
district, or the “ subjection” threatened to Canaan
personally (Gen. ix. 25). To Canaan belong the tol-
lowing eleven :—(cr) Sidon, the well-known town of
that name in Phoenicia. (ὁ) Heth, or the Hittites
of Biblical history. (0) The Jebusite, of Jebus or
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1545
Jerusalem. (d@) The Amorite frequently mentioned
in Biblical history. (e) The Girgasite, the same
as the Girgashites. (f) The Hivite, variously ex-
plained to mean the occupants of the “interior”
het or the dwellers in “ villages” (Gesen.).
g) The Arkite, of Arca, north of Tripolis, at the
foot of Lebanon. (h) The Sinite, of Sin or Sinna,
places in the Lebanon district. (1) The Arvadite,
of Aradus on the coast of Phoenicia, (j) The Ze-
marite, of Simyra on the Eleutherus. (Δ) The
Hamathite, of Hamath, the classical Epiphania, on
the Orontes.
3. The Shemitic list contains twenty-five names;
of which five 1efer to independent, and the remainder
to affiliated tribes, as follows :—(i.) Elam, the tribe
Llymaci and the district Elymais in Susiana. (11.)
Asshur, Assyria between the Tigris and the range
οἵ Zagrus. (iii.) Arphaxad, Arrapachitis in northern
Assyria, with whom are associated :-—(q) «Salah, a
personal and not a geographical title, indicating a
migration of tle people represented by him; Salah’s
son (a?) Eber, representing geographically the dis-
trict across (¢. 6. eastward of ) the Euphrates; and
Eber’s two sons (a8) Peleg, a personal name indi-
cating a ‘‘ division” of this branch of the Shemitic
family, and (6%) Joktan, representing generally the
inhabitants of Arabiu, with the following thirteen
sons of Joktan, viz.:—(a*) Almodad, probably re-
presenting the tribe of Jurhum near Mecca, whose
leader was named Mudad. (b*) Sheleph, the Sala-
pent in Yemen. (c+) Hazarmaveth, Hadramaut,
in southern Arabia. (d*) Jerah. (¢4) Hadoram,
the Adramitae on the southern coast, in a district
of Hadramaut. (f4) Uzal, supposed to represent
the town Szanaa in south Arabia, as having been
founded by Asal. (g*) Diklah, (A*) Obal, or, as
in 1 Chr, i, 22, Ebal, which latter is identified by
Knobel with the Gebanitae in the south-west. (Ὁ)
Abimael, doubtfully connected with the district
Mahra, eastward of Hadramuut, and with the
towns Mara and Mali. (j*) Sheba, the Sabaei of
south-western Arabia, about Mariaba. (44) Ophir,
probably Adane on the southern coast, but see
article. (4) Havilah, the district Khdéwlan in
the north-west of Yemen. (im) Jobab, possibly
the Jobaritae of Ptolemy (vi. 7, §24), for which
Jobabitae may originally have stood. (iv.) Lud,
generally compared with Lydia, but explained
by Knobel as referring to the various aboriginal
tribes in and about Palestine, such as the Ama-
lekites, Rephaites, Emim, &c. We cannot consider
either of these views as well established. Lydia
itself lay beyond the horizon of the Mosaic table:
as to the Shemitic origin of its population, conflict-
ing opinions are entertained, to which we shall have
occasion to advert hereafter. Knobel’s view has in
its favour the probability that the tribes referred
to would be represented in the table; it is, how-
ever, wholly devoid of historical confirmation, with
the exception of an Arabian tradition that Am/ik
was one of the sons of Laud or Lawad, the son of
Shem.t (v.) Aram, the general name for Syria
and northern Mesopotamia, with whom the following
are associated :—(a) Uz, probably the Aesitae of Pto-
lemy. (b) Hul, doubtful, but best connected with
the name Huleh, attaching to a district north of
Lake Merom. (c) Gether, not identified. (d) Mash,
Masius Mons, in the north of Mesopotamia.
t This tradition probably origimated in the desire to
form a connecting link between the Mosaic table and the
Various elements of the Arabian population. The only
conclusion to be drawn from it is that, in the opinion of
its originator, there was an element which was neither
Ishmaelite nor Joktanid (Ewald, Gesch. i. 339, note),
1546 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
There is yet one name noticed in the table, viz. :
Philistim, which occurs in the Hamitic division,
but without any direct assertion of Hamitic descent.
The terms used in the A. V. “out of whom (Cas-
luhim) came Philistim” (ver. 14), would naturally
imply descent; but the Hebrew text only warrants
the conclusion that the Philistines sojourned in the
land of the Casluhim. Notwithstanding this, we
believe the intention of the author of the table to
have been to aflirm the Hamitic origin of the Phi-
listines, leaving undecided the particular branch,
whether Casluhim or Caphtorim, with which it was
more immediately connected.
The total number of names noticed in the table,
including Philistim, would thus amount to 70,
which was raised by patristic writers to 72.
These totals afforded scope for numerical compari-
sons, and also for an estimate of the number of
nations and languages to be found on the earth’s
surface. It is needless to say that the Bible itself
furnishes no ground for such calculations, inas-
much as it does not in any case specify the numbers.
Before proceeding further, it would be well to
discuss a question materially affecting the historical
value of the Mosaic table, viz,: the period to which
it refers. On this point very various opinions are
entertained. Knobel, conceiving it to represent the
commercial geography of the Phoenicians, assigns
it to about 1200 B.c. ( Volkert. pp. 4-9), and Re-
nan supports this view (Hist. Gen. i. 40), while
others allow it no higher an antiquity than the
period of the Babylonish Captivity (v. Bohlen’s
Gen. ii. 207; Winer, Rwb. ii. 665). Internal
evidence leads us to refer it back to the age of
Abraham on the following grounds: — (1) The
Canaanites were as yet in undisputed possession of
Palestine. (2) The Philistines had not concluded
their migration. (3) Tyre is wholly unnoticed, an
omission which cannot be satisfactorily accounted
for on the ground that it is included under the
name either of Heth (Knobel, p. 323), or of Sidon
(v. Bohlen, ii. 241). (4) Various places such as
Simyra, Sinna, and Arca, are noticed, which had
fallen into insignificance in later times. (5)
Kittim, which in the age of Solomon was under
Phoenician dominion, is assigned to Japheth, and
the same may be said of Tarshish, which in that
age undoubtedly referred to the Phoenician empo-
rium of Tartessus, whatever may have been its
earlier signiticance. The chief objection to so early
a date as we have ventured to propose, is the notice
of the Medes under the name Madai. The Aryan
nation, which bears this name in history, appears
not to have reached its final settlement until about
900 8.6. (Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 404). But on the
other hand, the name Media may well have be-
longed to the district before the arrival of the Aryan
Medes, whether it were occupied by a tribe of
kindred origin to them or by Turanians; and this
probability is to a certain extent confirmed by the
notice of a Median dynasty in Babylon, as reported
by Berosus, so. early as the 25th century B.c.
(Rawlinson, i. 434). Little difficulty would be
found in assigning so early a date to the Medes, if
the Aryan origin of the allied kings mentioned in
Gen, xiv. 1 were thoroughly established, in accord-
ance with Renan’s view (H. G. i. 61): on this
point, however, we have our doubts.
The Mosaic table is supplemented by ethnological
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
notices relating to the various divisions of the
Terachite family. These belonged to the Shemitic
division, being descended from Arphaxad through
Peleg, with whom the line terminates in the table.
Reu, Serug, and Nahor form the intermediate links
between Peleg and Terah (Gen. xi. 18-25), with
whom began the movement that terminated in the
occupation of Canaan and the adjacent districts by
certain branches of the family. The original seat
of Terah® was Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. xi. 28):
thence he migrated to Haran (Gen. xi. 31), where
a section of his descendants, the representatives of
Nahor, remained (Gen. xxiv. 10, xxvii. 43, xxix.
4 ff.), while the two branches, represented by
Abraham and Lot, the son of Haran, crossed the
Euphrates and settled in Canaan and the adjacent
districts (Gen, xii, 5). From Lot sprang the
Moabites and Ammonites (Gen. xix. 30-38): from
Abraham the Ishmaelites through his son Ishmael
(Gen. xxv. 12), the Israelites through Isaac and
Jacob, the Edomites through Isaac and Esau (Gen.
xxxvi.), and certain Arab tribes, of whom the
Midianites are the most conspicuous, through the
sons of his concubine Keturah (Gen. xxv. 1-4).
The most important geographical question in
connexion with the Terachites concerns their ori-
ginal settlement. The presence of the Chaldees in
Babylonia at a subsequent period of scriptural history
has led to a supposition that they were a Hamitic
people, originally belonging to Babylonia, and thence
transplanted in the 7th and 8th centuries to north-
ern Assyria (Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 319). We do
not think this view supported by Biblical notices.
It is more consistent with the general direction of
the Terachite movement to look for Ur in northern
Mesopotamia, to the east of Haran. That the Chal-
dees, or, according to the Hebrew nomenclature,
the Kasdim, were found in that neighbourhood, is
indicated by the name Chesed as one of the sons of
Nahor (Gen, xxii, 22), and possibly by the name
Arphaxad itself, which, according to Ewald (Gesch.
i. 378), means “ fortress of the Chaldees.” In
classical times we find the Kasdim still occupying
the mountains adjacent to Arrapachitis, the Biblical
Ayrpachsad, under the names Chaldaet (Xen. Anab.
iv. 3, §§1-4) and Gordyaei or Carduchi (Strab.
xvi. p. 747), and here the name still has a vital
existence under the form of Awrd. The name
Kasdim is explained by Oppert as meaning “ two
rivers,’ and thus as equivalent to the Hebrew
Naharaim and the classical Mesopotamia (Zeit.
Morg. Ges. xi. 137). We receive this explanation
with reserve; but, as far as it goes, it favours the
northern locality. The evidence for the antiquity
of the southern settlement appears to be but small,
if the term Aaldai does not occur in the Assyrian
inscriptions until the 9th century B.c. (Rawlinson,
i. 449). We therefore conceive the original seat
of the Chaldees to have been in the north, whence
they moved southwards along the course of the
Tigris until they reached Babylon, where we find
them dominant in the 7th century B.c. Whether
they first entered this country as mercenaries,
and then conquered their employers, as suggested
by Renan (H. G. i. 68), must remain uncertain ;
but we think the suggestion supported by the
circumstance that the name was afterwards trans-
ferred to the whole Babylonian population. The
sacerdotal character of the Chaldees is certainly
“A connexion between the names Terah and ‘Tra-
chonitis, Haran and Hauran, is suggested by Renan |
(Hist. Gén. i. 29). This, however, is inconsistent with
the position generally assigned to Haran.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
difficult to reconcile with this or any other hypo-
thesis on the subject.
Returning to the Terachites, we find it impossible
to define the geographical limits of their settlements
with precision. They intermingled with the pre-
viously existing inhabitants of the countries inter-
vening between the Red Sea and the Euphrates,
and hence we find an Aram, an Uz, and a Chesed
among the descendants of Nahor (Gen. xxii. 21, 22),
a Dedan and a Sheba among those of Abraham by
Keturah (Gen. xxv. 3), and an Amalek among the
descendants of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 12). Few of the
numerous tribes which sprang from this stock at-
tained historical celebrity. ‘The Israelites must of
course be excepted from this description ; so also
the Nabateans, if they are to be regarded as repre-
sented by the Nebaioth of the Bible, as to which there
is some doubt (Quatremére, Melanges, p. 59). Of
the rest, the Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, and |
2domites ave chiefly known for their hostilities with
the Israelites, to whom they were close neighbours.
The memory of the westerly migration of the Israel-
ites was perpetuated in the name Hebrew, as refer-
ring to their residence beyond the river Euphrates
(Josh. xxiv. 3).
Besides the nations whose origin is accounted for
in the Bible, we find other early populations men-
tioned in the course of the history without any
notice of their ethnology. In this category we may
place the Horims, who occupied Edom before the
descendants of Esau (Deut. ii. 12, 22); the Ama-
lekites of the Sinaitic peninsula; the Zuzims and
Zamzummims of Peraea (Gen. xiv. 5; Deut. ii.
20); the Rephaims of Bashan and of the valley
near, Jerusalem named after them (Gen. xiv. 5;
2 Sam. v.18); the Emims eastward of the Dead
Sea (Gen. xiv. 5); the Avims of the southern Phi-
listine plain (Deut. ii. 23); and the Anakims of
southern Palestine (Josh. xi. 21). The question
arises whether these tribes were Hamites, or whe-
ther they represented an earlier population which
preceded the entrance of the Hamites. ‘he latter
view is supported by Knobel, who regards the
majority of these tribes as Shemites, who preceded
the Canaanites, and communicated to them the
Shemitic tongue (Vélkert. pp. 204, 315). No
evidence can be adduced in support of this theory,
which was probably suggested by the double difti-
culty of accounting for the name of Lud, and of
explaining the apparent anomaly of the Hamites
and Terachites speaking the same language. Still
less evidence is there in favour of the Turanian
origin, which would, we presume, be assigned to
these tribes in common with the Canaanites proper,
in accordance with a current theory that the first
wave of population which overspread western Asia
belonged to that branch of the human race (Raw-
linson’s Herod, i. 645, note). To this theory we
shall presently advert: meanwhile we can only
observe, in reference to these fragmentary popu-
lations, that, as they intermingled with the Canaan-
ites, they probably belonged to the same stock (comp.
Num. xiii. 22; Judg. i. 10). They may perchance
have belonged to an earlier migration than the
Canaanitish, and may have been subdued by the
later comers; but this would not necessitate a dif-
ferent origin. The names -of these tribes and of
their abodes, as instanced in Gen. xiv. 5; Deut. ii.
23; Num. xiii. 22, beara Shemitic character (Ewald,
Gesch. i. 311), and the only objection to their Ca-
naanitish origin arising out of these names would
be in connexion with Zamzummim, which, according
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1547
to Renan (H. G. p. 35, note), is formed on the
same principle as the Greek βάρβαρος, and in this
case implies at all events a dialectical difference.
Having thus surveyed the ethnological statements
contained in the Bible, it remains for us to inquire
how far they are based on, or accord with, physio-
logical or linguistic principles. Knobel maintains
that the threefold division of the Mosaic table is
founded on the physiological principle of colour,
‘Shem, Ham, and Japheth representing respectively
the red, black, and white complexions prevalent in
the different regions of the then known world ( Vé/-
kert. pp. 11-13). He claims etymological support
tor this view in respect to Ham (=“ dark”) and
Japheth (=“ fair’’), but not in respect to Shem,
and he adduces testimony to the fact that such
differences of colour were noted in ancient times.
The etymological argument weakens rather than
sustains his view ; for it is difficult to conceive that
the principle of classification would be embodied in
two of the names and not also in the third: the
force of such evidence is wholly dependent upon its
uniformity. With regard to the actual prevalence
of the hues, it is quite consistent with the physical
character of the districts that the Hamites of the
south should be dark, and the Japhetites of the
north fair, and further that the Shemites should
hold an intermediate place in colour as in geogra-
phical position. But we have no evidence that this
distinction was strongly marked. The “ redness”
expressed in the name Edom probably referred to
the soil (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p. 87): the Erythraeum
Mare was so called from a peculiarity in its own
tint, arising from the presence of some vegetable
substance, and not because the red Shemites bordered
on it, the black Cushites being equally numerous
on its shores: the name Adam, as applied to the
Shemitic man, is ambiguous, from its reference to
soil as well as colour. On the other hand, the
Phoenicians (assuming them to have reached the
Mediterranean seaboard before the table was com-
piled) were sc called from their red hue, and yet
are placed in the table among the Hamites. The
argument drawn from the red hue of the Egyptian
deity Typhon is of little value until it can be
decisively proved that the deity in question repre-
sented the Shemites. This is asserted by Renan
(H. 6. i. 38), who endorses Knobel’s view as far
as the Shemites are concerned, though he does not
accept his general theory.
The linguistic difficulties connected with the
Mosaie table ave very considerable, and we cannot
pretend to unravel the tangled skein of conflicting
opinions on the subject. The primary difficulty
arises ont of the Biblical narrative itself, and is
consequently of old standing—the difhiculty, namely,
of accounting for the evident identity of language
spoken by the Shemitic Terachites and the Hamitic
Canaanites. Modern linguistic research has rather
enhanced than removed this difficulty. The alter-
natives hitherto offered as satisfactory solutions,
namely, that the Terachites adopted the language
of the Canaanites, or the Canaanites that of the
Terachites, are both inconsistent with the enlarged
area which the language is found to cover on each
side. Setting aside the question of the high im-
probability that a wandering nomadic tribe, such
as the Terachites, would be able to impose its lan-
guage on a settled and powerful nation like the
Canaanites, it would still remain to be explained
how the Cushites and other Hamitic tribes, who
did not come into contact with the Terachites,
1548 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
acquired the same general type of language. And
on the other hand, assuming that what are called
Shemitic languages were really Hamitic, we have to
explain the extension of the Hamitic area over
Mesopotamia and Assyria, which, according to the
table and the general opinion of ethnologists, be-
longed wholly to a non-Hamitic population, A
further question, moreover, arises out of this ex-
planation, viz.: what was the language of the Te-
rachites before they assumed this Hamitic tongue ὃ
This question is answered by J. G. Miiller, in
Herzoo’s &. £. xiv. 238, to the effect that the
Shemites originally spoke an Indo-European lan-
guage—a view which we do not expect to see
generally adopted.
Restricting ourselves, for the present, to the lin-
guistic question, we must draw attention to the fact
that there is a well-defined Hamitic as well as a
Shemitic class of languages, and that any theory
which obliterates this distinction must fall to the
ground. ‘The Hamitic type is most highly deve-
loped, as we might expect, in the country which
was, par excellence, the land of Ham, viz. Egypt;
and whatever elements of original unity with the
Shemitic type may be detected by philologists,
practically the two were as distinct from each other
in historical times, as any two languages could
possibly be. We are not therefore prepared at once
to throw overboard the linguistic element of the
Mosaic table. At the same time we recognize the
extreme difficulty of explaining the anomaly of
Hamitic tribes speaking a Shemitic tongue. It will
not suftice to say, in answer to this, that these
tribes were Shemites; for again the correctness of
the Mosaic table is vindicated by the differences
of social and artistic culture which distinguish the
Shemites proper from the Phoenicians and Cushites
using a Shemitic tongue. The former are charac-
terised by habits of simplicity, isolation, and ad-
herence to patriarchal ways of living and thinking ;
the Phoenicians, on the other hand, were emi-
neutly a commercial people; and the Cushites are
identified with the massive architectural erections
of Babylonia and South Arabia, and with equally
extended ideas of empire and social progress.
The real question at issue concerns the language,
not of the whole Hamitic family, but of the Ca-
naanites and Cushites, With regard to the former,
various explanations have been oftered—such as
Knobel’s, that they acquired a Shemitic language
from a prior population, represented by the Refaites,
Zuzim, Zamzummim, &c. (Volkert. p. 315); or
Bunsen’s, that they were a Shemitic race who had
long sojourned in Egypt (Phil. of Hist. i. 191)—
neither of which are satisfactory. With regard to
the latter, the only explanation to be offered is that
a Joktanid immigration supervened on the original
Hamitic population, the result being a combination
of Cushitie civilization with a Shemitic language
(Renan, i. 322). Nor is it unimportant to men-
tion that peculiarities have been discovered in the
Cushite Shemitic of Southern Arabia which suggest
a close affinity with the Phoenician forms (Renan,
i. 318). We are not, however, without expecta-
tion that time and research will clear up much of
the mystery that now enwraps the subject. There
are two directions to which we may hopefully turn
for light, namely Egypt and Babylonia, with re-
gard to each of which we make a few remarks.
That the Kgyptian janguage exhibits many
striking points of resemblance to the Shemitic type
is acknowledged on all sides. It is also allowed
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
that the resemblances are of a valuable character,
being observable in the pronouns, numerals, in
agglutinative forms, in the treatment of vowels,
and other such points (Renan, i. 84, 85). There
is not, however, an equal degree of agreement
among scholars as to the deductions to be drawn
from these resemblances. While many recognize in
them the proofs of a substantial identity, and hence
regard Hamitism as an early stage of Shemitism,
others deny, either on general or on special grounds,
the probability of such a connexion. When we find
such high authorities as Bunsen on the former side
(Pll. of Hist. i. 186-189, ii. 3), and Renan (i. 86)
on the other, not to mention a long array of scholars
who have adopted each view, it would be presump-
tion dogmatically to assert the correctness or in-
correctness of either. We can only point to the
possibility of the identity being established, and to
the further possibility that connecting links may be
discovered between the two extremes, which may
serve to bridge over the gulf, and to render the
use of a Shemitic language by a Hamitic race less
of an anomaly than it at present appears to be.
Turning eastward to the banks of the Tigris and
Euphrates, and the adjacent countries, we find
ample materials for research in the inscriptions re-
cently discovered, the examination of which has
not yet yielded undisputed results. The Mosaic
table places a Shemitic population in Assyria and
Elam, and a Cushitic one in Babylon. The proba-
bility of this being ethnically (as opposed to geo-
graphically) true depends partly on the age assigned
to the table. There can be no question that at a
late period Assyria and Elam were held by non-
Shemitic, probably Aryan conquerors. But if we
carry the table back to the age of Abraham, the
case may have been different; for though Elam
is regarded as etymologically identical with Ivan
(Renan, i. 41), this is not conclusive as to the
| Iranian character of the language in early times.
Sufficient evidence is afforded by language that the
basis of the population in Assyria was Shemitic
(Renan, i. 70; Knobel, pp. 154-156): and it is
by no means improbable that the inscriptions be-
longing more especially to the neighbourhood of
Susa may ultimately establish the fact of a Shemitic
population in Elam, ‘The presence of a Cushitic
population in Babylon is an opinion very generally
held on linguistic grounds ; and a close identity.is
said to exist between the old Babylonian and the
Mahrt Janguage, a Shemitic tongue of an ancient
type still living in a district of Hadramuut, in
Southern Arabia (Renan, H. G.i.60). In addition
to the Cushitic and Shemitic elements in the popu-
lation of Babylonia and the adjacent districts, the
presence of a Turanian element has been inferred
| from the linguistic character of the early inscrip-
tions. We must here express our conviction that
the ethnology of the countries in question is con-
siderably clouded by the undefined use of the terms
Turanian, Scythic, and the like. It is frequently
difficult to decide whether these terms are used in a
linguistic sense, as equivalent to agglutinative, or
in an ethnic sense. The presence of a certain amount
| of Turanianism in the former does not involve its
presence in the latter sense. The old Babylonian and
Susianian inscriptions may be more agglutinative
|} than the later ones, but this is only a proof of
| their belonging to an earlier stage of the language,
and does not of itself indicate a foreign population ;
}and if these early Babylonian inscriptions graduate
| into the Shemitic, as is asserted even by the advo-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
cates of the Turanian theory (Rawlinson’s Herod. i.
442, 445), the presence of an ethnic Turanianism
cannot possibly be inferred. Added to this, it is
inexplicable how the presence of a large Seythic
population in the Achaemenian period, to which
many of the Susianian inscriptions belong, could
escape the notice of historians. The only Scythic
tribes noticed by Herodotus in his review of the
Persian empire are the Parthians and the Sacae, the
former of whom are known to have lived in the
north, while the latter probably lived in the extreme
east, where a memorial of them is still supposed to
exist in the name Seistan, representing the ancient
Sacastene. Even with regard to these, Scythic
‘may not mean Turanian; for they may have be-
longed to the Scythians of history (the Skolots), for
whom an Indo-uropean origin is claimed (Rawlin-
son’s Herod. iii. 197). The impression conveyed
by the supposed detection of so many heterogeneous
elements in the old Babylonian tongue (Rawlinson,
i, 442, 444, 646, notes) is not favourable to the
general results of the researches.
With regard to Arabia, it may safely be asserted
that the Mosaic table is confirmed by modern re-
search. The Cushitic element has left memorials
of its presence in the south in the vast ruins of
Mareh and Sana (Renan, i. 318), as well as in the
influence it has exercised on the Himyaritic and
Mahri languages, as compared with the Hebrew.
The Joktanid element forms the basis of the Arabian
population, the Shemitic character of whose language
needs no proof. With regard to the Ishmaelite
element in the north, we are not aware of any
linguistie proof of its existence, but it is confirmed
by the traditions of the Arabians themselves.
It remains to be inquired how far the Japhetic
stock represents the linguistic characteristics of the
Indo-European and Turanian families. Adopting the
twofold division of the former, suggested by the
name itself, into the eastern and western; and sub-
dividing the eastern into the Indian and Iranian,
and the western into the Celtic, Hellenic, Hlyrian,
Italian, Teutonic, Slavonian, and Lithuanian classes,
we are able to assign Madai (Media) and Togarmah
(Armenia) to the Iranian class; Javan (onian)
and Elishah (Aeolian) to the Hellenic; Gomer
conjecturally to the Celtic; and Dodanim, also con-
jecturally, to the Illyrian. According to the old
interpreters, Ashkenaz represents the Teutonic class,
while, according to Knobel, the Italian would be
represented by Tarshish, whom he identifies with the
Etruscans ; the Slavonian by Magog; and the Lithu-
anian possibly by Tiras (pp. 90, 68, 130). The
same writer also identifies Riphath with the Gauls,
as distinct from the Cymry or Gomer (p. 45);
while Kittim is referred by him not improbably
to the Carians, who at one period were predominant
on the islands adjacent to Asia Minor (p. 98). The
evidence for these identifications varies in strength,
but in no instance approaches to demonstration.
Beyond the general probability that the main
branches of the human family would be repre-
sented in the Mosaic table, we regard much that
has been advanced on this subject as highly pre-
carious. At the same time it must be conceded
that the subject is an open one, and that as there is
no possibility of proving, so also none of disproving,
the correctness of these conjectures. Whether the
x The total amount of the Shemitic population at pre-
sent is computed to be only 30 millions, while the Indo-
European is computed at 400 millions (Renan, i. 43, note),
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1549
Turanian family is fairly represented in the Mosaic
table may be doubted. ‘Those who advocate the
Mongolian origin of the Seythians would naturally
regard Magog as the representative of this family ;
and even those who dissent from the Mongolian
theory may still not unreasonably conceive that the
title Magog applied broadly to all the nomad tribes
of Northern Asia, whether Indo-European or Tu-
ranian. Tubal and Meschech remain to be con-
sidered: Knobel identifies these respectively with
the Iberians and the Ligurians (pp. 111, 119); and
if the Finnish character of the Basque language
were established, he would regard the Iberians as
certainly, and the Ligurians as probably Turanians,
the relics of the first wave of population which is
supposed to have once overspread the whole of the
European continent, and of which the Finns in the
north, and the Basques in the south, are the sole
surviving representatives. ‘he Turanian character
of the two Biblical races above mentioned has been
otherwise maintained on the ground of the identity
of the names Meschech and Muscovite (Rawlinson’s
Herod. i. 652).
II. Having thus reviewed the ethnic relations of
the nations who fell within the circle of the Mosaic
table, we propose to cast a glance beyond its limits,
and inquire how far the present results of ethno-
logical science support the general idea of the unity
of the human race, which underlies the Mosaic
system, The chief and in many instances the only
instrument at our command for ascertaining the
relationship of nations is language. In its general
results this instrument is thoroughly trustworthy,
and in each individual case to which it is applied
it furnishes a strong primd facie evidence ; but its
evidence, if unsupported by collateral proofs, is not
unimpeachable, in consequence of the numerous in-
stances of adopted languages which have occurred
within historical times. This drawback to the value
of the evidence of language will not materially
affect our present inquiry, inasmuch as we shall
confine ourselves as much as possible to the general
results.
The nomenclature of modern ethnology is not
identical with that of the Bible, partly trom the
enlargement of the area, and partly from the
general adoption of language as the basis of classifi-
cation. The term Shemitic is indeed retained, not,
however, to indicate a descent from Shem, but the
use of languages allied to that which was current
among the Israelites in historical times. Hamitic
also finds a place in modern ethnology, but as sub-
ordinate to, or co-ordinate with, Shemitic. Japhetic
is superseded mainly by Indo-European or Aryan.
The various nations, or families of nations, which
find no place under the Biblical titles are classed by
certain ethnologists under the broad title of Tura-
nian, while by others they are broken up into divi-
sions more or Jess numerous.
The first branch of our subject will be to trace
the extension of the Shemitic family beyond the
limits assigned to it in the Bible. ‘The most
marked characteristic of this family, as compared
with the Indo-European or Turanian, is its in-
elasticity. Hemmed in both by natural barriers
and by the superior energy and expansiveness of
the Aryan and Turanian races, it retains to the pre-
sent day the status quo of early times.* The only ¥
y Eastward of the Tigris a Shemitic population has
been supposed to exist in Afghanistan, where the Pushtu
language has been regarded as bearing a Shemitic cha-
1550 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
direction in which it has exhibited any tendency to |
expand has been about the shores of the Mediter-
ranean, and even here its activity was of a sporadic
character, limited to a single branch of the family,
viz. the Phoenicians, and to a single phase of ex-
pansion, viz. commercial colonies. In Asia Minor
we find tokens of Shemitic presence in Cilicia, which
was connected with Phoenicia both by tradition
(Herod. vii. 91), and by language, as attested by ex-
isting coins (Gesen: Mon. Phoen. iii. 2): in Pam-
phylia, Pisidia, and Lycia, parts of which were
occupied by the Solymi (Plin. v. 24; Herod, i.
173), whose name bears a Shemitie character, and
who are reported to have spoken a Shemitic tongue
(Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 9), a statement confirmed
by the occurrence of other Shemitic names, such as
Phoenix and Cabalia, though the subsequent pre-
dominance of an Aryan population in these same
districts is attested by the existing Lycian inscrip-
tions: again in Caria, though the evidence arising
out of the supposed identity of the names of the
gods Osogo and Chrysaoreus with the Οὔσωος and
Xpvo@p of Sanchuniathon is called in question
(Renan, H. G.i. 49): and, lastly, in Lydia, where
the descendants of Lud are located by many authori-
ties, and where the prevalence of a Shemitic lan-
guage is asserted by scholars of the highest standing,
among whom we may specify Bunsen and Lassen,
in spite of tokens of the contemporaneous presence
of the Aryan element, as instanced in the name
Sardis, and in spite also of the historical notices of
an ethnical connexion with Mysia (Herod. i. 171).
Whether the Shemites ever occupied any portion of
the plateau of Asia Minor may be doubted. In the
opinion of the ancients the later occupants of Cap-
padocia were Syrians, distinguished from the mass
of their race by a lighter hue, and hence termed
Leucosyrt (Stab. xii. p. 542); but this statement
is traversed by the evidences of Aryanism afforded
by the names of the kings and deities, as well as by
the Persian character of the religion (Strab. xv. p.
733). If therefore the Shemites ever occupied this
district, they must soon have been brought under
the dominion of Aryan conquerors (Diefenbach, Orig.
Europ. p. 44). The Phoenicians were ubiquitous
on the islands and shores of the Mediterranean: in
Cyprus, where they have left tokens of their pre-
sence at Citium and other places; in Crete; in
Malta, where they were the original settlers (Diod.
Sic. v. 12); on the mainland of Greece, where their
presence is betokened by the name Cadmus ; in
Samos, Same, and Samothrace, which bear Shemitic |
names; in Ios and Tenedos, once known by the
name of Phoenice; in Sicily, where Panormus,
Motya, and Soloeis were Shemitic settlements; in
Sardinia (Diod. Sic. v. 35); on the eastern and
southern coasts of Spain; and on the north coast of
Africa, which was lined with Phoenician colonies
from the Syrtis Major to the Pillars of Hercules.
They must also have penetrated deeply into the
interior, to judge from Strabo’s statement of the
destruction of three hundred towns by the Pharu-
racter. A theory has consequently been started that |
the people speaking it represent the ten tribes of Israel
(Forster’s Prim. Lang. iii. 241). We believe the supposed
Shemitic resemblances to be unfounded, and that the
Pushtu language holds an intermediate place between
the Iranian and Indian classes, with the latter of which
it possesses in common the lingual or cerebral sounds
(Diefenbach, (7. Eur. p. 37).
« We use the qualifying expression “ at present,” partly
because it is not improbable that new classes may be here-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
sians and Nigritians (Strab. xvii. p. 826). Still in
none of the countries we have mentioned did they
supplant the original population: they were con-
querors and settlers, but no more than this.
The bulk of the North African languages, both
in ancient and modern times, though not Shemitic
in the proper sense of the term, so far resemble
that type as to have obtained the title of sub-
Shemitic. In the north the old Numidian language
appears, from the prevalence of the syllable Mas in
the name Massyli, &c., to be allied to the modern
Berber ; and the same conclusion has been drawn
with regard to the Libyan tongue. The Berber, in
turn, together with the Zowarick and the great
body of the North African dialects, is closely allied
to the Coptic of Egypt, and therefore falls under the
title of Hamitic, or, according to the more usual
nomenclature, sub-Shemitic (Renan, H. G. i. 201,
202). Southwards of Egypt the Shemitic type is
| reproduced in the majority of the Abyssinian lan-
guages, particularly in the Gheez, and in a less
marked degree in the Amharic, the Saho, and the
Galla; and Shemitic influence may be traced along
the whole east coast of Africa as far as Mozambique
(Renan, i. 336-340). As to the languages of the
interior and of the south there appears to be a con-
flict of opinions, the writer from whom we have
just quoted denying any trace of resemblance to the
Shemitic type, while Dr. Latham asserts very con-
fidently that connecting links exist between the sub-
Shemitic languages of the north, the Negro lan-
guages in the centre, and the Caffe languages of
the south; and that even the Hottentot language
is not so isolated as has been generally supposed
(Man and his Migr. pp. 134-148). Bunsen sup-
ports this view as far as the languages north of the
equator are concerned, but regards the southern as
rather approximating to the Turanian type (PAi/.
of Hist. i. 178, ii. 20). It is impossible as yet to
form a decided opinion on this large subject.
A question of considerable interest remains yet
to be noticed, namely, whether we can trace the
Shemitic family back to its original cradle. In the
case of the Indo-European family this can be done
with a high degree of probability ; and if an original
unity existed between these stocks, the domicile of
the one would necessarily be that of the cther. A
certain community of ideas and traditions favours
this assumption, and possibly the frequent allusions
to the east in the early chapters of Genesis may
contain a reminiscence of the direction in which
the primeval abode lay (Renan, H. α΄. i. 476). The
position of this abode we shall describe presently.
The Indo-European family of languages, as at
present? constituted, consists of the following nine
classes :—Indian,* Iranian, Celtic, Italian, Albanian,
Greek, Teutonic, Lithuanian, and Slavonian. Geo-
graphically, these classes may be grouped together
in two divisions—Hastern and Western—the former
comprising the two first, the latter the seven re-
maining classes. Schleicher divides what we have’
termed the Western into two—the South-west Eu-
after added, as, for instance, an Anatolian, to describe the
languages of Asia Minor, and partly because there may
have been other classes once in existence, which have
entirely disappeared from the face of the earth.
a Professor M. Miiller adopts the termination —ic, in
order to shew that classes are intended. This appears
unnecessary, when it is specified that the arrangement is
one of classes, and not of single languages. Moreover, in
common usage, the termination does not necessarily carry
_ the idea of a class.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
ropean, and the North European—in the former of
which he places the Greek, Albanian, Italian, and
Celtic, in. the latter the Slavonian, Lithuanian, and
Teutonic (Compend. i. 5). Prof. M. Miiller com-
bines the Slavonian and Lithuanian classes in the
Windic, thus reducing the number to eight. These
classes exhibit various degrees of affinity to each
other, which are described by Schleicher in the fol-
lowing manner :—The earliest deviation from the
common language of the family was effected by the
Slavono-Teutonic branch, After another interval
a second bifurcation occurred, which separated what
we may term the Graeco-Italo-Celtic branch from
the Aryan. The former held together for a while,
and then threw off the Greek (including probably
the Albanian), leaving the Celtic and Italian still
connected: the final division of the two latter took
place after another considerable interval. he first-
mentioned branch—the Slavono-Teutonic—remained
intact for a period somewhat longer than that which
witnessed the second bifurcation of the original
stock, and then divided into the Teutonic and
Slavono-Lithuanian, which latter finally broke up
into its two component elements. The Aryan
branch similarly held together for a lengthened
period, and then bifurcated into the Indian and
Ivanian. The conclusion Schleicher draws from
these linguistic affinities is that the more easterly
of the European nations, the Slavonians and Teu-
tons, were the first to leave the common home of
the Indo-European race; that they were followed
by the Celts, Italians, and Greeks; and that the
Indian and Iranian branches were the last to com-
mence their migrations. We feel unable to accept
this conclusion, which appears to us to be based on
the assumption that the antiquity of a language is
to be measured by its approximation to Sanscrit.
Looking at the geographical position of the repre-
sentatives of the different language-classes, we
should infer that the most westerly were the
earliest immigrants into Europe, and therefore pro-
bably the earliest emigrants from the primeval seat
of the race ; and we believe this to be confirmed by
linguistic proofs of the high antiquity of the Celtic
as compared with the other branches of the Indo-
European family (Bunsen, Phil. of Hist. i. 168).
The original seat of the Indo-European race was
on the plateau of Central Asia, probably to the
westward of the Bolor and Mustagh ranges. The
Indian branch can be traced back to the slopes of
Himalaya by the geographical allusions in the Vedic
hymns (M. Miiller’s Leet. p. 201); in confirmation
of which we may adduce the circumstance that the
only tree for which the Indians have an appellation
in common with the western nations, is one which
in India is found only on the southern slope of that
range (Pott, Htym. Forsch. i. 110), The westward
progress of the Iranian tribes is a matter of his-
tory, and though we cannot trace this progress back
to its fountain-head, the locality above mentioned
best accords with the traditional belief of the Asiatic
Aryans and with the physical and geographical re-
quirements of the case (Renan, H. G@. i. 481).
The routes by which the various western branches
reached their respective localities, can only be con-
jectured. We may suppose them to have succes-
sively crossed the plateau of Ivan until they reached
Armenia, whence they might follow either a north-
erly course across Caucasus, and by the shore of the
Black Sea, or a direct westerly one along the plateau
of Asia Minor, which seems destined by nature to
be the bridge between the two continents of Europe
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1551
and Asia. A third route has been surmised for a
portion of the Celtic stock, viz., along the north
coast of Africa, and across the Straits of Gibraltar
into Spain (Bunsen, Ph. of H. i. 148), but we see
little confirmation of this opinion beyond the fact
of the early presence of the Celtae in that peninsula,
which is certainly difficult to account for.
The eras of the several migrations are again very
much a matter of conjecture. The original move-
ments belong for the most part to the ante-historical
age, and we can do no more than note the period at
which we first encounter the several nations. That
the Indian Aryans had reached the mouth of the
Indus at all events before 1000 B.c., appears from
the Sanscrit names of the articles which Solomon
imported from that country [INpD1A]. The presence
of Aryans on the Shemitie frontier is as old as the
composition of the Mosaic table; and, according to
some authorities, is proved by the names of the
confederate kings in the age of Abraham (Gen. xiy.
1; Renan, H. G. i. 61). The Aryan Medes are
mentioned in the Assyrian annals about 900 B.c.
The Greeks were settled on the peninsula named
after them, as well as on the islands of the Aegaean
long before the dawn of history, and the Italians
had reached their quarters at a yet earlier period.
The Celtae had reached the west of Europe at
all events before, probably very long before, the
age of Hecataeus (500 B.c.); the latest branch of
this stock arrived there about that period ac-
cording to Bunsen’s conjecture (Ph. of H. i. 152).
The Teutonic migration followed at a long interval
after the Celtic: Pytheas found them already seated
on the shores of the Baltic in the age of Alexander
the Great (Plin. xxxvii. 11), and the term glesum
itself, by which amber was described in that district,
belongs to them (Diefenbach, Or. Eur. p. 359).
The earliest historical notice of them depends on
the view taken of the nationality of the Teutones,
who accompanied the Cimbri on their southern ex-
pedition in 113-102 B.c. If these were Celtic, as
is not uncommonly thought, then we must look to
Caesar and Tacitus for the earliest definite notices
of the Teutonic tribes. The Slavonian immigration
was nearly contemporaneous with the Teutonic
(Bunsen, Ph. of H. i. 72): this stock can be traced
back to the Veneti or Venedae of Northern Ger-
many, first mentioned by Tacitus (Germ. 46), from
whom the name Wend is probably descended. The
designation of Slavi or Sclavi is of comparatively
late date, and applied specially to the western
branch of the Slavonian stock. The Lithuanians are
probably represented by the Galindae and Sudeni of
Ptolemy (iii. 5, §21), the names of which tribes have
been preserved in all ages in the Lithuanian district
(Diefenbach, p. 202). They are frequently iden-
tified with the Acstuz, and it is not impossible that
they may have adopted the title, which was a
geographical one (=the east men): the Aestui of
Tacitus, however, were Germans. In the above
statements we have omitted the problematical iden-
tifications of the northern stocks with the earlier
nations of history: we may here mention that the
Slavonians are not unfrequently regarded as the
representatives of the Scythians (Skolots) and the
Sarmatians (Knobel, Védkert. p. 69). The writer
whom we have just cited, also endeavours to con-
nect the Lithuanians with the Agathyrsi (p. 130).
So again Grimm traced the Teutonic stock to the
Getae, whom he identified with the Goths (Gesch.
Deut. Spr. i. 178).
It may be asked whether the Aryan race were the
1552 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
first comers in the lands which they occupied in
historical times, or whether they superseded an
earlier population. With regard to the Indian
branch this question can be answered decisively:
the vestiges of an aboriginal population, which once
covered the plains of Hindostan, still exist in the
southern extremity of the peninsula, as weil as in
isolated localities elsewhere, as instanced in the case
of the Brahus of the north. Not only this, but
the Indian class of languages possesses ἃ peculiarity
of sound (the lingual or cerebral consonants) which
is supposed to have been derived from this popu-
lation and to betoken a fusion of the conquerors
and the conquered (Schleicher, Compend. i. 141).
The languages of this early population are classed
as Turanian (M. Miiller, Lect. p. 399). We are
unable to find decided traces of Turanians on the
plateau of Iran. The Sacae, of whom we have
already spoken, were Scythians, and so were the |
Parthians, both by reputed descent (Justin, xli. 1)
and by habits of lite (Strab. xi. p. 515); but we
cannot positively assert that they were Turanians,
inasmuch as the term Scythian was also applied, as
in the case of the Skolots, to Indo-Europeans. In
the Caucasian district the Iberians and others may
have been Turanian in early as in later times; but
|
it is difficult to unravel the entanglement of races |
and languages in that district.
exists in the present day an undoubted Turanian
population eastward of the Baltic, viz., the Finns,
who have been located there certainly since the
time of Tacitus (Germ. 46), and who probably at
an earlier period had spread more to the southwards,
but had been gradually thrust back by the advance
of the Teutonic and Slavonian nations (Diefenbach,
O. E.p. 209). There exists again in the south a po-
pulation whose language (the Basque, or, as it is enti-
tled in its own land, the Huskara) presents numerous
points of affinity to the Finnish in grammar, though
its vocabulary is wholly distinct. We cannot con-
sider the Turanian character of this language as fully |
established, and we are therefore unable to divine
the ethnic affinities of the early Iberians, who are
generally regarded as the progenitors of the Basques.
We have already adverted to the theory that the
Finns in the north and the Basques in the south
are the surviving monuments of a Turanian popu-
lation which oyerspread the whole of Europe betore
the arrival of the Indo-Europeans.
theory which can neither be proved nor disproved. »
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to assign
to the various subdivisions of the Indo-European
stock their respective areas, or, where admixture
has taken place, their relative proportions.
guage and race are, as already observed, by no
means coextensive. The Celtic race, for instance,
which occupied Gaul, Northern Italy, large portions
of Spain and Germany, and even penetrated across
the Hellespont into Asia Minor, where it gave name
guistically by the insignificant populations, among
whom the Welsh and the Gaelic or Erse languages
retain a lingering existence. The Italian race, on
the other hand, which must have been well nigh an-
nihilated by or absorbed in the overwhelming masses
of the northern hordes, has imposed its language
outside the bounds of Italy over the peninsula of
Spain, France, and Wallachia. But, while the races
have so intermingled as in many instances to lose all
b We must be understood as speaking of linguistic and
ethnological proofs furnished by populations existing
This is a mere |
Lan- |
In Europe there |
| war.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
trace of their original individuality, the broad fact
of their descent from one or other of the branches
of the Indo-European family remains unaffected. It
is, indeed, impossible to affiliate all the nations
whose names appear on the roll of history, to the
existing divisions of that family, in consequence of
the absence or the obscurity of ethnological criteria.
Where, for instance, shall we place the languages
of Asia Minor and the adjacent districts? The
Phrygian approximates perhaps to the Greek, and
yet it differs from it materially both in form and
vocabulary (Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 666): still more
is this the case with the Lycian, which appears to
possess a vocabulary wholly distinct from its kin-
dred languages (/d. i. 669, 677-679). The Ar-
menian is ranged under the Iranian division: yet
this, as well as the language of the Caucasian
Ossetes, whose indigenous name of Jr or Lron
seems to vindicate for them the same relationship,
are so distinctive in their features as to render the
connexion dubious. The languages prevalent in
the mountainous district, answering to the ancient
Pontus, are equally peculiar (Diefenbach, O. 2.
p- 51). Passing to the westward we encounter the
Thracians, reputed by Herodotus (v. 3) the most
powerful nation in the world, the Indians excepted :
yet but one word of their language (bria=“ town”)
has survived, and all historical traces of the people
have been obliterated. It is true that they are
represented in later times by the Getae, and these
in turn by the Daci, but neither of these can be
tracked either by history or language, unless we
accept Grimm’s more than doubtful identification
which would connect them with the Teutonic
branch. The remains of the Scythian language are
suflicient to establish the Indo-European atlinities of
that nation (Rawlinson’s Herod. iii. 196-203), but
insufficient to assign to it a definite place in the
family. The Scythians, as well as most of the no-
mad tribes associated with them, are lost to the eye
of the ethnologist, having been either absorbed into
other nationalities or swept away by the ravages of
The Sarmatae can be traced down to the
lazyges of Hungary and Podlachia, in which latter
district they survived until the 10th century of our
era (Dict. of Geog. ii. 8), and then they also vanish.
The Albanian language presents a problem of a
different kind: materials for research are not want-
ing in this case, but no definite conclusions have as
yet been drawn from them: the people who use
this tongue, the Skipetares as they call themselves,
are generally regarded as the representatives of the
old Illyrians, who in turn appear to have been
closely connected with the Thracians (Strab. vii.
p- 315; Justin, xi. 1), the name Dardani being
found both in Illyria and on the shores of the
Hellespont: it is not, therefore, improbable that
the Albanian may contain whatever vestiges of the
| old Thracian tongue still survive (Diefenbach, 0. 2.
to the province of Galatia, is now represented lin- |
p- 68). In the Italic peninsula the Etruscan tongue
remains as great an enigma as ever: its Indo-
European character is supposed to be established,
together with the probability of its being a mixed
language (Bunsen’s Ph. of H. i. 85-88). The result
of researches into the Umbrian language, as repre-
sented in the Eugubine tablets, the earliest of which
date from about 400 B.c.; into the Sabellian, as
represented in the tablets of Velletri and Antino ;
and into the Oscan, of which the remains are nu-
within historical times, without reference to the geo-
logical questions relating to the antiquity of man.
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
merous, have decided their position as members of
the Italic class (id. i. 90-94). The same cannot be
asserted of the Messapian or Iapygian language,
which stands apart from all neighbouring dialects.
Its Indo-European character is affirmed, but no
ethnological conclusion can as yet be drawn from
the scanty information afforded us (dd. i. 94).
Lastly, within the Celtic area there are ethnological
problems which we cannot pretend to solve. The
Ligurians, for instance, present one of these pro-
blems: were they Celts, but belonging to an earlier
migration than the Celts of history? Their name
has been referred to a Welsh original, but on this
no great reliance can be placed, as it would be in
this case a local (=coastmen) and not an ethnical
title, and might have been imposed on them by the
Celts. They evidently hold a posterior place to
the Iberians, inasmuch as they are said to have
driven a’section of this people across the Alps into
Italy. That they were distinct from the Celts is
asserted by Strabo (ii. p. 128), but the distinction
may have been no greater-than exists between the
British and the Gaelic branches of that race. The
admixture of the Celts and Iberians in the Spanish
peninsula is again a somewhat intricate question,
which Dr. Latham attempts to explain on the
ground that the term Celt (Κέλται) really meant
Iberian (Zthn. of Eur. p. 35). That such questions
as these should arise on a subject which carries us
back to times of hoar antiquity, forms no ground
for doubting the general conclusion that we can
account ethnologically for the population of the
European continent.
The Shemitic and Indo-European families cover
atter all but an insignificant portion of the earth’s
surface: the large areas of Northern and Eastern
Asia, the numerous groups of islands that line its
coast and stud the Pacific in the direction of South
America, and again the immense continent of
America itself, stretching well nigh from pole to
pole, remain to be accounted for. Historical aid
is almost wholly denied to the ethnologist in his
researches in these quarters; physiology and
language are his only guides. It can hardly,
therefore, be matter of surprise, if we are unable |
to obtain certainty, or even a reasonable degree of
probability, on this part of our subject. Much has
been done; but far more remains to be done before
the data for forming a conclusive opinion can be
obtained. In Asia, the languages fall into two
large classes—the monosyllabic, and the aggluti-
native. The former are represented ethnologically
by the Chinese, the latter by the various nations
classed together by Prof. M. Miiller under the
common head of Turanian. It is unnecessary for
us to discuss the correctness of his view in regard-
ing all these nations as members of one and the
same family. Whether weaccept or reject his
theory, the fact of a gradation of linguistic types
and of connecting links between the various |
branches remains unaffected, and for our present
moment. The monosyllabic type apparently be-
tokens the earliest movement from the common
home of the human race, and we should therefore |
assign a chronological priority to the settlement of |
the Chinese in the east and south-east of the conti-
nent.
cally into two divisions, a northern and southern.
The northern consists of a well-defined group, or
family, designated by Gerinan ethnologists the
Ural-Altaian.
VOL. 11.
The agglutinative languages fall geographi- |
ἱ
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 1553
branches:—(1) The Tungusian, covering a large
area, east of the river Yenisei, between lake Baikal
and the Tunguska. (2) The Mongolian, which
prevails over the Great Desert of Gobi, and among
the Kalmucks, wherever their nomad habits lead
them on the steppes either of Asia or Europe, in
the latter of which they are found about the lower
course of the Volga. (3) The Turkish, covering
an immense area from the Mediterranean in the
south-west to the river Lena in the north-east ;
in Europe spoken by the Osmanli, who form the
governing class in Turkey; by the Nogai, between
the Caspian and the Sea of Azoy ; and by various
Caucasian tribes. (4) The Samoiedic, on the coast
of the Arctic Ocean, between the White Sea in the
west and the river Anabara in the east. (5) The
Finnish, which is spoken by the Finns and Lapps ;
by the inhabitants of Esthonia and Livonia to the
south of the Gulf of Finland ; by various tribes
about the Volga (the Tcheremissians and Mordyi-
nians), and the Kama (the Votiakes and Permians) ;
and, lastly, by the Magyars of Hungary. ‘The
southern branch is subdivided into the following
four classes:—(1) The Tamulian, of the south of
Hindostan. (2) The Bhotiya, of Tibet, the sub-
Himalayan district (Nepaul and Bhotan), and the
Lohitic languages east of the Brahmapootra. (3)
The Tai, in Siam, Laos, Anam, and Pegu. (4) The
Malay, of the Malay peninsula, and the adjacent
\islands; the latter being the original settlement of
the Malay race, whence they spread in compara-
tively modern times to the mainland.
The early movements of the races representing
these several divisions, can only be divined by lin-
guistic tokens. Prof. M. Miiller assigns to the
northern tribes the following chronological order:
—Tungusian, Mongolian, Turkish, and Finnish;
and to the southern division the following :—Tai,
Malay, Bhotiya, and Tamulian (Ph. of H. i. 481).
Geographically it appears more likely that the
Malay preceded the Tai, inasmuch as they occu-
pied a more southerly district. The later move-
ments of the European branches of the northern
division can be traced historically. The Turkish
race commenced their westerly migration from the
neighbourhood of the Altai range in the Ist century
of our era; in the 6th they had reached the Cas-
pian and the Volga; in the 11th and 12th the
Turcomans took possession of their present quarters
south of Caucasus: in the 13th the Osmanli made
their first appearance in Western Asia; about the
middle of the 14th they crossed from Asia Minor
into Europe; and in the middle of the 15th they
had established themselves at Constantinople. The
Finnish race is supposed to have been originally
settled about the Ural range, and thence to have
migrated westward to the shores‘ of the Baltic,
which they had reached at a period anterior to the
Christian era; in the 7th century a branch pressed
southwards to the Danube, and founded the king-
'dom of Bulgaria, where, however, they have long
purpose the question is of comparatively little |
ceased to have any national existence. The Ugrian
|tribes, who are the early representatives of the
Hungarian Magyars, approached Europe from Asia
in the 5th and settled in Hungary in the 9th cen-
tury of our era. The central point from which the
various branches of the Turanian family radiated
would appear to be about lake Baikal. With
reoard to the ethnology of Oceania and America we
can say but little. he languages of the former
are generally supposed to be connected with the
It consists of the following five Malay.class (Bunsen, Ph. of H. ii. 114), but the
5G
1554 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
relations, both linguistic and ethnological, existing
between the Malay and the black, or Negrito popu-
lation, which is found on many of the groups of
islands, are not well defined. The approximation:
in language is far greater than in physiology
(Latham’s Lssays, pp. 213, 218; Garnett’s Ls-
says, p. 310), and in certain cases amounts to
identity (Kennedy’s Essays, p. 85) ; but the whole
subject is at present involved in obscurity. The
polysynthetic languages of North America are re-
garded as emanating from the Mongolian stock
(Bunsen, Ph. of H. ii. 111), and a close affinity is
said to exist between the North American and the
Kamskadale and Korean languages on the opposite
coast of Asia (Latham, Man and his Migr. p. 185).
The conclusion drawn from this would be that the
population of America entered by way of Behring’s
Straits. Other theories have, however, been broached
on this subject. It has been conjectured that the
chain of islands which stretches across the Pacific
may have conducted a Malay population to South
America; and, again, an African origin has been
claimed for the Caribs of Central America (Ken-
nedy’s Hssays, pp. 100-123).
In conclusion, we may safely assert that the ten-
dency of all ethnological and linguistic research is
to discover the elements of unity amidst the most
striking external varieties. Already the myriads
of the human race are massed together into a few
large groups. Whether it will ever be possible to
go beyond this, and to show the historical unity of
these groups, is more than we can undertake to say.
But we entertain the firm persuasion that in their
broad results these sciences will yield an increasing
.testimony to the truth of the Bible.
[The anthorities referred to in the foregoing
article are:—M. Miiller, Lectures on the Science of
Language, 1862; Bunsen, Philosophy of History,
2 vols., 1854; Renan, Histoire Générale des Lan-
gues Sémitiques, 3rd ed. 1863; Knobel, Volker-
tafel der Genesis, 1850; W. von Humboldt, Ueber
die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues,
1836 ; Delitzsch, Jeshurun, 1858 ; Transactions of
the Philological Society; WRawlinson, Herodotus,
4 vols., 1858; Pott, Etymologische Forschungen,
1833; Garnett, Lssays, 1859; Schleicher, Com-
pendium der vergleichenden Grammatik, 1861; Die-
fenbach, Origines Europeac, 1861; Ewald, Sprach-
wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, 1862.) [W.L.B. |
APPENDIX.—TOWER OF BABEL.
The Tower of Babel forms the subject of a pre-
vious article [BABEL, TowER OF]; but in conse-
quence of the discovery of a cuneiform inscription,
in which the Tower is mentioned in connexion with
the Confusion of Tongues, the eminent cuneiform
scholar Dr. Oppert has kindly sent the following
addition to the present article.
The history of the confusion of languages was
preserved at Babylon, as we learn by the testi-
monies of classical and Babylonian authorities
(Abydenus, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ed. Didot, vol.
iv.). Only the Chaldeans themselves did not admit
the Hebrew etymology of the name of their metro-
polis; they derived it from Lab-el, the door of El
(Kronos or Saturnus), whom Diodorus Siculus
states to have been the planet most adored by the
Babylonians.
The Talmudists say that the true site of the
Tower of Babel was at Borsif, the Greek Borsippa,
the Birs Nimrud, seven miles and a half from /7illch,
5.W., and nearly eleven miles fiom the northern |
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
ruins of Babylon. Several passages state that the
air of Borsippa makes forgetful (MDW WN,
avir mashkakh) ; and one rabbi says ‘that Borsif is
Bulsif, the Confusion of Tongues (Bereshit Rabba,
42,1). The Babylonian name of this locality
is Barsip or Barzipa, which we explain by Tower
of Tongues. The French expedition to Mesopotamia
found at the Birs Nimrud a clay cake, dated from
Barsip the 30th day of the 6th month of the 16th
year of Nabonid, and the discovery confirmed the hy-
pothesis of several travellers, who had supposed the
Birs Nimrud to contain the remains of Borsippa.
Borsippa (the Tongue Tower) was formerly a
suburb of Babylon, when the old Babel was merely
restricted to the northern ruins, before the great
extension of the city, which, according to ancient
writers, was the greatest that the sun ever warmed
with its beams. Nebuchadnezzar included it in the
great circumyallation of 480 stades, but left it out
of the second wall of 360 stades; and when the
exterior wall was destroyed by Darius, Borsippa
became independent of Babylon. The historical
writers respecting Alexander state that Borsippa
had a great sanctuary dedicated to Apollo and
Artemis (Strab. xvi. p. 739; Stephanus Byz. s. v.
Βόρσιππα), and the former is the building elevated
in modern times on the very basement of the old
Tower of Babel.
This building, erected by Nebuchadnezzar, is the
same that Herodotus describes as the Tower of
Jupiter Belus. In our Expedition to Mesopotamia ¢
we have given a description of this ruin, and proved
our assertion of the identity. This tower of He-
rodotus has nothing to do with the pyramid de-
scribed by Strabo, and which is certainly to be seen
in the remains called now Babil (the Mujellibeh of
Rich). The temple of Borsippa is written with an
ideogram,? composed of the signs for house and spirit
(anima), the real pronunciation of which was pro-
bably Sarakh, tower.
The temple consisted of a large substructure, a
stade (600 Babylonian feet) in breadth, and 75 feet
in height, over which were built seven other stages
of 25 feet each. Nebuchadnezzar gives notice of
this building in the Borsippa inscription. He
named it the temple of the Seven Lights of the
Earth, i. ὁ. the planets. The top was the temple of
Nebo, and in the substructure (igar) was a temple
consecrated to the god Sin, god of the month. This
building, mentioned jn the East India House in-
scription (col. iv, 1. 61), is spoken of by Herodotus
G. 181 &e:).
Here follows the Borsippa inscription :—** Nabu-
chodonosor, king of Babylon, shepherd of peoples,
who attests the immutable affection of Merodach,
the mighty ruler-exalting Nebo; the saviour, the
wise man who lends his ears to the orders of the
highest god; the lieutenant without reproach, the
repairer of the Pyramid and the Tower, eldest son
of Nabopallassar, king of Babylon.
“We say: Merodach, the great master, has cre-
ated me: he has imposed on me to reconstruct his
building. Nebo, the guardian over the legions of the
heaven and the earth, has charged my hands with
the sceptre of justice.
“ The Pyramid is the temple of the heaven and the
earth, the seat of Merodach, the chief of the gods ;
the place of the oracles, the spot of his rest, I have
adorned in the form of a cupola, with shining gold.
© Expédition en Mésopotamie, i. 208. Compare also
the trigonometrical survey of the river in the plates.
ad BIT. ZI. DA in syllabic characters,
TONGUES, GIFT OF
“The Tower, the eternal house, which 1 founded |.
and built, I have completed its magnificence with
silver, gold, other metals, stone, enamelled bricks,
fir and pine.
“The first, which is the house of the earth’s base,
the most ancient monument of Babylon, I built and
finished it; I have highly exalted its head with
bricks covered with copper.®
“We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the
house of the Seven Lights of the Earth, the most
ancient monument of Borsippa: A former king
built it (they reckon 42 ages), but he did not com-
plete its head. Since a remote time people had
abandoned it, without order expressing their words.
Since that time, the earthquake and the thunder
had dispersed its sun-dried clay; the bricks of the
casing had been split, and the earth of the interior
had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the creat
lord, excited my mind to repair this building. [1
did not change the site, nor did I take away the
foundation-stone. In a fortunate month, an aus-
picious day, I undertook to build porticoes around
the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt
bricks. I adapted the cirenits. [ put the inscrip-
tion of my name in the A7vtir of the porticoes.
_ “I set my hand to finish it, and to exalt its head.
As it had been in former times, so I founded, I
made it ; as it had been in ancient days, so I exalted
its summit.
“Nebo, son of himself, ruler who exaltest Mero-
dach, be propitious to my works to maintain my
authority. Grant me a life until the remotest
time, a sevenfold progeny, the stability of my
throne, the victory of my sword, the pacification of
foes, the triumph over the lands! In the columns
of thy eternal table, that fixes the destinies of the
heaven and of the earth, bless the course of my days,
inscribe the fecundity of my race.
“ἐ Tmitate, Ὁ Merodach, king of heaven and earth,
the father who begot thee; bless my buildings,
strengthen my authority. May Nebuchadnezzar,
the king-repairer, remain before thy face !”
This allusion to the Tower of the Tongues is the
only one that has as yet been discovered in the
cuneiform inscriptions.£ The story is a Shemitic
and not only a Hebrew one, and we have no reason
whatever to doubt of the existence of the same
story at Babylon.
The ruins of the building elevated on the spot
where the story placed the tower of the dispersion
of tongues, have therefore a more modern origin,
but interest nevertheless by their stupendous ap-
pearance.& [OpPERT. |
TONGUES, GIFT OF.—I. The history of a
word which has been used to express some special,
wonderful fact in the spiritual life of man is itself
full of interest. It may be a necessary preparation
for the study of the fact which that word repre-
sents.
Γλῶττα, or γλῶσσα, the word employed through-
out the N. T. for the gift now under consideration,
is used—(1.) for the bodily organ of speech; (2.)
for a foreign word, eae ted and half-naturalised in
Greek (Arist. Rhet. iii. 2, $14), ameaning which the
words “gloss”’ and “glossary” preserve for us ; (3.)
in Hellenistic Greek, after the pattern of the corre-
sponding Hebrew word (ἡγῇ), for “ speech” or
“language” (Gen. x. 55 Dan. i. 4, &e. Ke.).
e This Seat of building is expressly ‘mentioned by
Philostratus (Apoll. Tyan. i. 25) as Babylonian.
f See Expedition en Mésopotamie, tom. i, 200,
TONGUES, GIFT OF 1555
Each of these meanings might be the starting-
point for the application of the word to the gift of
tongues, and each accordingly has found those who
have maintained that it is so. (A). Eichhorn and
Bardili (cited by Bleek, Stud, u. Krit. 1829, p.
8, et seq.), and to some extent Bunsen (//ippolytus,
i. 9), starting from the first, see in the so-called
gift an inarticulate utterance, the cry as of a brute
creature, in which the tongue moves while the lips
refuse their office in making the sounds definite and
distinct. (B). Bleek himself (μέ supr. p. 33)
adopts the second meaning, and gives an interesting
collection of passages to prove that it was, in the
time of the N. T., the received sense. He infers
from this that to speak in tongues was to use un-
usual, poetic language—that the speakers were in a
high-wrought excitement which showed ‘itself in
mystic, figurative terms. In this view he had
been preceded by Ernesti (Opusc. Theolog.; see
Morning Watch, iv. 101) and Herder (Die Gabe
der Sprache, pp. 47, 70), the latter of whom ex-
tends the meaning to special mystical interpreta-
tions of the O.T. (C). The received traditional
view starts from the third meaning, and sees in
the gift of tongues a distinctly linguistic power.
We have to see which of these views has most to
commend it. (A), it is believed, does not meet
the condition of answering any of the facts of the
N. T., and errs in ignoring the more prominent
meaning of the word in later Greek. (B), though
true in some of its conclusions, and able, as far as
they are concerned, to support itself by the autho-
rity of Augustine (comp. De Gen. ad lit. xii. 8,
“* jinguam esse cum quis loquatur obscuras et mys-
ticas significationes”’), appears faulty, as failing
(1) to recognise the fact that the sense of the word
in the N. TI. was more likely to be determined by
that which it bore in the LXX. than by its meaning
in Greek historians or rhetoricians, and (2) to. meet
the phenomena of Actsii. (C) therefore commends
itself, as in this respect starting at least from the
right point, and likely to lead us to the truth
(comp. Olshausen, Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 528).
II. The chief passages from which we have to
draw our conclusion as to the nature and purpose
of the gift in question, are—(1.) Mark xvi. 17;
(2.) Acts ii. 1-13, x. 46, xix. 6 ; (3.) 1 Cor. xii. xiv;
It deserves notice that the chronological sequence of
these passages, as determined by the date of their
composition, is probably just the opposite of that
of the periods to which they severally refer. The
first group is later than the second, the second
than the third. It will be expedient, however,
whatever modifications this fact may suggest atter-
wards, to deal with the passages in their commonly
received order.
III. The promise of a new power coming from
the Divine Spirit, giving not only comfort and insight
into truth, but fresh powers of utterance of some
kind, appears once and again in our Lord’s teaching.
The disciples are to take no thought what they shall
speak, for the Spirit of their Father shall speak in
them (Matt. x. 19, 20; Mark xiii. 11). The lips
of Galilean peasants ara to speak freely and boldly
before kings. The only condition is that they are
“not to premeditate”—to yield themselves alto-
gether to the power that works on them. Thus
they shall have given to them “ἃ mouth and
wisdom” which no adversary shall be able “ to
& Several scholars, “we know, do not agree with us.
We gave our reasons five years ago, and our antagonists
have not yet refuted them.
5G 2
1556 TONGUES,
gainsay or resist.” In Mark xvi. 17 we have a
more definite term employed: ‘* They shall speak j
with new tongues (καιναῖς γλώσσαις). Starting, |
as above, from (C), it can hardly be questioned
that the obvious meaning of the promise is that the
disciples should speak in new languages which they
had not learnt as other men learn them. It must
be remembered, however, that the critical questions
connected with Mark xvi. 9-20 (comp. Meyer,
GIFT OF
Tischendorf, Alford, im loc.) make it doubtful
whether we have here the language of the Evange-
list—doubtful therefore whether we have the zpsis-
sima verba of the Lord himself, or the nearest
approximation of some early transcriber to the
contents of the section, no longer extant, with
which the Gospel had originally ended. In this
case it becomes possible that the later phenomena;
or later thoughts respecting them, may have de-
termined the language in which the promise is re-
corded. On either hypothesis, the promise deter-
mines nothing as to the nature of the gift, or the
purpose for which it was to be employed. It was
to bea “sign.” It was not to belong to a chosen
few only—to Apostles and Evangelists. It was to
“follow them that believed”—to be among the
fruits of the living intense faith which raised men
above the common level of their lives, and brought
them within the kingdom of God.
1V. The wonder of the day of Pentecost is, in its
broad features, familiar enough to us. The days
since the Ascension had been spent as in a ceaseless
ecstasy of worship (Luke xxiv. 53). The 120 dis-
ciples were gathered together, waiting with eager
expectation for the coming of power from on high—
of the Spirit that was to give them new gifts of
utterance, The day of Pentecost was come, which
they, like all other Israelites, looked on as the wit-
ness of the revelation of the Divine Will given on
Sinai. Suddenly there swept over them ‘‘ the
sound as of a rushing mighty wind,” such as
Ezekiel had heard in the visions of God by Chebar
(i. 24, xliii. 2), at all times the recognised symbol
of a spiritual creative power (comp. Ez. xxxvii.
(ele siGent dancin leKe sax 2. Chrys v.14);
Ps. civ. 3,4). With this there was another sign
associated even more closely with their thoughts
of the day of Pentecost. There appeared unto them
“ tongues like as of fire.” Of old the brightness’
had been seen gleaming through the “ thick cloud”
(Ex. xix. 18), or “ enfolding ” the Divine glory (Ez.
i. 4). Now ‘the tongues were distributed (διαμερι-
ζύμεναι), lichting upon each of them.* The out-
ward symbol Was accompanied by an inward
change. They were “ filled with the Holy Spirit,”
as s the Baptist and thei Lord had been (Luke i.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
15, iv. 1), though they themselves had as yet no
experience of a like kind. ‘ They began to speak
with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utter-
ance.’ The narrative that follows leaves hardly
any room for doubt that the writer meant to con-
vey the impression that the disciples were heard
to speak in languages of which they had no col-
loquial knowledge previously. The direct state-
ment, ‘They heard them speaking, each man in
his own dialect,” the long list of nations, the words
put into the lips of the hearers—these can scarcely
be reconciled with the theories of Bleek, Herder,
and Bunsen, without a wilful distortion of the evi-
dence.» What view are we to take of a pheno-
menon so marvellous and exceptional? What views
have men actually taken? (1.) The prevalent belief
of the Church has. been, that in the Pentecostal
gift the disciples received a supernatural knowledge
of all such languages as they needed for their work
as Evangelists. ‘The knowledge was permanent,
and could be used at their own will, as though it
had been acquired in the common order of things,
With this they went forth to preach to the nations.
Differences of opinion are found as to special points.
Augustine thought that each disciple spoke in all
languages (De Verb. Apost. clxxv. 3); Chrysostom
that each had a special language assigned to him,
and that this was the indication of the country
which he was called to evangelize (Hom. in Act.
ii.). Some thought that the number of languages
spoken was 70 or 75, after the number of the sons
of Noah (Gen. x.) or the sons of Jacob (Gen. xlvi.),
or 120, after that of the disciples (comp. Baronius,
Annal. i. 197). Most were agreed in seeing in the
Pentecostal gift the antithesis to the confusion of
tongues at Babel, the witness of a restored unity.
“ Poena linguarum dispersit homines, donum lin-
guarum dispersos in unum populum collegit”
(Grotius, in loc.).
Widely diffused as this belief has been, it must
be remembered that it goes beyond the data with
which the N. T. supplies us. Each instance of the
gift recorded in the Acts connects it, not with the
work of teaching, but with that of praise and
adoration; not with the normal order of men’s
lives, but with exceptional epochs in them. It
came and went as the Spirit gave men the power
of utterance—in this respect analogous to the other
gift of prophecy with which it was so often associ-
ated (Acts ii. 16, 17, xix. 6)—and was not pos-
sessed by them as a thing to be used this way or
that, according as they chose, ¢ The speech of St.
Peter which follow s, like most other speeches ad-
dressed to a Jerusalem audience, was spoken appa~
rently in Aramaic.¢ When St. Paul, who ‘‘ spake
a The sign in this case had its starting- point in the
traditional belief of Israelites. There had been, it was said,
tongues of fire on the original Pentecost (Schneckenburger,
Beitriage, p. 8, referring to Buxtorf, De Synag., and Philo,
De Decal.). ‘Vhe later Rabbis were not without their
legends of a like “baptism of fire.’ Nicodemus ben Go-
rion and Jochanan ben Zaccai, men of great holiness and
wisdom, went into an upper chamber to expound the Law,
and the house began to be full of fire (Lightfoot, Harm.
iii. 14; Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. in Acts ii.).
b It deserves notice that here also there are analogies
in Jewish belief. Every word that went forth from the
mouth of God on Sinai was said to have been divided into
the seventy languages of the sons of men (Wetstein, on
Acts ii.); and the bath-iol, the echo of the voice of God,
was heard by every man in his own tongue (Schnecken-
burger, Beitrdge). So, as regards the power of speaking,
there was a tradition that the great Rabbis of the Sanhe-
drim could speak all the seventy languages of the world.
ς The first discussion whether the gift of tongues was
bestowed “per modum habitus” with which I am ac-
quainted is found in Salmasius, De Ling. Hebr. (quoted by
Thilo, De Ling. Ignit. in Menthen’s Thesaurus, ii. 497),
whose conclusion is in the negative. Even Calmet admits
that it was not permanent (Comm. in Joc.), Compare also
Wetsiein, in loc.; and Olshausen, Stud. u. Krit. 1829,
p- 546.
i Dr. Stanley suggests Greek, as addressed to the Hel-
lenistic Jews who were present in such large numbers
(Excurs. on Gift of Tongnes, Corinthians, p. 260, 2nd ed.).
That St. Peter and the Apostles could speak a provincial
Greek is probable enough ; but in this instance the speech
is addressed chiefly to the permanent dwellers at Jeru-
salem (Acts ii. 22, 36), and was likely, like that of St. Paul
(Acts xxi. 40), to be spoken in their tongue. To most of
the Hellenistic hearers this would be intelligible enough.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
with tongues more than all,’’ was at Lystva, there
is no mention made of his using the language of
Lycaonia. It is almost implied that he did not
understand it (Acts xiv. 11). Not one word in
the discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. xii.-xiv.
implies that the gift was of this nature, or given
for this purpose. If it had been, the Apostle would
surely have told those who possessed it to go and
preach to the outlying nations of the heathen world,
instead of disturbing the Church by what, on this
hypothesis, would have been a needless and offensive
ostentation (comp. Stanley, Corinthians, p. 261, 2nd
ed.). Without laying much stress on the tradition
that St. Peter was followed in his work by Mark as
an interpreter (ἑρμηνευτής) ( Papias, in Euseb. H.L.
Titus in the same character— quia non potuit
divinorum sensuum majestatem digno Graeci elo-
quii sermone explicare” (Hieron. quoted by Estius
in 2 Cor. ii.)—they must at least be received as
testimonies that the age which was nearest to the
phenomena did not take the same view of them as
those have done who lived at a greater distance.
The testimony of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. vi. 6),
sometimes urged in support of the common view,
in reality decides nothing, and, as far as it goes,
tends against it (infra). Nor, it may be added,
within the limits assigned by the providence of
God to the working of the Apostolic Church, was
such a gift necessary. Aramaic, Greek, Latin, the
three languages of the inscription on the cross, were
media of intercourse throughout the empire. Greek
alone sufficed, as the N. T. shows us, for the
Churches of the West, for Macedonia and Achaia,
for Pontus, Asia, Phrygia. The conquests of Alex-
ander and of Rome had made men diglottic to an
extent which has no parallel in history. (2.) Some
interpreters, influenced in part by these facts, have
seen their way to another solution of the difficulty
by changing the character of the miracle. It lay
not in any new power bestowed on the speakers,
but in the impression produced on the hearers.
Words which the Galilean disciples uttered in their
own tongue were heard by those who listened as in
their native speech. This view we find adopted by
Gregory of Nyssa (De Spir. Sanct.), discussed, but
not accepted, by Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat.
xliv.), and reproduced by Erasmus (in /oc.). A
modification of the same theory is presented by
Schneckenburger (Beitrdge), and in part adopted
by Olshausen (/. c.) and Neander (Pflanz. u. Leit.
i. 15). The phenomena of somnambulism, of the
so-called mesmeric state, are referred to as analo-
gous. The speaker was en rapport with his hearers ;
the latter shared the thoughts of the former, and
so heard them, or seemed to hear them, in their
own tongues,
There are, it is believed, weighty reasons against
both the earlier and later forms of this hypothesis.
(1.) It is at variance with the distinct statement
of Acts ii. 4, ‘They began to speak with other
tongues.” (2.) It at once multiplies the miracle,
and degrades its character. Not the 120 disciples,
but the whole multitude of many thousands, are in
this case the subjects of it. The gift no longer
connects itself with the work of the Divine Spirit,
following on intense faith and earnest prayer, but
is a mere physical prodigy wrought upon men who
are altogether wanting in the conditions of capacity
for such a supernatural power (Mark xvi. 17).
(3.) It involves an element of falsehood. The
miracle, on this view, was wrought to make men
TONGUES, GIFT OF 1557
believe what was not actually the fact. (4.) It is
altogether inapplicable to the phenomena of 1 Cor.
xiv.
(3.) Critics of a negative school have, as might
be expected, adopted the easier course of rejecting the
narrative either altogether or in part. ‘The state-
ments do not come from an eye-witness, and may
be an exaggerated report of what actually took
place—a legend with or without a historical founda-
tion. Those who recognise such a groundwork see
in ‘ the rushing mighty wind,” the hurricane of a
thunderstorm, the fresh breeze of morning; in the
“tongues like as of fire,’ the flashings of the
electric fluid; in the ‘‘ speaking with tongues,”’ the
| loud screams of men, not all Galileans, but coming
San = τῇ Ν ς | ©
iii. 30), that even St. Paul was accompanied by |
from many lands, overpowered by strong excite-
ment, speaking in mystical, figurative, abrupt ex-
clamations. ‘They see in this ‘‘ the ery of the new-
born Christendom.” (Bunsen, Hippolytus. ii. 12;
Ewald, Gesch. Isr. vi. 110; Bleek, 7. c.; Herder,
ἰ. c.) From the position occupied by these writers,
such a view was perhaps natural enough. It does
not fall within the scope of this article to discuss in
detail a theory which postulates the incredibility of
any fact beyond the phenomenal laws of nature,
and the falsehood of St. Luke as a narrator.
V. What, then, are the facts actually brought
before us? What inferences may be legitimately
drawn from them ?
(1.) The utterance of words by the disciples, in
other languages than their own Galilean Aramaic,
is, as has been said, distinctly asserted.
(2.) The words spoken appear to have been de-
termined, not by the will of the speakers, but by
the Spirit which ‘“ gave them utterance.” The out-
ward tongue of flame was the symbol of the “ burn-
ing fire” within, which, as in the case of the older
prophets, could not be repressed (Jer. xx. 9).
(3.) The word used, ἀποφθέγγεσθαι, not merely
λαλεῖν, has in the LXX. a special, though not an
exclusive, association with the oracular speech of
true or false prophets, and appears to imply some
peculiar, perhaps musical, solemn intonation (comp.
1 Chr. xxv. 1; Ez. xiii. 9; Trommii Concordant.
5. v.; Grotius and Wetstein, in loc.; Andrewes,
Whitsunday Sermons, i.).
(4.) The ‘tongues’ were used as an instru-
ment, not of teaching but of praise. At first, in-
deed, there were none present to be taught. The
disciples were by themselves, all sharing equally in
the Spirit’s gifts. When they were heard by others,
it was as proclaiming the praise, the mighty and
great works, of God (μεγαλεῖα). What they uttered
was not a warning, or reproof, or exhortation, but
a doxology (Stanley, /. c.; Baumgarten, Apostel-
gesch. §3). When the work of teaching began, it
was in the language of the Jews, and the utterance
of tongues ceased.
(5.) Those who spoke them seemed to others to
be under the influence of some strong excitement,
“full of new wine.” They were not as other men,
or as they themselves had been before. Some re-
cognised, indeed, that they were in a higher state,
but it was one which, in some of its outward fea-
tures, had a counterfeit likeness in the lower.
When St. Paul uses—in Eph. v. 18, 19 (πληροῦσθε
mvevatos )—the all but selfsame word which St.
Luke uses here to describe the state of the disciples
(ἐπλήσθησαν πνεύματος ἁγίου), it is to contrast it
with “ being drunk with wine,’ to associate it with
“6 psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs.”
(6.) Questions as to the mode of operation of a
1558 TONGUES, GIFT OF
power above the common laws of bodily or mental
life lead us to a region where our words should be
“ wary and few.” There is the risk of seeming to
reduce to the known order of nature that which is
by confession above and beyond it. In this and
in other cases, however, it may be possible, with-
out irreverence or doubt —following the guidance
which Scripture itself gives us—to trace in what
way the new power did its work, and brought
about such wonderful results. It must be remem-
bered, then, that in all likelihood such words as
they then uttered had been heard by the disciples
before. At every feast which they had ever at-
tended from their youth up, they must have been
brought into contact with a crowd as varied as
that which was present on the day of Pentecost,
the pilgrims of each nation uttering their praises
and doxologies. The difference was, that, before, the
Galilean peasants had stood in that crowd, neither
heeding, nor understanding, nor remembering what
they heard, still less able to reproduce it; now they
had the power of speaking it clearly and freely.
The Divine work would in this case take the form
of a supernatural exaltation of the memory, not of
imparting a miraculous knowledge of words never
heard before. We have the authority of John xiv.
26 for seeing in such an exaltation one of the
special works of the Divine Comforter.
(7.) The gift of tongues, the ecstatic burst of
praise, is definitely asserted to be a fulfilment of
the prediction of Joel ii. 28, The twice-repeated
burden of that prediction is, ‘I will pour out my
Spirit,” and the effect on those who receive it is
that ‘* they shall prophesy.” We may see there-
fore in this special gift that which is analogous to
one element at least of the προφητεία of the O. T.;
but the element of teaching is, as we have seen,
excluded. In 1 Cor. xiv. ‘the gift of tongues and
προφητεία (in this, the N. T. sense of the word)
ave placed in direct contrast. We are led, there-
fore, to look for that which answers to the Gift of
Tongues in the other element of prophecy which is
included in the O. T. use of the word; and this is
found in the ecstatic praise, the burst of song, which
appears under that name in the two histories of Saul
(1 Sam. x, 5-13, xix. 20-24), and in the services of
the Temple (1 Chr. xxv. 3).
(8.) The other instances in the Acts offer essen-
tially the same phenomena. By implication in
xiv. 15-19, by express statement in x. 47, xi. 15,
17, xix. 6, it belongs to special critical epochs, at
which faith is at its highest, and the’ imposition of
the Apostles’ hands brought men into the same
state, imparted to them the same gift, as they had
themselves experienced. In this case, too, the exer-
cise of the gift is at once connected with and dis-
tinguished from ‘* prophecy” in its N. T. sense.
VI. The First Epistle to the Cor inthians supplies
fuller data. The spiritual gifts are classified and
compared, arranged, apparently, according to their
worth, placed under regulation. This fact is in itself
significant. Though recognised as coming from the
one Divine Spirit, they are not therefore exempted
from the control of man’s reason and conscience.
The Spirit acts through the calm judgment of the
Apostle or the Church, not less but more autho-
ritatively than in the most rapturous and wonderful
utterances. The facts which may be gathered are
briefly these :
(1.) The phenomena of the gift of tongues were
not confined to one Church or section of a Church,
If we find them at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, by
TONGUES, GIFT OF
implication at Thessalonica also (1 Thess. v. 19),
we may well believe that they were frequently re-
curring wherever the spirits of men were passing
through the same stages of experience.
(2.) The comparison of gifts, in both the lists
given by St. Paul (1 Cor. xii. 8-10, 28-30), places
that of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues,
lowest in the scale. They are not among the greater
gifts which men are to “ covet earnestly ” (1 Cor.
xii. 31, xiv. 5). As signs of a life quickened into
expression where before it had been dead and dumb,
the Apostle could wish that “they all spake with
tongues” (1 Cor. xiv. 5), could rejoice that he
himself ‘‘ spake with tongues more than they all”
(1 Cor. xiv. 18). It was good to have known the
working of a power raising them above the common
level of their consciousness. They belonged, how-
ever, to the childhood of the Christian life, not to its
maturity (1 Cor. xiv. 20). They brought with
them the risk of disturbance (ibid. 23). The only
safe rule for the Church was not to “ forbid them ”
(ibid. 39), not to ‘‘ quench” them (1 Thess. v. 19),
lest in so doing the spiritual life of which this was
the first utterance should be crushed and extin-
guished too, but not in any way to covet or excite
them. This language, as has been stated, leaves
it hardly possible to look on the gift as that of a
linguistic knowledge bestowed for the purpose of
evangelising.
(3.) The main characteristic of the ‘ tongue”
(now used, as it were, technically, without the
epithet “new” or “ other”) © is that it is unintel-
ligible. The man ‘‘ speaks mysteries,” prays, blesses,
gives thanks, in the tongue (ἐν πνεύματι as equi-
valent to ἐν γλώσσῃ, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 16), but no
one understands him (ἀκούει). He can hardly be
said, indeed, to understand himself. The πνεῦμα
in him is acting without the co-operation of the
νοῦς (1 Cor. xiv. 14). He speaks not to men, but
to himself and to God (comp. Chrysost. Hom. 35, in
1 Cor.). In spite of this, however, the gift might .
and did contribute to the building up of a man’s own
life (1 Cor. xiv. 4). This might be the only way
in which some natures could be roused out of the
apathy of a sensual life, or the dulness of a formal
ritual. The ecstasy of adoration which seemed to
men madness, might be a refreshment unspeakable
to one who was weary with the subtle question-
ings of the intellect, to whom all familiar and in-
telligible words were fraught with recollections of
controversial bitterness or the wanderings of doubt
(comp. a passage of wonderful power as to this use
of the gift by Edw. Irving, Morning Watch, v
8)»
᾿ (4.) The peculiar nature of the gift leads the
Apostle into what appears, at first, a contradic-
tion. ‘Tongues are for a sign,” not to believers,
but to those who do not believe; yet the effect on
unbelievers is not that of attracting but repelling.
A meeting in which the gift of tongues was exer-
cised without restraint, would seem to a heathen
visitor, or even to the plain common-sense Chris-
tian (the ἰδιώτης, the man without a χάρισμα), to
be an assembly of madmen. ‘The history of the
day of Pentecost may help us to explain the pa-
radox. The tongues area sign. They witness that
the daily experience of men is not the limit of their
spiritual powers. They disturb, startle, awaken, are
given εἰς τὸ ἐκπλήττεσθαι (Chrysost. ‘Hom. 36, in
© The reader will hardly need to be reminded that
“unknown” is an interpolation of the A. V.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
1 Cor.), but they are not, and cannot be, the grounds
of conviction and belief (so Const. Apost. viii.).
They involve of necessity a disturbance of the equi-
librium between the understanding and the feelings.
Therefore it is that, for those who believe already,
prophecy is the greater gift. Five clear words
spoken from the mind of one man to the mind and
conscience of another, are better than ten thousand
of these more startling and wonderful phenomena.
(5.) There remains the question whether these also
were ‘‘ tongues” in the sense of being languages,
of which the speakers had little or no previous know-
ledge, or whether we are to admit here, though not in
Acts ii., the theories which see in them only unusual
forms of speech (Bleek), or inarticulate cries (Bun-
sen), or all but inaudible whisperings (Wieseler, in
Olshausen, in /oc.). The question is not one for a
dogmatic assertion, but it is believed that there is
a preponderance of evidence leading us to look on
the phenomena of Pentecost as representative. It
must have been from them that the word tongue de-
rived its new and special meaning. The companion
of St. Paul, and St. Paul himself, were likely to use
the same word in the same sense. In the absence
of a distinct notice to the contrary, it is probable
that the gift would manifest itself in the same
form at Corinth as at Jerusalem, The “ divers
kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. xii. 28), the ‘‘ tongues of
men” (1 Cor. xiii. 1), point to differences of some
kind, and it is at least easier to conceive of these as
differences of language than as belonging to utter-
ances all equally wild and inarticulate. The position
maintained by Lightfoot (Harm. of Gosp.on Acts ii.),
that the gift of tongues consisted in the power of
speaking and understanding the true Hebrew of the
O. T., may seem somewhat extravagant, but there
seems ground for believing that Hebrew and Aramaic
words had over the minds of Greek converts at
Corinth a power which they failed to exercise when
translated, and that there the utterances of the
tongues were probably in whole, or in part, in that
language. Thus, the “ Maranatha” of 1 Cor. xvi.
22, compared with xii. 3, leads to the inference that
that word had been spoken under a real or counter-
feit inspiration. It was the Spirit that led men to
cry Abba, as their recognition of the fatherhood of
God (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv.6). Ifwe are to attach
any definite meaning to the “ tongues of angels ” in
1 Cor. xiii. 1, it must be by connecting it with the
words surpassing human utterance, which St. Paul
heard as in Paradise (2 Cor. xii. 4), and these again
with the great Hallelujah hymns of which we read
in the Apocalypse (Rev. xix. 1-6; Stanley, /. c.;
Ewald, Gesch. Isr. vi. p. 117). The retention of
other words like Hosanna and Sabaoth in the worship
of the Church, of the Greek formula of the Kyrie
Eleisen in that of the nations of the West, is an ex-
emplification of the same feeling operating in other
ways after the special power had ceased.
(6.) Here also, as in Acts ii., we have to think
of some peculiar intonation as frequently charac-
terising the exercise of the “ tongues.” The analogies
which suggest themselves to St. Paul’s mind are
those of the pipe, the harp, the trumpet (1 Cor.
xiv. 7, 8). In the case of one “singing in the
spirit” (1 Cor. xiv. 15), but not with the under-
standing also, the strain of ecstatic melody must
f Neander (Pflanz. wu. Leit. i. 15) refers to the effect
produced by the preaching of St. Bernard upon hearers
who did not understand one word of the Latin in which
he preached (Opp. ii. 119, ed. Mabillon) as an instance of
TONGUES, GIFT OF 1559
have been all that the listeners could perceive,
To ‘‘sing and make melody,” is specially charac-
teristic of those who are filled with the Spirit
(Eph. v. 19). Other forms of utterance less dis-
tinctly musical, yet not less mighty to stir the
minds of men, we may trace in the “cry” (Rom.
viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6) and the “ ineffable groanings”’
(Rom. viii. 26) which are distinctly ascribed to
the work of the Divine Spirit. To those who
know the wonderful power of man’s voice, as the
organ of his spirit, the strange, unearthly charm
which belongs to some of its less normal states,
the influence even of individual words thus uttered,
especially of words belonging to a language which
is not that of our common lite (comp. Hilar. Diac.
Comm. in 1 Cor, xiv.), it will not seem strange
that, even in the absence of a distinct intellectual
consciousness, the gift should take its place among
the means by which a man “built up” his own
life, and might contribute, if one were present to
expound his utterances, to ‘ edify”’ others also.f
(7.) Connected with the “tongues,” there was,
as the words just used remind us, the correspond-
ing power of interpretation, It might belong to
any listener (1 Cor. xiv. 27). It might belong to
the speaker himself when he returned to the ordi-
nary level of conscious thought (1 Cor. xiv. 13),
Its function, according to the view that has been
here taken, must have been twofold. The inter-
preter had first to catch the foreign words, Aramaic
or others, which had mingled more or less largely
with what was uttered, and then to find a meaning
and an order in what seemed at first to be without
either, to follow the loftiest flights and most intri-
cate windings of the enraptured spirit, to trace the
subtle associations which linked together words and
thoughts that seemed at first to have no point of
contact. Under the action of one with this insight
the wild utterances of the “ tongues” might become
a treasure-house of deep truths. Sometimes, it
would appear, not even this was possible. The
power might be simply that of sound. As the pipe
or harp, played boldly, the hand struck at random
over the strings, but with no διαστολή; no musical
interval, wanted the condition of distinguishable
melody, so the ‘ tongues,” in their extremest form,
passed beyond the limits of interpretation. There
might be a strange awfulness, or a strange sweet-
ness as of “the tongues of angels,” but what it
meant was known only to God (1 Cor. xiv. 7-11).
VII. (1.) Traces of the gift are found, as has
been said, in the Epistles to the Romans, the Gala-
tians, the Ephesians. From the Pastoral Epistles,
from those of St. Peter and St. John, they are alto-
gether absent, and this is in itself significant, The
life of the Apostle and of the Church has passed
into a calmer, more normal state. Wide truths,
abiding graces, these are what he himself lives in
and exhorts others to rest on, rather than exceptional
χαρίσματα, however marvellous. The “ tongues”’
are already “ ceasing ’’ (1 Cor. xiii. 8), as a thing
belonging to the past. Love, which even when
“ tongues” were mightiest, he had seen to be above
all gitts, has become more and more, all in all, to him.
(2.) It is probable, however, that the disappear-
ance of the “tongues ” was gradual. As it would
have been impossible to draw the precise line of de-
this. Like phenomena are related of St. Antony of Padua
and St. Vincent Ferrer (Acta Sanctorum, June 24 and
April 5), of which this is probably the explanation.
(Comp. also Wolff, Curae Philolog. in N. T. Acts ii.)
1560 TONGUES, GIFT OF
marcation when the προφητεία of the Apostolic age
passed into the διδασκαλία that remained perma-
nently in the Church, so there must have been a
time when “ tongues” were still heard, though less
frequently, and with less striking results. ὙΠῸ tes-
timony of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. v. 6) that there
were brethren in his time ‘‘ who had prophetic
gifts, and spoke through the Spirit in all kinds of
tongues,’ though it does not prove, what it has
sometimes been allesed to prove, the permanence of
the gift in the individual, or its use in the work of
evangelising (Wordsworth on Acts ii.), must be
admitted as evidence of the existence of phenomena
like those which we have met with in the Church
of Corinth. For the most part, however, the part
which they had filled in the worship of the Church
was supplied by the “ hymns and spiritual songs”
of the succeeding age. In the earliest of these, dis-
tinct in character from either the Hebrew psalms or
the later hymns of the Church, marked by a strange
mixture of mystic names, and half-coherent thoughts
(such e.g. as the hymn with which Clement of
Alexandria ends his Παιδαγωγός, and the earliest
Sibylline verses) some have seen the influence of the
ecstatic utterances in which the strong feelings of
adoration had originally shown themselves (Nitzsch,
Christl. Lehre, ii. p. 268).
After this, within the Church we lose nearly all
traces of them. The mention of them by Eusebius
(Comm. in Ps. xlvi.) is vague and uncertain. The
tone in which Chrysostom speaks of them (Comin.
in 1 Cor. xiv.) is that of one who feels the whole
subject to be obscure, because there are no pheno-
mena within his own experience at all answering to
it. The whole tendency of the Church was to
maintain reverence and order, and to repress all
approaches to the ecstatic state. Those who yielded
to it took refuge, as in the case of Tertullian
(infra), in sects outside the Church. Symptoms
of what was then looked on as an evil, showed
themselves in the 4th century at Constantinople—
wild, inarticulate cries, words passionate but of little
meaning, almost convulsive gestures—and were met
by Chrysostom with the sternest possible reproof
(Hom. in Is. vi. 2, ed. Migne, vi. p. 100).
VIII. (1.) A wider question of deep interest pre-
sents itself. Can we find in the religious history
of mankind any facts analogous to the manifesta-
tion of the ‘‘ tongues”? Recognising, as we do, the
great gap which separates the work of the Spirit
on the day of Pentecost from all others, both in its
origin and its fruits, there is, it is believed, no reason
for rejecting the thought that there might be like
phenomena standing to it in the relation of fore-
shadowings, approximations, counterfeits. Other
χαρίσματα of the Spirit, wisdom, prophecy, helps,
governments, had or have analogies, in special states
of men’s spiritual life, at other times and under
other conditions, and so may these. The three cha-
racteristic phenomena are, as has been seen, (1) an
ecstatic state of partial or entire unconsciousness,
the human will being, as it were, swayed by a
power above itself; (2) 2) the utterance of words in
tones startling and. impressive, but often conveying
no distinct meaning; (3) the use of languages
g Peep. The word, omitted in its place, deserves a sepa-
rate notice. It is used in the A. V. of Is. viii. 19, x. 14,
as the equivalent of }|SD¥, “to chirp” or “cry.” The
Latin pipio, from which it comes, is, like the Hebrew,
onomatopoetic, and is used to express the wailing cry of
“young chickens or infant children. In this sense it is
TONGUES, GIFT OF
which the speaker at other times was unable to con-
verse in.
(2.) The history of the O. T. presents us with
some instances in which the gift of prophecy has
accompaniments of this nature. The word includes
something move than the utterance of a distinct
message of God. Saul and his messengers come
under the power of the Spirit, and he lies on the
ground, all night, stripped of his kingly armour,
and joining in the wild chant of the company of
prophets, or pouring out his own utterances to the
sound of their music (1 Sam. xix. 243; comp. Stan-
ley, J. c.).
(3.) We cannot exclude the false prophets and
diviners of Israel from the range of our inquiry.
As they, in their work, dress, pretensions, were
counterfeits of those who truly bore the name, so
we may venture to trace in other things that which
resembled, more or less closely, what had accom-
panied the exercise of the Divine gift. And here
we have distinct records of strange, mysterious in-
tonations. The veutriloquist wizards (οἱ éyyao-
τρίμυθοι, οἱ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας φωνοῦσιν) “ peep ὅ
and mutter” (Is. vili. 19). The ‘‘ voice of one
who has a familiar spirit,’’ comes low out of the
ground (Is. xxix. 4). The false prophets simulate
with their tongues (ἐκβάλλοντας προφητείας
γλώσσης, LXX.) the low voice with which the
true prophets announced that the Lord had spoken
(Jer. xxiii. 31; comp. Gesen. Thes. s. v. DN).
(4.) The quotation by St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 21)
from Is. xxviii. 11 (* With men of other tongues
(ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις) and other lips will I speak
unto this people”), has a significance of which we
ought not to lose sight. The common interpreta-
tion sees in that passage only a declaration that
those who had refused to listen to the Prophets
should be taught a sharp lesson by the lips of alien
conquerors, Ewald (Prophet. in loc.), dissatisfied
with this, sees in the new teaching the voice of
thunder striking terror into men’s minds. St. Paul,
with the phenomena of the “‘tongues”’ present to
his mind, saw in them the fulfilment of the Pro-
phet’s words. Those who turned aside from the
true prophetic message should be left to the darker,
“‘stammering,” more mysterious utterances, which
were in the older, what the ‘‘ tongues”? were in the
later Ecclesia. A remarkable parallel to the text
thus interpreted is found in Hos. ix. 7. There also
the people are threatened with the withdrawal of
the true prophetic insight, and in its stead there is
to be the wild delirium, the ecstatic madness of the
counterfeit (comp. especially the LXX., 6 προφήτης
ὁ παρεστηκώς, ἄνθρωπος ὃ πνευματοφόροΞ).
(5.) The history of heathen oracles presents, it
need hardly be said, examples of the orgiastic state,
the condition of the μάντις as- distinct froth the
προφήτης, in which the wisest of Greek thinkers
recognised the lower type of inspiration (Plato,
Timaeus, 72 B; Bleek, /. c.). The Pythoness and
the Sibyl are as if possessed by a power which they
cannot resist. They labour under the afflatus of
the god. The wild, unearthly sounds (ὁ nec mor-
tale sonans’’), often hardly coherent, burst from
their lips. It remains for interpreters to collect the
used in the first of these passages for the low ery of the
false soothsayers, in the second for that of birds whom
the hand of the spoiler snatches from their nests. In
Is. xxxviii. 14, where the same word is used in the
Hebrew, the A. V. gives, “ Like a crane or a swallow, so
did I chatter.”
TONGUES, GIFT OF
seattered utterances, and to give them shape and
meaning (Virg. Aen. vi. 45, 98, et seq.).
(6.) More distinct parallels ave found in the ae-
counts of the wilder, more excited sects which have,
from time to time, appeared in the history of Chris-
tendom. Tertullian (de Anim. c.9), as a Montanist,
claims the “ revelationum charismata”’ as given to
a sister of that sect. They came to her “inter
dominica solemnia;”’ she was, “per ecstasin, in
spiritu,” conversing with angels, and with the
Lord himself, seeing and hearing mysteries (‘ sacra-
menta”), reading the hearts of men, prescribing
remedies for those who needed them. The move-
ment of the Mendicant orders in the 13th century,
the prophesyings of the 16th in England, the early
history of the disciples of George Fox, that of the
Jansenists in France, the Revivals under Wesley and
Whitefield, those of a later date in Sweden, Ame-
rica, and Ireland have, in like manner, been fruitful
in ecstatic phenomena more or less closely resem-
bling those which we are now considering.
(7.) The history of the French prophets at the
commencement of the 18th century presents some
facts of special interest. The terrible sufferings
caused by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
were pressing with intolerable severity on the Hu-
guenots of the Cevennes. The persecuted flocks met
together with every feeling of faith and hope strung
to its highest pitch. The accustomed order of
worship was broken, and labouring men, children,
and female servants, spoke with rapturous eloquence
as the messengers of God. Beginning in 1686, then
crushed for a time, bursting forth with fresh vio-
lence in 1700, it soon became a matter of almost
European celebrity. Refugees arrived in London
in 1706, claiming the character of prophets (Lacy,
Cry from the Desert; N. Peyrat, Pastors in the
Wilderness). An Englishman, John Lacy, became
first a convert and then a leader. The convulsive
ecstatic utterances of the sect drew down the ridicule
of Shaftesbury (On Enthusiasm). Calamy thought
it necessary to enter the lists against their preten-
sions (Caveat against the New Prophets). They
gained a distinguished proselyte in Sir R. Bulkley,
a pupil of Bishop Fell’s, with no inconsiderable
learning, who occupied in their proceedings a position
which reminds us of that of Henry Drummond
among the followers of Irving (Bulkley’s Defence
of the Prophets). Here also there was a strong
contagious excitement. Nicholson, the Baxter of
the sect, published a confession that he had found
himself unable to resist it (Falsehood of the New
Prophets), though he afterwards came to look upon
his companions as ‘‘ enthusiastick impostors.” What
is specially noticeable is, that the gift of tongues
was claimed by them. Sir R. Bulkley declares
that he had heard Lacy repeat long sentences in
Latin, and another speak Hebrew, though, when not
in the Spirit, they were quite incapable of it (Nar-
rative, p. 92). The characteristic thought of all
the revelations was, that they were the true chil-
dren of God. Almost every oracle began with
“My child!” as its characteristic word (Peyrat, i.
235-313). It is remarkable that a strange Revi-
valist movement was spreading, nearly at the same
time, through Silesia, the chief feature of which was
that boys and girls of tender age were almost the
only subjects of it, and that they too spoke and
TONGUES, GIFT OF 1561
prayed with a wonderful power (Lacy, Relation,
&e., p. 31; Bulkley, Narrative, p. 46).
(8.) The so-called Unknown Tongues, which
manifested themselves first in the west of Scotland,
and afterwards in the Caledonian Church in Regent
Square, present a more striking phenomenon, and
the data for judging of its nature are more copious.
Here, more than in most other cases, there were
the conditions of long, eager expectation, fixed
brooding over one central thought, the mind strained
to a preternatural tension. Suddenly, now from
one, now from another, chiefly from women, devout
but illiterate, mysterious sounds were heard.
Voices, which at other times were harsh and un-
pleasing, became, when “singing in the Spirit,”
perfectly harmonious® (Cardale, Narrative, in
Morning Watch, ii. 871, 872). Those who spoke,
men of known devotion and acuteness, bore witness
to their inability to control themselves (Baxter,
Narrative, pp. 5, 9, 12), to their being led, they
knew not how, to speak in a ‘triumphant chant”
(ibid. pp. 46, 81). The man over whom they
exercised so strange a power, has left on record his
testimony, that to him they seemed to embody a
more than earthly music, leading to the belief that
the “ tongues’’ of the Apostolic age had been as the
archetypal melody of which all the Church’s chants
and hymns were but faint, poor echoes (Oliphant’s
Life of Irving, ii. 208). To those who were
without, on the other hand, they seemed but an
unintelligible gibberish, the yells and groans of
madmen (Newspapers of 1831, passim). Some-
times it was asserted that fragments of known
languages, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Hebrew, were
mingled together in the utterances of those who
spoke in the power (Baxter, Narrutive, pp. 133, 134).
Sometimes it was but a jargon of mere sounds
(ibid.). The speaker was commonly unable to in-
terpret what he uttered. Sometimes the office was
undertaken by another. A clear and interesting
summary of the history of the whole movement is
given in Mrs. Oliphant’s Life of Irving, vol. ii.
Those who wish to trace it through all its stages
must be referred to the seven volumes of the
Morning Watch, and especially to Irving’s series of
papers on the Gifts of the Spirit, in vols. iii., iv.
and vy. Whatever other explanation may be
given of the facts, there exists no ground for im-
puting a deliberate imposture to any of the persons
who were most conspicuous in the movement.
(9.) In certain exceptional states of mind and
body the powers of memory are known to receive a
wonderful and abnormal strength. In the delirium
of fever, in the ecstasy of a trance, men speak in
their old age languages which they have never heard
or spoken since their earliest youth. The accent of
their common speech is altered. Women, ignorant
and untaught, repeat Jong sentences in Greek, Latin,
Hebrew, which they had once heard, without, in
any degree, understanding or intending to remember
them. In all such cases the marvellous power is
the accompaniment of disease, and passes away
when the patient returns to his usual state, to the
healthy equilibrium and interdependence of the life of
sensation and of thought (Abercrombie, Zntellectual
Powers, pp. 140-143 ; Winslow, Obscure Diseases
of the Brain, pp. 337, 360, 374; Watson,
Principles and Practice of Physic, i. 128). The
h Comp. the independent testimony of Archdeacon Stop-
ford. He had listened to the “ unknown tongue,’ and had
found it “a sound such as I never heard before, unearthly
and unaccountable.” He recognised precisely the same
sounds in the Irish Revivals of 1859 ( Work and Counter-
work, p. 11).
1562 TONGUES, GIFT OF
Mediaeval belief that this power of speaking in
tongues belonged to those who were possessed by
evil spirits rests, obviously, upon like psychological
phenomena (Peter Martyr, Loci Communes, i. c. 10 ;
Bayle, Dictionn. s. v. “ Grandier” ).
IX. These phenomena have been brought to-
gether in order that we may see how far they re-
semble, how far they differ from, those which we
have seen reason to believe constituted the outward
signs of the Gift of Tongues. It need not startle or
“‘ offend ” us if we find the likeness between the true
and the counterfeit greater, at first sight, than we
expected. So it was at the Churches of Corinth and
of Asia. There also the two existed in the closest
approximation ; and it was to no outward sign, to no
speaking with languages, or prediction of the future,
that St. Paul and St. John pointed as the crucial
test by which men were to distinguish between
them, but to the confession on the one side, the
denial on the other, that Jesus was the Lord
(1 Cor. xii. 3; 1 John iv. 2, 3). What may be
legitimately inferred from such facts is the existence,
in the mysterious constitution of man’s nature, of
powers which are, for the most part, latent, but
which, under given conditions, may be roused into
activity. Memory, imagination, speech, may all be
intensified, transfigured, as it were, with a new
glory, acting independently of any conscious or
deliberate volition. The exciting causes may be
disease, or the fixed concentration of the senses or
of thought on one object, or the power of sympathy
with those who have already passed into the
abnormal state. The life thus produced is at the
furthest pole from the common life of sensation,
habit, forethought. It sees what others do not see,
hears what they do not hear. If there be a spiritual
power acting upon man, we might expect this phase
of the life of the human soul to manifest its opera-
tions most clearly. Precisely because we believe
in the reality of the Divine work on the day of
Pentecost, we may conceive of it as using this state
as its instrument, not as introducing phenomena,
in all respects without parallel, but as carrying to
its highest point, what, if good, had been a fore-
shadowing of it, presenting the reality of what, if
evil, had been the mimicry and counterfeit of good.
And whatever resemblances there may be, the points
of difference are yet greater. The phenomena
which have been described are, with hardly an ex-
ception, morbid ; the precursors or the consequences
of clearly recognisable disease. The Gift of Tongues
was bestowed on men in full vigour and activity,
preceded by no frenzy, followed by no exhaustion.
The Apostles went on with their daily work of
teaching and organising the Church. The form
which the new power assumed was determined
partly, it may be, by deep-lying conditions of man’s
mental and spiritual being, within which, as self-
imposed limits, the Spirit poured from on high was
pleased to work, partly by the character of the
people for whom this special manifestation was
given as a sign. New powers of knowledge,
memory, utterance, for which education and habit
could not at all account, served to waken men to
the sense of a power which they could not measure,
a Kingdom of God into which they were called to
enter, Lastly, let us remember the old rule holds
good, ““ By their fruits ye shall know them.” Other
phenomena, presenting approximate resemblances,
i It can hardly be doubted that the interpolated word
“ unknown,” in the A. V. of 1 Cor. xiv., was the starting-
TOPARCHY
have ended in a sick man’s dreams, in a fevered
frenzy, in the narrowness of a sect. They grew
out of a passionate brooding over a single thought,
often over a single word ;i and the end has shown
that it was not well to seek to turn back God’s
order and to revive the long-buried past. The
gift of the day of Pentecost was the starting-point
of the long history of the Church of Christ, the
witness, in its very form, of a universal family
gathered out of all nations,
But it was the starting-point only. The new-
ness of the truth then presented to the world, the
power of the first experience of a higher life, the.
longing expectation in men’s minds of the Divine
kingdom, may have made this special manifestation,
at the time, at once inevitable and fitting. It
belonged, however, to a critical epoch, not to the
continuous life of the Church. It implied a dis-
turbance of the equilibrium of man’s normal state.
The high-wrought ecstasy could not continue, might
be glorious and blessed for him who had it, a sign,
as has been said, for those who had it not; but it
was not the instrument for building up the Church.
That was the work of another gift, the prophecy
which came from God, yet was addressed from the
mind and heart of one man to the minds and hearts
of his brethren. When the overflowing fulness of
life had passed away, when ‘‘tongues”’ had ‘ ceased,”
and prophecy itself, in its irresistible power, had
“failed,” they left behind them the lesson they
were meant to teach. They had borne their wit-
ness, and had done their work. They had taught
men to believe in one Divine Spirit, the giver of all
good gifts, “dividing to every man severally as He
will;”’ to recognise His inspiration, not only in the
marvel of the “ tongues,” or in the burning words
of prophets, but in all good thoughts, in the right
judgment in all things, in the excellent gift of
Charity. [E. H. P.]
TOPARCHY (Τοπαρχία). A term applied in
one passage of the Septuagint (1. Macc. xi. 28) to
indicate three districts to which elsewhere (x. 30,
xi. 34) the name νομός is given. In all these
passages the English Version employs the term
‘“* governments.” The three “ toparchies” in ques-
tion were Apherima (᾿Αφαίρεμα), Lydda, and
Ramath. They had been detached from Samaria,
Peraea, and Galilee respectively, some time hefore
the war between Demetrius Soter and Alexander
Bala. Each of the two belligerents endeavoured to
win over Jonathan, the Jewish High-Priest, to their
side, by allowing him, among other privileges, the
sovereign power over these districts without any
payment of Jand-tax. The situation of Lydda is
doubtful ; for the toparchy Lydda, of which Pliny
speaks (v. 14), is situated not in Peraea, but on the
western side of the Jordan. Apherima is con-
sidered by Grotius to denote the region about
Bethel, captured by Abijah from Jeroboam (2 Chr.
xii. 19). Ramath is probably the famous strong-
hold, the desire of obtaining which led to the un-
fortnnate expedition of the allied sovereigns, Ahab
and Jehoshaphat (1 K. xxii.).
The ‘“ toparchies’” seem to have been of the
nature of agaliks, and the passages in which the
word τοπάρχης occurs, all harmonize with the
view of that functionary as the aga, whose duty
would be to collect the taxes and administer justice
in all cases affecting the revenue, and who, for the
point of the peculiarly unintelligible character of most of
the Irvingite utterances,
TOPAZ
purpose of enforcing payment, would have the com-
mand of a small military force. He would thus be
the lowest in the hierarchy of a despotic administra-
tion to whom troops would be entrusted; and hence
the taunt in 2 K. xviii. 24, and Is. xxxvi. 9: πῶς
ἀποστρέψεις τὸ πρόσωπον τοπάρχου ἑνὸς, τῶν
δούλων τοῦ κυρίου μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων; “How
wilt thou resist a single toparch, one of the very
least of my lord’s slaves ?” But the essential character
of the toparch is that ofa fiscal officer, and his mili-
tary character is altogether subordinate to his civil.
Hence the word is employed in Gen. xli. 34, for the
“ officers over the land,’ who were instructed to
buy up the fifth part of the produce of the soil
during the seven years of abundance. In Dan. iii.
3, Theodotion uses the word in a much more exten-
sive sense, making it equivalent to ‘ satraps,” and
the Eng. Version renders the original by ‘princes δὴ
but the original word here is not the same as in Dan.
iii. 2, 27, and vi. 7, in every one of which cases a
subordinate functionary is contemplated. [J. W. B.]
TOPAZ (ΠΊΕ, pitdah: τοπάζιον : topazius).
The topaz of the ancient Greeks and Romans is
generally allowed to be our chrysolite, while their
chrysolite is our topaz. [CurysoLitE, App. A.]
Bellermann, however (Die Urim und Thumiiin,
p- 39), contends that the topaz and the chrysolite of
the ancients are identical with the stones denoted
by these terms at the present day. The account
which Pliny (WV. H. xxxvii. 8) gives of the topazos
evidently leads to the conclusion that that stone is
our chrysolite ; “ the topazos,” he says, “ is still held
in high estimation for its green tints.” According
to the authority of Juba, cited by Pliny, the topaz
is derived from an island in the Red Sea called
“ Topazos ;”” it is said that this island, where these
precious stones were procured, was surrounded by
fogs, and was, in consequence, often sought for by
navigators, and that hence it received its name, the
term ‘‘topazin” signifying, in the Troglodyte tongue,
“to seek’? (Ὁ). The pitdah, which, as has already
been stated, probably denotes the modern chrysolite,
was the second stone in the first row of the high-
priest's breast-plate (Ex. xxviii. 17, xxxix. 10); it
was one of the jewels that adorned the apparel of
the king of Tyre (Ezek. xxviii. 13); it was the
bright stone that garnished the ninth foundation
of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rey. xxi. 20); in Job
xxviii. 19, where wisdom is contrasted with precious
articles, it is said that “‘ the pitdah of Ethiopia shall
not equal it.”’ Chrysolite, which is also known by
the name of olivine and peridot, is a silicate of mag-
nesia and iron; it is so softas to lose its polish unless
worn with care (Mineralogy and Crystallography,
by Mitchell and Tennant, p. 512). The identity of
the τοπάζιον with the TIS of the Heb. Bible
is sufficiently established by the combined autho-
rities of the LXX., the Vulg., and Josephus, while
that of the τοπάζιον with our chrysolite is, it
appears to us, proved beyond a doubt by those
writers who have paid most attention to this ques-
tion. See Braun, De Vest. Sac. Heb. p. 641, ed.
1680. [W. H.]
TO'PHEL (SBA: Toda: Thophel). A place
mentioned Deut. i. 1, which has been probably
identified with T#ftleh on a wady of the same name
running north of Bozra towards the N.W. into the
Ghor and S.E. corner of the Dead Sea (Robinson,
ii. 570). This latter is a most fertile region, hay-
ing many springs and rivulets flowing into the Ghor,
TOPHETH 1563
and large plantations of fruit-trees, whence figs are
exported. The bird katta, a kind of partridge, is
found there in great numbers, and the steinbock
pastures in herds of forty or fifty together (Burck-
hardt, Holy Land, 405-6). ΓΕ: ἘΠῚ
TO'PHETH, and once TO'PHET, (Π5Γ)).
Generally with the article (2 K. xxiii. 10; Jer. vii,
31, 32, xix. 6, 13, 14). Three times without it
(Jer. vii. 32, xix. 11,12), Once not only without
it, but with an affix, DADA, Tophteh (15. xxx. 33).
In Greek, Ταφέθ, Τωφέθ, and Θοφθά (Steph. Lez.
Voc. Peregrin.; Biel, Thes.). In the Vulgate,
Thopheth. In Jerome, Tophet. It is not men-
tioned by Josephus.
It lay somewhere east or south-east of Jerusa-
lem, for Jeremiah went out by the Sun-gate, or
east gate, to go to it (Jer. xix. 2). It was in “the
Valley of the Son of Hinnom” (vii. 31), which is
“by the entry of the east gate” (xix, 2). Thus it
was not identical with Hinnom, as some have
written, except in the sense in which Paradise is
identical with Eden, the one being part of the
other. It was ὧν Hinnom, and was perhaps one of
its chief groves or gardens. It seems also to have
been part of the king’s gardens, and watered by
Siloam, perhaps a little to the south of the present
Birket el-Hamra. The name Tophet occurs only in
the Old Testament (2 K. xxiii. 10; Is. xxx. 33 5
Jer. vii. 31, 32, xix. 6, 11, 12, 13, 14). The New
does not refer to it, nor the Apocrypha. Jerome
is the first who notices it; but we can see that
by his time the name had disappeared, for he dis-
cusses it very much as a modern commentator
would do, only mentioning a green and fruitful
spot in Hinnom, watered by Siloam, where he
assuines it was: “ Delubrum Baal, nemus ac lucus,
Siloe fontibus irrigatus” (In Jer. vii.). If this
be the case, we must conclude that the valley
or gorge south of Jerusalem, which usually goes
by the name of Hinnom, is not the Ge-Ben-
Hinnom of the Bible. Indeed, until comparatively
modern times, that southern ravine was never so
named. Hinnom by old writers, western and
eastern, is always placed east of the city, and cor-
responds to what we call the ‘Mouth of the
Tyropoeon,” along the southern bed and banks of
the Kedron (Jerome, De Locis Hebr. and Comm. in
Matt. x. 28; Ibn Batutah, Travels ; Jalal Addin’s
History of the Temple; Felix Fabri), and was
reckoned to be somewhere between the Potter’s
Field and the Fuller’s Pool.
Tophet has been variously translated. Jerome
says latitudo; others garden; others drum; others
place of burning or burying ; others abomination
(Jerome, Noldius, Gesenius, Bochart, Simonis,
The most natural seems that suggested
near Cairo.
and polluted by the sacrifices of Baal and the fires
1564 TOPHETH
of Moloch. Then it became the place of abomina-
tion, the very gate or pit of hell. The pious
kings defiled it, and threw down its altars and
high places, pouring into it all the filth of the city,
till it became the ‘ abhorrence” of Jerusalem ; for
to it primarily, though not exhaustively, the pro-
phet refers :—
They shall go forth and gaze
On the careases of the transgressors against me:
For their worm shall not die,
And their fire shall not be quenched,
And they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
(Is. Ixvi. 24.)
In Kings and Jeremiah the name is ‘‘ the Tophet,”
but in Isaiah (xxx. 33) it is Tophteh; yet the places
are probably the same so far, only in Isaiah’s time
the grove might be changing its name somewhat,
and with that change taking on the symbolic mean-
ing which it manitestly possesses in the prophet’s
prediction : ---
Set in order in days past has been Tophteh 5
Surely for the king it has been made ready.
He hath deepened, he hath widened it ;*
The pile thereof, fire and wood, he hath multiplied.
The breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimstone,
Doth set it on fire.
It is to be noticed that the LXX. translate the
above passage in a peculiar way: mpd ἡμερῶν
ἀπαιτηθήσῃ, “thou shalt be required from of
old,” or perhaps “ before thy time;” but Jerome
translates the LXX. as if their word had been
ἐξαπατάω (or ἀθετέω, as Procopius reads it), and
not ἀπαιτέω, “tu ante dies decipieris,”
this comment: ‘ Dicitur ad illum quod ab initio
seipse deceperit, regnum suum arbitrans sempi-
ternum, cum preparata sint Gehenna et eterna
supplicia.”” In that case the Alexandrian §trans-
lators perhaps took nan for the second person
singular masculine of “the future Piel of nnd,
to persuade or deceive. It may be noticed that
Michaelis renders it thus: ‘ Tophet ejus, q. ἃ.
rogus ejus.” In Jer. xix. 6, 13, the Sept. trans-
late Tophet by διάπτωσις, διαπίπτων, which is not
easily explained, except on the supposition of a
marginal gloss having crept into the text instead
of the proper name (see Jerome; and also Spohn
on the Greek version of Jer. Pref. p. 18, and Notes
on chaps. xix. xiii.).
In Jer. (vii. 32, xix. 6) there is an intimation
that both Tophet and Gehinnom were to lose their
names, and to be called ‘ the valley of slaughter ἢ
GAIT NY, Ge-ha-Harégah”). Without ven-
turing on the conjecture that the modern Deraj
can be a relic of Haréydh, we may yet say that
this lower part of the Kedron is ‘the valley of
slaughter,” whether it ever actually bore this name
or not. It was not here, as some have thought,
that the Assyrian was slain by the sword of the
destroying angel. That slaughter seems to have
taken place to the west of the city, probably on the
spot afterwards called from the event, ‘“ the valley
of the dead bodies” (Jer, xxxi. 40). The slaughter
from which Tophet was to get its new name was
not till afterwards. In all succeeding ages, blood
has flowed there in streams; corpses, buried and
unburied, have filled up the hollows; and it may
be that ‘underneath the modern gardens and ter-
a Of the literal Tophet. it is said, ‘‘’They shall see in
Tophet, till there be no place” (Jer. vii. 32). Of the sym-
bolical Tophet it is said above, “ He hath deepened and
adding
TORTOISE
races there lie not only the débris of the city, but
the bones and dust of millions—Romans, Persians,
Jews, Greeks, Crusaders, Moslems. What future
days and events may bring is not for us to say.
Perhaps the prophet’s words are not yet exhausted.
Strange contrast between Tophet’s first and last !
Once the choice grove of Jerusalem’s choicest val-
ley; then the place of defilement and death and
fire; then the “valley of slaughter’?! Once the
royal music-grove, where Solomon’s singers, with
voice and instrument, regaled the king, the court,
and the city; then the temple of Baal, the high
place of Moloch, resounding with the eries of burn-
ing infants ; hee (in sy mbol) the place where is
the wailing and gnashing of weet Once prepared
for Israel’s king, as one of his choicest villas; then
degraded and defiled, till it becomes the place pre-
pared for ‘ the King” at the sound of whose fall
the nations are to shake (Hz. xxxi. 16); and as
Paradise and Eden passed into Babylon, so Tophet
and Ben Hinnom pass into Gehenna and the lake
of fire. These scenes seem to have taken hold of
Milton’s mind; for three times over, within fifty
lines, he refers to ‘the opprobrious hill,’ the
“hill of scandal,” the “ offensive mountain,” and
speaks of Solomon making his grove in
“The pleasant valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
And black Gehenna called, the type of hell.”
Many of the old travellers (see Felix Fabri, vol.
|i, p. 391) refer to Tophet, or Toph as they call it,
but they give no information as to the locality.
Every vestige of Tophet—name and grove—is
gone, and we can only guess at the spot; yet the
references of Scripture and the present features of
the locality enable us to make the guess with the
same tolerable nearness as we do in the case of
Gethsemane or Scopus, [H. B.]
TOR'MAH (ADM: ἐν κρυφῇ ; Alex, wera
dwpwy: clam) occurs only in the margin of Judg.
ix. 31, as the alternative rendering of the Hebrew
word which in the text is given as “" privily.” By
a few commentators it has been conjectured that
the word was originally the same with ARUMAH in
ver. 41—one or the other having been corrupted
by the copyists. This appears to have been first
started by Kimchi. It is adopted by Junius and
Tremellius ; but there is little to be said either for
or against it, and it will probably always remain a
mere conjecture. [G.]
TORTOISE (¥, tsdb: ὁ κροκόδειλος ὁ χερ-
σαῖος : crocodilus). The tsdb occurs only in Lev.
xi. 29, as the name of some unclean animal. Bochart
(Hieroz, ii. 463) with much reason refers the Heb.
be
ae
term to. the kindred Arabic dhab (08), “a large
kind of lizard,” which, from the description of it as
given by Damir, appears to be the Psammosaurus
Scincus, or Monitor terrestris of Cuvier (R. A, ii.
26). This lizard is the waran el-hard of the Arabs,
i.e. the land-waran, in contradistinction to the
waran el-bahr, ἃ. e. the water-lizard (Monitor Ni-
loticus). It is common enough in the deserts of
Palestine and N. Africa. It is no doubt the κροκό-
δειλος χερσαῖος of Herodotus (iv. 192). See also
Dioscorides (ii. 71), who mentions it, or ων
widened it,”
Ὁ Can the Eroge of Josephus (Ant. ix. 10, §4) have any
connexion with the Harégadh of Jeremiah ?
TOU
the Scincus officinalis, under the name of σκίγκος.
Gesenius derives the Heb. word from ΞΙΞ 6 ΤῸ
move slowly.” [W. H.]
—— ~ —
WE Ween ΞΞ ἊΝ
Psammosaurus Scincus,
TO'U (WM: Owd; Alex. Θωού: Thoii). Tor,
king of Hamath (1 Chr. xviii. 9, 10).
TOWER." Fer towers as parts of city-walls,
or as strongholds ot’ refuge for villages, see FENCED
CITIES, JERUSALEM, i. 1021-1027, and Hana-~-
NEEL. Watch-towers or fortified posts in frontier or
exposed situations are mentioned in Scripture, as the
tower of Edar, &c. (Gen. xxxv. 21; Mic. iv. 8; Is.
xxi. 5,8, 11; Hab. ii. 1; Jer. vi. 27 ; Cant. vii. 4);
the tower of Lebanon, perhaps one of David's
“garrisons,” nétsib (2 Sam. viii. 6; Ratimer, Pal.
p. 29). Such towers or outposts for the defence of
wells, and the protection of flocks and of commerce,
were built by Uzziah in the pasture - grounds
(Midbar) [DESERT], and by his son Jotham in
the forests (Choreshim) of Judah (2 Chr, xxvi. 10,
xxvil. 4), Remains of such fortifications may still
be seen, which, though not perhaps themselves of
remote antiquity, vet very probably have succeeded
to more ancient structures built in the same places
for like purposes (Robinson, ii. 81, 85, 180; Roberts,
Sketches, pl. 93). Besides these military structures,
we read in Scripture of towers built in vineyards as
an almost necessary appendage to them (Is. v. 2;
Matt. xxi. 33; Mark xii.1). Such towers are still
in use in Palestine in vineyards, especially near
Hebron, and are used as lodges for the keepers of
the vineyards. During the vintage they are filled
with the persons employed in the work of gathering
the grapes (Robinson, i. 213, ii. 81; Martineau, East.
Life, Ὁ. 434; De Sauley, Trav. i. 546). [H. W. P.]
TOWN-CLERK (γραμματεύς : scriba). The
title ascribed in our Version to the magistrate at
Ephesus who appeased the mob in the theatre at
the time of the tumult excited by Demetrius and
TRACHONITIS 1565
his fellow-craftsmen (Acts xix. 35). The other
primary English versions tvanslate in the same way,
except those from the Vulgate ( Wiclif, the Rhemish),
which render ‘* seribe.” A digest of Boeckh’s views,
in his Staatshaushaltung, respecting the functions
of this officer at Athens (there were three grades
of the order there), will be found in Dict. of Ant.
Ρ. 459 sq. The γραμματεύς or “ town-clerk” at
Ephesus was no doubt a more important person in
that city than any of the public officers designated
by that term in Greece (see Greswell’s Dissertations,
iv. 152), The title is preserved on various ancient
coins (Wetstein, Nov. Test. ii. 586; Akermann’s
Numismatic Illustrations, p. 53), which illustrate
fully the rank and dignity of the office. It would
appear that what may have been the original ser-
vice of this class of men, viz. to record the laws
and decrees of the state, and to read them in public,
embraced at length, especially under the ascendency
of the Romans in Asia Minor, a much wider sphere
of duty, so as to make them, in some instances, in
effect the heads or chiefs of the municipal govern-
ment (Winer, Healw. i. 649). They were autho-
rised to preside over the popular assemblies and
submit votes to them, and are mentioned on marbles
as acting in that capacity. In cases where they
were associated with a superior magistrate, they
succeeded to his place and discharged his functions
when the latter was absent or had died. ‘“ On the
subjugation of Asia by the Romans,” says Baum-
stark (Pauly’s Hncyclopaedie, iii. 949), “ ypap-
ματεῖς were appointed there in the character of
governors of single cities and districts, who even
placed their names on the coins of their cities,
caused the year to be named from them, and some-
times were allowed to assume the dignity, or at
least the name, of "Apxiepevs.” This writer refers
as his authorities to Schwartz, Dissertatio de ypau-
ματεῦσι, Magistratu Civitatum Asiae Proconsulis
(Altorf, 1735); Van Dale, Dissertat. v. 425; Span-
heim, De Usu et Praest: Numm. i. 704. A good
note on this topic will be found in the New Hng-
lander (U.S. A.), x. 144.
It is evident, therefore, from Luke’s account, as
illustrated by ancient records, that the Ephesian
town-clerk acted a part entirely appropriate to the
character in which he appears. The speech deli-
vered by him, it may be remarked, is the model ot
a popular harangue. He argues that such excite-
ment as the Ephesians evinced was undignified,
inasmuch as they stood above all suspicion in
religious matters (Acts xix. 35, 36); that it was
unjustifiable, since they could establish nothing
against the men whom they accused (ver. 37) ; that
it was unnecessary, since other means of redress
were open to them (vers. 38, 39); and, finally, it
neither pride nor a sense of justice availed anything,
fear of the Roman power should restrain them from
such illegal proceedings (ver. 40). [H. B. H.]
TRACHONITIS (Tpaxwviris: Trachonitis).
This place is mentioned only once in the Bible. In
a1. Ja, ἡΤΙΞ, and JIMD; ἔπαλξις : from JMB,
γον er = τι
“search,” “explore,” a searcher or watcher; and
hence the notion of a watch-tower. In Is. xxxii, 14,
the tower of Ophel is probably meant (Neh. iii. 26;
Ges. 198),
2 55309, and Ὁ} or ΟΥ̓ ΠΣ ; πύργος 3 turris ;
from ΠΣ “become great”’ (Ges. 265), used sometimes
as a proper name. [MiIGpou.]
3. WS); πέτρα ; munitio; only once “ tower,” Hab.
erie eae
4. δεν; οἶκος ; domus; only in2 K. v. 24. [OPHEL.]
5. 35, usually “corner,” twice only “tower,” Zeph.
i. 16, iii. 6; γωνία ; angulus,
6. MBSID ; σκοπιά ; specula; “ watch-tower.” [Muz-
PAH.] a ;
7. ait) 3 ὀχύρωμα; robur ; only in poetry. [Miscar.
1566 TRACHONITIS
TRANCE
Luke iii. 1 we read that Philip “ was tetrarch of | to remain long in obscurity and to defy their
Ituraea, καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας :᾽ and it appears | enemies. The doors of their caves are so narrow
that this ““ Trachonite region,” in addition to the
little province of Trachonitis, included parts of
‘Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and Batanaea (Joseph. Ant.
xvii. 8, §1, and 11, 84).
Trachonitis is, in all probability, the Greek equi-
valent for the Aramaic Avgob. The Targumists
render the word J35N, in Deut. iii. 14, by NID.
According to Gesenius, 239N signifies ‘a heap of
stones,” from the root 237, “to pile up stones.”
So Τραχωνῖτις or Τραχών is a “rugged or stony
tract.’” William of Tyre gives a curious etymology
of the word Trachonitis :—‘‘ Videtur autem nobis a
traconibus dicta. Tracones enim dicuntur occulti
et subterranei meatus, quibus ἰδία regio abundat”
(Gest. Det per Francos, p. 895). Be this as it may,
there can be no doubt that the whole region abounds
in caverns, some of which are of vast extent. Strabo
refers to the caves in the mountains beyond Trachon
(Geog. xvi.), and he aflirms that one of them is so
large that it would contain 4000 men. The writer
has visited some spacious caves in Jebel Hauran,
and in the interior of the Lejah.
The situation and boundaries of Trachonitis can
be defined with tolerable accuracy from the notices
in Josephus, Strabo, and other writers. From
Josephus we gather that it lay south of Damascus,
and east, of Gaulanitis, and that it bordered on
Auranitis and Batanaea (B. J. iv. 1, §1, i. 20, 84,
iii. 10, §7). Strabo says there were δύο Tpayaves
(Geog. xvi.). From Ptolemy we learn that it bor-
dered on Batanaea, near the town of Saccaea (Geog.
xv.). Inthe Jerusalem Gemara it is made to extend
as far south as Bostra (Lightfoot, Opp. ii. 473).
Eusebius and Jerome, though they err in confound-
ing it with Ituraea, yet the latter rightly defines
its position, as lying between Bostra and Damascus
(Onom. s.v.). Jerome also states that Kenath was
one of its chief towns (πολι. s. v. “ Canath ἢ).
From these data we have no difficulty in fixing
the position of Trachonitis. It included the whole
of the modern province called e/-Lejah (x S);
with a section of the plain southward, and also a
part of the western declivities of Jebel Haurdn.
This may explain Strabo’s two Trachons. The
identity of the Lejah and Trachonitis does not rest
merely on presumptive evidence. On the northern
border of the province are the extensive ruins of
Musmeth, where, on the door of a beautiful temple,
Burckhardt discovered an inscription, from which
it appears that this is the old city of Phocus, and
the capital of Trachonitis (μητροκωμία Τραχῶνος,
Trav. in Syr. 117). The Lejah is bounded on the
east by the mountains of Batanaea (now Jebel
Haurfn), on whose slopes are the ruins of Saccaea
and Kenath; on the south by Auranitis (now
Hauran), in which are the extensive ruins of Bostra;
on the west by Gaulanitis (now Jaulén) ; and on
the north by Ituraea (now Jedfir) and Damascus.
Tf all other proofs were wanting, a comparison of
the features of the Lejah with the graphic descrip-
tion Josephus gives of Trachonitis would be sufti-
cient to establish the identity. The inhabitants, he
says, “‘ had neither towns nor fields, but dwelt in
caves that served as a refuge both for themselves
and their flocks. They had, besides, cisterns of
water and well-stored granaries, and were thus able
that but one man can enter at a time, while within
they are incredibly large. The ground above is
almost a plain, but it is covered with rugged rocks,
and is difficult of access, except where a guide
points out the paths. These paths do not run in a
straight course, but have many windings and turns”
(Ant. xv. 10, 81). A description of the Lejah has
been given above [ARGoB], with which this may
be compared.
The notices of Trachonitis in history are few and
brief. Josephus affirms that it was colonised by
Uz the son of Aram (Ant. i. 6, 84). His next
reference to it is when it was held by Zenodorus,
the bandit-chief. Then its inhabitants made fre-
quent raids, as their successors do still, upon the
territories of Damascus (Ant. xv. 10, 81). Au-
gustus took it from Zenodorus, and gave it to
Herod the Great, on condition that he should repress
the robbers (Ant. xvi. 9, 81). Herod bequeathed
it to his son Philip, and his will was confirmed by
Caesar (B,J. ii. 6, §3). This is the Philip referred
to in Luke iii. 1. Ata later period it passed into
the hands of Herod Agrippa (B. J. iii. 3, §5).
After the conquest of this part of Syria by Cornelius
Palma, in the beginning of the second century, we
hear no more of Trachonitis (Burckhardt, Trav.
in Syr. 110 sq.3 Porter, Damascus, ii. 240-275 ;
Journ. Geog. Soc, xxviii. 250-252). dls Jha eS],
TRANCE (ἔκστασις : excessus). (1.) In the
only passage (Num. xxiv. 4, 16) in which this word
occurs in the English of the O. T. there is, as the
italics shew, no corresponding word in Hebrew,
simply Dp’, “ falling,” for which the LXX. gives
ev ὕπνῳ, and the Vulg. more literally qui cadit.
The Greek ἔκστασις is, however, used as the equi-
valent for many Hebrew words, signifying dread,
fear, astonishment (Trommii Concordant.). In the
N. T. we meet with the word three times (Acts x.
10, xi. 5, xxii. 17), the Vulgate giving “ excessus ”
in the two former, “ stupor mentis”’ in the latter.
Luther uses “ entziickt’’ in all three cases. The
meaning of the Greek and Latin words is obvious
enough. The ἔκστασις is the state in which a
man has passed out of the usual order of his life,
beyond the usual limits of consciousness and voli-
tion. “Excessus,” in like manner, though ‘in
classical Latin chiefly used as an euphemism for
death, became, in ecclesiastical writers, a synonyme
for the condition of seeming death to the outer
world, which we speak of as a trance. “ Hane
vim ecstasin dicimus, excessum sensus, et amentiae
instar’? (Tertull. de An. c. 45). The history of
the English word presents an interesting parallel.
The Latin “ transitus” took its place also among the
euphemisms for death. In early Italian “ essere in
transito,” was to be as at the point of death, the
passage to another world, Passing into French, it
also, abbreviated into ‘‘ {ranse,”? was applied, not to
death itself, but to that which more or less resembled
it (Diez, Roman. Worterbuch, s. Ὁ. * transito’’).
(2.) Used as the word is by Luke,® “ the physi-
cian,” and, in this special sense, by him only, in the
N. T., it would be interesting to inquire what
precise meaning it had in the medical terminology
of the time. From the time of Hippocrates, who
uses it to describe the loss of conscious perception,»
a Jn Mark v. 42 and xvi. 8 it is used simply for astonish-
ment mingled with awe, not for the trance-state.
υ The distinction drawn by Hippocrates and Galen
between ἐκστάσεις σιγῶσαι and ἐκστ. μελαγχολικαΐ
a
TRANCE
it had probably borne the connotation which it
has had, with shades of meaning for good or evil,
ever since. Thus, Hesychius gives as the account of
a man in an ecstasy, that he is 6 εἰς ἑαυτὸν μὴ dv.
Apuleius (Apologia), speaks of it as “a change
from the earthly mind (ἀπὸ τοῦ γηΐνου φρονή-
ματος) toa divine and spiritual condition both of
character and life.” Tertullian ({, c.) compares it
to the dream-state in which the soul acts, but
not through its usual instruments. Augustine
(Confess. ix. 11) describes his mother in this state
as ‘‘abstracta a praesentibus,” and gives a descrip-
tion of like phenomena in the case of a certain
Restitutus (de Civ. Dei, xiv. 24).
(3.) We may compare with these statements the
more precise definitions of modern medical science.
There the ecstatic state appears as one form of
catalepsy. In catalepsy pure and simple, there is
‘*a sudden suspension of thought, of sensibility, of
voluntary motion.” ‘The body continues in any
attitude in which it may be placed;” there are no
signs of any process of thought; the patient con-
tinues silent. In the ecstatic form of catalepsy, on
the other hand, ‘ the patient is lost to all external
impressions, but wrapt and absorbed in some object
of the imagination.” The man is “as if out
of the body.” “Nervous and susceptible per-
sons are apt to be thrown into these trances
under the influence of what is called mesmerism.
There is, for the most part, a high degree of
mental excitement. The patient utters the most
enthusiastic and fervid expressions or the most
earnest warnings. ‘The character of the whole
frame is that of intense contemplative excitement.
He believes that he has seen wonderful visions and
heard singular revelations” (Watson, Principles
and Practice, Lect, xxxix.; Copland, Dict. of Me-
dicine, s.v. “ Catalepsy”). The causes of this state
are to be traced commonly to strong religious im-
pressions; but some, though, for the most part, not
the ecstatic, phenomena of catalepsy are producible
by the concentration of thought on one object, or of
the vision upon one fixed point (Quart. Rev. xciii.
pp. 510-522, by Dr. W. B. Carpenter; comp.
Urnim and THUmMIM), and, in some more excep-
tional cases, like that mentioned by Augustine
(there, however, under the influence of sound,
*©ad imitatas quasi lamentantis cujuslibet hominis
voces”), and that of Jerome Cardan (Var, Rer.
viii. 43), men have been able to throw themselves
into a cataleptic state at will.
(4.) Whatever explanation may be given of it, it
is true of many, if not of most, of those who have
left the stamp of their own character on the reli-
gious history of mankind, that they have been liable
to pass at times into this abnormal state. The
union of intense feeling, strong volition, long-con-
tinued thought (the conditions of all wide and
lasting influence), aided in many cases by the with-
drawal from the lower life of the support which is
needed to maintain a healthy equilibrium, appears
to have been more than the ‘earthen vessel” will
bear. The words which speak of ‘‘an ecstasy of
adoration” are often literally true. The many
visions, the journey through the heavens, the so-
called epilepsy of Mahomet, were phenomena of
TRANCE 1567
this nature, Of three great mediaeval teachers, St.
Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Joannes
Scotus, it is recorded that they would fall into the
ecstatic state, remain motionless, seem as if dead,
sometimes for a whole day, and then, returning to
consciousness, speak as if they had drunk deep of
divine mysteries (Gualtferius, Crit. Sac. on Acts x.
10). The old traditions of Aristeas and Epimeni-
des, the conflicts of Dunstan and Luther with the
powers of darkness, the visions of Savonarola, and
George Fox, and Swedenborg, and Boéhmen, are
generically analogous. Where there has been no
extraordinary power to influence others, other
conditions remaining the same, the phenomena
have appeared among whole classes of men and
women in proportion as the circumstances of
their lives tended to produce an excessive suscepti-
bility to religious or imaginative emotion. The
history of monastic orders, of American and Irish
revivals, gives countless examples. Still more
noticeable is the fact that many of the ¢mpro-
visatori of Italy are “only able to exercise their
gift when they are in a state of ecstatic trance, and
speak of the gift itself as something morbid ” ¢ (Cop-
land, /.c.); while in strange contrast with their
earlier history, and pointing perhaps to a national
character that has become harder and less emo-
tional, there is the testimony of a German physician
(Frank), who had made catalepsy a special study,
that he had never met with a single case of it among
the Jews (Copland, /.c.).4
(5.) We are now able to take a true estimate of
the trances of Biblical history. As in other things,
so also here, the phenomena are common to higher
and lower, to true and false systems. The nature
of man continuing the same, it could hardly be
that the awfulness of the Divine presence, the
terrors of Divine judgment, should leave it in the
calm equilibrium of its normal state. Whatever
made the impress of a truth more indelible, what-
ever gave him to whom it was revealed more power
over the hearts of others, might well take its place
in the Divine education of nations and individual
men. We may not point to trances and ecstasies as
proofs of a true Revelation, but still less may we
think of them as at all inconsistent with it. ~ Thus,
though we have not the word, we have the thing
in the “ deep sleep” (ἔκστασις, LXX.), the ‘* horror
of great darkness,” that fell on Abraham (Gen. xv.
12). Balaam, as if overcome by the constraining
power of a Spirit.mightier than his own, ‘‘ sees the
vision of God, falling, but with opened eyes”
(Num. xxiv. 4). Saul, in like manner, when the
wild chant of the prophets stirred the old depths
of feeling, himself also ‘‘ prophesied” and <“ fell
down ” (most, if not all, of his kingly clothing being
thrown off’ in the ecstasy of the moment), “all that
day and all that night” (1 Sam. xix. 24). Some-
thing there was in Jeremiah that made men say
of him that he was as one that “is mad and maketh
himself a prophet” (Jer. xxix. 26). In Ezekiel the
phenomena appear in more wonderful and awful
forms. He sits motionless for seven days in the
stupor of astonishment, till the word of the Lord
comes to him (Ez. iii, 15). The “ hand of the
Lord ” falls on him, and he too sees the “ visions of
answers obviously to that of later.writers between pure
and ecstatic catalepsy (comp. Foesius, Oeconom. Hippocrat.
S. V. ἔκστασις).
¢ Analogous to this is the statement of Aristotle (Prol.
ὁ, 30) that the μελαγχολικοί speak often in wild bursts of
poetry, and as the Sibyls and others who are inspired
(ἔνθεοι).
d A fuller treatment of the whole subject than can be
entered on here may be found in the chapter on Les Mys-
tiques in Maury, La Magie et UV Astrologie.
1568 TRESPASS-OFFERING
God,”’ and hears the voice of the Almighty, is
“ lifted up between the earth and heaven,” and passes
from the river of Chebar to the Lord’s house in
Jerusalem (Ez. viii. 3).
(6.) As other elements and forms of the prophetic
work were revived in ‘ the Apostles and Prophets ”
of the N. T., so also was this. More distinctly even
than in the O, T. it becomes the medium through
which men rise to see clearly what before was dim
and doubtful, in which the mingled hopes and fears
and perplexities of the waking state are dissipated
at once. Though different in form, it belongs to
the same class of phenomena as the GIFT OF
TONGUES, and is connected with “visions and
revelations of the Lord.’ In some cases, indeed,
it is the chosen channel for such revelations. To
the ‘‘ trance” of Peter in the city, where all out-
ward circumstances tended to bring the thought of
an expansion of the Divine kingdom more distinctly
before him than it had ever been brought before,
we owe the indelible truth stamped upon the heart
of Christendom, that God is “no respecter of
persons,” that we may not call any man “ com-
mon or unclean” (Acts x., xi.). To the ‘trance ”
of Paul, when his work for his own _ people
seemed utterly fruitless, we owe the mission which
was the starting-point of the history of the Uni- |
versal Church, the command which bade him ‘ de-
part... far hence unto the Gentiles” (Acts xxii.
17-21). Wisely for the most part did that Apostle
draw a veil over these more mysterious experiences.
He would not sacrifice to them, as others have often
sacrificed, the higher life of activity, love, prudence.
He could not explain them to himself. ‘In the
body or out of the body ” he could not tell, but the
outer world of perception had passed away, and he
had passed in spirit into “ paradise,’ into “ the
third heaven,” and had heard ‘‘ unspeakable words”
(2 Cor, xii. 1-4). Those trances too, we may be-
lieve, were not without their share in fashioning
his character and life, though no special truth came
distinctly out of them.
ceptions of the truth of God, with love wonderful
in its depth and tenderness, with energy unresting,
and subtle tact almost passing into ‘ cuile,” they
made him what he was, the leader of the Apostolic
band, emphatically the ‘* master builder’ of the |
Church of God (comp. Jowett, Fragment on the |
Character of St. Paul). [ἘΠ 12.)
TRESPASS-OFFERING, [SIN-OFFERING.] |
TRIAL. Information on the subject of trials
under the Jewish law will be found in the articles
on JUDGES and SANHEDRIM, and also in JESUS
CuRIST.
added on judicial proceedings mentioned in Scrip-
ture, especially such as were conducted before
foreigners.
(1.) The trial of our Lord before Pilate was, in a
legal sense, a trial for the offence /aesae majestatis ;
one which, under the Julian Law, following out that
of the Twelve Tables, would be punishable with |
death (Luke xxiii. 2, 38; John xix. 12, 15;
Dig. iv..1, 3).
(2.) The trials of the Apostles, of St. Stephen,
and of St. Paul before the high-priest, were con-
ducted according to Jewish rules (Acts iv., v. 27,
vi, 12, xxii. 30, xxiii. 1).
(3.) The trial, if it may be socalled, of St. Paul
and Silas at Philippi, was held before the duumviri,
or, as they are called, στρατηγοί, praetors, on the |
United as they then were, |
but as they have seldom been since, with clear per- |
A few remarks, however, may here be |
|
| Dig. xlix. 1, 4).
TRIBUTE
charge of innovation in religion—a crime punish-
able with banishment or death (Acts xvi. 19, 22;
Dict. of Antig. “Colonia,” p. 318 : Conybeare and
Howson, i. 845, 355, 356).
(4.) The interrupted trial of St. Paul before the
pro-consul Gallio, was an attempt made by the
Jews to establish a charge of the same kind (Acts
xviii. 12-17 ; Conybeare and Howson, i. 492-496).
(5.) The trials of St. Paul at Caesarea (Acts xxiv.,
XXv., Xxvi.) were conducted according to Roman
rules of judicature, of which the procurators Felix
and Festus were the recognised administrators.
(a.) In the first of these, before Felix, we observe
the employment, by the plaintiffs, of a Roman
advocate to plead in Latin. [OraAvToR.] (0.) The
postponement (ampliatio) of the trial after St.
Paul’s reply (Dict. of Antiq. “Judex,” p. 647).
(c.) The free custody in which the accused was
kept, pending the decision of the judge (Acts xxiv.
23-26). The second formal trial, before Festus,
was, probably, conducted in the same manner as the
former one before Felix (Acts xxv. 7, 8), but it pre-
| sents two new features: (a.) the appeal, appellatio
or provocatio, to Caesar, by St. Paul as a Roman
citizen. The right of appeal ad populum, or to the
tribunes, became, under the Empire, transferred
to the emperor, and, as a citizen, St. Paul availed
himself of the right to which he was entitled, even
in the case of a provincial governor. The effect
of the appeal was to remove the case at once to the
jurisdiction of the emperor (Conybeare and How-
son, li. 360; Dict. of Antiq. “ Appellatio,’ p. 107 ;
(6.) The conference of the pro-
curator with “the council” (Acts xxv. 12). This
council is usually explained to have consisted of the
assessors, who sat on the bench with the praetor as
consiliarii (Suet. 7b. 33; Dict. of Autig. “ Asses-
sor,’ p. 143; Grotius, On Acts xxy.; Conybeare and
Howson, ii. 358, 361). But besides the absence of
any previous mention of any assessors (see below),
the mode of expression συλλαλήσας μετὰ τοῦ
συμβουλίου seems to admit the explanation of
conference with the deputies from the Sanhedrim
(τὸ συμβ.). St. Paul’s appeal would probably be
‘in the Latin language, and would require explana-
tion on the part of the judge to the deputation of
accusers, before he carried into effect the inevitable
result of the appeal, viz. the dismissal of the case
so far as they were concerned.
(6.) We have, lastly, the mention (Acts xix. 88)
of a judicial assembly which held its session at
Ephesus, in which occur the terms ἀγοραῖοι (7. 6.
ἡμέραι) ἄγονται, and ἀνθύπατοι. The former
denotes the assembly, then sitting, of provincial
citizens forming the conventus, out of which the
proconsul, ἀνθύπατος, selected “judices” to sit as
his assessors. The ἀνθύπατοι would thus be the
| judicial tribunal composed of the proconsul and his
assessors. In the former case, at Caesarea, it is
difficult to imagine that there could be any con-
ventus and any provincial assessors. There the
only class of men qualified for such a function
would be the Roman officials attached to the pro-
curator; but in Proconsular Asia such assemblies
are well known to have existed (Dict. of Antiq.
“ Provincia,’ pp. 965, 966, 967).
Early Christian practice discouraged resort to
heathen tribunals in civil matters (1 Cor. vi. 1).
fel. Wi. Ῥ.]
TRIBUTE (τὰ δίδραχμα, didrachma, Matt.
xvii. 24.5 κῆνσος, census, ib. 25).
(1.) The chief Biblical facts connected with the
TRIBUTE
payment of tribute have been already given under
Taxes. <A few remain to be added in connexion
with the word which in the above passage is thus
rendered, inaccurately enough, in the A. V. The
payment of the half-shekel (= half-stater = two
drachmae) was (as has been said) [TAxEs], though
resting on an ancient precedent (Ex. xxx. 13), yet,
in its character as a fixed annual rate, of late origin.
’ It was proclaimed according to Rabbinic rules, on
the first of Adar, began to be collected on the
15th, and was due, at latest, on the first of Nisan
(Mishna, Shekalim, i. f. 7; Surenhusius, pp. 260,
261). It was applied to defray the general ex-
penses of the Temple, the morning and evening
sacrifice, the incense, wood, shew-bread, the red
heifers, the scape-goat, &c. (Shekal. ἰ. ec. in Light-
foot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. xvii. 24). After the
destruction of the Temple it was sequestrated by
Vespasian and his successors, and transferred to the
Temple of the Capitoline Jupiter (Joseph. B. J.
vii. 6, 86).
(2.) The explanation thus given of the “ tribute”
of Matt. xvii. 24, is beyond all doubt, the true one.
To suppose with Chrysostom, Augustine, Maldo-
natus, and others, that it was the same as the
tribute (k7jvoos) paid to the Roman emperor (Matt.
xxii. 17), is at variance with the distinct statements
of Josephus and the Mishna, and takes away the
whole significance of our Lord’s words. It may be
questioned, however, whether the full significance
of those words is adequately brought out in the
popular interpretation of them. As explained by
most commentators, they are simply an assertion
by our Lord of His divine Sonship, an implied
rebuke of Peter for forgetting the truth which he
had so recently confessed (comp. Wordsworth,
Alford, and others): “ Then are the children (υἱοί)
free ;’’ Thou hast owned me as the Son of the
Living God, the Son of the Great King, of the Lord
of the Temple, in whose honour men pay the Temple-
tribute; why, forgetting this, dost thou so hastily
make answer as if I were an alien and a stranger ?
True as this exegesis is in part, it fails to account
for some striking facts. (1.) The plural, not the
singular is used—‘‘then are the children free.”
The words imply a class of ‘‘sons” as contrasted
with a class of aliens. (2.) The words of our Lord
here must be interpreted by his language elsewhere.
The “sons of the kingdom” are, as in the Hebrew
speech of the O. T., those who belong to it, in the
Apostolic language “‘ heirs of the kingdom” (Matt.
viii. 12, xiii. 38; Jam. ii. 5; Rom. viii. 17), “sons
of God,” “ children of their Father in Heaven.’
(3.) The words that follow, ““ Give unto them
for me and thee,” place the disciple as standing, at
least in some degree, on the same ground as his
Master. The principle involved in the words “ then
are the children free” extends to him also. Pay-
ment is made for both, not on different, but on the
same grounds.
(3.) A fuller knowledge of the facts of the case
may help us to escape out of the trite routine of
commentators, and to rise to the higher and broader
truth implied in our Lord’s teaching, The Temple-
rate, as above stated, was of comparatively late
origin. The question whether the costs of the
morning and evening sacrifice ought to be defrayed
by such a fixed compulsory payment, or left to the
free-will offerings of the people, had been a con-
tested point between the Pharisees and Sadducees,
and the former had carried the day after a long
struggle and debate, lasting from the Ist to the
VOL, II.
TRIBUTE 1569
8th day of Nisan. So great was the triumph in
the eyes of the whole party, that they kept the
anniversary as a kind of half festival. The Temple-
rate question was to them what the Church-rate
question has been to later Conservatives (Jost, Gc-
schichte des Judenthums, i. 218). We have to
remember this when we come to the narrative of
St. Matthew. In a hundred different ways, on the
questions of the Sabbath, of fasting, of unwashed
hands and the like, the teaching of our Lord had
been in direct antagonism to that of the Pharisees.
The collectors of the rate, probably, from the nature
of their functions, adherents of the Pharisee party,
now come, half-expecting opposition on this point
also. Their words imply that he had not as yet
paid the rate for the current year. His life of con-
stant wandering, without a home, might seem
like an evasion of it. They ask tauntingly,
“6 Will he side, on this point, with their Sadducee
opponents and refuse to pay it altogether?” The
answer of Peter is that of a man who looks on the
payment as most other Jews looked on it. With no
thought of any higher principle, of any deeper
truth, he answers at once, ““ His Master will of
course pay what no other religious Israelite would
refuse.” The words of his Lord led him to the
truth of which the Pharisees were losing sight.
The offerings of the children of the kingdom should
be free, and not compulsory. The Sanhedrim, by
making the Temple-ottering a fixed annual tax, col-
lecting it as men collected tribute to Caesar, were
lowering, not raising the religious condition and
character of the people. They were placing every
Israelite on the footing of a “ stranger,” not on that
of a “son.” The true principle for all such offer-
ings was that which St. Paul afterwards asserted,
following in his Master’s footsteps, ‘not grudg-
ingly, or of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful
giver.” In proportion to the degree in which any
man could claim the title of a Son of God, in that
proportion was he “ free” from this forced exaction.
Peter, therefore, ought to have remembered that
here at least, was one who, by his own confession as
the Son of the Living God, was ipso facto exempted.
(4.) The interpretation which has now been given
leads us to see, in these words, a precept as wide
and far-reaching as the yet more memorable one,
“Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s,
and unto God the things that be God’s.” They
condemn, instead of sanctioning, the compulsory
payments which human policy has so often substi-
tuted for the ‘cheerful gifts’? which alone God
loves. But the words which follow condemn also
the perversity which leads men to a spurious mar-
tyrdom in resisting such payments. ‘* Lest we
should offend them ... give unto them for me
and thee.” It is better to comply with the pay-
ment than to startle the weak brethren, or run
counter to feelings that deserve respect, or lay an
undue stress on a matter of little moment. In such
quarrels, paradoxical as it may seem, both parties
are equally in the wrong. If the quarrel is to
find a solution, it must be by a mutual acknow-
ledgment that both have been mistaken.
(5.). It is satisfactory to find that some inter-
preters at least, have drawn near to the true mean-
ing of one of the most characteristic and pregnant
sayings in the whole cycle of our Lord’s teaching.
Augustine (Quaestiones Evangel. \xxv.), though
missing the main point, saw that what was true of
the Lord and of Peter was true of all (‘ Salvator
autem, cum pro se et Petro dari jubet, pro omnibus
1570 TRIBUTE-MONEY
exsolvisse videtur ’’). Jerome (ad /oc.) sees in the
words, a principle extending in some form or other,
“to all believers (‘‘ Nos pyro illius honore tributa non
reddimus, et quasi filii Regis a vectigalibus im-
munes sumus”), though his words claim an exemp-
tion which, if true at times of the Christian clergy,
has never been extended to the body of Christian laity.
Calvin, though adhering to the common explanation,
is apparently determined chiefly by his dislike of the
inferences drawn from the other explanation by
Papists on the one side, and Anabaptists on the
other, as claiming an exemption from obedience in
matters of taxation to the civil magistrate. Luther
(Annot. in Matt. xvii.) more boldly, while dwelling
chiefly on the friendly pleasantry which the story
represents as passing between the master and the
disciple,* seizes, with his usual acuteness, the true
oint. Qui fit (this is his paraphrase of the words
of Christ) mi Petre, ut a te petant, cum sis Regis
filius. .. . Vade et scito nos esse in alio regno reges
et filios regis. Sinito illis suum regnum, in quo
sumus hospites. . . . Filii regni sumus, sed non hujus
regni mundani.” Tindal (Marg. Note on Matt.
xvii. 26) in like manner, extends the principle, ‘ So
is a Christian man free in all things... yet payeth
he tribute, and submitteth himself to all men for
his brother’s sake.” ΓΗ. 12)
TRIBUTE-MONEY. [TaxeEs; TRIBUTE. ]
TRIP'OLIS (ἡ Τρίπολις). The Greek name
of a city of great commercial importance, which
served at one time as a point of federal union for
Aradus, Sidon, and Tyre. What its Phoenician
name was is unknown ; but it seems not impossible
that it was Kadytis, and that this was really the
place captured by Neco of which Herodotus speaks
(ii. 159, iii. 5). MKadytis is the Greek form of the
Syrian Kedutha, “the holy,” a name of which a
relic still seems to survive in the Nahr-Kadish, a
river which runs through Zurablous, the modern
representative of Tripolis. All ancient federations
had for their place of meeting some spot consecrated
to a common deity, and just to the south of Tripolis
was a promontory which went by the name of
Θεοῦ πρόσωπον. [ PENIEL, p. 768, a. |
It was at Tripolis that, in the year 551 BC., the
plan was concocted for the simultaneous revolt of
the Phoenician cities and the Persian dependencies
in Cyprus against the Persian king Ochus, Al-
though aided by a league with Nectanebus king of
Egypt, this attempt failed, and in the sequel great
part of Sidon was burnt and the chiet’ citizens
destroyed. Perhaps the importance of Tripolis was
increased by this misfortune of its neighbour, tor
soon after, when Alexander invaded Asia, it appears
as a port of the first order, After the battle of
Issus some of the Greek officers in Darius’s service
retreated thither, and not only found ships enough
to carry themselves and 8000 soldiers away, but a
number over and above, which they burnt in order
to preclude the victor fiom an immediate pursuit of
them (Arrian, ii. 13). The destruction of Tyre by
Alexander, like that of Sidon by Ochus, would
naturally tend rather to increase than diminish the
importance of Tripolis as a commercial port. When
Demetrius Soter, the son of Seleucus, succeeded in
wresting Syria from the young son of Antiochus
(0.6. 161), he landed there and made the place the
base of his operations. It is this circumstance to
a «Ks muss ja ein fein, freundlich, lieblich Gesellschaft
sein gewest inter Christum et discipulos suos.””
TROAS
which allusion is made in the only passage in which
Tripolis is mentioned in the Bible (2 Mace. xiy. 1).
The prosperity of the city, so far as appears, con-
tinued down to the middle of the 6th century of the
Christian era. Dionysius Periegetes applies to it
the epithet λιπαρὴν in the 3rd century. In the
Peutinger Table (which probably was compiled in
the reign of the Emperor Theodosius) it appears on
the great road along the coast of Phoenicia; and at
Orthosia (the next station to it northwards) the
roads which led respectively into Mesopotamia and
Cilicia branched off from one another. The pos-
session of a good harbour in so important a point
for land-traffic, doubtless combined with the rich-
| ness of the neighbouring mountains in determining
the original choice of the site, which seems to have
been a factory for the purposes of trade established
by the three great Phoenician cities. Each of these
held a portion of Tripolis surrounded by a fortified
| wall, like the Western nations at the Chinese ports.
But in A.v. 543 it was laid in ruins by the terrible
earthquake which happened in the month of July
of that year, and overthrew Tyre, Sidon, Berytus,
and Byblus as well. On this occasion the appear-
ance of the coast was much altered. A large por-
tion of the promontory Theuprosopon (which in
the Christian times had its name, from motives of
piety, changed to Lithoprosopon) fell into the sea,
and, by the natural breakwater it constituted,
created a new port, able to contain a considerable
number of large vessels. The ancient Tripolis was
finally destroyed by the Sultan El Mansour in the
year 1289 A.D.; and the modern Tuarablous is
situated a couple of miles distant to the east, and
is no longer a port. £1 Myna, which is perhaps
on the site of the ancient Tripolis, is a small fishing
village. Tarablous contains a population of 15 or
16,000 inhabitants, and is the centre of one of the
four pashalics of Syria. It exports silk, tobacco, galls,
and oil, grown in the lower parts of the mountain
at the foot of which it stands; and performs, on a
smaller scale, the part which was formerly taken
| by Tripolis as the entyep6t for the productions of a
most fertile region (Diod. Sic. xvi. 41; Strabo, xvi.
c. 2; Vossius ad Melam, i. 12 ; Theophanes, Chrono-
graphia, sub anno 6043). [J. W. Β.]
TRO'AS (Tpwas). The city from which St. Paul
first sailed, in consequence of a divine intimation,
to carry the Gospel from Asia to Europe (Acts xvi.
8, 11)—where he rested for a short time on the
northward road from Ephesus (during the next mis-
sionary journey) in the expectation of meeting Titus
(2 Cor. ii. 12, 13)—-where on the return south-
wards (during the same missionary journey) he met
those who had preceded him from Philippi (Acts
xx. 5, 6), and remained a week, the close of which
(before the journey to Assos) was marked by the
raising of Eutychus from the dead during the pro-
tracted midnight discourse—and where, after an
interval of many years, the Apostle left (during a
journey the details of which are unknown) a cloak
and some books and parchments in the house of
Carpus (2 Tim. iv. 13)—deserves the careful atten-
tion of the student of the New Testament.
The full name of the city was Alexandreia Troas
(Liv. xxxv. 42), and sometimes it was called simply
Alexandreia, as by Pliny (7. N. v. 33) and Strabo
(xiii. p. 593), sometimes simply Troas (as in the
N. T. and the Ant. Jtin. See Wesseling, p. 334).
The former part of the name indicates the period
at which it was founded. It was first built by
Antigonus, under the name of Antigoneia Troas,
TROGYLLIUM
and peopled with the inhabitants of some neigh-
bouring cities. Afterwards it was embellished by
Lysimachus, and named Alexandreia Troas. Its
situation was on the coast of ΜΎΒΙΑ, opposite the
S.E. extremity of the island of Tenedos.
Under the Romans it was one of the most im-
portant towns of the province of Asta. It was the
chief point of arrival and departure for those who
went by sea between Macedonia and the western
Asiatic districts; and it was cennected by good
roads with other places on the coast and in the
interior, For the latter see the map in Leake’s
Asia Minor. The former cannot be better illus-
trated than by St. Paul’s two voyages between
Troas and Philippi (Acts xvi. 11, 12, xx. 6), one
of which was accomplished in two days, the other
in five. At this time Alexandreia Troas was a
colonia with the Jus Italicum. This strong Roman
connexion can be read on its coins, The Romans
had a peculiar feeling connected with the place, in
consequence of the legend of their origin from Troy.
Suetonius tells us that Julius Caesar had a plan of
making Troas the seat of empire (Caes. 79), It
may perhaps be inferred from the words of Horace
(Carm. iii. 3, 57) that Augustus had some such
dveams. And even the modern name Lski-Stamboul
(or ** Old Constantinople’) seems to commemorate
the thought which was once in Constantine’s mind
(Zosim. ii. 30; Zona. xiii. 3), who, to use Gibbon’s
words, “before he gave a just preference to the
situation of Byzantium, had conceived the design
of erecting the seat of empire on this celebrated
spot, from which the Romans derived their fabulous
origin,”
The ruins’ at Lski-Stamboul are considerable.
The most conspicuous, however, especially the re-
mains of the aqueduct of Herodes Atticus, sect
exist when St. Paul was there. The walls, which
may represent the extent of the city in the Apostle’s
time, enclose a rectangular space, extending above
a mile from east to west, and nearly a mile from
north to south. That which possesses most interest
‘for us is the harbour, which is still distinctly trace-
able in a basin about 400 feet long and 200 broad.
Descriptions in greater or less detail are given by
Pococke, Chandler, Hunt (in Walpole’s Memoirs),
Clarke, Prokesch, and Fellows. [Bo So ἘΠῚ
TROGYL'LIUM [see Samos]. Samos is ex-
actly opposite the rocky extremity of the ridge of
Mycale, which is called Τρωγύλλιον in the N. T.
(Acts xx. 15) and by Ptolemy (v. 2), and Tpw-
γίλιον by Strabo (xiv. p. 636). The channel is
extremely narrow. Strabo (/. c.) makes it about
a mile broad, and this is confirmed by our Admi-
ralty Charts (1530 and 1555). St. Paul sailed
through this channel on his way to Jerusalem at
the close of his third missionary journey (Acts, /.c.).
The navigation of this coast is intricate; and it can
be gathered from Acts xx. 6, with subsequent notices
of the days spent on the voyage, that it was the time
of dark moon. Thus the night was spent at Trogyl-
lium. It is interesting to observe that a little to
the east of the extreme point there is an anchorage,
which is still called St. Pawl’s Port. [J.S.H.]
TROOP, BAND. These words have a peculiar
a Trophimus was no doubt at Miletus on the occasion
recorded in Acts xx. 15-38, but it is most certain that he
was not left there. The theory also that he was left there |
on the voyage to Rome is preposterous; for the wind
forced St. Paul’s vessel.to run direct from the S.W. corner
TROPHIMUS 1571
| signification in many passages of the O. T., which
is apt to be overlooked, and the knowledge of which
throws a brighter light upon them. They are em-
ployed to represent the Hebrew word 9973, gédid,
which has invariably the force of an irregular body
of people, large or small, united not for the purpose
of defence or regular aggression, like an army, but
with the object of marauding and plunder. [See
Moa, vol. ii, 395, note, where the term gédid
is examined.] In addition to the instances of its
use there named, it may be observed that our
translators haye in a few cases tried to bring out
its meaning more strongly; as in 1 Chr. xii, 21,
‘*hand-of-the-rovers ;” Hos. vi. 9, and vii. 1, ‘‘ troop-
of-robbers.” [G.]
TROPHIMUS (Tpdgimos). Of the three
passages where this companion of St. Paul is men-
tioned, the first associates him very closely with
Tycuicus (Acts xx. 4), and the last seems in some
degree to renew the association, and in reference to
the same geographical district (2 Tim. iv. 20; see
ver. 12), while the intermediate one separates him
entirely from this connexion (Acts xxi. 29).
From the first of these passages we learn that
Tychicus, like Trophimus, was a native of Asia
CAgtavot), and that the two were among those
companions who travelled with the Apostle in the
course of the third missionary journey, and during
part of the route which he took in returning from
Macedonia towards Syria. From what we know
concerning the collection which was going on at
this time for the poor Christians in Judaea, we are
disposed to connect these two men with the business
of that contribution. his, as we shall see, suggests
a probable connexion of Trophimus with another
circumstance.
Both he and Tychicus accompanied St. Paul
from Macedonia as far as Asia (ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας,
ἰ. c.), but Tychicus seems to have remained there,
while Trophimus proceeded with the Apostle to Jeru-
salem. There he was the innocent cause of the
tumult in which St. Paul was apprehended, and
from which the voyage to Rome ultimately re-
sulted. Certain Jews from the district of Asia saw
the two Christian missionaries together, and sup-
posed that Paul had taken Trophimus into the
Temple (Acts xxi. 27-29). From this passage we
learn two new facts, viz. that Trophimus was a
Gentile, and that he was a native, not simply of
Asia, but of EPHESUS.
A considerable interval now elapses, during
which we have no trace of either Tychicus or
Trophimus; but in the last letter written by St.
Paul, shortly before his martyrdom, from Rome,
he mentions them both (Τυχικὸν ἀπέστειλα εἰς
Ἔφεσον, 2 Tim. iv. 12; Τρόφιμον ἀπέλιπον ev
Μιλήτῳ ἀσθενοῦντα, ib. 20). From the last of
the phrases we gather simply that the Apostle had
/ no long time before been in the Levant, that Trophi-
mus had been with him, and that he had been left
in infirm health at Miletus. Of the further details
we are ignorant; but this we may say here, that
while there would be considerable difficulty in ac-
commodating this passage to any part of the re~
corded narrative previous to the voyage to Rome,”
all difficulty vanishes on the supposition of two im-
of Asia Minor to the Εἰ. end of Crete (Acts xxvii. 7). We
| may add, that when Trophimus was left in sickness at
Miletus, whenever that might be, he was within easy
‘reach of his home-friends at Ephesus, as we see from
Acts xx. 17.
i ΟΕ
1572 TRUMPET
prisonments, and a journey in the Levant between
them.
What was alluded to above as probable, is that
Trophimus was one of the two brethren who, with
TiTUs, conveyed the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians
(2 Cor. viii. 16-24). The argument is so well
stated by Professor Stanley, that we give it in his
words :—‘* Trophimus was, like Titus, one of the
few Gentiles who accompanied the Apostle; an
Ephesian, and therefore likely to have been sent
by the Apostle from Ephesus with the First Epistle,
or to have accompanied him from Ephesus now; he
was, as is implied of ‘ this brother,’ whose praise
was in all the Churches, well known; so well
known that the Jews of Asia [Minor?] at Jeru-
salem immediately recognised him; he was also
especially connected with the Apostle-on this very
mission of the collection for the poor in Judaea.
Thus far would appear from the description of him
in Acts xxi. 29. From Acts xx. 4 it also appears
that he was with St. Paul on his return from this
very visit to Corinth” (Stanley’s Corinthians, 2nd
edit. p. 492).
The story in the Greek Menology that Trophimus
was one of the seventy disciples is evidently wrong ;
the legend that he was beheaded by Nero’s orders is
possibly true. ΕΠ ἘΞ etal
TRUMPET. [Cornet.]
TRUMPETS, FEAST OF (YA Ὁ)",
Num. xxix. 1; ἡμέρα σημασίας ; dies clangoris
et tubarum; AYIIF P31, Lev. xxiii. 24 ; μνημό-
συνον σαλπίγγων ; sabbatum memoriale clangen-
tibus tubis: in the Mishna, ΠῚ Π WN “the
beginning of the year”), the feast of the new moon,
which fell on the first of Tizri. It differed from
the ordinary festivals of the new moon in several
important particulars. It was one of the seven
days of Holy Convocation. [FEAsTs.] Instead of
the mere blowing of the trumpets of the Temple at
the time of the offering of the sacrifices, it was “a
day of blowing of trumpets.” In addition to the
daily sacrifices and the eleven victims offered on the
first of every month [NEw Moon], there were
offered a young bullock, a ram, and seven lambs of
the first year, with the accustomed meat offerings,
and a kid for a sin offering (Num. xxix. 1-6). The
regular monthly offering was thus repeated, with
the exception of one young bullock.
It is said that both kinds of trumpet were blown
in the temple on this day, the straight trumpet
(ΠΥ ΝΠ) and the cornet ("BW and 7), and
that elsewhere any one, even a child, might blow a
cornet (Reland, iv. 7, 2; Carpzov, p- 425; Rosh
Hash. i. 2; JUBILEE, p. 1149, note ©; CORNET).
When the festival fell upon a Sabbath, the trumpets
were blown in the Temple, but not out of it (Rosh
Hash, iv. 1).
It has been conjectured that Ps. Ixxxi., one of the
songs of Asaph, was composed expressly for the
Feast of Trumpets. The Psalm is used in the ser-
vice for the day by the modern Jews. As the third
verse is rendered in the LXX., the Vulgate, and the
A.V., this would seem highly probable—“ Blow
up the trumpet in the new moon, the time ap-
pointed, on our solemn feast day.” But the best
authorities understand the word translated new
moon (ΤΠ) to mean full moon. Hence the Psalm
would more properly belong to the service for one
of the festivals which take place at the full moon,
TRYPHENA
the Passover, or the Feast of Tabernacles (Gesen.
Thes. s. V.; Rosenmiiller and Hengstenberg on Ps.
Ixxxi.).
Various meanings have been assigned to the Feast
of Trumpets. Maimonides considered that its pur-
pose was to awaken the people from their spiritual
slumber to prepare for the solemn humiliation of
the Day of Atonement, which followed it within
ten days. This may receive some countenance from
Joel ii. 15, “* Blow the trumpet (nBiv) in Zion,
sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly.” Some
have supposed that it was intended to introduce the
seventh or Sabbatical month of the year, which was
especially holy because it was the seventh, and be-
cause it contained the Day of Atonement and the
Feast of Tabernacles (Fagius in Lev. xxiii. 24 ;
Buxt. Syn. Jud. ς. xxiv.). Philo and some early
Christian writers regarded it as a memorial of the
giving of the Law on Sinai (Philo, vol. v. p. 46,
ed. Tauch.; Basil, ἦν Ps. Ixxxi.; Theod. Quaest.
xxxii. iw Lev.). But there seems to be no sufficient
reason to call in question the common opinion of
Jews and Christians, that it was the festival of the
New Year’s Day of the civil year, the first of Tizri,
the month which commenced the Sabbatical year
and the year of Jubilee. [JUBILEE, p. 1152.] If
the New Moon Festival was taken as the consecra-
tion of a natural division of time, the month in
which the earth yielded the last ripe produce of the
season, and began again to foster seed for the supply
of the future, might well be regarded as the first
month of the year. The fact that Tizri was the
great month for sowing might thus easily have sug-
gested the thought of commemorating on this day
the finished work of Creation, when the sons of God
shouted for joy (Job xxxviii. 7). The Feast of
Trumpets thus came to be regarded as the anniversary
of the birthday of the world (Mishna, Rosh Hash.
i. 1; Hupfeld, De Fest. Heb. ii. p. 13; Buxt. Syn.
Jud. ¢. XXiv.).
It was an odd fancy of the Rabbis that on this
day, every year, God judges all men, and that they
pass before Him as a flock of sheep pass before a
shepherd @Rosh Hash. i. 2). [S. C.]
TRYPHE'NA and TRYPHOSA (Τρύφαινα
καὶ Τρυφῶσα). ‘Two Christian women at Rome,
who, among those that are enumerated in the con-
clusion of St. Paul’s letter to that city, receive a
special salutation, and on the special ground that
they are engaged there in “ labouring in the Lord ”
(Rom. xvi. 12), They may have been sisters, but
it is more likely that they were fellow-deaconesses,
and among the predecessors of that large number of
official women who ministered in the Church of
Rome at a later period (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 43) ;
for it is to be observed that they are spoken of as
at that time occupied in Christian service (τὰς
κοπιώσας), while the salutation to Persis, in the
same verse, is connected with past service (ἥτις
ἐκοπίασεν).
We know nothing more of these ἔννο sister-
workers of the Apostolic time; but the name of
one of them occurs curiously, with other names
familiar to us in St. Paul’s Epistles, in the Apo-
cryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. There Try-
phena appears as a rich Christian widow of Anti-
och, who gives Thecla a refuge in her house, and
sends money to Paul for the relief of the poor.
(See Jones, On the Canon, ii. 371, 380.) It is im-
possible to discern any trace of probability in this
part of the legend.
TRYPHON
It is an interesting fact that the columbaria of
ἐς Gaesar’s household”? in the Vigna Codini, near
Porta S. Sebastiano, contain the name Tryphena,
as well as other names mentioned in this chapter,
Philologus and Julia (ver. 15), and also Amplias
(ver. 8).—Wordsworth’s Tour in Italy (1862),
ii. 173. [J. S. ἘΠῚ
TRY'PHON (Τρύφων). A usurper of the Syrian
throne. His proper name was Diodotus (Strab. xvi.
2,10; App. Syr. 68), and the surname Tryphon
was given to him, or, according to Appian, adopted
by him, after his accession to power. He was a
native of Cariana, a fortified place in the district of
Apamea, where he was brought up (Strab. /. ¢.).
In the time of Alexander Balas he was attached to
the court (App. /. 6. δοῦλος τῶν βασιλέων ; Diod.
fr. xxi. ap. Mill. Hist. Gr. fragm. ii. 17, oTpa-
τηγός; 1 Mace. xi. 39, τῶν παρὰ ᾿Αλεξ.); but
towards the close of his reign he seems to have
joined in the conspiracy which was set on foot to
transfer the crown of Syria to Ptol. Philometor
(1 Mace. xi. 13; Diod. 7. c.). After the death of
Alexander Balas he took advantage of the unpopu-
larity of Demetrius II. to put forward the claims of
Antiochus VI., the young son of Alexander (1 Mace.
xi. 39; B.c. 145). After a time he obtained the
support of Jonathan, who had been alienated from
Demetrius by his ingratitude, and the yourg king
was crowned (B.c. 144). Tryphon, however, soon
revealed his real designs on the kingdom, and, fear-
ing the opposition of Jonathan, he gained possession
of his person by treachery (1 Mace. xii. 39-50),
and after a short time put him to death (1 Macc.
xiii. 23), As the way seemed now clear, he mur-
dered Antiochus and seized the supreme power
(1 Mace. xiii. 31, 32), which he exercised, as far
as he was able, with violence and rapacity (1 Macc.
xiii, 34). His tyranny again encouraged the hopes
of Demetrius, who was engaged in preparing an
expedition against him (B.c. 141), when he was
taken prisoner (1 Macc. xiv. 1-3), and Tryphon
retained the throne (Just. xxxvi. 1; Diod. Leg.
xxxi.) till Antiochus VII., the brother of Demetrius,
drove him to Dora, from which he escaped to
Orthosia in Phoenicia (1 Macc, xv. 10-14, 37-39;
B.C. 139). Not long afterwards, being hard pressed
by Antiochus, he committed suicide, or, according
to other accounts, was put to death by Antiochus
(Strab. xiv. 5, 2; App. Syr. 68, *Avrloxos—
κτείνει. . . σὺν πόνῳ πολλῷ). Josephus (Ant. xiii.
7, §2) adds that he was killed at Apamea, the place
which he made his head-quarters (Strab. xvi. 2,
10). The authority of Tryphon was evidently
very partial, as appears from the growth of Jewish
independence under Simon Maccabaeus ; and Strabo
describes him as one of the chief authors of Cilician
piracy (xiv. 3, 2). His name occurs on the coins
of ANTIocuus VI. [vol.i. p. 77], and he also struck
coins in his own name. [ANTIOcHUS; DEME-
TRIUS. | [B. F. W.||
ONVPA
2
\
Coin of Tryphon.
TUBAL 1573
TRYPHO'SA. [TryPHENA and TRYPHOSA. ]
TU'BAL (521m; 53M in Gen. x. 2, Ez. xxxii,
26, xxxix. 1: Θοβέλ, except in Ez. xxxix. 1, where
Alex. Θοβέρ: Thubal, but in Is. lxvi. 19, Jtalia).
In the ancient ethnological tables of Genesis and
1 Chr., Tubal is reckoned with Javan and Meshech
among the sons of Japheth (Gen. x. 2; 1 Chr.
i. 5). The three are again associated in the enu-
meration of the sources of the wealth of ‘Tyre;
Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, brought slaves and
copper vessels to the Phoenician markets (Ez. xxvii.
13). Tubal and Javan (Is. lxvi. 19), Meshech and
Tubal (Ez. xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 1), are
nations of the north (Ez. xxxviii. 15, xxxix. 2). Jo-
sephus (Ant. i. 6, §1) identifies the descendants of
Tubal with the Iberians, that is—not, as Jerome
would understand it, Spaniards, but—the inhabitants
of a tract of country, between the Caspian and
Euxine Seas, which nearly corresponded to the mo-
dern Georgia.? This approximates to the view of
Bochart (Phaleg, iii. 12), who makes the Moschi
and Tibareni represent Meshech and Tubal. These
two Colchian tribes are mentioned together in He-
rodotus on two occasions; first, as forming part of
the 19th satrapy of the Persian empire (ili. 94),
and again as being in the army of Xerxes under the
command of Ariomardus the son of Darius (vii.
78). The Moschi and Tibareni, moreover, are
“ constantly associated, under the names of Muskat
and Juplai, in the Assyrian inscriptions” (Sir H,
Rawlinson in Rawlinson’s Her. i. p. 535). The
Tibareni are said by the Scholiast on Apollonius
Khodius (ii. 1010) to have been a Scythian tribe,
and they as well as the Moschi are probably to be
referred to that Turanian people, who in very early
times spread themselves over the entire region
between the Mediterranean and India, the Persian
Gulf and the Caucasus (Rawlinson, Her. i. p. 535).
In the time of Sargon, according to the inscriptions,
Ambris, the son of Khuliya, was hereditary chiet
of Tubal {the southern slopes of Taurus). He “ had
cultivated relations with the kings of Musak and
Vararat (Meshech and Ararat, or the Moschi and
Armenia) who were in revolt against Assyria,
and thus drew upon himself the hostility of the
creat king” (ibid. i. p. 169, note 3), In former
times the Tibareni were probably more important,
and the Moschi and Tibareni, Meshech and Tubal,
may have been names by which powerful hordes of
Scythians were known to the Hebrews. But in
history we only hear of them as pushed to the
furthest limits of their ancient settlements, and oc-
cupying merely a strip of coast along the Euxine.
Their neighbours the Chaldeans were in the same
condition. In the time of Herodotus the Moschi
and Tibareni were even more closely connected than
at a later period, for in Xenophon we find them
separated by the Macrones and Mossynoeci (Anab.
v. 5, $1; Plin. vi. 4, &.). The limits of the ter-
ritory of the Tibareni are extremely difficult to de-
termine with any degree of accuracy. After a part
of the 10,000 Greeks on their retreat with Xe-
nophon had embarked at Cerasus (perhaps near
the modern Kerasoun Dere St), the rest marched
along the coast, and soon came to the boundaries of
the Mossynoeci (Anab. v. 4, §2). They traversed
the country occupied by this people in eight days,
and then came to the Chalybes, and after them to
4 Knobel connects these Iberians of the East and West,
and considers the Tibareni to have been a branch of this
widely-spread T'uranian family, known to the Hebrews
as Tubal ( Volkertafel ἃ. Gen. §13).
1574 TUBAL-CAIN
the Tibareni. The eastern limit of the Tibareni
was therefore about 80 or 90 miles along the
coast W. of Cerasus. Two days’ march through
Tibarene brought the Greeks to Cotyora (Anab. v.
5, §3), and they were altogether three days in
passing through the country (Diod. Sic. xiv. 30).
Now from C. Jasonium to Boon, according to
Arrian (Peripl. 16), the distance was 90 stadia, 90
more to Cotyora, and 60 from Cotyora to the
river Melanthius, making in all a coast line of 240
stadia, or three days’ march. Professor Rawlinson
(Her. iv. 181) conjectures that the Tibareni occu-
pied the coast between Cape Fasoun (Jasonium)
and the River Melanthius (J/elet Irmak), but if we
follow Xenophon, we must place Boon as their
western boundary, one day’s march from Cotyora,
and their eastern limit must be sought some 10
miles east of the Melet Irmak, perhaps not far from
the modern Aptar, which is 34 hours from that
river. The anonymous author of the Periplus of
the Euxine says (33) that the Tibareni formerly
dwelt west of Cotyora as far as Polemonium, at
the mouth of the Powleman chai, 14 mile east of
Fatsah.
In the time’ of Xenophon the Tibareni were an
independent tribe (Anab. vii. 8, §25). Long before
this they were subject to a number of petty chiefs,
which was a principal element of their weakness,
and rendered their subjugation by Assyria more
easy. Dr. Hincks (quoted by Rawlinson, Herod.
i. 380, note!) has found as many as twenty-four
kings of the Tuplai mentioned in the inscriptions.
They are said by Apollonius Rhodius to have been
rich in flocks (Arg. ii. 8377). The traffic in slaves
and vessels of copper with which the people of
Tubal supplied the markets of Tyre (Ez. xxvii. 13)
still further connects them with the Tibareni. It is
well known that the regions bordering on the
Pontus Euxinus furnished the most beautiful slaves,
and that the slave traffic was an extensive branch
of trade among the Cappadocians (Polyb. iv. 58,
§4; Hor. Hp. i. 6, 39; Pers. Sat. vi. 77; Mart.
Ep. vi. 77, x. 76, &c.). The copper of the Mos-
synoeci, the neighbours of the Tibareni, was cele-
brated as being extremely bright, and without any
admixture of tin (Arist. De Mir, Auscult. 62) ;
and the Chalybes, who lived between these tribes,
were long famous for their craft as metal-smiths.
We must not forget, too, the copper-mines of
Chalvar in Armenia (Hamilton, As. Win. i. 173).
The Arabic Version of Gen. x. 2 gives Chorasan
and China for Meshech and Tubal; in Eusebius
(see Bochart) they ave Illyria and Thessaly. The
Talmudists (Yoma, fol. 10, 2), according to
Bochart, define Tubal as “ thes home of the Uniact
ΟΝ), whom he is inclined to identify with
the Huns (Phaleg, iii. 12). They may perhaps
take their name from Oenoe, the modern Unieh, a
town on the south coast of the Black Sea, not far
from Cape Yasoun (Jasonium), and so in the im-
mediate neighbourhood cf the Tibareni: In the
Targum of oR. Joseph on 1 Chr. (ed. Wilkins)
SIN is given as the equivalent of Tubal, and
Wilkins renders it by Bithynia. But the reading
in this passage, as well as in the Taroums of Jeru-
salem and of Jonathan on Gen. x. is too doubtful
to be followed as even a traditional authority.
De Α, ΧΝ.1
TU'BAL-CA'IN (tp 524m: ὁ Θόβελ: Tubal-
cain). The son of Lamech the Cainite by his wife
Zillah (Gen. iv. 22). He is called **a furbisher of
TURPENTINE-TREE
every cutting instrument of copper and iron.” The
Jewish legend of later times associates him with his
father’s song. ‘* Lamech was blind,’’ says the story
as told by “Rashi, *¢and Tubal-Cain was leading
him; and he saw Cain, and he appeared to him
like a wild beast, so he told his father to draw his
bow, and he slew him. And when he knew that it
was Cain his ancestor he smote his hands together
and struck his son between them. So he slew him,
and his wives withdraw from him, and he concili-
ates them.” In this story Tubal-Cain is the “ young
man” of the song. Rashi apparently considers the
name of Tubal-Cain as an appellative, for he makes
him director of the works of Cain for making
weapons of war, and connects “ Tubal”? with
Dan, tabbél, to season, and so to prepare skil-
fully. He appears moreover to have pointed it
AIA, t6bél, which seems to have been the reading
of the LXX. and Josephus. According to the
writer last mentioned (Ant. i. 2, §2), Tubal-Cain
was distinguished for his prodigious strength and
his success in war.
The derivation of the name is extremely obscure.
Hasse (Lntdeckungen, ii. 37, quoted by Knobel on
Gen. iv. 22) identifies Tubal-Cain with Vulcan ;
and Buttmann (Mythol. i. 164) not only compares
these names, but adds to the comparison the TeA-
xives of Rhodes, the first workers in copper and
iron (Strabo, xiv. 654), and Dwalinn, the demon
smith of the Scandinavian mythology. Gesenius
proposed to consider it a hybrid word, compounded
of the Pers. δ, ἐῶραϊ, ivon slag, or scoria,
and the Arab. but this
etymology is more ‘than doubtful. The Scythian
race TUBAL, who were cuppersmiths (Ez. xxvii. 13),
naturally suggest themselves in connexion with
Tubal-Cain. [W. A. W.]
TUBIE'NI (Τουβιήνοι ; Alex. Τουβεινοι: Tu-
bianaet). The * Jews called Tubieni” lived about
Charax, 750 pete from a strongly-fortified city
called Caspis (2 Macc. xii. 17). They were doubt-
less the same mie are elsewhere mentioned as living
in the towns of Toubion (A. V. Topi), which
again is probably the same with the Tos of the
Old Testament. [G.]
TURPENTINE-TREE (τερέμινθος, τερέ-
βινθος : terebinthus) occurs only once, viz. in the
Apocrypha (Kcclus. xxiv. 16), where wisdom is
compared with the “ turpentine-tree that stretcheth
forth her branches.” The τερέβινθος or τέρμινθος
of the Greeks is the Pistacia terebinthus, tevebinth-
tree, common in Palestine and the East, le
by some writers to represent the éldéh (2 N) ὁ
the Hebrew Bible. [Oax.] The terebinth, ae
not generally so conspicuous a tree in Palestine as
some of the oaks, occasionally grows to a large size.
See Robinson (8, Δ. ii. 222, 3), -who thus speaks of it.
“The Butm” (the Arabic name of the terebinth)
“is not an evergreen, as often represented, but its
small lancet-shaped leaves fall in the autumn,
and are yenewed in the spring. The flowers are
small, and followed by small oval berries, hanging
in clusters from two to five inches long, resembling
much those of the vine when the grapes are just
set. From incisions in the trunk there is said to
flow a sort of transparent balsam, constituting a
very pure and fine species of turpentine, with an
agreeable odour like citron or jessamine, and a mild
ob
, kain, a smith;
TURTLE
taste, and hardening gradually into a transparent
gum. In Palestine nothing seems to be known of
this product of the butm!” The terebinth belongs
to the Nat. Order Anacardiaceae, the plants of
which order generally contain resinous secretions.
[W. H.]
Pistacia terebinthus. .
TURTLE, TURTLE-DOVE (7), ἐόν:
τρυγών : turtur: generally in connexion with 734),
yonah, dove”). [Dove.] The name is phonetic,
evidently derived from the plaintive cooing of the
bird. The turtle-dove occurs first in Scripture in
Gen. xv. 9, where Abram is commanded to offer
it along with other sacrifices, and with a young
pigeon ( 13, gézdal). In the Levitical law a pair
of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons, are constantly
prescribed as a substitute for those who were too
poor to provide a lamb ora kid, and these birds
were admissible either as trespass, sin, or burnt-
offering. In one instance, the case of a Nazarite
having been accidentally defiled by a dead body, a
pair of turtle-doves or young pigeons were specially
enjoined (Num. vi. 10). Jt was in accordance with
the provision in Ley. xii, 6 that the mother of our
Lord made the offering for her purification (Luke
ii. 24). During the early period of Jewish history,
there is no evidence of any other bird except the
pigeon having been domesticated, and up to the
time of Solomon, who may, with the peacock, have
introduced other gallinaceous birds from India, it
was probably the only poultry known to the Israel-
ites, To this day enormous quantities of pigeons
ave kept in dove-cots in all the towns and villages
of Palestine, and several of the fancy races so fami-
liar in this country have been traced to be of Syrian
origin. The offering of two young pigeons must
have been one easily within the reach of the poorest,
and the offerer was accepted according to that he
had, and not according to that he had not. The
admission of a pair of turtle-doves was perhaps a
yet further concession to extreme poverty; for, un-
like the pigeon, the turtle from its migratory
nature and timid disposition, has never yet been
kept in a state of free domestication; but being ex-
TURTLE 1575
tremely numerous, and resorting especially to gar-
dens for nidification, its young might easily be
found and captured by those who did not even
possess pigeons.
It is not improbable that the palm-dove ( Turtur
aegyptiacus, ‘Temm.) may in some measure haye
supplied the sacrifices in the wilderness, for it is
found in amazing numbers wherever the palm-tree
occurs, whether wild or cultivated. In most. of the
oases of North Africa and Arabia every tree is the
home of two or three pairs of these tame and elegant
birds. In the crown of many of the date-trees five
or six nests are placed together ; and the writer has
frequently, in a palm-grove, brought down ten
brace or more without moving from his post. In
such camps as Elim a considerable supply of these
doves may have been obtained.
From its habit of pairing for life, and its fidelity
for its mate, it was a symbol of purity and an
appropriate offering (comp. Plin. Wat. Hist. x. 52),
The regular migration of the turtle-dove and: its
return in spring are alluded to in Jer, viii, 7, ‘* The
turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the
time of their coming ;” and Cant. ii. 11, 12, ‘‘ The
winter is past. . .and the voice of the turtle is
heard in our land.” So Pliny, ““ Hyeme mutis, a
vere vocalibus;’ and Arist. Hist. An. ix. 8,
“6 Turtle-doves spend the summer in cold countries,
the winter in warm ones.” Although elsewhere
(vili. 5) he makes it hybernate (φωλεῖ). ‘There is,
indeed, no more gratetul proof of the return of
spring in Mediterranean countries than the voice
of the turtle. One of the first birds to migrate
northwards, the turtle, while other songsters are
heard chiefly in the morning, or only at inter-
vals, immediately on its arrival pours forth from
every garden, grove, and wooded hill its melan-
choly yet soothing ditty, unceasingly from early
dawn till sunset. It is from its plaintive note
doubtless that David in Ps. Ixxiv. 19, pouring forth
his lament to God, compares himself to a turtle-
dove.
From the abundance of the dove tribe and their
importance as an article of food the ancients discii-
minated the species of Columbidae, more accurately
than of many others, Aristotle enumerates five
species, which are not all easy of identification, as
but four species are now known commonly to in-
habit Greece. In Palestine the number of species
is probably greater. Besides the rock-dove (Co-
lumba livia, L.), very common on all the rocky
parts of the coast and in the inland ravines, where
it remains throughout the year, and from which
all the varieties of the domestic pigeon are derived,
the ringdove (Columba palumbus, L.) frequents all
the wooded districts of the country. The stock-dove
(Columba aenas, L.) is as generally, but more
sparingly distributed. Another species, allied either
to this or to Columba livia, has been observed in
the valley of the Jordan, perhaps Col. leuconota,
Vig. See 7018, vol. 1. p. 35. The turtle-dove
(Turtur auritus, L.) is, as has been stated, most
abundant, and in the valley of the Jordan, an allied
species, the palm-dove, or Egyptian turtle ( Zurtur
aegyptiacus, Temm.), is by no means uncommon.
This bird, most abundant among the palm-trees in
Egypt and Nerth Africa, is distinguished from the
common turtle-dove by its ruddy chesnut colour,
its long tail, smaller size, and the absence of the
collar on the neck. It does not migrate, but from
the similarity of its note and habits, it is not pro-
bable that it was distinguished by the ancients.
1576 TYCHICUS
The large Indian turtle (Zurtur gelastes, Temm.)
has also been stated, though without authority, to
occur in Palestine. Other species, as the well-
known collared dove ( Turtur risoria, L.) have been
incorrectly included as natives of Syria. [H. B. T. |
Turtur aegyptiacus.
TY’CHICUS (Τύχικος). A companion of St.
Paul on some of his journeys, and one of his fellow-
labourers in the work of the Gospel. He is men-
tioned in five separate books of the New Testament,
and in four cases explicitly, in the fifth very pro-
bably, he is connected with the district of Asia.
(1) In Acts xx. 4, he appears as one of those who
accompanied the Apostle through a longer or
shorter portion of his return-journey from the
third missionary circuit. Here he is expressly
called (with Tyophimus) ᾿Ασιανός : but while
Trophimus went with St. Paul to Jerusalem
(Acts xxi. 29), Tychicus was lett behind in Asia,
probably at Miletus (Acts xx. 15, 38). (2) How
Tychicus was employed in the interval before St.
Paul’s first imprisonment we cannot tell: but in
that imprisonment he was with the Apostle again,
as we see from Col. iv. 7,8. Here he is spoken
of, not only as ‘a beloved brother,’ but as ‘a
faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord ;”
and he is to make known to the Colossians the
present circumstances of the Apostle (τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ
πάντα γνωρίσει), and to bring comfort to the
Colossians themselves (ἵνα παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας
ὑμῶν). From this we gather that diligent service
and warm Christian sympathy were two features
of the life and character of Tychicus. Colossae was
in Asia; but from the fact that of Onesimus, who
is mentioned immediately afterwards, it is said, ὅς
ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν, whereas ‘l'ychicus is not so styled,
we naturally infer that the latter was not a native
of that city. These two men were doubtless the
bearers both of this letter and the following, as well
as that to Philemon. (3) The language concerning
Tychicus in Eph. vi. 21, 22, is very similar, though
not exactly in the same words, And it is the more
important to notice this passage carefully, because
it is the only personal allusion in the Epistle, and
TYRANNUS
is of some considerable value as a subsidiary argu-
ment for its authenticity. If this was a circular
letter, ‘'ychicus, who bore a commission to Colossae,
and who was probably well known in various parts
of the province of Asia, would be a very proper
person to see the letter duly delivered and read.
(4) The next references are in the Pastoral Epistles,
the first in chronological order being Tit. iii. 12.
Here St. Paul (writing possibly from Ephesus) says
that it is probable he may send Tychicus to Crete,
about the time when he himself goes to Nicopolis.
(5) In 2 Tim. iv. 12 (written at Rome during the
second imprisonment) he says, “1 am herewith
sending Tychicus to Ephesus.” At least it seems
natural, with Dr. Wordsworth, so to render ἀπέ-
στειλα, though Bp. Ellicott’s suggestion is also
worth considering, that this mission may have been
connected with the carrying of the first Epistle.
(See their notes on the passage.) However this
may be, we see this disciple at the end, as we saw
him at the beginning, connected locally with Asia,
while also co-operating with St. Paul. We have
no authentic information concerning Tychicus in
any period previous to or subsequent to these
five Scriptural notices. The tradition which places
him afterwards as bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia
is apparently of no value. But there is much pro-
bability in the conjecture (Stanley’s Corinthians,
2nd ed. p. 493) that Tychicus .was one of the two
“brethren” (Trophimus being the other) who were
associated with Titus (2 Cor. viii, 16-24) in con-
ducting the business of the collection for the poor
Christians in Judaea. As arguments for this view
we may mention the association with Trophimus,
the probability that both were Ephesians, the oc-
currence of both names in the second Epistle to
Timothy (see 2 Tim. iv. 20), the chronological and
geographical agreement with the circumstances of the
third missionary journey, and the general language
used concerning Tychicus in Colossians and Ephesians,
[Αβια ; EpHEsus; TROPHIMUS. ] [J. 8. H.]
TYRAN'NUS (Τύραννος). The name of a man
in whose school or place of audience Paul taught
the Gospel for two years, during his sojourn at
Ephesus (see Acts xix. 9). The halls or rooms of
the philosophers were called σχολαί among the
later Greeks (Liddell and Scott, s. v.); and as Luke
applies that term to the auditorium in this instance,
the presumption is that Tyrannus himself was a
Greek, and a public teacher of philosophy or
rhetoric. He and Paul must have occupied the
room at different hours; whether he hired it out
to the Christians or gave to them the use of it (in
either case he must have been friendly to them) is
left uncertain. Meyer is disposed to consider that
Tyrannus was a Jewish rabbi, and the owner of
a private synagogue or house for teaching (2
wid). But, in the first place, his Greek name,
and the fact that he is not mentioned as a Jew
or proselyte, disagree with that supposition ; and,
in the second place, as Paul repaired to this man’s
school after having been compelled to leave the
Jewish synagogue (Acts xix. 9), it is evident that
he took this course as a means of gaining access to
the heathen; an object which he would naturally
seek through the co-operation of one of their own
number, and not by associating himself with a Jew
or a Gentile adherent of the Jewish faith. In
speaking of him merely as a certain Tyrannus
(Tupdvvov τινός), Luke indicates certainly that he
was not a believer at first; though it is natural .
TYRE
enough to think that he may have become such as
the result of his acquaintance with the Apostle.
Hemsen (Der Apostel Paulus, p. 218) throws out
the idea that the hall may have belonged to the
authorities of the city, and have derived its name
from the original proprietor. ΗΒ
TYRE (7)¥, 1B, ie. Tzér: Τύρος : Tyrus:
Fok o> ΣΧ ΟΣ ΘΕΙΩς Σχῖτ ἢ: [ΕΞ 0-00) En A DY
xxvi. 15, xxvii. 2, &.). A celebvated commercial
city of antiquity, situated in Phoenicia, on the eastern
coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in latitude 33° 17’
N. (Admiral Smythe’s Mediterranean, p. 469).
Its Hebrew name “ Tz6r” signifies a rock ; which
well agrees with the site of Stir, the modern town,
oma rocky peninsula, formerly an island. From
the word “ Tz6r”’ were derived two names of the
city, in which the first letters differed from each
other, though both had a feature of their common
parent: Ist, the Aramaic word Tura, whence the
Greek word Turos, probably pronounced Tyros,
which finally prevailed in Latin, and, with slight
changes, in the modern languages of the West ; and,
2ndly, Sara, or Sarra, which occurs in Plautus
(Truc, ii. 6, 58, “ purpuram ex Sara tibi attuli’”’),
and which is familiar to scholars through the well-
known line of Virgil, “4 Ut gemma bibat, et Sarrano
dormiat ostro”’ (Georg. ii. 506; comp. Aul. Gell.
xiv. 6; Silius Italicus, xv. 203; Juvenal, x. 30).
According to a passage of Probus (ad Virg. Geory,
li. 115), as quoted by Mr. Grote (History of Greece,
iii. 353), the form “Sara” would seem to have
occurred in one of the Greek epics now lost, which
passed under the name of Homer. Certainly, this
form accords best with the modern Arabic name of
Sir.
PALAETYRUS, or Old Tyre. There is no doubt
that, previous to the siege of the city by Alexander
the Great, Tyre was situated on an island; but, ac-
cording to the tradition of the inhabitants, if we may
believe Justin (xi, 10), there was a city on the main-
land before there was a city on the island; and the
tradition receives some colour from the name of
Palaetyris, or Old Tyre, which was borne in Greek
times by a city on the continent, 30 stadia to the
south (Strabo, xii. 11,24). But a difficulty arises
in supposing that Palaetyrus was built before Tyre,
as the word Tyre evidently means “a rock,” and
few persons who have visited the site of Palaetyrus
can seriously suppose that any rock on the surface
there can have given rise to the name. To escape
this difficulty, Hengstenberg makes the suggestion
that Palaetyrus meant Tyre that formerly existed ;
“quae quondam fuit;’ and that the name was in-
troduced after the destruction of the greater part of
it by Nebuchadnezzar, to distinguish it from that
part of Tyre which continued to be in existence
(De rebus Tyriorum, p. 26). Movers, justly deem-
ing this explanation unlikely, suggests that the
original inhabitants of the city on the mainland
possessed the island as part of their territory, and
named their city from the characteristic features of
the island, though the island itself was not then
inhabited (Das Phonizische Alterthum, vol. ii.
pt. 1. p. 173). This explanation is possible; but
other explanations are equally possible, For ex-
TYRE 1577
ample, the Phoenician name of it may have been
the Old City ; and this may have been translated
“ Palaetyrus’’ in Greek. Or, if the inhabitants of
the mainland migrated to the island, they may
afterwards, at some time or other, have given to
the city which they left the name of Old Tyre,
without its being necessarily implied that the city
had ever borne simply the name of Tyre. Or some
accidental circumstance, now beyond the reach of
conjecture, may have led to the name; just as for
some unaccountable reason Roma Vecchia, or Old
Rome, is the name given in the Roman Campagna
(as is stated on the high authority of Mr. H. E.
Bunbury) to ruins of the age of Caracalla situated
between the roads leading to Frascati and Albano,
although there are no traces there of any Old Town,
and there is not the slightest reason to suppose that
there is any historical foundation whatever for the
name. And this again would tally with Mr. Grote’s
remark, who observes (/. c.) that perhaps the Phoe-
nician name which the city on the mainland bore
may have been something resembling Palae-Tyrus
in sound but not coincident in meaning. It is im-
portant, however, to bear in mind that this question
regarding Palaetyrus is merely archaeological, and
that nothing in Biblical history is affected by it.
Nebuchadnezzar necessarily besieged the portion of
the city on the mainland, as he had no vessels with
which to attack the island; but it is reasonably
certain that, in the time of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the
heart or core of the city was on the island. The city
of Tyre was consecrated to Hercules (Melkarth)
who was the principal object of worship to the inha-
bitants (Quintus Curtius, iv. 2; Strabo, xvi. p.
757); and Arrian in his History says that the
temple on the island was the most ancient of all
temples within the memory of mankind (ii. 16).
It cannot be doubted, therefore, that the island had
long been inhabited. And with this agree the ex-
pressions as to Tyre being ‘‘in the midst of the
seas” (Ezek. xxvii. 25, 26); and even the threat
against it that it should be made like the top of a
rock to spread nets upon (see Des Vignoles’ Chro-
nologie de ? Histoire Sainte, Berlin, 1738, vol. ii.
p- 25). As, however, the space on the island was
limited, it is very possible that the population on
the mainland may have exceeded the population on
the island (see Movers, /. ὁ. p. 81).
Whether built before or later than Palaetyrus,
the renowned city of Tyre, though it laid claims to
a very high antiquity ἃ (Is. xxiii. 7; Herodot. ii.
14; Quintus Curtius, iv. 4), is not mentioned
either in the Iliad or in the Odyssey ; but no infer-
ence can be legitimately drawn from this fact as
to the existence or non-existence of the city at the
time when those poems were composed. The tribe
of Canaanites which inhabited the small tract of
country which may be called Phoenicia Proper
[PHOENICIA] was known by the generic name of
Sidonians (Judg. xviii. 7 ; Is. xxiii. 2, 4, 12 ; Josh.
xiii. 6; Ez. xxxii. 30); and this name undoubtedly
included Tyrians, the inhabitants being of the same
race, and the two cities being less than 20 English
miles distant from each other. Hence when Solo-
mon sent to Hiram king of Tyre for cedar-trees out
a According to Herodotus, the priests at Tyre told him
that their city had been founded 2300 years before his
visit. Supposing he was at Tyre in 450 B.c., this would
make the date of its foundation 2750 B.c. Josephus
makes the more sober statement, probably founded on
Menander’s history, that it was founded 230 years before
the commencement of the building of Solomon’s temple.
Under any circumstances, Josephus could not, with his
ideas and chronology, have accepted the date of the Tyrian
priests; for then Tyre would have been founded before
the era of the Deluge. See an instructive passage as to the
chronology of Josephus in Anfé. viii. 3, §1.
1578 TYRE
of Lebanon to be hewn by Hiram’s subjects, he
reminds Hiram that ‘‘ there is not among us any
that can skill to hew timber like the Sidonians ”’
(1 K. v. 6). Hence Virgil, who, in his very first
mention of Carthage, expressly states that it was
founded by colonists from Tyre (Aen. i. 12), after-
wards, with perfect propriety and consistency, calls
it the Sidonian city (Aen. i. 677, 678, iv. 545.
See Des Vignoles, /. ὁ. p. 25.) And in like manner,
when Sidonians are spoken of in the Homeric Poems
(11. vi. 290, xxiii. 743 ; Od. iv. 84, xvii. 424), this
might comprehend Tyrians ; and the mention of the
city Sidon, while there is no similar mention of Tyre,
would be fully accounted for—if it were necessary to
account for such a circumstance at all in a poem—
by Sidon’s having been in early times more flour-
ishing than Tyre. It is worthy, likewise, of being
noted, that Tyre is not mentioned in the Penta-
teuch; but here, again, though an inference may
be drawn against the importance, no inference can
be legitimately drawn against the existence, of
Tyre in the times to which the Pentateuch refers.
In the Bible, Tyre is named for the first time in
the Book of Joshua (xix. 29), where it is adverted
to as a fortified city (in the A. V. ‘the strong
city’), in reference to the boundaries of the tribe of
Asher. Nothing historical, however, turns upon
this mention of Tyre; for it is indisputable that
the tribe of Asher never possessed the Tyrian terri-
tory. According to the injunctions of the Pentateuch,
indeed, all the Canaanitish nations ought to have
been exterminated ; but, instead of this, the Israelites
dwelt among the Sidonians or Phoenicians, who
were inhabitants of the land (Judg. i. 31, 32),
and never seem to have had any war with that
intelligent race. Subsequently, in a passage of
Samuel (2 Sam. xxiv. 7), it is stated that the
enumerators of the census in the reign of David
went in pursuance of their mission to Tyre, amongst
other cities, which must be understood as implying,
not that Tyre was subject to David’s authority, but
merely that a census was thus taken of the Jews resi-
dent there. But the first passages in the Hebrew
historical writings, or in ancient history generally,
which afford glimpses of the actual condition of Tyre,
are in the Book of Samuel (2 Sam. v. 11), in connec-
tion with Hiram king of Tyre sending cedar-wood
and workmen to David, for building him a palace;
and subsequently in the Book of Kings, in connec-
tion with the building of Solomon’s temple. One
point at this period is particularly worthy of atten-
tion, In contradistinction from all the other most
celebrated independent commercial cities out of
Phoenicia in the ancient and modern world, Tyre
was a monarchy and not a republic ; and, notwith-
standing its merchant princes, who might have been
deemed likely to favour the establishment of an
avistocratical commonwealth, it continued to pre-
serve the monarchical form of government until its
final loss of independence. Another point is the
skill in the mechanical arts which seems to have
been already attained by the Tyrians. Under this
head, allusion is not specially made to the excel-
lence of the Tyrians in felling trees; for, through
vicinity to the forests of Lebanon, they would as
naturaliy have become skilled in that art as the back-
TYRE
woodsmen of America. But what is peculiarly
noteworthy is that Tyrians had become workers in
brass or copper to an extent which implies consider-
able advancement in art. In the enumeration of
the various works in brass executed by the Tyrian
artists whom Solomon sent for, there are lilies,
palm-trees, oxen, lions, and cherubim (1 K. vii.
13-45). The manner in which the cedar-wood and
fir-wood was conveyed to Jerusalem is likewise
interesting, partly from the similarity of the sea
voyage to what may commonly be seen on the
Rhine at the present day, and partly as giving a
vivid idea of the really short distance between Tyre
and Jerusalem. The wood was taken in floats to
Joppa (2 Chr. ii. 16; 1 K. ν. 9), a distance, of
less than 74 geographical miles. In the Mediter-
ranean during summer there are times when this
voyage along the coast would have been perfectly
sate, and when the Tyrians might have reckoned
confidently, especially at night, on light winds to
fill the sails which were probably used on such
occasions. From Joppa to Jerusalem the distance
was about 32 miles; and it is certain that by
this route the whole distance between the two cele-
brated cities of Jerusalem and Tyre was not more
than 106% geographical, or about 122 English,
miles. Within such a comparatively short distance
(which by land, in astraight line, was about 20 miles
shorter) it would be easy for two sovereigns to
establish personal relations with each other; more
especially as the northern boundary of Solomon’s
kingdom, in one direction, was the southern boundary
of Phoenicia. Solomon and Hiram may frequently
have met, and thus laid the foundations of a political
alliance in personal friendship. If by messengers
they sent riddles and problems for each other to
solve (Joseph. Ant. viii. 5, 89; 6. Apion. i. 17),
they may previously have had, on several occasions,
a keen encounter of wits in convivial intercourse.
In this way, likewise, Solomon may have become
acquainted with the Sidonian women who, with
those of other nations, seduced him to Polytheism
and the worship of Astarte in his old age. Similar
remarks apply to the circumstances which may have
occasioned previously the strong atfection of Hiram
for David (1 K. v. 1).
However this may he, it is evident that under
Solomon there was a close alliance between the
Hebrews and the Tyrians. Hiram supplied Solo-
mon with cedar wood, precious metals, and work-
men, and gave him sailors for the voyage to Ophir
and India, while on the other hand Solomon gave
Hiram supplies of corn and oil, ceded to him some
cities, and permitted him to make use of some
havens on the Red Sea (1 Κα, ix. 11-14, 26-28,
x. 22). These friendly relations survived for a
time the disastrous secession of the Ten Tribes, and
a century later Ahab married a daughter of Eth-
baal, king of the Sidonians (1 K. xvi. 31), who,
according to Menander (Josephus, Ant. viii. 13,
§2), was daughter of Ithobal, king of Tyre. As
she was zealous for her national religion, she seems
to have been regarded as an abomination by the
pious worshippers of Jehovah; but this led to no
special pyophetical denunciations against Tyre.
The case became different, however, when mercan-
b It may be interesting to compare the distance from
which the limestone was brought with which St. Paul’s
Cathedral was built. It was hewn from quarries in the
Isle of Portland, and was sent to London round the North
Foreland up the river Thames. The distance to London in
a straight line from the North Foreland alone is of itself
about twelve miles greater than from Tyre to Joppa;
while the distance from the Isle of Portland to the North
Foreland is actually three times as great.
TYRE
tile cupidity induced the Tyrians and the neigh-
bouring Phoenicians to buy Hebrew captives from
their enemies and to sell them as slaves to the
Greeks [PHOENICIA, p. 1001] and Edomites.
From this time commenced denunciations, and, at
first, threats of retaliation (Joel iii. 4-8 ; Amos i.
9,10): and indeed, though there might be peace,
there could not be sincere friendship between the
two nations. But the likelihood of the denuncia-
tions being fulfilled first arose from the progressive
conquests of the Assyrian monarchs. It was not
probable that a powerful, victorious, and ambitious
neighbour could resist the temptation of endeavour-
ing to subjugate the small strip of land between
the Lebanon and the sea, so insignificant in extent,
but overflowing with so much wealth, which by
the Greeks was called Phoenicia, [PHOENICIA. |
Accordingly, when Shalmaneser, king of Assyria,
had taken the city of Samaria, had conquered the
kingdom of Israel and carried its inhabitants into
captivity, he turned his arms against the Phoeni-
cian cities. At this time, Tyre had reached a high
point of prosperity. Since the reign of Hiram, it
had planted the splendid colony of Carthage (143
years and eight months, Josephus says, after the
building of Solomon’s temple, ὁ. Apion. i. 18); it
possessed the island of Cyprus, with the valuable
mines of the metal “ copper’’ (so named from the
island); and, apparently, the city of Sidon was
subject to its sway. But Shalmaneser seems to
have taken advantage of a revolt of the Cyprians ;
and what ensued is thus related by Menander, who
translated the archives of Tyre into the Greek lan-
guage (see Josephus, Ant. ix. 14, 82): “ Elulaeus
reigned 36 years (over Tyre). This king, upon the
revolt of the Kittaeans (Cyprians), sailed with a
fleet against them, and reduced them to submission.
On the other hand, the king of the Assyrians at-
tacked in war the whole of Phoenicia, but soon
made peace with all, and turned back. On this,
Sidon and Ace (i.e, Akk6 or Acre) and Palaetyrus
revolted from the Tyrians, with many other cities
which delivered themselves up to the king of Assyria.
Accordingly, when the Tyrians would not submit to
him, the king returned and fell upon them again, the
Phoenicians having furnished him with 60 ships and
800 rowers. Against these the Tyrians sailed with
12 ships, and, dispersing the fleet opposed to them,
they took five hundred men prisoners. The reputa-
tion of all the citizens in Tyre was hence increased.
Upon this the king of the Assyrians, moving off his
army, placed guards at their river and aqueducts to
prevent the Tyrians from drawing water, This
continued for five years, and still the Tyrians held
out, supplying themselves with water from wells.”
It is in reference to this siege that the prophecy
against Tyre in the writings entitled Isaiah, chap.
xxiii., was uttered, if it proceeded from the Pro-
phet Isaiah himself: but this point will be again
noticed.
After the siege of Tyre by Shalmaneser (which
must have taken place not long after 721 B.c.),
Tyre remained a powerful state with its own kings
(Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3; Ez. xxviii. 2-12), remark-
able for its wealth, with territory on the main-
land, and protected by strong fortifications (Ez.
Xxvili. 5, xxvi. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12; xxvii. 11; Zech.
ix. 3). Our knowledge of its condition thencefor-
ward until the siege by Nebuchadnezzar depends
entirely on various notices of it by the Hebrew pro-
phets; but some of these notices are singularly full,
and especially, the twenty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel
TYRE 1579
furnishes us, on some points, with details such as
have scarcely come down to us respecting any one
city of antiquity, excepting Rome and Athens. One
point especially arrests the attention, that Tyre,
like its splendid daughter Carthage, employed mer-
cenary soldiers (Ez. xxvii. 10, 11). This has been
the general tendency in commercial cities on account
of the high wages which may be obtained by
artisans in a thriving community, compared with
the ordinary pay of a soldier ; and Tyre had been
unable to resist the demoralizing temptation. In
its service there were Phoenicians from Arvad,
Aethiopians obtained through the commerce of
Egypt, and hardy mountaineers from Persia. This
is the first time that the name of Persia occurs in
the remains of ancient literature, before its sons
founded a great monarchy on the ruins of the
Chaldaean empire. We may conceive them like the
Swiss, who, poor, faithful, and brave, have during
many centuries, until the last few years, deemed en-
listment in foreign service a legitimate source of gain.
Independently, however, of this fact respecting Tyrian
mercenary soldiers, Ezekiel gives interesting details
respecting the trade of Tyre. On this head, without
attempting to exhaust the subject, a few leading
points may be noticed. The first question is as to
the countries fromwhich Tyre obtained the precious
metals; and it appears that its gold came from
Arabia by the Persian Gulf (v. 22), just as in the
time of Solomon it came from Arabia by the Red
Sea [OpHir]. Whether the Arabian merchants,
whose wealth was proverbial in Roman classical
times (Horace, Od. i. 29, 1), obtained their gold
by traffic with Atrica or India,.or whether it was
the product of their own country, is uncertain ; but
as far as the latter alternative is concerned, the
point will probably be cleared up in the progress of
geological knowledge. On the other hand, the
silver, iron, lead, and tin of Tyre came from a very
different quarter of the world, viz. from the South
of Spain, where the Phoenicians had established
their settlement of Tarshish, or Tartessus. As to
copper, we should have presumed that it was ob-
tained from the valuable mines in Cyprus; but it
is mentioned here in conjunction with Javan, Tubal,
and Meshech, which points to the districts on the
south of the Black Sea, in the neighbourhood of
Armenia, in the southern line of the Caucasus,
between the Black Sea and the Caspian. The
country whence Tyre was supplied with wheat was
Palestine. This point has been already noticed
elsewhere [PHOENICIANS, p. 1002] as helping to
explain why there is no instance on record of war
between Tyre and the Israelites. It may be added
that the value of Palestine as a wheat-country to
Tyre was greatly enhanced by its proximity, as there
was scarcely a part of the kingdom of Israel on the
west of the River Jordan which was distant more
than a hundred ‘miles from that great commercial
city. The extreme points in the kingdom of Judah
would be somewhat more distant; but the wheat
probably came from the northern part of Palestine.
Tyre likewise obtained from Palestine oil, honey,
and balm, but not wine apparently, notwithstand-
ing the abundance of grapes and wine in Judah
(Gen. xlix. 11). The wine was imported from
Damascus, and was called wine of Helbon, which
was probably not the product of the country ad-
joining the celebrated city of that name, but came
from the neighbourhood of Damascus itself (see
Porter’s Handbook for Syria, vol. ii. p. 495:
compare Athenaeus, i. 51). The Bedawin Arabs
1580 TYRE
supplied Tyre with lambs and rams and goats, for
the rearing of which their mode of life was so well
adapted. Egypt furnished linen for sails, and doubt-
less for other purposes, and the dyes from shell-
fish, which afterwards became such a source of
profit to the Tyrians, were imported from the
Peloponnesus (compare the “ Laconicas purpuras ”
of Horace, Od. ii. 18, 7, and Pliny ix. 40).
Lastly, from Dedan in the Persian Gulf, an island
occupied possibly by a Phoenician colony, horns of
ivory and ebony were imported, which must origi-
nally have been obtained trom India (Ez. xxvii. 10,
11, 22, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 7, 15).
In the midst of great prosperity and wealth,
which was the natural result of such an extensive
trade (Ez. xxviii. 4), Nebuchadnezzar, at the head
of an army of the Chaldees, invaded Judaea, and
captured Jerusalem. As Tyre was so near to
Jerusalem, and as the conquerors were a fierce
and forrnidable race (Hab. i. 6), led by a general
of undoubted capacity, who had not long before
humbled the power of the Egyptians, it would
naturally be supposed that this event would have
excited alarm and terror amongst the Tyrians.
Instead of this, we may infer from Ezekiel’s state-
ment (xxvi. 2) that their predominant feeling was
one of exultation. At first sight this appears
strange and almost inconceivable; but it is ren-
dered intelligible by some previous events in Jewish
history. Only 34 years before the destruction of
Jerusalem, commenced the celebrated Reformation
of Josiah, B.c. 622. This momentous religious
revolution, of which a detailed account is given in
two chapters of the Book of Kings (2 K. xxii.
xxiii.), and which cannot be too closely studied by
any one who wishes to understand the Jewish
Annals, fully explains the exultation and malevo-
lence of the Tyrians. In that Reformation, Josiah
had heaped insults on the gods who were the
objects of Tyrian veneration and love, he had con-
sumed with fire the sacred vessels used in their
worship, he had burnt their images and defiled
their high places—not excepting even the high
place near Jerusalem, which Solomon the friend of
Hiram had built to Ashtoreth the Queen of Heaven,
and which for more than 350 years had been
a striking memorial of the reciprocal good-will
which once united the two monarchs and the two
nations. Indeed, he seemed to have endeavoured
to exterminate their religion, for in Samaria (2 K.
xxiii. 20) he had slain upon the altars of the high
places all their priests. These acts, although in
their ultimate results they may have contributed
powerfully to the ὁ diffusion of the Jewish religion,
must have been regarded by the Tyrians as a series
of sacrilegious and abominable outiages; and we
can scarcely doubt that the death in battle of
Josiah at Megiddo, and the subsequent destruction
of the city and Temple of Jerusalem were hailed
by them with triumphant joy as instances of divine
retribution in human aflairs.
This joy, however, must soon have given way
to other feelings, when Nebuchadnezzar invaded
Phoenicia, and laid siege to Tyre. ‘That siege
lasted thirteen years (Joseph. ὁ. Apion. i. 21), and
it is still a disputed point, which will be noticed
separately in this article, whether Tyre was actually
taken by Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion. How-
TYRE
ever this may be, it is probable that, on some terms
or other, Tyre submitted to the Chaldees. This
would explain, amongst other points, an expedition
of Apries, the Pharaoh-Hophra of Scripture, against
Tyre, which probably happened not long after, and
which may have been dictated by obvious motives
of self-defence in order to prevent the naval power
of Tyre becoming a powerful instrument of attack-
ing Egypt in the hands of the Chaldees. In this
expedition Apries besieged Sidon, fought a naval
battle with Tyre, and reduced the whole of the coast
of Phoenicia, though this could not have had lasting
effects (Herod. ii. 161; Diod. i. 68; Movers, Das
Phénizische Alterthum, vol. 11, p. 451). The rule
of Nebuchadnezzar over Tyre, though real, may
have been light, and in the nature of an alliance ;
and it may have been in this sense that Merbal, a
subsequent Tyrian king, was sent for to Babylon
(Joseph, ὁ. Apion.i. 21). During the Persian domi-
nation the Tyrians were subject in name to the Per-
sian king, and may have given him tribute. With
the rest of Phoenicia, they had submitted to the
Persians, without striking a blow; perhaps, through
hatred of the Chaldees; perhaps, solely from pru-
dential motives. But their connexion with the
Persian king was not slavish. Thus, when Cam-
byses ordered them to join in an expedition against
Carthage, they refused compliance, on account of
their solemn engagements and parental relation to
that colony: and Cambyses did not deem it right to
use force towards them (Herod. iii. 19). Afterwards
they fought with Persia against Greece, and fur-
nished vessels of war in the expedition of Xerxes
against Greece (Herod. vii. 98); and Mapén, the
son of Sirom the Tyrian, is mentioned amongst those
who, next to the commanders, were the most re-°
nowned in the fleet. It is worthy of notice that
at this time Tyre seems to have been inferior in
power to Sidon. These two cities were less than
twenty English miles distant from each other; and
it is easy to conceive that in the course of centuries
their relative importance might fluctuate, as would
be very possible in our own country with two neigh-
bouring cities, such, for example, as Liverpool and
Manchester. It is possible also that Tyre may have
been seriously weakened by its long struggle against
Nebuchadnezzar. Under the Persian dominion,
Tyre and Sidon supplied cedar wood again to the
Jews for the building of the second Temple ; and
this wood was sent by sea to Joppa, and thence
to Jerusalem, as had been the case with the mate-
rials for the first Temple in the time of Solomon
(Ezra, iii. 7). Under the Persians likewise Tyre
was visited by an historian, from whom we might
have derived valuable information respecting its
condition (Herod. ii. 44). But the information
actually supplied by him is scanty, as the motive
of his voyage seems to have been solely to visit
the celebrated temple of Melkarth (the Phoenician
Hercules), which was situated in the island, and
was highly venerated. He gives no details as to
the city, and merely specifies two columns which
he observed in the temple, one of gold, and the
other of emerald; or rather, as is reasonably con-
jectured by Sir Gardiner Wilkinson, of green
glass (Rawlinson’s Herodotus, ii. 81, 82). Towards
the close of the following century, B.C. 332,
Tyre was assailed for the third time by a great
e It was owing to this Reformation of Josiah that when
the Jews were carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar a
generation had arisen untainted by idolatry, and yet
many of them probably free from the intense scrupulous-
ness in ceremonial observances which prevailed subse-
| quently.
TYRE
conqueror ; and if some uncertainty hangs over the
siege by Nebuchadnezzar, the results of the siege
by Alexander were clear and undeniable. It was
essential to the success of his military plans that
the Phoenician fleet should be at his command, and
that he should not be liable through their hostility
to have his communications by sea with Greece and
Macedonia suddenly cut off; and he accordingly
summoned all the Phoenician cities to submit to
his rule. All the rest of them, including Aradus,
Byblus and Sidon, complied with his demands, and
the seamen of those cities in the Persian fleet brought
away their ships to join him, ‘Tyre alone, calculat-
ing probably at first on the support of those seamen,
refused to admit him within its walls—and then
ensued a memorable siege which lasted seven months,
and the success of which was the greatest of all the
achievements which Alexander up to that time had
attempted. It is not necessary to give here the
details of that siege, which may be found in Arrian
and Quintus Curtius, and in all good Grecian his-
tories, such as those of Bishop Thirlwall and Mr.
Grote. It may be sufficient to say, that at that
time Tyre was situated on an island nearly half a
mile from the mainland—that “it was completely
surrounded by prodigious walls, the loftiest portion
of which on.the side fronting the mainland reached
a height not less than 150 feet ;” and that not-
withstanding his persevering efforts, he could not
have succeeded in his attempt, if the harbour of
Tyre to the north had not been blockaded by the
Cyprians, and that to the south by the Phoenicians,
thus affording an opportunity to Alexander for
uniting the island to the mainland by an enormous
artificial¢ mole. Moreover, owing to internal dis-
turbances, Carthage was unable to afford any assist-
ance to its parent state.
The immediate results of the capture by Alex-
ander were most disastrous to it, as its brave
defenders were put to death; and, in accordance
with the barbarous policy of ancient times, 30,000
of its inhabitants, including slaves, free females
and free children were sold as slaves (Arrian, iv.
24, §9; Diodorus, xvii. 46). It gradually, how-
ever, recovered its prosperity through the immi-
gration of fresh settlers, though its trade is said to
have suffered by the vicinity and rivalry of Alex-
andria. Under the Macedonian successors of Alex-
ander, it shared the fortunes of the Seleucidae, who
bestowed on it many privileges; and there are still
in existence coins of that epoch with a Phoenician
and Greek inscription (Eckhel, Doctr. Nummorum
Vet. vol. iii. p. 379, &c.; Gesenius, Monumenta
Phoeniciae, pp. 262-264, and Tab. 34). Under
the Romans, at first it continued to enjoy a kind
of freedom; for Josephus mentions that when Cleo-
patra pressed Antony to include Tyre and Sidon
in a gift of Phoenician and Jewish territory which
he made to her, he steadily refused, knowing them to
have been “ free cities from their ancestors”? (Ant.
xv. 4, §1). Subsequently, however, on the arrival
ἃ That Tyre was on an island, previous to its siege by
Alexander, is one of the most certain facts of history ; but
on examining the locality at the present day few persons
would suspect from existing appearances that there was
anything artificial in the formation of the present
peninsula.
e Pliny the elder gives an account of the Phoenician
shell-fish (ix. 60, 61), and states that from the larger ones
the dye was extracted, after taking off the shell : but that
the small fish were crushed alive together with the shells.
Mr. Wilde, an intelligent moder traveller, observed at
TYRE 1581
of Augustus in the East, he is said to have deprived
the two cities of their liberties for seditious conduct
(ἐδουλώσατο, Dion Cassius, lxiv. 7). Still the
prosperity of Tyre in the time of Augustus was:
undeniably great. Strabo gives an account of it at
that period (xvi. 2, 23), and speaks of the great
wealth which it derived from the dyes of the cele-
brated Tyrian purple, which, as is well known,
were extracted from shell-fish found on the coast,
belonging to a species of the genus Murex. In the
days of Ezekiel, the Tyrians had imported purple
from the Peloponnesus; but they had since learned
to extract the dye for themselves ; and they had the
advantage of having shell-fish on their coast better
adapted for, this purpose even than those on the
Lacedaemonian coast (Pausanias, iii, 21, 86). Strabo
adds, that the great number of dyeing works ren-
dered the city unpleasant as a place of residence.¢
He further speaks of the houses as consisting of
many stories, even of more than in the houses at
Rome—which is precisely what might be expected
in a prosperous fortified city of limited area, in
which ground-rent would be high. Pliny the Elder
gives additional information respecting the city, for
in describing it he says that the cireumference of
the city proper (7. 6. the city on the peninsula) was
22 stadia, while that of the whole city, includ-
ing Palaetyrus, was 19 Roman miles (Nat. Hist.
vy. 17). The accounts of Strabo and Pliny have
a peculiar interest in this respect, that they tend to
convey an idea of what the city must have been,
when visited by Christ (Matt. xv. 21; Mark vii.
24). It was perhaps more populous than Jeru-
salem [ JERUSALEM, p. 1025], and if so, it was un-
doubtedly the largest city which he is known to
have visited. It was not much more than thirty
miles distant from Nazareth, where Christ mainly
lived as a carpenter’s son during the greater part
of his life (Matt. ii. 23, iv. 12, 18, 18; Mark
vi. 3). We may readily conceive that He may
often have gone to Tyre, while yet unknown to the
world; and whatever uncertainty there may be as
to the extent to which the Greek language was
likely to be spoken at Nazareth, at Tyre and in its
neighbourhood there must have been excellent oppor-
tunities for conversation in that language, with which
He seems to have been acquainted (Mark vii. 26).
From the time of Christ to the beginning of the 5th
century, there is no reason to doubt that, as far as was
compatible with the irreparable loss of independence,
Tyre continued in uninterrupted prosperity; and
about that period Jerome has on record very striking
testimony on the subject, which has been often
quoted, and is a landmark in Tyrian history (see
Gesenius’s Jesaia, vol. i. p. 714). Jerome, in his
Commentaries on Ezekiel, comes to the passage in
which the prophet threatens Tyre with the approach
of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Ez. xxvi. 7);
and he then, amongst other points, refers to the
verse in which the prophet predicts of Tyre, ‘* Thou
shalt be built no more,” saying that this raises a
Tyre numerous round holes cut in the solid sandstone
rock, in which shells seem to have been crushed. They
were perfectly smooth on the inside; and many of them
were shaped exactly like a modern iron pot, broad and flat
at the bottom, and narrowing toward the top. Many of
these were filled with a breccia of shells; in other places
this breccia lay in heaps in the neighbourhood All the
shells were of one species, and were undoubtedly the
Murex Trunculus. See Narrative of a Voyage to Madeira,
Teneriffe, and along the Shores of the Mediterranean.
Dublin, 1844.
1582 TYRE
question as to how a city can be said not to be
built any more, which we see at the present day
the most noble and the most beautiful city of Phoe-
nicia. “ Quodque sequitur: nec aedificaberis ultra,
᾿ videtur facere quaestionem quomodo non sit aedifi-
cata, quam hodie cernimus Phoenices nobilissimam
et pulcherrimam civitatem.” He afterwards, in his
remarks on the 3rd verse of the 27th chapter, in
which Tyre is called, ‘‘a merchant of the people
for many isles,” says that this continues down to
his time, so that commercial dealings of almost all
nations are carried on in that city—‘‘ quod quidem
usque hodie perseverat, ut omnium propemodo gen-
tium in illa exerceantur commercia.’ Jerome’s
Commentaries on Ezekiel are supposed to have been
written about the years 411-414 A.D. (see Smith’s
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, vol.
ii. p. 465), so that his testimony respecting the
prosperity of Tyre bears date almost precisely a
thousand years after the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar, B.c. 588. As to the passage in
which Ezekiel states that Tyre shall be built no
more, Jerome says the meaning is, that “ Tyre will
be no more the Queen of Nations, having its own
king, as was the case under Hiram and other kings,
but that it was destined to be always subject, either
to the Chaldeans, or to the Macedonians, or to the
Ptolemies, or at last to the Romans.” At the same
time Jerome notices a meaning given to the passage
by some interpreters, that Tyre would not be built
in the last days; but he asks of such interpreters,
“ον they will be able to preserve the part attri-
buted to Nebuchadnezzar, especially as we read
in what follows, that Nebuchadnezzar besieged
Tyre, but had no reward of his labour (xxix. 18),
and that Egypt was given over to him because in
besieging Tyre he had served the purpose of God.”
When Jerome spoke of Tyre’s subjection to the
Romans, which had then lasted more than four hun-
dred years, he could scarcely have anticipated that
another subjugation of the country was reserved for
it from a new conquering power, coming not from
the North, but from the South. In the 7th century
A.D. took place the extraordinary Arabian revolution
under Mahomet, which has given a new religion
to so many millions of mankind. In the years 633-
38 A.D. all Syria and Palestine, from the Dead
Sea to Antioch, was conquered by the Khalif Omar.
This conquest was so complete, that in both those
countries the language of Mahomet has almost totally
supplanted the language of Christ. In Syria, there
are only three villages where Syriac (or Aramaic)
is the vernacular language. In Palestine, it is not
the language of a single native: and in Jerusalem, to
a stranger who understands what is involved in this
momentous revolution, it is one of the most sug-
gestive of all sounds to hear the Muezzin daily call
Mahometang to prayers in the Arabic language of
Mahomet, within the sacred precincts where once
stood the Temple, in which Christ worshipped in
Hebrew, or in Aramaic. (As to the Syriac language,
see Porter’s Handbook for Syria and Palestine, vol.
ii. p. 551.) But even this conquest did not cause
the overthrow of Tyre. The most essential condi-
tions on which peace was granted to Tyre, as to
other Syrian cities, were the payment of a poll-tax,
the obligation to give board and lodging for three
days to every Muslem traveller, the wearing a
peculiar dress, the admission of Muslems into the
churches, the doing away with all crosses and all
sounds of bells, the avoiding of all insulting ex-
pressions towards the Mahometan religion, and the
TYRE
prohibition to ride on horseback or to build new
churches. (See Weil’s Geschichte der Chalifer, bd. i:
81-82.) Some of these conditions were humiliating,
and nearly heart-breaking ; but if submitted to, the
lives and private property of the inhabitants re-
mained untouched. Accordingly, at the time of the
Crusades Tyre was still a flourishing city, when it
surrendered to the Christians on the 27th of June,
1124, It had early been the seat of a Christian
bishopric, and Cassius, bishop of Tyre, is named as
having been present at the Council of Caesarea
towards the close of the 2nd century (Reland,
Palestine, 1054); and now, in the year after its
capture by the Crusaders, William, a Frenchman,
was made its archbishop. This archbishop has left
on record an account of the city, which gives a high
idea of its wealth and great military strength. (See
Wilhelmi Tyrensis Historia, lib. xiii. cap. 5.) And
his statements are confirmed by Benjamin of Tudela,
who visited it in the same century. (See Purchas’s
Pilgrims, ii. 1443.) The latter writer, who died in
1173, says: “ Nor do I think any haven in the
world to be like unto this. The city itself, as‘I
have said, is goodly, and in it there are about four
hundred Jews, among whom some are very skilful
in disciplinary readings, and especially Ephraim the
Egyptian judge, and Mair, and Carehesona, and
Abraham, the head of the university. Some of the
Jews there have ships at sea for the cause of gain.
There are artificial workmen in glass there, who
make glass, called Tyrian glass, the most excellent,
and of the greatest estimation in all countries. The
best and most approved sugar is also found there.”
In fact, at this period, and down to the close of the
13th century, there was perhaps no city in the
known world which had stronger claims than Tyre
to the title of the “ Eternal City,” if experience had
not shewn that cities as well as individuals were
subject to decay and dissolution. Tyre had been
the parent of colonies, which at a distant period
had enjoyed a long life and had died; and it had
survived more than fifteen hundred years its greatest
colony, Carthage. It had outlived Aegyptian Thebes,
and Babylon, and ancient Jerusalem. It had seen
Grecian cities rise and fall ; and although older than
them all, it was in a state of great prosperity when
an illustrious Roman, who had been sailing from
Aegina to Megara, told Cicero, in imperishable
words, of the corpses or carcases of cities, the
oppidorum cadavera, by which in that voyage he
had been in every direction encompassed (Zip. ad
Familiar. iv. 5). Rome, it is true, was still in
existence in the 13th century; but, in comparison
with Tyre, Rome itself was of recent date, its now
twice consecrated soil having been merely the haunt
of shepherds or robbers for some hundred years after
Tyre was wealthy and strong. At length, however,
the evil day of Tyre undoubtedly arrived. It had
been more than a century and a half in the hands
of Christians, when in March, A.D. 1291, the Sultan
of Egypt and Damascus invested Acre, then known
to Europe by the name of Ptolemais, and took it by
storm after a siege of two months. The result was
told. in the beginning of the next century by
Marinus Sanutus, a Venetian, in the following
words: “On the same day on which Ptolemais
was taken, the Tyrians, at vespers, leaving the city
empty, without the stroke of a sword, without the
tumult of war, embarked on board their vessels,
and abandoned the city to be occupied freely by
their conquerors. On the morrow the Saracens
entered, no one attempting to prevent them, and
TYRE
they did what they pleased.” (Liber Secretorum
fidelium Crucis, lib. iii. cap. 22.) £
This was the turning-point in the history of Tyre,
1879 years after the capture of Jerusalem by Nebu-
chadnezzar; and Tyre has not yet recovered from
the blow. In the first half of the 14th century it
was visited by Sir John Maundeville, who says,
speaking of ‘Tyre, which is now called Sar, here
Was once a great and goodly city of the Christians:
but the Saracens have destroyed it in great part ;
and they guard that haven carefully for fear of the
Christians” (Wright’s Barly Travels in Palestine,
p- 141). About a.p. 1610-11 it was visited by
Sandys, who said of it: ‘But this once famous
Tyre is now no other than a heap of ruins; yet
have they a reverent aspect, and do instruct the
pensive beholder with their exemplary frailty. It
hath two harbours, that on the north side the
fairest and best throughout all the Levant (which
the cursours enter at their pleasure); the other
choked with the decayes of the city.” (Purchas’s
Pilgrims, ii. 1393.) Towards the close of the same
century, in 1697 A.D., Maundrell says of it, “ On the
north side it has'an old Turkish castle, besides which
there is nothing here but a mere Babel of broken
walls, pillars, vaults, &c., there being not so much
as an entire house left. Its present inhabitants are
only a few poor wretches that harbour in vaults
and subsist upon fishing.” (See Harris, Voyages and
Travels, ii. 846.) Lastly, without quoting at length
Dr. Richard Pococke, who in 1737-40 A.D. stated
(see vol. x. of Pinkerton’s Voyages and Travels,
p- 470) that, except some janizaries, there were few
other inhabitants in the city than two or three
Christian families, the words of Hasselquist, the
Swedish naturalist, may be recorded, as they mark
the lowest point of depression which Tyre seems to
have reached. He was there in May 1751 A.D.,
and he thus speaks of his visit: “ We followed the
sea shore..... and came to Tyre, now called Zur,
where we lay all night. None of these cities, which
formerly were famous, are so totally ruined as this
except Troy. Zur now scarcely can be called a
miserable village, though it was formerly Tyre, the
queen of the sea. Here are about ten inhabitants,
Lurks and Christians, who live by fishing.’ (See
Hasselyuist, Voyages and Travels in the Levant,
London, 1766.) A slight change for the better
began soon after. Volney states that in 1766 A.D.
the Metawileh took possession of the place, and
built a wall round it twenty feet high, which existed
when he visited Tyre nearly twenty years afterwards.
At that time Volney estimated the population at
fifty or sixty poor families. Since the beginning of
the present century there has: been a partial revival
of prosperity. But it has been visited at different
times during the last thirty years by biblical scholars,
such as Professor Robinson (Bib. Res. ii. 463-471),
Canon Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 270), and M.
Ernest Renan& (Letter in the Moniteur, July 11,
TYRE 1583
1861), who all concur in the account of its general
aspect of desolation. Mr. Porter, who resided several
years at Damascus, and had means of obtaining cor-
rect information, states in 1858 that “the modern
town, or rather village, contains from 3000 to 4000
inhabitants, about one-half being Metéwileh, and
the other Christians” (Handbook for Travellers in
Syria and Palestine, p. 391). Its great inferiority
to Beyrout for receiving vessels suited to the re-
quirements of modern navigation will always pre-
vent Tyre from becoming again the most important
commercial city on the Syrian coast. It is reserved
to the future to determine whether with a good
government, and with peace in the Lebanon, it may
not increase in population, and become again com-
paratively wealthy.
In conclusion, it is proper to consider two ques-
tions of much interest to the Biblical student, which
have been already noticed in this article, but which
could not then be conveniently discussed fully. 1st.
The date and authorship of the prophecy against
Tyre in Isaiah, chap. xxiii.; and 2ndly, the ques-
tion of whether Nebuchadnezzar, after his long
siege of Tyre, may be supposed to have actually
taken it.
On the first point it is to be observed, that as
there were two sieges of Tyre contemporaneous
with events mentioned in the Old Testament, viz.
that by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, in the reign
of Hezekiah, and the siege by Nebuchadnezzar, king
of the Chaldees, after the capture of Jerusalem in
588 B.c., and as Isaiah was living during the
former siege, but must have been dead considerably
more than a hundred years at the time of the latter
siege, it is probable, without denying predictive pro-
phecy, that the prophecy relates to the first siege, if
it was written by Isaiah. As the prophecy is in the
collection of writings entitled “ Isaiah,” there would
formerly not have been any doubt that it was written
by that prophet. But it has been maintained by
eminent Biblical critics that many of the writings
under the title of his name were written at the time of
the Babylonian Captivity. This seems to be the least
open to dispute in reference to the prophecies com-
mencing with ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye my people,”
in the Ist verse of the 40th chapter, concerning
which the following facts seem to the writer of
the present article to be well established. 1st.
These prophecies are different in style from the un-
disputed writings of Isaiah, 2ndly. They do not
predict that the Jews will be carried away into
captivity at Babylon, but they presuppose that the
Jews are already in captivity there at the time
when the prophecies are uttered; that Jerusalem is
desolate, and that the Temple is burnt (Is. Ixiv.
10, 11, xliv. 26, 28, xlv. 13, xlvii. 5, 6, lii. 2, 9,
li. 3, 11, 17-23). 3rdly. The name of Cyrus, who
conquered Babylon probably at least a hundred and
fifty years after the death of Isaiah is mentioned in
them twice (sliv. 28, xlv. 1): and 4thly, there is
f A copy of this work isin Gesta Dei per Francos.
Hanoviae, 1611.
5. M. Ernest Renan says there has been no subsidence of
the land, owing to earthquakes or other causes; and that
the west of the island has the same level as in ancient
times. Mr. Wilde had spoken with great caution on this
point, pp. 383-385. It is still very desirable that the
peninsula and the adjoining coast should be minutely
examined by an experienced practical geologist. There
seems to be no doubt that the city has suffered from
earthquakes. See Porter, /.c.: and compare Seneca, Nat.
Quest. vi. 1-11, Strabo, xv. p. 757, and Justin, x1. 2, 1.
h Doubts as to the authorship of these chapters were
first suggested by Déderlein in 1781, in a review of Kopp’s
translation of Lowth’s Isaiah. Since 1781 their later
date has been accepted by Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, De
Wette, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hiizig, Knobel, Herz-
feld, Bleek, Geiger, and Davidson, and by numerous other
Hebrew scholars. ‘T'he evidence has been nowhere stated
more clearly than by Gesenius in his Jesaia (part ii.
pp. 18-35, Leipzig, 1221). [On the other hand, the writer
of the article IsarAn in the present Work maintains the
unity of the book.—Eb.]
1584 TYRE
no external contemporary evidence between the
time of Isaiah and the time of Cyrus to prove that
these prophecies were then in existence. But al-
though in this way the evidence of a later date
is peculiarly cogent in reference to the 40th and
following chapters, there is also reasonable evidence
of the later date of several other chapters, such, for
example, as the 13th and 14th (on which observe
particularly the four first verses of the 14th chapter)
and chapters xxiv.—xxvii. Hence there is no ἃ priori
difficulty in admitting that the 23rd chapter, re-
specting Tyre, may likewise have been written at the
time of the Chaldean invasion. Yet this is not to be
assumed without something in the nature of pro-
bable proof, and the real point is whether any such
proof can be adduced on this subject. Now although
Hitzig (Der Prophet Jesaja, Heidelberg, 1833,
p. 272) undertakes to show that there is a difference
of language between Isaiah’s genuine prophecies and
the 23rd chapter, and although Ewald (Die Pro-
pheten des Alten Bundes, vol. i. p. 238), who
refers it to the siege of Tyre by Shalmaneser, be-
lieves the 23rd chapter, on the grounds of style
and language, to have been written by a younger
contemporary and scholar of Isaiah, not by Isaiah
himself, it is probable that the majority of scholars
will be mainly influenced in their opinions as to
the date of that chapter by their view of the
meaning of the 13th verse. In the A. V. the be-
ginning of the verse is translated thus: ‘ Behold
the land of the Chaldeans, this people was not till
the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the
wilderness ”—and this has been supposed by some
able commentators, such as Rosenmiiller and Hitzig
(ad loc.), to imply that the enemies with which the
Tyrians were threatened were the Chaldees under
Nebuchadnezzar, and not the Assyrians under Shal-
maneser, If this is the meaning, very few critics
would now doubt that the prophecy was composed
in the time of Nebuchadnezzar; and there is cer-
tainly something remarkable in a supposed mention
of the Chaldees by such an early writer as Isaiah,
inasmuch as, with the possible exceptions in the
mention of Abraham and Abraham’s family as
having belonged to ““ Ur of the Chaldees”’ (Gen. xi.
28, 31, xv. 7), the mention of the Chaldees by
Isaiah would be the earliest in the Bible. The only
other passage respecting which a doubt might be
raised is in the Book of Job (i. 17)—a work, how-
ever, which seems to the author of this article to
have been probably written later than Isaiah.i But
the 15th verse of the chapter attributed to Isaiah by
no means necessarily implies that the Chaldees under
Nebuchadnezzar were attacking Tyre, or were about
to attack it. Accepting the ordinary version, it would
be amply sufficient that Chaldees should be formid-
able mercenaries in the Assyrian army. This is
the interpretation of Gesenius (Commentar tiber den
Jesaia, ad loc.), who goes still farther. Founding
his reasoning on the frequent mention by Xenophon
of Chaldees, as a bold, warlike, and predatory tribe
in the neighbourhood of Armenia, and collecting
scattered notices round this fundamental fact, he
conjectures that bands of them, having served either
as mercenaries or as volunteers in the Assyrian
army, had received lands for their permanent settle-
i In the total absence of external evidence nothing in
favour of an earlier date can be adduced to outweigh one
circumstance long since noticed among numerous others
by Gesenius (Geschichte der Hebrdischen Sprache und |
Schrift), that the Aramaic plural ron oceurs twelve
TYRE
ment on the banks of the Euphrates not long before
the invasion of Shalmaneser (see Xenophon, Cyro-
paed. iii. 2, §§7, 12; Anab. iv. 3, §4, v. 5, 89,
vii. 8, 814). So great is our ignorance of the
Chaldees previous to their mention in the Bible,
that this conjecture of Gesenius cannot be disproved.
There is not indeed sufficient positive evidence for
it to justify its adoption by an historian of the
Chaldees; but the possibility of its being true
should make us hesitate to assume that the 13th
verse is incompatible with the date ordinarily as-
signed to the prophecy in which it occurs. But,
independently of these considerations, the beginning
of the 13th verse is capable of a totally different
translation from that in the Authorized Version. It
may be translated thus: “ Behold the land of the
Chaldees, the people is no more, Assyria has given
it [the land] to the dwellers in the wilderness.”
This is partly in accordance with Ewald’s transla-
tion, not following him in the substitution of “ Ca-
naanites”’ (which he deems the correct reading) for
“ Chaldees”—and then the passage might refer to
an unsuccessful rebellion of the Chaldees against
Assyria, and to a consequent desolation of the land
of the Chaldees by their victorious rulers. One
point may be mentioned in favour of this view, that
the Tyrians are not warned to look at the Chaldees
in the way that Habakkuk threatens his contempo-
raries with the hostility of that “terrible and
dreadful nation,” but the Tyrians are warned to
look at the /and of the Chaldees. . Here, again, we
know so little of the history of the Chaldees, that
this interpretation, likewise, cannot be disproved.
And, on the whole, as the burden of proof rests
with any one who denies Isaiah to have been the
author of the 23rd chapter, as the 13th verse is a
very obscure passage, and as it cannot be proved
incompatible with Isaiah’s authorship, it is per-
missible to acquiesce in the Jewish tradition on the
subject.
2ndly. The question of whether Tyre was actually
taken by Nebuchadnezzar after his thirteen years’
siege has been keenly discussed. Gesenius, Winer,
and Hitzig decide it in the negative, while Heng-
stenberg has argued most fully on the other side.
Without attempting to exhaust the subject, and
assuming, in accordance with Movers, that Tyre, as
well as the rest of Phoenicia, submitted at last to
Nebuchadnezzar, the following points may be
observed respecting the supposed capture :—Ist.
The evidence of Ezekiel, a contemporary, seems
to be against it. He says (xxix. 18) that “ Nebu-
chadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to
serve a great service against Tyre;’ that ‘every
head was made bald, and every shoulder was
peeled, yet had he no wages, nor his army for
Tyrus, for the service that he-served against
10; and the obvious inference is that, however
great the exertions of the army may have been
in digging entrenchments or in casting up earth-
works, the sieze was unsuccessful. This is con-
firmed by the following verses (19, 20), in which
it is stated that the land of Egypt will be given to
Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation, or wages, to
him and his army for their having served against
Tyre. Movers, indeed, asserts that the only mean-
times in the book (iv. 2; xii. 11; Xv. 13; xviii. 2;
xxvi. 4: xxxii. 11, 14; xxxiii. 8, 325 XxXxXiv. 3; xxxv.
163; xxxviii. 2). [But there are strong reasons for as-
signing an earlier date to the book: see Jos, p. 1095.—
Kp.J
TYRE
ing of the expression that Nebuchadnezzar and his
army had no wages for their service against Tyre
is, that they did not plunder the city. But toa
virtuous commander the best reward of besieging a
city is to capture it ; and it is a strange sentiment
to attribute to the Supreme Being, or to a prophet,
that a general and his army received no wages for
capturing a city, because they did not plunder it.
2ndly. Josephus, who had access to historical
writings on this subject which have not reached
our times, although he quotes Phoenician writers
who show that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre
(Ant. x. 11, §1; ὁ. Apion. 23), neither states
on his own " authority, nor quotes any one else
as stating, that Nebuchadnezzar took it. 3rdly.
The capture of Tyre on this occasion is not men-
tioned by any Greek or Roman author whose writ-
ings are now in existence. 4thly. In the time of
Jerome it was distinctly stated by some of his con-
temporaries that they had read, amongst other his-
tories on this point, histories of Greeks and Phoe-
nicians, and especially of Nicolaus Damascenus, in
which nothing was said of the siege of Tyre by the
Chaldees : and Jerome, in noticing this fact, does
not quote any authority of any kind for a counter-
statement, but contents himself with a general alle-
gation that many facts are related in the Seriptures
which are not found in Greek works, and that “ we
ought not to acquiesce in the authority of those
whose perfidy and falsehood we detest” (see Com-
ment. ad Ezechielem, xxvi. 7). On this view of
the question there would seem to be smali reason
for believing that the city was actually captured,
were it not for another passage of Jerome in his
Commentaries on the passage of Ezekiel already
quoted (xxix, 18), in which he explains that the
meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s having received no
wages for his warfare against Tyre is, not that he
failed to take the city, but that the Tyrians had
previously removed everything precious from it
in ships, so that when Nebuchadnezzar entered
the city he found nothing there, This interpreta-
tion has been admitted by one of the most distin-
guished critics of our own day (Ewald, Die
Propheten des Alten Bundes, ad loc.) who, deeming
it probable that Jerome had obtained the informa-
tion from some historian whose name is not given,
accepts as historical this account of the termination
of the siege. This account therefore, as far as in-
quirers of the present day are concerned, rests solely
on the authority of Jerome; and it thus becomes
important to ascertain the principles and method
which Jerome adopted in writing his Commentaries.
It is peculiarly fortunate that Jerome himself has
left on record some valuable information on this
point ina letter to Augustine, for the understanding
of which the following brief preliminary explanation
will be sufficient:—In Jerome’s Commentaries on
the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians,
when adverting to the passage (vers. 11-14) in
which St. Paul states that he had withstood Peter
to the face, ‘* because he was to be blamed” for
requiring Christians to comply with the observances
of the Jewish ritual law, Jerome denies that there
was any real difference of opinion between the two
Apostles, and asserts that they had merely made
a preconcerted arrangement of apparent ἀπε σον ὃ
k Hengstenberg (De Rebus Tyriorum, p. 15) says that
this silence of the Greek and Phoenician historians proves
too much, as there is no doubt that the city was besieged
by Nebuchadnezzar.
VOL. 11.
To this Hitzig replies, that the |
TYRE 1585
in order that those who approved of circumcision
might plead the example of Peter, and that those
who were unwilling to be circumcised might extol
the religious liberty of Paul. Jerome then goes
on to say that “ the fact of simulation being
useful, and occasionally permissible, is taught by
the example of Jehu king of Israel, who never
would have been able to put the priests of Baal
to death unless he had feigned willingness to
worship an idol, saying, ‘ Ahab served Baal a
little, but Jehu shall serve him much.” On
this Augustine strongly remonstrated with Jerome
in two letters which are marked 56 and 67 in
Jerome’s Correspondence. To these Jerome re-
turned an answer in a letter marked 112, in which
he repudiates the idea that he is to be held re-
sponsible for all that is contained in his Com-
mentaries, and then frankly confesses how he com-
posed them. Beginning with Origen, he enumerates
several writers whose Commentaries he had read,
specifying, amongst others, Laodicenus, who had
lately left the Church, and Alexander, an old heretic.
He then avows that having read them all he sent
for an amanuensis, to whom he dictated sometimes
his own remarks, sometimes those of others, with-
out paying strict attention either to the order or
the words, and sometimes not even to the meaning.
* Ttaque ut simpliciter fatear, legi haec omnia, et in
mente mea plurima coacervans, accito notario, vel
mea, vel aliena dictavi, nec ordinis, nec verborum,
interdum nec sensuum memor™ (see Migne’s Edi-
tion of Jerome, vol. i. p. 918). Now if the bearing
of the remarks concerning simulation. for a pious
purpose, and of the method which Jerome fol-
lowed in the composition of his Commentaries is
seriously considered, it cannot but throw doubt on
his uncorroborated statements in any case wherein
a religious or theological interest may have ap-
peared to him to be at stake.
Jerome was a very learned man, perhaps the most
learned of all the Fathers. He was also one of the
very few among them who made themselves ac-
quainted with the Hebrew language, and in this, as
well as in other points, he deserves gratitude for
the services which he has rendered to Biblical lite-
rature. He is, moreover, a valuable witness to facts,
when he can be suspected of no bias concerning
them, and especially when they seem contrary to
his religious prepossessions, But it is evident, from
the passages in his writings above quoted, that he
had not a critical mind, and that he can scarcely be
regarded as one of those noble spirits who prefer
truth to supposed pious ends which may be attained
by its violation. Hence, contrary to the most natural
meaning of the prophet Ezekiel’s words (xxix. 18),
it would be unsafe to rely on Jerome's sole authority
for the statement that Nebuchadnezzar and his army
eventually captured Tyre.
Literature.—For information on this head, see
PHOENICIANS, p. 1006. In addition to the works
there mentioned, see Robinson’s Bibl. Res. ii. 461-
471; Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, 264-268 ;
Por ter’ s Handbook for Syria and Palestine, pp. 390-
396 5 Hengstenberg, De Rebus of dnd Berlin,
1832; and Ritter’s Hrdkunde, vol. xvii. 1st part,
3rd oor pp. 320-379. Professor Robinson, in
addition to his instructive history of Tyre, has pub-
historians could only have omitted to mention the siege,
because the siege had not been followed by the capture of
the city (Der Prophet Jesaja, p. 273).
or
--
1586 TYRUS
lished, in the Appendix to his third volume, a detailed
list, which is useful for the knowledge of Tyre, of
works by authors who had themselves travelled or
resided in Palestine. See likewise an excellent ac-
count of Tyre by Gesenius in his Jesaia, i. 707-719,
and by Winer, s.v., in his Bibl. Realwért. [E.T.]
Coin of Tyre.
TY'RUS. This form is employed in the A. V.
of the Books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea (Joel has
“Tyre”), Amos, Zechariah, 2 Esdras, Judith, and
the Maccabees, as follows: Jer. xxv. 22, xxvii. 3,
xlvii. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 2,3, 4,7, 15, xxvii. 2, 3, 8, 32,
xxvill. 2, 12, xxix. 18; Hos, ix. 13; Am. i. 9, 10;
Zech. ix. 2,3; 2 Esd.i.11; Jud.ii,28; 1 Mace.
v. 15; 2 Mace. iv. 18, 32, 44, 49.
U
U'CAL (Sox, and in some copies 228). Ac-
cording to the received text of Prov. xxx. 1, Ithiel
and Ucal must be regarded as proper names, and if
so, they must be the names of disciples or sons of
Agur the son of Jakeh, an unknown sage among
the Hebrews. But there is great obscurity about
the passage. The LXX. translate τοῖς πιστεύουσι
θεῷ καὶ παύομαι: the Vulgate, cum quo est Deus,
et qui Deo secum morante confortatus. The Arabic
follows the LXX. to some extent; the Targum re-
produces Ithiel and Ucal as proper names, and the
Syriac is corrupt, Ucal being omitted altogether.
Luther represents the names as Leithiel and Uchal.
De Wette regards them as proper names, as do most
translators and commentators. Junius explains
The LXX. probably
The Veneto-Greek has καὶ
myself for God, and have given up the investiga-
tion,” applying the words to a man who had be-
wildered himself with philosophical speculations
about the Deity, and had been compelled to give up
the search. Bertheau also (Die Spriiche Sal. Binl.
Xvii.) sees in the words, ‘‘I have wearied myself
for God, I have wearied myself for God, and have
fainted ” on), an appropriate commencement to
the series of proverbs which follow. Hitzig’s view
is substantially the same, except that he points the
last word 23) and renders, “and I became dull ;”
applying it to the dimness which the investigation
produced upon the eye of the mind (Die Spr. Sal.
p- 316). Bunsen (Bibelwerk, i. p. elxxx.) follows
ULAI
Bertheau’s punctuation, but regards by mmx on
its first occurrence as a symbolical name of the
speaker. ‘‘ The saying of the man ‘ I-have-wearied-
myself-for-God ;’ I have wearied myself for God,
and have fainted away.” There is, however, one
fatal objection to this view, if there were no others,
and that is, that the verb mn, “to be wearied,”
nowhere takes after it the accusative of the object
of weariness. On this account alone, therefore, we
must reject all the above explanations. If Bertheau’s
pointing be adopted, the only legitimate translation
of the words is that given by Dr. Davidson (Jntrod.
ii. 338), “I am weary, O God, I am weary, Ὁ
God, and am become weak.” Ewald considers both
Ithiel and Ucal as symbolical names, employed by
the poet to designate two classes of thinkers to
whom he addresses himself, or rather he combines
both names in one, ‘* God-with-me-and-I-am-strong,”
and bestows it upon an imaginary character, whom
he introduces to take part in the dialogue. The
name ‘God-with-me,’ says Keil (Hivernick, Dini.
ili. p. 412), “denotes such as gloried in a more in-
timate communion with God, and a higher insight
and wisdom obtained thereby,” while ‘ I-am-strong,
indicates “the so-called strong spirits who boast of
their wisdom and might, and deny the holy God, so
that both names most probably represent a class of
freethinkers, who thought themselves superior to
the revealed law, and in practical atheism indulged
the lusts of the flesh.” It is to be wished that in this
case, as in many others, commentators had observed
the precept of the Talmud, “ Teach thy tongue to
say, ‘I do not know.’” [We cA
UEL Onan: Οὐήλ: Vel). One of the family
of Bani, who during the Captivity had married a
foreign wife (Εν, x. 34). Called Jur. in 1 Esd,
ix, 34,
UKNAZ (1334: Κενέζ: Cenez). In the margin
of 1 Chr. iv. 15 the words “even Kenaz” in the
text are rendered “6 Uknaz,” as a proper name.
Apparently some name has been omitted before
Kenaz, for the clause begins ‘ and the sons of Elah,”’
and then only Kenaz is given. Both the LXX. and
Vulg. omit the conjunction. In the Peshito Syriac,
which is evidently corrupt, Kenaz is the third son
of Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
ULA‘I δ: Οὐβάλ : Ulai) is mentioned by
Daniel (viii. 2, 16) as a river near to Susa, where he
saw his vision of the ram and the he-goat. It has been
generally identified with the Eulaeus of the Greck
and Roman geographers (Marc. Heracl. ae 18):
Arr. Exp, Al. vii. 7; Strab. xv. 3, §22; Ptol. vi.
3; Pliny, #. N. vi. 31), a large stream in the im-
mediate neighbourhood of that city. This identifi-
cation may be safely allowed, resting as it does on
the double ground of close verbal resemblance in
the two names, and complete agreement as to the
situation.
Can we, then, identify the Eulaeus with any
existing stream? Not without opening a contro-
versy, since there is no point more disputed among
comparative geographers. The Eulaeus has been
| by many identified with the Choaspes, which is
undoubtedly the modern Kerkhah, an affluent of
| the Tigris, flowing into it a little below Kw-nah.
| By others it has been regarded as the Aran, a large
| river, considerably further to the eastward, which
near Mohammerah.
|enters the Khor Bamishir
Some have even suggested that it may have been
ULAI
the Shapur or Sha’ur, a small stream which rises
a few miles N. W. of Susa, and flows by the ruins
into the Dizful stream, an affluent of the Awran.
The general grounds on which the Eulaeus has
been identified with the Choaspes, and so with the
Kerkhah (Salmasius, Rosenmiiller, Wahl, Kitto,
&c.) are, the mention of each separately by ancient
writers as “the river of Susa,’ and (more espe-
cially) the statements made by some (Strabo, Plin.)
that the water of the Eulaeus, by others (Herod.,
Athen., Plut., Q. Curtius), that that of the Cho-
aspes was the only water tasted by the Persian
kings. Against the identification it must be no-
ticed that Strabo, Pliny, Solinus, and Polyclitus
(ap. Strab. xv. 3, §4) regard the rivers as distinct,
and that the lower course of the Eulaeus, as de-
scribed by Arrian (zp. Al. vii. 7) and Pliny (H.W.
vi. 26), is such as cannot possibly be reconciled with
that of the Kerkhah river.
The grounds for regarding the Eulaeus as the
Kuran are decidedly stronger than those for identi-
fying it with the Aerkhah or Choaspes. No one
can compare the voyage of Nearchus in Arrian’s
Indica with Arrian’s own account of Alexander's
descent of the Eulaeus (vii, 7) without seeing that
the Eulaeus of the one narrative is the Pasitigris of
the other ; and that the Pasitigris is the Auran is
almost universally admitted. Indeed, it may be
said that all accounts of the Jower Eulaeus—those
of Arrian, Pliny, Polyclitus, and Ptolemy—identify
it, beyond the possibility of mistake, with the
lower Kuran, and that so far there ought to be
no controversy. The difficulty is with respect to
the wpper Eulaeus. The Eulaeus, according to
Pliny, surrounded the citadel of Susa (vi. 27),
whereas even the Dizful branch of the Kuran does
not come within six miles of the ruins. It lay to
the west, not only of the Pasitigris (Awran), but
also of the Coprates (river of Dizful), according to
Diodorus (xix. 18, 19). So far, it might be the
Shapur, but for two objections. The Shapur is too
small a stream to have attracted the general notice
of geographers, and its water is of so bad a character
that it can never have been chosen for the royal
table (Geograph. Journ. ix. p. 70). There is also
an important notice in Pliny entirely incompatible
with the notion that the short stream of the Shapur,
which rises in the plain about five miles to the
N.N. W. of Susa, can be the true Eulaeus. Pliny
says (vi. 31) the Eulaeus rose in Media, and flowed
through Mesobatene. Now this is exactly true of
the upper Kerkhah, which rises near Hamadan
(Ecbatana), and flows down the district of Mah-
sabadan (Mesobatene).
The result is that the various notices of ancient
writers appear to identify the upper Eulaeus with
the upper Kerkhah, and the lower Eulaeus (quite
unmistakeably) with the lower Auran. Does this
apparent confusion and contradiction admit of expla-
nation and reconcilement ?
A recent survey of the ground has suggested a
satisfactory explanation. It appears that the Ker-
khah once bifurcated at Pai Pul, about 20 miles
N. W. of Susa, sending out a branch which passed
east of the ruins, absorbing into it the Shapwr, and
flowing on across the plain in ἃ S. Κα, Ε΄, direction
till it fell into the Awran at Ahwaz (Loftus,
Chaldaea and Susiana, pp. 424, 425). Thus, the
upper Kerkhah and the lower Kwran were in old
UNCLEAN MEATS 1587
times united, and might be viewed as forming a
single stream. The name Eulaeus ( U/ai) seems to
have applied most properly to the eastern branch
stream from Pai Pul to Ahwaz; the stream above
Pai Pul was sometimes called the Eulaeus, but was
more properly the Choaspes, which wis also the
sole name of the western branch (or present course)
of the Kerkhah from Pai Pul to the Tigris. The
name Pasitigris was proper to the upper Auran
from its source to its junction with the Eulaeus,
after which the two names were equally applied to
the lower river. The Dizful stream, which was
not very generally known, was called the Coprates.
It is believed that this view of the river names will
reconcile and make intelligible all the notices of
them contained in the ancient writers.
It follows from this that the water which the
Persian kings drank, both at the court, and when
they travelled abroad, was that of the Aerkhah,
taken probably from the eastern branch, or proper
Kulaeus, which washed the walls of Susa, and
(according to Pliny) was used to strengthen its
defences, This water was, and still is, believed to
possess peculiar lightness (Strab, xv. 3, §22; Geo-
graph. Journ. ix. p. 70), and is thought to be at
once more wholesome and more pleasant to the
taste than almost any other. (On the controversy
concerning this stream the reader may consult Kin-
neir, Persian Empire, pp. 100-106; Sir H. Raw-
linson, in Geograph. Journ. ix. pp. 84-93 ; Layard,
in the same, xvi. pp. 91-94; and Loftus, Chaldaea
and Susiana, pp. 424-431.) [G. R.]
U'LAM (DbIN: Οὐλάμ : Ulam). 1. A de-
scendant of Gilead the grandson of Manasseh, and
father of Bedan (1 Chr. vii. 17).
2. (Αἰλάμ; Alex. Οὐλάμ.) The first-born of
Eshek, the brother of Azel, a descendant of the
house of Saul. His sons were among the famous
archers of Benjamin, and with their sons and grand-
sons made up the goodly family of 150 (1 Chr.
viii. 39, 40).
UL'LA (NY: °Oad; Alex.’Qad: Ola). An
Asherite, head of a family in his tribe, a mighty
man of valour, but how descended does not appear
(1 Chr, vii. 39). Perhaps, as Junius suggests, he
may be a son of Ithran or Jether; and we may
further conjecture that his name may be a cor-
ruption of Ara.
UM'MAH (13) ; ᾿Αρχώβε; ’Auua: Amma).
One of the cities of the allotment of Asher (Josh.
xix. 30 only). It occurs in company with Aphek
and Rehob; but as neither of these have been iden-
tifiel, no clue to the situation of Ummah is gained
thereby. Dr. Thomson (Bibl. Sacra, 1855, p.
822, quoted by Van de Velde) was shown a place
called *Alma in the highlands on the coast, about
five miles E.N.E. of Ras en-Nakhtra, which is not
dissimilar in name, and which he conjectures may
be identical with Ummah. But it is quite uncer-
tain. ’Alma is described in The Land and the
Book, chap. xx. [G.]
UNCLEAN MEATS. These were things
strangled, or dead of themselves, or through beasts or
birds of prey ; whatever beast did not both part the
hoof and chew the cud ; and certain other smaller ani-
mals rated as “ creeping things” (fk?) ; certain
a This looks at first sight like a misplacement of the |
name Rechob from its proper position further on in the
verse. Rechob, however, is usually ‘Paap.
b Lev. xi. 29-30 forbids eating the weasel, the mouse,
the tortoise, the ferret, the chameleon, the lizard, the
snail, and the mole. The LXX. has in place of the tor-
ΑΖ
1588 UNCLEAN MEATS
UNCLEAN MEATS
classes of birds ® mentioned in Ley. xi. and Deut. | Art. ccii. &c.) to have its parallel amongst all
xiv. twenty or twenty-one in all; whatever in the
waters had not both fins and scales; whatever
winged insect had not besides four legs the two
hind-legs for leaping ;4 besides things offered in
sacrifice to idols; and all blood or whatever con-
tained it (save perhaps the blood of fish, as would
appear from that only of beast and bird being for-
bidden, Ley. vii. 26), and therefore flesh cut from
the live animal; as also all fat, at any rate that
disposed in masses among the intestines, and pro-
bably wherever discernible and separable among |
the flesh (Lev. iii. 14-17, vii. 23). The eating of
blood was prohibited even to “the stranger that
an extension which we do not trace in other dietary
precepts ; e.g. the thing which died of itself was
to be given ‘ unto the stranger that is in thy gates,”
Deut. xiv. 21. As regards blood, the prohibition
indeed dates from the declaration to Noah against
** flesh with the life thereof which is the blood
thereof,’ in Gen. ix. 4, which was perhaps regarded
by Moses as still binding upon all Noah’s descendants.
The grounds, however, on which the similar pre-
cept of the Apostolic Council, in Acts xv. 20, 21,
appears based, relate not to any obligation resting
still unbroken on the Gentile world, but to the risk
of promiscuous offence to the Jews and Jewish
Christians, ‘for Moses of old time hath in every
is reckoned amongst “ necessary things” (τὰ ἐπάν-
aykes), and “ things offered to idols,’ although not
solely, it may be presumed, on the same grounds,
are placed in the same class with “ blood and things
strangled’ (ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος
καὶ πνικτοῦ, vy. 28, 29). Besides these, we tind
the prohibition twice recurring against ‘‘ seething
a kid in its mother’s milk.’”’ It is added, as a final
injunction to the code of dietary precepts in Deut.
xiv., after the crowning declaration of ver. 21, “ for
thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God ;” |
but in Exod, xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, the context relates
to the bringing firstfruits to the altar, and to the
“Angel” who was to “go before”? the people.
To this precept we shall have occasion further to
return,
The general distinction of clean and unclean is
rightly observed by Michaelis (Smith’s Translation,
|
| of which no further account is to be given.
nations, there being universally certain creatures
regarded as clean, 7.¢. fit for food, and the rest as
the opposite (comp. Ley. xi. 47). With the greater
number of nations, however, this is only a tradi-
tional usage based merely perhaps either on an in-
stinet relating to health, or on a repugnance which
is to be regarded as an ultimate fact in itself, and
Thus
Michaelis (as above) remarks that in a certain part
of Germany rabbits are viewed as unclean, 7. 6. are
advisedly excluded from diet. Our feelings as re-
gards the frog and the snail, contrasted with those
| of continentals, supply another close parallel. Now,
sojourneth among you” (Ley. xvii. 10, 12, 13, 14), |
it is not unlikely that nothing more than this is
intended in the distinction between ‘“ clean” and
“ unclean ” in the directions given to Noah. The
intention seems to have been that creatures recog-
nized, on whatever ground, as unfit for human food,
should not be preserved in so large a proportion as
those whose number might be diminished by that
consumption. The dietary code of the Egyptians,
and the traditions which have descended amongst
the Arabs, unfortified, certainly down to the time
| of Mahomet, and in some cases later, by any legis-
lation whatever, so far as we know, may illustrate
the probable state of the Israelites. If the Law
seized upon such habits as were current among the
| people, perhaps enlarging their scope and range, the
city them that preach him.” Hence this abstinence |
whole scheme of tradition, instinct, and usage so
enlarged might become a ceremonial barrier, having
a relation at once to the theocratic idea, to the
general health of the people, and to their separate-
ness as a nation,
The same personal interest taken by Jehovah in
his subjects, which is expressed by the demand for
a ceremonially pure state on the part of every
Israelite as in covenant with Him, regarded also
this particular detail of that purity, viz. diet.
Thus the prophet (Is. Ixvi. 17), speaking in His
name, denounces those that ‘sanctify themselves
(consecrate themselves to idolatry), eating swine’s
flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse,’ and
those “ which remain among the graves and lodge in
the monuments, which eat swine’s flesh, and broth
of abominable things is in their vessels” (Ixv. 4).
It remained for a higher Lawgiver to announce that
“there is nothing from without a man that enter-
toise, the κροκόδειλος ὃ χερσαῖος, and instead of the snail
(put before the lizard, cadpa), the χαλαβώτης.
¢ In the LXX. of Ley. xi. 14, two birds only are men-
tioned, τὸν γύπα καὶ τὸν ἴκτινον, and in the parallel pas- |
sage of Deut. xiv. 13 the same two; but in the Heb. of
the latter passage only our present text has three birds’
names, It is therefore probable that one of these, TN
rendered “glede” by the A.V., is a mere corruption of
TN, found both in Deut. and in Lev., for which the
LXX. gives yi, and the Vulgate Milvius. So Maimon.
took it (Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 33, 353). Thus we have
twenty birds named as unclean, alike in the Heb. and
in the LXX. of Lev. xi. 13-19, and of many of these the
identification is very doubtful. Bochart says (p. 354),
“nomina avium immundarum recenset Maimon., inter-
pretari ne conatus quidem est.”’ In the Heb. of Deut. xiv.
we have, allowing for the probable corruption of one
name, the same twenty, but in the LXX. only nineteen;
“every raven after his kind” (πάντα κόρακα καὶ τὰ
ὅμοια αὐτῷ), of Ley. being omitted, and the other names,
although the same as those of Lev., yet having a different
order and grouping after the first eight. Thus Lev. xi. 17,
consists of the three, καὶ νυκτικόρακα, Kal καταράκτην,
καὶ (Biv; whereas Dent. xiv. 16, which should corres-
|
pond, contains καὶ ἐρωδιὸν, καὶ κύκνον, καὶ (Bu. Also
the ἔποψ, “ hoopoe,’ and the πορφυρίων, “ coot,” figure
in both the LXX. lists. 5 :
ἃ In Lev. xi. 21 the keri has b-vix, against the
NOW N of the cethib. It is best to adopt the former,
and view the last part of the verse as constituting a class
that may be eaten from among a larger doubtful class of
“flying creeping-things,” the differentia consisting in
their having four feet, and a pair of hind-legs to spring
with. The A.V. is here obscure. “All fowls that
creep,” and “every flying creeping thing,’ standing in
Ley. xi. 20, 21 for precisely the same Heb. phrase, ren-
dered by the LXX. τὰ ἑρπετὰ τῶν πετεινῶν ; and “legs
above their feet to leap,’ not showing that the distinct
| larger springing legs of the locust or cicada are meant;
where the Heb. 22, and LXX. ἀνώτερον seem to
express the upward projection of these legs above the
creature’s back. So Bochart takes it (p. 452), who also
prefers 5 in the reading above given; “ita enim Hebraei
omnes ;” and so, he adds, the Samar. Pent. He states
that locusts are salted for food in Egypt (iv. 7, 491-2;
comp. Hasselquist, 231-233). The edible class is enu-
merated in four species. No precept is found in Deut.
relating to these.
UNCLEAN MEATS
ing into him can defile him” (Mark vii. 15). The
fat was claimed as a burnt offering and the blood
enjoyed the highest sacrificial esteem. In the two
‘combined the entire victim was by representation
offered, and to transfer either to human use was to
deal presumptuously with the most holy things.
But besides this, the blood was esteemed as ‘the
life” of the creature, and a mysterious sanctity be-
yond the sacrificial relation thereby attached to it.
Hence we read, “" whatsoever soul it be that eateth
any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut
off from his people”? (Lev. vii. 27, comp. xvii. 10,
14). Whereas the offender in other dietary respects
was merely ‘* unclean until even ” (xi. 40, xvil. 15).
Blood was certainly drunk in certain heathen
rituals, especially those which related to the solemn-
ization of a covenant, but also as a pledge of idola-
trous worship (Ps. xvi. 45 Ezek. xxxiii. 25). Still
there is no reason to think that blood has ever been
a common article of food, and any lawgiver might
probably reckon on a natural aversion effectually
fortifying his prohibition in this respect, unless
under some bewildering influence of superstition.
Whether animal qualities, grosser appetites, and
inhuman tendencies might be supposed by the He-
brews transmitted into the partaker of the blood of
animals, we have nothing to show: see, however,
Josephus, Ant. iii. 11, §2.
It is noteworthy that the practical effect of the
rule laid down is to exclude all the carnivora
among quadrupeds, and, so far as we can interpret
the nomenclature, the rapteres among birds. This
suggests the question whether they were excluded
as being not averse to human carcases, and in most
Eastern countries acting as the servitors of the
battle-field and the gibbet. Even swine have been
known so to feed; and, further, by their constant
runcation among whatever lies on the ground, sug-
gest impurity, even if they were not generally foul
feeders. Amongst fish those which were allowed
contain unquestionably the most wholesome va-
rieties, save that they exclude the oyster. Pro-
bably, however, sea-tishing was little practised by
the Israelites; and the Levitical rules must be
understood as referring backwards to their experi-
ence of the produce of the Nile, and forwards to
their enjoyment of the Jordan and its upper lakes.
The exclusion of the camel and the hare from
allowable meats is less easy to account for, save
that the former never was in common use, and is
generally spoken of in reference to the semi-barba-
rous desert tribes on the eastern or southern border
land, some of whom certainly had no insuperable
repugnance to his flesh ;° although it is so impos-
sible to substitute any other creature for the camel
as the “ ship of the desert,” that to eat him, espe-
cially where so many other creatures give meat so
much preferable, would be the worst economy pos-
sible in an Eastern commissariat—that of destroying |
UNCLEAN MEATS 1589
the best, or rather the only conveyance, in order to
obtain the most indifferent food. ‘The haref was
long supposed, even by eminent naturalists,s to
ruminate, and certainly was eaten by the Egyptians.
The horse and ass would be generally spared fiom
similar reasons to those which exempted the camel.
As regards other cattle the young males would be
those universally preferred for food, no more of
that sex reaching maturity than were needful for
breeding, whilst the supply of milk suggested the
copious preservation of the female. The duties of
draught would require another rule in rearing neat-
cattle. The labouring steer, man’s fellow in the
field, had a life somewhat ennobled and sanctified
by that comradeship. Thus it seems to have been
quite unusual to slay for sacrifice or food, as in 1 Καὶ.
xix. 21, the ox accustomed to the yoke. And per-
haps in this case, as being tougher, the flesh was not
roasted but boiled. The case of Araunah’s oxen is
not similar, as cattle of all ages were useful in the
threshing floor (2 Sam. xxiv, 22). Many of these
restrictions must be esteemed as merely based on
usage, or arbitrary. Practically the law left among
the allowed meats an ample variety, and no incon-
venience was likely to arise from a prohibition to eat
camels, horses, and asses. Swine, hares, &c. would
probably as nearly as possible be exterminated in pro-
portion as the law was observed, and their economic
room filled by other creatures. Wunderbar ( Biblisch-
Talm, Medicin, part ii. p. 50) refers to a notion
| that “‘ the animal element might only with great
circumspection and discretion be taken up into the
life of man, in order to avoid debasing that human
life by assimilation to a brutal level, so that thereby
the soul might become degraded, profaned, filled
with animal affections, and disqualified for drawing
near to God.’ He thinks also that we may notice
a meaning in ‘* the distinction between creatures of
a higher, nobler, and less intensely animal organ-
ization as clean, and those of a lower and incom-
plete organization as unclean,” and that the insects
provided with four legs and two others for leap-
ing are of a higher or more complete type than
others, and relatively nearer to man. This seems
fanciful, but may nevertheless have been a view
current among Labbinical authorities. As regards
birds, the raptores have commonly tough and in-
digestible flesh, and some of them are in all warm
countries the natural scavengers of all sorts of
carrion and offal. This alone begets an instinctive
repugnance towards them, and associates them with
what. was beforehand a defilement. ‘Thus to kill
them for food would tend to multiply various sources
of uncleanness.» Porphyry (Abstin. iv. 7, quoted by
Winer) says that the Egyptian priests abstained from
all fish, from all quadrupeds with solid hoofs, or
having claws, or which were not horned, and from
all carnivorous birds. Other curious parallels have
been found amongst more distant nations.'
e The camel, it may be observed, is the creature most
near the line of separation, for the foot is partially cloven
but incompletely so, and he is also a ruminant.
f The ᾿Ξ), “coney,” A.V., Lev. xi. 5, Deut. xiv. 7, | ai fe
ΤΡ, | Clemens Alex. Strom. v.; Origen, Homil. in Levit.; No-
Ps. civ. 18, Prov. xxx. 26, is probably the jerboa.
& See a correspondence on the question in The Standard
and most other London newspapers, April 2nd, 1863.
h Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 33, 355, 1. 43) mentions various
symbolical meanings as conveyed by the precepts regard-
ing birds : ** Aves rapaces prohibuit ut ἃ τα μ᾿ πᾶ averteret,
nocturnas, wt abjicerent opera tenebrarum et se proderent
lucis filios, lacustres et riparias, quarum victus est im-
purissimus, ut ab omui immunda cor arceret. Struthio-
nem denique, qui e terra non attollitur, ut terrenis relictis
ad ea tenderent quae sursum sunt. Quae interpretatio non
nostra est sed veterum.’’ He refers to Barnabas, Epist. X. 3
vatian, De Cibis Judaic. cap. iii.; Cyril, contra Julian.
lib. ix.
i Winer refers to Von Bohlen (Genesis, 88) as find-
ing the origin of the clean aud unclean animals in the
Zendavesta, in that the latter are the creation of Ahri-
man, whereas man is ascribed to that of Ormuzd. He
rejects, however, and quite rightly, the notion that Per-
sian institutions exercised any influence over Hebrew ones
1590 UNCLEAN MEATS
But as Orientals have minds sensitive to teaching
by types, there can be little doubt that such cere-
monial distinctions not only tended to keep Jew and
Gentile apart, but were a perpetual reminder to the
former that he and the latter were not on one level
before God. Hence, when that economy was changed,
we find that this was the very symbol selected to
instruct St. Peter in the truth that God was not a
“‘yespecter of persons.” The vessel filled with
“ fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts,
and creeping things, and fowls of the air,” was ex-
pressive of the Gentile world, to be put now on a
level with the Israelite, through God’s “ purifying
their hearts by faith.” A sense of this their pre-
rogative, however dimly held, may have fortified
the members of the privileged nation in their struggle
with the persecutions of the Gentiles on this very
point. It was no mere question of which among
several means of supporting life a man chose to
adopt, when the persecutor dictated the alternative
of swine’s flesh or the loss of life itself, but whether
he should surrender the badge and type of that
privilege by which Israel stood as the favoured
nation before God (1 Mace. i. 63, 64; 2 Mace. vi.
18, vii. 1). The same feeling led to the exagge-
ration of the Mosaic regulations, until it was
“6 unlawful for a man that was a Jew to keep com-
pany with or come unto one of another nation ”
(Acts x. 28); and with such intensity were badges
of distinction cherished, that the wine, bread, oil,
cheese, or anything cooked’ by a heathen,‘ were
declared unlawful for a Jew to eat. Nor was this
strictness, however it might at times be pushed to
an absurdity, without foundation in the nature of
the case. The Jews, as, during and after the return
from captivity, they found the avenues of the world
opening around them, would find their intercourse
with Gentiles unavoidably increased, and their only
way to ayoid an utter relaxation of their code
would lie in somewhat overstraining the precepts of
prohibition. Nor should we omit the tendency of
those who have no scruples to ‘‘ despise”’ those who
have, and to parade their liberty at the expense of
these latter, and give piquancy to the contrast by
wanton tricks, designed to beguile the Jew from
his strictness of observance, and make him un-
guardedly partake of what he abhorred, in order to
heighten his confusion by derision, One or two
instances of such amusement at the Jew’s expense
would drive the latter within the entrenchments of
an universal repugnance and avoidance, and make
him seek the safe side at the cost of being counted
a churl and a bigot. Thus we may account for
the refusal of the “king’s meat” by the religious
captives (Dan. i. 8), and for the-similar conduct
recorded of Judith (xii. 2) and Tobit (Tob. i. 11);
and in a similar spirit Shakspeare makes Shylock say,
“1 will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray
with you” (Merchant of Venice, Act I. Se. iii.).
As regards things offered to idols, all who own one
God meet on common ground; but the Jew viewed
the precept as demanding a literal objective obe-
dience, and had a holy horror of even an uncon-
scious infraction of the law: hence, as he could
never know what had received idolatrous conse-
eration, his only safety lay in total abstinence ;
whereas St. Paul admonishes the Christian to ab-
stain, ‘* for his sake that showed it and for conscience
UNCLEAN MEATS
sake,” from a thing said to have been consecrated
to a false god, but not to parade his conscientious
scruples by interrogating the butcher at his stall
or the host in his guest-chamber (1 Cor. x. 25-29),
and to give opposite injunctions would doubtless in
his view have been ‘‘ compelling the Gentiles to live
as did the Jews” (ἰουδαΐζειν, Gal. ii. 14).
The prohibition to “ seethe a kid in his mother’s
milk” has caused considerable difference of opinion
amongst commentators. Michaelis (Art. cex.)
thought it was meant merely to encourage the use
of olive oil instead of the milk or butter of an
animal, which we commonly use in cookery, where
the Orientals use the former. This will not satisfy
any mind by which the clue of symbolism, so blindly
held by the Eastern devotee, and so deeply inter-
woven in Jewish ritual, has been once duly seized.
Mercy to the beasts is one of the under-currents
which permeate that law. To soften the feelings
and humanise the character was the higher and
more general aim. When St. Paul, commenting on
a somewhat similar precept, says, “‘ Doth God care
for oxen, or saith He it altogether for ow sakes?”
he does not mean to deny God’s care for oxen, but
to insist the rather on the more elevated and more
human lesson. The milk was the destined support
of the young creature: viewed in reference to it,
the milk was its “life,” and had a relative sanctity
resembling that of the forbidden blood (comp. Juv.
xi. 68, “ qui plus lactis habet quam sanguinis,”
speaking of a kid destined for the knife). No doubt
the abstinence from the forbidden action, in the case
of a young creature already dead, and a dam un-
conscious probably of its loss, or whose consciousness
such an use of her milk could in nowise quicken,
was based on a sentiment merely. But the practical
consequence, that milk must be foregone or elsewhere
obtained, would prevent the sympathy from being
an empty one. It would not be the passive emotion
which becomes weaker by repetition, for want of an
active habit with which to ally itself. And thus its
operation would lie in indirectly quickening sym-
pathies for the brute creation at all other times.
The Talmudists took an extreme view of the precept,
as forbidding generally the cooking of flesh in milk
(Mishna, Chollin, viii.; Hottinger, Leg. Ποῦ».
117, 141, quoted by Winer).
It remains to mention the sanitary aspect of the
case. Swine are said to be peculiarly liable to dis-
ease in their own bodies. This probably means that
they are more easily led than other creatures to the
foul feeding which produces it; and where the ave-
rage heat is great, decomposition rapid, and malaria
easily excited, this tendency in the animal is more
mischievous than elsewhere. A meazel or mezel,
from whence we have “ measled pork,” is the old
English word for a “ leper,’ and it is asserted that
eating swine’s flesh in Syria and Egypt tends to
produce that disorder (Bartholini, De Morbis Bibl.
viii. ; Wunderbar, p. 51). But there is an in-
definiteness about these assertions which prevents
our dealing with them scientifically. J/eazel or
mezel may well indeed represent “leper,” but
which of all the morbid symptoms classed under
that head it is to stand for, and whether it means
the same, or at least a parallel disorder, in man and
in pig, are indeterminate questions, [LEPER.] The
prohibition on eating fat was salubrious in a region
at the earliest period of the latter, and connects it with the
efforts of some "" den Pentateuch recht jung wid die Ideen
des Zendavesta recht alt zu machen.” See UNCLEANNESS
for other resemblances between Persian and Hebrew ritual.
k Winer also refers to Aboda Zara, 11. 2-6, V. 2, Hot-
tinger, Leg. Llebr., 117, 141.
UNCLEANNESS
where skin diseases are frequent and virulent, and
that on blood had, no doubt, a similar tendency.
The case of animals dying of themselves needs no
remark: the mere wish to ensure avoiding disease,
in case they had died in such a state, would dictate
the rule. Yet the beneficial tendency is veiled
under a ceremonial difference, for the ‘ stranger”
dwelling by the Israelite was allowed it, although
the latter was forbidden. Thus is their distinctness
before God, as a nation, ever put prominently for-
ward, even where more common motives appear to
have their turn. As regards the animals allowed
for food, comparing them with those forbidden,
there can be no doubt on which side the balance
of wholesomeness lies. Nor would any dietetic
economist fail to pronounce in favour of the Levi-
tical dietary code as a whole, as ensuring the maxi-
mum of public health, and yet of national distinct-
ness, procured, however, by a minimum cf the
inconvenience arising from restriction.
Bochart’s Hierozoicon; Forskal’s Descriptiones
Animalium, etc., quae in Ttinere Orientali Observa-
vit, with his Zcones Rerum Naturalium, and Rosen-
miiller’s Handbuch der Bibl. Alterthumskunde, vol.
iv., Natural History, may be consulted on some of
the questions connected with this subject; also more
generally, Moses Maimonides, De Cibis Vetitis ;
Reinhard, De Cibis Hebraeorum Prohibitis. [H. H.]
UNCLEANNESS. The distinctive idea at-
tached to ceremonial uncleanness among the Hebrews
was, that it cut a person off for the time from
social privileges, and left his citizenship among God’s
people for the while in abeyance. It did not merely
require by law a certain ritual of purification, in
order to enhance the importance of the priesthood,
but it placed him who had contracted an unclean-
hess in a position of disadvantage, from which
certain ritualistic acts alone could free him. These
ritualistic acts were primarily the means of recalling
the people to a sense of the personality of God, and
of the reality of the bond in which the Covenant had
placed them with him. As regards the nature of
the acts themselves, they were in part purely cere-
monial, and in part had asanitary tendency ; as also
had the personal isolation in which the unclean were
placed, acting to some extent as a quarantine, under
circumstances where infection was possible or sup-
posable. It is remarkable that, although many acts
having no connexion specially with cleansing entered
into the ritual, the most frequently enjoined method
of removing ceremonial pollution was that same
washing which produces physical cleanliness. Nor
can we adequately comprehend the purport and
spirit of the Lawgiver, unless we recognize on either
side of the merely ceremonial acts, often apparently
enjoined for the sake of solemnity alone, the spiritual
and moral benefits on the one side, of which they
spake in shadow only, and the physical correctives
or preventives on the other, which they often in
substance conveyed. Maimonides and some other
expositors, whilst they apparently forbid, in reality
practise the rationalizing of many ceremonial precepts
(Wunderbar, Diblisch- Talmudische Medicin, 255
Heft, 4).
There is an intense reality in the fact of the
Divine Law taking hold of a man by the ordinary
infirmities of flesh, and setting its stamp, as it
were, in the lowest clay of which he is moulded.
a Compare the view of the modern Persians in this
respect. Chardin’s Voyages, vol. II. 343, chap. iv. “Le
corps se présente devant Dieu comme I'fme ; il faut donc
UNCLEANNESS 1591
And indeed, things which would be unsuited to the
spiritual dispensation of the New Testament, and
which might even sink into the ridiculous by too
close a contact with its sublimity, have their proper
place in a law of temporal sanctions, directly attect-
ing man’s life in this world chiefly or solely, The
sacredness attached to the human body is parallel to
that which invested the Ark of the Coveuant itself.
It is as though Jehovah thereby would teach them
that the ‘very hairs of their head were all num-
bered’”’ before Him, and that ‘in His book were all]
their members written.” Thus was inculcated, so
to speak, a bodily holiness.# And it is remarkable
indeed, that the solemn precept, ‘‘ Ye shall be holy;
for I am holy,” is used not only where moral duties
are enjoined, as in Lev. xix. 2, but equally so where
purely ceremonial precepts are delivered, as in xi.
44, 45. So the emphatic and recurring period,
“Tam the Lord your God,” is found added to the
clauses of positive observance as well as to those re-
lating to the grandest ethical barriers of duty. The
same weight of veto or injunction seems laid on all
alike; e.g. “Ye shall not make any cuttings in
your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon
you: 1 am the Lord,” and “ Thou shalt rise up
before the hoary head, and honour the face of the
old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord ” (xix.
28, 52). They had His mark set in their flesh,
and all flesh on which that had passed had received,
as it were, the broad arrow of the king, and was
really owned by him. They were preoccupied by
that mark of ownership in all the leading relations
of life, so as to exclude the admission of any rival
badge.
Nor were they to be only ‘‘ separated from other
people,’ but they were to be ‘holy unto God”
(xx. 24, 26), “a kingdom of priests, and a holy
nation.” Hence a number of such ordinances re-
garding outward purity, which in Egypt they had
seen used only by the priests, were made publicly
obligatory on the Hebrew nation.
The importance to physical well-being of the in-
junctions which required frequent ablution, under
whatever special pretexts, can be but feebly appre-
ciated in our cooler and damper climate, where
there seems to be a less rapid action of the atmo-
sphere, as well as a state of the frame less disposed
towards the generation of contagion, and towards
morbid action generally. Hence the obvious utility
of reinforcing, by the sanction of religion, obser-
vances tending in the main to that healthy state
which is the only solid basis of comfort, even
though in certain points of detail they were bur-
densome. The custom of using the bath also on
occasions of ceremonious introduction to persons of
rank or importance (Ruth iii. 3; Judith x. 3), well
explains the special use of it on occasions of religious
ministration, viewed as a personal appearing before
God ; whence we understand the office of the lavers
among the arrangements of the Sanctuary (Ex.
xxx. 18-213; 1K. vii. 38, 39; comp. Ex. xix. 10, 14;
1 Sam. xvi. 5; Josh. iii. 5; 2 Chr. xxx.17). The
examples of parallel observances among the nations
of antiquity, will suggest themselves easily to the
classical student without special references. The
closest approximation, however, to the Mosaic ritual
in this respect, is said to be found in the code of
Menu (Winer, “ Reinigkeit,” 313, note).
qu’il soit pur, tant pour parler ἃ Dieu, que pour entrer
dans le lieu consacré ἃ son culte.”
1592 UNCLEANNESS
To the priests was ordinarily referred the exposi-
tion of the law of uncleanness, as may be gathered
_ from Hagg. ii, 11. Uncleanness, as referred to man,
may be arranged in three degrees ; (1) that which
defiled merely ‘‘ until even,’ and was removed by
bathing and washing the clothes at the end of it—
such were all contacts with dead animals; (2) that
graver sort which defiled for seven days, and was
removed by the use of the ‘ water of separation ”—
such were all defilements connected with the human
corpse ; (3) uncleanness from the morbid, puerperal,
or menstrual state, lasting as long as that morbid
state lasted—but see further below; and in the case
of leprosy lasting often for life.
It suffices barely to notice- the spiritual signi-
ficance which the law of carnal ordinances veiled.
This seems sometimes apparent, as in Deut, xxi.
6-8 (comp. Ps. xxvi. 6, Ixxiii. 13), yet calling for
a spiritual discernment in the student ; and this is
the point of relation between these ‘ divers wash-
ings” and Christian Baptism (1 Pet. 111. 21).
Those who lacked that gift were likely to confound
the inward with the outward purification, or to fix
their regards exclusively on the latter.
As the human person was itself the seat of a
covenant-token, so male and female had each their
ceremonial obligations in proportion to their sexual
differences. Further than this the increase of the
nation was a special point of the promise to Abra-
ham and Jacob, and therefore their fecundity as
parents was under the Divine tutelage, beyond the
general notion of a curse, or at least of God's dis-
favour, as implied in barrenness. The ‘blessings
of the breasts and of the womb”’ were His (Gen.
xlix. 25), and the law takes accordingly grave and,
as it were, paternal cognizance of the organic func-
tions connected with propagation. Thus David
could feel, ‘Thou hast possessed my reins: thou
hast covered me in my mother’s womb” (Ps.
exxxix. 13); and St. Paul found a spiritual analogy
in the fact that ‘“‘God had tempered the body to-
gether, having given more abundant honour to that
part which lacked ” (1 Cor. xii. 24), The changes
of habit incident to the female, and certain abnormal
states of either sex in regard to such functions, are
touched on reverently, and with none of the
Aesculapian coldness of science—for the point of
view is throughout from the Sanctuary (Lev. xv.
31); and the purity of the individual, both moral
and physical, as well as the preservation of the
race, seems included in it. There is an emphatic
reminder of human weakness in the fact of birth
and death— man’s passage alike into and out of his
mortal state—being marked with a stated pollution.
Thus the birth of the infant brought defilement on
UNCLEANNESS
its mother, which she. except so far as necessarily
isolated by the nature of the circumstances, propa-
gated around her. Nay, the conjugal act itself?
or any act resembling it, though done involun-
tarily (vv. 16-18), entailed uncleanness for a
day. The corpse, on the other hand, bequeathed
a defilement of seven days to all who handled it,
to the “ teut ” or chamber of death, and to sundry
things within it. Nay, contact with one slain in
the field of battle, or with even a human bone or
grave, was no less effectual to pollute, than that
with a corpse dead by the course of nature (Num.
xix. 11-18). This shows that the source of pollu-
tion lay in the mere fact of death, and seems to
mark an anxiety to fix a sense of the connexion of
death, even as of birth, with sin, deep in the heart
of the nation, by a wide pathology, if we may so
call it, of defilement. 10 is as though the pool of
human corruption was stirred anew by whatever
passed into or out of it. For the special cases of
male, female, and intersexual defilement, see Lev.
xii., xv. Wunderbar, Biblisch- Talmudische Medi-
cin, pt. iii. 19-20, refers to Mishna, Zabim, ii. 2,
Nasir, ix. 4, as understanding by the symptoms
mentioned in Ley. xv, 2-8 the gonorrhoea benigna.
The same authority thinks that the plague “ for
Peor’s sake’? (Num. xxv. 1, 8, 9; Deut. iv. 3;
Josh. xxii. 17), was possibly a syphilitie affection
derived from the Moabites. [IssuE ; MEDICINE. ]
The duration of defilement caused by the birth of
a female infant, being double that due to a male,
extending respectively to eighty¢ and forty days in all
(Lev. xii. 2-5), may perhaps represent the woman’s
heavier share in the first sin and first curse (Gen.
iii, 16; 1 Tim. ii. 14). “For a man’s “ issue,” be-
sides the uncleanness while it lasted, a probation of
seven days, including a washing on the third day,
is prescribed. Similar was the period in the case of
the woman, and in that of intercourse with a woman
so affected (Lev. xv. 13, 28, 24). Such an act
during her menstrual separation® was regarded as
incurring, beyond uncleanness, the penalty of both
the persons being cut off from among their people
(xx. 18). We may gather from Gen. xxxi. 35,
that such injunctions were agreeable to established
traditional notions. The propagation of unclean-
ness from the person to the bed, saddle, clothes,
&e,, and through them to other persons, is apt to
impress the imagination with an idea of the loath-
someness of such a state or the heinousness of such
acts, more forcibly by far than if the defilement clove
to the first person merely (Lev. xv. 5, 6, 9, 12,
17, 20, 22-24, 26, 27). It threw a broad margin
around them, and warned all off by amply defined
boundaries. One expression in ver. 8. seems to
b Comp. Herod. ii. 64, where it appears that after such
intercourse an Egyptian could not enter a sanctuary
without first bathing.
e Ancient Greek physicians assert that, in southern
countries, the symptoms of the puerperal state continue
longer when a woman has borne a daughter than when a
son. Michaelis (Smith’s Translation), Art. 214.
ἃ Winer quotes a remarkable passage from Pliny,
N.H. vii. 13, specifying the mysteriously mischievous pro-
perties ascribed in popular superstition to the menstrual
flux; e.g., buds and fruits being blighted, steel blunted,
dogs driven mad by it, and the like. But Pliny has evi-
dently raked together all sorts of ‘old wives’ fables,”
without any attempt at testing their truth, and is there-
fore utterly untrustworthy. More to the purpose is his
quotation of Haller, Zlem. Physiol. vii. 148, to the effect
that this opinion of the virulent and baneful effects of
this secretion proceeded from Asia, and was imported
into Europe by the Arabians; which, however, lacks due
foundation, and which Pliny’s language so far contradicts.
The laws of Menu are said to be more stringent on this
head than the Mosaic. The menstrual affection begins
at an earlier age, and has periods of longer duration with
oriental women than with those of our own climate. That
Greek religion recognized some of the Levitical pollu-
tions is plain from Eurip. Jphig. Taur. 380 foll., where
we read of a goddess—jris, βροτῶν μὲν ἥν τις ἅψηται
φόνου, ἢ Kat Aoyelas, ἤ νεκροῦ θίγῃ χεροῖν, βωμῶν
ἀπείργει, μυσαρὸν ὡς ἡγουμένη. A fragment of the same
poet, adduced by Mr. Paley ad loc. cit., is even more
closely in point. It is, πάλλευκα δ᾽ ἔχων εἵματα φεύγω
γένεσίν τε βροτῶν καὶ νεκροθήκης οὐ χριμπτόμενος, THY
τ᾿ ἐμψύχων βρῶσιν ἐδεστῶν πεφύλαγμαι. Comp. also
Theophr. Char. 11. :
UNCLEANNESS
have misled Winer into supposing that an issue of
yheum (Schleimfluss) was perhaps intended, That
“spitting,” in some cases where there was no
disease in question, conveyed defilement, seems
implied in Num, xii. 14, and much more might
such an act so operate, from one whose malady
made him a source of pollution even to the touch.
As regards the propagation of uncleanness the
Law of Moses is not quite clear. We read (Num.
xix, 22), ‘‘ Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth
shall be unclean; but there uncleanness from con-
tact with the corpse, grave, &c., is the subject of the
chapter which the injunction closes ; and this is con-
firmed by Hage. ii. 13, where “ one that is unclean
by a dead body” is similarly expressly mentioned.
Also from the command (Num. v. 2-4) to “ put
the unclean out of the camp ;” where the “ leper,”
the one “ that hath an issue,” and the one ‘defiled
ΤᾺΣ the dead,” are particularized, we may assume
that the minor pollution for one day only was not
communicable, and so needed not to be “ put forth.”
It is observable also that the major pollution of the
“issue” communicated by contact the minor pollu-
tion only (Lev. xv. 5-11), Hence may perhaps be
deduced a tendency in the contagiousness to exhaust
itself; the minor pollution, whether engendered by
the major or arising directly, being non-communi-
cable. Thus the major itself would expire after
one remove from its original subject. To this
pertains the distinction mentioned by Lightfoot
(Hor. ποῦν. on Matt. ,xv. 2), viz. that between
NOD “unclean,” and Sys “ἐ profane”’ or ‘* pol-
luted,” in that the latter does not pollute another
beside itself nor propagate pollution. In the
ancient commentary on Num. known as * Siphri” &
(ap. Ugol. Thes. xv. 346), a greater transmissibility
of polluting power seems assumed, the defilement
being there traced through three removes from the
original subject of it; but this isno doubt a Rab-
binical extension of the original Levitical view.
Michaelis notices a medical tendency in the restric-
tion laid on coition, whereby both parties were un-
clean until even; he thinks, and with some reason,
that the law would operate to discourage polygamy,
and, in monogamy, would tend to preserve the
health of the parents and to provide for the healthi-
ness of the offspring. The uncleanness similarly
imposed upon self-pollution (Lev. xv. 16; Deut.
xxiii. 10), even if involuntary, would equally
exercise a restraint both moral and salutary to
health, and suggest to parents the duty of vigilance
over their male children (Michaelis, Art. ccxiv.-
cexvil.).
With regard to uncleanness arising from the
lower animals, Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. on Lev.
xi.-xv.) remarks, that all which were unclean to
touch when dead were unclean to eat, but not
conversely ; and that all which were unclean to eat
were unclean to sacrifice, but not conversely ; since
“‘multa edere licet quae non sacrificari, et multa
tangere licet quae non edere.”? For uncleanness in
matters of food see UNCLEAN Muarts. All ani-
mals, however, if dying of themselves, or eaten
with the blood, were unclean to eat. [BLoop.] The
carcase also of any animal unclean as regards diet,
however dying, defiled whatever person it, or any
part of it, touched. By the same touch any gar-
ment, sack, skin, or vessel, together with its con-
UNCLEANNESS 1593
tents, became unclean, and was to be purified by
washing or scouring ; or if an earthen vessel, was to
be broken, just as the Brahmins break a vessel out
of which a Christian has drunk. Further, the
water in which such things had been purified com-
municated their uncleanness; and eyen seed for
sowing, if wetted with water, became unclean by
touch of any carrion, or unclean animal when dead,
All these defilements were ‘‘ until even” only, save
the eating ‘‘ with the blood,” the offender in which
respect was to ‘‘ be cut off” (Lev. xi. xvii. 14),
It should further be added, that the same sentence
of “cutting off,” was denounced against all who
should “do presumptuously ” in respect even of
minor defilements; by which we may understand
all contempt of the legal provisions regarding them.
The comprehensive term “ defilement,” also in-
cludes the contraction of the unlawfal marriages
and the indulgence of unlawful lusts, as denounced
in Lev. xviii. Even the sowing heterogeneous
seeds in the same plot, the mixture of materials in
one garment, the sexual admixture of cattle with a
diverse kind, and the ploughing with diverse ani-
mals in one team, although not formally so classed,
yet seem to fall under the same general notion,
save in so far as no specified term of defilement or
mode of purification is prescribed (Lev, xix. 19;
Deut. xxii. 9-11 ; comp. Michaelis, as above, ccxx.).
In the first of these cases the fruit is pronounced
‘defiled,’ which Michaelis interprets as a consecra-
tion, ἡ. é. confiscation of the crop for the uses of the
priests.
The fruit of trees was to be counted ‘as uncir-
cumcised,”’ 7. 6. unclean for the first three years, in
the fourth it was to be set apart as “ holy to praise
the Lord withal,”’ and eaten commonly not till the
fifth. Michaelis traces an economic effect in this
regulation, it being best to pluck off the blossom in
the early years, and not allow the tree to bear
fruit. till it had attained to some maturity (ἰδία.
eexxii.).
The directions in Deut. xxiii. 10-13, relate to
the avoidance of impurities in the case of a host en-
camped,f as shown in ver. 9, and from the mention
of “enemies” in ver. 14. The health of the army
would of course suffer from the neglect of such
rules; but they are based on no such ground of
expediency, but on the scrupulous ceremonial purity
demanded by the God whose presence was in the
midst of them. We must suppose that the rule
which expelled soldiers under certain circumstances
of pollution from the camp for a whole day, was
relaxed in the presence of an enemy, as otherwise it
would have placed them beyond the protection of
their comrades, and at the mercy of the hostile
host. As regards the other regulation, it is part
of the teaching of nature herself that an assembled
community should reject whatever the human body
itself expels. And on this ground the Levitical
Law seems content to let such a matter rest, for it
annexes no stated defilement, nor prescribes any
purification.
Amongst causes of defilement should be noticed
the fact that the ashes of the red heifer, burnt
whole, which were mixed with water and became the
standing resource for purifying uncleanness in the
second degree, themselves became a source of defile-
ment to all who were clean, even as of purification
e The passage in the Latin version is, “Si vasa quae
tangunt hominem, qui tangat vasa, quae tangant mor-
tuum, sunt immunda,” &c.
f Bishop Colenso appears to have misapplied this, as
though it were required of the host of Israel, i.e. the
whole body of the people, throughout the whole of their
wandering in the wilderness. Zhe Pentateuch, kc. chr vi.
39.
1594 UNCLEANNESS
to the unclean, and so the water. Thus the priest
and Levite, who administered this purification in
their respective degrees, were themselves made un-
clean thereby, but in the first or lightest degree
only (Num. xix. 7, foll.). Somewhat similarly the
scape-goat, who bore away the sins of the people,
defiled him who led him into the wilderness, and
the bringing forth and burning the sacrifice on the
Great. Day of Atonement had a similar power. This
lightest form of uncleanness was expiated by bath-
ing the body and washing the clothes. Besides the
water of purification made as aforesaid, men and
women in their “issues,” were, after seven days,
reckoned from the cessation of the disorder, to bring
two turtle-doves or young pigeons to be killed by
the priests. The purification after child-bed is well
known from the N. T.; the law, however, pri-
marily required a lamb and a bird, and allowed the
poor to commute for a pair of birds as before.
That for the leper declared clean consisted of two
stages: the first, not properly sacrificial, though
involving the shedding of blood, consisted in bring-
ing two such birds, the one of which the priest
killed over spring-water with which its blood was
mingled, and the mixture sprinkled seven times on
the late leper, with an instrument made of cedar-
wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop ; the living bird was
then dipped in it, and let fly away, symbolizing’
probably the liberty to which the leper would be
entitled when his probation and sacrifice were com-
plete, even as the slaughtered bird signified the
discharge of the impurities which his blood had
contained during the diseased state. The leper
might now bathe, shave himself, and wash his
clothes, and come within the town or camp, nor
was every place which he entered any longer pol-
luted by him (Mishna, Negaz, xiii. 11; Celim, i. 4),
he was, however, relegated to his own house or
tent for seven days. At the end of that time he
was scrupulously to shave his whole body, even to
his eyebrows, aud wash and bathe as before. The
final sacrifice consisted of two lambs, and an ewe
sheep of the first year with flour and oil, the poor
being allowed to bring onejlamb and two birds as
before, with smaller quantities of flour and oil.
For the detail of the ceremonial, some of the features
of which are rather singular, see Lev. xiv. Lepers
were allowed to attend the synagogue worship,
where separate seats were assigned them (Negaim,
xiii. 12).
All these kinds of uncleanness disqualified for
holy functions: as the Jayman so afiected might
not approach the congregation and the sanctuary,
so any priest who incurred defilement must abstain
from the holy things (Lev. xxii. 2-8), The High-
Priest was forbidden the customary signs of mourning
for father or mother, ‘‘ for the crown of the anointing
oil of his God is upon him” (Lev. xxi. 10-12), and
beside his case the same prohibition seems to have
been extended to the ordinary priests. At least
we have an example of it in the charge given to
Eleazar and Ithamar on their brethren’s death (Lev.
x.6). From the specification of ‘ father or mother,”
we may infer that he was permitted to mourn fer
his wife, and so Maimonides (de Luctu, cap. ii., ἵν.»
8 i.e. Conveying in symbol only a release from the
state to which the leper, whilst such, was sentenced.
It is probable, however, that the duality of the symbol
arose from the natural impossibility of representing life
and death in the same creature, and that both the birds
involve a complete representation of the Death, Resur-
rection, and Ascension which procure the Christian
UNCLEANNESS
v.) explains the text. Further, from the special
prohibition of Ezekiel, who was a priest, to mourn
for his wife (Ez. xxiv. 15, foll.), we know that to
mourn for a wife was generally permitted to the
priests. Among ordinary Israelites, the man or
woman who had an issue, or the latter while in
the menstrual or puerperal state, might not, ac-
cording to the Rabbins, enter even the mount on
which the Temple stood; nor might the intra-mural
space be entered by any Israelite in mourning. In
Jerusalem itself, according to the same authorities,
a dead body might not be allowed to pass the night,
nor even the hones of one be carried through its
streets; neither was any cultivation allowed there,
for fear of the dung, &c., to which it might give
rise (Maimonides, Constit. de Temp. cap. vii. xiv.-
xvi.). No bodies were to be interred within towns,
unless seven chief men, or the public voice, bade the
interment there; and every tomb within a town
was to be carefully walled in (bid. xiii.). 1 ἃ
man in a state of pollution presumed to enter the
sanctuary, he was obliged to offer a sacrifice as well
as suffer punishment. The sacrifice was due under
the notion that the pollution of the sanctuary
needed expiation, and ;the punishment was either
whipping, the “rebel’s beating,” which meant leav-
ing the offender to the mercies of the mob, ““ cutting
off from the congregation,” or death “ by the hand
of heaven” (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Levit. xv. ;
Ugolini, 7168. xvi. 126).
As regards the special case of the leper, see
Leprosy. To the remarks there made, it may be
added that the priests, in their contact with the
leper to be adjudged, were exempted from the law
of defilement; that the garb and treatment of the
leper seems to be that of one dead in the eye of the
Law, or rather a perpetual mourner for his own
estate of death with ‘‘ clothes rent and head bare,”
the latter being a token of profound afiliction and
prostration of spirit among an Oriental people,
which no conventional token among ourselves can
adequately parallel. The fatal cry, NOD, NOD,
“unclean, unclean!” was uttered not only by the
leper, but by all for whose uncleanness no remedy
could be found (Pesichtha, §2; Ugol. 7168. xvi.
40). When we consider the aversion to leprous
contact which prevailed in Jewish society, and
that whatever the leper touched was, as if touched
by a corpse, defiled seven days, we see the happy
significance of our Lord’s selecting the touch as
his means of healing the leper (Lightfoot, Hor.
Heb. on Matt. viii. 2); as we also appreciate
better the bold faith of the woman, and how
daringly she overstepped conventional usage based
on the letter of the Law, who having the ‘issue of
blood,” hitherto incurable, “‘came behind him and
touched the hem of his garment,’ confident that not
pollution to him but cleansing to herself would be
the result of that touch (Luke viii. 43, foll.).
As regards the analogies which the ceremonial
of other Oriental nations offers, it may be men-
tioned that amongst the Arabs the touching a corpse
still defiles (Burckhardt, 80), Beyond this, M.
Chardin in his account of the religion of the Per-
Atonement. This would of course, however, escape the
notice of the worshipper. Christ, with His own blood,
‘“‘entered the holy places not made with hands,” as the
living bird soared up to the visible firmament with the
blood of its fellow. We may compare the two goats
completing apparently one similar joint-symbol on the
day of Atonement.
UNDERGIRDING
sians ( Voyages en Perse, vol. ii. 348, foll.), enters
into particulars which show a singularly close cor-
respondence with the Levitical code. This will be
seen by quoting merely the headings of some of his
chapters and sections. Thus we find under “ chap.
iv. Lee partie, Des purifications qui se font avec
dean. 24 partie, De l’immondicité ; 19 τὸ section, De
Vimpureté qui se contracte semine coitus; 246
section, De limpureté qui arrive aux femmes par
les pertes de sang, De limpureté des pertes de sang
ordinaires, De Vimpureté des pertes de sang extra-
ordinaires, De l’impureté des pertes de sang des
couches. 3°™¢ partie, De la purification des corps
morts.’ We may compare also with certain Levi-
tical precepts the following: “Si un chien boit
dans un vase ou léche quelque plat, il faut écurer
le vase avec de la terre nette, et puis le laver deux
fois d'eau nette, et il sera net.’ It is remarkable
also that these precepts apply to the people not qua
they are Mahomedans, but qua they are Persians, as
they are said to shun even Mahomedans who are not
of the same ritual in regard to these observances.
For certain branches of this Subject the reader
may be referred to the treatises in the Mishna
named Niddah (menstruata), Parah (vacca rufa),
Tehoroth (Puritates), Zabbim (flucu laborantes),
Celim (vasa), Miscath Arlah (arborum praeputia) ;
also to Maimon. lib. v. Zssure Biah (prohibitae
coitiones), Niddah (ut sup.), Maccaloth Assuroth
(οὐδὲ prohibiti). [H. ἘΠῚ
UNDERGIRDING, Acts xxvii. 17. [SHIP,
p- 1283a.]
UNICORN (O85, réém; O'N, rééym; or
ὮΝ, réym: μονοκέρως, adpds: rhinoceros, uni-
cormis), the unhappy rendering by the A. V.,
following the LXX., of the Hebrew Réém, a word
which occurs seven times in the O. T. as the name
of some large wild animal. More, perhaps, has
been written on the subject of the unicorn of the
ancients than on any other animal, and various are
the opinions which have been given as to the crea-
ture intended. The Réém of the Hebrew Bible, how-
eyer, has nothing at all to do with the one-horned
animal mentioned by Ctesias (Indica, iv. 25-27),
Aelian (Nat. Anim. xvi. 20), Aristotle (Hist. Anim.
ii. 2, 88), Pliny (N. #. viii. 21), and other Greek
and Roman writers, as is evident from Deut. xxxiii.
17, where, in the blessing of Joseph, it is said, ‘‘ His
glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his
horns are like the horns of a unicorn” (ἢ
DON), not, as the text of the A. V. renders it,
“the horns of unicorns.” The two horns of the
Réém are “the ten thousands of Ephraim and the
thousands of Manasseh”—the two tribes which
sprang from one, ἡ, 6. Joseph, as two horns from one
head. This text, most appropriately referred to by
Schultens (Comment. in Job. xxix. 9), puts a one-
horned animal entirely out ot the question, and in
consequence disposes of the opinion held hy Bruce
( Trav. v. 89) and others, that some species of rhino-
ceros is denoted, or that maintained by some writers
that the Réém_is identical with some one-horned
animal said to have been seen by travellers in South
Africa and in Thibet (see Barrow’s Travels in S.
Africa, i. 312-318, and Asiatic Journal, xi. 154),
and identical with the veritable unicorn of Greek
and Latin writers! Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 335) con-
tends that the Hebrew éém is identical with the
Arabic Rim (ρ- 15)» which is usually referred to
UNICORN 1595
the Oryx leucoryx, the white antelope of North
Africa, and at one time perhaps an inhabitant of
Palestine. Bochart has been followed by Rosen-
miiller, Winer, and others. Arnold Boot (Animad.
‘acr. iii. 8, Lond. 1644), with much better reason,
conjectures that some species of Urus or wild-ox is
the Réém of the Hebrew Scriptures. He has been
followed by Schultens (Comment. in Jobum xxxix.
9, who translates the term by Bos sylvestris: this
learned writer has a long and most valuable note
on this question), by Parkhurst (Heb. Lex. s. v.
DN), Maurer (Comment. in Job. 1. c.), Dr. Harris
(Nat. Hist. of the Bible), and by Cary (Notes on
Job, 1. c.). Robinson (Bib. Res. ii. 412) and Ge-
senius (7168. s. vy.) have little doubt that the
buffalo (ubalus buffalus) is the Reém of the Bible.
Before we proceed to discuss these several claimants
to represent the Réém, it will be well to note the
Scriptural allusions in the passages where the term
occurs. The great strength of the Réém is men-
tioned in Num. xxiii, 22, Job xxxix. 11; his having
two horns in Deut. xxxiii. 17; his fierce nature in
Ps. xxii. 21; his indomitable disposition in Job
xxxix. 9-11; the active and playful habits of the
young animal are alluded to in Ps. xxix. 6; while in
Is, xxxiv. 6, 7, where Jehovah is said to be preparing
“ς ἃ sacrifice in Bozrah,” it is added, ““ the Réémim
shail come down, and the bullocks with the bulls.”
The claim of any animal possessed of a single
horn to be the &éém has already been settled, tor
it is manifestly too much to assume, as some
writers have done, that the Hebrew term does not
always denote the same animal. Little can be
urged in favour of the rhinoceros, for even allow-
ing that the two-horned species of Abyssinia (2.
bicornis) may have been an inhabitant of the
woody districts near the Jordan in Biblical times,
this pachyderm must be out of the question, as one
which would have been forbidden to be sacrificed
by the Law of Moses, whereas the Réém is men-
tioned by Isaiah as coming down with bullocks
and rams to the Lord’s sacrifice. ‘* Omnia ani-
malia,”’ says Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Is. 1. c.), “ad
sacrificia idonea in unum congregantur.” Again,
the skipping of the young Reém (Ps, xxix. 6) is
scarcely compatible with the habits of a rhinoceros.
Moreover this animal when unmolested is not
generally an object of much dread, nor can we
believe that it ever existed so plentifully in the
Bible lands, or even would have allowed itself to
have been sufficiently often seen so as to be the
subject of frequent attention, the rhinoceros being
an animal of retired habits.
With regard to the claims of the Oryx leucoryx,
it must be observed that this antelope, like the rest
of the family, is harmless unless wounded or hard
pressed by the hunter, nor is it remarkable for the
possession of any extraordinary strength. Figures
of the Oryx occur frequently on the Egyptian
sculptures, ‘‘ being among the animals tamed by
the Egyptians and kept in great numbers in their
preserves ” (Wilkinson’s ἄπο. Egypt. i. 227, ed.
1854). Certainly this antelope can never be the fierce
indomitable Réém mentioned in the Book of Job.
Considering therefore that the Aéém is spoken
of as a two-horned animal of great strength and
ferocity, that it was evidently well known and
often seen by the Jews, that it is mentioned as an
animal fit for sacrificial purposes, and that it is
frequently associated with bulls and oxen, we think
there can be no doubt that some species of wild-ox
is intended. The allusion in Ps. xcii. 10, ** But
1596 UNNI
thou shalt lift up, as a Rééym, my horn,” seems
to point to the mode in which the Bovidae use
their horns, lowering the head and then tossing it
up. But it is impossible to determine what
particular species of wild-ox is signified. At pre-
sent there is no existing example of any wild
bovine animal found in Palestine; but negative
evidence in this respect must not be interpreted as
affording testimony against the supposition that
wild cattle formerly existed in the Bible lands.
The lion, for instance, was once not unfrequently
met with in Palestine, as is evident from Biblical
allusions, but no traces of living specimens exist
now. Dr. Roth found lions’ bones in a gravel bed
of the Jordan some few years ago, and it is not
improbable that some tuture explorer may succeed
in discovering bones and skulls of some huge ex-
tinct Urus, allied perhaps to that gigantic ox of
the Hercynian forests which Caesar (Bell. Gall.
vi. 20) describes as being of a stature scarcely
below that of an elephant, and so fierce as to spare
neither man nor beast should it meet with either.
“ Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary,” says
Col. Hamilton Smith (Kitto’s Cycl. art. “ Reem’’),
“the Urus and the Bison were spread anciently
from the Rhine to China, and existed in Thrace
and Asia Minor; while they, or allied species, are
still found in Siberia and the forests both of
Northern and Southern Persia. Finally, though
the Buffalo was not found anciently farther west
than Aracoria, the gigantic Gaur (Bibos gaurus)
and several congeners are spread over all the
mountain wildernesses of India and the Sheriff-al-
Wady ; and a further colossal species roams with
other wild bulls in the:valleys of Atlas.”
Some have conjectured that the Aéém denotes
the wild buffalo. Although the Chainsa, or tame
buffalo, was not introduced into Western Asia until
the Arabian conquest of Persia, it is possible that
some wild species, Bubalus arnee, or B. brachycerus,
may have existed formerly in Palestine. We are,
however, more in favour of some gigantic Urus.*
Numerous references as to the μονοκέρως of the
ancients will be found in Bochart (/ieroz. iii.
cap. 27), Winer (Bib. Realw. “ Einhorn” ;) but no
further notice of this point is taken here except to
observe that the more we study it the more con-
vinced we are that the animal is fabulous. The
supposed unicorns of which some modern travellers
speak have never been seen by trustworthy wit-
nesses.» [ΞΕ
UN'NI. 1, 3»): Ἐλιωὴλ, Ἤλωνεί; FA An:
Ani.) One οἵ the Levite doorkeepers (A. V.
“porters ) appointed to play the psaltery ‘on
alamoth”’ in the service of the sacred Tent, as
settled by David (1 Chr. xv. 18, 20).
2. (13), but in Keri 3): Vat. and Alex. omit ;
FA lavai: Anni.) A second Levite (unless the
family of the foregoing be intended) concerned in
the sacred office after the Return from Babylon
(Neh. xii. 9).
U'PHAZ (T5IN: Μωφάζ, ᾿Ωφάζ: Ophaz,
obryzum), Jer.x.9; Dan. x. 5, [Opuir, p. 637 ὃ.]
UR
UR (WN: Xdpa: Ur) occurs in Genesis only,
and is there mentioned as the land of Haran’s na-
tivity (Gen. xi. 28), the place from which Terah
and Abraham started “ to go into the land of
Canaan” (xi. 31). It is called in Genesis “ Ur of
the Chaldaeans” (DWD AN), while in the Acts
St. Stephen places it, by implication, in Mesopo-
tamia (vii. 2, 4). These are all the indications
which Scripture furnishes as to its locality. ΑΒ they
are clearly insufficient to fix its site, the chief tra-
ditions and opinions on the subject will be first con-
sidered, and then an attempt will be made to decide,
by the help of the Scriptural notices, between them.
One tradition identifies Ur with the modern
Orfah. There is some ground for believing that
this city, called by the Greeks Edessa, had also the
name of Orrha as early as the time of Isidore (ab.
B.c. 150); and the tradition connecting it with
Abraham is perhaps not later than St. Ephraem
(A.D. 330-370), who makes Nimrod king of Edessa,
among other places (Comment. in Gen, Op. vol. i.
p. 58, B.). According to Pocock (Description of
the East, vol. 1. p. 159), that Ur is Edessa or
Orfah is “the wniversal opinion of the Jews ;”
and it is also the local belief, as is indicated by the
title, ‘Mosque of Abraham,” borne by the chief
religious edifice of the place, and the designation,
ἐς Lake of Abraham the Beloved,” attached to the
pond in which are kept the sacred fish (Ainsworth,
Travels in the Track, &c., p. 64; comp. Pocock,
i. 159, and Niebuhr, Voyage en Arabie, p. 330).
A second tradition, which appears in the Talmud,
and in some of the early Arabian writers, finds Ur
in Warka, the ᾿᾽Ορχόη of the Greeks, and probably
the Erech of Holy Scripture (called *Opex by the
LXX.). This place bears the name of Huruk in
the native inscriptions, and was in the country
known to the Jews as “ the land of the Chaldaeans.”
A third tradition, less distinct than either of
these, but entitled to at least equal attention, dis-
tinguishes Ur from Warka, while still placing it in
the same region (see Journal of Asiatic Society,
vol. xii. p. 481, note 2). There can be little doubt
that the city whereto this tradition points is that
which appears by its bricks to have been called Hur
by the natives, and which is now represented by
the ruins at Mugheir, or Umgheir, on the right
bank of the Euphrates, nearly opposite to its junc-
tion with the Shat-el-Hie. The oldest Jewish tra-
dition which we possess, that quoted by Eusebius
from Eupolemus® (Praep. Ev. ix. 17), who lived
about B.C. 150, may be fairly said to intend this
place ; for by ideutifying Ur (Uria) with the Baby-
lonian city, known also as Camarina and Chaldae-
opolis, it points to a city of the Moon, which Hur
was—Kamar being “the Moon” in Arabic, and
Khaldi the same luminary in the Old Armenian,
An opinion, unsupported by any tradition, re-
mains to be noticed. Bochart, Calmet, Bunsen,
and others, identify ‘‘ Ur of the Chaldees” with
a place of the name, mentioned by a single late
writer—Ammianus Marcellinus—as “a castle”
existing in his day in Eastern Mesopotamia, between
Hatra (El Hadhr) and Nisibis (Amm. Mare.
a There appears to be no doubt that the ancient lake-
inhabitants of Switzerland towards the close of the stone
period succeeded in taming the urus. “ In a tame
state,” says Sir C. Lyell (Antiquity of Man, p. 24), “its
bones were somewhat less massive and heavy, and its
horns were somewhat smaller than in wild individuals.”
b The reader will find a full discussion of the ‘ Unicorn
of the Ancients” in the writer’s article in the Ann. and
Mag. of Nat. Hist. November, 1862.
e The words of Eusebius are: Δεκάτῃ γενεᾷ, φησὶν
[Εὐπόλεμος], ἐν πόλει τῆς Βαβυλωνίας Καμαρίνῃ, ἣν
τινες λέγειν πόλιν Οὐρίην, εἶναι δὲ μεθερμηνενομένην
Χαλδαίων πόλιν, ἐν τοίνυν δεκάτῃ γενεᾷ γενέσθαι
᾿Αβραάμ.
UR
xxv. 8).
site seem to be the identity of name and the posi-
tion of the place between Arrapachitis, which is
thought to have been the dwelling-place of Abra-
ham’s ancestors in the time of Arphaxad, and
Haran (Harran), whither he went from Ur.
It will be seen, that of the four localities thought
to have a claim to be regarded as Abraham’s city,
two are situated in Upper Mesopotamia, between
the Mons Masius and the Sinjar range, while the
other two are in the alluvial tract near the sea, at
least 400 miles further south. Let us endeavour
first to decide in which of these two regions Ur is
more probably to be sought.
That Chaldaea was, ‘properly speaking, the
southern part of Babylonia, the region bordering
upon the Gulf, will be admitted by all, Those
who maintain the northern emplacement of Ur
argue, that with the extension of Chaldaean power
the name travelled northward, and became co-
extensive with Mesopotamia; but, in the first place,
there is no proof that the name Chaldaea was ever
extended to the region above the Sinjar; and
secondly, if it was, the Jews at any rate mean by
Chaldaea exclusively the lower country, and call
the upper, Mesopotamia or Padan-Aram (see Job i.
17; Is. xiii. 19, xliii. 14, &.). Again, there is
no reason to believe that Babylonian power was
established beyond the Sinjar in these early times.
On the contrary, it seems to have been confined to
Babylonia Proper, or the alluvial tract below Hit
and Tekrit, until the expedition of Chedorlaomer,
which was later than the migration of Abraham.
The conjectures of Ephraem Syrus and Jerome
who identify the cities of Nimrod with places in
the upper Mesopotamian country, deserve no credit.
The names all really belong to Chaldaea Proper.
Moreover, the best and earliest Jewish authorities
place Ur in the low region. Eupolemus has been
already quoted to this effect. Josephus, though
less distinct upon the point, seems to have held
the same view (Ant. i. 6), The Talmudists also
are on this side of the question; and local tra-
ditions, which may be traced back nearly to the
Hegira, make the lower country the place of Abra-
ham’s birth and early life. If Orfah has a Mosque
and a Lake of Abraham, Cutha near Babylon goes
by Abraham’s name, as the traditional scene of all
his legendary miracles.
Again, it is really in the lower country only that
a name closely corresponding to the Hebrew iN
is found. The cuneiform Hur represents δὲ letter
for letter, and only differs from it in the greater
strength of the aspirate. Isidore’s Orrha vo ppa)
differs from ’Ur considerably, and the ee Ur
of Ammianus is probably not Ur, but Adur.4
The argument that Ur should be sought in the
neighbourhood of Arrapachitis and Seruj, because
the names Arphaxad and Serug occur in the gene-
alogy of Abraham (Bunsen, Egypt's Place &c.,
iii, 366, 367), has no weight till it is shown
that the human names in question are really con-
nected with the places, which is at present assumed
somewhat boldly. Arrapachitis comes probably from
Arapkha, an old Assyrian town of no great conse-
quence on the left bank of the Tigris, above Nineveh,
which has ὑπο three letters me common with Ly
4 The MS. we is ‘‘ Adur venere;” “ad Ur” is
an emendation of the commentators, The former is to
UR 1597
The chief arguments in favour of this | does not appear in Mesopotamia till long after the
Christian era. It is rarely, if ever , that we can
extract geographical information from the names in
an historical genealogy ; and certainly in the pre-
sent case nothing seems to have been gained by the
attempt to do so.
On the whole, therefore, we may regard it as
tolerably certain that “ Ur of the Chaldees” was a
place situated in the real Chaldaea—the low country
near the Persian Gulf. The only question that
remains in any degree doubtful is, whether Warka
or Mugheir is the true locality. These places are
not far apart; and either of them is sufficiently
suitable. Both are ancient cities, probably long
anterior to Abraham. Traditions attach to both,
but perhaps more distinctly to Warka. On the
other hand, it seems certain that Warka, the native
name of which was Huruk, represents the Erech of
Genesis, which cannot possibly be the Ur of the
same Book. Mugheir, therefore, which bore the
exact name of ’Ur or Hur, remains with the best
claim, and is entitled to be (at least provisionally)
regarded as the city of Abraham.
If it be objected to this theory that Abraham,
having to go from Mugheir to Palestine, would not
be likely to take Haran (Harran) on his way, more
particularly as he must then have crossed the Eu-
phrates twice, the answer would seem to be, that
the movement was not that of an individual but of
a tribe, travelling with large flocks and herds,
whose line of migration would have to be deter-
mined by necessities of pasturage, and by the friendly
| or hostile disposition, the weakness or strength of the
, | tribes already in possession of the regions which
had to be traversed. Fear of Arab plunderers (Job
|i. 15) may very probably have caused the emi-
grants to cross the Euphrates before quitting Baby-
lonia, and having done so, they might naturally
follow the left bank of the stream to the Belik, up
which they might then proceed, attracted by its
excellent pastures, till they reached Harran. Asa
| pastoral tribe proceeding from Lower Baby!onia to
Palestine must ascend the Euphrates as high as the
latitude of Aleppo, and perhaps would find it best
to ascend nearly to Bir, Harran was but a little
out of the proper route. Besides, the whole tribe
which accompanied Abraham was not going to
Palestine. Half the tribe were bent on a less distant
journey ; and with them the question must have
been, where could they, on or near the line of route,
obtain an unoccupied territory.
If upon the grounds above indicated Mugheir
may be regarded as the true ‘ Ur of the Chaldees,”
from which Abraham and his family set out, some
account of its situation and history would seem to
be appropriate in this place. Its remains have been
very carefully examined, both by Mr. Loftus and
Mr. Taylor, while its inscriptions have been deci-
phered and translated by Sir Henry Rawlinson.
τ or Hur, now Mugheir, or Um-Mugheir, “ the
bitumened,” or “ the mother of bitumen,” is one of
the most ancient, if not the most ancient, of the
Chaldaean sites hitherto discovered. It lies on the
right bank of the Euphrates, at the distance of about
six miles from the present course of the stream, nearly
opposite the point where the Euphrates receives the
Shat-el-Hie from the Tigris. It is now not less
than 125 miles from the sea ; but there are grounds
for believing that it was anciently a maritime tou
be preferred, since Ammianus does not use “ad” after
“ venio.”
1598 UR
URL
Ruins of Temple at Mugheir (Loftus).
and that its present inland position has been caused
by the rapid growth of the alluvium. The remains
of buildings are generally of the most archaic cha-
racter. They cover an oval space, 1000 yards
long by 800 broad, and consist principally of a
number of low mounds enclosed within an enceinte,
which on most sides is nearly perfect. The most
remarkable building is near the northern, end of the
ruins: It is a temple of the true Chaldaean type,
built in stages, of which two remain, and composed
of brick, partly sun-burnt and partly baked, laid
chiefly in a cement of bitumen. The bricks of this
building bear the name of a certain Urukh, who is
regarded as the earliest of the Chaldaean monu-
mental kings, and the name may possibly be the
same as that of Orchamus of Ovid (Metaph. iv.
212). His supposed date is B.c. 2000, or a little
earlier. ”Ur was the capital of this monarch, who
had a dominion extending at least as far north
as Niffer, and who, by the grandeur of his con-
structions, is proved to have been a wealthy
and powerful prince. The great temple appears
to have been founded by this king, who dedi-
cated it to the Moon-god, Hurki, from whom the
town itself seems to have derived its name. Tigi,
son of Urukh, completed the temple, as well as
certain other of his father’s buildings, and the kings
who followed upon these continued for several gene-
rations to adorn and beautify the city. ’Ur retained
its metropolitan character for above two centuries,
and even after it became second to Babylon, was a
great city, with an especially sacred character. The
notions entertained of its superior sanctity led to its
being used as a cemetery city, not only during the
time of the early Chaldaean supremacy, but through-
out the Assyrian and even the later Babylonian
period. It is in the main a city of tombs. By far
the greater portion of the space within the enceinte is
occupied by graves of one kind or another, while out-
side the enclosure, the whole space for a distance of
several hundred yards is a thickly-oceupied burial-
ground. It is believed that ’Ur was for 1800 years
a site to which the dead were brought fiom vast
distances, thus resembling such places as Aerbela
and Nedjif, or Meshed Ali, at the present day.
The latest mention that we find of ’Ur as an existing
place is in the passage of Kupolemus already quoted,
where we learn that it had changed its name, and
was called Camarina. It probably fell into decay
under the Persians, and was a mere ruin at the time
of Alexander’s conquests. Perhaps it was the place
to which Alexander’s informants alluded when they
told him that the tombs of the old Assyrian kings
were chiefly in the great marshes of the lower
country (Arrian, Hap. Alex. vii. 22). [G. R.]
URBA'NE (Οὐρβανός : Urbanus). It would
have been better if the word had been written URBAN
in the Authorised Version. For unlearned readers
sometimes mistake the sex of this Christian disciple,
who is in the long list of those whom St. Paul salutes
in writing to Rome (Rom. xvi. 9). We have no
means, however, of knowing more about Urbanus,
except, indeed, that we may reasonably conjecture
from the words that follow (τὸν συνεργὸν ἡμῶν
ἐν Χριστῷ) that he had been at some time in
active religious co-operation with the Apostle. Each
of those who are saluted just before and just after
is simply called τὸν ἀγαπητόν μον. The name is
Latin. 3’ ΤΠ
URI (IN: Οὐρείας, Ex. χχχὶ. 2; Οὐρίας, Ex.
xxxv. 80, 2 Chr. i. 5; Οὐρί, 1 Chr. ii. 20; Alex.
Ovpi, except in 2 Chr.: Uri). 1. The father of
Bezaleel one of the architects of the tabernacle
(Ex. xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30, xxxvili. 22; 1 Chr. ii. 20;
2 Chr. i. 5). He was of the tribe of Judah, and
grandson of Caleb hben-Hezron, his father being
Hur, who, according to tradition, was the husband
of Miriam.
2. (Adat.) The father of Geber, Solomon’s
commissariat officer in Gilead (1 K. iv. 19).
8. (25000; Alex. ᾽ῶδουέ.) One of the gate-
keepers of the temple, who had married a foreign
wife in the time of Ezra (zr. x. 24).
URIAH
URTAH (8, “light of Jehovah :” Οὐρίας :
Urias). 1. One of the thirty commanders of the
thirty bands into which the Israelite army of David
was divided (1 Chr. χὶ. 41 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 39). Like
others of David’s officers (Ittai of Gath ; Ishbosheth
the Canaanite, 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, LXX.; Zelek the
Ammonite, 2 Sam. xxiii. 37) he was a foreigner—a
Hittite. His name, however, and his manner of
speech (2 Sam. xi. 11) indicate that he had adopted
the Jewish religion. He married Bathsheba, a
woman of extraordinary beauty, the daughter of
Eliam—possibly the same as the son of Ahithophel,
and one of his brother officers (2 Sam, xxiii. 34) ;
and hence, perhaps, as Professor Blunt conjectures
(Coincidences, τι. x.), Uriah’s first acquaintance
with Bathsheba. It may be inferred from Nathan’s
parable (2 Sam. xii. 3) that he was passionately
devoted to his wife, and that their union was cele-
brated in Jerusalem as one of peculiar tenderness.
He had a house at Jerusalem underneath the palace
(2 Sam. xi. 2). In the first war with Ammon he
followed Joab to the siege, and with him remained
encamped in the open field (ἐδ. 11). He returned to
Jerusalem, at an order from the king, on the pre-
text of asking news of the war,—really in the hope
that his return to his wife might cover the shame
of his own crime. The king met with an unex-
pected obstacle in the austere, soldier-like spirit
which guided all Uriah’s conduct, and which gives
us a high notion of the character and discipline of
David’s officers. He steadily refused to go home,
or partake of any of the indulgences of domestic
life, whilst the ark and the host were in booths and
his comrades lying in the open air. He partook of
the royal hospitality, but slept always at the gate
of the palace till the last night, when the king at a
feast vainly endeavoured to entrap him by intoxi-
cation. The soldier was overcome by the debauch,
but still retained his sense of duty sufficiently to
insist on sleeping at the palace. On the morning
of the third day, David sent him back to the camp
with a letter (as in the story of Bellerophon), con-
taining the command to Joab to cause his destruc-
tion in the battle. Josephus (Ant. vii. 7, §1) adds,
that he gave asa reason an imaginary offence of
Uriah. None such appears in the actual letter.
Probably to an unserepulous soldier like Joab the
absolute will of the king was sufficient.
The device of Joab was, to observe the part of
the wall of Rabbath-Ammon, where the greatest
force of the besieged was congregated, and thither,
as a kind of forlorn hope, to send Uriah. A sally
took place. Uriah and the officers with him
advanced as far as the gate of the city, and were
there shot down by the archers on the wall. It
seems as if it had been an established maxim of
Israelitish warfare not to approach the wall of a
besieged city ; and one instance of the fatal result
was always quoted, as if proverbially, against it—
the sudden and ignominious death of Abimelech at
Thebez, which cut short the hopes of the then rising
monarchy. This appears from the fact (as given in
the LXX.) that Joab exactly anticipates what the
king will say when he hears of the disaster.
Just as Joab had forewarned the messenger, the
king broke into a furious passion on hearing of the
loss, and cited, almost in the very words which
Joab had predicted, the case of Abimelech. (The
only variation is the omission of the name of the
grandfather of Abimelech, which, in the LXX., is
Ner instead of Joash,) The messenger, as instructed
by Joab, calmly continued, and ended the story with
URIAH 1599
the words: ‘¢ Thy servant also, Uriah the Hittite, is
dead.” Inamoment David's anger is appeased. He
sends an encouraging message to Joab on the unavoid-
able chances of war, and urges him to continue the
siege. It is one of the touching parts of the story
that Uriah falls unconscious of his wife’s dishonour.
She hears of her husband’s death. The narrative
gives no hint as to her shame or remorse. She
‘“mourned”’ with the usual signs of grief as a widow ;
and then became the wife of David (2 Sam. xi, 27),
Uriah remains to us, preserved by this tragical
incident, an example of the chivalrous and devoted
characters that were to be found amongst the
Canaanites serving in the Hebrew army. [A. P.S. ]
2. High-priest in the reign of Ahaz (ls. viii. 2;
2K. xvi. 10-16). We first hear of him as a witness
to Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Maher-shalal-hash-
baz, with Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah. He is
probably the same as Urijah the priest, who built
the altar for Ahaz (2 K. xvi. 10). If this be so,
the prophet summoned him as a witness probably on
account of his position as high-priest, not on
account of his personal qualities; though, as the
incident occurred at the beginning of the reign of
Ahaz, Uriah’s irreligious subserviency may not
yet have manifested itself. When Ahaz, after his
deliverance from Rezin and Pekah by Tiglath-Pileser,
went to wait upon his new master at Damascus, he
saw there an altar which pleased him, and sent the
pattern of it to Uriah at Jerusalem, with orders to
have one made fike it against the king’s return.
Uriah zealously executed the idolatrous command,
and when Ahaz returned, not only allowed him to offer
sacrifices upon it, but basely complied with all his
impious directions, The new altar was accordingly
set in the court of the temple, to the east of where
the brazen altar used to stand; and the daily sacri-
fices, and the burnt-offerings of the king and people,
were offered upon it; while the brazen altar, having
been removed from its place, and set to the north
of the Syrian altar, was reserved as a private altar
for the king to inquire by. It is likely, too, that
Uriah’s compliances did not end here, but that he
was a consenting party to the other idolatrous and
sacrilegious acts of Ahaz (2 K. xvi. 17, 18, xxiii, 5,
11, 12; 2 Chr. xxviii. 23-25).
Of the parentage of Uriah we know nothing.
He probably succeeded Azariah, who was _ high-
priest in the reign of Uzziah, and was succeeded by
that Azariah who was high-priest in the reign of
Hezekiah. Hence it is probable that he was son
of the former and father of the latter, it being by
no means uncommon among tne Hebrews, as among
the Greeks, for the grandchild to have the grand-
father’s name. Probably, too, he may have been de-
scended from that Azariah who must have been
high-priest in the reign of Asa. But he has no
place in the sacerdotal genealogy (1 Chr. vi. 4-15),
in which there is a great gap between Amariah in
ver. 11, and Shallum the father of Hilkiah in ver.
13. [Hicu-Priest, p. 810.] It is perhaps a legi-
timate inference that Uriah’s line terminated in his
successor, Azariah, and that Hilkiah was descended
through another branch from Amariah, who was
priest in Jehoshaphat’s reign.
3. A priest of the family of Hakkoz (in A. V.
wrongly Koz), the head of the seventh course of
priests. (See 1 Chr. xxiv. 10.) It does not ap-
pear when this Urijah lived, as he is only named
-as the father or ancestor of Meremoth in the days
of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezr. viii. 33; Neh. iii.
4,21). In Neh. his name is ΠΕ ΑΗ. [A. C. H.]
1600 URIAS
URI'AS (Οὐρίας : Urias).
husband of Bathsheba (Matt. i. 6).
2. Urisan, 3 (1 Esd. ix. 43; comp. Neh.
viii. 4).
U'RIEL, “the fire of God,” an angel named
only in 2 Esdr. iv. 1, 36, v. 20, x. 28. In the
second of these passages he is called “ the archangel.”
U'RIEL (yy ἫΝ - Οὐριήλ - Uriel). 1. A
Kohathite Levite, son of Tahath (1 Chr. vi. 24[9]).
If the genealogies were reckoned in this chapter from
father to son, Uriel would be the same as Zephaniah
in ver. 36; but there is no reason to suppose that
this is the case.
Q. Chief of the Kohathites in the reign of David
(1 Chr. xv. 5, 11). In this capacity he assisted,
together with 120 of his brethren, in bringing up
the ark from the house of Obed-edom.
3. Uriel of Gibeah was the father of Maachah, or
Michaiah, the favourite wife of Rehoboam, and mother
of Abijah (2 Chr. xiii. 2). In 2 Chr. xi. 20 she is
called ‘ Maachah the daughter of Absalom ;” and
Josephus (Ant. viii. 10, §1) explains this by saying
that her mother was Tamar, Absalom’s daughter.
Rashi gives a long note to the effect that Michaiah
was called Maachah after the name of her daughter-
in-law the mother of Asa, who was a woman of
renown, and that her father’s name was Uriel Abi-
shalom. There is no indication, however, that
Absalom, like Solomon, had another name, although
in the Targum of R. Joseph on Chronicles it is said
that the father of Maachah was called Uriel that
the name of Absalom might not be mentioned.
URI'JAH (FN: Οὐρίας : Urias). 1. Urijah
the priest in the reign of Ahaz (2 K. xvi. 10),
probably the same as URIAH, 2.
2. (Οὐρία.) A priest of the family of Koz, or
hak-Koz, the same as URIAH, 3.
3. (Οὐρίας : Uria.) One of the priests who stood
at Ezra’s right-hand when he read the Law to the
people (Neh. viii. 4).
4. (AHN : Urias). The son of Shemaiah or
Kirjath-jearim. He prophesied in the days of Je-
hoiakim concerning the land and the city, just as
Jeremiah had done, and the king sought to put him
to death; but he escaped, and fled into Egypt. His
retreat was soon discovered: Elnathan and his men
brought him up out of Egypt, and Jehoiakim slew
him with the sword, and cast his body forth among
the graves of the common people (Jer. xxvi. 20-23).
The story of Shemaiah appears to be quoted by
the enemies of Jeremiah as a reason for putting him
to death ; and, as a reply to the instance of Micah
the Morasthite, which Jeremiah’s friends gave as
a reason why his words should be listened to and
his life spared. Such, at least, is the view adopted
by Rashi. [W. A. W.]
URIM AND THUMMIM (O38, DF:
δήλωσις καὶ ἀλήθεια : doctrina et veritas). Ν
I. (1.) When the Jewish exiles were met on
their return from Babylon by a question whieh they
had no data for answering, they agreed to postpone
the settlement of the difficulty till there should rise
1. Urran, the
@ The exceptions to the consensus are just worth notic-
ing. (1) Bellarmine wishing to defend the Vulg. trans-
lation, suggested the derivation of Urim from my =
τ
“to teach;” and Tkummim from ]!N, “to be true.”
(Buxtorf, Diss. de Ur. et. Th.) (2) Thummim has heen |
URIM AND THUMMIM
up “a Priest with Urim and Thummim” (Ezr, ii.
63; Neh. vii. 65). The inquiry, what those Urim
and Thummim themselves were, seems likely to
wait as long for a final and satisfying answer. On
every side we meet with confessions of ignorance—
|“ Non constat’’ (Kimchi), ‘ Nescimus” (Aben-
Ezra), ““ Difficile est invenire” (Augustine), varied
only by wild and conflicting conjectures. [Ὁ would
be comparatively an easy task to give a catalogue of
these hypotheses, and transcribe to any extent the
learning which has gathered round them. To
attempt to follow a true historical method, and so
to construct a theory which shall, at least, include
all the phenomena, is a more arduous, but may be
a more profitable task.
(2.) The starting-point of such an inquiry must
be from the words which the A. V. has left untrans-
lated. It will be well to deal with each separately.
(A.) In Urim, Hebrew scholars, with hardly
an exception, have seen the plural of WN (=light,
or fire). The LXX. translators, however, appear
to have had reasons which led them to another
rendering than that of φῶς, or its cognates. They
give ἡ δήλωσις (ix. xxviii. 30; Ecclus. xlv. 10),
and δῆλοι (Num, xxvii, 21; Deut. xxxii. 8;
1 Sam. xxviii. 6), while in Εν, ii. 63, and Neh.
vii. 65, we have respectively plural and singular
participles of φωτίζω. In Aquila and Theodotion
we find the more literal φωτισμοί. The Vulg.,
following the lead of the LXX., but going further
astray, gives doctrinu in Ex. xxviii. 30 and Deut.
xxxili, 8, omits the word in Num. xxvii. 21, para-
phrases it by “per sacerdotes” in 1 Sam, xxviil.
6, and gives “ judicitum” in Ecclus. xlv. 10, as the
rendering of δήλωσις. Luther gives Licht. The lite-
ral English equivalent would of course be “ lights ;”
but the renderings in the LXX. and Vulg,. indicate,
at least, a traditional belief among the Jews that
the plural form, as in Elohim and other like words,
did not involve numerical plurality.
(B.) Thwmmim. Here also there is almost a
consensus * as to the derivation from DM ( =pertec-
tion, completeness) ; but the LXX., as before, uses
the closer Greek equivalent τέλειος but once (Ezr.
ii. 63), and adheres elsewhere to ἀλήθεια ; and the
Vulg., giving “ perfectus” there, in like manner
gives “veritas” in all other passages. Aquila
more accurately chooses τελειώσεις. Luther, in
his first edition, gave Vélligkeit, but afterwards
rested in Recht. What has been said as to the
plural of Urim applies here also. ‘‘ Light and Per-
fection” would probably be the best English equi-
valent. The assumption of a hendiadys, so that the
two words =“ perfect illumination ” (Carpzov, App.
Crit. i. 5; Bahr, Symbolik, ii. p. 135), is unneces-
sary and, it is believed, unsound. The mere phrase,
as such, leaves it therefore uncertain whether each
word by itself denoted many things of a given kind,
or whether the two taken together might be re-
ferred to two distinct objects, or to one and the same
object. The presence of the article 1, and yet more
of the demonstrative NN before each, is rather in
favour of distinctness. In Deut. xxxiii. 8, we have
separately, ‘Thy Thummim and thy Urim,” the
first order being inverted. Urim is found alone in
Num. xxvii. 21; 1 Sam. xxviii. 6; Thummim
derived from ONF) contr. OF) = “a twin,” on the theory
that the two groups of gems, six on each side the breast-
plate, were what constituted the Urim and Thummim.
(R, Azarias, in Buxtorf, l. c.)
URIM AND THUMMIM
never by itself, unless with Ziillig we find it in
Ren xvi.)
Il. (1.) Seriptural Statements——The mysterious
words meet us for the first time, as if they needed
no explanation in the description of the High-
Priest’s apparel. Over the EpHop there is to be a
“breastplate of judgment” (DEYN wn, λογεῖον
κρίσεως," rationale judicii), of gold, scarlet, purple,
and fine linen, folded square and doubled, a “ span”’
in length and width. In it are to be set four rows
of precious stones, each stone with the name of a
tribe of Israel engraved on it, that Aaron may
“bear them upon his heart.” Then comes a fur-
ther order. Inside the breastplate, as the Tables of
the Covenant were placed inside the Ark (the pre-
position 28 is used in both cases, Ex, xxv. 16,
xxviii. 30), are to be placed ‘‘ the Urim and the
Thummim,” the Light and the Perfection; and
they, too, are to be on Aaron’s heart, when he
goes in before the Lord (Ex. xxviii. 15-30). Not
a word describes them. They are mentioned as
things already familiar both to Moses and the
people, connected naturally with the functions of
the High-Priest, as mediating between Jehovah and
His people. The command is fulfilled (Lev. viii. 8).
They pass from Aaron to Eleazar with the sacred
Ephod, and other pontificalia (Num. xx. 28). When
Joshua is solemnly appointed to succeed the great
hero-lawgiver, he is bidden to stand before Eleazar,
the priest, ‘‘ who shall ask counsel for him after
the judgment of Urim,” and this counsel is to deter-
mine the movements of the host of Israel (Num.
xxvil. 21). In the blessings of Moses, they appear
as the crowning glory of the tribe of Levi (‘* Thy
Thummim and thy Urim are with thy Holy One”),
the reward of the zeal which led them to close
their eyes to everything but ‘the Law and the
Covenant ” (Deut. xxxiii. 8, 9). Once, and once
only, are they mentioned by name in the history of
the Judges and the monarchy. Saul, left to his
self-chosen darkness, is answered “neither by
dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophet” (1 Sam.
xxviii. 6). There is no longer a priest with Urim
and Thummim (tots φωτίζουσι καὶ τοῖς τελείοις,
Ezr. ii. 633; 6 φωτίσων, Neh. vii. 65) to answer
hard questions. When will one appear again? The
Son of Sirach copies the Greek names (δῆλοι,
ἀλήθεια) in his description of Aaron’s garments,
but throws no light upon their meaning or their
use (Ecclus, xlv. 10).¢
(2.) Besides these direct statements, there are
others in which we may, without violence, trace a
yeference, if not to both, at least to the Urim.
When questions precisely of the nature of those
described in Num. xxvii. 21 are asked by the
leader of the people, and answered by Jehovah
(Judg. i. 1, xx. 18)—when like questions are asked
by Saul of the High-Priest Ahiah, ‘wearing an
ephod ” (1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18)—by David, as soon as
he has with him the presence of a High-Priest with
URIM AND THUMMIM 1601
his ephod (1 Sam, xxiii. 2, 12, xxx. 7, 8)—we may
legitimately infer that the treasures which the
ephod contained were the conditions and media
of his answer. The questions are in almost all
cases strategical,¢ “ Who shall go up for us against
the Canaanites first ?’’ (Judg.i. 1,50 xx. 18), ‘* Will
the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the
hand of Saul?” (1 Sam. xxiii. 12), or, at least, na-
tional (2 Sam, xxi. 1). The answer is, in all cases,
very brief, but more in form than a simple Yes or
No. One question only is answered at a time.
(3.) It deserves notice before we pass beyond the
range of Scriptural data, that in some cases of de-
flection from the established religious order, we
find the ephod connected not with the Urim, but
with the TERAPHIM, which, in the days of Laban,
if not earlier, had been conspicuous in Aramaic
worship. Micah, first consecrating one of his own
sons, and then getting a Levite as his priest, makes
for him “an ephod and teraphim” (Judg. xvii. 5,
xviii. 14, 20). Throughout the history of the
northern kingdom their presence at Dan made it a
sacred place (Judg. xviii. 30), and apparently de-
termined Jeroboam’s choice of it as a sanctuary.
When the prophet Hosea foretells the entire sweep-
ing away of the system which the Ten Tribes had
cherished, the point of extremest destitution is,
that “they shall be many days.... without an
ephod, and without teraphim ” (Hos. iii. 4), de-
prived of all counterfeit oracles, in order that they
may in the end “return and seek the Lord.”© It
seems natural to infer that the teraphim were, in
these instances, the unauthorized substitutes for
the Urim. The inference is strengthened by the
fact that the LXX. uses here, instead of teraphim,
the same word (δήλων) which it usually gives
for Urim. ‘That the teraphim were thus used
through the whole history of Israel may be inferred
from their frequent occurrence in conjunction with
other forms of divination. Thus we have in 1 Sam.
xv. 23, “witcheraft” and ‘‘teraphim” (A. V.
“idolatry ἢ), in 2 K. xxiii. 24, “ familiar spirits,”
“wizards, and teraphim ” (A. V. “‘images”’). The
king of Babylon, when he uses divination, consults
them (Ez. xxi. 21). They speak vanity (Zech. x. 2).
II. Theories—(1.) For the most part we have
to deal with independent conjectures rather than
with inferences from these data. Among the
latter, however, may be noticed the notion that, as
Moses is not directed to make the Urim and Thum-
mim, they must have had a supernatural ovigin,
specially created, unlike anything upon earth (KR.
ben Nachman and Hottinger in Buxtorf, Diss. de
U. et T. in Ugolini, xii.). It would be profitless
to discuss so arbitrary an hypothesis.
(2.) A favourite view of Jewish and of some
Christian writers has been, that the Urim and
Thummim were identical with the twelve stones
on which the names of the Tribes of Israel were
engraved, and the mode in which an oracle was
given was by the illumination, simultaneous or
b The LXX. rendering, so different from the literal
meaning, must have originated either (1) from a false
etymology, as if the word was derived from wn = “to
divine ” (Gen. xliv. 15); or (2) from the oracular use made
of the breast-plate; or (3) from other associations connected
with both the former (infra). The Vulg. simply follows
the LXX. Seb. Schmidt gives the more literal “ pectorale.”
“ Breast-plate”’ is, perhaps, somewhat misleading.
e The A.V., singularly enough, retranslates the Greek
words back into the Hebrew, and gives “Urim and
Thummim ” as if they were proper names,
VOL. II.
᾿
4 On this account, probably, the High-Priest was to go
out to battle (Num. xxxi. 6), as, in his absence, there was
to be a Sacerdos Castrensis. (Priests. ]
e The writer cannot bring himself with Pusey (Comm.
in loc.), to refer the things named by the Prophet, partly to
the true, partly to the false ritual; still less with Spencer
(Diss. de Ur. et Th.), to see in all of them things which
the Prophet recognises as right and good. 10 15 simpler
to take them as describing the actual polity and ritual
in which the Northern kingdom had gloried, and of which
| it was to be deprived.
Gy Wi
1602 URIM AND THUMMIM
successive, of the letters which were to make up the
answer (Jalkut Sifre, Zohar in Exod. f. 105;
Maimonides, ἢ, ben Nachman, in Buxtorf, /. c. ;
Drusius, in Crit. Sac. on Ex. xxviii. ; Chrysostom,
Grotius, et al.). Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, §5) adopts
another form of the same story, and, apparently
identifying the Urim and Thummim with the sar-
donyxes on the shoulders of the ephod, says that
they were bright before a victory, or when the sacri-
fice was acceptable, dark when any disaster was
impending, Epiphanius (de xii. gemm.), and the
writer quoted by Suidas (s. v, "Epovd), present the
same thought in yet another form. A single dia-
mond (ἀδάμας) placed in the centre of the breast-
plate prognosticated peace when it was bright, war
when it was red, death when it was dusky. It is
conclusive against such views (1) that, without
any evidence, without even an analogy, they make
unauthorized additions to the miracles of Scripture ;
(2) that the former identify two things which, in
Ex. xxviii., are clearly distinguished; (3) that
the latter makes no distinction between the Urim
and the Thummim, such as the repeated article leads
us to infer.
(3.) A theory, involving fewer gratuitous as-
sumptions, is that in the middle of the ephod, or
within its folds, there was a stone or plate of gold
on which was engraved the sacred name of Jehovah,
the Shem-hammephorash of Jewish cabbalists,f and
that by virtue of this, fixing his gaze on it, or
reading an invocation which was also engraved with
the name, or standing in his ephod before the
mercy-seat, or at least before the veil of the
sanctuary, he became capable of prophesying, hear-
ing the Divine voice within, or listening to it as it
proceeded, in articulate sounds, from the glory of
the Shechinah (Buxtorf, 7. c. 7: Lightfoot, vi.
278; Braunius, de Vestitu Hebr. ii.; Saalschiitz,
Archdolog. ii. 363). Another form of the same
thought is found in the statement of Jewish writers,
that the Holy Spirit spake sometimes by Urim,
sometimes by prophecy, sometimes by the Bath-Kol
(Seder Olam, c. xiv. in Braunius, /. c.), or that the
whole purpose of the unknown symbols was ‘ad
excitandam prophetiam” (R. Levi ben Gershon, in
Buxtorf, /. ὁ. ; Kimchi, in Spencer, /. c.). A more
eccentric form of the “ writing” theory was pro-
pounded by the elder Carpzov, who maintained that
the Urim and Thummim were two confessions of
faith in the Messiah and the Holy Spirit (Carpzov,
App. Crit. i. 5).
(4.) Spencer (de U. et T.) presents a singular
union of acuteness and extravagance. He rightly
recognises the distinctness of the two things which
others had confounded. Whatever the Urim and
Thummim were, they were not the twelve stones,
and they were distinguishable one from the other.
They were placed inside the folds of the doubled
Choshen. Resting on the facts referred to, he
inferred the identity of the Urim and the Teraphim.é
This was an instance in which the Divine wisdom
accommodated itself to man’s weakness, and allowed
the debased superstitious Israelites to retain a frag-
ment of the idolatrous system of their fathers, in
order to wean them gradually from the system as
a whole. The obnoxious name of Teraphim was
f Α wildet (on of this belief is and in ΟΕ
listic book Zohar. There the Urim is said to have had
the Divine name in 42, the Thummim in 72 letters. The
notion was probably derived from the Jewish invocations
of books like the Clawicula Salomonis. [Sotomon.]
5 He had been preceded in this view by Joseph Mede
URIM AND THUMMIM
dropped. The thing itself was retained. ‘The very
name Urim was, he argued, identical in meaning
with Teraphim.» It was, therefore, a small image
probably in human form. So far the hypothesis
has, at least, the merit of being inductive and
historical, but when he comes to the question how
it was instrumental oracularly, he passes into the
most extravagant of all assumptions. ‘The image,
when the High-Priest questioned it, spoke by the
mediation of an angel, with an articulate human
voice, just as the Teraphim spoke, in like man-
ner, by the intervention of a demon! In dealing
with the Thummim, which he excludes altogether
from the oracular functions of the Urim, Spencer
adopts the notion of an Egyptian archetype, which
will be noticed further on.
(5.) Michaelis (Laws of Moses, v. §52) gives
his own opinion that the Urim and Thummim were
three stones, on one of which was written Yes, on
another No, while the third was left blank or
neutral. The three were used as lots,and the High-
Priest decided according as the one or the other
was drawn out. He does not think it worth while
to give one iota of evidence; and the notion does
not appear to have been more than a passing caprice.
It obviously fails to meet the phenomena. Lots
were familiar enough among the Israelites (Num.
xxvi. 55; Josh. xiii. 6, ef al.; 1 Sam. xiv. 41;
Proy. xvi. 33), but the Urim was something solemn
and peculiar. In the cases where the Urim was
consulted, the answers were always more than a
mere negative or affirmative.
(6.) The conjecture of Ziillis (Comm. in Apoc.
Exc. ii.) though adopted by “Winer (Ruwb.) can
hardly be looked on as more satisfying. With him
the Urim are bright, 7. e. cut and polished,
diamonds, in form like dice; the Thummim per-
fect, 7. 6. whole, rough, uncut ones, each class with
inscriptions of some kind engraved on it. He sup-
poses a handful of these to have been carried in the
pouch of the High-Priest’s Choshen, and when he
wished for an oracle, to have been taken out by
him and thrown on a table or, more probably, on
the Ark of the Covenant. As they fell their posi-
tion, according to traditional rules known only to
the high-priestly families, indicated the answer.
He compares it with fortune-telling by cards or
coffee-crounds. The whole scheme, it need hardly
be said, is one of pure invention, at once arbitrary
and offensive. It is at least questionable whether
the Egyptians had access to diamonds, or knew the
art of polishing or engraving them. [DIAMOND. |
A handful of diamond cubes, large enough to have
words or monograms engraved on them, is a thing
which has no parallel in Egyptian archaeology, nor,
indeed, any where else.
(7) The latest Jewish interpreter of eminence
(Kalisch, on Ex. xxviii. 31), combining parts of
the views (2) and (3), identifies the Urim and
Thummim with the twelve tribal gems, looks on
the name as one to be explained by a hendiadys
(Light and Perfection = Perfect illumination), and
believes the High- Priest, by concentrating his
thoughts on the attributes they represented, to have
divested himself of all selfishness and prejudice, and
so to have passed into a true propagae state. In
(Diss. I. c. 35), who pointed out the strong earns
if not the identity, of the two.
h The process of proof is ingenious, but hardly con-
vincing. Urim = “lights, fires;” Seraphim =“ the
burning, or fiery ones;” and Terapbim is but the same
word, with an Aramaic substitution of J, for Y.
URIM AND THUMMIM
URIM AND THUMMIM 1008
what he says on this point there is much that is both | form of religion was given in condescension to the
beautiful and true. Lightfoot, it may be added, had
taken the same view (ii. 407, vi, 278), and that given |
above in (3) converges to the same result,
IV. One more Theory.—(1.) It may seem
venturesome, after so many wild and conflicting
conjectures, to add yet another. If it is believed |
that the risk of falling into one as wild and baseless |
need not deter us, it is because theré are materials |
within our reach, drawn from our larger knowledge
of antiquity, and not less from our ‘fuller insight
into the less common phenomena of consciousness,
which were not, to the same extent, within the
reach of our fathers.
(2.) The starting-point of our inquiry may be
feund in adhering to the conclusions to which the |
Scriptural statements lead us. ‘The Urim were not
identical with the Thummim, neither of them
identical with the tribal gems. The notion of a
hendiadys (almost always the weak prop of a weak
theory) may be discarded. And, seeing that they |
are mentioned with no description, we must infer |
that they and their meaning were already known,
if not to the other Israelites, “at least to Moses. If
we are to look for their origin anywhere, it must
be in the customs and the symbolism of Egypt.
(3.) We may start with the Thummim, as pre-
senting the easier problem of the two. Here there
is at once a patent and striking analogy. The |
priestly judges of Egypt, with whose presence and
garb Moses must have been familiar, wore, each of |
them, hanging on his neck, suspended on a golden
chain, a figure which Greek writers describe as an
image of Truth CAA7@ea, as in the LXX.) often
with closed eyes, made sometimes of a sapphire or
other precious stones, and, therefore necessarily |
small. They were to see in this a symbol of the
purity of motive, without which they would be
unworthy of their office. With it they touched |
the lips of the litigant as they bade him speak the |
truth, the whole, the perfect truth (Diod. Sic. i.
48,75; Aelian, Var. Hist. xiv. 34). That this
parallelism commended itself to the most learned of
the Alexandrian Jews we may infer (1) from the
deliberate but not obvious use by the LXX. of the
word ἀλήθεια as the translation of Thummim;
(2) from a remarkable passage in Philo (de Vit.
Mos. iii. 11), in which he says that the breastplate
(λόγιον ) of the High-Priest was made strong that
he might wear as an image (iva ἀγαλματοφορῇ)
the two virtues which were so needful for his
office. The connexion between the Hebrew and
the Egyptian symbol was first noticed, it is believed,
by Spencer (/.¢.). It was met with cries of alarm.
No single custom, rite, or symbol, could possibly |
have been transferred from an idolatrous system
into that of Israel. There was no evidence of the
antiquity of the Egyptian practice. It was pro-
bably copied from the Hebrew ans Aegyptiaca, |
ii. 10, 11, 12, in Ugolini, i.; Riboudealdus, de
Urim et Τ h. in Ugolini, xii. ; ’Patrick, Comm. im
Ea. xxviii.). The discussion of the principle
involved need not be entered on here. Spencer’s
way of putting the case, assuming that a debased |
superstitions of a debased people, made it, indeed,
needlessly offensive, but it remains true, that a
revelation of any kind must, to be intelligible,
use pre-existent words, and that those words,
| whether spoken or symbolic, may therefore be
taken from any language with which the recipients
of the revelation are familiar.' In this instance the
prejudice has worn away. The most orthodox of
| German theologians accept the once startling theory,
and find in it a proof of the veracity of the Penta-
teuch (Hengstenberg, Hgypt and the five Books of
Moses, c. vi.). It is admitted, partially at least,
by a devout Jew (Kalisch, on Ex. xxviii. 31).
| And the missing link of evidence has been found.
The custom was not, as had been said, of late origin,
| but is found on the older monuments of Egypt.
There, round the neck of the judge, are seen the
two figures of Thmei, the representative of Themis,
Truth, Justice (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians,
v. 28). The coincidence of sound may, it is true,
be accidental, but it is at least striking. In the
| words which tell of the tribe of Levi, in close con-
nexion with the Thummim as its chief glory, that
it did the stern task of duty, blind to all that could
turn it aside to evil, “ saying to his father and his
mother, I have not seen him” (Deut. xxxiii. 9), we
may perhaps trace a reference to the closed eyes of
the Egyptian Thmei.
(4.) The way is now open for a further inquiry.
We may legitimately ask whether there was any
symbol of Light standing to the Urim in the same
relation as the symbolic figure of Truth stood to the
Thummim. And the answer to that question is as
follows. On the breast of well-nigh every member
of the priestly caste of Egypt there hung a pec-
toral plate, corresponding in position and in size to
the Choshen of the High-Priest of Israel. And in
| many of these we find, in the centre of the pectorale,
right over the heart of the priestly mummy, as the
Urim was to be ‘on the heart’? of Aaron, what
was a known symbol of Light (see British Museum,
First Egyptiun Room, Cases 67, 69, 70, 88, 89.
Second ditto, Cases 68, 69, 74). In that symbol
were united and embodied the highest religious
thoughts to which man had then risen. It repre-
sented the Sun and the Universe, Light and Life,
Creation and Resurrection. The material of the
symbol varied according to the rank of the weaver.
It might be of blue porcelain, or jasper, or cornelian,
or lapis lazuli, or amethyst. Prior to our khowing
what the symbol was, we should probably think it
natural and fitting that this, like the other, should
have been transferred trom the lower worship to the
higher, from contact with falsehood to fellowship
with truth, Position, size, material, meaning, every-
thing answers the conditions of the problem.
(5.) But the symbol in this case was the mystic
Scarabaeus; and it may seem to some startling and
incredible to suggest that such an emblem could
have been borrowed for such a purpose. It is
perhaps quite as difficult for us to understand how
it could ever have come to be associated with such
ideas, We have to throw ourselves back into a
i It may be reasonably urged indeed that in such cases
the previous connexion with a false system is a reason
for, and not against the use of a symbol in itself expres-
sive. The Priests of Israel were taught that they were
not to have lower thoughts of the light and perfection
which they needed than the Priests of Ra.
both by Bihr (Symbolik, I. p. 164) and Ewald (<Alter-
thiim. p. 307-9), but without sufficient grounds. Ewald’s
treatment of the whole subject is, indeed, at once super-
ficial and inconsistent. In the Alterthiimer (1. c¢.) he
speaks of the Urim and Thummim as lots, adopting Mi-
chaelis’s view. In his Propheten (i. 15) he speaks of the
| High-Priest fixing his gaze on them to bring himself into
k It is right to add that the Egyptian origin is rejected
the prophetic state.
5 Kez
1604 URIM AND THUMMIM
stage of human progress, a phase of human thought,
the most utterly unlike any that comes within our
experience. Out of the mud which the Nile left
in its flooding, men saw myriad forms of life issue.
That of the Scarabaeus was the most conspicuous.
It-seemed to them self-generated, called into being
by the light, the child only of the sun. Its glossy
wing-cases reflecting the bright rays made it seem
like the sun in miniature. It became at once the
emblem of Ra, the sun, and its creative power
(Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 4, §21; Euseb. Praep.
Evang. iii. 4; Brugsch, Liber Metempsychoseos,
p. 33; Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, iv. 295,
ν. 26, 476). But it came also out of the dark
earth, after the flood of waters, and was therefore
the symbol of lite rising out of death in new forms ;
of a resurrection and a metempsychosis (Brugsch,
l.c. and Aegypt. Alterth. p. 32). So it was that
not in Egypt only, but in Etruria and Assyria and
other countries, the same strange emblems reap-
peared (Dennis, Cities and Sepulchres of Etruria,
Introd. Ixxiii.; Layard, Nineveh, ii. 214). So it
was that men, forgetting the actual in the ideal,
invested it with the title of Movoyeyns (Horapollo,
Hierogl. 1.c. 10), that the more mystic, dreamy,
Gnostic sects adopted it into their symbolic lan-
guage, and that semi-Christian Scarabaei are found
with the sacred words Jao, Sabaoth, or the names
of angels engraved on them (Bellermann, Ueber die
Scarabdéen-Gemmen, i. 10), just as the mystic
Tau, or Crux ansata, appears, in spite of its original
meaning, on the monuments of Christian Egypt
(Wilkinson, Anc. Hyypt. v. 283). In older Egypt
it was, at any rate, connected with the thought of
Divine illumination, found in frequent union with
the symbolic eye, the emblem of the providence of
God, and with the hieroglyphic invocation, ‘Tu
radians das vitam puris hominibus”’ (Brugsch’s
translation, Liber Metemps. p. 33). It is obvious
that in such a case, as with the Crux ansata, the
Scarabaeus is neither an idol, nor identified with
idolatry.™ ΤΌ is simply a word as much the mere
exponent of a thought as if it were spoken with
the lips, or written in phonetic characters. There
is nothing in its Egyptian origin or its animal
form which need startle us any more than the like
origin of the Ark or the Thummim, or the like
form in the BRAZSN SERPENT, or the fourfold
symbolic figures of the Cherubim. It is to be added,
that Joseph by his marriage with the daughter of
the Priest. of On, the priest of the sun-god Ra, and
Moses, as having been trained in the learning of
the Egyptians, and probably among the priests of
the same ritual, and in the same city, were certain
to be acquainted with the sculptured word, and
with its meaning. For the latter, at any rate, it
would need no description, no interpretation. Deep
set in the Choshen, between the gems that repre-
sented Israel, it would set forth that Light and
URIM AND THUMMIM
Truth were the centre of the nation’s life, Belong-
ing to the breastplate of judgment, it would bear
witness that the High-Priest, in his oracular acts,
needed above all things spotless integrity and Divine
illumination. It fulfilled all the conditions and
taught all the lessons which Jewish or Christian
writers have connected with the Urim.
(6.) (A.) Have we any data for determining
the material of the symboi? The following tend
at least to a definite conclusion: (1) If the stone
was to represent light, it would probably he one
in which light was, as it were, embodied in. its
purest form, colourless and clear, diamond or rock-
crystal. (2) The traditions quoted above from
Suidas and Epiphanius confirm this inference.?
(3) It is accepted as part of Ziillig’s theory, by
Dean Trench (£pistles to Seven Churches, p.125).°
The ‘‘ white stone ” of Rev. ii. 17, like the other
rewards of him that overcometh, declared the truth
ot the Universal Priesthood. What had been the
peculiar treasure of the house of Aaron should be
bestowed freely on all believers.
(B.) Another fact connected with the symbol
enables us to include one of the best supported of
the Jewish conjectures. As seen on the bodies of
Egyptian priests and others it almost always bore
an inscription, the name of the god whom the priest
served, or, more commonly, an invocation, from the
Book of the Dead, or some other Egyptian liturgy
(Brugsch, Lib. Metemps. 1.c.). There would here,
also, be an analogy. Upon the old emblem, ceasing,
it may be, to bear its old distinctive form,? there
might be the ‘* new name written,” the Tetracram-
maton, the Shem-hammephorash of later Judaism,
directing the thoughts of the priest to the true
Lord of Life and Light, of whom, unlike the Lord
of Life in the Temples of Egypt, there was no
form or similitude, a Spirit, to be worshipped
therefore in spirit and in truth,
(7.) We are now able to approach the question,
“Tn what way was the Urim instrumental in
enabling the High-Priest to give a true oracular
response ἢ We may dismiss, with the more
thoughtful writers already mentioned (Kimchi, on
2 Sam. xxv., may be added), the gratuitous pro-
digies which have no existence but in the fancies of
Jewish or Christian dreamers, the articulate voice
and the illumined letters. There remains the con-
clusion that, in some way, they helped him to rise
out of all selfishness and hypocrisy, out of all cere- Ὁ
monial routine, and to pass into a state analogous
to that of the later prophets, and so to become
capable of a new spiritual illumination. The
modus operandi in this case may, it is believed,
be at least illustrated by some lower analogies in
the less common phenomena of consciousness.
Among the most remarkable of such phenomena
is the change produced by concentrating the
thoughts on a single idea, by gazing stedfastly on ἃ
m The symbolic language of one nation or age will, of
course, often be unintelligible, and even seem ludicrous
to another. They will take for granted that men have
worshipped what they manifestly respected. Would it
be easy to make a Mahometan understand clearly the
meaning of the symbols of the four Evangelists as used in
the ornamentations of English Churches? Would an
English congregation, not archaeologists, bear to be told
that they were to engrave on their seals a pelican ora
fish, asa type of Christ? (Clem. Alex, Paedag. iii. 11, §59.)
» The words of Epiphanius are remarkable, ἡ δήλωσις,
Os ἣν ὁ ἀδάμας.
ὁ For the reasons stated above, in discussing Ziillig’s
theory, the writer finds himself unable to agree with Dean
Trench as to the diamond being certainly the stone in
question. So far as he knows, no diamonds have as yet
been found. among the jewels of Egypt. Rock-crystal
seems therefore the more probable of the two.
Pp Changes in the form of an emblem till it ceases to
bear any actual resemblance to its original prototype,
are familiar to all students of symbolism. The Crux
ansata, the Tau, which was the sign of life, is, perhaps,
the most striking instance (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. v.
283). Gesenius, in like manner, in his Monwmenta Phoe-
nicia ii. 68, 69, 70), gives engravings of Scarabaei in
which not}ing but the oval form is left.
»--
URIM AND THUMMIM
single fixed point. The brighter and more dazzling
the point upon which the eyes are turned the more
rapidly is the change produced, ‘The life of per-
ception is interrupted. Sight and hearing fail to
fulfil their usual functions, The mind passes into
a state of profound abstraction, and loses all distinct
personal consciousness. ‘Though not asleep it may
see visions and dream dreams. Under the sug-
gestions of a will for the time stronger than itself,
it may be played on like “ἃ thinking automaton.” 4
When not so played on, its mental state is deter-
mined by the ‘ dominant ideas’? which were im-
pressed upon it at the moment when, by its own
act, it brought about the abnormal change (Dr. W. B.
Carpenter in Quarterly Rev. xciii. pp. 510, 522).
(8.) We aré familiar with these phenomena
chiefly as they connect themselves with the lower
forms of mysticism, with the tricks of electro-
biologists, and other charlatans. Even as such
they present points of contact with many facts of
interest in Scriptural or Ecclesiastical History.
Independent of many facts in monastic legends of
which this is the most natural explanation, we
may see in the last great controversy of the Greek
Church a startling proof how terrible may be the
influence of these morbid states when there is no
healthy moral or intellectual activity to counteract
them. For three hundred years or more the rule
of the Abbot Simeon of Xerocercos, prescribing a
process precisely analogous to that described above,
was adopted by myriads of monks in Mount Athos
and elsewhere. The Christianity of the Kast
seemed in danger of givingits sanction to a spiritual
suicide like that of a Buddhist seeking, as his
highest blessedness, the annihilation of the Wir-
wanda. Plunged in profound abstraction, their eyes
fixed on the centre of their own bodies, the
Quietists of the 14th century (ἡσυχασταὶ, ὀμφα-
λοψυχικοὶ) enjoyed an unspeakable tranquillity,
believed themselves to be radiant with a Divine
glory, and saw visions of the uncreated light which
had shone on Tabor. Degrading as the whole matter
seems to us, it was a serious danger then. The
mania spread like an epidemic, even among the laity.
Husbands, fathers, men of letters, and artisans gave
themselves up to it. It was important enough
to be the occasion of repeated Synods, in which
emperors, patriarchs, bishops were eager to take
part, and mostly in favour of the practice, and the
corollaries deduced from it (Fleuy, Hist. Hecles.
xev. 9; Gieseler, Ch. Hist. 8129; Maury, La
Magie et ( Astrologie, pp. 429-30).
(9.) It is at least conceivable, .however, that,
within given limits, and in a given stage of human
progress, the state which seems so abnormal, might
have a use as well as an abuse. Jn the opinion
of one of the foremost among modern physiologists,
the processes of hy pnotism would have their place
in a perfect system of therapeutics (Quart, Review,
l.c.). It is open to us to believe that they may,
in the less perfect stages of the spiritual history of
mankind, have helped instead of hindering. In this
way only, it may be, the sense-bound spirit could
abstract itself from the outer world, and take up
the attitude of an expectant tranquillity. The
4 The word is used, of course, in its popular sense, as a
toy moving by machinery. Strictly speaking, automatic
force is just the element which has, for the time, dis-
appeared.
τ ‘The prayer of Ps. xliii. 3, “ Send out thy light and thy
truth,” though it does not contain the words Urim and
Thummim, speaks obviously of that which they sym-
URIM AND THUMMIM 1605
entire suppression of human consciousness, as in the
analogous phenomena of an’ ecstatic state [comp.
TRANCE], the surrender of the entire man to be
played upon, as the hand plays upon the harp, may,
at one time, have been an actual condition of the
inspired state, just as even now it is the only concep-
tion which some minds are capable of forming of the
fact of inspiration in any form or at any time. Bear-
ing this in mind, we may represent to ourselves the
process of seeking counsel * by Urim.”” The question
brought was oneatlecting the well-being of the nation,
or its army, or its king. The inquirer spoke in a low
whisper, asking one question only at a time (Gem.
Bab. Joma, in Mede, /.c.). The High-Priest, fixing
his gaze on the “ gems oracular ” that lay ‘‘on his
heart,” fixed his thoughts on the Light and the
Perfection which they symbolised, on the Holy
Name inscribed on them. The act was itself a
prayer, and, like other prayers, it might be an-
swered.* After a time, he passed into the new,
mysterious, half-ecstatic states All disturbing
elements—selfishness, prejudice, the fear of man—
were eliminated. He received the insight which
he craved. Men trusted in his decisions as with us
men trust the judgment which has been purified
by prayer for the help of the Eternal Spirit, more
than that which grows only out of debate, and
policy, and calculation.
(10.) It is at least interesting to think that a
like method of passing into this state of insight was
practised unblamed in the country to which we have
traced the Urim, and among the people for whose
education this process was adapted. We need not
think of Joseph, the pure, the heaven-taught, the
blameless one, as adopting, still less as falsely pre-
tending to adopt, the dark arts of a system of im-
posture (Gen. xliv. 5, 15). For one into whose
character the dream-element of prevision entered so
largely, there would be nothing strange in the use
of media by which he might superinduce at will the
dream-state which had come to him in his youth
unbidden, with no outward stimulus; and the use
of the cup by which Joseph ‘‘divined” was pre-
cisely analogous to that which has been now de-
scribed. To fill the cup with water, to fix the eye
on a gold or silver coin in it, or, more frequently,
on the dazzling reflection of the sun’s rays from it,
was an essential part of the κυλικομαντεία, the
λεκανομαντεία of ancient systems of divination
(Maury, La Magie et 1 Astrologie, pp. 426-28;
Kalisch, Genesis, in loc.). In the most modern
form of it, among the magicians of Cairo, the boy’s
fixed gaze upon the few drops of ink in the palm of
his hand answers the same purpose and produces
the same result (Lane, Mod. Egypt. 1. ο. xii). The
difference between the true and the false in these
cases is however far greater than the superficial
resemblance, ΤῸ enter upon. that exceptional state
with vague stupid: curiosity, may lead to an im-
becility which is the sport of every casual suggestion.
To pass into it with feelings of hatred, passion, lust,
may add to their power a “fearful intensity for evil,
till the state of the soul is demoniac rather than
human. To enter upon it as the High-Priest
entered, with the prayer of faith, might in like
bolised, and may ‘be looked upon as an ‘echo of the High
Priest's prayer ina form in which it might be used by
any devout worshipper.
5. The striking exclamation of Saul, “ Withdraw thy
hand!” when it seemed to him that the Urim was no
longer needed, was clearly an interruption of this pro-
cess (1 Sam. xiv. 19).
1606 URIM AND THUMMIM
manner intensify what was noblest and truest in him,
and fit him to be for the time a vessel of the Truth.
(11.) It may startle us at first to think that
any physical media should be used in a divine order
to bring about a spiritual result, still more that
those media should be the same as are found else-
where in systems in which evil is at least prepon-
derant ; yet here too Scripture and History present
us with very striking analogies. In other forms of
worship, in the mysteries of Isis, in Orphic and
Corybantian revels, music was used to work the
worshippers into a state of orgiastic frenzy. In the
mystic fraternity of Pythagoras it was employed
before sleep, that their visions might be serene and
pure (Plutarch, De 75, et Osir. ad fin.). Yet the
same instrumentality bringing about a result analo-
gous at least to the latter, probably embracing
elements of both, was used from the first in the
gatherings of the prophets (1 Sam. x. 5). It
soothed the vexed spirit of Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 23);
it wrought on him, when it came in its choral
power, till he too burst into the ecstatic song
(1 Sam. xix. 20-24). With one at least of the
greatest of the prophets it was as much the pre-
paration for his receiving light and guidance from
above as the gaze at the Urim had been to the
High-Priest. ‘‘ Elisha said . . . ‘ Now bring mea
minstrel.’ And it came to pass, when the minstrel
played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him”
(2K. aii. δὴ:
(12.) The facts just noticed point to the right
answer to the question which yet remains, as to
the duration of the Urim and the Thummim, and
‘the reasons of their withdrawal. The statement of
Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, §5-7) that they had con-
tinued to shine with supernatural lustre till within
two hundred years of his own time is simply a
Jewish fable, at variance with the direct confession
of their absence on the return from the Captivity
(Ezr. ti. 63), and in the time of the Maccabees
(1 Mace. iv. 46, xiv. 41). As little reliance is to
be placed on the assertion of other Jewish writers,
that they continued in activity till the time of the
Babylonian Exile (Sota, p. 43; Midrash on Song
of Sol. in Buxtorf, 1. c.). It is quite inconceivable,
had it been so, that there should have been no
single instance of an oracle thus obtained during
the whole history of the monarchy of Judah. The
facts of the case are few, but they are decisive.
Never, after the days of David, is the Ephod, with
its appendages, connected with counsel from Jehovah
(so Carpzov, App. Crit. i. 5). Abiathar is the last
priest who habitually uses it for that purpose
(1 Sam. xxiii. 6, 9, xxviii. 6; probably also 2 Sam.
xxi. 1). His name is identified in a strange tradi-
tion embodied in the Talmud (Sanhedr. f. 19, 1, in
Lightfoot, xi. 586) with the departed glory of the
Urim and the Thummim. And the explanation of
these facts is not far to seek. Men had been
taught by this time another process by which the
spiritual might at once assert its independence of
the sensuous life, and yet retain its distinct per-
sonal consciousness—a process less liable to per-
t That “the hand of the Lord” was the recognised ex-
pression for this awful consciousness of the Divine pre-
sence we find from the visions of Ezekiel (i. 3, iii. 14,
et al.), and 1 K. xviii. 46. It helps us obviously to de-
termine the sense of the corresponding phrase, ‘ with
the finger of God,” in Ex. xxxi. 18. Comp. too, the
equivalence, in our Lord’s teaching, of the two forms.
“Tf I with the finger of God (Luke xi. 20 =‘ by the |
Spirit of God,’ Matt. xii. 28) cast out devils.”
| Urim und Thummim, die dltesten Gemmen.
USURY
version, leading to higher and more continuous
illumination. Through the sense of hearing, not
through that of sight, was to be wrought the
subtle and mysterious change. Music—in its mar-
vellous variety, its subtle sweetness, its spirit-
stirring power—was to be, for all time to come,
the lawful help to the ecstasy of praise and prayer,
opening heart and soul to new and higher thoughts.
The utterances of the prophets, speaking by the
word of the Lord, were to supersede the oracles of
the Urim. The change which about this period passed
over the speech of Israel was a witness of the moral
elevation which that other change involved. ‘‘ He
that is now called a prophet was beforetime called
a seer’? (1 Sam. ix. 9). To be the mouthpiece, the
spokesman, of Jehovah was higher than to see visions
of the future, however clear, whether of the armies
of Israel or the lost asses of Kish.
(13.) The transition was probably not made
without a struggle. It was accompanied by, even
if it did not in part cause, the transfer of the Pon-
tificate from one branch of the priestly family to
another. The strange opposition of Abiathar to
the will of David, at the close of his reign, is intel-
ligible on the hypothesis that he, long accustomed,
as holding the Ephod and the Urim, to guide the
king’s councils by his oracular answers, viewed,
with some approach to jealousy, the growing influ-
ence of the prophets, and the accession of a prince
who had grown up under their training. With him
at any rate, so far as we have any knowledge, the
Urim and the Thummim passed out of sight. It
was well, we may believe, that they did so. To
have the voices of the prophets in their stead was
to gain and not to lose. So the old order changed,
giving place to the new. If the fond yearning of
the Israelites of the Captivity had been fulfilled,
and a priest had once again arisen with Urim and
with Thummim, they would but have taken their
place among the “ weak and beggarly elements”
which were to pass away. All attempts, from the
ule of Simeon to the Spiritual Exercises of Loyola,
to invert the Divine order, to purchase spiritual ecsta-
sies by the sacrifice of intellect and of conscience,
have been steps backward into darkness, not for-
ward into light. So it was that God, in many dif-
ferent measures and many different fashions (aoAv-
μερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπωΞ), spake in time past unto
the Fathers (Heb, i. 1). So it is, in words that
embody the same thought, and draw from it a
needful lesson, that
“God fulfils himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.” ἃ
‘ [E. H. P.]
USURY. Information on the subject of lending
and borrowing will be found under Loan. It need
only be remarked here that the practice of mort-
gaging land, sometimes at exorbitant interest, grew
up among the Jews during the Captivity, in direct
violation of the law (Ley. xxv. 36,373; Ez, xviii. 8,
13, 17). We find the rate reaching 1 in 100 per
month, corresponding to the Roman centesimae
usurae, or 12 per cent. per annum—a rate which
u In addition to the authorities cited in the text, one
has to be named to which the writer has not been
able to get access, and which he knows only through the
Thesaurus of Gesenius. Bellermann, whose treatises on
the Scarabaei are quoted above, has also written, Die
He appar-
ently identifies the Urim and Thummim with the gems
of the breastplate.
SS ΚΝ“.
UTA
Niebuhr considers to have been borrowed from
abroad, and which is, or has been till quite lately,
a very usual or even a minimum rate in the East
(Nieb. Hist. of Rome, iii. 57, Engl. Tr.; Volney,
Trav. ii. 254, note; Chardin, Voy. vi. 122). Yet
the law of the Kuran, like the Jewish, forbids all
usury (Lane, 77. 10. i. 132; Sale, Kuran, c. 30).
The laws of Menu allow 18 and’even 24 per cent.
as an interest rate; but, as was the law in Egypt,
accumulated interest was not to exceed twice the
original sum lent (Laws of Menu, ο. viii, 140, 141,
151 ; Sir W. Jones, Works, vol. iii. p. 295; Diod.
i. 9, 79). This Jewish practice was annulled by
Nehemiah, and an oath exacted to ensure its discon-
tinuance (Neh. v. 3-13; Selden, De Jur. Nat. vi.
10; Hofmann, Lewic. “‘ Usura”). [H. W. P.]
U'TA (οὐτᾶ: Utha) 1 Esdr. v. 30. It appears
to be a corruption of AKKUB (Ezr. ii. 45).
U'THAL (MAY: Γνωθί: Alex. Γωθί: Othei).
1. The son of Ammihud, of the children of Pharez,
the son of Judah (1 Chr. ix. 4). He appears to
have been one of those who dwelt in Jerusalem after
the Captivity. In Neh. xi. 4 he is called “ATHATAH
the sen of Uzziah.”
2. (Οὐθαΐ: Uthai.) One of the sons of Bigvai,
who returned in the second caravan with Ezra
(Ezr. viii. 14).
Ὁ ΗΠ (0262) 1 Esdr, viii. 40. [Urnar 2].
UZ (YAY; οὔζ, “Ns, “Os: Us, Hus). This
name is applied to—1. A son of Aram (Gen. x. 23),
and consequently a grandson of Shem, to whom he
is immediately referred in the more concise gene-
alogy of the Chronicles, the name of Aram being
omitted* (1 Chr. i. 17). 2. A son of Nahor
by Milcah (Gen. xxii. 21; A. V. Huz). 3.
A son of Dishan, and grandson of Seir (Gen.
xxxvi. 28), 4. The country in which Job lived
(Job i. 1). As the genealogical statements of the
Book of Genesis are undoubtedly ethnological, and
in many instances also geographical, it may be
fairly surmised that the coincidence of names in
the above cases is not accidental, but points to a
fusion of various branches of the Shemitie race in a
certain locality. This surmise is confirmed by the
circumstance that other connecting links may be
discovered between the same branches. For in-
stance, Nos. 1 and 2 have in common the names
Aram (comp. Gen. x. 23, xxii. 21) and Maachah
as a geographical designation in connexion with the
former (1 Chr. xix. 6), and a personal one in con-
nexion with the latter (Gen. xxii. 24). Nos. 2 and
4 have in common the names Buz and Buzite
(Gen. xxii. 21; Job xxxii. 2), Chesed and Chasdim
(Gen. xxii. 22; Job i. 17, A. V. ‘ Chaldaeans’’),
Shuah, a nephew of Nahor, and Shuhite (Gen. xxy.
2; Job ii. 11), and Kedem, as the country whither
Abraham sent Shuah, together with his other chil-
dren by Keturah, and also as the country where Job
lived (Gen. xxv. 6; Job i. 3). Nos. 3 and 4,
again, have in common Eliphaz (Gen. xxxvi. 10; Job
ii. 11), and Teman and Temanite (Gen. xxxvi. 11;
Job ii. 11). The ethnological fact embodied in
the above coincidences of names appears to be as
follows :—Certain branches of the Aramaic family,
being both more ancient and occupying a more
UZAL 1607
northerly position than the others, coalesced with
branches of the later Abrahamids, holding a some-
what central position in Mesopotamia and Palestine,
and again with branches of the still later Edomites
of the south, after they had become a distinct race
from the Abrahamids. This conclusion would re-
ceive confirmation if the geographical position of
Uz, as described in the Book of Job, harmonized
with the probability of such an amalgamation, As
far as we can gather, it lay either east or south-east
of Palestine (Job i. 3; see BENE-KEDEM) ; adja-
cent to the Sabaeans and the Chaldaeans (Job i.
15, 17), consequently northward of the southern
Arabians, and westward of the Euphrates; and,
lastly, adjacent to the Edomites of Mount Seir, who
at one period occupied Uz, probably as conquerors
(Lam. iv. 21), and whose troglodyte habits are
probably described in Job xxx. 6, 7. The posi-
tion of the country may further be deduced from
the native lands of Job’s friends, Eliphaz the
Temanite being an Idumean, Elihu the Buzite
being probably a neighbour of the Chaldeans,
for Buz and Cliesed were brothers (Gen. xxii.
21, 22), and Bildad the Shuhite being one of the
Bene-Kedem. Whether Zophar the Naamathite is
to be connected with Naamah in the tribe of Judah
(Josh. xv. 41) may be regarded as problematical :
if he were, the conclusion would be further esta-
blished.. From the above data we infer that the
land of Uz corresponds to the Arabia Deserta of
classical geography, at all events to so much of it
as lies north of the 30th parallel of latitude. This
district has in all ages been occupied by nomadic
tribes, who roam from the borders of Palestine to
the Euphrates, and northward to the confines of
Syria. Whether the name of Uz survived to clas-
sical times is uncertain: a tribe named Aesitae
(Atotrat) is mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 19, 82):
this Bochart identifies with the Uz of Scripture
by altering the reading into Αὐσῖται (Phaleg, ii. 8);
but, with the exception of the rendering in the LXX.
(ἐν χώρᾳ τῇ Αὐσίτιδι, Job i. 1; comp. xxxii. 2),
there is nothing to justify such a change. Gesenius
(Thes. p. 1003) is satisfied with the form Aesitae
as sufficiently corresponding to Uz. ΓΥ. L. B.]
UZAI CMS: Εὐζαΐ; FA. Evel: Ozi). The
father of Palal, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding
the city wall (Neh, iii. 25).
U’ZAL (OM ; Samar. UN: Αἰζήλ, Aloha:
Uzal, Huzal). The sixth son of Joktan (Gen.
x. 27; 1 Chr. i. 21), whose settlements are clearly
traced in the ancient name of San’a, the capital
city of the Yemen, which was originally Awzal,
Com
δ᾽) (Ibn-Khaldoon, ap. Caussin, Essaz, i. 40,
foot-note ; Mardsid, 5. v.; Gesen. Lex. s. v.; Bun-
sen’s Bibelwerk, &c.).» It has disputed the right
to be the chief city of the kingdom of Sheba from
the earliest ages of which any traditions have come
down to us; the rival cities being SHEBA (the
Arabic Seba), and SepHaR (or Zafar). Unlike
one or both of these cities which passed occasionally
into the hands of the people of HAZARMAVETH
(Hadramiwt), if seems to have always belonged to
the people of Sheba; and from its position in the
8 The LXX. inserts the words καὶ υἱοὶ “Apa. before the
notice of Uz and his brothers: but for this there is no
authority in the Hebrew. For a parallel instance of
conciseness see ver. 4.
Ὁ The printed edition of the Mardsid writes the name
Oozdl, and says, “1ὖ is said that its name was Oozdl;
and when the Abyssinians arrived at it, and saw it to
be beautiful, they said ‘San’a,’ which means beautiful :
therefore it was called San’a,” . -
1608 UZZA
centre of the best portion of that kingdom, it must
always have been an important city, though pro-
bably of less importance than Seba itself. Niebuhr
(Deser, 201, seq.) says that it is a walled town,
situate in an elevated country, in lat. 15° 2’, and
with a stream (after heavy rains) running through
it (from the mountain of Sawatee, El-Idreesee, i.
50), and another larger stream a little to the west,
with country-houses and villages on its banks.
It has a citadel on the site of a famous temple,
called Beyt-Ghumdan, said to have been founded |
by Shoorabeel; which was razed by order of |
The houses and palaces of San’&, Nie- |
buhr says, are finer than those of any other town |
Othman.
of Arabia; and it possesses many mosques, pub-
lic baths, and caravanserais. El-Idreesee’s account
of its situation and flourishing state (i. 50, quoted
also by Bochart, Phaleg, xxi.) agrees with that
ot Niebuhr. Ydkoot says, ‘‘San’& is ‘the greatest
city in the Yemen, and the most beautiful of
them, It resembles Damascus, on account of
the abundance of its trees (or gardens), and the
rippling of its waters ” (J/ushtarak, s.v., comp. Ibn-
El-Wardee MS.); and the author of the Wardasid
(said to be Yakoot) says, “" Τὸ is the capital of the |
Yemen and the best of its cities; it yvesembles |
Damascus, on account of the abundance of its
fruits” (s. v. San’a).
Uzal, or Awzil, is most probably the same as the
Auzara (Av(apa), or Ausara (Αὔσαρα) of the
classics, by the common permutation of / and 7,
Pliny (WV. H. xii. 16) speaks of this as belonging |
to the Gebanitae; and it is curious that the ancient
division (or “ mikhlat”) of the Yemen in which it |
is situate, and which is called Sinhan, belonged to a |
very old confederacy of tribes named Jenb, or
Genb, whence the Gebanitae of the classics ; another
division being also called Mikhléf Jenb (Marasid,
s. vv. mikhléf and jenb, and Mushtarak, 5. Ὁ. jenb).
Bochart accepts Ausara as the classical form of
Uzal (Phaleg, 1. c.), but his derivation of the name
of the Gebanitae is purely fanciful.
Uzal is perhaps referred to by Ezek. (xxvii. 19),
translated in the A.V. “ Javan,” going to and fro,
Heb. Sry. A city named Yawan, or Yawdan,
in the Yemen, is mentioned in the Aamoos (see
Gesenius, Lex. and Bechart, /.c.). Commentators
are divided in opinion respecting the correct reading
of this passage; but the most part are in favour of
the reference to Uzal. See also Javan. [E.S. P.]
UZ'ZA (STD: "Ad: Oza). 1. A Benjamite
of the sons of Ehnd (1 Chr. viii. 7). The Targum on
Esther makes him one of the ancestors of Mordecai.
2. CO¢a.) Elsewhere called Uzzan (1 Chr. xiii. |
7,9, 10; 11).
8. (VAG, Oi; "ACa,’OCi: Aza.) The children
of Uzza were a family of Nethinim who returned
with Zerubbabel (ἔχε. 11. 49; Neh. vii. 51).
4. (TTY: "O(a; Alex. ᾿Αζά: Oza). Properly |
“Uzzah.” As the text now stands, Uzzah is a
descendant of Merari (1 Chr. vi. 29 [14]); but
there appears to be a gap in the verse by which the
sons of Gershom are omitted, for Libni and Shimei
are elsewhere descendants of Gershom, and not of |
Meravi. Perhaps he is the same as Zina (713'T), or
apt A ts
Zizah (71}°}), the son of Shimei (1 Chr. xxiii. 10,
Clie
11); for these names evidently denote the same per-
son and, in Hebrew character, are not unlike Uzzah.
UZ'ZA, THE GARDEN OF (NtY 13: κῆ-
| ark rested for 20 vears.
UZZAH
mos Oa: hortus Aza). The spot in which Manasseh
king of Judah, and his son Amon, were both
buried (2 Κι. xxi. 18, 26). It was the garden
attached to Manasseh’s palace (ver. 18, and 2 Chr,
xxxiii. 20), and therefore presumably was in Jeru-
salem. The fact of its mention shows that it was not
where the usual sepulchres of the kings were. No
clue, however, is attorded to its position. Josephus
| (Ant. x. 3, §2) simply reiterates the statement of
the Bible. It is ingeniously suggested by Corne-
lius a Lapide, that the garden was so called from
being on the spot at. which Uzza died during the
removal of the Ark from’ Kirjath-jearim to Jeru-
salem, and which is known to have retained his
name for long after the event (2 Sam. vi. 8).
There are some grounds for placing this in Jeru-
salem, and possibly at or near the threshing-floor
of Araunah. [NACHON, p. 455, and note. |
The scene of Uzza’s death was itself a threshing-
floor (2 Sam. vi. 6), and the change of the word
from this, goren, mi, into gan, 3, garden, would
not be difficult or improbable. But nothing certain
‘can be said on the point.
Bunsen (Bibelwerk, note on 2 K. xxi. 18) on the
streneth of the mention of “ palaces” in the same
paragraph with Ophel (A.V. “ forts”) in a denun-
ciation of Isaiah (xxxii. 14), asserts that a palace
was situated in the Tyropoeon valley at the foot
| of the Temple mount, and that this was in all pro-
bability the palace of Manasseh and the site of the
Garden of Uzza. Surely a slender foundation for
such a superstructure ! [G.]
UZ'ZAH (δὴν in 2 Sam. vi. 3, elsewhere TY :
Oa; Alex. "Aa, ᾿Αζζά : Oza). One of the sons
ot Abinadab, in whose house at Kirjath-jearim the
The eldest son of Abina-
dab (1 Sam. vii. 1) seems to have been Eleazar,
who was consecrated to look after the ark. Uzzah
probably was the second, and Ahio* the third.
They both accompanied its removal, when David
first undertook to carry it to Jerusalem. Ahio
apparently went before the cart—the new cart
(1 Chr. xiii, 7)—on which it was placed, and
Uzzah walked by the side of the cart. The proces-
sion, with all manner of music, advanced as far as
a spot variously called ‘the threshing- floor ἢ (1 Chr.
xiii, 9), ‘the threshing-floor of Chidon ᾿ (ib.
Heb, UXX.; Jos. Ant. vii. 4, §2), “the threshing-
floor of Nachor” (2 Sam. vi. 6, LXX.), ‘the
threshing-floor of Nachon” (ib. Heb.). At this
point—perhaps slipping over the smooth rock—the
| oxen (or, LXX., ‘“ the calf’’) stumbled (/eb.) or
“overturned the ark” (LXX.),
to prevent its falling.
He died immediately, by the side of the ark. His
Uzzah caught it
| death, by whatever means it was accomplished, was
so sudden and awful that, in the sacred language of
the Old Testament, it is ascribed directly to the
Divine anger, ‘The anger of the Lord was kindled
against Uzzah. and God smote him there.” “ For his
error,” Suin-by, adds the present Hebrew text,
not the LXX.; “because he put his hand to the
ark” (1 Chr, xiii. 10). The error or sin is not
explained. Josephus (Ané. vii. 4, §2) makes it to
be because he touched the ark not being a priest.
Some have supposed that it was because the ark was
in a cart, and not (lx. xxv. 14) carried on the
shoulders of the Levites. But the narrative seems
* ‘The LXX. for “ Ahio” read “his brethren.”
UZZEN-SHERAH
to imply that it was simply the rough, hasty
handling of the sacred coffer. The event produced
a deep sensation. David, with a mixture of awe
and resentment, was afraid to carry the ark further ;
and the place, apparently changing its ancient name,?
was henceforth called ‘* Perez-Uzzah,” the “ break-
ing,” or “ disaster” of Uzzah (2 Sam. vi. 8; 1 Chr.
xiii. 11; Jos. Ant. vii. 4, §2).
There is no proof for the assertion that Uzzah
was a Levite. ΕΒ ἢ]
UZ'ZEN-SHE'RAH (TINY TIN: καὶ viol
᾽Οὧν, Senpd: Ozensara). A town founded or re-
built by Sherah, an Ephraimite woman, the daugh-
ter either of Ephraim himself or of Beriah. It is
named only in 1 Chr. vii. 24, in connexion with
the two Beth-horons. These latter still remain
probably in precisely their ancient position, and
called by almost exactly their ancient names ; but
no trace of Uzzen-Sherah appears to have been yet
discovered, unless it be in Bett Sira, which is
shown in the maps of Van de Velde and Tobler as
on the N. side of the Wady Suleiman, about three
miles S.W. of Beitir ct-tahta. It is mentioned by
Robinson (in the lists in Appendix to vol. iii. of
B. R, 1st edit. p. 120); and also by Tobler (dtte
Wanderung, 188). ;
The word ozen in Hebrew signifies an ‘ ear ;”
and assuming that wzzen is not merely a modifi-
cation of some unintelligible Canaanite word, it
may point to an earlike projection or other natural
feature of the ground. The same may be said of
Aznoth-Tabor, in which aznoth is perhaps related
to the same root.
It has been proposed to identify Uzzen-Sherah
with Timnath-Serah; but the resemblance between
the two names exists only in English (TINY and
MD), and the identification, tempting as it is from
the fact of Sherah being an ancestress of Joshua,
cannot be entertained.
It will be observed that the LXX. (in both
MSS.) give a different turn to the passage, by the
addition of the word 933} before Uzzen. Sherah,
in the former part of the verse, is altogether
omitted in the Vat. MS. (Mai), and in the Alex.
given as Saapa. [G.]
UZ'ZL ΟἿΨ : "OC: Ozi: short for N4Y, “« Je-
hovah is my strength.” Compare Uzziah, Uzziél).
1: Son of Bukki, and father of Zerahiah, in the
line of the high-priests (1 Chr. vi. 5, 51; Ezr.
vii. 4). Though Uzzi was the lineal ancestor of
Zadok, it does not appear that he was ever high-
priest. Indeed, he is included in those descendants
of Phinehas between the high-priest Abishua (Ἰώ-
ontos) and Zadok, who, according to Josephus
*(Ant. viii. 1), were private persons. He must
have been contemporary with, but rather earlier
than, Eli. In Josephus’s list Uzz1 is unaccountably
transformed into JONATHAN.
2,. Son of Tola the son of Issachar, and father of
tive sons, who were all chief men (1 Chr. vii. 2, 3.)
3. Son of Bela, of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chr.
vii. 7).
4. Another, or the same, from whom descended
some Benjamite houses, which were settled at
Jerusalem after the return from captivity (1 Chr.
ix. 8).
5. A Levite, son of Bani, and overseer of the
b For the conjecture that this was the GARDEN OF
Uzza mentioned in the later history, see the preceding
article.
UZZIAH 1609
Levites dwelling at Jerusalem, in the time of Nehe-
miah (Neh. xi. 22),
6. A priest, chief of the father’s-house of Je-
daiah, in the time of Joiakim the high-priest (Neh.
xii. 19).
7. One of the priests who assisted Ezra in the
dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. xii. 42),
Perhaps the same as the preceding. [Α, C. H.]
UZZI'A (NY: Oia; Alex. ’O¢ela: Ozia).
One of David’s guard, and apparently, from his
appellation ‘the Ashterathite,’ a native of Ashta-
roth beyond Jordan (1 Chr. xi. 44).
UZZI'AH (AMY: ’ACapias in Kings, ’O¢ias
elsewhere ; Alex. ᾿Οχοζίας in 2 K. xv. 13: Ozias,
but Azarias in 2 Κα, xv. 13),
1. Uzziah king of Judah, In some passages his
name appears in the lengthened form IY (2 KS
xv. 32, 34; 2 Chr. xxvi. xxvii. 2; Is. i. 1, vi. 1,
vii. 1), which Gesenius attributes to an error of
the copyists, AY and ANY being nearly identical,
or “to an exchange of the names as spoken by the
common people, ss being pronounced for sv.” This
is possible, but there are other instances of the
princes of Judah (not of Israel) changing their
names on succeeding to the throne, undoubtedly
in the later history, and perhaps in the earlier,
as Jehoahaz to Ahaziah (2 Chr, xxi. 17), though
this example is not quite certain. [ANAZIAH,
No. 2.] After the murder of Amaziah, his son
Uzziah was chosen by the people to occupy the
vacant throne, at the age of 16; and for the greater
part of his long reign of 52 years he lived in the
fear of God, and showed himself a wise, active,
and pious ruler. He began his reign by a suc-
cessful expedition against his father’s enemies the
Edomites, who had revoltedfrom Judah in Jehoram’s
time, 80 years before, and penetrated as far as the
head of the Gulf of *Akaba, where he took the im-
portant place of Elath, fortified it, and probably
established it as a mart for foreign commerce, which
Jehoshaphat had failed to do. This success is re-
corded in the 2nd Book of Kings (xiv, 22), but from
the 2nd Book of Chronicles (xxvi. 1, &c.) we learn
much more. Uzziah waged other victorious wars in
the south, especially against the Mehunim, or people
of Maan, and the Arabs of Gurbaal. A fortified town
named Maan still exists in Arabia Petraea, south
of the Dead Sea. The situation of Gurbaal is un-
known. (For conjectures, more or less ‘probable,
see Ewald, Gesch. i. 321; MEnUNIM; GuUR-
BAAL.) Such enemies would hardly maintain a
long resistance after the defeat of so formidable a
tribe as the Edomites. Towards the west, Uzziah
fought with equal success against the Philistines,
levelled to the ground the walls of Gath, Jabneh,
and Ashdod, and founded new fortified cities in the
Philistfte territory. Nor was he less vigorous in
defensive than offensive operations. He strengthened
the walls of Jerusalem at their weakest points,
furnished them with formidable engines of war,
and equipped an army of 307,500 men with the
best inventions of military art. He was also a
great patron of agriculture, dug wells, built towers
in the wilderness for the protection of the flocks,
and cultivated rich vineyards and arable land on
his own account. He never deserted the worship of
the true God, and was much influenced by Zecha-
riah, a prophet who is only mentioned in connexion
with him (2 Chr. xxvi. 5); for, as he must have
died before Uzziah, he cannot be the same as the
1610 UZZIAH
Zechariah of Is. viii. 2. So the southern kingdom
was raised to a condition of prosperity which it had
not known since the death of Solomon; and as the
power of Israel was gradually falling away in the
latter period of Jehu’s dynasty, that of Judah ex-
tended itself over the Ammonites and Moabites, and
other tribes beyond Jordan, from whom Uzziah
exacted tribute. See 2 Chr. xxvi. 8, and Is. xvi.
1-5, from which it would appear that the annual
tribute of sheep (2 K. iii. 4) was revived either
during this reign or soon after. The end of Uzziah
was less prosperous than his beginning. Elated
with his splendid career, he determined to burn
incense on the altar of God, but was opposed by the
high-priest Azariah and eighty others. (See Ex. xxx.
7,8; Num. xvi, 40, xviii. 7.) The king was en-
raged at their resistance, and, as he pressed forward
with his censer, was suddenly smitten with leprosy,
a disease which, according to Gerlach (in loco), is
often brought out by violent excitement. In 2 K.
xv. 5 we are merely told that “the Lord smote
the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of
his death, and dwelt in a several house;’ but his
invasion of the priestly office is not specified. This
catastrophe compelled Uzziah to reside outside the
city, so that the kingdom was administered till his
death by his son Jotham as regent. Uzziah was
buried ‘* with his fathers,’ yet apparently not
actually in the royal sepulchres (2 Chr. xxvi. 23).
During his reign an earthquake occurred, which,
though not mentioned in the historical books, was
apparently very serious in its consequences, for it
is alluded to as a chronological epoch by Amos
(i. 1), and mentioned in Zech. xiv.
vulsion from which the people “fled.” [EARTH-
QUAKE.] Josephus (Ant. ix. 10, §4) connects it
with Uzziah’s sacrilegious attempt to offer incense,
but this is very unlikely, as it cannot have occurred
later than the 17th year of his reign [Amos]. The
first six chapters of Isaiah’s prophecies belong to
this reign, and we are told (2 Chr. xxvi. 22) that
a full account of it was written by that prophet.
Some notices of the state of Judah at this time
may also be obtained from the contemporary pro-
phets Hosea and Amos, though both of these
laboured more particularly in Israel. We gather
from their writings (Hos. iv. 15, vi. 11; Am. vi. 1),
as well as from the early chapters of Isaiah, that
though the condition of the southern kingdom was
far superior, morally and religiously, to that of the
northern, yet that it was by no means free from
the vices which are apt to accompany wealth and
prosperity. At the same time Hosea conceives
bright hopes of the blessings which were to arise
from it; and though doubtless these hopes pointed
to something far higher than the brilliancy of
Uzziah’s administration, and though the return of
the Israelites to “* David their king” can only be
adequately explained of Christ’s kingdom, yet the
prophet, in contemplating the condition of Judah
at this time, was plainly cheered by the thought
that there God was really honoured, and His wor-
ship visibly maintained, and that therefore with it
was bound up every hope that His promises to His
people would be at last fulfilled (Hos. i. 7, iii. 3).
It is to be observed, with reference to the general
character of Uzziah’s reign, that the writer of the
Second Book of Chronicles distinctly states that his
lawless attempt to burn incense was the only ex-
ception to the excellence of his administration
(2 Chr. xxvii. 2). His reign lasted from B.c.
808-9 to 756-7. [G. EB. L. C.]
5, as a con-.
VAJEZATHA
2. (Oia: Ozias.) A Kohathite Levite, and an-
cestor of Samuel (1 Chr. vi. 24 [9]).
3. A priest of the sons of Harim, who had taken
a foreign wife in the days of Ezra (Ezr. x. 21),
4. (ACia: Aziam.) Father of Athaiah, or Uthai
On xi. 4).
5. (TY: (ας: Ozias). Father of Jeho-
nathan, one of David’s overseers (1 Chr. xxvii. 25).
UZ'ZIEL ONY: "O¢eha, Ex. vi. 18; else-
where "OCimA: Oziel: “*God is my strength”).
1. Fourth son of Kohath, father of Mishael, Elza-
phan or bE, and Zithri, and uncle to Aaron
(Ex. vi. 18, 22; Lev. x.4). The family descended
from him were called Uzzielites, and Elizaphan,
the chief of this family, was also the chief father of
the Kohathites, by Divine direction, in the time of
Moses (Num. τ 19, 27, 30), although he seems
to have been the youngest of Kohath’s sons (1 Chr.
vi. 2, 18). The house of Uzziel numbered 112
adults, under Amminadab their chief, at the time
of the bringing up of the ark to Jerusalem by King
David (1 Chr. xv. 10).
2. A Simeonite captain, son of Ishi, who, after
the successful expedition of his tribe to the valley of
Gedor, went with his three brethren, at the head
of ΤΕΣ hundred men, in the days oe" Hezekiah, to
Mount Seir, and smote the remnant of the Aree
lekites, who had survived the previous slaughter
of Saul and David, and took possession of ‘their
country, and dwelt there “ unto this day” (1 Chr.
iv. 42; see Bertheau).
3. Head of a Benjamite house, of the sons of
Bela (1 Chr. vii. 7).
4. A musician, of the sons of Heman, in David’s
reign (1 Chr. xxv. 4), elsewhere called Azareel
(ver. 18). Compare Uzziah and Azariah.
5. A Levite, of the sons of Jeduthun, who in the
days of King Hezekiah took an active part in cleansing
and sanctifying the Temple, after al! the pollutions
introduced by Ahaz (2 Chr. xxix. 14, 19),
6. Son of Harhaiah, probably a priest in the
days of Fee ae who took part in repairing the
wall (Neh. i i. 8). He is described as “of the
goldsmiths,” 7. ὁ. of those priests whose hereditary
office it was to repair or make the sacred vessels, as
may be gathered from the analogy of the apothe-
caries, mentioned in the same verse, who are de-
fined 1 Chr. ix. 30. The goldsmiths are also men-
tioned Neh, iii. 31, 32. That this Uzziel was a
priest is also probable from his name (No. 1), and
from the circumstance that Malchiah, the Ἐπ
smith’s son, was so. [A.C H.]
UZ'ZIELITES, THE (NYA: eae
᾿Ο(ήλ : Ozielitae, Ozihelitae). ‘The descendants
of Uzziel, and one of the four great families into
which the Kohathites were divided (Num. iii. 27 ;
1 Chr. xxvi. 23).
V
VAJEZA'THA (SOM: Ζαβουθαῖος ; FA,
Ζαβουδεθαν : Jezatha). One of the ten sons of
Haman whom the Jews slew in Shushan (Esth.
ix. 9). Gesenius derives his name from the Pers.
δ 99; “white, ”Germ. weiss; but First suggests
as more probable that it is a compound of the
i υνυκυννννωι-.
VALE, VALLEY
Zend vahja, ‘ better,” an epithet of the Ized haoma,
and zata, “born,” and so “born of the Ized
haoma.” But such etymologies are little “to be
trusted.
VALE, VALLEY. It is hardly necessary to
state that these words signify a hollow sweep of
ground between two more or less parallel ridges of
high land. Vale is the poetical or provincial form.
It is in the nature of the case that the centre of a
valley should usually be occupied by the stream
which forms the drain of the high land on either
side, and from this it commonly receives its name ;
as, the Valley of the Thames, of the Colne, of the
Nile. It is also, though comparatively seldom,
called after*some town or remarkable object which
it contains; as, the Vale of Evesham, the Vale of
White-horse.
Valley is distinguished from other terms more
or less closely related; on the one hand, from « glen,”
“ravine,” “ gorge,” or * dell,” which all express a
depression at once more abrupt and smaller than a
valley ; on the other hand, from “ plain,” which,
though it may be used of a wide valley, is not
ordinarily or necessarily 50.
It is to be regretted that with this quasi-precision
of meaning the term should not have been em-
ployed with more restriction in the Authorised
Version of the Bible.
The structure of the greater part of the Holy
Land does not lend itself to the formation of valleys
in our sense of the word. The abrupt transitions
of its crowded rocky hills preclude the existence of
any extended sweep of valley; and where one such
does occur, as at Hebron, or on the south-east of
Gerizim, the irregular and unsymmetrical positions
of the enclosing hills rob it of the character of a
valley. The nearest approach is found in the space
between the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, which
contains the town of Nablis, the ancient Shechem.
This, however, by a singular chance, is not men-
tioned in the Bible. Another is the “Valley of
Jezreel”’—the undulating hollow which intervenes
between Gilboa (Jebel Fukua), and the so-called
Little Hermon (Jebel Duhy).
Valley is employed in the Authorised Version to
render five distinct Hebrew words.
1. ’Emek (PIV: φάραγξ, κοιλάς, also very
rarely πεδίον, αὐλών, and Eyer or Auek). This
appears to approach more nearly to the general
sense of the English word than any other, and it is
satisfactory to tind that our translators have inva-
riably, without a single exception, rendered it by
“valley.” Its root is said to have the force of
deepness or seclusion, which Professor Stanley has
ingeniously urged may be accepted in the sense of
lateral rather than ot vertical extension, as in the
modern expression ,—a deep house, a deep recess. It
is connected with several places ; but the only one
which can be identified with any certainty is the
Limek of Jezreel, already mentioned as one of the
nearest approaches to an English valley. ‘Ihe other
Eimeks ave :—Achor, Ajalon, Baca, Berachah, Beth-
rehob, Elah, Gibeon, Hebron, Jehoshaphat, Keziz,
Rephaim, Shaveh, Siddim, Sucecoth, and of ha-
Charuts or “ the decision ” (Joel iii. 14),
2. Gai or Gé (NIA or NYA: φάραγξ). Of this
natural feature there is fortunately one example
remaining which can be identified with certainty—
the deep hollow which encompasses the S.W. and
S. of Jerusalem, and which is without doubt iden-
VALE, VALLEY 1611
tical with the Ge-hinnom or Ge-ben-hinnom of the
Ο. T, This identification appears to establish the
Ge as a deep and abrupt ravine, with steep sides
and narrow bottom. The term is derived by the
lexicographers from, a root signifying to flow to-
gether ; but Professor Stanley, influenced probably
by the aspect of the ravine of Hinnom, proposes to
connect if with a somewhat similar root (73),
which has the force of rending or bursting, and
which perhaps gave rise to the name Gihon, the
famous spring at Jerusalem.
Other Ges mentioned in the Bible are those of
Gedor, Jiphthah-el, Zeboim, Zephathah, that of
salt, that of the craftsmen, that on the north side
of Ai, and that opposite Beth Peor in Moab.
5. Nachal (oma: φάραγξ, χειμάῤῥους). This
is the word which exactly answers to the Arabic
wady, and has been already alluded to in that con-
nexion. [PALESTINE, p. 676 a; RIVER, p. 1045 b.]
It expresses, as no single English word ean, the bed
of a stream (often wide and shelving, and like a
“valley ” in character, which in the rainy season
may be nearly filled by a foaming torrent, though
for the greater part of the year dry), and the
stream itself, which after the subsidence of the
rains has shrunk to insignificant dimensions. To
autumn travellers in the south of France such
appearances are familiar; the wide shallow bed
strewed with water-worn stones of all sizes, amongst
which shrubs are growing promiscuously, perhaps
crossed by a bridge of four or five arches, under
the centre one of which brawls along a tiny stream,
the sole remnant of the broad and rapid river which
a few months before might have carried away the
structure of the bridge. Such is the nearest like-
ness to the wadys of Syria, excepting that—owing
to the demolition of the wood which formerly shaded
the country, and prevented too rapid evaporation
after rain—many of the latter are now entirely
and constantly dry. To these last it is obvious that
the word “valley” is not inapplicable. It is em-
ployed in the A. V. to translate nachal, alternating
with ‘ brook,” “river,” and “stream.” For a
list of the occurrences of each, see Sinai and Pal.
App. §38.
4. Bikeah (AYP: πεδίον). This term appears
to mean rather a plain than a valley, wider than
the latter, though so far resembling it as to be en-
closed by mountains, like the wide district between
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, which is still called the
Beka, as it was in the days of Amos. [PLAIN,
p- 889 6.1 It is rendered by “valley” in Deut,
xxxiv. 3; Josh. xi. 8, 17, xii. 7; 2 Chr. xxxv, 22:
Zech. xii. 11.
5. has-Shefélah (MPDWN: τὸ πεδίον, ἡ πεδινή).
This is the only case in which the employment of
the term “valley” is really. unfortunate. The
district to which alone the name has-Shéféléh is
applied in the Bible has no resemblance whatever
to a valley, but is a broad swelling tract of many
hundred miles in area, which sweeps gently down
from the mountains of Judah
“To mingle with the bounding main”
of the Mediterranean. [See PALESTINE, p. 672;
PLAINS, p. 890 ὁ ; SEPHELA, p. 1199, &.] It is
rendered “the vale” in Deut. i. 7; Josh. x. 40;
1 K.x.27; 2Chr.i.15; Jer. xxxiii. 13; and “ the
valley” or “valleys” in Josh. ix. 1, xi. 2, 16,
xii. 8, xv. 33; Judg.i. 9; Jer. xxxii. 44. [G.]
1612 * VANIAH
VANT'AH (7193): Οὐονανία ; Alex. Οὐουνία ;
FA. Οὐιερέ: Vania). One of the sons of Bani,
who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s command
(Ezr. x. 36),
VASH'NI (*301: Savi: Vasseni). The first-
born of Samuel as the text now stands (1 Chr. vi.
28[13]). But in 1 Sam. viii. 2 the name of his
firstborn is Joel. Most probably in the Chronicles
the name of Joel has dropped out, and ““ Vashni ”
is a corruption of Wi, “and (the) second.” The
Peshito Syriac has amended the text, and rendered
“The sons of Samuel, his firstborn Joel, and the
name of his second son Abiah.” In this it is fol-
lowed by the Arabic of the London Polyglott.
VASH'TI ORLA: ᾿Αστίν ; Οὐάστη, Joseph. :
Vashti: ‘a beautiful woman,” Pers.). The
“ queen” cnzdan) ot Ahasuerus, who, for re-
fusing to show herself to the king’s guests at the
royal banquet, when sent for by the king, incurred
his wrath, and was repudiated and deposed (Esth.
i); when Esther was substituted in her place.
Many attempts have been made to identify her
with historical personages; as by Ussher with
Atossa, the wife of Darius Hystaspis, and by J.
Capellus with Parysatis, the mother of Ochus;
but, as was said of Esther (like the ‘‘ threescore
queens” in Cant. vi. 8, 9%), it is far more pro-
bable that she was only one of the inferior wives,
dignified with the title of queen, whose name
has utterly disappeared from history. [EstHer. ]
This view of Vashti’s position seems further to
tally exactly with the narrative of Ahasuerus’s
order, and Vashti’s refusal, considered with refer-
ence ta the national manners of the Persians. For
Plutarch (Conjug. praecept. c. 16) tells us, in
agreement with Herod. vy. 18, that the kings of
Persia have their legitimate wives to sit at table
with them at their banquets, but that, when they
choose to riot and drink, they send their wives
away and call in the concubines and singing-girls.
Hence, when the heart of Ahasuerus ‘‘ was merry
with wine,’ he sent for Vashti, looking upon her
only as a concubine; she, on the other hand, con-
sidering herself as one of the κουριδίαι γυναῖκες,
or legitimate wives, refused to come. See Winer,
Realwb. Josephus’s statement (Ant. xi. 6, §1),
that it is contrary to the customs of the Persians
for their wives to be seen by any men but their own
husbands, is evidently inaccurate, being equally
contradicted by Herodotus, v. 18,> and by the Book
of Esther itself (v. 4, 8, 12, &c.). ΕΑ ΟΣ H.]
VEIL. Under the head of Dress we have
already disposed of various terms improperly ren-
dered “veil” in the A.V., such as mitpachath
᾿ (Ruth iii. 15), tsaiph (Gen. xxiv. 65, xxxviii. 14,
19), and rddid (Cant. v. 7; Is. iii. 23). These
have been explained to be rather shawls, or
mantles, which might at pleasure be drawn ovei
the face, but which were not designed for the
special purpose of veils. It remains for us to notice
the following terms which describe the veil proper :
.| used as a veil.
VEIL
—(1.) Masveh,° used of the veil which Moses
assumed when he came down from the mount (Ex.
Xxxlv. 33-35). A cognate word, sith,4 occurs in
Gen. xlix. 11 as a general term for a man’s rai-
ment, leading to the inference that the masveh
also was an ample outer robe which might be
drawn over the face when required. The context,
however, in Ex. xxxiv. is conclusive as to the object
for which the robe was assumed, and, whatever
may have been its size or form, it must have been
(2.) Mispachoth,® used of the
veils which the false prophets placed upon their
heads (Ezek. xiii. 18, 21; A. V. “kerchiefs”). The
word is understood by Gesenius (Thes. p. 965) of
cushions or mattresses, but the etymology (sdphach,
to pour) is equally, if not more favourable, to the
sense of a flowing veil, and this accords better with
the notice that they were to be placed “ upon the
head of every stature,” implying that the length of
the veil was proportioned to the height of the
wearer (Fiirst, Lex. s.vy.; Hitzig in Ez. l.c.).
(3.) R&al6thf used of the light veils worn by
females (Is. iii. 19; A.V. “ mufflers”), which
were so called from their rustling motion. The
same term is applied in the Mishna (Sab. 6, §6)
to the veils worn by Arabian women. (4.) Tsam-
mah,& understood by the A.V. of “locks” of hair
(Cant. iv. 1, 3, vi. 7; Is. xlvii. 2), and so by
Winer (Rwb. “ Schleier”); but the contents of
the passages in which it is used favour the sense of
veil, the wearers of the article being in each case
highly born and handsomely dressed. A cognate
word is used in the Targum (Gen. xxiv. 65) of the
robe in which Rebecca enveloped herself.
With regard to the use of the veil, it is impor-
tant to observe that it was by no means so general
in ancient as in modern times. At present, females
are rarely seen without it in Oriental countries, so
much so that in Egypt it is deemed more requisite
to conceal the face, including the top and back of
the head, than other parts of the person (Lane, i,
72). Women are even delicate about exposing
their heads to a physician for medical treatment
(Russell’s Aleppo, i. 246). In remote districts,
and among the lower classes, the practice is not so
rigidly enforced (Lane, i. 72). Much of the seru-
pulousness in respect to the use of the veil dates
from the promulgation of the Koran, which forbade
women appearing unveiled except in the presence of
their nearest relatives (Kor, xxxiii. 55, 69). In
ancient times, the veil was adopted only in excep-
tional cases, either as an article of ornamental dress
(Cant. iv. 1, 3, vi. 7), or by betrothed maidens in
the presence of their future husbands, especially at
the time of the wedding (Gen. xxiv. 65, xxix. 25
[MarriaGE]), or, lastly, by women of loose cha-
racter for purposes of concealment (Gen. xxxviii.
14). But, generally speaking, women both mar-
ried and unmarried appeared in public with their
faces exposed, both among the Jews (Gen. xii. 14,
xxiv, 16, xxix. 10; 1 Sam. i. 12), and among the
Egyptians and Assyrians, as proved by the in-
variable absence of the veil in the sculptures and
paintings of these peoples.
Among the Jews of the New Testament age it
appears to have been customary for the women to
ἃ γαμέουσι δ᾽ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν πολλὰς μὲν κουριδίας
γυναῖκας, πολλῷ δ᾽ ἔτι πλεῦνας παλλακὰς κτῶνται (Herod.
i. 135).
» Tt is the custom of us Persians, when we make a f mibys
} Sane
-
great feast, to invite both our concubines and our wives
to sit down with us.”
© WDD. ἀ Τὴ.
& TIDY.
¢ nino.
— ἊΝ
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (AETHIOPIC)
cover their heads (not necessarily their faces) when
engaged in public worship. For, St. Paul repro-
bates the disuse of the veil by the Corinthian
women, as implying an assumption of equality
with the other sex, and enforces the covering of the
head as a sign of subordination to the authority of
the men (1 Cor. xi. 5-15). The same passage
leads to the conclusion that the use of the talith,
with which the Jewish males cover their heads in
prayer, is a comparatively modern practice; inas-
much as the apostle, putting a hypothetical case,
states that every man having anything on his head
dishonours his head, z.e. Christ, inasmuch as the use
of the veil would imply subjection to his fellow-men
rather than to the Lord (1 Cor. xi. 4). [W. L. Β.]
VEIL OF THE TABERNACLE AND
TEMPLE. [TaserNscty; TEMPLE. ]
VERSIONS, ANCIENT, OF THE OLD
AND NEW TESTAMENTS. On the ancient
versions in general, see Walton’s Prolegomena;
Simon, Histoire Critique; Marsh’s Michaelis;
Kichhorn’s Linleitung ; Hug’s Linleitung ; De
Wette’s Linieitung ; Hiivernick’s Hinleitung ; Da-
vidson’s Introduction; Reuss, Geschichte des
Neuen Testaments; Horne’s Introduction by Ayre
(vol. ii.) and Tregelles (vol. iv.) ; Scrivener’s Plain
Introduction; Bleek’s Hinleitung.
There were two things which, in the early cen-
turies after the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
were closely connected: the preaching of the
Gospel, leading to the diffused profession of the
Christian faith amongst nations of varied lan-
guages ; and the formation of versions of the Holy
Scriptures for the use of the Churches thus gathered
in varied countries. In fact, for many ages the
spread of Christianity and the appearance of ver-
nacular translations seem to have gone almost con-
tinually hand in hand. The only exceptions,
perhaps, were those regions in which the Christian
profession did not extend beyond what might be
called the civilized portion of the community, and
in which also the Greek language, diffused through
the conquests of Alexander, or the Latin, the con-
comitant of the dominion of Rome, had taken a
deeply-rooted and widely-extended hold. Before
the Christian era, the Greek version of the Old
Testament, commonly termed the Septuagint, and
the earlier Targums (if, indeed, any were written
so early) supplied every want of the Jews, so far
as we can at all discover. And it cannot be doubted
that the Greek translation of the Old Testament
had produced some considerable effect beyond the
mere Jewish pale: for thus the comparatively
large class of proselytes which we find existing in
the time of our Lord and his Apostles must appa-
rently have been led to embrace a religion, not then
commended by the holiness of its. professors or by
external advantages, but only accredited by its
doctrines, which professed to be given by the Reve-
lation of God (as, indeed, they were); and which,
in setting forth the unity of God, and in the con-
demnation of all idolatry, supplied a need, not
furnished by anything which professed to be a
system of positive religion as held by the Greek,
Latin, or Egyptian priests. -
In making inquiry as to the versions formed
h The term ἐξουσία in 1 Cor. xi. 10=sign of authority,
just as βασιλεία in Diod, Sic, i. 47 =sign of royalty.
1615
after the spread of Christianity, we rarely find any
indication as to the translators, or the particular cir-
cumstances under which they were executed. ΑἹ]
we can say is, that those who had learned that the
doctrines of the Apostles,—namely, that in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of God there is forgiveness of
sins and eternal life through faith in his propitiatory
sacrifice,—are indeed the truth of God; and who
knew that the New Testament contains the records
of this religion, and the Old the preparation of God
for its introduction through promises, types, and pro-
phecies, did not long remain without possessing
these Scriptures in languages which they under-
stood. The appearance of vernacular translations
was a kind of natural consequence of the formation
of Churches.
We have also some indications that parts of the
New Testament were translated, not by those who
received the doctrines, but by those who opposed
them ; this was probably done in order the more
successfully to guard Jews and proselytes to Ju-
daism against the doctrines of the Cross of Christ,
“ὁ to the Jews a stumbling-block.”
Translations of St. John’s Gospel and of the
Acts of the Apostles into the Hebrew dialect, are
mentioned in the very curious narration given by
Epiphanius (1. xxx. 3, 12) respecting Joseph of
Tiberias; he speaks of their being secretly pre-
served by the Jewish teachers of that city. But
these or any similar versions do not appear to have
been examined, much less used, by any Christians.
They deserve a mention here, however, as being
translations of parts of the New Testament, the
former existence of which is recorded.
In treating of the ancient versions that have
come down to us, in whole or in part, they will be
described in the alphabetical order of the languages.
It may be premised that in most of them the Old
Test. is not a version from the Hebrew, but merely
a secondary translation from the Septuagint in some
one of its early forms. The value of these second-
ary versions is but little, except as bearing on the
criticism of the text of the LXX., a department of
Biblical learning in which they will be found of much
use, whenever a competent scholar shall earnestly
engage in the revision of that Greek version of the
Old Test., pointing out the corrections introduced
through the labours of Origen, [See Tey]
AETHIOPIC VERSION.—Christianity was in-
troduced into Aethiopia in the 4th century, through
the labours of Frumentius and Aedesius of ‘Tyre,
who had been made slaves and sent to the king
(Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 23; Socr. i. 19 ; Sozo-
men, ii. 24). Hence arose the episcopal see of
Axum, to which Frumentius was appointed by
Athanasius, The Aethiopic version which we
possess is in the ancient dialect of Axum; hence
some have ascribed it to the age of the earliest mis-
sionaries; but from the general character of the
version itself, this is improbable ; and the Abyssi-
nians themselves attribute it to a later period ;
though their testimony is of but little value by
itself; for their accounts are very contradictory,
and some of them even speak of its having been
translated from the Arabic; which is certainly in-
correct.
The Old Testament, as well as the New, was
executed from the Greek.
In 1513 Potken published the Aethiopic Psalter
at Rome: he received this portion of the Scriptures
from some Abyssinians with whom he had met ;
1614
whom, however, he called Chaldaeans, and their
language Chaldee.
In 1548-9, the Aethiopic New Test. was also
printed at Rome, edited by three Abyssinians: they
sadly complained of the difficulties under which
they laboured, from the printers having been occu-
pied on what they were unable to read. They
speak of having had to fill up a considerable portion
of the Book of Acts by translating from the Latin
and Greek: in this, however, there seems to be
some overstatement. The Roman edition was
reprinted in Walton’s Polyglott; but (according to
Ludolf) all the former errors were retained, and
new ones introduced. When Bode in 1753 pub-
lished a careful Latin translation of the Aethiopic
text of Walton, he supplied Biblical scholars in
general with the means of forming a judgment as
to this version, which had been previously impos-
sible, except to the few who were acquainted with
the language.
In 1826-30, a new edition, formed by a collation
of MSS., was published under the care of Mr.
Thomas Pell Platt (formerly Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge), whose object was not strictly
critical, but rather to give to the Abyssinians their
Scriptures for ecclesiastical use in as good a form
as he conveniently could, consistently with MS,
authority. From the notes made by Mr, Platt in
the course of his collations, it is evident that the
translation had been variously revised. The difier-
ences of MSS. had appeared so marked to Ludolf
that he supposed that there must have been two
ancient versions. But Mr. Platt found, in the
course of his examination, that where certain MSS.
differ widely in their readings, some other copy
would introduce both readings either in a conflate
form, or simply in the way of repetition. The
probability appears to be that there was originally
one version of the Gospels; but that this was atter-
wards revised with Greek MSS. of a different com-
plexion of text; and that succeeding copyists either
adopted one or the other form in passages; or else,
by omitting nothing from text or margin, they
formed a confused combination of readings. It
appears probable that all the portion of the New
Test. after the Gospels originated from some of the
later revisers of the former part; its paraphrastic
tone accords with this opinion. We can only form
a judgment from the printed texts of this version,
until a collation of the MSS. now known shall be
so executed as to be available for critical use.
As it is, we find in the copies of the version,
readings which show an aflinity with the older
class of Greek MSS., intermingled with others
decidedly Byzantine. Some of the copies known
show a stronger leaning to the one side or the
other; and this gives a considerable degree of
certainty to the conclusion on the subject of
revision.
An examination of the version proves both that
it was executed from the Greek, and also that the
translator made such mistakes that he could hardly
have been a person to whom Greek was the native
tongue. The following instances (mostly taken
from C. B. Michaelis) prove this: ὅρια is con-
founded with ὄρεα (or ὄρη) ; Matt. iv. 13, ‘in
monte Zabulon;” xix. 1, “in montes Judaeae trans
Jordanem.” Acts iii. 20, προκεχειρισμένον is ren-
dered as ‘quem praeunxit”’ (προκεχρισμένον) ; ii.
37, κατενύγησαν ““ aperti sunt quoad cor eorum ”
(κατηνοίγησαν) ; xvi. 25, ἐπηκροῶντο αὐτῶν οἱ
δέσμιοι, “ percussa sunt vincula eorum ” (ἐπεκρού-
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (ARABIC)
ovto αὐτῶν οἱ δεσμοί). Matt. v. 25, εὐνοῶν is
rendered as intelligens (ἐννοῶν); Luke viii. 29,
καὶ πέδαις φυλασσόμενος, “a parvulis custodi-
tus,’ as if παιδίοις. Rom, vii. 11, ἐξηπάτησεν,
“conculcavit,’ as if ἐξεπάτησεν. Rev. iv. 3,
ἶρις, *‘sacerdotes,” as if ἱερεῖς. The meaning of
words alike in spelling is confounded: thus, 1 Cor,
xii. 28, “* Posuit Dominus, awrem ecclesiae,’’? from
the differing meanings of OYE. Also wrong ren-
derings sometimes seem to have originated with
false etymology: thus, Matt. v. 22, “Qui autem
dixerit fratrem suum pannosum,”’ ῥακὰ haying been
connected with ῥάκος.
Bode’s Latin version, to which reference has
already been made, enabled critical scholars to use
the Roman text with much confidence. The late
Mr, L. A. Prevost, of the British Museum, executed
for Dr, Tregelles a comparison of the text of Mr.
Platt with the Roman, as reprinted in Walton,
together with a literal rendering of the variations;
this gave him the critical use of both texts. The
present Bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Ellicott, speaking
with the personal advantage possessed by a scholar
himself able to use both Aethiopic texts of the New
Test., draws attention to the superiority of that
edited by Mr. Platt: after speaking (Aids to Faith,
p- 381) of the non-paraphrastic character of the
ancient versions of the New Test. in general, Dr.
Ellicott adds in a note: “It may be noticed that
we have specified the <Aethiopic version as that
edited by Mr. Pell Platt. The Aethiopic version
found in Walton’s Polyglott often degenerates into
a paraphrase, especially in difficult passages.”
The Old Test. of this version, made from the
LXX. (as has been already specified), has been sub-
jected apparently (with the exception of the Psalms)
to very little critical examination. A complete
edition of the Aethiopic Old Test. has been com-
menced by Dillmann; the first portion of which
appeared in 1853.
Literature.—Potken, Preface to the Aethiopic
Psalter, Rome, 1513; C. B. Michaelis, Preface
to Bode’s Collation of St, Matthew, Halle, 1749 ;
Bode, Latin Translation of the Aethiopic New
Test. Brunswick, 1753; T. P. Platt, ZS. Notes
made in the Collation of Aethiopic MSS., and
Private Letters sent to Tregelles; L. A. Prevost,
MS. Collation of the Text of Platt with the Roman,
and Translation of Variations, executed for Tre-
gelles; A. Dillmann, Aethiopische Buibelibersetz-
ung in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopddie. [S. P. T.]
ARABIC VERSIONS.—To give a detailed ac-
count of the Arabic versions would be impossible,
without devoting a much larger space to the subject
than would be altogether in its place in a Dictionary
of the Bible: for the versions themselves do not,
owing to their comparatively late date, possess any
primary importance, even for critical studies; and
thus many points connected with these translations
are rather of literary than strictly Biblical interest.
The versions of the Old Test. must be considered
separately from those of the New; and those from
the Hebrew text must be treated apart from those
formed from the LXX.
(1.) Arabic versions of the Old Test.
(A.) Made from the Hebrew text.
Rabbi Saadiah Haggaon, the Hebrew commentator
of the 10th century, translated portions (some
think the whole) of the O. T. into Arabic. His
version of the Pentateuch was printed at Constan-
tinople, in 1546. The Paris Polyglott contains the
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (ARABIC)
1615
same version from a MS. differing in many of its | ters), the Syriac and Arabic New Test., published at
readings: this was reprinted by Walton. It seems
as if copyists had in parts altered the version con-
siderably. The version of Isaiah by Saadiah was
printed by Paulus, at Jena, in 1791, from a Bod-
leian MS.; the same library contains a MS. οἵ his
version of Job and of the Psalms. Kimchi quotes
his version of Hosea.
The Book of Joshua in the Paris and Walton’s
Polyglotts is also from the Hebrew; and this Ro-
diger states to be the fact in the case of the Poly-
glott text of 1 K. xii.; 2 K. xii. 16; and of Neh.
i.-ix. 27.
Other portions, translated from Hebrew in later
times, do not require to be even specified here.
But it was not the Jews only who translated into
Arabic from the original. There is also a version
of the Pentateuch of the Samaritans, made by Abu
Said. He is stated to have clearly had the transla-
tion of Saadiah before him, the phraseology of
which he often follows, and at times he must have
used the Samaritan version. It is considered that
this work of Abu Said (of which a portion has been
printed) is of considerable use in connection with
the history of the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
[See SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, ii. 3.]
(B.) Made from the Peshito Syriac.
This is the base of the Arabic text contained in
the Polyglotts of the Books of Judges, Ruth,
Samuel, Kings, and Nehemiah (with the exception
mentioned above in these last-named books),
In some MSS. there is contained a translation
from the Hexaplar-Syriac text, which (though a
recent version) is of some importance for the criti-
cism of that translation.
(C.) Made from the LXX.
The version in the Polyglotts of the books not
specified above,*
Another text of the Psalter in Justiniani Psalter-
ium Octuplum, Genoa, 1516.
The Arabic versions existing in MS. exhibit very
various forms: it appears as if alterations had been
made in the different countries in which they had
been used; hence it is almost an endless task to
discriminate amongst them precisely.
UI.) Arabic versions of the New Test.
The printed editions of the Arabic New Test.
must first be specified before their text.can be de-
scribed.
1. The Roman editio princeps of the four Gospels,
1590-91 (issued both with and without an inter-
linear Latin version, Reissued, with a new title,
p- 1619; and again, with a bibliographical preface,
1774).
2. The Erpenian Arabic. The whole New Test.
edited by Erpenius, 1616, at Leyden, from a MS.
of the 13th or 14th century. .
3. The Arabic of the Paris Polyglott, 1645. In
the Gospels this follows mostly the Roman text; in
the Epistles a MS. from Aleppo was used. The
Arabic in Walton’s Polyglott appears to be simply
taken from the Paris text.
4. The Carshuni Arabic text (7. e. in Syriac let-
8 Cardinal Wiseman (On the Miracles of the New
Test. Essays i. 172-176, 240-244) gives a curious investi-
gation of the origin and translation of this Arabic
Psalter, and of the occasional use of the Hebrew text,
and sometimes of the Syriac version.
Ὁ Adler (Reise nach Rom, p. 184) gives a citation from
D. Vincenzio Juan de Lastanosa, who says in his Afuseo
ject.
Rome, in 1703.
Cyprus was used.
Storr proved, that in all these editions the Gospels
are really the same translation, however it may
have been modified by copyists ; especially when
the Syriac, or Memphitic, stand by the side.
Juynboll, in his description of an Arabie Codex
at Franeker (1838), threw new light on the origin
of the Arabic Gospels. He proves that the Frane-
ker Codex coincides in its general text with the
Roman editio princeps, and that both follow the
Latin Vulgate, so that Raymundi, the Roman
editor, must not be accused of having Latinized
the text. The greater agreement of the Polyglott
text with the Greek he ascribes to the influence
of an Aleppo MS., which the Paris editor used.
Juynboll then identifies the text of the Franeker
MS. (and of the Roman edition) with the version
made in the 8th century by John, Bishop of Se-
ville. The question to be considered thus becomes,
Was the Latin the basis of the version of the Gos-
pels? and did some afterwards. revise it with the
Greek? or, was it taken from the Greek? and
was the alteration to suit the Latin a later work?
If the former supposition be correct, then the ver-
sion of John of Seville may have been the first ; if
the latter, then all that was done by the Spanish
bishop must have been ‘to adapt an existing Arabic
version to the Latin.
Gildemeister, in his communications to Tischen-
dorf (Gr. Test. 1859. Prolegg. cexxxix.), endea-
vours to prove, that all the supposed connexion of
this (or apparently of any) version with John of
Seville is a mistake, The words, however, of
Mariana, the Spanish historian, ave express, He
says, under the year 737, ‘‘ His aequalis Joannes
Hispalensis Praesul divinos libros lingua Arabica
donabat utriusque nationis saluti consulens; quo-
niam Arabicae linguae multus usus erat Christianis
aeque atque Mauris; Latina passim ignorabatur.
Ejus interpretationis exempla ad nostram aetatem
(ἡ. 6. A.D. 1600) conservata sunt, extantque non
uno in loco in Hispania.” Gildemeister says,
indeed, that this was entirely caused from a mis-
understanding of what had been stated by Roderic
of Toledo, the first who says anything on the sub-
He adds that John of Seville lived really in
the 10th century, and not in the 8th: if so, he
must be a different person apparently from the
Bishop, of the same name, about whom Mariana
could hardly have been misinformed. It does not
appear as if Juynboll’s details and arguments were
likely to be set aside through the briet fragments of
Gildemeister’s letters to Tischendorf, which the
latter has published.
In the Erpenian Arabic the latter part is a trans-
lation from the Peshito-Syriac; the Epistles not
found in that version and the Apocalypse are said
to be from the Memphitic.
The latter part of the text in the Polyglotts is
from the Greek. Various Arabic translations of
portions of the New Test. exist in MS.: they do not
require any especial enumeration here.
For this a MS. brought from
de las Medallas desconocidas, Huesca, 1645, p. 115, “ ΕἸ
santo Arcobispo Don Juan traduxo la sagrada escritura
en Arabigo, par cuya intercessiva hizo Dios muchos mila-
gros i los Moros le llamavan Caid almateran.” Adler
conjectures this designation to be οἷ» δ} wl
Onis τ
ΒΝ,
1616
Literature.—Malanimeus, Preface to the reissue,
in 1774, of the Roman edition of the Arabic Gos-
pels; Storr, Dissertatio inauguralis critica de
Evangeliis Arabicis, Tiitbingen, 1775; Juynboll,
Letterkundige Bijdragen( Tweede Stukje. Beschrij-
ving van een Arabischen Codex der Franeker Bib-
liotheek, bevattende de vier Evangelien, gevolgd van
eenige opmeringen, welke de letterhkundige Geschic-
denis van de Arabische Vertaling der Evangelien
betreffen), Leyden, 1838; Wiseman, On the Mi-
racles of the New Testament, ΓΞ ΕΠ]
ARMENIAN VERSION.—Before the 5th cen-
tury the Armenians are said to have used the Syriac
alphabet ; but at that time Miesrob is stated to have
invented the Armenian letters. Soon after this it
is said that translations into the Armenian language
commenced, at first from the Syriac. Miesrob, with
his companions, Joseph and Eznak, began a version
of the Scriptures with the Book of Proverbs, and
completed all the Oid Test. ; and in the New, they
used the Syriac as their basis, from their inability
to obtain any Greek books. But when, in the year
431, Joseph and Eznak returned from the council
of Ephesus, bringing with them a Greek copy of
the Scriptures, Isaac, the Armenian Patriarch, and
Miesrob, threw aside what they had already done,
in order that they might execute a version from
the Greek. But now arose the difficulty of their
want of'acompetent acquaintance with that language:
to remedy this, Eznak and Joseph were sent with
Moses Chorenensis (who is himself the narrator of
these details) to study that language at Alexandria.
There they made what Moses calls their third
translation; the first being that from the Syriac,
and the second that which had been attempted
without sufficient acquaintance with the Greek
tongue. The fact seems to be that the former
attempts were used as far as they could be, and
that the whole was remodelled so as to suit the
Greek.
The first printed edition of the Old and New
Testaments in Armenian appeared at Amsterdam
in 1666, under the care of a person commonly
termed Oscan, or Usean, and described as being an
Armenian bishop (Hug, however, denies that Uscan
was his name, and Eichhorn denies that he was a
bishop). From this editio princeps others were
printed, in which no attempt was made to do more
than to follow its text ; although it was more than
suspected that Uscan had by no means faithfully
adhered to MS. authority. Zohrab, in 1789, pub-
lished at Venice an improved text of the Armenian
New Test.; and in 1805 he and his coadjutors
completed an edition of the entire Armenian Scrip-
tures, for which not only MS. authority was used
throughout, but also the results of collations of
MSS. were subjoined at the foot of the pages. The
basis was a MS. written in the 14th century, in
Cilicia; the whole number employed is said to have
been eight of the entire Bible, twenty of the New
Test., with several more of particular portions,
such as the Psalms. Tischendovrt states that Aucher,
of the monastery of St. Lazarus at Venice, informed
him that he and some of his fellow-monks had
undertaken a new critical edition: this probably
would contain a repetition of the various collations
of Zohrab, together with those of other MSS.
The critical editors of the New Test. appear all
of them to have been unacquainted with the Atme-
nian language; the want of a Latin translation of
this version has made it thus impossible for them
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (ARMENIAN)
to use it as a critical authority, except by the aid
of others. Some readings were thus communicated
to Mill by Louis Piques ; Wetstein received still
more from La Croze; Griesbach was aided by a
collation of the New Test. of 1789, made by Bre-
denkamp of Hamburg. Scholz speaks of having
been furnished with a collation of the text of 1805 ;
but either this was done very partially and incor-
rectly, or else Scholz made but little use (and that
without real accuracy) of the collation. These
partial collations, however, were by no means such
as to supply what was needed for the real critical
use of the version ; and as it was known that Uscan’s
text was thoroughly untrustworthy for critical pur-
poses, an exact collation of the Venice text of 1805
became a desideratum; Dr. Charles Rieu of the
British Museum undertook the task for Tregelles,
thus supplying him with a valuable portion of the
materials for his critical edition of the Greek Testa-
ment. By marking the words, and noting the
import of the various readings, and the discre-
pancies of Uscan’s text, Rieu did all that was
practicable to make the whole of the labour of
Zohrab available for those not like himself Arme-
nian scholars.
It had been long noticed that in the Armenian
New Test. as printed by Uscan 1 John v. 7 is
found: those who are only moderately acquainted
with criticism would feel assured that this must be
an addition, and that it could not be part of the
original translation, Did Uscan then introduce it
from the Vulgate ? he seems to have admitted that
in some things he supplied defects in his MS. by
translations from the Latin. It was, however, said
that Haitho king of Armenia (1224-70), had in-
serted this verse: that he revised the Armenian
version hy means of the Latin Vulgate, and that he
translated the prefaces of Jerome (and also those
which are spurious) into Armenian. Hence a kind
of suspicion attached itself to the Armenian version,
and its use was accompanied by a kind of doubt
whether or not it was a critical authority which
could be safely used. The known fact that Zohrab
had omitted 1 John v. 7, was felt to be so far satis-
factory that it showed that he had not found it in
his MSS., which were thus seen to be earlier than
the introduction of this corruption. But the col-
lation of Dr. Rieu, and his statement of the Arme-
nian authorities, set forth the character of the version
distinctly in this place as well as in the text in
general, Dr. Rieu says of 1 John v. 7, that out of
eighteen MSS. used by Zohrab, one only, and that
written A.D, 1656, has the passage as in the Ste-
phanic Greek text. In one ancient MS. the reading
is found from a recent correction. Thus there is
no ground for supposing that it was inserted by
Haitho, or by any one till the time when Uscan
lived. The wording, however, of Uscan in this
place, is not in accordance with the MS, of 1656:
so that each seems to have been independently bor-
rowed from the Latin. That Uscan did this, there
can be no reasonable doubt ; for in the immediate
context Uscan accords with the Latin in opposition
to all collated Armenian MSS.: thus in ver. 6, he
follows the Latin “ Christus est veritas ;” in ver.
20 he has, instead of ἐσμεν, the subjunctive an-
swering to simus: even in this minute point the
Armenian MSS, definitely vary from Uscan. In
iii. 11, for ἀγαπῶμεν, Uscan stands alone in agree-
ing with the Vulgate diligatis. These are proofs of
the employment of the Vulgate either by Uscan, or
by some one else who prepared the MS. from which
he printed. There are many other passages in
which alterations or considerable additions (see for
instance Matt. xvi. 2, 3, xxiii. 14; John viii. 1-11;
Acts xv. 34, xxiii, 24, xxviii. 25), are proofs that
Uscan agrees. with the Vulgate against all known
MSS. (These variations in “the two texts of Uscan
and Zohrab, as well as the material readings of
Armenian MSS. are inserted in Tregelles’s Greek
Test. on Dr. Riew’s authority.)
But systematic revision with the Vulgate is not
to be found even in Uscan’s text: they ditler greatly
in characteristic readings ; though here and there
throughout there is some mark of an influence
drawn from the Vulgate. And as to accordances
with the Latin, we have no reason to believe that
there is any proof of alterations having been made
in the days of King Haitho.
Some have spoken of this version as though it,
had been made from the Peshito Syriac, and not
from the Greek; the only grounds for such a notion
can be the facts connected with part of the history
of its execution. ‘There are, no doubt, a few read-
ings which show that the translators had made
some use of the Syriac; but these are only excep-
tions to the general texture of the version: an addi-
tion from John xx. 21, brought into Matt. xxviii.
18, in both the Armenian and the Peshito is pro-
bably the most marked.
The collations of MSS. show that some amongst
them differ greatly from the rest: it seems as if the
variations did not in such cases originate in Arme-
nian, but they must have sprung from some recast-
ing of the text and its revision by Greek copies.
There may perhaps be proots of the difference
between the MS. brought from Ephesus, and the
copies afterwards used at Alexandria; but thus
much at least is a certain conclusion, that compa-
rison with Greek copies of different kinds must at
some period have taken place. The omission of
the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel in
the older Armenian copies, and their insertion in
the later, may be taken as a proof of some effective
revision.
The Armenian version in its general texture is a
valuable aid to the criticism of the text of the New
Test. : it was a worthy service to rehabilitate it as
a critical witness as to the general reading of certain
Greek copies existing in the former half of the 5th
century.
Literature.—Moses Chorenensis, Historiae Ar-
menenicae Libri iii, ed. Guliel. et Georg. Whis-
ton, 1736; Rieu (Dr. Charles), MS. collation of
the Armenian text of Zohrab, and translation of the
various readings made for Tregelles. [S. P. T.]
CHALDEE VERSIONS. [Tareums, p. 1637. |
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.—I. Tot Mempuiric
VeERSION.—The version thus designated was for a
considerable time the only Egyptian translation
known to scholars; Coptic was then regarded as a
sufficiently accurate and definite appellation. But
when the fact was established that there were at
least two Egyptian versions, the name Coptic was
found to be indefinite, and even unsuitable for the
translation then so termed: for in the dialect of
Upper Egypt there was another; and it is from the
ancient Coptos in Upper Ezypt that the term Coptic
is taken. Thus Copto-Memphitic, or more simply
Memphitic, is the better name for the version in the
dialect of Lower Egypt.
When Egyptian translations were made we do
not know: we find, however, that in the middle of
VOL. II.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (EGYPTIAN)
1617
the 4th century the Egyptian language was in great
use amongst the Christian inhabitants of that
country ; for the rule of Pachomius for the monks is
stated to have been drawn up in Egyptian, and to
have been afterwards translated into Greek. It was
prescribed that every one of the monks (estimated
at seven thousand) for whom this rule in Egyptian
was drawn up, was to learn to read (whether so
disposed or not), so as to be able at least to read
the New Test. and the Psalms. The whole narra-
tion presupposes that there was in Upper Egypt a
translation.
So, too, also in Lower Egypt in the same century.
For Palladius found at Nitria the Abbot John of
Lycopolis, who was well acquainted with the New
Test., but who was ignorant of Greek; so that he
could only converse with him through an inter~
preter. There seems to be proof of the ecclesiastical
use of the Egyptian language even before this time.
Those who know what the early Christian worship
was, will feel how cogent is the proof that the Serip-
tures had then been translated.
When the attention of European scholars was di-
rected to the language and races of modern Egypt,
it was found that while the native Christians use
only Arabic vernacularly, yet in their services and
in the public reading of the Scriptures they employ
a dialect of the Coptic. This is the version now
termed Memphitic. When MSS. had heen brought
from Keypt, Thomas Marshall, an Englishman, pre-
pared in the latter part of the 16th century an edi-
tion of the Gospels; the publication of which was
prevented by his death. From some of the readings
having been noted by him Mill was able to use them
for insertion in his Greek Test.; they often ditler
(sometimes for the better) from the text published
by Wilkins. Wilkins was a Prussian by birth;
in 1716 he published at Oxford the first Memphitic
New Test., founded on MSS. in the Bodleian, and
compared with some at Rome and Paris. That
he did not execute the work in a very satisfac-
tory manner would probably now be owned by every
one; but it must be remembered that no one else did
it at all. Wilkins gave no proper account of the
MSS. which he used, nor of the variations which
he found in them: his text seems to be in many
places a confused combination of what he took from
various MSS, ; so that the sentences do not properly
connect themselves, even (it is said) in grammatical
construction, And yet for 130 years this was the
only Memphitic edition.
In 1846-8, Schwartze published at Berlin an
edition of the Memphitic Gospels, in which he em-
ployed MSS, in the Royal Library there. These
were almost entirely modern transcripts; but with
these limited materials he produced a far more satis-
factory work than that of Wilkins. At the foot of
the page he gave the variations which he found in
his copies; and subjoined there was a collation of
the Memphitic and Thebaic versions with Lach-
mann’s Greek Test. (1842), and the first of Tisch-
endorf (1841). There are also such references to
the Latin version of Wilkins, that it almost seems
as. if he supposed that all who used his edition
would also have that of Wilkins before them.
The death of Schwartze prevented the continua-
tion of his labours. Since then Boetticher’s editions,
first of the Acts and then of the Epistles, have ap-
peared ; these are not in a form which is available
for the use of those who are themselves unacquainted
with Egyptian: the editor gives as his reason for
issuing a bare text, that he intended soon to publish
= 2
1618
a work of his own in which he would fully employ
the authority of the ancient versions, Several years
have since passed, and Boetticher does not seem to
give any further prospect of the issue of such volume
on the ancient versions.
In 1848-52, a magnificent edition of the Mem- |
phitic New Test. was published by the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, under the editorial
care of the Rey. R. T. Lieder of Cairo. In its pre-
paration he followed MSS. without depending on
the text of Wilkins. There is no statement of the
variations of the authorities, which would have
hardly been a suitable accompaniment of an edition
intended solely for the use of the Coptic churches,
and in which, while the Egyptian text which is
yead aloud is printed in large characters, there is at |
the side a small column in Arabic in order that the
readers may themselves be able to understand some-
thing of what they read aloud.
It is thus impossible to give a history of this
version: we find proof that such a translation ex-
isted in early times, we find this now (and from
time immemorial) in church use in Egypt; when
speaking of its internal character and its value as
to textual criticism (after the other Egyptian ver-
sions have been described), it will be found that
there are many considerations which go far to prove
the identity of what we now have, with that which
must have existed at an early period.
The Old Testament of this version was made from
the LXX. Of this, Wilkins edited the Pentateuch
in 1731; the Psalter was published at Rome in
1744, The Rev. Dr, Tattam edited the Minor Pro-
phets in 1836, Job in 1846, and the Major Prophets
in 1852. Bardelli published Daniel in 1849.
I]. THe THEBAIC VERSION.—The examination
of Egyptian MSS. in the last century showed that
besides the Memphitic there is also another version
in a cognate Egyptian dialect. To this the name
Sahidic was applied by some, from an Arabic de-
signation for Upper Egypt and its ancient language.
It is, however, far better to assign to this version a
name not derived from the language of the Arabian
occupants of that land: thus Copto-Thebaic (as
styled by Giorgi), or simply Thebaic, is far prefer-
able. The first who attended much to the subject
of this version was Woide, who collected readings
from MSS. which he communicated to Cramer in
1779. In 1785 Mingarelli published a few por-
tions of this version of the New Test. from the
Nanian MSS. In 1789 Giorgi edited very valu-
able Greek and Thebaic fragments of St. John’s
Gospel, which appear to belong to the fifth century.
Miinter, in 1787, had published a fragment of
Daniel in this version ; and in 1789 he brought out
portions of the Epistles to Timothy, together with
readings which he had collected from MSS. in other
parts of the New Test. In the following year
Mingarelli printed Mark xi. 29-xv. 22, from MSS.
which had recently been obtained by Nani; but
owing to the editor’s death the unfinished sheets
were never, properly speaking, published. A few
copies only seem to have been circulated: they are
the more valuable from the fact of the MSS. having |
been destroyed by the persons into whose hands they
fell, and from their containing a portion of the New
Test.not found, it appears, in any known MS. Woide
was now busily engaged in the collection of portions | phitic.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (EGYPTIAN)
᾿
care of Ford. In this work all the portions found
by Woide himself were given, as well as those pub-
lished by Mingarelli in his lifetime ; but not only
were Mingarelli’s posthumous sheets passed by, but
also all that had been published by. Miinter and
Giorgi, as well as the transcripts of Miinter from
the Borgian MSS., which Ford might have used for
his edition. This collection of fragments contains
the greater part of the Thebaic New Test. They
might, however, be greatly amplified out of what
are mentioned by Zoega, as found in the Borgian
MSS. (now in the Propaganda), in his catalogue
published in 1810 after his death. It could hardly
have been thought that this definite account of ex-
isting Thebaic tragments would have remained for
more than half a century without some Egyptian
scholar having rescued the inedited portions of this
version from their obscurity ; and surely this would.
not have been the case if Biblical critics had been
found who possess Egyptian learning.
In the Memphitic Gospels of Schwartze there is
not only, as has been already mentioned, a collation
subjoined of the Thebaic text, but also the criticisms
of that learned editor on both Ford and Woide,
neither of whom, in his judgment, possessed suffi-
cient editorial competency. In this opinion he was
perhaps coryect; but still let it be observed, that if
it had not been for the labours of Woide (of which
Ford was simply the continuer), there is no reason
to suppose but that the Thebaic New Test. wouid
remain unprinted still. Had this been the case the
loss to textual criticism would have been great.
Il]. A Tuirp EcypriaN VuErsion.—Some
Egyptian fragments were noticed by both Miinter
and Giorgi amongst the Borgian MSS., which in
dialect differ both from the Memphitie and Thebaic.
These fragments, of a third Egyptian translation,
were edited by both these scholars independently in
the same year (1789), In what part of Egypt this
third dialect was used, and what should be its
distinctive name, has been a good deal discussed.
Arabian writers mention a third Egyptian dialect
under the name of Bashmuric, and this has by some
been assumed as the appellation for this version.
Giorgi supposed that this was the dialect of the
| Ammonian Oasis ; in this Miinter agreed with him ;
and thus they called the version the Ammonian.
There is in fact no certainty on the subject: but as
the affinities of the dialect are closely allied to the
Thebaic, and as it has been shown that Bashmur is
the district of Lower Egypt to the east of the Delta,
it seems by no means likely that it can belong toa
region so far trom the Thebaid. Indeed it has been
reasonably doubted whether the slight differences
(mostly those of orthography) entitle this to be
considered to be a really ditierent dialect from the
Thebaic itself.
After the first portions of this version, others
were transcribed independently by Zoega and Engel-
breth, and their transcripts appeared respectively
in 1810 and 1811. The latter of these scholars
accompanied his edition with eritical remarks, and
the text of the other Egyptian versions on the same
page for purposes of comparison.
The Character and critical use of the Egyptian
Versions.—It appears that the Thebaic version may
reasonably claim a higher antiquity than the Mem-
The two translations are independent of
of the Thebaic Scriptures: he had even issued ἃ each other, and both spring from Greek copies. The
Prospectus of such an edition in 1778.
Woide’s | Thebaic has been considered to be the older of the
death took place before his edition was completed. | two, partly from it having been thought that a
In 1799, however, it appeared under the editorial | book in the Thebaic dialect quotes this version, and
!
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GOTHIC)
from what was judged to be the antiquity of the
book so referred to. There are other grounds less
precarious. If the Memphitic version exhibits a
general agreement with the text current at Alex-
andria in the third century, it is not unreasonable
to suppose that it either belongs to that ‘age, or at
least to one not very remote. Now while this is
the case it is also to be noticed that the Thebaic
seems to have been framed from a text in which
there was a much greater admixture, and that not
arising from the later revisions which moulded it
into the transition text of the fourth century (com-
mencing probably at Antioch), but exactly in the
opposite direction: so that the contents of the two
versions would seem to show that the antiquity of
the Thebaic is most to be regarded, but that the
Memphitic is often preferable as to the goodness of
its readings, as well as in respect to dialect.
It is probable that the more Hellenized region of
Lower Egypt would not require a vernacular ver-
sion at so early a period as would the more
thoroughly Egyptian region of the Thebaid. There
are some marks of want of polish in the Thebaic ;
the Greek words which are introduced are changed
into a barbarous form; the habitual introduction of
an aspirate shows either an ignorance of the true
Greek sounds, or else it seems like a want of polish
in the dialect itself. That such a mode of express-
ing Greek words in Egyptian is not needed, we can
see from. its non-existence in the Memphitic.
The probable conclusions seem to be these :—that
the Thebaic version was made in the early part of
the third century, for the use of the common people
among the Christians in Upper Egypt; that it was
formed from MSS. such as were then current in
the regions of Egypt which were distant from Alex-
andria ; that afterwards the Memphitic version was
executed in what was the more polished dialect,
from the Greek copies of Alexandria; and that thus
in process of time the Memphitie remained alone in
ecclesiastical use. Possibly the disuse of the Thebaic
in the Egyptian churches did not take place until
Arabic was fast becoming the vernacular tongue of
that land. It will be well for those whose studies
enable them personally to enter on the domain of
Kgyptian literature, to communicate to Biblical
scholars the results of new researches.
The value of these versions in textual criticism,
even though they are known only through defective
channels, is very high. In some respect they aftord
the same kind of evidence relative to the text cur-
rent in Eeypt in the early centuries, as do the Old
Latin and the version of Jerome for that in use in
the West. [VULGATE. ]
A few remarks only need be made respecting the
third Egyptian version. The fragments of this fol-
low the Thebaie so closely as to have no independent
character. This version does however possess critical
value, as furnishing evidence in a small portion not
known in the Thebaic. The existence of the third
version is a farther argument as to the early ex-
istence and use of the Thebaic, for this seems to be
formed from it by moulding it into the colloquial
dialect cf some locality.
Literature.—Schwartze, Quatuor Evangelia in
Dialecto Linguae Copticae Memphitica, 1846-7 ;
Woide, Novi Testamenti Fragmenta Sahidica
(i.e. Thebaica), [Appendix ad Cod, Alex.], 1799;
Mingarelli, Aegyptiorum Codicum Reliquiae, 1785,
&e. ; Miinter, Commentatio de indole Versionis
N. T. Sahidicae, 1789; Giorgi, Fraqmentum Ev.
S. Joan. Graeco-Copto- Thebaicum, 1789; Zoega,
1619
Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manuscriptorum
qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, 1810 ;
Engelbreth, Hragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris
et Novi Testamenti, 1811. [ΡΠ ΕΠ]
GOTHIC VERSION.—In the year 318 the
Gothic bishop and translator of Scripture, Ulphilas,
was born. He succeeded Theophilus as bishop of
the Goths in 348, when he subscribed a confession
rejecting the orthodox creed of Nicaea ; through
him it is said that the Goths in general adopted
Arianism; it may be, however, more correct to
consider that Arianism (or Semi-Arianism) had al-
ready spread amongst the Goths inhabiting within
the Roman Empire, as well as amongst the Greeks
and Latins. Theophilus, the pr edecessor of Ulphilas,
had been present at the council of Nicaea, and had
subscribed the Homo-ousion confession, The great
work of Ulphilas was his version of the Scriptures,
a translation in which few traces, if any (except in
Phil. ii. 6), can be found of his peculiar and erro-
neous dogmas. In 388 Ulphilas visited Constan-
tinople to defend his heterodox creed, and while
there he died.
In the 5th century the Eastern Goths occupied
and governed Italy, while the Western Goths took
possession of Spain, where they ruled till the be-
ginning of the 8th century. Amongst the Goths
in both these countries can the use of this version
be traced. It must in fact have at one time been
the vernacular translation of a large portion of
Europe.
In the latter part of the 16th century the ex-
istence of a MS. of this version was known, through
Morillon having mentioned that he had observed
one in the library of the monastery of Werden on
the Ruhr in Westphalia. He transcribed the Lord’s
Prayer and some other parts, which were after-
wards published, as were other verses copied soon
after by Arnold Mercator.
In 1648, almost at the conclusion of the Thirty
Years’ War, the Swedes took that part of Prague
on the left of the Moldau (Kleine Seite), and
amongst the spoils was sent to Stockholm a copy of
the Gothic Gospels, known as the Codex Argenteus.
This MS. is generally supposed to be the same that
Morillon had seen at Werden; but whether the
same or not, it had been long at Prague when found
there by the Swedes, for Strenius, who died in 1601,
mentions it as being there. The Codex Argenteus
was taken by the Swedes to Stockholm ; but on the
abdication of Queen Christina of Sweden, a few
years later, it disappeared. In 1655 it was in the
possession of Isaac Vossius in Holland, who had
been the queen’s librarian; to him therefore it is
probable that it had been given, and not to the
queen herself, by the general who brought it from
Prague. In 1662 it was repurchased for Sweden
by Count Magnus Gabriel de Ja Gardie, who caused
it to be splendidly bound, and placed it in the
library of the University of Upsal, where it now
remains.
While the book was in the hands of Vossius a
transcript was made of its text, from which Junius,
his uncle, edited the first edition of the Gothic
Gospels at Dort in 1665: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels,
edited by Marshall, accompanied the Gothic text.
The labours of other editors succeeded: Stiern-
hielm, 1671; Benzel and Lye, 1750; and others
comparativ ely recent. The MS. is written on vellum
that was once purple, in silver letters, except those
at the beginning of sections, which are golden, The
5 Le
1620
Gospels have many lacunae: it is calculated that |
when entire it consisted of 320 folios; there are
now but 188. ‘The uniformity of the writing is
wonderful: so that it has been thought whether
each letter was not formed by a hot iron impressing
the gold or silver, used just as bookbinders put on
the lettering to the back of a book. It is pretty
certain that this beautiful and elaborate MS. must
have been written in the 6th century, probably in
Upper Italy when under the Gothic sovereignty.
Some in the last century supposed that the language
of this document is not Gothic, but Frankish—an
opinion which was set at rest by the discovery in
Italy of Ostro-Gothie writings, about which there
could be no question raised. Some Visi-Gothic
monuments in Spain were’ evidence on the same
side.
Knittel, in 1762, edited from a Wolfenbiittel pa-
limpsest some portions of the Epistle to the Romans
in Gothie, in which the Latin stood by the side of
the version of Ulphilas. This discovery first made
known the existence of any part of a version of the
Epistles. The portions brought to light were soon
afterwards used by Ihre in the collection of re-
marks on Ulphilas edited in 1773 by Busching.
But as it was certain that in obscure places the
Codex Argenteus had been not very correctly read,
Thre laboured to copy it with exactitude, and to
form a Latin version: what he had thus prepared
was edited by Zahn in 1805.
New light dawned on Ulphilas and his version in
1817. While the late Cardinal Mai was engaged
in the examination of palimpsests in the Ambrosian
Library at Milan, of which he was at that time a
librarian, he noticed traces of some Gothic writing
under that of one of the codices. This was found
to be part of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In
making further examination, four other palimpsests
were found which contained portions of the Gothic
Version. Mai deciphered these MSS. in conjunction
with Count Carlo Ottavio Castiglione, and their
labours resulted in the recovery, besides a few por-
tions of the Old Test., of almost the whole of the
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul and some parts of the
Gospels.
The edition of Gabelentz and Loebe (1856-45)
contains all that has been discovered of the Gothic
Version, with a Latin translation, notes, and a
Gothic Dictionary and Grammar. These editors
were at the pains to re-examine, at Upsal and Milan,
the MSS. themselves. They have thus, it appears,
succeeded in avoiding the repetition of errors made
by their predecessors. The Milan palimpsests were
chemically restored when the mode of doing this
was not as well known as it is at present; the
whole texture of the vellum seems stained and
spoiled, and thus it is not an easy task to read the
ancient writing correctly. ‘Those who have them-
selves looked at the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest from
which Knittel edited the portions of Romans, and
who have also examined the Gothic palimpsests at
Milan, will probably agree that it is less difficult to
read the unrestored MS. at Wolfenbiittel than the
restored MSS. at Milan.¢ This must be borne in
mind if we would appreciate the labours of Gabe-
lentz and Loebe.
In 1854 Uppstrém published an excellent edition
of the text of the Codex Argenteus, with a beautiful
fac-simile. Ten leaves of the MS. were then miss-
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)
ing, and Uppstrém tells a rather ungratifying story
that they had been stolen by some English tra-
veller. It is a satisfaction, however, that a few
years afterwards the real thief on his death-bed
restored the missing leaves; and, though stolen, it
was not by anyone out of Sweden. Uppstrém edited
them as a supplement in 1857.
In 1855-6 Massmann issued an excellent small
edition of all the Gothic portions of the Scriptures
known to be extant. He accompanies the Gothic
text with the Greek and the Latin, and there are a
Grammar and Vocabulary subjoined. This edition
is said to be more correct than that of Gabelentz and
Loebe. Another edition of Ulphilas by F. L. Stamm
appeared at Paderborn in 1858.
As an ancient monument of the Gothic language
the version of Ulphilas possesses great interest; as
a version the use of which was once extended
widely through Europe, it is a monument of the
Christianization of the Goths; and as a version
knoun to have been made in the 4th century, and
transmitted to us in ancient MSS., it has its value
in textual criticism, being thus a witness to readings
which were current in that age. In certain passages
it has been thought that there is some proof of the
influence of the Latin; and this has been regarded
as confirmed by the order of the Gospels in the
| Codex Argenteus, being that of some of the Old Latin
MSS., Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. But if the pecu-
liarities pointed out were borrowed in the Gothic
from the Latin, they must be considered rather as ex-
ceptional points, and not such as affect the general
texture of the version, for its Greek origin is not
to be mistaken. This is certain from the manner
in which the Greek constructions and the forms of
compound words are imitated. The very mistakes
of rendering are proofs of Greek and not Latin
origin. The marks of conformity to the Latin may
have been introduced into the version in the case
of MSS. copied in Italy during the rule in that
land of the Gothic sovereigns. The Wolfenbiittel
palimpsest has Latin by the side of the Gothic.
The Greek from which the version was made
must in many respects have been what has. been
termed the transition text of the 4th century;
another witness to which is the revised form
of the Old Latin, such as is found in the Codex
Brixianus (this revision being in fact the tala).
[ VULGATE. ]
In all cases in which the readings of the Gothic
confirm those of the most ancient authorities, the
united testimony must be allowed to possess especial
weight.
Literature —Waitz, Ueber das Leben und die
Lehre des Ulphila, 1840; Gabelentz and Loebe,
Ulphilas (Prolegomena), 1836-43; Uppstrom, Codex
Argenteris, 1854 (Decem Codicis Argentei rediviva
folia, 1857); Massmann, Ulfilas,1857. [5. P. T.]
GREEK VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTA-
MENT.
1. SEPTUAGINT.—In addition to the special
article on this version [SEPTUAGINT ] a few points
may be noted here.
(I.) Name.—In all discussions relative to the
name of Septuagint, so universally appropriated to
the Greek version of Alexandria, the scholion dis-
covered by Osann and published by Ritschl ought
to be considered, The origin of this Latin scholion
© Such is the writer’s judgment from his own exami-
nation of the palimpsest at Wolfenbiittel, and of those at
Milan; but of course he never saw the latter prior to
their restoration.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)
is curious. The substance of it is stated to have
been extracted from Callimachus and Evratosthenes,
the Alexandrian Librarians, by ‘I'zetzes, and from
his Greek note an Italian of the 15th century has
formed the Latin scholion in question. ‘The writer
has been speaking of the collecting of ancient Greek
poems carried on at Alexandria under Ptolemy
Philadelphus, and then he thus continues: ‘* Nam
rex ille philosophis aftertissimus (corr. ‘ differtissi-
mus,’ Ritschl, ‘ aftectissimus,’ Thiersch) et caeteris
omnibus auctoribus claris, disquisitis impensa regiae
munificentiae ubique terrarum quantum valuit vo-
luminibus opera Demetrii Phalerei phzxa senum
duas bibliothecas fecit, alteram extra regiam alteram
autem in regia.” The scholion then goes on to
speak of books in many languages: “ quae summa
diligentia rex ille in suam linguam fecit ab optimis
interpretibus converti.” Bernhardy reads instead
of “phzxa senum,” “et 1xx senum,” and this
correction is agreed to by Thiersch, as it well may
be: some correction is manifestly needed, and this
appears to be right. This gives us seventy elders
associated in the formation of the Library. ‘The tes-
timony comes to us from Alexandrian authority ;
and this, if true (or even if believed to be true),
would connect the Septuagint with the Library; a
designation which might most easily be applied to a
version of the Scriptures there deposited ; and, let
the translation be once known by such a name,
then nothing would be more probable than that the
designation should be applied to the translators.
This may be regarded as the first step in the forma-
tion of the fables. Let the Septuagint be first known
as applying to the associates in the collection of the
Library, then to the Library itself, and then to that
particular book in the Library which to so many
had a far greater value than all its other contents.
Whether more than the Pentateuch was thus trans-
lated and then deposited in the Royal Library is a
separate question.
(Ik) Lhe Connexion of the Pentateuch in the
LXX, with the Samaritan Text.—It was long ago
remarked that in the Pentateuch the Samaritan
copy and the LXX. agree in readings which differ
from the Hebrew text of the Jews. This has been
pointed out as occurring in perhaps two thousand
places. The conclusion to which some thus came
was that the LXX. must have been translated from
a Samaritan copy.
But, on many grounds, it would be difficult to
admit this, even if it were found impossible to ex-
plain the coincidences. For (i.) it must be taken
into account that if the discrepancies of the Sama-
ritan and Jewish copies be estimated numerically,
the LXX. will be found to agree far more fre-
quently with the latter than the former. (ii.) In
the cases of considerable and marked passages oc-
curring in the Samaritan which are not in the
Jewish, the LXX. does not contain them. (iii.) In
the passages in which slight variations are found,
both in the Samaritan and LXX., from the Jewish
text, they often differ amongst themselves, and the |
amplification of the LXX. is less than that of the
Samaritan.
in which the Samaritan seems to accord with the |
LXX. are in such incorrect and non-idiomatic He-
brew that it is suggested that these must be trans-
lations, and, if so, probably from the LXX. (v.)
(iv.) Some of the small amplifications |
1621
| The amplifications of the LXX. and Samaritan often
resemble each other greatly in character, as if similar
false criticism had been applied to the text in each
case, But as, in spite of all similarities such as
these, the Pentateuch of the LXX. is more Jewish
than Samaritan, we need not adopt the notion of
translation from a Samaritan Codex, which would
involve the subject in greater difficulties, and leave
more points to be explained. (On some of the sup-
posed agreements of the LXX. with the Samaritan,
see Bishop Fitzgerald in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred
Literature, Oct. 1848, pp. 324-332.)
(1Π.) The Liturgical Origin of Portions of the
ILXX.—tThis is a subject for inquiry which has
received but little attention, not so much, probably,
as its importance deserves. It was noticed by Tre-
gelles many years ago that the headings of certain
Psalms in the LXX. coincide with the liturgical
directions in the Jewish Prayer-Book: the results
were at a later period communicated in Kitto’s
Journal of Sacred Literature, April, 1852, pp.
207-9. The results may be briefly stated :—The
23rd Psalm, LXX. (24th, Hebrew), is headed in
the LXX., τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτου ; so too in Hebrew, in
De Sola’s Prayers of the Sephardim, pwn pva:
Ps, xlvii., LXX. (Heb, xlviii.), δευτέρᾳ σαββάτου,
mY ond: Ps, xciii., LXX. (Heb. xciv.), τετράδι
σαββάτου, "»" Δ DOYS: Ps. xcii., LXX. (Heb.
xcili.), eis THY ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου, Di
‘wi. There appear to be no Greek copies extant
which contain similar headings for Psalms Ixxxi.
and Ixxx. (Heb. Ixxxii. and Ixxxi.), which the Jewish
Prayer-Book appropriates to the third and fifth
days; but that such once existed ‘in the case of the
latter Psalm seems to be shown from the Latin
Psalterium Vetus having the prefixed quinta sab-
bati, wan on. Prof. Delitzsch in his Com-
mentary on the Psalms has recently pointed out
that the nctation of these Psalms in the LXX. is in
accordance with certain passages in the Talmud.
It is worthy of inquiry whether variations in
other passages of the LXX. from the Hebrew text
cannot at times be connected with liturgical use,
and whether they do not originate in part from
rubrical directions. It seems to be at least plain
that the Psalms were translated from a copy pre-
pared for synagogue worship.
2, AQuiILA.—It is a remarkable fact that in the
second century there were three versions executed
of the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek. The
first of these was made by Aquila, a native of Sinope
in Pontus, who had become a proselyte to Judaism.
The Jerusalem Talmud (see Bartolocci, Bibliotheca
Rabb. iv. 281)¢ describes him as a disciple of Rabbi
Akiba; and this would place him in some part of
the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (4.D. 117-138).
It is supposed that the object of his version was to
aid the Jews in their controversies with the Chris-
tians: and that as the latter were in the habit of
employing the LXX., they wished to have a version
of their own on which they could rely. It is very
probable that the Jews in many Greek-speaking
countries were not sufficiently acquainted with He-
brew to refer for themselves to the original, and
thus, they wished to have such a Greek translation
vas they might use with confidence in their discus-
d See Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina,
pp. 8,9. Erlangen, 1841,
© Kichhorn and those who have followed him state this
| on the authority of Irenaeus, instead of that of the Jeru-
| salem Talmud, a confusion which needs to be explicitly,
/and not merely tacitly corrected.
1622
sions. Such controversies were (it must be re-
membered) a new thing. Prior to the preaching of
the Gospel, there were none besides the Jews who |
used the Jewish Scriptures as a means of learning |
God’s revealed truth, except those who either par- |
tially or wholly became proselytes to Judaism. |
But now the Jews saw to their grief, that. their
Scriptures were made the instruments for teaching
the principles of a religion which they regarded as
nothing less than an apostasy from Moses.
This, then, is a probable account of the origin of |
this version. Extreme literality and an occasional
polemical bias appear to be its chief characteristics. |
The idiom of the Greek language is very often vio-
lated in order to produce what was intended should
be a very literal version; and thus, not only sense |
but grammar even was disregarded: a sufficient,
instance of this is found in his rendering the Hebrew |
puticle NN by σὺν, as in Gen. i. 1, σὺν τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν, “quod Graeca et
Latina lingua omnino non recipit,” as Jerome
says. Another instance is furnished by Gen. v. 5,
kal ἔζησεν "Addu τριάκοντα ἔτος καὶ ἐννακόσια,
Μ
ἔτος.
It is sufficiently attested that this version was
formed for controversial purposes: a proof of which
may be found in the rendering of particular pas-
sages, such as Is, vii. 14, where nnby, in the}
LXX. παρθένος, is by Aquila translated νεᾶνις ἢ
such renderings might be regarded perhaps rather as
modes of avoiding an argument than as direct falsi- |
fication. There certainly was room for a version
which should express the Hebrew more accurately
than was done by the LXX.; but if this had been
thoroughly carried out it would have been found
that in many important points of doctrine—such,
for instance, as in the Divinity of the Messiah and
the rejection of Israel, the true rendering of the
Hebrew text would have been in far closer con-
formity with the teaching of the New Test. than
was the LXX. itself. It is probable, therefore, that
one polemical object was to make the citations in
the New Test. trom the Old appear to be incon-
clusive, by producing other renderings (often pro-
bably more literally exact) differing from the LXX.,
or even contradicting it. Thus Christianity might
seem to the Jewish mind to rest on a false basis.
But in many cases a really critical examiner would
have found that in points of important doctrine the
New Test. definitely rejects the reading of the
LXX. (when utterly unsuited to the matter in
hand), and adopts the reading of the Hebrew.
It is mentioned that Aquila put forth a second
edition (ἡ. 6. revision) of his version, in which the
Hebrew was yet more servilely followed, but it is
not known if this extended to the whole, or only to
three books, namely, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel,
of which there are fragments.
Aquila often appears to have so closely sought to
follow the etymology of the Hebrew words, that
not only does his version produce no definite idea,
but it does not even suggest any meaning at all.
If we possessed it perfect it would have been of
great value as to the criticism of the Hebrew text,
though often it would be of no service as to its
real understanding,
That this version was employed for centuries by
the Jews themselves is proved indirectly by the
146th Novella of Justinian: πλὴν of διὰ τῆς ‘EA-
ληνίδος ἀναγινώσκοντες TH τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα
χρήσονται παραδόσει. . . πλὴν ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἂν μὴ τὰς
|
| other respects.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)
λοιπὰς αὐτοῖς ἀποκλείειν νομισθείημεν Epun-
νείας, ἄδειαν δίδομεν καὶ τῇ ᾿Ακύλου κεχρῆσθαι,
κἂν εἰ ἀλλόφυλος ἐκεῖνος καὶ οὐ μετρίαν ἐπί
τινῶν λέξεων ἔχῃ πρὸς τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα τὴν
διαφωνίαν.
9. THEODOTION.—The second version, of which
we have information as executed in the second cen-
tury, is that of Theodotion. He is stated to have
been an Ephesian, and he seems to be most generally
described as an Ebionite : if this is correct, his work
was probably intended for those semi-Christians
who inay have desired to use a version of their
own instead of employing the LXX. with the
Christians, or that of Aquila with the Jews.
But it may be doubted if the name of translation
can be rightly applied to the work of Theodotion :
it is rather a revision of the LXX. with the Hebrew
text, so as to bring some of the copies then in use
into more conformity with the original. This he
was able to do (with the aid probably of some in-
structors) so as to eliminate portions which had
been introduced into the LXX., without really being
an integral part of the version ; and also so as to
bring much into accordance with the Hebrew in
But his own knowledge of Hebrew
was evidently very limited; and thus words and
parts of sentences were left untranslated; the He-
brew being merely written with Greek Jetters.
Theodotion as well as Aquila was quoted by
Irenaeus; and against both there is the common
charge laid of corrupting texts which relate to the
Messiah: some polemical intention in such pas-
sages can hardly be doubted. The statement of
Epiphanius that he made his translation in the
reign of Commodus accords well with its having
been quoted by Irenaeus; but it cannot be correct
if it is one of the translations referred to by Justin
Martyr as giving interpretations contrary to the
Christian doctrine of the New Test.
There can be no doubt that this version was
much used by Christians: probably many changes
in the text of the LXX. were adopted from Theo-
dotion: this may have begun before the Biblical
labours of Origen brought the various versions into
one conspectus, The translation of the Book of
Daniel by Theodotion was substituted for that of the
LXX. in ecclesiastical use as early at least as part
of the third century. Hence Daniel, as rendered or
revised by Theodotion, has so long taken the place
of the true LXX., that their version of this book
was supposed not to be extant; and it has only been
found in one MS. In most editions of the LXX.
Theodotion’s version of Daniel is still substituted for
that which really belongs to that translation.
4. SYMMACHUS is stated by Eusebius and Jerome
to have been an Ebionite: so too in the Syrian ac-
counts given by Assemani; Epiphanius, however,
and others style him aSamaritan. There may have
been Ebionites from amongst the Samaritans, who
constituted a kind of separate sect ; and these may
have desired a version of their own; or it may be
that as a Samaritan he made this version for some of
that people who employed Greek, and who had learned
to receive more than the Pentateuch. But perhaps
to such motives was added (if indeed this were not
the only cause of the version) a desire for a Greek
translation not so unintelligibly. bald as that of
Aquila, and not displaying such a want of Hebrew
learning as that of Theodotion. It is probable that
if this translation of Symmachus had appeared prior
to the time of Irenaeus, it would have been men-
tioned by him; and this agrees with what KEpi-
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (GREEK)
phanius says, namely, that he lived under the
Emperor Severus.
The translation which he produced was probably
better than the others as to sense and general phrase-
ology. When Jerome speaks of a second edition he
may probably mean some revision, more or less
complete, which he executed after his translation
was first made: it could hardly be a retranslation,
or anything at all tantamount thereto.
5. THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND SEVENTH VER-
sions.—Besides the translations of Aquila, Sym-
machus, and Theodotion, the great critical work of
Origen comprised as to portions of the Old Test.
three other versions, placed for comparison with
the LXX.; which, from their being anonymous,
are only known as the fifth, sixth, and seventh;
designations taken from the places which they re-
spectively occupied in Origen’s columnar arrange-
ment. Ancient writers seem not to have been uni-
form in the notation which they applied to these
versions; and thus what is cited from one by its
number of reference is quoted by others under a
different numeral.
These three partial translations were discovered
by Origen in the course of his travels in connexion
with his great work of Biblical criticism. Euse-
bius says that two of these versions (but without
designating precisely which) were found, the one at
Jericho, and the other at Nicopolis on the gulf of
Actium. Epiphanius says, that what he terms the
fifth, was found at Jericho, and the sixth at Nico-
polis; while Jerome speaks of the fifth as having
been found at the latter place.
The contents of the jifth version appear to have
been the Pentateuch, Psalms, Canticles, and the
minor prophets: it seems also to be referred to in
the Syro-Hexaplar text of the second book of Kings:
it may be doubted if in all these books it was com-
plete, or at least if so much were adopted by
Origen. The existing fragments prove that the
translator used the Hebrew original ; but it is also
certain that he was aided by the work of former
translators.
The sixth version seems to have been just the
same in its contents as the fifth (except 2 Kings) :
and thus the two may have been confused: this
translator also seems to have had the other versions
before him. Jerome calls the authors of the fifth
and sixth ‘‘ Judaicos translatores ;’ but the trans-
lator of this must have been a Christian when he
executed his work, or else the hand of a Christian
reviser must have meddled with it before it was
employed by Origen; which seems from the small
interval of time to be hardly probable. For in
Hab. iii. 15 the translation runs, ἐξῆλθες τοῦ σῶ-
σαι τὸν λαόν σου διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ χριστοῦ σου.
Of the seventh version very few fragments re-
main. It seems to have contained the Psalms and
minor prophets; and the translator was probably a
Jew.
From the references given by Origen, or by those
who copied from his columnar arrangement and its
results (or who added to such extracts), it has been
thought that other Greek versions were spoken of,
Of these 6 ‘EBpatos probably refers to the Hebrew
text, or to something drawn from it: 6 Σύρος to
the Old Syriac-version: τὸ Σαμαρειτικὸν probably
a reference to the Samaritan text, or some Samaritan
gloss: 6 Ἑλληνικὸς, 6 “AAAos, 6 ἀνεπίγραφος
some unspecified version or versions.
The existing fragments of these varied versions
are mostly to be found in the editions of the
1623
relics of Origen’s Hexapla, by Montfaucon and by
Bardht.
[ For an account of the use made of these versions
by Origen, and its results, see SuPTUAGINT. |
6, THE VENETO-GREEK VERSION.—A MS. of
the fourteenth century, in the library of St. Mark
at Venice, contains a peculiar version of the Penta-
teuch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ruth, La-
mentations, and Daniel. All of these books, except
the Pentateuch, were published by Villoison at
Strasburg in 1784; the Pentateuch was edited by
Ammon at Erlangen in 1790-91. The version
itself is thought to be four or five hundred years
older than the one MS. in which it has been trans-
mitted ; this, however, is so thoroughly a matter
of opinion, that there seems no absolute reason for
determining that this one MS. may not be the
original as well as the only one in existence. It is
written in one very narrow column on each page ;
the leaves follow each other in the Hebrew order,
so that the book begins at what we should call the
end, An examination of the MS. suggested the
opinion that it may have been written on the
broad inner margin of a Hebrew MS.: and that for
some reason the Hebrew portion had been cut away,
leaving thus a Greek MS. probably unique as to
its form and arrangement. As to the translation
itself, it is on any supposition too recent to be of
consequence in criticism. It may be said briefly
that the translation was made from the Hebrew,
although the present punctuation and accentuation
is often not followed, and the translator was no
doubt acquainted with some other Greek versions.
The language of the translation is a most strange
mixture of astonishing and cacophonous barbarism
with attempts at Attic elegance and refinement.
The Doric, which is employed to answer to the
Chaldean portions of Daniel, seems to be an indi-
cation of remarkable affectation.
THE GREEK OF St. MATTHEW’s GOSPEL.—
Any account of the Greek versions of Holy Scrip-
ture would be incomplete without some allusion
to the fact, that if early testimonies and ancient
opinion unitedly are to have some weight when
wholly uncontradicted, then it must be admitted
that the original language of the Gospel of St.
Matthew was Hebrew, and that the text which has
been transmitted to us is really a Greek transla-
tion.
It may be briefly stated that every early writer
who mentions that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel at
all says that he wrote in Hebrew (that is in the
Syro-Chaldaic), and in Palestine in the first cen-
tury; so that if it be assumed that he did not
write in Hebrew but in Greek, then it may well be
asked, what ground is there to believe that he wrote
any narrative of our Lord’s life on earth ?
Every early writer that has come down to us
uses the Greek of St. Matthew, and this with the
definite recognition that it is a translation; hence
we may be sure that the Greek copy belongs to the
Apostolic age, having been thus authoritatively
used from and up to that time. Thus the question
is not the authority of the Greek translation, which
comes from the time when the Churches enjoyed
apostolic guidance, but whether there was a Hebrew
original from which it had been translated.
The witnesses to the Hebrew original were men
sufficiently competent to attest so simple a fact,
especially seeing that they are relied on in what is
far more important,—that St. Matthew wrote a
Gospel εὐ all. Papias, in the beginning of the second
1624
century, repeats apparently the words of John the
Presbyter, an immediate disciple of our Lord, that
‘* Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect.”
Trenaeus, in the latter part of the same century, is
equally explicit; in connexion with the Indian
mission of Pantaenus in the same age, we learn that
he found the Gospel of Matthew in the very Hebrew
letters. In the next century Origen, the laborious
investigator and diligent inquirer, says, that the re-
ceived account was that St. Matthew had written the
first Gospel, and that it was in Hebrew. So too in
the next century, Epiphanius and Jerome, both of
whom, like Origen, were acquainted with Hebrew.
Jerome also mentions the very copies of this Hebrew
original which were extant in his time, and which
he transcribed. He shows indeed that the copies
then circulated amongst the Nazarenes had been
variously interpolated : but this would not affect
the antecedent fact. So too Epiphanius shows that
the document had been variously depraved: but
this does not set aside what it originally was.
To follow the unanimous agreement of later
writers is needless ; but what can be said on the
other side? What evidence is adduced that St.
Matthew wrote in Greek? None whatever: but
simply some ἃ priori notions that he ought to have
done so are advanced: then it is truly stated that
the Greek Gospel does not read as though it had
about it the constraint of a translation; and then
it is said that perhaps the witnesses for the
Hebrew original were mistaken.f “But (says
Principal Campbell) is the positive testimony of
witnesses, delivered as of a well-known fact, to be
overturned by a mere supposition, a perhaps? for
that the case is really as they suppose no shadow of
evidence is pretended ” ( Works, ii. 171).
For another theory, that St. Matthew wrote both
in Hebrew and also in Greek, there is no evidence:
the notion is even contradicted by the avowed
ignorance of the early Christian writers as to whose
hand formed the Greek version which they accepted
as authoyitative. To them there was nothing self-
contradictory (as some have said) in the notion of
an authoritative translation. As it can be shown
that the public use of the four Gospels in Greek was
universal in the churches from the apostolic age, it
proves to us that apostolic sanction must have been
the ground of this usage; this surely is sufficient
to authorize the Greek Gospel that we have.
Erasmus seems to have been the first to suggest
that the Greek is the original of the Apostle: at
least no writer earlier than Erasmus has been
brought forward as holding the opinion: in this
many have followed him on what may be called very
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SLAVONIC)
subjective grounds, Erasmus also advanced the
opinion that Irenaeus against Heresies was written by
him in Latin, For this he had just as good grounds
as for the Greek original of St. Matthew. As to
Irenaeus no one appears to follow Erasmus; why
should so many adhere to his bold opinion (opposed
by so much evidence and supported by none)
relative to St. Matthew? On the revival of letters
there was much curiosity expressed for the reco-
very of a copy of St. Matthew’s Hebrew original.
Pope Nicholas V. is said to have offered five thousand
ducats for a copy: this probably suggested the re-
translations into Hebrew of this Gospel published in
the following century by Sebastian Munster and
others, [ΞΡ ΡΦΎΗΙ
LATIN VERSIONS. [Vuueare.]
SAMARITAN VERSIONS. [SAMARITAN PEN-
TATEUCH, p. 11136,]
SLAVONIC VERSION, In the year 862
there was a desire expressed, or an inquiry made,
for Christian teachers in Moravia, and in the follow-
ing year the labours of missionaries began amongst
them. We need not consider the Moravia in which
these services were commenced to be precisely re-
stricted to or identified with the region which now
bears that name, for in the ninth century Great
Moravia was of far wider extent; and it was
amongst the Slavonic people then occupying this
whole region, that the etfort for Christianization
was put forth. But while this farther extent of
Moravia is admitted, it is also to be recollected that
the province of Moravia, of which Briinn is the
metropolis, is not only the nucleus of Moravia, but
that also the inhabitants of that country, still re-
taining as they do ‘their Slavonian tongue, rightly
consider themselves as the descendants and suc-
cessors of those who were then Christianized.
Thus, in 1862 they commemorated the thousandth
anniversary of their having taken this step, and
in 1863 they celebrated the thousandth from the
actual arrival of missionaries amongst them. These
missionaries were Cyrillus and Methodius, two
brothers from Thessalonica: to Cyrillus is ascribed
the invention of the Slavonian alphabet, and the
commencement of the translation of the Scriptures.
Neander truly says that he was honourably dis-
tinguished from all other missionaries of that
period in not having yielded to the prejudice which
represented the languages of rude nations as too
profane for sacred uses ; and by not having shrunk
from any toil which was necessary in order te be-
come accurately acquainted with the language of
f The manner in which the testimony of competent
witnesses has been not only called in question, but set
aside, is such as would cast donbt on any historical fact
competently attested; and the terms applied to the wit-
nesses themselves, are such as seem to show that argu-
ment being vain, it is needful to have recourse to some-
thing else ; not mere assertion as opposed to the definite
evidence, but a mode of speaking of the witnesses them-
selves and of misrepresenting their words, which would not
be ventured on in common matters. Thus a writer who
is well and justly esteemed on other subjects, the Rev,
Dr. Wm. Lindsay Alexander, sets aside the evidence and
the statements of Jerome in this manner :—‘ The one
who says he had seen the [Hebrew] gospel is Jerome;
but his evidence about it is so conflicting that it is not
worth a rush. First he says he has seen it, and is sure
that it is the original of the Greek gospel; then he
softens down with ‘it is called by most people Matthew’s
authentic,’ ‘as most believe,’ and so on. Now pe says,
‘Who translated it into Greek is unknown;’ and pre-
sently, with amusing self-complacency and oblivious-
ness, he tells us, “1 myself translated it into Greek and
Latin!’ Why there is not a small-debt court in the
country where such a witness would not be hooted to the
door.” Would such modes of reasoning be adopted if it
were’ not desired to mystify the subject? Who cannot
see that Jerome says that it is unknown who had made
the Greek translation then current for centuries? And
who imagines that he identified with that version the
one which he had recently made from the document
found at Beroea? But thus it is that ‘his is substituted
for argument on this subject. Dr. Land, in the Jowrnal
of Sacred Literature, Oct. 1858, boldly asserts, “‘ We may
safely say that there is, in probability as well as in direct
testimony, a weight as heavy in the scale of the Greek
text as in that of the Hebrew, not to go farther.” But,
| in fact, there is no testimony, direct or indirect, for
a Greek original of St. Matthew.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
the people amongst whom he laboured. Cyrillus
appears to have died at Rome in 868, while
Methodius continued for many years to be the
bishop of the Slavonians. He is stated to have
continued his brother’s translation, although /ow
much they themselves actually executed is quite un-
certain; perhaps much of the Old Testament was
not translated at all in that age, possibly not for
many centuries after.
The Old Testament is, as might be supposed, a
version from the LXX., but what measure of re-
vision it may since have received seems to be by no
means certain. As the oldest known MS. of the
whole Bible is of the year 1499, it may reasonably
be questioned whether this version may not in large
portions be comparatively modern. This could only
be set at rest by a more full and accurate know-
ledge being obtained of Slavonic Biblical MSS.
Dobrowsky however mentions (Griesbach’s Gr. Test.
ii., xxxiii.) that this MS. (his 1), and two others
copied from it, are the only Slavonic MSS. of the
entire Bible existing in Russia. If it be correct
that the MSS. which he terms 2 and 3 are copied
from this, there are strong reasons for believing that
it was not completed for some years subsequently
to 1499. The oldest MSS. of any part of this ver-
sion is an Evangeliarium, in Cyrillic characters, of
the year 1056; that at Rheims (containing the
Gospels) on which the kings of France used to take
their coronation oath, is nearly as old. One, con-
taining the Gospels, at Moscow, is of the year 1144.
The first printed portion was an edition of the
Gospels in Wallachia, in 1512; in 1575 the same
portion was printed at Wilna; and in 1681 the
whole Bible was printed at Ostrog in Volhynia;
from this was taken the Moscow edition of 1663, in
which, however, there was some revision, at least so
far as the insertion of 1 John v. 7 is concerned.
Wetstein cited a few readings from this version ;
Alter made more extracts, which were used by
Griesbach, together with the collations sent to him
by Dobrowsky, both from MSS. and printed edi-
tions. We thus can say, with some confidence,
that the general text is such as would have been
expected in the ninth century : some readings from
the Latin have, it appears, been introduced in
places: this arises probably from the early Slavonian
custom of reading the Gospel in Latin before they
did it in their own tongue.
Dobrowsky paid particular attention in his colla-
tions to the copies of the Apocalypse: it has been,
however, long suspected that that book formed no
portion of this version as originally made. We can
now go farther and say definitely that the Apo-
calypse, as found in some at least of the Slavonic
copies, cou/d not be anterior to the appearance of
the first edition of the Gr, Test. of Erasmus in
1516. For there are readings in the Apocalypse of
g Handschriftliche Funde von Franz Delitzsch. Erstes
Heft, Die Erasmischen Entstellungen des Textes der
Apocalypse, nachgewiesen aus dem verloren geglaubten
Codex Reuchlini, 1861.
Handschriftliche Funde von Franz Delitzsch, mit Bei-
triigen von S. P. Tregelles. Zweites Heft, neue Studien
iiber den Codex Reuchlini, &c., 1862. [Also with the
English Title, “ Manuscript Discoveries by Francis De-
litzsch, with additions by S. P. Tregelles. Part IL, New
Studies on the Codex Reuchlini, and new results in the
textual history of the Apocalypse, drawn from the
libraries of Munich, Vienna, Rome, &c., 1862.” ]
h This Greek authority is the one denoted by 92.
Tischendorf (following a misprint in Tregelles’s Greek
1625
Erasmus which are entirely devoid of any support
from Greek MSS. This can be said confidently,
since the one Greek copy used by Erasmus has been
identified and described by Prof. Delitzsch.g It is
now therefore known that peculiarities as to error
in Erasmus’s text of the Apocalypse, as it first
appeared, are in several places due not to the
MS. from which he drew, but to the want of care
in his edition. And thus, whatever agrees with
such peculiarities must depend on, and thus be
subsequent to, the Erasmian text. In Rev. ii. 13,
the Erasmian text has the peculiar reading, ἐν
ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐμαῖς ; for this no MS. was cited
by Griesbach, and all his authority, besides the
Erasmian edition, was in fact “ Slav. 3, 4,” 7. e.
two MSS. collated by Dobrowsky ; one of these is
said by him to be copied from the oldest Slavonic
MS. of the whole Bible: if, therefore, it agrees
with it in this place, it shows that the Slavonic
MS. must, in that part at least, be later than the
year 1516. The only Greek authority for this
reading, ἐμαῖς, is the margin of 92, the Dublin
MS., famous as containing 1 John v. 7: in which
the Gospels belong to the end of the fifteenth cen-
tury; the Acts and Epistles are somewhat later. and
the Apocalypse was added about the year 1580."
There seems to be another Slavonic text of the
Apocalypse contained in Dobrowsky’s 10, but
whether it is older than the one already mentioned
is doubtful. fs. P. T.]
SYRIAC VERSIONS. I. OF THE OLD TEsTA-
MENT.
A. From the Hebrew.—In the early times of
Syrian Christianity there was executed a version
of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, the
use of which must have been as widely extended as
was the Christian profession amongst that people.
Ephraem the Syrian, in the latter half of the 4th
century, gives:abundant proof of its use in general
by his countrymen. When he calls it OUR VER-
Vv 7
¥
SION, caaso, it does not appear to be in op-
position to any other Syriac translation (for no
other can be proved to have then existed), but in
contrast to the original Hebrew text, or to those
in other languages.i At a later period this Sy-
oO
riac translation was designated Peshito, Liles
(Simple); or, as in the preface of Bar-Hebraeus to
2 a
his Thesaurus Arcanorum, [Agwae Ἰλωϑιδο
(Simple version). It is probable that this name was
applied to the version after another had been
formed from the Hexaplar Greek text. In the
translation made from Origen’s revision of the
LXX., the critical marks introduced by him were
retained, and thus every page and every part was
and English Revelation, 1844) gives it 91**. That would
signify a correction in a later hand in 91; which is the
modern supplement to the Vatican MS., in which such
a correction has been sought in vain.
i Ephraemi Opera Syr. i. 380 (on 1 Sam. xxiv. 4). He
is simply comparing the Hebrew phrase and the Syriac
avy δ σι - ~ v
version: — [a3 ? (os ya -“}) Ss
vy
won (MPITMY Ἴ5Π0) aero
Buy, a ¥ ρ Φ ¥. bd eh" f
excl 4X20 |iSo] cloaks,
1626
marked with asterisks and obeli, from which the
translation from the Hebrew was free. It might,
therefore, be but natural tor a bare text to be thus
designated, in contrast to the marks and the cita-
tions of the different Greek translators found in the
version from the Hexaplar Greek. This translation
from the Hebrew has always been the ecclesiastical
version of the Syrians; and when it is remembered
how in the Sth century dissensions and divisions
were introduced into the Syrian Churches, and how
trom that time the Monophysites and those termed
Nestorians have been in a state of unhealed oppo-
sition, it shows not only the antiquity of this ver-
sion, but also the deep and abiding hold which it
must have taken on the mind of the people, that
this version was firmly held fast by both of these
opposed parties, as well as by those who adhere to the
Greek Church, and by the Maronites. Its existence
and use prior to their divisions is sufficiently proved
by Ephraem alone, But how much older it is than
that deacon of Edessa we have no evidence. From
Bar-Hebraeus (in the 13th century) we learn that
there were three opinions as to its age; some say-
ing that the version was made in the reigns of
Solomon and Hiram, some that it was translated
by Asa, the priest who was sent by the King of
Assyria to Samaria, and some that the version was
made in the days of Adai the ‘apostle and of Abga-
rus, King of Osrhoene (at which time, he adds, the
Simple version of the New Test. was also made).*
The first of these opinions of course implies that
the books written before that time were then trans-
lated; indeed, a limitation of somewhat the same
kind would apply to the second. The ground of
the first opinion seems to have been the belief that
the Tyrian king was a convert to the profession of the
true and revealed faith held by the Israelites ; and
that the possession of Holy Scripture in the Syriac
tongue (which they identified with his own) was a
necessary consequence of this adoption of the true
belief: this opinion is mentioned as having been
held by some of the Syrians in the 9th century.
The second opinion (which does not appear to have
been cited from any Syriac writer prior to Bar-
Hebraeus), seems to have some connexion with the
formation of the Samaritan version of the Penta-
teuch, As that version is in an Aramaean dialect,
any one who supposed that it was made immedi-
ately after the mission of the priest from Assyria,
might say that it was then first that an Aramaean
translation was executed; and this might after-
wards, in a sort of indefinite manner, have been
connected with what the Syrians themselves used.
James of Edessa (in the latter half of the 7th cen-
tury) had held the third of the opinions mentioned
by Bar-Hebraeus, who cites him in support of it,
and accords with it.
It is highly improbable that any part of the
Syriac version is older than the advent of our Lord ;
those who placed it under Abgarus, King of Edessa,
seem to have argued on the account that the Syrian
people then received Christianity; and thus they
supposed that a version of the Scriptures was a
necessary accompaniment of such conversion. All
that the account shows clearly is, then, that, it was
believed to belong to the earliest. period of the
Christian faith among them: an opinion with
which all that we know on the subject accords well.
Thus Ephraem, in the 4th century, not only shows
that it was then current, but also gives the im-
k Wiseman, Horae Syriacaé, 90.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
pression that this had even then been long the case.
For in his commentaries he gives explanations of
terms which were even then obscure. This might
have been from age: if so, the version was made
comparatively long before his days: or it might
be from its having been in a dialect different from
that to which he was accustomed at Edessa. In
this case, then, the translation was made in some
other part of Syria; which would hardly have
been done, unless Christianity had at such a time
been more diffused there than it was at Edessa.
The dialect of that city is stated to have been the
purest Syriac; if, then, the version was made for
that place, it would no doubt have been a monu-
ment of such purer dialect. Probably the origin of
the Old Syriac version is to be compared with that
of the Old Latin [see VULGATE | ; and that it differed
as much from the polished language of Edessa as did
the Old Latin, made in the African Province, from
the contemporary writers of Rome, such as Tacitus.
Even though the traces of the origin of this ver-
sion of the Old Test. be but few, yet it is of im-
portance that they should be marked; for the Old
Syriac has the peculiar value of being the first ver-
sion from the Hebrew original made for Christian
use; and, indeed, the only translation of the kind
before that of Jerome, which was made subse-
quently to the time when Ephraem wrote. This
Syriac commentator may have termed it ‘* OUR ver-
sion,” in contrast to all others then current (for
the Targums were hardly versions), which were
merely reflections of the Greek and not of the
Hebrew original.
The proot that this version was made from the
Hebrew is twofold: we have the direct statements
of Ephraem, who compares it in places with the
Hebrew, and speaks of this origin as a fact; and
who is confirmed (if that had been needful) by later
Syrian writers ; we find the same thing as evident
from the internal examination of the version itself.
Whatever internal change or revision it may have
received, the Hebrew groundwork of the translation
is unmistakable. Such indications of revision must
be afterwards briefly specified.
The first printed edition of this version was that
which appeared in the Paris Polyglott of Le Jay in
1645; it is said that the editor, Gabriel Sionita, a
Maronite, had only an imperfect MS., and that,
besides errors, it was defective as to whole passages, _
and even as to entire books. This last charge seems
to be so made as if it were to imply that books
were omitted besides those of the Apocrypha, a
part which Sionita confessedly had not. He is
stated to have supplied the deficiencies by translat-
ing into Syriac from the Vulgate. It can hardly
be supposed but that there is some exaggeration in
these statements. Sionita may have filled up occa-
sional hiatus in his MS.; but it requires very defi-
nite examination before we can fully credit that he
thus supplied whoie books. It seems needful to
believe that the defective books were simply those
in the Apocrypha, which he did not supply. The
result, however, is, that the Paris edition is but an
infirm groundwork for our speaking with confidence
of the text of this version.
In Walton’s Polyglott, 1657, the Paris text is
reprinted, but with the addition of the Apocryphal
books which had been wanting. It was generally
said that Walton had done much to amend the
texts upon MS, authority; but the late Prof. Lee
denies this, stating that “the only addition made
by Walton was some Apocryphal books,” From
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC) 1627
Walton’s Polyglott, Kirsch, in 1787, published a
separate edition of the Pentateuch, Of the Syriac
Psalter there have been many editions. The first
of these, as mentioned by Kichhorn, appeared in
1610; it has by the side an Arabic version. In
1625 there were two editions; the one at Paris
edited by Gabriel Sionita, and one at Leyden by
Erpenius from two MSS. ‘These have since been
repeated ; but anterior to them all, it is mentioned
that the seven penitential Psalms appeared at Rome
in 1584,
In the punctuation given in the Polyglotts, a
system was introduced which was in part a pecu-
liavity of Gabriel Sionita himself. This has to be
borne in mind by those who use either the Paris
Polyglott or that of Walton; for in many words
there is a redundancy of vowels, and the torm of
some is thus exceedingly changed.
When the British and Foreign Bible Society pro-
posed more than forty years ago to issue the Syriac
Old Testament for the first time in a separate
volume, the late Prof. Lee was employed to make
such editorial preparations, as could be connected
with a mere revision of the text, without any speci-
fication of the authorities. Dr. Lee collated for the
purpose six Syriac MSS. of the Old Test. in general,
and a very ancient copy of the Pentateuch: he also
used in part the coramentaries of Ephraem and of
Bar-Hebraeus. From these various sources he
constructed his text, with the aid of that found
already in the Polyglotts. Of course the corrections
depended on the editor’s own judgment; and the
want of a specification of the results of collations
leaves the reader in doubt as to what the evidence
may be in those places in which there is a departure
from the Polyglott text. But though more in-
formation might be desired, we have in the edition
of Lee a veritable Syriac text, from Syriac autho-
rities, and free from the suspicion of having been
formed in modern times, by Gabriel Sionita’s trans-
lating portions from the Latin.
But we have now in this country, in the MS.
treasures brought from the Nitrian valleys, the
means of far more accurately editing this version.
Kven if the results should not appear to be striking,
a thorough use of these MSS. would place this
yersion on such a basis of diplomatic evidence as
would show positively how this earliest Christian
translation from the Hebrew was read in the 6th or
7th century, or possibly still earlier:! we thus
could use the Syriac with a fuller degree of con-
fidence in the criticism of the Hebrew text, just as
we can the more ancient versions of the new for
the criticism of the Greek.
In the beginning of 1849, the late excellent
Biblical scholar, the Rev. John Rogers, Canon of
Exeter, published “ Reasons why a New Edition
of the Peschito, or ancient Syriac Version of the
Old Testament, should be published.” In this in-
teresting pamphlet, addressed to the late Abp. of
Canterbury, Canon Rogers speaks of the value of
the version itself, its importance in criticism, the
existing editions, their defects, the sources of emen-
dation now possessed by this country, in the
Nitrian MSS. especially, ‘ now [1849] under the
care of the Rev. Wm. Cureton, who is making
known to the public the treasures of the library of
the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the Nitrian
desert in Egypt, thus happily obtained.” He
1 The Pentateuch could probably be given on a basis
of the fifth century.
adverts to the facility which would be afforded for
the proper publication of the proposed edition,
from type having been of late prepared representing
the proper Estrangelo Syriac character, of which
Dr. Cureton was even then making use in printing
his text of the Syriac Gospels, &c. If it had been an
honour to this country to issue the collations of
Kennicott for the Hebrew Old Test., and of Holmes
for the LXX., might not this proposed Syriac edi-
tion be a worthy successor to such works? The
plan proposed by Canon Rogers for its execution
was this:—to take the Svriac MS. which appeared
to be the best in each portion of the Old Test., both
on the ground of goodness and antiquity: let this
be printed, and then let collations be made by
various scholars in interleaved copies; the whole
of the results might then be published in the same
form as De Rossi’s Variae Lectiones to the Hebrew
Bible. Canon Rogers gives a few hints as to what
he thought would be probable results from such
a collation. He did not expect that the differences
from the printed Syriac would be very great; but
still there would be a far greater satisfaction as to
the confidence with which this version might be
quoted, especially in connexion with the criticism
of the Hebrew original. By way of illustration he
pointed out a good many passages, in which it can
hardly be doubted that the defects in the printed
Syriac arise from the defectiveness of the copy or
copies on which it was based. He also showed it
to be a point of important inquiry, whether in places
in which the printed Syriac agrees with the LXX.,
the Syriac has been altered ; or whether both may
preserve the more ancient reading of Hebrew copies
once extant. The reasons why such a Syriac text
should be prepared and published, and why such
collations should be made, are thus summed up by
Canon Rogers: ‘ 1st. Because we have no printed
text from ancient and approved MSS, 2nd. Be-
cause the Latin version in Walton’s Polyglott often
fails to convey the sense of the Syriac. 3rd. Be-
cause there are many omissions in the printed text
which may perhaps be supplied in a collation of
early MSS. 4th. Because the facilities now given
to the study ot Hebrew make it desirable that new
facilities should also be given to the study of the
cognate languages. 5th. Because it is useless to
accumulate ancient and valuable Biblical MSS. at
the British Museum, if those MSS. are not applied
to the purposes of sacred criticism. 6th. Because
in comparing the Syriac with the Hebrew original,
many points of important and interesting investi-
gation will arise. Finally, Because it is neither
creditable to the literary character of the age, nor
to the theological position of the Church of Eng-
land, that one of our most ancient versions of the
Bible should continue in its present neglected state.”
These considerations of the late Canon Rogers are
worthy of being thus repeated, not only’ as being
the deliberate judgment of a good Biblical scholar,
but also as pointing out practically the objects to
be sought in making proper use of the Biblical
materials which are at our hands, and of which
the scholars of former ages had not the benefit.
There was a strong hope expressed soon after the
issue of Canon Rogers’s appeal, that the work would
have been formally placed in a proper manner in the
hands of the Rev. Wm. Cureton, and that thus it
would have been accomplished under his superin-
tendence, at the Oxford University Press. Canon
Rogers announced this in an Appendix to his
pamphlet. But this has not been effected. It may
1628
still be hoped that Dr. Cureton will edit at least
the Pentateuch from a very ancient copy: but
there is not now in this country the practical en-
couragement to such Biblical studies as require the
devotion of time, labour, and attention (as well as
pecuniary expense), which in the last century Ken-
nicott and Holmes received.
But if the printed Syriac text rests on by no
means a really satisfactory basis, it may be asked,
How can it be said positively that what we have is
the same version substantially that was used by
Ephraem in the 4th century? Happily, we have
the same means of identifying the Syriac with that
anciently used, as we have of showing that the
modern Latin Vulgate is substantially the version
executed by Jerome. We admit that the common
printed Latin has suffered in various ways, and yet
at the bottom and in its general texture it is un-
doubtedly the work of Jerome: so with the Peshito
of the Old Test., whatever errors of judgment were
committed by Gabriel Sionita, the first editor, and
however little has been done by those who should
have corrected these things on MS. authority, the
identity of the version is too certain for it to be
thus destroyed, or even (it may be said) materially
obscured.
From the citations of Ephraem, and the single
words on which he makes remarks, we have sufli-
cient proof of the identity of the version: even
though at times he also furnishes proof that the
copies as printed are not exactly as he read. The
following may be taken as instances of accordance :
they are mostly from the places (see Wiseman, H.
Syr. 122, &c.) in which Ephraem thinks it needful
to explain a Syrian word in this version, or to
discuss its meaning, either from its having become
antiquated in his time, or from its being unused in
the same sense by the Syrians of Edessa. Thus,
ρ
Gen. i. 1, δα is used in Syriac as answering to
the Hebrew DN. The occurrence of this word
Ephraem mentions, giving his own explanation:
n» ~~
i. 2, Mado σιοξ; x. 9, for ἽΝ TD3, the
δρ vy
Syriac has {3 2: oeaed, which Ephraem men-
tions as being a term which the Persians also use.
vy
m
Gen. xxx. 14, for Ὁ there is ἰωο;.., a
word which Ephraem mentions as being there,
and the possible meaning of which he discusses.
oa Ά ρ
Exod. xxviii. 4, {scoy ἐξ stands for the Hebrew
σι
wn; Ephraem reads it Ἰλοογμςϑ, and explains
the meaning :—xxxviii, 4, Noro (73312) ;
xxxviii. 16, Jago (PNP); xxviii, 40,
Jado (MY22D) ; Num. xi, 7, for δ there is
/2;2.009, a word equally, it seems, meaning
coriander ; which was, however, unknown to Eph-
raem, who expounds it as though it meant food of
Oo v vi a
all kinds, as if 2: Ξ IC 1 Sam. xxiii. 28,
Qa
-
“Ὁ ρ
SoS1m for 00; 2 Sam. viii, 7, SS, |
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
merely retaining the Hebrew word apo in a
on-m
Syriac form. 1K. x. 11, |Zomo (ΡΟΝ;
ΨΥ δ ey We)
xii. 11, bo (DYSTPY). 2K. πὶ, 4, Jeo
. δ Ἶ
(IP 33) ; Job xxxix. 23, lopadio (ἙΝ);
- Υ
sli. 18, οἰξσιδν, 2, the Heb. OTDM. 15. iii, 22,
Φ ὩΣ: ρ yy) < ‘ Dp OD m7
[eto Naso (MIND); Jerli41, [Dare]
ei δ ρ
CW), Zech. v. τ, [DNap (TDN). In these
passages, and in several others, the words of the
Peshito are cited by Ephraem because of their
obscurity, and of the need that they had of
explanation.
The proof that the version which has come down
to us is substantially that used by the Syrians in
the 4th century, is perhaps more definite from the
comparison of words than it would have been from
the comparison of passages of greater length; be-
cause in longer citations there always might be
some ground for thinking that perhaps the MS. of
Ephraem might have been conformed to later Syriac
copies of the Sacred Text; while, with regard to
peculiar words, no such suspicion can have any
place, since it is on such words still found in the
Peshito that the remarks of Ephraem are based.
The fact that he sometimes cites it differently from
what we now read, only shows a variation of copies,
perhaps ancient, or perhaps such as is found merely
in the printed text that we have.
From Ephraem having mentioned translators of
this version, it has been concluded that it was the
work of several: a thing probable enough in itself,
but which could hardly be proved from the occur-~
rence of a casual phrase, nor yet from variations in
the rendering of the same Hebrew word; such va-
riations being found in almost all translations, even
when made by one person—that of Jerome, for
instance ; and which it would be almost impossible
to avoid, especially before the time when concord-
ances and lexicons were at hand. Variations in
phraseology give a far surer ground for supposing
several translators.
It has been much discussed whether this transla-
tion were a Jewish or a Christian work. Some,
who have maintained that the translator was a Jew,
have argued from his knowledge of Hebrew and
his mode of rendering. But these considerations
prove nothing. Indeed, it might well be doubted
if in that age a Jew would have formed anything
except a Chaldee Targum; and thus diffuseness of
paraphrase might be expected instead of closeness of
translation. There need be no reasouable objection
made to the opinion that it is a Christian work.
Indeed it is difticult to suppose, that before the dif-
fusion of Christianity in Syria, the version could
have been needed.
It may be said that the Syriac in general sup-
ports the Hebrew text that we have: how far argu-
ments may be raised upon minute coincidences or
variations cannot be certainly known until the an-
cient text of the version is better established. Oc-
casionally, however, it is clear that the Syriac
translator read one consonant for another in the
Hebrew, and translated accordingly ; at times
another vocalization of the Hebrew was followed.
A resemblance has been pointed out between the
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
Syriac and the reading of some of the Chaldee Tar-
gums: if the Targum is the older, it is not unlikely
that the Syriac translator, using every aid in his
power to obtain an accurate knowledge of what he
was rendering, examined the Targums in difficult
passages. This is not the place for formally discuss-
ing the date and origin of the Targums [see below,
TaRGuMs] ; but if (as seems almost certain) the
Targums which have come down to us are almost
without exception more recent than the Syriac
version, still they are probably the successors of ear-
lier Targums, which by amplification have reached
their present shape. Thus, if existing Targums
are more recent than the Syriac, it may happen
that their coincidences arise from the use of a
common source—an earlier Targum.
But there is another point of inquiry of more
importance: it is, how far has this version been
affected by the LXX.? and to what are we to attri-
bute this influence? It is possible that the influence
of the LXX. is partly to be ascribed to copyists and
revisers; while in part this belonged to the version
as originally made. For, if a translator had access
to another version while occupied in making his
own, he might consult it in cases of difficulty ; and
thus he might unconsciously follow it in other
parts. Even knowing the words of a particular
translation may affect the mode of rendering in
another translation or revision. And thus a tinge
from the LXX. may have easily existed .in this ver-
sion from the first, even though in whole books it
may not be found at all. But when the extensive
use of the LXX. is remembered, and how soon it
was superstitiously imagined to have been made by
direct inspiration, so that it was deemed canonically
authoritative, we cannot feel wonder that readings
from the LXX. should have been from time to time
introduced; this may have commenced probably
before a Syriac version had been made trom the
Hexaplar Greek text ; because in such revised text
of the LXX. the additions, &c., in which that ver-
sion differed from the Hebrew, would be so marked
that they would hardly seem to be the authoritative
and genuine text.
Some comparison with the Greek is probable even
before the time of Ephraem ; for, as to the Apocry-
phal books, while he cites some of them (though
not as Scripture), the Apocryphal additions to
Daniel and the Books of Maccabees were not yet
found in Syriac. Whoever translated any of these
books from the Greek, may easily have also com-
pared with it in some places the books previousiy
translated from the Hebrew.
In the Book of Psalms this version exhibits many
peculiarities. Either the translation of the Psalter
must be a work independent of the Peshito in
general, or else it has been strangely revised and
altered, not only from the Greek,™ but also from
liturgical use. Perhaps, indeed, the Psalms are a
diflerent version; and that in this respect the prac-
tice of the Syrian Churches is like that of the
Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England
in using liturgically a different version of the book
so much read ecclesiastically.
It is stated that, after the divisions of the Syrian
Church, there were revisions of this one version by
the Monophy: sites and by the Nestorians: probably
1629
it would be found, if the subject could be fully
investigated, that there were in the hands of dif-
ferent parties copies in which thie ordinary accidents
of transcription had introduced variations.
The Karkaphensian recension mentioned by Bar-
Hebraeus was only known by name prior to the
investigations of Wiseman ; it is found in two MSS.
in the Vatican; it was formed for the use of
Monophysites; there is peculiarity in the punc-
tuation introduced, by a leaning towards the
Greek ; but it is, as to its substance, the Peshito
version.
Β. The Syriac version from the Hexaplar Greek
Text.—The only Syriac version of the Old Test.
up to the 6th century was apparently the Peshito.
The first definite intimation of a portion of the
Old Testament translated trom the Greek is through
Moses Aghelaeus. This Syriac writer lived in the
middle of the 6th century. He made a translation
of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria from Greek
into Syriac ; and, in the prefixed Epistle, he speaks
of the versions of the New Test. and the Psalter,
** which Polycarp (vest his soul!), the Chorepiscopus,
made in Syriac for the faithful Xenaias, the teacher
of Mabug, worthy, of the memory of the good.””"
We thus see that a Syriac version of the Psalms
had a similar origin to the Philoxenian Syriac New
Test. We know that the date of the latter was
A.D. 5083; the Psalter was probably a contempo-
raneous work. It is said that the Nestorian patri-
arch, Marabba, A.D. 552, made a version from the
Greek; it does not appear to be in existence, so
that, if ever it was completely executed, it was
probably superseded by the Hexaplar version of
Paul of Tela; indeed Paul may have used it
as the basis of his work, adding marks of refer-
ence, &c,
This version by Paul of Tela, a Monophysite,
was made in the beginning of the 7th century ; for
its basis he used the Hexaplar Greek text—that is,
the LXX., with the corrections of Origen, the aster-
isks, obeli, &c., and with the references to the other
Greek versions.
The Syro-Hexaplar version was made on the
principle of following the Greek, word for word, as
exactly as possible. It contains the marks intro-
duced by Origen; and the references to the versions
of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, &c. In fact,
it is from this Syriac version that we obtain our
most accurate acquaintance with the results of the
critical labours of Origen.
Andreas Masius, in his edition of the Book of
Joshua,° first used the results of this Syro-Hexa-
plar text; for, on the authority of a MS. in his
possession, he revised the Greek, introducing aster-
isks and obeli, thus showing what Origen had done,
how much he had inserted in the text, and what
he had marked as not found in the Hebrew. The
Syriac MS. used by Masius has been long lost;
though in this day, after the récovery of the Codex
Reuchlini of the Apocalypse (from which Erasmus
first edited that book) by Prof. Delitzsch, it could
hardly be a cause for surprise if this Syriac Codex
were again found.
It is from a MS. in the Ambrosian Library at
Milan that we possess accurate means of knowing
this Syriac version. The MS. in question contains
m Perhaps as to this the version of the Psalms from
the Greek made by Polycarp (to be mentioned presently)
has not been sufficiently taken into account. Indeed,
remarkably little attention appears to have been paid to
the evidence that such a version existed.
= Assemani, Bibliotheca Or ientalis, ii. 83; where,
however, the obscure Syriac is turned into still more ob-
scure Latin.
© Josuae imperatoris historia illustrata atque explicata
ab Andrea Masio. Antwerp, 1574.
1630
the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, minor prophets, Jeremiah,
Baruch, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. Norberg pub-
lished, at Lund in 1787, the Books of Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, from a transcript which he had made
of the MS. at Milan. In 1788, Bugati published
αὐ Milan the Book of Daniel; he also edited the
Psalms, the printing of which had been completed
before his death in 1816; it was published in
1820. The rest of the contents of the Milan Codex
(with the exception of the Apocryphal books) was
published at Berlin in 1835, by Middeldorpf, from
the transcript made by Norberg; Middeldorpf also
added the 4th (2nd) Book of Kings from a MS. at
Paris.
Besides these portions of this Syriac version, the
MSs. from the Nitrian monasteries now in the
British Museum would add a good deal more:
amongst these there are six, from which much
might be drawn, so that part of the Pentateuch
and other books may be recovered.P These MSS.
are like that at Milan, in having the marks of Ori-
gen in the text; the references to readings in the
margin; and occasionally the Greek word itself is
thus cited in Greek,
Dr. Antonio Ceriani, of the Ambrosian Library
at Milan, after having for a considerable time pro-
posed to edit the portions of the Syro-Hexaplar
Codex of Milan which had hitherto remained in
MS., commenced such a work in 1861 (Monwmenta
Sacra et Profana, Opera Collegii Bibliothecae
Ambrosianae), the first part of the Syriac text
being Baruch, Lamentations, and: the Epistle of
Jeremiah. To this work Ceriani subjoined a colla-
tion of some of the more important texts, and cri-
tical notes. A second part has since appeared. It
is to be hoped that he may thus edit the whole
MS., and that the other portions of this version
known to be extant may soon appear in print.
The value of this version for the criticism of the
LXX. is very great. It supplies, as far as a ver-
sion can, the lost work of Origen,
The list of versions of the Old Test. into Syriac
often appears to be very numerous; but on exami-
nation it is found that many translations, the names
of which appear in a catalogue, are really either
such as never had an actual existence, or else that
they are either the version from the Hebrew, or
else that from the Hexaplar text of the LXX., under
different names, or with some slight revision. To
enumerate the supposed versions is needless. It is
only requisite to mention that Thomas of Harkel,
whose work in the revision of a translation of the
New Test. will have to be mentioned, seems also to
have made a translation from the Greek into Syriac
of some of the Apocryphal books—at least, the sub-
scriptions in certain MSS. state this.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
11. THE Syrrac NEw TESTAMENT VERSIONS.
A. The Peshito Syriac N. T. (Text of Wid-
manstadt, and Cureton’s Gospels.)
In whatever forms the Syriac New Test. may
have existed prior to the time of Philoxenus (the
beginning of the sixth century), who caused a new
translation to be made, it will be more convenient
to consider all such most ancient translations or
revisions together; even though there may be rea-
sons afterwards assigned for not recarding the version
of the earlier ages of’ Christianity as absolutely one.
It may stand as an admitted fact that a ver-
sion of the New Test. in Syriac existed in the
2nd century ; and to this we may refer the state-
ment of Kusebius respecting Hegesippus, that he
“‘made quotations from the Gospel according to the
Hebrews and the Syriac,” ἔκ τε Tod καθ᾽ ‘EBpat-
ous εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ (Hist. Lecl.
iv. 22). It seems equally certain that in the 4th
century such a version was as well known of the
New Test. as of the Old. It was the companion of
the Old Test. translation made from the Hebrew,
and as such was in habitual use in the Syriac
Churches. ΤῸ the translation in common use
amongst the Syrians, orthodox, Monophysite, or
Nestorian, from the 5th century and onward, the
name of Peshito has been as commonly applied in
the New Test. as the Old. In the 7th century at
least the version so current acquired the name of
εν», old, in contrast to that which was then
formed and revised by the Monophysites.
Though we have no certain data as to the origin
of this version, it is probable on every ground that
a Syriac translation of the New Test. was an ac-
companiment of that of the Old ; whatever therefore
bears on the one, bears on the other also,
There seem to be but few notices of the old
Syriac Version in early writers. Cosmas Indico-
pleustes, in the former half of the 6th century, inci-
dentally informs us that the Syriac translation does
not contain the Second Epistle of Peter, ‘2 and 5
John, and Jude. This was found to be correct
when a thousand years afterwards this ancient
translation became again known to Western scholars.
In 1552, Moses of Mardin came to Rome to Pope
Julius III., commissioned by Ignatius the Jacobite
(Monophysite) patriarch, to state his religious opi-
nions, to effect (it is said) a union with the Romish
Church, and to get the Syriac New Test. printed.
In this last object Moses failed both at Rome and
Venice. At Vienna he was, however, successful.
Widmanstadt, the chancellor of the Emperor Ferdi-
nand I., had himself learned Syriac from Theseus
Ambrosius many years previously ; and through his
influence the emperor undertook the charge of an
P The following is the notation of these MSS., and their
contents and dates :—
12,133 (besides the Peshito Exodus) ; Joshua (defective),
cent. vii. “ Translated from a Greek MS, of the Hex-
apla, collated with one of the Tetrapla.”
12,134, Exodus. A.D. 697.
14,434, Psalms formed from two MSS. cent. viii. (with the
Song of the Three Children subjoined to the second).
Both MSS. are defective. Subscription, “ According to
the LXX.”
14,437, Numbers and 1 Kings, defective (cent. vii. or
viii.). The subscription to 1 Kings says that it was
translated into Syriac at Alexandria in the year 927
(A.D. 616).
14,442, Genesis, defective (with 1 Sam. Peshito).
cording to the LXX.” (cent. vi.).
17,103, Judges and Ruth, defective (cent. vii. or viii.).
Subscription to Judges, “ According to the LXX.;” to
Xuth, “‘ From the Tetrapla of the LXX.”
«Ac
The notes on these MSS. made by the present writer
in 1857 have been kindly compared and amplified by Mr.
William Wright of the British Museum.
A0rdam issued at Copenhagen in 1859 the first portion
of an edition of the MS. 17,103: another part has since
been published. Some of these MSS. were written in the
same century in which the version was made. They
may probably be depended on as giving the text with
general accuracy.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
edition, which appeared in 1555, through the joint
labours of Widmanstadt, Moses, and Postell. Some
copies were afterwards issued with the date of 1562
on the back of the title.4
In having only three Catholic epistles, this Syriac
New Test. agreed with the description of Cosmas ; the
Apocalypse was also wanting, as well as the section
John viii. 1-11; this last omission, and some other
points, were noticed in the list of errata. The
editors appear to have followed their MSS. with
great fidelity, so that the edition is justly valued.
In subsequent editions endeavours were made con-
jecturally to amend the text by introducing 1 John
v. 7 and other portions which do not belong to this
translation. One of the principal editions is that
of Leusden and Schaaf; in this the text is made as
full as possible by supplying every lacuna from
any source; in the punctuation there is a strange
peculiarity, that in the former part Leusden chose
to follow a sort of Chaldee analogy, while on his
death Schaaf introduced a regular system of Syriac
vocalization through all the rest of the volume.
The Lexicon which accompanies this edition is of
great value. This edition was first issued in 1708:
more copies, however, have the date 1709; while
some have the false and dishonest statement on the
title page, ** Secunda editio a mendis purgata,” and
the date 1717. The late Professor Lee published
an edition in 1816, in which he corrected or altered
the text on the authority of a few MSS. This is so
far independent of that of Widmanstadt. It is,
however, very far short of being really a critical
edition. In 1828, the edition of Mr. William
Greenfield (often reprinted from the stereotype
plates), was published by Messrs. Bagster: in this
the text of Widmanstadt was followed (with the
vowels fully expressed), and with certain supple-
ments within brackets from Lee’s edition. For the
collation with Lee’s text Greenfield was not re-
sponsible. There are now in this country excellent
materials for the formation of a critical edition of
this version: it may, however, be said, that as in
its first publication the MSS. employed were ho-
nestly used, it is in the text of Widmanstadt in a far
better condition than is the Peshito Old Testament.
This Syriac Version has been variously esti-
mated: some have thought that in it they had a
genuine and unaltered monument of the second, or
perhaps even of the first century. They thus na-
turally upheld it as almost co-ordinate in authority
with the Greek text, and as being of a period ante-
rior to any Greek copy extant. Others finding in
it indubitable marks of a jater age, were inclined
to deny that it had any claim to a very remote an-
tiquity; thus La Croze thought that the commonly
printed Syriac New Test. is not the Peshito at all,
1631
but the Philoxenian executed in the beginning of
the 6th century. The fact is, that this version as
transmitted to us contains marks of antiquity, and
also traces of a later age. The two things are so
blended, that if either class of phaenomena alone
were regarded, the most opposite opinions might be
formed. The opinion of Wetstein was one of the
most perverse that could be devised: he found in
this version readings which accord with the Latin ;
and then, acting on the strange system of criticism
which he adopted in his later years, he asserted
that any such accordance with the Latin was a
proof of corruption from that version : so that with
him the proofs of antiquity became the tokens of
later origin, and he thus assigned the translation to
the seventh century. With him the real indications
of later readings were only the marks of the very
reverse. Michaelis took very opposite ground to
that of Wetstein; le upheld its antiquity and au-
thority very strenuously. The former point could
be easily proved, if one class of readings alone were
considered; and this is confirmed by the contents
of the version itself. But on the other hand there
are difficulties, for very often readings of a much
more recent kind appear ; it was thus thought that
it might be compared with the Latin as found in
the Codex Brixianus, in which there is an ancient
groundwork, but also the work of a reviser is ma-
nifest. Thus the judgment formed by Griesbach
seems to be certainly the correct one as to the pecu-
liarity of the text of this version: he says (using
the terms proper to his system of recensions) ;
“« Nulli harum recensionum Syriaca versio, prout qui-
dem typis excusa est, similis, verum nec ulli prorsus
dissimilis est. In multis concinit cum Alexandrina
recensione, in pluribus cum Occideptali, in non-
nullis etiam cum Constantinopolitana, ita tamen ut
quae in hance posterioribus demum seculis invecta
sunt, pleraque repudiet. Diversis ergo temporibus
ad Graecos codices plane diversos iterum iterumque
recognita esse videtur” (Nov. Test. Proleg. \xxv.).
In a note Griesbach introduced the comparison of
the Codex Brixianus, “ Illustrari hoe potest codi-
cum nonnullorum Latinorum exemplo, qui priscam
quidem versionem ad Occidentalem recensionem ac-
commodatam representant, sed passim ad juniores
libros Graecos refictam. x hoc genere est Brixi-
anus Codex Latinus, qui non raro a Graeco-Latinis
et vetustioribus Latinis omnibus solus discedit, et
in Graecorum partes transit.’’* Some proof that
the text of the common printed Peshito has been
re-wrought, will appear when it is compared with
the Curetonian Syriac Gospels.
Let it be distinctly remembered that this is no
new opinion; that it is not the peculiar notion of
Tregvelles, or of any one individual; for as the
«4 The date of 1555 appears repeatedly in the body of
the volume; at the end of the Gospels, May 18, 1555 5
St. Paul’s Epp., July 18, 1555; Acts, Aug. 14, 1555;
Cath. Epp. and the conclusion, Sep. 27, 1555. The vo-
lume is dedicated to the Emperor Ferdinand, and the
contents mention three other dedications to other mem-
bers of the Imperial house. All of these three are often
wanting, and two of them, addressed to the Archdukes
Ferdinand and Charles, are not only generally wanting,
but it is even said that no copy is known in which they
are found.
r Griesbach’s most matured judgment on this subject
was thus given :—‘Interpolationes autem e locis Evan-
geliorum parallelis, quales apud Syrum, Matt. xxviii. 18,
Luc. ix. 39, item Matt. xxii. 22, 23, Mar. vi. 11, xiii. 14,
Luc. iv. 18, deprehenduntur, non magis quam addita-
menta e lectionariis libris in sacrum contextum traducta,
velut Luc. xv. 11, aut liturgicum illud assumentum Matt.
vi. 13, vitia sunt τῇ κοινῇ propria...... Quin plerasque
interpolationes modo enumeratas, cum aliis ejusmodi
generis multis, quae nunc in versione Syriaca extant,
primitus ab ea abfuisse et seriori demum tempore in eam
irrepsisse, plane mihi persuasum est. Verissime enim
clar. Hugius( ... coll. prolegomenis in majorem meam
N. T. editionem, Hal. 1796, vol. i. p. Ixxv.) animad-
vertit, versionem hanc a Diorthote quodam videri recog-
nitam fuisse ac castigatam. Id quod quinto seculo
ineunte, antequam ecclesiae orientales Nestorianis et
Monophysiticis rixis discinderentur, evenisse suspicor,
et in epistolis magis adhuc quam in Evangeliis locum
habuisse autumo.’ Commentarius Criticus, 11. Melete-
mata, li. lii. 1811.
1632
question has been re-opened, it has been treated as
if this were some theory newly invented to serve a
purpose. The Rey, F. H. Scrivener, whose labours
in the collation of Greek MSS., and whose care in
editing Codex Augiensis of St. Paul’s Epistles, de-
serve very high commendation, avowed himself
many years ago an ardent admirer of the Peshito-
Syriac. But even then he set aside its authority
very often when it happened to adhere to the
ancient Greek text, to the other ancient versions,
and to the early Fathers, in opposition to the later
copies. But when the judgment of Griesbach
respecting the common printed Syriac had been re-
peated and enforced by Tregelles (Horne’s Zntrod.
vol. iv. 265), Scrivener came forward as its cham-
pion. In his Introduction to Codex Augiensis, Mr.
Scrivener says, “ΗΟ is this divergency of the
Peshito version from the text of Codex B explained
by Tregelles? He feels of course the pressure of
the argument against him, and meets it, if not suc-
cessfully, with even more than his wonted boldness.
The translation degenerates in his hands into ‘ the
version commonly printed as the Peshito. Now
let us mark the precise nature of the demand here
made on our faith by Dr. Tregelles. He would
persuade us that the whole Eastern Church, dis-
tracted as it has been, and split into hostile sections
for the space of 1400 years, orthodox and Jacobite,
Nestorian and Maronite alike, those who could agree
in nothing else, have laid aside their bitter jealousies
in order to substitute in their monastic libraries and
liturgical services, another and a spurious version in
the room of the Peshito, that sole surviving mo-
nument of the first ages of the Gospel in Syria!
Nay, more, that this wretched forgery has deceived
Orientalists profound as Michaelis’ and Lowth, has
passed without suspicion through the ordeal of
searching criticism to which every branch of Satred
literature has been subjected during the last half
century! We will require solid reasons, indeed,
before we surrender ourselves to an hypothesis as
novel as it appears violently improbable” (pp. xiv.
xv.). Mr. Scrivener’s warmth of declamation might
have been spared: no one calls the Peshito ‘¢ a spu-
rious version,” ‘‘ wretched forgery,” &c., it is not
suggested that the Syrian Churches agreed in some
strange substitution: all that is suggested is, that
at the time of the transition Greek text, before the
disruption of the Syrian Churches, the then existing
Syriac version was revised and modernized in a way
analogous to that in which the Latin was treated
in Cod. Brixianus. On part of Mr. Scrivener’s
statements the Rev. F. J. A. Hort has well re-
marked :—** The text may have been altered and
corrupted between the first or second, and fifth cen-
turies. This is all that Dr. Tregelles has supposed,
though Mr. Scrivener assails him with unseemly
violence, as if he had represented the vulgar text as
“a wretched forgery.’ Mr. Scrivener’s rashness is
no less remarkable in calling this a ‘ novel hypo-
thesis,’ when in fact it is at least as old-as Gries-
bach . . . There is neither evidence nor internal
probability against the supposition that the Old
Syriac version was revised into its present form
- .. in the 4th or even 3rd century, to make
it accord with Greek MSS. then current at Antioch,
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
Edessa, or Nisibis: and without some such supposi-
tion the Syriac text must remain an inexplicable
phaenomenon, unless we bring the Greek and Latin
texts into conformity with it by contradicting the
full and clear evidence which we do possess respecting
them. All that we have now said might have been
allered before the Curetonian Syriac was discovered :
the case is surely strengthened in a high degree by
the appearance (in a MS. assigned to the 5th cen-
tury) of a Syriac version of the Gospels, bearing
clear marks of the highest antiquity in its manifest
errors as well as in its choicest readings. The ap-
propriation of the name “ Peshito,’ appears to us
wholly unimportant, except for rhetorical pur-
poses,”” t
These remarks of Mr. Hort will suffice in rescu-
ing the opinion stated by Tregelles from the charge
of novelty or rashness: indeed, the supposition as
stated by Griesbach, is a simple solution of various
difficulties ; for if this be not the fact, then every
other most ancient document or monument of the
New Test. must have been strangely altered in its
text. The number of difficulties (otherwise inex-
plicable) thus solved, is about a demonstration of
its truth. Mr. Scrivener, however, seems incapable
of apprehending that the revision of the Peshito is
an opinion long-ago held: he says since, “ 1 know no
other cause for suspecting the Peshito, than that its
readings do not suit Dr. Tregelles, and if this fact
be enough to convict it of corruption, I am quite
unable to vindicate it.”’" Why, then, do not the
readings “suit” Dr. Tregelles? Because, if they
were considered genuine, we should have (to use
Mr. Hort’s words) to ‘* bring the Greek and Latin
texts into conformity with it, by contradicting the
full and clear evidence which we do possess re-
specting them.”
Whether the whole of this version proceeded
from the same translator has been questioned. It
appears to the present- writer probable that the
New Test. of the Peshito is not from the same hand
as the Old. Not only may Michaelis be right in
supposing a peculiar translator of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, but also other parts may be from different
hands; this opinion will become more general the
more the version is studied. The revisions to which
the version was subjected may have succeeded in
part, but not wholly, in effacing the indications of a
plurality of translators. The Acts and Epistles
seem to be either more recent than the Gospels,
though far less revised ;- or else, if coeval, far more
corrected by later Greek MSS.
There is no sufficient reason for supposing that
this version ever contained the four Catholic
Epistles and the Apocalypse, now absent from it,
not only in the printed editions but also in the
MSS.
Some variations in copies of the Peshito have been
regarded as if they might be styled Monophysite
and Nestorian recensions: but the designation would
he far too definite; for the differences are not suf-
ficient to warrant the classification.
The MSS. of the Karkaphensian vecension (as it
has been termed) of the Peshito Old Test. contain
also the New with a similar character of text.
The Curetonian Syriac Gospels.—* Comparative
s Even Michaelis did not think it needful to assume
that the Peshito had been transmitted without any
change. “In using the Syriac version, we must never
forget that our present editions are very imperfect, and
not conclude that every reading of the Syriac printed
text was the reading of the Greek MS. of the first cen-
tury.” Marsh’s Michaelis, ii. 46
t Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (Cam-
bridge), Feb. 1860. 378-9.
« “Plain Introduction,” p. 424, foot-note.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
criticism”? shows the true character of every
document, whether previously known or newly
brought to light, which professes to contain the
early text of the New Test. By comparative cri-
ticism is not meant such a mode of examining
authorities as that to which Mr. Scrivener has
applied this term, but such a use of combined evi-
dence as was intended and defined by the critic by
whom the expression was (for convenience sake)
introduced: that is, the ascertainment that readings
are in ancient documents, or rest on ancient evi-
dence (whether early citations, versions, or MSS.),
and then the examination of what documents con-
tain such readings, and thus within what limits the
inquiry for the ancient text may be bounded. Thus
a document, in itself modern, may be proved to be
ancient in testimony: a version, previously un-
known, may be shown to uphold a very early text.
For purposes of comparative criticism early read-
ings, known to be false, have often as definite a value
in the chain of proof as those which are true. In
the process of comparative criticism nothing is as-
sumed, but point after point is established by inde-
pendent testimony ; and thus the character of the
text of MSS., of ancient versions, and of patristic
citations, is upheld by their accordance with facts
attested by other witnesses, of known age and cer-
tain transmission.
It was reasonable to suppose with Griesbach that
the Syriac version must at one time have existed in
a form different from that in the common printed
text: it was felt by Biblical scholars to be a mere
assumption that the name Peshito carried with it
‘some hallowed prestige; it was established that it
was a groundless imagination that this version,
as edited, had been known from the earliest ages
as the original monument of Syrian Christianity.
Hence if it could be shown that an earlier version
(or earlier basis of the same version) had existed,
there was not only no ἃ priori objection, but even
a demonstrated probability (almost certainty) that
this had been the case. When it is remembered
how little we know historically of the Syriac ver-
sions, it must be felt as an assumption that the
form of text common from the fifth century and
onward was the original version. In 1848 Tre-
gelles (see Davidson’s Introduction to the New Test.
vol. i. p. 429) suggested that “the Nitrian MSS.
when collated may exhibit perhaps an earlier text.”
This was written without any notion that it was
an ascertained fact that such a MS. of the Gospels
existed, and that the full attention of a thorough
Syriac scholar had been devoted to its illustration
and publication.
Among the MSS. brought from the Nitrian monas-
teries in 1842, Dr. Cureton noticed a copy of the
Gospels, differing greatly from the common text:
and this is the form of text to which the name of
1633
Curetonian Syriac has been rightly applied. Every
criterion which proves the common Peshito not to
exhibit a text of extreme antiquity, equally proves
the early origin of this. ‘The discovery is in fact
that of the object which was wanted, the want of
which had been previously ascertained. Dr. Cureton
considers that the MS. of the Gospels is of the fifth
century, a point in which all competent judges are
probably agreed. Some persons indeed have sought
to depreciate the text, to point out its differences
from the Peshito, to regard all such variations as
corruptions, and thus to stigmatise the Curetonian
Syriac as a corrupt revision of the Peshito, bar-
barous in language and false in readings.* This
peremptory judgment is as reasonable as if the old
Latin in the Codex Vercellensis were called an igno-
rant revision of the version of Jerome. The judg-
ment that the Curetonian Syriac is older than the
Peshito is not the peculiar opinion of Cureton,
Alford,y Tregelles, or Biblical scholars of the school
of ancient evidence in this country, but it is also
that of continental scholars, such as Ewald, and
apparently of the late Prof. Bleek.2
The MS. contains Matt. i.-viii. X. 31-xxiii.
25. Mark, the four last verses only. John i. 1-
42, iii. 6-vii. 37, xiv. 11-29; Luke ii, 48-iii. 16,
vii. 33-xv. 21, xvii. 24-xxiv. 41. It would have
been a thing of much value if a perfect copy of
this version had come down to us; but as it is,
we have reason greatly to value the discovery of
Dr. Cureton, which shows how truly those critics
haye argued who concluded that such a version
must have existed; and who regarded this as a
22
22;
proved fact, even when not only no portion of the
version was known to be extant, but also when even
the record of its existence was unnoticed. For
there is a record showing an acquaintance with this
version, to which, as well as to the version itself,
attention has been directed by Dr. Cureton. Bar
Salibi, bishop of Amida in the 12th century, in a
passage translated by Dr. C. (in discussing the omis-
sion of three kings in the genealogy in St. Matthew)
says :—‘ There is found occasionally a Syriac copy,
made out of the Hebrew, which inserts these three
kings in the genealozy; but that afterwards it
speaks of fourteen and not of seventeen generations,
because fourteen generations has been substituted
for seventeen by the Hebrews on account of their
holding to the septenary number,” &c.?
It shows then that Bar Salibi knew of a Syriac
text of the Gospels in which Ahaziah, Joash, and
Amaziah were inserted in Matt.i.8; there is the
same reading in the Curetonian Syriac: but this
might have been a coincidence. But in ver.
17 the Curetonian text has, in contradiction to
ver. 8, fourteen generations and not seventeen: and
so had the copy mentioned by Bar Salibi: the
former point might be a mere coincidence; the
x It is very certain that many who profess a peculiar
admiration for the Peshito do this rather from some
traditional notion than from minute personal acquaint-
ance. They suppose that it has some prescriptive right
to the first rank amongst versions, they praise its ex-
cellencies, which they have not personally investigated,
and they do not care to know wherein it is defective.
Every error in translation, every.doubtful reading, every
supposed defect in the one known MS. of the Curetonian
Gospels, has been enumerated by those who wish to
depreciate that version, and to detract from the critical
merits of its discoverer and editor. But many of the
supposed defects are really the very opposite; and if
they similarly examined the Peshito, they might find
VOL. II.
more fault with it and with its transiator. The last
fourteen chapters of the Book of Acts, as they have come
down to us in the Peshito, present far more grounds for
comment than an equal portion of the Curetonian. The
Peshito is a very valuable version, althougn overpraised
by some injudicious admirers, who (even if they have read
it) have never closely and verbally examined it. Many
have evidently never looked farther than the Gospels,
even though aided by Schaaf’s Latin interpretation.
y “Perhaps the earliest and most important of all the
versions.” Alford’s Gr. Test. Proleg. vol. i. 114. ed. 4,
See Bleek’s Hinleitung in das N. Test. p. 723, foot-note.
a For the Syriac of this part of the passage from Bar
Salibi, see Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, ii. 160.
5 M
1634
latter, however, shows such a kind of union in
contradiction as proves the identity very convinc-
ingly. Thus, though this version was unknown in
Europe prior to its discovery by Dr. Cureton, it |
must in the 12th century have been known as a}
text sometimes found, and as mentioned by the
Monophysite Bishop, it might be more in use
amongst his co-religionists than amongst others.
Perhaps, as its existence and use is thus recorded in
the 12th century, some further discovery of Syriac
MSS. may furnish us with another copy so as to
supply the defects of the one happily recovered.
in examining the Curetonian text with the com- |
mon printed Peshito, we often find such identity of |
phrase and rendering as to show that they are not
wholly independent translations: then, again, we
meet with such variety in the forms of words, &c.
as seems to indicate that in the
phraseology had been revised and refined.» But the
great (it might be said characteristic) difference be-
tween the Curetonian and the Peshito Gospels is in
their readings; for while the latter cannot in its
present state be deemed an unchanged production of |
the second century, the former bears all the marks
of extreme antiquity, even though in places it may
have suffered from the introduction of readings cur-
rent in very early times.
The following are a tew of the very many cases
in which the ancient reading is found in the Cure-
tonian, and the later or transition reading in the
Peshito. For the general authorities on the sub-
ject of each passage, reference must be made to the
notes in critical editions of the Greek New Test.
Matt. xix. 17, τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ :
the ancient reading, as we find in the best authori-
ties, and as we know fiom Origen; so the Cure-
tonian: τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; the common text
with the Peshito. Matt. xx. 22, the clause of the
common text, καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι
(and the corresponding part of the following verse) |
are in the Peshito; while we know from Origen
that they were in his day a peculiarity of St. Mark :
omitted in the Curetonian with the other best au-
thorities. In fact, except the Peshito and some re-
vised Latin copies, there is no evidence at all extant
for these words prior to the fifth century. Matt. v.
4,5: here the ancient order of the beatitudes, as
supported by Origen, Tertullian, the canons of Eu-
sebius, and Hilary, is that of placing μακάριοι of
πραεῖς, K.T.A. before μακάριοι of πενθοῦντες.
κι τ. A.; here the Curetonian agrees with the dis-
tinct testimonies for this order against the Peshito.
In Matt. i.18, we know from lrenaeus that the
name “ Jesus ” was not read; and this is confirmed
by the Curetonian : in fact, the common reading, |
however widely supported, could not have ori-
ginated until Ιησοῦς χριστὸς was treated as a
combined proper name, otherwise the meaning of |
τοῦ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ ἣ γένεσις would not be
“the birth of Jesus Christ,” but “the birth of
Jesus as the Christ.” Here the Curetonian reading
is in full accordance with what we know of the
second century in opposition to the Peshito. In
Matt. vi. 4 the Curetonian omits αὐτός ; in the
Peshito the |
same ver. and in ver. 6 it omits ἐν τῷ φανερῷ: in |
each case with the best authorities, but against the
Peshito. Matt. v. 44, has been amplified by copy-
ists in an extraordinary manner: the words in
» A collation of an ancient Syriac MS. of the Gospels
(Rich, 7,157 in the British Museum) showed that the
Syrians were in the habit of reforming their copies in | manstadt, who has been followed by successive editors.
|
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
brackets show the amplifications, and the place
from which each was taken: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν,
᾿Αγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν [εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς
καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, Luke vi. 28, καλῶς ποιεῖτε
τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς, 1014. 27], καὶ προσεύχεσθε
ὑπὲρ τῶν [ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καὶ, Ibid. 35]
διωκόντων ὑμᾶς. The briefer form is attested by
Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, etc. ;
and though the inserted words and clauses are found
in almost all Greek MSS. (except Codices Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus), and in many versions including
the Peshito, they are not in the Curetonian Syriac.
Of a similar kind are Matt. xviii. 35, τὰ παρα-
πτώματα αὐτῶν: Luke viii. 54, ἐκβαλῶν ἔξω
πάντας καὶ; Luke ἴχ. 7, ὕπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ; ix. 54, ὡς
καὶ ᾿Ηλίας ἐποίησεν : xi. 2, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά
σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς: χὶ. 29, τοῦ
προφήτου: xi, 44, γραμματεῖς καὶ φαρισαῖοι
ὑποκριταί : Johniv. 43, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ; ν. 16, καὶ
ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι: vi. 51, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω :
vi. 69, τοῦ ζῶντος.
These are but a few samples of the variations
which exist between the Curetonian Syriac and the
Peshito as to the kind of text: the instances of
this might be increased almost indefinitely. Those
acquainted with critical results will know that
some of those here specified are crucial texts in
points of Comparative Criticism. Such a com-
parison not only shows the antiquity of the text of
the Curetonian Syriac, but it also affords abundant
proof that the Peshito must have been modernized
and revised.
The antiquity of the Curetonian text is also
shown by the occurrence of readings which were,
as we know, early current, even though rightly re-
pudiated as erroneous: several of these are in the
Curetonian Syriac; it may suffice to refer to the
long addition after Matt. xx. 28.
The Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we
might have concluded would be current in the
second century: the Peshito has many features
which could not belong to that age; unless, indeed,
we are ready to reject established facts, and those
of a very numerous kind: probably, at least, two
thousand. -
It is not needful for very great attention to be
paid to the phraseology of the Curetonian Syriac
in order to see that the Gospel of St. Matthew
differs in mode of expression and various other par-
ticulars from what we find in therest. This may
lead us again to look at the testimony of Bar Salibi;
he tells us, when speaking of this version of St.
Matthew, ‘there is found occasionally a Syriac
copy made out of the Hebrew:’ we thus know
that the opinion of the Syrians themselves in the
12th century was that this translation of St. Mat-
thew was not made trom the Greek, but from the
Hebrew original of the Evangelist: such, too, is
the judgment of Dr. Cureton: “ this Gospel of St.
Matthew appears at least to be built upon the
original Aramaic text, which was the work of the
Apostle himself.” (Preface to Syriac Gospels,
p- vi.)
Dr. Cureton rightly draws attention to the pecu-
liar title prefixed to the Gospel by St. Matthew,
walics La pasos (aol. Now what-
ever be the meaning of the word dampharsho
some respects. The grammatical forms, &c., of this MS.
are much more ancient than those of the text of Wid-
- has been regarded by able scholars as implying an
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
here brought in—whether it signifies ‘‘ the distinct
Gospel of Matthew,” as rendered by Cureton, or
“ the Gospel of Matthew set forth” [7. e. for lessons
throughout the ecclesiastical year], as Bernstein
advances, supporting his opinion by a passage in
Assemani (which can hardly here apply, as this copy
is not so “set forth’’), or if it means (as some have
objected), “ the Gospel of Matthew explained” —
still there must be some reason why the first
Gospel should be thus designated, and not the
others. But the use of the coonate Hebrew verb
in the Old Test. may afford us some aid as to what |
kind of explanation is meant, if indeed that is the |
meaning of the term here used. In the description |
of the reading of the law in Neh. viii. 8, we are
told, ‘‘Se they read in the book of the law distinctly
(71D), and gave the sense, and caused the people
to understand the reading.” The word here used
interpretation from the ancient Hebrew into the
form of Aramaean then current. Such a Mepho-
rash, when written, would be the germ of the
Targum of after ages. (See below, p. 1638a.)
The same word may be used in the heading of
St. Matthew’s Gospel in the same sense—as being
an explanation from one Shemitic tongue or dialect
into another, just as St. Matthew’s Gospel turned
from one form of Hebrew into pure Syriac would be.
But it may be asked, if St. Matthew’s Hebrew |
(or Chaldaic) Gospel was before the translator, why
should ke have done more than copy into Syriac |
letters? Why translate at all? [Ὁ is sufficient, in |
reply, to refer to the Chaldaic portions of Daniel
and Ezra, and to the Syriac version made from |
them. In varying dialects it sometimes happens |
that the vocabulary in use differs more than the |
grammatical forms. The verbal identity may often |
be striking, even though accompanied with frequent |
variation of terms.
We know from Jerome that the Hebrew St.
Matthew had 91D where the Greek has ἐπιούσιον.
We do not find that word here, but we read for
both ἐπιούσιον and σήμερον at the end of the
verse, |Scoss Lasso], * constant of the day.”
This might have sprung from the interpretation,
“morrow by morrow,” given to IM! ; and it may
be illustrated by Old Test. passages, e, g. Num. iy.
o vy
7, where ὙΠ ond is rendered by {Somes
2) ν
Δ. 1..το]. Those who think that if this Syriac
version had been made from St. Matthew’s Hebrew,
we ought to find M1) here, forget that a trans-
lation is not a verbal transfusion.
We know from Eusebius that Hegesippus cited
from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and
from the Syriac. Now in a fragment of Hegesippus
(Routh, i. 219), there is the quotation, μακάριοι of |
ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν of βλεπόντες καὶ TA ὦτα ὑμῶν τὰ
ἀκούοντα, words which might be a Greek render-
ing from Matt. xiii. 16, as it stands in this Syriac
᾿ς Gospel as we have it, or probably also in the Hebrew
work of the Apostle himself. Every notice of the
kind is important; and Dr, Cureton, in pointing it
out, has furnished students with one of the varied
data through which a right conclusion may be
reached,
Every successive investigation, on the part of
competent scholars, aids in the proof that the
Curetonian Gospels are an older form than those in
| beyond the Gospels.
to 1803.
| researches of Adler brought more copies into notice
1635
the Peshito; that the Peshito is a revision replete
with readings unknown in the 2nd century (and
often long after); and that the Curetonian text pos-
sesses the highest critical as well as historical value.
The more the evidence, direct and indirect, is
weighed, the more established it appears will be
| the judgment that the Curetonian Syriac of St.
Matthew's Gospel was translated from the Apostle’s
Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) original, although injured
since by copyists or revisers.
ΒΡ. The Philoxenian Syriac Version, and its
revision by Thomas of Harkel.—Philoxenus, or
Xenaias, Bp. of Hierapolis or Mabug at the be-
ginning of the 6th century (who was one of those
Monophysites who subscribed the Henoticon of the
Emperor Zeno), caused Polycarp, his Chorepiscopus,
to make a new translation of the New Test. into
Syriac. This was executed in A.D. 508, and it is
| generally termed Philoxenian from its promoter.‘
This version has not been transmitted to us in
the form in which it was first made; we only pos-
sess a revision of it, executed by ‘Thomas of Harkel
in'the following century (The Gospels, A.D. 616).
Pococke, in 1630,4 gives an extract from Bar Salibi,
in which the version of Thomas of Harkel is men--
tioned; and though Pococke did not know what
version Thomas had made, he speaks of a Syriac
translation of the Gospels communicated to him by
some learned man whom he does not name, which
from its servile adherence to the Greek was no
doubt the Harklean text. In the Bibliotheca Ori-
entalis of Assemani there were futher notices of
the work of Thomas; and in 1730 Samuel Palmer
sent from the ancient Amida (now Diarbekr) Syriac
MSS. to Dr. Gloucester Ridley, in which the ver-
sion is contained. Thus he had two copies of the
Gospels, and one of all the rest of the New Test.,
except the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
the Apocalypse. No other MSS. appear to have
yet come to light which contain any of this version
From the subscriptions we
learn that the text was revised by Thomas with
three (some copies say two) Greek MSS. One Greek
|copy is similarly mentioned at the close of the
Catholic Epistles.
Ridley published, in 1761, an account of the MSS.
in lris possession, and a notice of this version. He
had intended to have edited the text: this was how-
ever done by White, at different times from 1778
After the publication of the Gospels, the
of that part of the Harklean text. From one of the
MSS. in the Vatican, St. John’s Gospel was edited
by Bernstein in 1851. It will be noticed that this
version differs from the Peshito, in containing all
the seven Catholic Epistles.
In describing this version as it has come down to
us, the tect is the first thing to be considered. This
is characterized by extreme literality: the Syriac
idiom is constantly bent to suit the Greek, and
everything is in some manner expressed in the
Greek phrase and order. It is difficult to ima-
gine that it could have been intended for ecclesi-
astical reading. It is not independent of the Peshito,
the words, &c., of which are often employed. As
to the kind of Greek text that it represents, it is
just what might have been expected in the 6th
century. The work of Thomas in the text itself is
© See Moses Aghelaueus in Assemani, Piblioth. Orient.
ii. 83.
4 Preface to the Syriac edition of 2 Pet. &c.
5 M 2
1636
seen in the introduction of obeli, by which passages
which he rejected were condemned ; and of asterisks,
with which his insertions were distinguished. His
model in all this was the Hexaplar Greek text.
The MSS. which were used by Thomas were of a
different kind from those employed in making the
version; they represented in general a much older
and purer text. The margin of the Harklean re-
cension contains (like the Hexaplar text of the
LXX.) readings, mostly apparently from the Greek
MSS. used. It has been questioned whether these
readings are not a comparison with the Peshito; if
any of them are so, they have probably been intro-
duced since the time of Thomas. It is probable
that the Philoxenian version was very literal, but
that the slavish adaptation to the Greek is the work
of Thomas; and that his text thus bore about the
same relation to that of Philoxenus as the Latin
Bible of Arias Montanus does to that of his prede-
cessor Pagninus. For textual criticism this version
is a good authority as to the text of its own time,
at least where it does not merely follow the Peshito.
The amplifications in the margin of the Book of Acts
bring a MS. used by Thomas into close comparison
with the Codex Bezae. One of the MSs. of the
Gospels sent to Ridley contains the Harklean text,
with some revision by Bar Salibi.
C. Syriac Versions of portions wanting in the
Peshito.—I. The second Epistle of Peter, the second
and third of John, and that of Jude. The fact has
been already noticed, that the Old Syriac Version
did not contain these Epistles. They were published
by Pococke in 1630, from a MS. in the Bodleian.
The version of these Epistles so often agrees with
what we have in the Harklean recension, that the
one is at least dependent on the other. The sugges-
tion of Dr. Davidson (Biblical Criticism, ii. 196),
that the text of Pococke is that of Philoxenus be-
fore it was revised by Thomas, seems most probable.
But if it is objected, that the translation does not
show as great a knowledge of Greek as might have
been expected in the translation of the rest of the
Philoxenian, it must be remembered that here he had
not the Peshito to aid him. In the Paris Polyglott
these’ Epistles were added to the Peshito, with which
they have since been commonly printed, although
they have not the slightest relation to that version.
Il. The Apocalypse.—In 1627 De Dieu edited a
Syriac version of the Apocalypse, from a MS. in the
Leyden Library, written by one “ Caspar from the
land of the Indians,’ who lived in the latter part
of the 16th century. A MS. at Florence, also
written by this Caspar, has a subscription stating
that it was copied in 1582 from a MS. in the writ-
ing of Thomas of Harkel, in A.D. 622. If this is
correct it shows that Thomas by himself would
have been but a poor translator of the N.T. But
the subscription seems to be of doubtful authority ;
and until the Rey. B, Harris Cowper drew attention
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (SYRIAC)
to a more ancient copy of the version, we might
well be somewhat uncertain if this were really an
ancient work.€ It is of small critical value, and
the MS. from which it was edited is incorrectly
written. It was in the MS. which Abp. Ussher
sent as a present to’ De Dieu in 1631, in which the
whole of the Syriac N. T. is said to have been con-
tained (of what version is unknown), that having
been the only complete MS. of the kind described ; ἢ
and of this MS., in comparison with the text of the
Apocalypse printed by De Dieu, Ussher says, ‘‘ the
Syriac lately set out at Leyden may be amended by
my MS. copy” (Todd’s Walton, i. 196, note).
This book, from the Paris Polyglott and onward,
has been added to the Peshito in this translation.
Some have erroneously called this Syriac Apocalypse
the Philoxenian, a name to which it has no title:
the error seems to have originated from a verbal
mistake in an old advertisement of Greenfield’s edi-
tion (for which he was not responsible), which said
“the Apocalypse and the Epistles not found in the
Peschito, are given from the Philoxenian version.”
Ill. The Syriac Version of John viii. 1-11.—
From the MS. sent by Abp. Ussher to De Dieu, the
latter published this section in 1631. From De
Dieu it was inserted in the London Polyglott, with
a reference to Ussher’s MS., and hence it has passed
with the other editions of the Peshito, where it is
a mere interpolation.
A eopy of the same version (essentially) i is found
in Ridley’s Codex Barsalibaei, where it is attributed
to Maras, A.D. 622: Adler found it also in a Paris
MS. peered to Abbas Mar Paul.
Bar Salibi cites a different version, out of Maras,
Bp. of Amida, through the chronicle of Zacharias of
Melitina. See Assemani (Biblioth. Orient. ii. 53
and 170), who gives the introductory words. Pro-
bably the version edited is that of Paul (as stated
in the Paris MS.), and that of Maras the one cited
by Bar Salibi; while in Ridley’s MS. the two are
confounded. ‘The Paul mentioned is apparently
Paul of Tela, the translator of the Hexaplar Greek
text into Syriac.
D. THE JERUSALEM SYRIAC LECTIONARY.—
The MS. in the Vatican containing this version was
pretty fully described by S. E. Assemani in 1756,
in the Catalogue of the MSS. belonging to that
Library ; but so few copies of that work escaped
destruction by fire, that it was virtually unpublished,
and its contents almost unknown. Adler, who at
Copenhagen had the advantage of studying one of
the few copies of this Catalogue, drew public atten-
tien to this peculiar document in his Aurze Ueber-
sicht seiner biblischkritischen Reise nach Rom,
pp- 118-127 (Altona, 1783), and still further, in
1789, in his valuable examination of the Syriac
versions. The MS. was written in A.D. 1031,
in peculiar Syriac writing; the portions are of
course those for the different festivals, some parts
e The Rev. B. Harris Cowper has courteously com-
municated the following notice relative to the Syriac
Apocalypse in MSS. in the British Museum: “The MS,
No. 7185 of the 14th century does not contain the actual
text of the Apocalypse, but a brief commentary upon
it—upon paper, and not quite perfect; the text seem-
ing to be that of our printed books. The text of the
Apocalypse is apparently all found in No. 17,127,
a commentary upon the book of the 11th century.
This also seems to be of the same text as the printed
edition.”
f De Dieu says that this Syriac MS. contained ‘* omnia
N.T. Syriaci, quae in prioribus deerant editionibus.”
Does this mean that it merely containcd what was pre-
viously wanting, or the whole, including such parts?
It seems strange if this section of St. John stood in it
alone. This makes it seem as if the interpretation
given above were the true one. Ussher’s own description
is this:—‘‘I have received the parcels of the N. Test.
[in Syriac] which hitherto we have wanted in that lan-
guage, viz., the history of the adulterous woman, the 2nd
Epistle of Peter, the 2nd and 3rd Kpistles of St. John,
the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation; as also a small
tractate of Ephrem Syrus in his own language,” Abp.
Ussher to Dr. Samuel Ward, June 23, 1626 (Todd's Life of
Walton, i. 194).
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
of the Gospels not being there at all. The dialect
is not common Syriac ; it was termed the Jerusalem
Syriac, from its being supposed to resemble the
Jerusalem Talmud in language and other points.
The grammar is peculiar; the forms almost Chaldee
rather than Syriac; two characters are used for
expressing F and P.
For critical purposes this Lectionary has a far
higher value than it has for any other: its readings
often coincide with the oldest and best authorities. It
is not yet known as to its entire text; for except a
small specimen, no part has been printed ; Adler,
however, selected large numbers of readings, which
have been commonly used by critics from that time
and onward. In Adler’s opinion its date as a ver-
sion would be from the 4th to the 6th century ;
but it can hardly be supposed that it is of so early
an age, or that any Syrians then could have used so
corrupt a dialect. It may rather be supposed to be
a translation made from a Greek Lectionary, never
having existed as a substantive translation : to what
age its execution should be assigned seems wholly
uncertain. (A further account of the MS. of this
version, drawn up from a comparison of Assemani’s
description in the Vatican Catalogue, and that of
Adler, with the MS. itself in the Vatican Library,
made by the present writer, is given in Horne’s
Introd. iv. 284-287, where, however, ‘‘ Jerusalem
Targum ” twice stands for Talmud.)
It appears, from the statement of Dr. Ceriani of
Milan, that Count Marescalchi has met with a MS.
of this Lectionary, and that he has long had the
intention of publishing it.
On the Syriac Versions.—Adler, N. T. Versiones
Syriacae, Simplex, Philoxeniana et Hierosoly-
mitana denuo examinatae, 1789 ; Wiseman, Horae
Syriacae, 1827 ; Ridley, De Syriacarum N. Foe-
deris versionum indole atque usu, &c., 1761;
Winer, Commentatio de versionis N, T. Syriacae
usu critico caute instituendo, 1823; Wichelhaus,
De Novi Test. versione Syriaca antiqua quam
Peschitho vocant, 1850; Bernstein, De Charklensi
N. T. translatione Syriaca commentatio, 1857 ;
Cureton, Antient Recension of the Syriac Gospels
(Preface, &c.), 1858. iS Je ato]
TARGUM (3, from DIM; Arab. c=)
to translate, explain) ; a Chaldee word of uncertain
origin, variously derived from the roots Ὡ 2, Ὡ
(comp. Arab. yo” 65» &c.), and even identified
with the Greek tpdynua, dessert (Fr. dragées),
(trop. τραγήματα τῶν λόγων, Dion. Hal. het.
10, 18), which occurs often in the Talmud as 9}°%D
ΝΣ 2, or NDIIN (“such as dates, almonds,
nuts,” &e. Pes. 1196):—the general term for the
CHALDEE, or, more accurately ARAMAIC VER-
SIONS of the Old Testament.
The injunction to ‘‘read the Book of the Law
before all Israel... . the men, and women, and
children, and the strangers,” on the Feast of Taber-
nacles of every Sabbatical year, as a means of solemn
instruction and edification, is first found in Deut.
xxxi. 10-15. How far the ordinance was observed
in early times we have no means of judging. It
would appear, however, that such readings did
1637
take place in the days of Jeremiah, Certain it is
that among the first acts undertaken by Ezra
towards the restoration of the primitive religion
and public worship is reported his reading “ before
the congregation, both of men and women” of the
returned exiles, “in the Book in the Law of God”
(Neh, viii. 2, 8). Aided by those men of learning
and eminence with whom, according to tradition,
he founded that most important religious and poli-
tical body called the Great Synagogue, or Men
of the Great Assembly (MOYTIN MNDID ‘WIN, 536-
167), he appears to have succeeded in so firmly
establishing regular and frequent public readings
in the Sacred Records, that later authorities almost
unanimously trace this hallowed custom to times
immemorial—nay to the time of Moses himself.
Such is the statement of Josephus (6. Ap. ii. 17);
and we read in the Acts, xv. 21, ‘‘ For Moses ot
old time hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogue every sabbath-day.”
So also Jer. Meg. i. 1: ‘Ezra has instituted for
Israel that the maledictions in the Pentateuch
should also be read in public,’ ὅθ. Further, Meg.
31 ὁ, “Ezra instituted ten things, viz., that there
should be readings in the Law also in the afternoon
service of Sabbath, on the Monday, and on the
Thursday, &. .... But was not this instituted
before in the desert, as we find ‘they went for
three days and found no water’ (water meaning
the Law, as Is. lv. 1 is fancifully explained by
the Haggada), until the ‘prophets among them’
arranged the three weekly readings? But Ezra
only reinstituted them,” comp. also B. Kama,
82 a, &c. To these ancient readings in the Pen-
tateuch were added, in the course of time, readings
in the Prophets (in some Babylonian cities even in
the Hagiographa), which were called NO5n,
Haftaroth; but when and how these were intro-
duced is still matter of speculation. Former inves-
tigators (Abudraham, Elias Levita, Vitringa, ἄς.)
almost unanimously trace their origin to the Syrian
persecutions, during which all attention to the Law
was strictly prohibited, and even all the copies of it
that were found were ruthlessly destroyed; so that, as
a substitute for the Pentateuchical Parasha, a some-
what corresponding portion of the Prophets was read
in the synagogue, and the custom, once introduced,
remained fixed. Recent scholars, on the other
hand, without much show of reason, as it would
appear, variously hold the Haftarah to have sprung
from the sermon or homiletic exercise which accom-
panied the reading in the Pentateuch, and took its
exordium (as Hattarah, by an extraordinary lin-
guistic stretch, is explained by Frankel) from a pro-
phetic passage, adapted in a manner to the Mosaic
text under consideration ; or, again, they imagine the
Haftarah to have taken its rise spontaneously during
the exile itself, and that Ezra retained and enforced
it in Palestine.
If, however, the primitive religion was ye-estab-
lished, together with the second Temple, in more
than its former vigour, thus enabling the small
number of the returned exiles—and these, according
to tradition, the lowest of the low, the poor in
wealth, in knowledge, and in ancestry,” the very out-
casts and refuse of the nation as it were >—to found
a “Ten kinds of families went up from Babylon :
Priests, Levites, Israelites, profaned οὗ» fh, those whose
fathers are priests, but whose mothers are not fit for
priestly marriage); proselytes, freedmen, bastards (or
rather those born in illegal wedlock); Nethinim (lowest
b “ Ezra, on leaving Babylon, made it like unto pure
flow” WPI NSD (ib).
1638
lasting spiritual commonweaiths that has ever been
known, there was yet one thing which neither au-
thority nor piety; neither academy nor synagogue,
could restore to its original power and glory—the He-
brew language. Ere long it was found necessary to
translate the national books, in order that the nation
from whose midst they had sprung might be able to
understand them. And if for the Alexandrine, or
rather the whole body of Hellenistic Jews, Greek
translations had to be composed, those who dwelt
on the hallowed soil of their forefathers had to
receive the sacred word through an Aramaic medium.
The word W\59, Mephorash, ‘ explanatory,”
“clearly,” or, as the A. V. has it, “distinctly,” used
in the above-quoted passage of Neh. viii. 8, is in
the Talmud explained by “Targum.’¢ Thus to
Ezra himself is traced the custom of adding trans-
lations in the then popular idiom—the Aramaic
—to the periodical readings (Jer. Meg. 28 ὃ; J.
Ned. iv., Bab. Ned. i. ; Maim. Hilch. Teph. xii. $10,
&e,), for which he is also reported to have fixed the
Sabbaths, the Mondays and Thursdays—the two
latter the market and law-days, when the villagers
came to town—of every week (Jer. Meg.i.1; Baba
Kama, 82 a). The gradual decay of the pure
Hebrew vernacular, among the multitude at least,
may be accounted for in many ways. The Midrash
very strikingly points out, among the characteristics
of the long sojourn of Israel in Egypt, that they
neither changed their language, nor their names, nor
the shape of their garments, during all that time.
a shut up, as it were, in
the small province of Goshen, almost exclusively re-
duced to intercourse with their own race and tribes,
devoted only to the pasture of their flocks, and per-
haps to the tilling of their soil—were in a condition
infinitely more favourable for the retention of all
the signs and tokens of their nationality than were
the Babylonian captives. The latter scattered up
and down the vast empire, seem to have enjoyed
everywhere full liberty of intercommunication with
the natives—very similar in many respects to them-
selves—to have been utterly unrestrained in the
exercise of every profession and trade, and even to
have risen to the highest offices of state; and thus,
during the comparatively short space, they struck
root so firmly in the land of their exile, that when
opportunity served, they were, on the whole, loth to
return to the Land of Promise. What more natural
than that the immigrants under Zerubbabel, and still
more those who came with Ezra—several generations
of whose ancestors had been settled in Babel—should
have brought back with them the Aramaic, if not
as their vernacular, at all events as an idiom with
which εἰ were bel familiar, and which they
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
upon the ruins of Zion one of the most important and |
may partly have continued to use as their collo-
quial language in Palestine, as, in fact, they had
had to use it in Babylon? Continuous later immi-
grations from the ‘ Captivity” did not fail to re-
inforce and further to spread the use of the same
tongue. All the decrees and official communica-
tions addressed to the Jews by their Persian masters
were in Aramaic (Ezr. Neh. passim), Judaea being
considered only as part of the Syrian satrapy.
Nor must it be forgotten that the old colonists in
Palestine (2 K. xvii. 24) were Samaritans, who had
come from “ Aram and Babel,” and who spoke
Chaldee; that intermarriages with women from
Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab had been common
(Neh. xiii, 23); that Phoenicia, whose merchants
(Tyrians, Neh. xiii. 16) appear to have settled in
Palestine, and to have established commercial rela-
tions with Judaea and Galilee, contains large ele-
ments of Chaldeein its own idiom. Thus it came to
pass that we find in the Book of Daniel, for instance,
a somewhat forced Hebrew, from which, as it would
seem, the author gladly lapses into the more fa-
miliar Aramaic (comp. ii. 4, &c.); that oracles
were received by the High-priests Johanan4 and
Simon the Just ὁ in the Holy of Holies (during the
Syrian wars) in Aramaic (Sotah, 33,a.) ; and that,
in short, some time before the Hasmonean period,
this was the language in which were couched
not only popular sayings, proverbs, and the like
(OT PWD. Beresh. R. 107 d; Tanch. 17 a;
Midr. Tehill. 23d; 51 ἢ, &c. &c.), but official and
legal documents (Mishna Ketub. 4, 8; Toseftah
Sabb. ο. 8; Edujoth, 8,4,—c. 130 B.c.), even certain
prayers —of Babylonian origin probably—and in
which books destined for the gr reat mass of the people
were written. That, indeed, the Hebrew Lan-
guage—the “ language of Kenaan ” (Is. xix. 18), or
* Jehudith ” (2 K. xviii. 26, 28; Is. xxxvi. 11) of
the Bible—became more and more the language of
the few, the learned, the Holy Language, nw
wp, or, still more exactly, NUTIP Nl jw,
‘‘Language of the Temple,” set aside almost ex-
clusively for the holy service of religion: be it
the Divine Law and the works in which this
was contained (like the Mishna, the Boraithot,
Mechilta, Sifri, Sifra, the older Midrashim, and
very many portions of the Talmud), or the cor-
respondence between the different academies (witness
the Hebrew letter sent from Jerusalem to Alex-
andria about 100 B.c., Chag. Jer. ii. 2), or be
it the sacred-worship itself in temple and syna-
gogue, which was almost entirely carried on in pure
Hebrew.
If the common people thus gradually had lost all
knowledge of the tongue in which were written the
e ««And ike read in the book of the Law of God
clearly (W5}H}D), and gave the understanding, so
that they understood the reading:’—‘in the book of
the Law’—this is Mikra, the original reading in the
Pentateuch; ‘t/}}D, clearly’ — this is Targum”
(Meg. 3 a; Ned. 37 δ). To this tradition also might
be referred the otherwise rather enigmatical passage
(Sanh. 21 ὃ): ““ Originally,” says Mar Sutra, “the
Law was given to Israel in Ibri writing and the holy
(Hebrew) language. It was again given to them in
the days of Ezra in the Ashurith writing and the Aramaic
language,” &c.
ἃ “The youths who went to combat at Antiochia have
been victorious.”
e “* Perished has the army which the enemy thought
to lead against the Temple.”
f Introduction to the Haggadah for the Pesach (NFB
xn): “Such was the bread of misery which our
fathers ate in the land of Mizrajim. Whoever is needy,
he come and eat with us; whoever is in want, he come
and celebrate the Pesach. ‘This year here, next year
in the land of Israel; this year slaves, next year free
men.” ‘The Kaddish, to which afterwards a certain signi-
fication as a prayer for the dead was given, and which
begins as follows: “Let there be magnified and sancti-
fied the Great Name in the world which He has created
according to His will, and which He rules as His king-
dom, during your life and your days, and the life of the
whole house of Israel, speedily and in a near time, and
say ye, ‘Amen: Be the Great Name praised for ever and
evermore,’ ”’ &c.
5 Megillath Taanith, &c.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
books to be read to them, it naturally followed (in
order “that they might understand them’) that
recourse must be had toa translation into the idiom
with which they were familiar—the Aramaic. That
further, since a bare translation could not in all
cases suffice, it was necessary to add to the transla-
tion an explanation, more particularly of the more
difficult aud obscure passages. Both translation
and explanation were designated by the term
Targum. In the course of time there sprang up
a guild, whose special office it was to act as
interpreters in both senses ( Meturgeman ), while
formerly the learned alone volunteered their ser-
vices. These interpreters were subjected to certain
bonds and regulations as to the form and sub-
stance of their renderings. Thus (comp. Mishna
Meg. passim; Mass. Sofer. xi. 1; Maimon. Hilch.
Tephill. 12, §11 ff; Orach Chaj. 145, 1, 2),
“ neither the reader nor the interpreter are to raise
their voices one above the other;” ‘‘they have to
wait for each other until each have finished his
verse ;” **the Meturgeman is not to lean against a
pillar or a beam, but to stand with fear and with
reverence ;” ‘he is not to use a written Targum,
but he is to deliver his translation viva voce ”—lest it
might appear that he was reading out of the Torah
itself, and thus the Scriptures be held responsible
for what are his own dicta; ‘‘no more than one
verse in the Pentateuch, and three in the Prophets
[a greater licence is given for the Book of Esther |
shall be read and translated at a time;” “ that
there should be not more than one reader and one
interpreter for the Law, while for the Prophets one
reader and one interpreter, or two interpreters, are
allowed,” &c. (comp. Cor. xiv. 21 ff; xii. 30; 27,
28). Again (Mishna Meg. and Tosiftah, ad /oc.),
certain passages liable to give offence to the multi-
tude are specified, which may be read in the syna-
gogue and translated; others, which may be read
but not translated; others, again, which may
neither be read nor translated. To the first class ἢ
belong the account of the Creation—a subject not
to be discussed publicly, on account of its most
vital bearing upon the relation between the Creator
and the Kosmos, and the nature of both: the deed
of Lot and his two daughters (Gen. xix. 31); of
Judah and Tamar (Gen. xxxviii.) ; the first account
of the making of the golden calf (Ex. xxxii.);
all the curses in the Law ; the deed of Amnon and
Tamar (2 Sam, xiii.) ; of Absalom with his father’s
- concubines (2 Sam. xvi. 22); the story of the
woman of Gibeah (Judg. xix.). These are to be
yead and translated—being mostly deeds which
carried their own punishments with them. To be
read but not translated are* the deed of Reuben
with his father’s concubine (Gen. xxv. 22); the
latter portion of the story of the golden calf (Ex.
xxxii.); the benediction of the priests (on ac-
count of its awful nature). And neither to be read
nor translated are the deed of David and Bath-
sheba (2 Sam. xi. and xii.), and according to one
the story of Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam. wiii.),
(Both the latter stories, however, are, in Mishna
Meg. iv. 10, enumerated among those of the second
class, which are to be read but not translated.)
Arm. Sargmaniél ; Ital., Turcimanno; Fr. Truchement ;
Engl., Dragoman, ἕο.
1639
of the reasons being probably that they were paid
(two Selaim at one time, according to Midr. R.
Gen. 98), and thus made (what P. Aboth especially
inveighs against) the Torah “a spade to dig with
it.” <‘* No sign of blessing,’ it was said, moreover,
“could rest upon the profit they made by their
calling, since it was money earned on the Sabbath”’
(Pes. 4 δ). Persons unfit to be readers, as those
whose clothes were so torn and ragged that their
limbs became visible through the rents (AM)5),
their appearance thus not corresponding to the
yeverence due to the sacred word itself, or blind
men, were admitted to the office of a Meturgeman ;
and, apart from there not being the slightest au-
thovity attached to their interpretations, they were
liable to be stopped and silenced, publicly and
ignominiously, whenever they seemed to overstep
the bounds of discretion. At what time the regu-
lation that they should not be under fifty years of
age (in odd reference to the ‘men of fifty,” Is. iii,
3, mentioned in Juchas. 44, 2) came into use, we
are not able to decide. The Mishna certainly speaks
even of a minor (under thirteen years) as being
allowed both to read and to act as a Meturgeman
(comp. Mishna Meg. passim). Altogether they
appear to have borne the character of empty-headed,
bombastic fools. Thus Midr. Koh. has to Ecel. vii.
5: “610 is better to hear the rebuke of the wise :’
—these are the preachers (Darshanim)—‘ than for
a man to hear the song of fools:'—these are the
Meturgemanim, who raise their voices in sing-song,
(VW, or with empty fancies) :—‘ that the people
may hear.”” And to ix. 17: “‘ The words of
wise men are heard in quiet ’—these are the preach-
ers (Darshanim)—‘ more than the ery of him that
ruleth among fools’—these are the Meturgemanim
who stand above the congregation.” And though
both passages may refer more especially to those
Meturgemanim (Emoras, speakers, expounders) who
at a later period stood by the side of the Cha-
cham, or president of the Academy, the preacher
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (himself seated on a raised dais), and
repeated with a loud voice, and enlarged upon what
the latter had whispered into their ear in Hebrew
Cnay.pw xd wmd DIN, comp. Matt. x. 27,
“ What ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the
housetops”’), yet there is an abundance of instances
to show that the Meturgeman at the side of the
reader was exposed to rebukes of a nature, and is
spoken of in a manner, not likely to be employed
towards any but men low in the social scale.
A fair notion of what was considered a proper
Targum may be gathered from the maxim pre-
served in the Talmud (Kidd. 49, a): ‘* Whosoever
translates [as Meturgeman] a verse in its closely
exact form [without proper regard to its real mean-
ing] is a Jiar, and whosoever adds to it is cmpious
and a blasphemer, e.g., the literal rendering into
Chaldee of the verse, ‘ They saw the God of
Israel’ (Ex. xxiv. 10), is as wrong a translation as
‘They saw the angel of God ; the proper render-
ing being, ‘They saw the glory of the God of
Israel.’” [Comp, SAMAR. PENT. p. 11146]. Other
instances ave found in the Mishna (Meg. iv. 8) ;
ἐς Whosoever renders the text (Lev. xviii. 21) ‘ And
thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the
tr
lida ἢ itd
i Comprised in the mnemonic formula, ΡΝ 03
if
apis (Meg. 25 a).
wee
k ΡΝ ib.
1640
fire to Molech,’ by ‘Thou shalt not give thy seed
to be carried over to heathenism (or to an Aramite
woman)’ [ἴ. 6. as the Gemara ad loc.; Jer. Sanh.
9, and Sifri on Deut. xviii. 10, explain it, one who
marries an Aramaic woman; for although she
may become a proselyte, she is yet sure to bear
enemies to him and to God, since the mother will
in the end carry his children over to idolatrous
worship ;] as also he who enlarges upon (or figu-
ratively explains) the sections relative to incest
(Lev. xviii.)}—he shall forthwith be silenced and
publicly rebuked.” Again (comp. Jer. Ber. v. 1;
Meg. iv. 10), “* Those who translate ‘O my people,
children of Israel, as I am merciful in heaven, so
shall ye be merciful on earth :’—‘ Cow or ewe, it
and her young ye shall not kill in one day’ (Lev.
xxii. 28)—they do not well, for they represent the
Laws of God [whose reasons no man dare try to
fathom] as mere axioms of mercy ;” and, it is
added, ‘‘the short-sighted and the frivolous will
say, ‘Lo! toa bird’s-nest He extends His mercy,
but not to yonder miserableman.. 2”
The same causes which, in the course of time,
led to the writing down—after many centuries of oral
transmission—of the whole body of the Traditional
Law, the very name of which (715 Syay myn,
‘oral law,” in contradistinction to INDIW MIN,
or ““ written law”) seemed to imply that it should
never become a fixed, immutable code, engendered
also, and about the same period, as it would appear,
written Targums: for certain portions of the Bible,
at least.™
The fear of the adulterations and mutilations
which the Divine Word—amid the troubles within
and without the Commonwealth—must undergo
at the hands of incompetent or impious exponents,
broke through the rule, that the Targum should
only be oral, lest it might acquire undue authority
(comp. Mishna Meg. iv. 5, 10; Tosifta, ib. 3;
Jer. Meg. 4,1; Bab. Meg. 24a; Sota, 990). Thus,
if a Targum of Job is mentioned (Sab, 115a; Tr.
Soferim, 5, 15; Tosifta Sab. ο, 14; Jer. Sabb. 16,
1) as having been highly disapproved by Gamaliel
the Elder (middle of first century, A.D.), who caused
it to be hidden and buried out of sight :—we find, on
the other hand, at the end of the second century, the
practice of reading the Targum generally commended,
and somewhat later Jehoshua ben Levi enjoins it
as a special duty upon his sons. The Mishna even
contains regulations about the manner (Jad. iv. 5)
in which the Targum is to be written. But even
in their written, and, as we may presume, authori-
tatively approved form, the Targums were of com-
paratively small weight, and of no canonical value
whatsoever. The Sabbath was not to be broken for
their sake as it was lawful to do for the Scripture
in the original Hebrew (Sab. 115a). The Targum
does not defile the hands (for the purpose of touch-
ing consecrated food) as do the Chaldee portions of
Ezra and Nehemiah (Yad. iv. 5).
The gradual growth of the Code of the written
Targum, such as now embraces almost the whole
of the O.T., and contains, we may presume, but
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
few snatches of the primitive Targums, is shrouded
in deep obscurity. We shall not fail to indicate
the opinions arrived at as to the date and author-
ship of the individual versions in their due places ;
but we must warn the reader beforehand, that no
positive results have been attained as yet, save that
nearly all the names and dates hitherto commonly
attached to them must be rejected. And we
fear that, as long at least as the Targum shares
the fate of the LXX., the Samaritan Pentateuch,
the Midrash, the Talmud, &c. :—viz., that a really
critical edition remains a thing occasionally dreamt
of, but never attempted ;—so long must we aban-
don the hope of getting any nearer a final solu-
tion of this and many other still more important
questions. The utter corruption, moreover, of the
Targum, bitterly complained of already by Elias
Levita—(an author, be it observed, of very mode-
rate attainments, but absurdly overrated by certain
of his contemporaries, and by those who copied his
usually shallow dicta without previous examina-
tion )—debars us from more than half its use. And
yet how fertile its study could be made; what
light it might be made capable of throwing upon
the Bible itself, upon the history of the earliest
development of Biblical studies, versions, and upon
the Midrash—both the Halachah and Haggadah—
snatches of which, in their, as it were, liquid stages,
lie embedded in the Targums :—all this we need not
urge here at length.
Before, however, entering into a more detailed
account, we must first dwell for a short time on the
Midrash» itself, of which the Targum forms part.
The centre of all mental activity and religious
action among the Jewish community, after the
return from Babylon, was the Scriptural Canon
collected by the Soferim, or Men of the Great
Synagogue. These formed the chief authority on
the civil and religious law, and their authority
was the Pentateuch. Their office as expounders
and commentators of the Sacred Records was two-
fold. They had, firstly, to explain the exact
meaning of such .prohibitions and ordinances con-
tained in the Mosaic Books as seemed not explicit
enough for the multitude, and the precise applica-
tion of which in former days, had been forgotten
during the Captivity. Thus, e.g., general terms,
like the “ work” forbidden on the Sabbath, were by
them specified and particularized ; not indeed
according to their own arbitrary and individual
views, but according to tradition traced back to
Sinai itself. Secondly, laws neither specially con-
tained nor even indicated in the Pentateuch were
inaugurated by them according to the new wants
of the times and the ever-shifting necessities of the
growing Commonwealth (Geseroth, Tekanoth).
Nor were the latter in all cases given on the sole
authority of the Synod; but they were in most
cases traditional, and certain special letters or signs
in the Scriptures, seemingly superfluous or out of
place where they stood, were, according to fixed
hermeneutical rules, understood to indicate the in-
hibitions and prohibitions (Gedarim, “ Fences”),
newly issued and fixed. But Scripture, which had
m As, according to Frankel, the LXX. was only a partial
translation at first. Witness the confusion in the last
chapters of Exodus, which, as mere repetitions (of chaps.
xxv, and xxix.), were originally left untranslated.
Saadia in a similar manner uses the formulas s\} ἡ
or SUS jo in repetitions.
π 2 (Arab. UN) Xo) first used in 2 Chr. xiii.
22, xxiv. 27; ‘‘Commentary,” in the sense of Caesar’s “ Com-
mentaries,”’ enlargement, embellishment, complement, &c.
(A.V. story !). The compilers of Chronicles seem. to have
used such promiscuous works treating of biblical person-
ages and events, provided they contained aught that served
| the tendency of the book.
}
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
tor this purpose to be studied most minutely and
unremittingly—the most careful and scrutinizing
attention being paid even to its outward form and
semblance—was also used, and more especially in
its non-legal, prophetical parts, for homiletic pur-
poses, as a wide field of themes for lectures, ser-
mons, and religious discouyses, both in and out of
the Synagogue :—at every solemnity in public and
private lite. This juridical and homiletical ex-
pounding and interpreting of Scripture—the germs
of both of which are found still closely intertwined
‘and bound up with each other in the Targum—is
called darash, and the avalanche of Jewish litera-
ture which began silently to gather from the time
of the return from the exile and went on rolling
uninterruptedly—however dread the events which
befel the nation—until about a thousand years after
the destruction of the second Temple, may be com-
prised under the general name Midrash — “ex-
pounding.” The two chief branches indicated are,
Halachah Gan “to go”’), the rule by which to
go,=binding, authoritative law; and Haggadah
(Tan, ‘to say’) = saying, lesend, — flights of
fancy, darting up from the Divine word. The
Halachah, treating more especially the Pentateuch
as the legal part of the O. T., bears towards this
book the relation of an amplified and annotated
Code ; these amplifications and annotations, be it
well understood, not being new laws, formerly un-
heard of, deduced in an arbitrary and fanciful
manner from Scripture, but supposed to be simul-
taneous oral revelations hinted at in the Scripture:
in any case representing not the human but the
Divine interpretation, handed down through a named
authority (Kabbala, Shemata —“ something received,
heard”). The Haggadah, on the other hand, held
especial sway over the wide field of ethical, poetical,
prophetical, and historical elements of the O.T.,
but was free even to interpret its legal and his-
torical passages fancifully and allegorically. The
whole Bible, with all its tones and colours, be-
longed to the Haggadah, and this whole Bible she
transformed into an endless series of themes for her
most wonderful and capricious variations. Pro-
phetess of the Exile,” she took up the hallowed
verse, word or letter, and, as the Halachah pointed
out in it a special ordinance, she, by a most inge-
nious exegetical process of her own, showed to the
wonder-struck multitude how the woeful events
under which they then groaned were hinted at in
it, and how in a manner it predicted even their
future issue. The aim of the Haggadah being
the purely momentary one of elevating, comfort-
ing, edifying its audience for the time being, it
did not pretend to possess the slightest autho-
rity. As its method was capricious and arbitrary,
so its cultivation was open to every one whose
heart prompted him. It is saga, tale, gnome,
parable, allegory,—poetry, in short, of its own
most strange kind, springing up from the sacred
soil of Scripture, wild, luxuriant, and tangled, like
a primeval tropical forest. If the Halachah used
the Scriptural word as a last and most awful
resort, against which there was no further appeal,
the Haggadah used it as the golden nail on which
to hang its gorgeous tapestry: as introduction, re-
frain, text, or fundamental stanza for a gloss ; and
1641
if the former was the iron bulwark around the
nationality of Israel, which every one was ready at
every moment to defend to his last breath, the
latter was a maze of flowery walks within those
fortress-walls. That gradually the Haggadah pre-
ponderated and became the Midrash κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν of
the people, is not surprising. We shall notice how
each successive Targum became more and more im-
pregnated with its essence, and from a version be-
came a succession of short homiletics. This difference
between the two branches of Midrash is strikingly
pointed in the following Talmudical story: “ἢ.
Chia b. Abba, a Halachist, and R. Abbahu, a Hag-
gadist, once came together into a city and preached.
The people flocked to the latter, while the former’s
discourses remained without a hearer. Thereupon
the Hageadist comforted the Halachist with a para-
ble. Two merchants come into a city and spread
their wayes,—the one rare pearls and precious
stones; the other a ribbon, a ring, glittering
trinkets: around whom will the multitude throng ?
. . - Formerly, when life was not yet bitter labour,
the people had leisure for the deep word of the
Law ; now it stands in need of comfortings and
blessings.” :
The first collections of the Halachah—embracing
the whole field of juridico-political, religious, and
practical life, both of the individual and of the
nation: the human and Divine law to its most mi-
nute and insignificant details—were instituted by
Hillel, Akiba, and Simon B. Gamaliel; but the
final redaction of the general code, Mishna,° to
which the later Toseftahs and Boraithas form sup-
plements, is due to Jehudah Hannassi in 220 A.D.
Of an earlier date with respect to the contents, but
committed to writing in later times, are the three
books: Sifra, or Torath Kohanim (an amoplification
of Leviticus), Sifri (of Numbers and Deuteronomy),
and Mechiltha (of a portion of Exodus). The
masters of the Mishnaic period, after the Soferim,
are the Tannaim, who were followed by the Amo-
raim. The discussions and further amplifications
of the Mishna by the latter, form the Gemara
(Complement), a work extant in two redactions,
viz. that of Palestine or Jerusalem (middle of 4th
century), and of Babylon (5th century A.D.), which,
together with the Mishna, are comprised under the
name Talmud. Here, however, though the work
is ostensibly devoted to Halachah, an almost equal
share is allowed to Haggadah. The Haggadistic
mode of treatment was threefold: either the simple
understanding of words and things (Peshat) or the
homiletic application, holding up the mirror of
Scripture to the present (Derush), or a mystic in-
terpretation (Sod), the second of which chiefly
found its way into the Targum. On its minute
division into special and general, ethical, historical,
esoteric, &c., Haggadah, we cannot enter here.
Suffice it to add that the most extensive collections
of it which have survived are Midrash Rabbah
(commenced about 700, concluded about 1100 A.D.),
comprising the’ Pentateuch and the five Megilloth,
and the Pesikta (about 700 A.D.), which contains
the most complete cycle of Pericopes, but the very
existence of which had until lately been forgotten,
surprisingly enough, through the very extracts
made from it (Jalkut, Pesikta Rabbathi, Sutarta,
&c.).
ὁ Mishna, from shana, “ to learn,” “learning,” not, as
erroneously translated of old, and repeated ever since,
Δευτέρωσις, “ repetition ;” but corresponding exactly
eee —ee——E—EeEEEE——E—E—E—E———E——E—————EEE EE ee ee δ eee ee ee AS
with Talmud, (from Jamad, “to learn’’), and Torah,
(from horeh), “ to teach:” all three terms meaning “ the
study,’ by way of eminence.
1642
From this indispensable digression we return to
the subject of Targum. The Targums now extant
are as follows :—
I. Targum on the Pentateuch, known as that of
Onkelos.
II. Targum on the first and last prophets, known
as that of Jonathan Ben-Uzziel.
III. Targum on the Pentateuch, likewise known
as that of Jonathan Ben-Uzziel.
IV. Targum on portions of the Pentateuch,
known as Targum Jerushalmi.
V. Targums on the Hagiographa, ascribed to
Joseph the Blind, viz. :—
1. Targum on Psalms, Job, Proverbs.
2. Targum on the five Megilloth (Song of Songs,
Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes).
3. Two (not three, as commonly stated) other
Targums to Esther: a smaller and a larger, the latter
known as Targum Sheni, or Second Targum,
VI. Targum to Chronicles.
ὙΠ. Targum to Daniel, known from an unpub-
lished Persian extract, and hitherto not received
among the number.
VUI. Targum on the Apocryphal pieces of Esther.
We have hinted before that neither any of the |
names under which the Targums hitherto went,
nor any of the dates handed down with them,
have stood the test of recent scrutiny. Let it,
however, not for a moment be supposed that a
sceptic Wolfian school has been at work, and with
hypercritical and wanton malice has tried to annihi-
late the hallowed names of Onkelos, Jonathan, and
Joseph the Blind. It will be seen from what
follows that most of these names have or may have
a true historical foundation and meaning ; but un-
critical ages and ignorant scribes have perverted
this meaning, and a succession of most extraordi-
nary misreadings and strangest ὕστερα πρότερα---
some even of a very modern date—have produced
rare confusion, and a chain of assertions which dis-
solve before the first steady gaze. That, notwith-
standing all this, the implicit belief in the old names |
and dates still reigns supreme will surprise no one
who has been accustomed to see the most striking
and undeniable results of investigation and criticism
quietly ignored by contemporaries, and forgotten
by generations which followed, so that the same
work had to be done very many times over again
before a certain fact was allowed to be such.
We shall follow the order indicated above :—
Ik
It will be necessary, before we discuss this work
itself, to speak of the person of its reputed author
as far. as it concerns us here, There are few more
contested questions in the whole province of Biblical,
nay general literature, than those raised on this
head. Did an Onkelos ever exist ? Was there
more than one Onkelos ? Was Onkelos the real
form of his name? Did he translate the Bible
at all, or pat of it? And is this Targum the
ivanslation he made? Do the dates οἵ his life
and this Targum tally? &c. &c. The ancient
accounts of Onkelos are avowedly of the most
corrupted and confused kind: so much so that
both ancient and modern investigators have failed to
reconcile and amend them so as to gain general satis-
faction, and opinions remain widely divergent. This
being the case, we think it our duty to lay the
whole—not very voluminous—evidence, collected
THE TARGUM OF ONKELOS.
both from the body of Talmudical and post-Tal-
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
mudical (so-called Rabbinical) and patristic writings
before the reader, in order that he may judge for
himself how far the conclusions to which we shall
point may be right.
The first mention of ‘* Onkelos”—a name vavri-
ously derived from Nicolaus (Geiger), “Ovoua καλός
jsic| (Renan), Homunculus, Avunculus, &c.—more
fully ‘‘ Onkelos the Proselyte,” is found in the To-
siftah, a work drawn up shortly after the Mishna.
Here we learn (1.) that ““ Onkelos the Proselyte ”
was so serious in his adherence to the newly-adopted
(Jewish) faith, that he threw his share in his
paternal inheritance into the Dead Sea (Tos. Demai,
vi. 9). (2.) At the funeral of Gamaliel the Elder
(ist century A.D.) he. burnt more than 70 minae
worth of spices in his honour (Tos. Shabb. 8). (3.)
This same story is repeated, with variations (Tos.
Semach. 8). (4.) He is finally mentioned, by way
of corroboration to different Halachas, in connexion
with Gamaliel, in three more places, which complete
our references from the Tosiftah (Tos. Mikv. 6,
1; Kelim, iii. 2, 2; Chag. 3,1). The Babylonian
Talmud, the source to which we turn our attention
next, mentions the name Onkelos four times: (1.) As
‘* Onkelos the Proselyte, the son of Kalonikos” (Cal-
linicus? Cleonicus?), the son of Titus’ sister, who,
intending to become a convert, conjured up the
ghosts οἵ Titus, Balaam, and Christ [the latter name
is doubtful], in order to ask them what nation was
considered the first in the other world. Their
answer that Israel was the favoured one decided him
(Gitt. 56), (2.) As “ Onkelos the son of Kalony-
mus” (Cleonymus?) (AbodaSar. 11 a.). It is there
related of him that the emperor (Kaisar) sent three
Roman cohorts to capture him, and that he con-
verted them all. (3.) In Baba Bathra 99 α (Bo-
raitha), ‘‘ Onkelos the Proselyte” is quoted as an
authority on the question of the form of the Che-
rubim. And (4.) The most important passage—
because on it and it alone, in the wide realm of
ancient literature, has been founded the general belief
that Onkelos is the author of the Targum now cur-
rent under this name—is found in Meg. θα. It
reads as follows :—* R. Jerémiah, and, according to
others, R. Chia bar Abba, said: The Targum
to the Pentateuch was made by the ‘ Proselyte
Onkelos, from the mouth of R. Eliezer and R.
Jehoshua ; the Targum to the Prophets was made
by Jonathan ben Uzziel from the mouth of Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi. ... But have we not
been taught that the Targum existed from the time
of Ezra? ... Only that it was forgotten, and
Onkelos restored it.” No mention whatever is to
be found of Onkelos either in the Jerusalem Talmud,
redacted about a hundred years before the Baby-
lonian, nor in the Church fathers—an item of nega-
tive evidence to which we shall presently draw
firther attention. In a Midrash collection, com-
pleted about the middle of the 12th century, we
find again ‘ Onkelos the Proselyte” asking an old
man, ““ Whether that was all the love God bore
towards a proselyte, that he promised to give him
bread and a garment? Whereupon the old man
replied that this was all for which the Patriarch
Jacob prayed (Gen. xxviii. 20).” The Book Zohar,
of late and very uncertain date, makes ‘* Onkelos ”
a disciple of Hillel and Shammai. Finally, a
MS., also of a very late and uncertain date, in
the library of the Leipzig Senate (B. H. 17),
relates of ‘* Onkelos, the nephew of Titus,” that he
asked the emperor’s advice as to what merchandize
he thought it was profitable to trade in. The em-
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
peror told him that that should be bought which
was cheap in the market, since it was sure to rise
in price. Whereupon Onkelos went on his way.
He repaired to Jerusalem, and studied the Law
under R, Eleazar and R. Jehoshua, and his face be-
came wan. When he returned to the court, one
of the courtiers observed the pallor of his coun-
tenance, and said to Titus, * Onkelos appears to
have studied the Law.” Interrogated by Titus, he
admitted the fact, adding that he had done it by
his advice. No nation had ever been so exalted,
and none was now held cheaper among the nations
than Israel : “ therefore,” he said, ‘ I concluded that
in the end none would be of higher price.”
This is all the information to be found in ancient
authorities about Onkelos and the Targum which
bears his name. Surprisingly enough, the latter is
well known to the Babylonian Talmud (whether to
the Jerusalem Talmud is questionable) and the
Midrashim, and is often quoted, but never once as
Targum Onkelos. The quotations from it are in-
variably introduced with 1)" )2 2 2, “As we
[Babylonians] translate ;” and the version itself is
called (e.g. Kiddush, 494) 11 DIN, “ Our
Targum,” exactly as Ephraim Syrus (Opp. i. 380)
speaks of the Peshito as “" Our translation.”
Yet we find on the other hand another current
version invariably quoted in the Talmud by the name
of its known author, viz. pony BIN, “ the
[Greek] Version of Akilas:” a circumstance which,
by showing that it was customary to quote the
author by name, excites suspicion as to the rela-
tion of Onkelos to the Targum Onkelos. Still
more surprising, however, is, as far as the person
of Onkelos is concerned (whatever be the dis-
crepancies in the above accounts), the similarity
between the incidents related of him and those re-
lated of Akilas. The latter (D> py, pop) is
said, both in Sifra (Ley. xxv. 7) and the Jerusalem
Talmud (Demai, xxvii.d), to have been born in
Pontus, to have been a proselyte, fo have thrown
his paternal inheritance into an asphalt lake (T,
Jer. Demai, 25d), to have translated the Torah
before R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, who praised him
(aiDbp, in allusion perhaps to his name, po'py) ;
or, according to other accounts, before R. Akiba
(comp. Jer. Kidd. 1, 1, 2, &c.; Jer. Meg. 1,
11; Babli Meg. 3a). We learn further that he
lived in the time of Hadrian (Chag. 2, 1), that he
was the son of the Empero’s sister (Tanch. 28, 1),
that he became a convert against the Emperor's will
(ib. and Shem. Rabba, 1400), and that he consulted
Eliezer and Jehoshua about his conversion (Ber. R.
78d; comp. Midr. Koh. 1020). First he is said
to have gone to the former, and to have asked him
whether that was all the love God bore a proselyte,
that. He promised him bread and a garment (Gen.
xxviii. 20). “See,” he said, ‘* what exquisite birds
and other delicacies I now have: even my slaves
do not care for them any longer.” Whereupon
R. Eliezer became wroth, and said, “ Is that for
which Jacob prayed, ‘ And give me bread to eat
and a garment to wear,’ so small in thine eyes ?—
Comes he, the proselyte, and receives these things
without any trouble !”—And Akilas, dissatisfied,
1645
left the irate Master and went to R. Joshua. He
pacified him, and explained to him that “ Bread”
meant the Divine Law, and ‘‘ Garment,” the Talith,
or sacred garment to be worn during prayer.
“ And not this alone, he continued, but the
Proselyte may marry his daughter to a Priest,
and his offspring may become a High-Priest, and
offer burnt-offerings in the Sanctuary.’ More
striking still is a Greek quotation from Onkelos,
the Chaldee translator (Midr. Echa, 58c), which
in reality is found in and quoted (Midr, Shir
hashir. 27d) from Akilas, the Greek translator.
That Akilas is no other than Aquila ?AKdvAas),
the well-known Greek translator of the Old Testa-
ment, we need hardly add. He is a native of Pontus
(Iren. adv, Haer. 3, 24; Jer. De Vir. Ill. c. 54;
Philastr. De Haer. 890). He lived under Hadrian
(Epiph. De Pond. et Mens. §12). He is called the
mevOepides (Chron. Alex. wevOepds) of the Emperor
(ib. 814), becomes a convert to Judaism (§15),
whence he is called the Proselyte (Iren. 1. ; Jerome
to Is. viii. 14, &c.), and receives instructions from
Akiba (Jer. ib.). He translated the O. T., and his
Version was considered of the highest import and
authority among the Jews, especially those unac-
quainted with the Hebrew language (Euseb. Praep.
Eo. \.c.; Augustin, Civ. D. xv. 23; Philastr. Haer.
90; Justin, Novell, 146). Thirteen distinct quota-
tionsP from this Version are preserved in Talmud
and Midrash, and they tally, for the most part,
with the corresponding passages preserved in the
Hexapla; and for those even which do not agree,
there is no need to have recourse to corruptions.
We know from Jerome (on Ezek. iii, 15) that Aquila
prepared a further edition of his Version, called by
the Jews κατ᾽ ἀκρίβειαν, aud there is no reason
why we should not asstime, caeteris paribus, that
the differing passages belong to the different editions.
If then there can be no reasonable doubt as to the
identity of Aquila and Akilas, we may well now go
a step further, and from the threefold accounts ad-
duced,—so strikingly parallel even in their anachro-
nisms and contortions—safely argue the identity,
as of Akilas and Aquila, so of Onkelos ‘ the trans-
lator, with Akilas or Aquila. Whether in reality
a proselyte of that name had been in existence
at an earlier date—a circumstance which might ex-
plain’ part of the contradictory statements ; and whe-
ther the difference of the forms is produced through
the Y (ng, nk), with which we find the name some-
times spelt, or the Babylonian manner, occasionally
to insert an 7, like ia Adrianus, which we always
find spelt Andrianus in the Babylonian Talmud ; or
whether we are to read Gamaliel II. for Gamaliel
the Elder, we cannot here examine; anything
connected with the person of an Onkelos no
longer concerns us, since he is not the author of
the l'argum; indeed, as we saw, only once ascribed
to him in the passage of the Babylonian Talmud
(Meg. 3a), palpably corrupted from the Jerusalem
Talmud (Meg. i. 9). And not before the 9th cen-
tury (Pirke der. Eliezer to Gen. xlv. 27) does this
mischievous mistake seem to have struck root, and
even from that time three centuries elapsed, during
which the Version was quoted often enough, but
without its authorship being ascribed to Onkelos.
P Greek quotations:—Gen. xvii. 1, in Beresh. Rab. 516 ;
Lev. xxiii. 40, Jer. Succah, 3, 5, fol. 53d (comp. Vaj.
Rab. 200 d) ; Is. iii. 20, Jer. Shabb. 6, 4, fol. 8 ὃ ; Ez. xvi.
10, Midr. Thren. 58¢; Kz. xxiii. 43, Vaj. Rab. 203d;
Ps. xlviii. 15 (Masor. T., xlvii. according to LXX.), Jer.
Meg. 2, 3, fol. 7303 Prov. xviii, 21, Vaj. Rab. fol. 2036;
Esth. i. 6, Midr. Esth. 120d; Dan. v.5, Jer. Joma, 3, 8, fol.
41a,— Hebrew quotations, re-translated from the Greek :—
Ley. xix. 20, Jer. Kid. i. 1, fol. 59 a; Dan. viii. 13, Ber. Rab,
24¢.—Chaldee quotations :—Prov. xxv. 11; Beresh. Rab.
1046; Is. v. 6, Midr. Koh, 113 ¢, ἃ.
1644
From all this it follows that those who, in the
face of this overwhelming mass of evidence, would
fain retain Onkelos in the false position of trans-
lator of our Targum, must be ready to admit that |
there were two men living simultaneously of most
astoundingly similar names; both proselytes to Ju-
daism, both translators of the Bible, both disciples |
of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua; it being of both
reported by the same authorities that they trans-
lated the Bible, and that they were disciples of
the two last-mentioned Doctors; both supposed to
be nephews of the reigning emperor who disap-
proved of their conversion (for this ee comp.
Dion Cass. xvii. 14, and Deb. Rab. 2; where Do-
mitian is related to have had a near relative executed
for his inclining towards Judaism), and very many
more palpable improbabilities of the same description.
The question now remains, why was this Targum
called that of Onkelos or Akilas? It is neither a
translation of it, nor is it at all done in the same spirit.
All that we learn about the Greek Version shows us
that its chief aim and purpose was, to counteract the
LXX. The latter had at that time become a mass
of arbitrary corruptions—especially with respect te
the Messianic passages—as well on the Christian
as on the Jewish side. It was requisite that a
translation, scrupulously literal, should be given
into the hands of those who were unable to read
the original. Aquila, the disciple, according to
one account, of Akiba; the same Akiba who ex-
pounded (darash) for Halachistic purposes the seem-
ingly most insignificant Particles in the Scripture
(e. g. the NN, sign of accusative; Gen. R. 1; Tos.
Sheb. 1; Talm. Sheb. 26a), fulfilled his task
according to his master’s method. ‘ Non solum
verba sed et etymologias verborum transferre co-
natus est. . . . Quod Hebraei non solum habent
ἄρθρα sed et πρόαρθρα, ille κακοζήλως et syllabas
interpretetur et litteras, dictatque σὺν τὸν ovpa-
νὸν kal σὺν τὴν γῆν quod graeca et latina lingua
non recipit”’ (Jer. de Opt. Gen. interpret.). Tar-
gum Onkelos, on the other hand, is, if not quite
a paraphrase, yet one of the very freest versions,
Nor do the two translations, with rare exceptions,
agree even as to the renderings of proper nouns,
which each occasionally likes to transform into
something else. But there 7s a reason. ‘The Jews
in possession of this most slavishly accurate Greek
Bible-text, could now on the one hand successfully
combat arguments, brought against them from
interpolated LXX. passages, and on the other
follow the expoundings of the School and the Ha-
lachah, based upon the letter of the Law, as closely
as if they had understood the original itself. That
a version of this description often marred the sense,
mattered less in times anything but favourable to
the literal meaning of the Bible. It thus gradually
became such a favourite with the people, that its
venderings were household words. If the day when
the LXX. was made was considered a day of distress
like the one on which the golden calf was cast, and
was actually entered among the fast days (8th
Tebeth; Meg. Taanith) ;— this new version, which
was to dispel the mischievous influences of the older,
earned for its author one of the most delicate com-
pliments in the manner of the time. The verse of
the Scripture (Ps. xlv. 3), “Thou art more beautiful
(jofjefita) than the sons of men,” was applied to
him—in allusion to Gen, ix. 27, where it is said that
Japhet, (7. ὁ. the Greek language), should one day
dwell in the tents of Shem (i.e. Israel), Meg. 15 00,
71 ὁ and ὁ; 96, Ber. Rab. 40 ὁ.---Οὕτω yap ᾿Ακύ-
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
Aas δουλεύων τῇ ἑβραϊκῇ λέξει. ἐκδέδωκεν εἰπὼν
. φιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένος παρὰ ᾿Ἴου-
| autos ἡρμενευκέναι τὴν γραφήν, &c. (Orig. ad
| Afric. 2).
What, under these circumstances, is more natural
than to suppose that the new Chaldee Version—at
least as excellent in its way as the Greek—was
started under the name which had become expressive
of the type and ideal of a Bible-translation ; that, in
tact, it should be called a Targum done in the manner
of Aquila :—Aquila-Turgum. Whether the title of
recommendation was, in consideration of the merits
of the work upon which it was bestowed, gladly en-
dorsed and retained—or for aught we know, was not
bestowed upon it until it was generally found to be of
such surpassing merit, we need not stop to argue.
Being thus depr ived of the dates which a close
examination into the accounts of a translator’s life
might have furnished us, we must needs try to fix
the time of our Targum as approximately as we can
by the circumstances under which it took its rise,
and by the quotations from it which we meet in early
works. Without unnecessarily going into detail, we
shall briefly record, what we said in the introduc-
tion, that the Targum was begun to be committed
to writing about the end of the 2nd century, A.D.
So far, however, from its superseding the oral
Targum at once, it was on the contrary strictly for-
bidden to read it in public (Jer. Meg. 4, 1). Nor
was there any uniformity in the version. Down
to the middle of the 2nd century we find the
masters most materially differing from each other
with respect to the Targum of certain passages,
(Seb. 54 a.) and translations quoted not to be found
in any of our Targums. The necessity must thus
have pressed itself upon the attention of the spiritual
leaders of the people to put a stop to the fluctuating
state of a version, which, in the course of time
must needs have become naturally surrounded with
a halo of authority little short of that of the ori-
ginal itself. We shall thus not be far wrong in
placing the work of collecting the different frag-
ments with their variants, and reducing them into
one—finally authorized Version—about the end of
the 3rd, or the beginning of the 4th century, and
in assigning Babylon to it as the birthplace. It
was at Babylon, that about this time the light of
learning, extinguished in the blood-stained fields of
Palestine, shone with threefold vigour. ‘The Aca-
demy at Nahardea, founded according to legend
during the Babylonian exile itself, had gathered
strength in the same degree as the numerous
Palestinian schools began to decline, and when in
259 A.D. that most ancient school was destroyed,
there were three others simultaneously flourish-
ing in its stead:—Tiberias, whither the college
of Palestinian Jabneh had been transferred in the
time of Gamaliel III. (200); Sora, founded by
Chasda of Kafri (293); and Pumbadita founded by
R. Jehudah Ὁ. Jecheskeel (297). And in Babylon
for well nigh a thousand years ‘‘ the crown of the
Law” remained, and to Babylon, the seat of the
“Head of the Golah” (Dispersion), all Israel,
scattered to the ends of the earth, looked for its
spiritual guidance. That one of the first deeds
of these Schools must have been the fixing of
the Targum, as soon as the fixing of it became
indispensable, we may well presume; and as we see
the text fluctuating down to the middle of the
2nd century, we must needs assume that the redac-
tion took place as soon afterwards as may reasonably
be supposed. Further corroborative arguments ave
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
found for Babylon as the place of its final redaction,
although Palestine was the country where it grew
and developed itself. Many grammatical and idio-
matical signs—the substance itself, 7. e. the words,
being Palestinian—point, as far as the scanty ma-
‘terials in our hands permit us to draw conclusions
as to the true state of language in Babylon, to that
country. The Targum further exhibits a greater
linguistic similarity with the Babylonian, than
with the Palestinian Gemara. Again, terms are
found in it which the Talmud distinctly mentions
as peculiar to Babylon,4 not to mention Persian
words, which on Babylonian soil easily found
their way into our work, One of the most striking
hints is the unvarying translation of the Targum
of the word 7), “ River,’ by Euphrates, the
River of Babylon. Need we further point to
the terms above mentioned, under which the
Targum is exclusively quoted in the Talmud and
the Midrashim of Babylon, viz., “ Our Targum,”
“« As we translate,” or its later designation (Aruch,
Rashi, Tosafoth, &c.) as the “ Targum of Babel ” ?
Were a further proof needed, it might be found in
the fact that the two Babylonian Schools, which,
holding different readings in various places of the
Scripture, as individual traditions ‘of their own,
consequently held different readings in the Targum
ever since the time of its redaction.
The opinions developed here are shared more or
less by some of the most competent scholars of our
day: tor instance, Zunz (who now repudiates the
dictum laid down in his Gottesdienstl. Vortr., that
the translation of Onkelos dates from about the
middle of the first ceutury, A.D.; comp. Geiger,
Zettschr. 1843, p. 179, note 3), Gritz, Levy, Herz-
feld, Geiger, Frankel, &c. The history of the in-
vestigation of the Targums, more especially that of
Onkelos, presents the usual spectacle of vague
speculations and widely contradictory notions,
held by different investigators at different times.
Suffice it to mention that of old authorities, Reuchin
puts the date of the Targum as far back as the
time of Isaiah—notwithstanding that the people,
as we are distinctly told, did not understand even
a few Aramaic words in the time of Jeremiah.
Following Asaria de Rossi and Eliah Levita (who,
for reasons now completely disposed of, assumed
the Targiim to have first taken its rise in Babylon
during the Captivity), Bellarmin, Sixtus Senensis,
Aldret, Bartolocci, Rich. Simon, Hottinger, Walton,
Thos. Smith, Pearson, Allix, Wharton, Prideaux,
Schickard, take the same view with individual
modifications. Pfeiffer, B. Meyer, Steph. Morinus,
on the other hand, place its date at an extremely
late period, and assign it to Palestine. Another
School held that the Targum was not written
until after the time of the Talmud—so Wolf,
Havermann, partly Rich. Simon, Hornbeck, Joh.
Morinus, &c.: and their reasons are both the oc-
currence of “ Talmudical Fables”? in the Targum
and the silence of the Fathers. The former is an
argument to which no reply is needed, since we do
not see what it can be meant to prove, unless the
“‘Rabbinus Talmud”’ has floated before their eyes,
who, according to ‘Henricus Seynensis Capucinus’
(Ann. Eccl. tom. i. 261), must have written all this
gigantic literature, ranging over a thousand years,
out of his own head, in which case, indeed, every
ays, “a girl,” is rendered by $595; “for thus
they call in Babylon a young girl,” 3455 ip joy
ΝΟΣ N19 (Chaz. 13.2).
1645
dictum on record, dating before or after the com-
pilation of the Talmud, and in the least resembling
a passage or story contained therein, must be a pla-
giarism from its sole venerable author. ‘The latter
argument, viz. the silence of the Fathers, more
especially of Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius, has
been answered by Walton; and what we have said
will further corroborate his arguments to the effect,
that they did not mention it, not because it did not
exist in their days, but because they either knew
nothing of it, or did not understand it. In the person
of an Onkelos, a Chaldee translator, the belief has
been general, and will remain so, as long as the
ordinary Handbooks—with rare exceptions—do not
care to notice the uncontested results of contem-
porary investigation. How scholars within the last
century have endeavoured to reconcile the contra-
dictory accounts about Onkelos, more particularly
how they have striven to smooth over the difficulty
of their tallying with those of Akilas—as far as either
had come under their notice—for this and other
minor points we must refer the reader to Kichhorn,
Jahn, Berthold, Havernick, &c.
We now turn to the Targum itself.
Its language is Chaldee, closely approaching in
purity of idiom to that of Ezra and Daniel. It follows
a sober and clear, though not a slavish exegesis, and
keeps as closely and minutely to the text as is at all
consistent with its purpose, viz., to be chiefly, and
above all, a version for the people. Its explanations
of difficult and obscure passages bear ample witness
to the competence of those who gave it its final
shape, aud infused into it a rare unity. Even where
foreign matter is introduced, or, as Berkowitz in his
Hebrew work Oteh Or keenly observes, where it
most artistically blends two translations : ‘one literal,
and one figurative, into one; it steadily keeps in
view the real sense of the passage in hand, It is
always concise and clear, and dignified, worthy of
the grandeur of its subject. It avoids the legend-
ary character with which all the later Targums
entwine the Biblical word, as far as ever cir-
cumstances would allow. Only in the poetical
passages it was compelled to yield—though re-
luctantly—to the popular craving for Haggadah ;
but even here it chooses and selects with rare taste
and tact.
Generally and broadly it may be stated that
alterations are never attempted, save for the
sake of clearness; tropical terms are dissolved by
judicious circumlocutions, for the correctness of
which the authors and editors—#in possession of
the living tradition of a language still written, if
not spoken in their day—certainly seem better judges
than some modern critics, who through their own
incomplete acquaintance with the idiom, injudi-
ciously blame Onkelos. Highly characteristic is
the aversion of the Targum to anthropopathies and
anthropomorphisms; in fact, to any term which
could in the eyes of the multitude lower the idea
of the Highest Being. Yet there are many pas-
sages retained in which human affections and qua-
lities are attributed to Him. He speaks, He sees,
He hears, He smells the odour of sacrifice, is angry,
repents, &c. :—the Targum thus showing itself en-
tirely opposed to the allegorising and symbolising
tendencies, which in those, and still more in later
days, were prone to transform Biblical history
itself into the most extraordinary legends and fairy
tales with or without a moral. The Targum, how-
ever, while retaining terms like the arm of God,
the right hand of God, the finger of God —for
1646
Power, Providence, &c.—replaces terms like foot,
front, back of God, by the fitting figurative mean-
ing. We must notice further its repugnance to
bring the Divine Being into too close contact, as
it were, with man. It erects a kind of reverential
barrier, a sort of invisible medium of awful reve-
rence between the Creator and the creature. Thus
terms like ‘‘ the Word’ (Logos = Sanse. Om), “ the
Shechinah ” (Holy Presence of God’s Majesty, “ the
Glory”), further, human beings talking not to, but
“before” God, are frequent. The same care, in a
minor degree, is taken of the dignity of the persons
of the patriarchs, who, though the Scripture may
expose their weaknesses, were not to be held up in
their iniquities before the multitude whose ances-
tors and ideals they were. That the most curious
ὕστερα πρότερα and anachronisms occur, such as
Jacob studying the Torah in the academy of Shem,
&ce., is due to the then current typifying tendencies
of the Haggadah. Some extremely cautious, withal
poetical, alterations also occur when the patriarchs
speak of having acquired something by violent
means: as Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 22), by his “sword
and bow,” which two words become in the Tar-
gum, ‘ prayers and supplications.” But the points
which will have to be considered chiefly when the
Targum becomes a serious study—as throwing the
clearest light upon its time, and the ideas then
in vogue about matters connected with ‘religious
belief and exercises—are those which treat of
prayer, study of the law, prophecy, angelology, and
the Messiah,
The only competent investigator who, after Winer
(De Onkeloso, 1820), but with infinitely more mi-
nuteness and thorough knowledge of the subject,
has gone fully into this matter, is Luzzatto. Con-
sidering the vast importance of this, the oldest Tar-
gum, for biblical as well as for linguistic studies in
general,—not to mention the advantages that might
accrue from it to other branches of learning, such
as geography, history, &c.: we think it advisable
to give—tor the first time—a brief sketch of the
results of this eminent scholar. His classical,
though not rigorously methodical, Oheb Ger (1830)
is, it is true, quoted by every one, but in reality
known to but an infinitely small number, although
it is written in the most lucid modern Hebrew.
He divides the discrepancies between Text and
Targum into four principal classes.
(A.) Where the language of the Text has been
changed in the Targum, but the meaning of the
former retained.
(B.) Where both language and meaning were
changed.
(C.) Where the meaning was retained, but addi-
tions were introduced.
(D.) Where the meaning was changed, and addi-
tions were introduced.
He further subdivides these four into thirty-two
classes, to all of which he adds, in a most thorough
and accurate manner, some telling specimens. Not-
withstanding the apparent pedantry of his method,
and the undeniable identity which necessarily must
exist between some of his classes, a glance over
their whole body, aided by one or two examples in
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
each case, will enable us to gain as clear an insight
into the manner and “genius” of the Onkelos-
Targum as is possible without the study of the
work itself.
(A.) Discrepancies where the language of the text
has been changed in the Targum, but the meaning
of the former has been retained.
1. Alterations owing to the idiom: e. g. the sin-
gular,® “ Let there be [sit] lights” (Gen. i. 14), is
transformed into the plur.s [sint] in the Targum ;
“man and woman,”’t as applied to the animals
(Gen. vii. 2), becomes, as unsuitable in the Aramaic,
“male and female.” ἃ
2. Alterations out of reverence towards God,
more especially for the purpose of doing away with
all ideas of a plurality of the Godhead: e. g. the
terms Adonai, Elohim, are replaced by Jehovah,
lest these might appear to imply more than one
God. Where Elohim is applied to idolatry it is
rendered “ Error.’’ =
3. Anthropomorphisms, where they could be mis-
understood and construed into a disparagement or
a lowering of the dignity of the Godhead among
the common people, are expunged: e. 4. for ‘* And
God smelled a sweet smell ” (Gen. viii. 21), Onkelos
has, “* And Jehovah received the sacrifice with
grace;” for “ And Jehovah wentY down to see the
city” (Gen. xi. 5), ‘* And Jehovah revealed? Him-
self,” a term of frequent use in the Targum for
verbs of motion, such as “" to go down,” ‘ to go
through,” &c., applied to God. ‘I shall pass over®
you” (Ex, xii. 13), the Targum renders, “I shall
protect you.” > Yet only anthropomorphisms which
clearly stand figuratively and might give offence,
are expunged, not as Maimonides, followed by nearly
all commentators, holds, a// anthropomorphisms,
for words like “hand, finger, to speak, see,” &c.
(see above), are retained. But where the words
remember, think of,¢ &c., are used of God, they
always, whatever their tense in the text, stand in
the Targum in the present; since a past or future
would imply a temporary forgetting on the part of
the Omniscient.4 A keen distinction is here also
established by Luzzatto between 37 and by, the
former used of a real, external seeing, the latter of
a seeing ‘ into the heart.”
4, Expressions used of and to God by men are
brought more into harmony with the idea of His
dignity. Thus Abraham’s question, ‘ The Judge
of the whole earth, should he not (xd) do justice?”
(Gen. xviii. 25) is altered into the affirmative: ‘* The
Judge . . . verily He will do justice.” Laban, who
speaks of his gods ὃ in the text, is made to speak of
his religion only in the Targum.
5. Alterations in honour of Israel and their an-
cestors. Rachel “stole” the Teraphim (xxxi. 19)
is softened into Rachel ‘ took;”» Jacob ‘ fed” i
from Laban (Ib. 22), into ‘‘ went ”;* “ The sons
of Jacob answered Shechem with craftiness’? ™
(xxxiv. 13), into ‘* with wisdom.” ®
6. Short glosses introduced for the better under-
standing of the text: “for it is my mouth that
speaks to you” (xiv. 12), Joseph said to his
brethren: Targum, “ in your tongue,” 9 ἡ, 6. with-
out an interpreter. “The people who had made
τ Ws
“ SPN) DT *~ODY ny
yay «Sony ΠΟ
» DINN “27, IPD
4 Comp. Prayer for Rosh hashana, "\5) ANDY PX)
“And there is no forgetting before the throne of Thy
glory.”
e pds tynbns. ε Δ))) ΠῚ
» D9) inna k Soon
m ADDI =NODIND o_o ND wha
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
the calf ;” (Ex. xxxii. 35) Targum, “ worshipped,” P
since not they, but Aaron made it.
7. Explanation of tropical and allegorical expres-
sions: ‘ Be fruitful (lit. ‘creep,’ from YW) and
multiply ” (Gen. i, 28), is altered into“ bear chil-
dren; 4 “thy brother Aaron shall be thy prophet” τ
(Ex. vii. 1), into “ thy interpreter” § (Meturgeman) ;
“1 made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh” (Ex, vii.
1). into “amaster ;” t “* toa head and not toa tail”
(Deut. xxviii. 13), into “to a strong man and not
to a weak ;”™ and finally, ‘*‘ Whoever says of his
father and his mother, 1 saw them not” (Deut.
xxxiii, 9), into ““ Whoever is not merciful * towards
his father and his mother.”
8. Tending to ennoble the language: the “Κ΄ wash-
ing” of Aaron and his sons is altered into ‘ sancti-
fyingY;” the ‘* carcasses” 2 of the animals of Abra-
ham (Gen. xv. 11) become “ pieces; ‘ anoint-
ing”> becomes “ elevating, raising ;” ¢ ‘the wife
of the bosom,” 4 ἐς wife of the covenant.” &
9. The last of the classes where the terms are
altered, but the sense is retained, is that in which
a change of language takes place in order to in-
troduce the explanations of the oral law and the
traditions: 6. 4. Lev. xxiii. 11, ‘‘On the morrow
after the Sabbath f (7. e. the feast of the unleavened
bread) the priest shall wave it (the sheaf),’’ Onkelos
for Sabbath, feast-day.§ For frontlets * (Deut. vi.
8), Tefillin (phylacteries).i
(B.) Change of both the terms and the meaning.
10. To avoid phrases apparently derogatory to
the dignity of the Divine Being: “ Am I in God’s
stead?” * becomes in Onkelos, ‘¢ Dost thou ask
[children] from me?™ fiom before God thou
shouldst ask them” (Gen. xxx. 2).
11. In order to avoid anthropomorphisms of an
objectionable kind. “ With the breath of Thy nose”’®
(“ blast of Thy nostrils,” A. V., Ex. xv. 8), becomes
“¢ With the word of Thy mouth.”° “ And I shall
spread my hand over thee”? (Ex. xxxiii. 22), is
transformed into “I shall with my word protect
thee.”4 ‘ And thou shalt see my back parts,™ but
my faces shall not be seen” (Ex. xxxiii. 23):
«* And thou shalt see what is behind me,* but that
which is before me® shall not be seen’? (Deut.
xxxill. 12).
12. For the sake of religious euphemisms: 6. g.
*« And ye shall be like God” * (Gen. iii. 5), is
altered into “ like princes.” ¥* “ A laughter? has
God made me” (Gen. xxi. 6), into “‘ A joy® He
gives me ”— God” being entirely omitted.
13. In honour of the nation and its ancestors:
1647
e.g. “ Jacob was an upright man, a dweller in
tents ”> (Gen, xxv. 27), becomes “ an upright man,
frequenting the house of learning.’’* «One of the
people? might have lain with thy wife” (Gen.
xxvi. 10)—“* One singled out among the people,” ς
t. 6. the king. ‘‘Thy brother came and took my
blessing with deceit” f (Gen. xxvii. 35), becomes
** with wisdom’”’ &
14. In order to avoid similes objectionable on
aesthetical grounds. ‘* And he will bathe his foot
in oil’ —* And he will have many delicaciesi of
a king” (Deut. xxxiii. 24).
15. In order to ennoble the language. ‘“ And
man became a living being’’* (Gen. ii. 7)—* And
it became in man a speaking spirit.”™ ἐς How
good are thy tents,» O Jacob” —‘ How good are
thy lands,° O Jacob” (Num. xxiv. 5).
16. In favour of the Oral Law and the Rabbinical
explanations ‘“¢ And go into the land of Moriah ” P
(Gen. xxii. 2), becomes ‘‘ into the land of worship ”
(the future place of the Temple). ‘‘ Isaac went
to walk 4 in the field” (Gen. xxiv. 63), is rendered
“to pray.”’* [Comp. Sam. Pent., p. 11140].
“Thou shalt not boil a kid® in the milk of its
mother” (Ex. xxxiv. 26)—as meat and milk,t ac-
cording to the Halachah.
(C.) Alterations of words (circumlocutions, addi-
tions, &c.) without change of meaning.
17. On account of the difference of idiom: e. 4.
“Her father’s brother’ ἃ (=relation), (Gen. xxix.
12), is rendered “ The son of her father’s sister.’’*
“What God does ¥ (future) he has told Pharaoh”
(Gen. xli. 28)—* What God will 4ο,᾽2 &e.
18. Additions for the sake of avoiding expres-
sions apparently derogatory to the dignity of the
Divine Being, by implying polytheism and the like:
‘Who is like unto Thee* among the gods?” is ren-
dered, ““ There is none like unto Thee,» Thou art
God” (Ex. χν. 11). ‘ And they sacrifice to demons
who are no gods ’’*—* of no use ” 4 (Deut. xxxii, 17).
19. In order to avoid erroneous notions implied
in certain verbs and epithets used of the Divine
Being: e.g. “And the Spirit of Gode@ moved”
(Gen. i. 2)—** A wind from before the Lord.” ἢ
“¢ And Noah built God an altar’’ & (Gen. viii. 20)
—‘‘an altar before» the Lord.” ‘* And Godi was
with the boy” (Gen. xxi. 20)—‘* And the word of
God was in the aid of the boy.” ‘The moun-
tain of God” (Ex. iii. 1)—“ The mountain upon
which was revealed the glory™ of God.” «The
staff of God” (Ex. iv. 20)—‘“ The staff with
which thou hast done the miracles before ® God.”
Pssaynent osipme ayaa
"ΠΣ ΠΟ tan « whnd eds spond
Om 7 Nesp = OID
exuop(onna oo awe
ἀ Dn ΠΝ DMD NUN
fn ε ΝΞ NDY » ΓΒ
νυ ΚΣ ΝΣ Ss nnna
m3) YI nN 2 Π
° OI WD
5 PEN MI)
PDD Nw
4 DI PIN τ NNN © 995
eqnatn ἃ ΝΡ Π Ὁ ondy
y pa : ΠΥ . ΜΥῚΠ
υ ΟΌΤΝ Ὡς Ὁ ΝΒΟῚΝ maa wow
4 ὮΝ INN ὁ ΟΣ IND In
f ADIN. 2 NDDINA by
i ‘DAN an ward
=sdopp ΠῚ ΟἼΝΞ mim == pon
ο ἼΝῚΝ > ΠΥΡῚ amy.
r ΜΓ. {Abraham instituted, according to the
Midrash, the morning- (Shaharith), Isaac the afternoon-
(Minha), and Jacob the evening-prayer (Maarib).] .
sabna ΥἹ) t adm wa
“nN ᾿ΠΠΝ ἢ ὙΠ
ssayndpny «jw. > yo Ἴ2 πὸ
combs xb ἃ ΥῚΝ imam
eomds mn tomboy op [Ὁ AN
ai! ἈΠ Bap iON
KAT SND = ND "ἢ DIP 3D
1648
“ And I shall see® what will be their end’?—* It
is open (revealed) before me,’P ἄς. The Divine
Being is in fact very rarely spoken of without that
spiritual medium mentioned before; it being con-
sidered, as it were, a want of proper reverence to
speak to or of Him directly. The terms “ Before”
(Dp), “ Word” (λόγος, SDD), “ Glory”
(NP), “ Majesty ” (ΠῚ 239), are also constantly
used instead of the Divine name: e. 4. ‘¢ The voice
of the Lord God was heard” (Gen, iii. 8)—* The
voice of the Word.’ ‘‘ And He will dwell in the
tents of Shem” (ix. 27) ---- ““ And the Shechina
[Divine Presence] will dwell.” ‘And the Lord
went up from Abraham ” (Gen. xvii. 22)—“ And
the glory of God went up.” “ And God came to
Abimelech”” (Gen. xx. 3)—‘‘ And the word pron
[before] God came to Abimelech.”
20. For the sake of improving seemingly irre-
verential phrases in Scripture. “ Who is God that
I should listen unto His voice?” (Ex. v. 2)—*‘ The
name of God has not been revealed to me, that I
should receive His word.” 4
21. In honour of the nation and its ancestors.
‘* And Israel said to Joseph, Now I shall gladly
die’ (Gen. xlvi. 30), which might appear frivolous
in the mouth of the patriarch, becomes ‘I shall be
comforted 5 now.” “ And he led his flock towards t
the desert” (Ex. iii. 1)—“ towards a good spot of
pasture ἃ in the desert.”
22. In honour of the Law and the explanation of
its obscurities. “To days and years” (Gen. i. 14)
—“ that days and years should be counted by
them.” * ‘A tree of knowledge of good and evil”
—‘ A tree, and those who eat nie fruits ¥ will dis-
tinguish between good and evil.”’ “1 shall not
further curse for the sake of man” (viii. 21)
—‘through the sin* of man.” “Τὸ the ground
shall not be forgiven the blood» shed upon it”
(Num. xxv. 33)—* the innocent © blood.”
23. For the sake of avoiding similes, metony-
mical and allegorical passages, too difficult for the
comprehension “of the multitude: ὁ, 4. “ Thy seed
like the dust of the earth’ (Gen. xiii. 16)—
“‘mighty4 as the dust of the earth.” ‘I am too
small for all the benefits ” (Gen. xxxii. 10)—“ My
good deeds © are small.” “ And the Lord thy God
will τος thy heart "--- the folly of thy
heart.”
24, — the sake of elucidating apparent obscuri-
ties, &c., in the written Law. “ Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother” (Gen. ii.
24)—* the home’’g (not really his par ents). caine
will of Him who dwelleth in the bush ”—* of Him
that dwelleth in heaven» [whose Shechinah is in
heaven], and who revealed Himself in the bush to
Moses.”
25. In favour of the oral Law and the traditional
explanations generally. ‘* He punishes the sins of
the parents on their children” (Ex. xx. 5), has the
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
addition, “ when the children follow the sins of
their parents ” (comp. Ez. xviii. 19), ‘“ The right-
eous and the just ye shall not kill”’ (Ex. xxiii. 7)
-- He who has left the tribunal as innocent, thou
shalt not kill him,” 7. e., according to the Halacha,
he is not to be arraigned again for the same crime.
“ Doorposts ” (mesusoth) (Deut. vi. 9)—‘ And
thou shalt write them .. . and affix them upon the
posts,” &e, ‘
(D.) Alteration of language and meaning.
26. In honour of the Divine Being, to avoid ap-
parent multiplicity or a likeness. ‘ Behold man
will be like one of us, knowing good and evil”
(Gen. iii. 22)—** He will be the only one in the
world? to know good and evil.” “For who is
a God in heaven and on earth who could do like
Thy deeds and powers?” (Deut. iii. 24)—** Thou
art God, Thy Divine Presence (Shechinah) is in
heaven * above, and reigns on earth below, and there
is none who does like unto Thy deeds,” &c.
27. Alteration of epithets employed of God.
“And before Thee shall I hide myself’ ™ (Gen.
iv. 14)—*“ And before Thee it is not possible to
hide.”™ “This is my God and I will praise® Him,
the God of my father and I will extol? Him” (Ex.
xv. 2)—‘ This is my God, and I will build Him a
sanctuary ; 4 the God of my fathers, and I will pray
before Him.” * ‘In one moment I shall go up in
thy midst and annihilate thee ”—“ For one hour
will I take away my majesty § from among thee”
(since no evil can come from above).
28. For the ennobling of the sense. ‘‘ Great is
Jehovah above all gods’-—“Great is God, and
there is no other god beside Him.” “ Send through
him whom thou wilt send ” (Ex. iv. 13) —* through
him who is worthy to be sent.”
29. In honour of the nation and its ancestors.
« And the souls they madet in Haran ” (Gen. xii.
5)—“ the souls they made subject to the Divine
Law" in Haran.” ‘* And Jsaac brought her into
the tent of his mother Sarah” (Gen. xxiv. 67)—
« And lo righteous were her works like the works
of his mother Sarah.” ‘ And he bent his shoulder
to bear, and he became a tributary servant” (Gen.
xlix. 15)—“ And he will conquer the cities of the
nations and destroy their dwelling-places, and those
that will remain there will serve him and pay tri-
bute to him.” ‘ People, foolish and not wise”
(Deut. xxxii. 6)—‘* People who has received the
Law and has not become wise.” ¥
30. Explanatory of tropical and metonymical
phrases. ‘‘ And besides thee no man shall raise his
hand and his foot in the whole land of Egypt”
(Gen. xli. 44)—* There shall not a man raise his hand
to seize a weapon, and his foot to ride on a horse.”
31. To ennoble or improve the language. ‘‘ Coats
of skin” (Gen. iii. 21)—“ Garments of honour *
on the skin of their flesh.” “ Thy two daugh-
oonyt » wap ὍΣ
4 ms Sap Ὁ ΣΝ Νὶ
. AMON ὁ ΠΌΠΟΙ
"7 my ἼΒΙΨ
yma part port ays
= 953 Oran One 515 © 49 od
NID coma Vy
ΓΞ mwan ε 33 M3
Sw pws ΠΣ ΝΟΣ NTN
‘197 INN
= ΠΣ ΟΡ
k wa JD”
> sped mwas md
π ἽΠΠΟΝ
° ΠῚ)
ν᾿ INDDIIN owspp m> ΣΝ
τ ΠῚ NaN ΠΣ poor
t wy ἃ ΓΝ ape
x ΝΠ ΣΝ ppm
y ὙΠ ΝΟῚ sm dap
= aps ponad
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
ters who are found with thee” (Gen. xix. 15) --
“who were found faithful with thee.” May
Reuben live and not die” (Deut. xxxiii. 6)—“* May
Reuben live in the everlasting life.”
The foregoing examples will, we trust, be found
to bear out sufticiently the judgment given above on
this Targum. In spite of its many and important
discrepancies, it never for one moment forgets its
aim of being a clear, though free, translation for
the people, and nothing more. Wherever it
deviates from the literalness of the text, such a
course, in its case, is fully justified—nay, neces-
sitated—either by the obscurity of the passage,
or the wrong construction that naturally would
be put upon its wording by the multitude. ‘The
explanations given agree either with the real sense,
or develop the current tradition supposed to under-
lie it. The specimens adduced by other inyesti-
gators, however differently classified or explained,
are easily brought under the foregoing heads.
They one and all tend to prove that Onkelos,
whatever the objections against single instances,
is one of the most excellent and thoroughly
competent interpreters. A few instances only
—and they are very few indeed —may be ad-
duced, where even Onkelos, as it would appear,
“dormitat.” Far be it from us for one moment
to depreciate, as has been done, the infinitely
superior knowledge both of the Hebrew and Chaldee
idioms on the part of the writers and editors of
our document, or to attribute their discrepancies
from modern translations to ignorance. They drank
from the fullness of a highly valuable traditional
exegesis, as fresh and vigorous in their days as
the Hebrew language itself still was in the circles
of the wise, the academies and schools. But
we have this advantage, that words which then
were obsolete, and whose meaning was known no
longer—only guessed at—are to us familiar by the
numerous progeny they have produced in cognate
idioms, known to us through the mighty spread of
linguistic science in our days; and if we are not
aided by a traditional exegesis handed down within
and without the schools, perhaps ever since the days
of the framing of the document itself, neither are
we prejudiced and fettered by it. Whatever may be
implied and hidden in a verse or word, we haye no
reason to translate it accordingly, and, for the attain-
ing of this purpose, to overstrain the powers of the
roots. Among such small shortcomings of our
translator may be mentioned that he appears to
have erroneously derived NNW (Gen. iv. 7) from
NWI; that NMD1) (ax. 6) is by him rendered
NNDN; AN (Gen. sli. 43) by NDOND NaN;
TAN (Deut. xxiv. 5) TaN ; and the like.
Comp. however the Commentators on these pas-
sages,
The bulk of the passages generally adduced as
proofs of want of knowledge on the part of Onkelos
have to a great part been shown in the course of the
foregoing specimens to be intentional deviations ;
many other passages not mentioned merely instance
the want of knowledge on the part of his crities.
Some places, again, exhibit that blending of two
distinct translations, of which we have spoken; the
catchword being apparently taken in two different
senses. Thus Gen. xxii. 13, where he translates:
“ And Abraham lifted up his eyes after these, and
behold there was a ram;” he has not “ in his per-
plexity ” mistranslated IAN for MN, but he has
only placed for the sake of clearness the "MN after
VOL. 11.
1649
the verb (he saw), instead of the noun (1am); and
the NTH, which is moreover wanting in some texts,
has been added, not as a translation of INN or SIMS,
but in order to make the passage more lucid still,
A similar instance of a double translation is found in
Gen. ix. 6: ‘ Whosoever sheds a man’s blood, by
man shall his blood be shed’’—rendeved ‘* Whoso-
ever sheds the blood of man, by witnesses through
the sentence of the judges shall his blood be shed ;’’
DIN, by man, being taken first as ‘ witness,”
and then as “ judges.”
We may further notice the occurrence of two
Messianic passages in this Targum: the one, Gen.
xlix. 10, Shiloh; the other, Num. xxiv. 17,
““ sceptre: ” both rendered ‘ Messiah.”
A ‘fuller idea of the “Genius” of Onkelos as
Translator and as Paraphrast, may be arrived at
from the specimens subjoined in pp. 1659-61.
We cannot here enter into anything like a minute
account of the dialect of Onkelos or of any other
Targum, Regarding the linguistic shades of the
different Targums, we must confine ourselves to
the general remark, that the later the version,
the more corrupt and adulterated its language.
Three dialects, however, are chiefly to be distin-
guished; as in the Aramaic idiom in general,
which in contradistinction to the Syriac, or Chris-
tian Aramaic, may be called Judaeo-Aramaic, so
also in the different Targums ; and their recognition
is a material aid towards fixing the place of their
origin; although we must warn the reader that
this guidance is not always to be relied upon.
1. The Galilean dialect, known and spoken of al-
ready in the Talmud as the one which most carelessly
confounds its sounds, vowels as well as consonants.
‘The Galileans are negligent with respect to their
language,* and care not for grammatical forms ” >
is a common saying in the Gemara. We learn that
they did not distinguish properly between B and P
(3, 5), saying Tapula instead of Tabula, between
Ch and Καὶ (3 and Pp) saying χείριος for κύριος. Far
less could they distinguish between the various gut-
turals, as is cleverly exemplified in the story where
a Judaean asked a Galilean, when the latter wanted
to buy an 78, whether he meant WY (wool),
or WEN (a lamb), or 79M (wine), or Sion (an
ass). The next consequence of this their disregard
of the gutturals was, that they threw them often off
entirely at the beginning of a word per aphaeresin.
Again they contracted, or rather wedged together,
words of the most dissimilar terminations and be-
ginnings. By confounding the vowels like the con-
sonants, they often created entirely new words and
forms. The Mappik H (7) became Ch (somewhat
similar to the Scotch pronunciation of the initial H).
As the chief reasoa for this Galilean confusion of
tongues (for which comp. Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark
xiv. 70) may be assigned the increased facility of
intercourse with the neighbouring nations owing to
their northern situation.
2. The Samaritan Dialect, a mixture of vulgar
Hebrew and Aramean, in accordance with the origin
of the people itself. Its chief characteristics are the
frequent use of the Ain (which not only stands for
other gutturals, but is even used as mater lectionis),
the commutation of the gutturals in general, and the
indiscriminate use of the mute consonants 1 for Ἷ,
Ρ for 5, ΠῚ for p, &c.
3. The Judaean or Jerusalem Dialect (comp.
@ yapn xd » ew xr nd
1650
Ned. 66) scarcely ever pronounces the gutturals
at the end properly, often throws them off entirely.
Jeshua, becomes Jeshu ; Sheba—Shib. Many words
are peculiar to this dialect alone. The appellations
of “door,”’¢ ‘* light,’4 “ reward,”’©® &c., are
totally different from those used in the other dia-
lects. Altogether all the peculiarities of provin-
cialism. shortening and lengthening of vowels, idiom-
atic phrases and words, also an orthography of its
own, generally with a fuller and broader vocalisa-
tion, ave noticeable throughout both the Targums
and the Talmud of Jerusalem, which, for the fur-
ther elucidation of this point as of many others
have as yet not found an investigator.
The following recognised Greek words, the greater
part of which also occur in the Talmud and
Midrash, are found in Onkelos: Ex. xxviii. 25,
f βήρυλλος ; Ex. xxviii. 11, 5 γλυφή ; Gen. xxviii.
17," ἰδιώτης ; Lev. xi. 30, i κωλώτης ; Ex. xxviii.
19, Κ θράκιας (Plin, xxxvii. 68); Ex. xxxix. 11,
™ Καρχηδόνιοι, comp. Pes. der. Kah. xxxii. (Carbun-
culi); Deut. xx. 20, χαράκωμα (Ber. R. xeviil.) ;
Ex. xxvili. 20,° χρῶμα ; Num. xv. 38, Deut. xxii. 12,
Ρ κράσπεδον ; Lx. xxx. 34, 4 κίστος; Gen. xxxvil.
28, τλῆδον ; ἔχ. xxiv. 16, " φάρσος ; Ex. xxvi. 6,
tadpmn; Gen. vi. 14, ἃ κέδρος ; Ex. xxviii. 19,
x κέγχρος (Plin. xxxvii.4). To these may be added
the unrecognised ¥ κεραμίς (Wx. xxi. 18), % λιβρού-
xns, or λεβρόχη (Gen. xxx. 14), &e.
The following short rules on the general mode
of transcribing the Greek Letters in Aramaic and
Syriac (Targum, Talmud, Midrash, &c.), may not
be out of place :—
Τ' before palatals, pronounced like y, becomes J.
Z is rendered by }.
H appears to have occasionally assumed the pro-
nunciation of a consonant (Digamma) ; and a } is
inserted,
©ish,T Ὁ. But this rule, even making al-
lowances for corruptions, does not always seem to
have been strictly observed.
K is P, sometimes 3.
M, which before labials stands in lieu of a ν, be-.
comes ) : occasionally a J is inserted before labials
where it is not found in the Greek word.
=, generally DD, sometimes, however, 71 or Y3.
TI is §, sometimes, however, it is softened
into 3.
P is sometimes altered into b or J.
Ῥ becomes either (17 or ἽΠ at the beginning of a
word,
> either Ὁ or ἢ.
The spiritus asper, which in Greek is dropped in
the middle of a word, reappears again sometimes
(ovvédpo.—Sanhedrin). Even the lenis is repre-
sented sometimes by a ΠΠ at the beginning of a
word; sometimes, however, even the asper is
dropped.
As to the vowels no distinct rule is to be laid
down, owing principally to the original want of
vowel-points in our texts,
Before double consonants at the beginning of a
word an δὲ prostheticum is placed, so as to render
the pronunciation easier. The terminations are {re-
quently Hebraised :—thus ox is sometimes rendered
by the termination of the Masc. ΕἸ. Ὦ", &c.
© NYT for NAD a $598) for sy
© “OID for IN τ ΝΟΣ
s ἢ » Oya i ynvdn
ΚΡ m δ) 122 » DDD
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
A curious and instructive comparison may be
instituted, between this mode of transcription of
the Greek letters into Hebrew, and that of the
Hebrew letters into Greek, as found chiefly in the
LXX,
N sometimes inaudible (spirit. len.) ᾿Ααρών,
ἜἝλκανά ; sometimes audible (as spirit. asper), “AB-
padu, “HAlas.
3 =B: Ῥεβέκκα; sometimes φ: Ἰακεβ(ήφ, some-
times v: Ῥααῦ, sometimes μβ: Ζερουμβαβέλ,
sometimes it is completely changed into μ: ᾿Ιαμνεῖα
(2 Chr. xxvi. 6).
j=y: Téuep, sometimes x: Awnk, sometimes
X: Σερούχ.
Ἴ--δ: once=7 Ματραΐθ (Gen. xxxvi. 39).
M=RN, either spirit. asp. like “Οδοῤῥά, or spir.
len. like >ABéA.
}=v, not the vowel, but our v: “Eva, Λευί:
thus also ov (as the Greek writers often express
the Latin v by ov): Ἰεσσουᾶ: sometimes =f:
Σαβύ (Gen. xiv. 5); sometimes it is entirely left
out, ᾿Αστί for Vashti.
t=¢, sometimes o: Ξαβουλών, Χασβί ; rarely
&: Bavé (Gen. xxii. 21).
lM, often entirely omitted, or represented by a
spir. len. in the beginning, or the veduplication of
the vowel in the middle or at the end of the word ;
sometimes = x: Χάμ ; sometimes = κ: TaBer
(Gen, xxii. 24).
D=r: Sadr ; sometimes = 5: Φούδ (Gen. x.
6); or 0: Ἐλιφαλάδ (2 Sam. v. 16).
Si: Ἰακώβ, or i before p (7): Ἱερεμίας. Be-
tween several vowels it is sometimes entirely
omitted: *Iwada.
D= x: Χαναάν ; sometimes kK: Σαβαθακά (Gen.
x. 7); rarely = y: Γαφθωρείμ.
, 3, T=A, v,p; but they are often found in-
terchanged : owing perhaps to the similarity of the
Greek letters. ἢ is sometimes also rendered μ (see
above).
=p, sometimes B: Νεβρώδ, Σεβλά (1 Chr.
i. 47).
wand D=a: Συμεών, Σηείρ, Σίν.
Y=spir. len.: Ἐφρών ; sometimes =¥ ( 4) Γό-
poppa; sometimes x, ᾿Αρβόκ (Gen. xxiii. 2).
Do: Φαλέγ, orm: Σαλπαάδ.
Yao: Σιδών ; sometimes ¢: Οὔς (Gen. x. 23;
Cod. Alex.”Qs; xxii. 21: "ωξ).
p=«: Βαλάκ ; sometimes x + Χεττουρά ; also
y: Χελέγ.
N=O: Ἰαφέθ: sometimes τ : Τοχός.
As to the Bible Text from which the Targum
was prepared, we can only reiterate that we have
no certainty whatever on this head, owing to the
extraordinarily corrupt state of our Targum texts.
Pages upon pages of Variants have been gathered by
Cappellus, Kennicott, Buxtorf, De Rossi, Clericus,
Luzzatto, and others, by a superficial comparison of
a few copies only, and those chiefly printed ones.
Whenever the very numerous MSS. shall be col-
lated, then the learned world may possibly come
to certain probable conclusions on it. It would
appear, however, that broadly speaking, our present
Masoretic text has been the one from which the
ia (wa) DMD (Mich. Lex. Syr. 435, makes it Persian).
> SIADIND a nw r pywd
© DID ἐ ΝΒ “Dp
< DIP γ ΝΡ 2 pA
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
Onk. Version was, if not made, yet edited, at all
events; unless we assume that late hands have
been intentionally busy in mutually assimilating
text and translation. Many of the inferences drawn
by De Rossi and others from the discrepancies of
the version to discrepancies of the original from
the Masor. Text, must needs be rejected if Onkelos’
method and phraseology, as we have exhibited it,
are taken into consideration. Thus, when, Ex.
xxiv. 7, “before the people” is found in Onkelos,
while our Hebrew text reads “ἴῃ the ears,’ it
by no means follows that Onkelos read ΣΝ:
it is simply his way of explaining the unusual
phrase, to which he remains faithful throughout.
Or, “Lead the people wito the place (A.V.) of
which I have spoken” (Ex. xxxii. 34), is solely
Onkelos’ translation of WN 28, scé/. the place,
and no OY) need be conjectured as having stood
in Onkelos’ copy; as, also, Ex. ix. 7, his addition
«From the cattle of ‘the children of’ Israel”
does not prove a 933 to have stood in his Codex.
And this also settles (or rather leaves unsettled),
the question as to the authenticity of the Targumic
Texts, such as we have them. Considering that
no MS. has as yet been found older than at most
600 years, even the careful comparison of all those
that do exist would not much further our know-
ledge. As far as those existing are concerned, they
teem with the most palpable blunders, —not to speak
of variants, owing to sheer carelessness on the part
of the copyists ;—but few are of a nature damaging
the sense materially. The circumstance that Text
and Targum were often placed side by side, column
by column, must have had no little share in the in-
correctness, since it was but natural to make the
Targum resemble the Text as closely as possible,
while the nature of its material differences was often
unknown to the scribe. In fact, the accent itself was
made to fit both the Hebrew and the Chaldee wher-
ever a larger addition did not render it utterly im-
possible. Thus letters are inserted, omitted, thrust
in, blotted out, erased, in an infinite number of places.
But the difference goes still further. In some Co-
dices synonymous terms are used most arbitrarily as
it would appear: MNYIN and NNIDIN earth, DIN
and NWIN man, MN and P79 path, M79 and
ore, Jehovah and Elohim, are found to replace
each other indiscriminately. In some instances, the
Hebrew Codex itself has, to add to the confusion,
been emendated from the Targum. !
A Masorah has been written on Onkelos, with-
out, however, any authority being inherent in it,
and without, we should say, much value. It has
never been printed, nor, as far as we have been able
to ascertain, is there any MS. now to be found in
this country, or in any of the public libraries abroad.
What has become of Buxtorf’s copy, which he
intended to add to his never printed “ Babylonia ”»—
a book devoted to this same subject—we do not
know. Luzzatto has lately found such a ‘ Ma-
sorah ” in a Pentateuch MS., but he only mentions
some variants contained in it. Its title must not
mislead the reader; it has nothing whatever to do
with the Masorah of the Bible, but is a recent
work, like the Masorah of the Talmud, which has
nothing whatever to do with the Talmud Text.
The MSS. of Onkelos are extant in great num-
bers—a circumstance easily explained by the in-
junction that it should be read every Sabbath at
home, if not in the Synagogue. The Bodleian has
5, the British Museum 2, Vienna 6, Augsburg 1,
1651
Nuremberg 2, Altdorf 1, Carlsruhe 3, Stuttgart 2,
Erfurt 3, Dresden 1, Leipsic 1, Jena 1, Dessau 1,
Helmstadt 2, Berlin 4, Breslau 1, Brieg 1, Regens-
burg 1, Hamburg 7, Copenhagen 2, Upsala 1,
Amsterdam 1, Paris 8, Molsheim 1, Venice 6,
Turin 2, Milan 4, Leghorn 1, Sienna 1, Genoa 1,
Florence 5, Bologna 2, Padua 1, Trieste 2,
Parma about 40, Rome 18 more or less complete
Codd. containing Onkelos.
Editio Princeps, Bologna 1482, fol. (Abr. b.
Chajjim) with Hebr. Text and Rashi. Later Edd.
Soria 1490, Lisbon 1491, Constantinople 1505:
from these were taken the texts in the Compluten-
sian (1517) and the Venice (Bombers) Polyglotts
(1518, 1526, 1547-49), and Buxtorf’s Rabbinical
Bible (1619). This was followed by the Paris
Polyglott (1645), and Walton’s (1657). A recent
and much emendated edition dates Wilna 1852.
Of the extraordinary similarity between Onkelos
and the Samaritan wersion we have spoken under
SAMARITAN PenTaTeucn [p. 1114]. There also
will be found a specimen of both, taken from the
Barberini Codex. Many more points connected
with Onkelos and his influence upon later Herme-
neutics and Exegesis, as well as his relation to
earlier or later versions, we have no space to enlarge
upon, desirable as an investigation of these points
might be. We have, indeed, only been induced to
dwell so long upon this single Targum, because in
the first instance a great deal that has been said
here will, mutatis mutandis, hold good also for the
other Targums; and further, because Onkelos is
THE CHALDEE VERSION κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, while, from
Jonathan downwards, we more and more leave the
province of Version and gradually arrive from Para-
phrase to Midrash-Hageadah. We shall therefore
not enter at any length into these, but confine our-
selves chiefly to main results.
Il. TarGuM ON THE PROPHETS
viz. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jere-
miah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets,—
called TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL.
Next in time and importance to Onkelos on the
Pentateuch stands the Targum on the Prophets,
which in our printed Edd. and MSS.—none older,
we repeat it, than about 600 years—is ascribed to
Jonathan ben Uzziel, of whom the Talmud contains
the following statements :—(1.) ‘* Eighty disciples
had Hillel the Elder, thirty of whom were worthy
that the Shechinah (Divine Majesty) should rest
upon them, as it did upon Moses our Lord ; peace be
upon him. Thirty of them were worthy that the sun
should stand still at their bidding as it did at that
of Joshua ben Nun. Twenty were of intermediate
worth. The greatest of them all was Jonathan Ὁ.
Uzziel, the least R. Johanan b. Saccai ; and it was
said of R. Johanan b. Saccai, that he left not (unin-
vestigated) the Bible, the Mishna, the Gemara, the
Halachahs, the Haggadahs, the subtleties of the
Law, and the subtleties of the Soferim.... 3
the easy things and the difficult things [from the
most awful Divine mysteries to the common po-
pular proverbs] . . . If this is said of the least
of them, what is to be said of the greatest, 1.9. Jo-
nathan Ὁ. Uzziel?” (Bab. Bath. 194 ἃ: comp.
Succ. 28a). (2.) A second passage (see Onkelos)
referring more especially to our present subject,
reads as follows: “The Targum of Onkelos was
made by Onkelos the Proselyte from the mouth
of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, and that of the
Prophets by Jonathan b. Uzziel from the month
5 N 2
1652
of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. And in that
hour was the Land of Israel shaken three hundred
parasangs. . . . And a voice was heard, saying,
‘ Who is this who has revealed my secrets unto the
sons of man?’ Up rose Jonathan ben Uzziel and
said: ‘It is I who.have revealed Thy secrets to the
sons of man. . . . But it is known and revealed
before Thee, that not for my honour have I done
it, nor for the honour of my father’s house, but
for Thine honour; that the disputes may cease in
Israel.’ . . . And he further desired to reveal the
Targum to the Hagiographa, when a voice was
heard :—‘ Enough.’ And why ?—because the day
of the Messiah is revealed therein (Meg. 3a).”
Wonderful to relate, the sole and exclusive autho-
rity for the general belief in the authorship of
Jonathan b. Uzziel, is this second Hagadistic
passage exclusively ; which, if it does mean any-
thing, does at all events not mean our Targum,
which is found mourning over the ‘* Temple in
ruins,’’ full of invectives against Rome (Sam. xi. 5;
Is. xxxiv. 9, &c. &c.), mentioning Armillus (Is. x.
4) (the Antichrist), Germania (Ez. xxxviil. 6):—
not to dwell upon the thousand and one other
internal and external evidences against a date ante-
rior to the Christian era. If interpolations must
be assumed,—and indeed Rashi speaks already of
corruptions in his MSS.—such solitary additions
are at all events a very different thing from a
wholesale system of intentional and minute inter-
polation throughout the bulky work. But what
is still more extraordinary, this belief—long and
partly still upheld most reverentially against all
difficulties—is completely modern: that is, not
older than at most 600 years (the date of our
oldest Targum MSS.), and is utterly at variance
with the real and genuine sources: the Talmud, the
Midrash, the Babylonian Schools, and every autho-
rity down to Hai Gaon (12th cent.). Frequently
quoted as this Targum is in the ancient works, it
is never once quoted as the Targum of Jonathan.
But it is invariably introduced with the formula:
“Εν Joseph (bar Chama, the Blind, euphemistically
called the clear-sighted, the well-known President
of Pumbaditha in Babylonia, who succeeded Rabba
in 319 A.D.) says,’ &c. (Moed Katon 26 a, Pesach.
68a, Sanh. 946). Twice even it is quoted in
Joseph’s name, and with the addition, “ Without
the Targum to this verse (due to him) we could
not understand it.’ This is the simple state of the
case ; and for more than two hundred years critics
have lavished all their acumen to defend what never
had any real existence, or at best owed its ap-
parent existence to a heading added by a superficial
scribe.
The date which the Talmud thus in reality
assigns to our Targum fully coincides with our
former conclusions as to the date of written Tar-
gums in general. And if we may gather thus
much from the legend that to write down the
Targum to the Prophets was considered a much
bolder undertaking—and one to which still more
reluctantly leave was given—than a Targum on
the Pentateuch, we shall not be far wrong in
placing this Targum some time, although not long,
after Onkelos, or about the middle of the fourth cen-
tury ;—the latter years of ἢ. Joseph, who, it is
said, occupied himself chiefly with the Targum
when he had become blind. ‘The reason given for
4 “ Sinai,’’ “ Possessor of Wheat,” in allusion to his vast
mastery over the traditions.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
that reluctance is, although hyperbolically expressed,
perfectly clear: “The Targum on the Prophets
revealed the secrets”—that is, it allowed free
scope to the wildest fantasy to run riot upon the
prophetic passages — tempting through their very
obscurity,—and to utter explanations and interpret-
ations relative to present events, and oracles of its
own for future times, which might be fraught with
grave dangers in more than one respect. The Targum
on the Pentateuch (permitted to be committed to
writing, Meg. 3a; Kidd. 69 αὐ could not but be,
even in its written form, more sober, more dignified,
more within the bounds of fixed and well known
traditions, than any other Targum ; since it had ori-
ginally been read publicly, and been checked by the
congregation as well as the authorities present ;—
as we have endeavoured to explain in the Intro-
duction. There is no proof, on the other hand,
of more than fragments from the Prophets having
ever been read and translated in the synagogue.
Whether, however, R. Joseph was more than the
redactor of this the second part of the Bible-
Targum, which was originated in Palestine, and
was reduced to its final shape in Babylon, we can-
not determine. He may perhaps have made consi-
derable additions of his own, by filling up gaps
or rejecting wrong versions of some parts. So
much seems certain, that the schoolmen of his
Academy were the collectors and revisers, and he
gave it that stamp of unity which it now pos-
sesses, spite of the occasional difference of style :—
adapted simply to the variegated hues and dictions
of its manifold biblical originals.
But we do not mean to reject in the main either
of the Talmudical passages quoted. We believe that
there was such a man as Jonathan b. Uzziel, that
he was one of the foremost pupils of Hillel, and also
that he did translate, either privately or publicly,
parts of the prophetical books; chiefly, we should
say, ina mystical manner. And so startling were his
interpretations—borne aloft by his high fame—that
who but prophets themselves could have revealed
them to him? And, going a step further, who could
reveal prophetic allegories and mysteries of all the
prophetic books, but those who, themselves the last
in the list, had the whole body of sacred oracles
before them? This appears to us the only ra-
tional conclusion to be drawn from the facts :—as
they stand, not as they are imagined. That nothing
save a few snatches of this original paraphrase or
Midrash could be embodied in our Targum, we need
not urge. Yet for these even we have no proof.
Zunz, the facile princeps of Targumic as well as
Midrashic investigation, who, as late as 1830
(Gottesd. Vortr.), still believed himself in the mo-
dern notion of Jonathan’s authorship (‘ first half
of first century, A.D.”’), now utterly rejects the
notion of ‘‘ our possessing anything of Jonathan
ben Uzziel” (Geiger’s Zeitschr. 1837, p. 250).
Less conservative than our view, however, are the
views of the modern School (Rappoport, Luzzatto,
Frankel, Geiger, Levy, Bauer, Jahn, Bertholdt,
Levysehn, &c.), who not only reject the author-
ship of Jonathan, but also utterly deny that there
was any ground whatsoever for assigning a Targum
to him, as is done in the Talmud. The passage, .
they say, is not older, but younger than our Targum,
and in fact does apply, erroneously of course, to this,
and to no other work of a similar kind. The popular
cry for a great “name, upon which to hang”’—in
Talmudical phraseology—all that is cherished and
venerated, and the wish of those eager to impart to
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (‘TARGUM)
this Version a lasting authority, found in Jonathan
the most fitting person to futher it upon. Was he
not the greatest of the great, “ who had been dusted
with the dust of Hillel’s feet?” He was the wisest
of the wise, the one most imbued with knowledge
human and divine, of all those eighty, the least of |
whom was worthy that the sun should stay its
course at his bidding. Nay, such were the flames>
that arose from his glowing spirit, says the hyper-
bolic Haggadah, that ‘‘ when he studied in the Law,
the very birds that flew over him in the air, were
consumed by fire”’ (nisrephu *—not, as Landau, in
the preface to his Aruch, apologetically translates,
became Seraphs). At the same time we readily
grant that we see no reason why the great Hillel
himself, or any other much earlier and equally
eminent Master of the Law, one of the Soferim
perhaps, should not have been fixed upon.
Another suggestion, first broached by Drusius,
and long exploded, has recently been revived under
a somewhat modified form. Jonathan (Godgiven),
Drusius said, was none else but Theodotion (God-
given), the second Greek translator of the Bible
after the LXX., who had become a Jewish prose-
lyte. Considering that the latter lived under
Commodus II., and the former at the time of
Christ; that the latter is said to have translated
the Prophets only (neither the Pentateuch, nor
the Hagiographa), while the former translated the |
whole Bible; that Jonathan translated into Ara- |
maic and Theodotion into Greek,—not to mention
the fact that Theodotion was, to say the least, |
a not very competent translator, since ‘ ignorance
or negligence” (Montfaucon, Pref. to Hexapla), |
or both, must needs be laid at the door of a trans-
lator, who, when in difficulties, simply transcribes
the hard Hebrew words into Greek characters, with-
out troubling himself any further; 4 while the
mastery over both the Hebrew and the Aramaic dis-
played in the Jonathanic Version are astounding :—
considering all this, we need not like Walton ask
caustically, why Jonathan ben Uzziel should not
whose name also is “ Godgiven ;”—but dismiss the
suggestion as Carpzov long since dismissed it. We
are, however, told now (Luzzatto, Geiger, &c.), that
as the Babylonian Targum on the Pentateuch was
called a Targum “in the manner of Aquila or
Onkelos,” i.e. of sterling value, so also the con-
tinuation of the Babylonian Targum, which em-
braced the Prophets, was called a Targum “in the
manner of Theodotion’’=Jonathan; and by a
further stretch, Jonathan-Theodotion became the
Jonathan b. Uzziel. We cannot but disagree with
this hypothesis also—based on next to nothing, and
carried to more than the usual length of speculation.
While Akyla is quoted continually in the Talmud,
and is deservedly one of the best known and best
beloved characters, every trait and incident of
whose personal history is told even twice over, not
the slightest trace of such a person as Theodotion
is to be found anywhere in the Talmudical litera-
ture. What, again, was it that could have acquired
so transcendent a fame for his translation and him-
self, that a Version put into the mouths of the very
prophets should be called after him, “in order that
the people should like it” ?—a translation which
b The simile of the fire—*as the Law was given in fire
on Sinai ”’—is a very favourite one in the Midrash.
° pW).
ἃ e.g., Lev. vii. 13, by ib, T. Φεγγώλ, or Φεγγούλ, by
1653
was, in fact, deservedly unknown, and, properly
| speaking, no translation at all. It was, as we
| learn, a kind of private emendation of some LXX.
| passages, objectionable to the pious Proselyte in
| their then corrupted state. It was only the Book
of Daniel which was retained from Theodotion’s
pen, because in this book the LXX, had become
past correction. If, moreover, the intention was
“to give the people a Hebrew for a Greek name,
because the latter might sound too foreign,” it
was an entirely gratuitous one. Greek names
abound in the Talmud, and even names begin-
ning with Theo like Theodorus are to be found
there.
On the other hand, the opinion has been broached
that this Targum was a post-Talmudical produc-
tion, belonging to the 7th or 8th cent. A.D. For
this point we need only refer to the Talmudical
quotations from it. And when we further add,
that Jo. Morinus, a man as conspicuous by his want
of knowledge as by his most ludicrous attacks upon
all that was “ Jewish ” or ““ Protestant”* (it was he,
e.g. who wished to see the ‘‘forged’’ Masoretic Code
corrected from the Samaritan Pentateuch, q.v.) is the
chief, and almost only, detender of this theory, we
have said enough. On the other theory of there
being more than one author to our Targum ( Eich-
horn, Bertholdt, De Wette), combated fiercely by
Gesenius, Havernick, and others, we need not
further enlarge, after what we have already said. It
| certainly is the work, not of one, or of two, but of
twenty, of fifty and more Meturgemanim, Hag-
| gadists, and Halachists. The edition, however,
we repeat it advisedly, has the undeniable stamp of
one master-mind ; and its individual workings, its
manner and peculiarity ave indelibly impressed upon
the whole labour from the first page to the last.
Such, we hold, must be the impression upon every
attentive reader ; more especially, if he judiciously
distinguishes between the first and the last prophets.
That in the historical relations of the former, the ©
| Version must be, on the whole, more accurate and
rather be identified with the Emperor Theodosius, |
| gadah often takes the reins out of the Meturgeman’s
|or editor’s hands), while in the obscurer Oracles
close (although here too, as we shall show, Hag-
of the latter the Midrash reigns supreme: is exactly
| what the history of Targumic development leads us
to expect.
And with this we have pointed out the general cha-
racter of the Targum under consideration. Gradu-
ally, perceptibly almost, the translation becomes the
τράγημα, a frame, so to speak, of allegory, parable,
myth, tale, and oddly masked history—such as we are
wont to see in Talmud and Midrash, written under
the bloody censorship of Esau-Rome ; interspersed
with some lyrical pieces of rare poetical value. It
| becomes, in short, like the Haggadah, a whole system
of Eastern phantasmagorias whirling round the sun
of the Holy Word of the Seer. Yet, it is always
aware of being a translation. It returns to its
verse after long excurses, often in next to no per-
ceptible connexion with it. Even in the midst of
the full swing of fancy, swayed to and fro by the
many currents of thought that arise out of a single
word, snatches of the verse from which the flight was
taken will suddenly appear on the surface like a re-
frain or a keynote, showing that in reality there isa
| way of emendation ; Lev. xiii. 6, FAMDDD, Μασφάα 5
ib. NNW, Σήθ; Lev. xviii. 23, 547, eaBea; Is. Ixiv. 6,
Dy, ᾿Εδδίμ.
|
|
I
1654
connexion, though hidden to the uninitiated. For
long periods again, it adheres most strictly to its text
and to its verse, and translates most conscientiously
and closely. It may thus fairly be described as
holding in point of interpretation and enlargement
of the text, the middle place between Onkelos, who
only in extreme cases deviates into paraphrase, and
the subsequent Targums, whose connexion with their
texts is frequently of the most flighty character.
Sometimes indeed our Targum coincides so entirely
with Onkelos,—being, in fact, of one and the
same origin and growth, and a mere continua-
tion and completion as it were of the former work,
that this similarity has misled critics into specu-
lations of the priority in date of either the one
or the other. Havernick, e.g. holds—against Zunz
—that Onkelos copied, plagiarised in fact, Jonathan.
first, why either should have used the other. The
three passages (Judg. v. 26 and Deut. xxii. 5;
2K. xiv. 6 and Deut. xxiv. 16; Jer. xviii. 45, |
46 and Num. xxi. 28, 29) generally adduced,
do not in the first place exhibit that literal close-
ness which we are led to expect, and which alone
could be called “copying;” and in the second
place, the two last passages are not, as we also
thought we could infer from the words of the |
writers on either side, extraneous paraphrastic addi-
tions, but simply the similar translations of similar
texts: while in the first passage Jonathan only
refers to an injunction contained in the Pentateuch-
verse quoted. But even had we found such para-
phrastic additions, apparently not belonging to the
subject, we should have accounted for them by
certain traditions—the common property of the
whole generaticn,—being recalled by a certain word
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
in Onkelos, hold good also with Jonathan. Anthro-
pomorphisms it avoids carefully. Geographical
names are, in most cases, retained as in the Original,
and where translated, they are generally correct.
Its partiality for Israel never goes so far that any-
thing derogatory to the character of the people
should be willingly suppressed, although a certain
reluctanceagainst dwelling upon its iniquities and pu-
nishments longer than necessary, is visible. Where,
however, that which redounds to the praise of the
individual—more especially of heroes, kings, pro-
phets—and of the community, is contained in the
text, there the paraphrase lovingly tarries. Future
bliss, in this world and the world to come, libera-
tion from the oppressor, restoration of the Sanc-
tuary on Mount Zion, of the Kingdom of Jehovah
/and the House of David, the re-establishment of
We do not see, quite apart from our placing Onkelos |
the nation and of its full and entire independence,
as well as of the national worship, with all the
primitive splendour of Priest and Levite, singer
and musician and prophet —these are the fa-
vourite dreams of the people and of Jonathan, and
no link is overlooked by which those strains may
be drawn in as variations to the Biblical theme. Of
Messianic passages, Jonathan has pointed out those
mentioned below; a number not too large, if we con-
sider how, with the increased misery of the people,
their ardent desire to see their Deliverer appear speedily
must have tried to find as many places in the Bible as
possible, warranting His arrival. So far from their
being suppressed (as, by one of those unfortunate
accidents that befall sometimes a long string of in-
vestigators, who are copying their information at
third and fourth hand, has been unblushingly as-
| serted by almost everybody up to Gesenius, who
or phrase in the Pentateuch to the memory of
the one translator ; and by another word or phrase |
in the Prophets to the memory of the other trans-
lator. The interpretation of Jonathan, where it
adheres to the text, is mostly very correct in a
philosophical and exegetical sense, closely literal
even, provided the meaning of the original is easily
to be understood hy the people. When, however,
similes are used, untamiliar or obscure to the people,
it unhesitatingly dissolves them and makes them
easy in their mouths like household words, by |
adding as much of explanation as seems fit; some- |
times, it cannot be denied, less sagaciously, even
incorrectly, comprehending the original meaning.
Yet we must be very cautious in attributing to a
Version which altogether bears the stamp of thorough
competence and carefulness that which may be single
corruptions or interpolations, as we find them some-
times indicated by an introductory “ Says the
Prophet ὁ : although, as stated above, we do not |
hesitate to attribute the passages displaying an ac-
quaintance with works written down to the 4th
century, and exhibiting popular notions current at
that time, to the Targum in its original shape.
Generally speaking, and holding the difference be-
tween the nature of the Pentateuch (supposed to
contain in its very letters and signs Halachistic re-
ferences, and therefore only to be handled by the
Meturgeman with the greatest care) and that of the
Prophets (freest Homiletes themselves) steadily in
view —the rules laid down above with respect
to the discrepancies between Original and Targum,
found its source in a misunderstood sentence of
Carpzov), they are most prominently, often al-
most pointedly brought forward. And there is
a decided polemical animus inherent in them—
temperate as far as appearance goes, but containing
| many an unspoken word: such as a fervent human
mind pressed down by all the woes and terrors,
written and unwritten, would whisper to itself in
the depths of its despair. These passages extol
most rapturously the pomp and glory of the Messiah
to come—by way of contrast to the humble appear-
ance of Christ: and all the places where suffering
and misery appear to be the lot forecast to the
Anointed, it is Israel, to whom the passage is
referred by the Targum.
Of further dogmatical and theological pecu-
liarities (and this Targum will one day prove
a mine of instruction chiefly in that direction, be-
sides the other vast advantages inherent in it,
as in the older Targums, for linguistic, patristic,
geographical, historical, and other studies) we may
mention briefly the “ Stars of God” (Is. xiv. 13;
comp. Dan. viii. 10; 2 Mace. ix. 10, being referred
—in a similar manner—to ‘‘ the people of Israel ;”)
the doctrine of the second death (Isa. xxii. 14, lxy.
| 15), &e. As to the general nature of its idiom, what
we have said above holds good ‘here. Likewise
our remarks on the relation between the text of the
Original of Onkelos, and its own text, may stand for
Jonathan, who never appears to differ from the
Masoretic text without a very cogent reason. Yet,
since Jonathan’s MSS., though very much smaller
in number, are in a still worse plight than those
© 899) TON. 4 Α
f 1 Sam. ii. 10; 2Sam. xxiii. 35 1 K. iv. 33; Is. iv. 2,
ἀπ. Ὁ; X. 27, Mit eG exw ee evi OKANO, Alii. 1
“
|
xliii. 10, xlv.1, lii. 13, lili. 10; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxx. 21,
Xxxiii., 13, 15; Hos. iii, δ, xiv. 89 Mic. iv. 8,,ν, 2; 18:
Zech, iii. 8, iv. 7, vi. 12, x. 4.
*
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
of Onkelos, we cannot speak with great certainty
on this point. Respecting, however, * the individual
language and phraseology of the translation; it lacks
toacertain, though small, degree, the clearness and
transparency of Onkelos; and is somewhat alloyed
with foreign words. Not to such a degree, however,
that we cannot fully endorse Carpzov’s dictum:
“6 Cujus nitor sermonis Chaldaei et dictionis laudatur
puritas, ad Onkelosum proxime accedens et parum
deflectens a puro tersoque Chaldaismo biblico”’ (Crit.
Sacr. p. 461), and incline to the belief of Wolf
(Bibl. Hebr. ii. 1165): ‘¢Quae vero, vel quod ad
voces novas et barbavas, vel ad res aetate ejus infe-
riores, aut futilia nonnulla, quamvis pauca triplicis
hujus generis exstent, ibi occurrunt, ex merito fal-
sarii cujusdam ingenio adscribuntur.” Of the
manner and style of this Targum, the few subjoined
specimens will we hope give an approximate idea.
In conclusion, we may notice a feature of our
Targum, not the least interesting perhaps, in relation
to general or “human” literature: viz., that the
Shemitic fairy and legendary lore, which for the last
two thousand years—as far as we can trace it,—has
grown up in East and West to vast glittering moun-
tain-ranges, is to a very great extent to be found,
in an embryo state, so to say, in this our Targum,
When the literary history of those most wonderful
circles of medieval sagas—the sole apparent fruit
brought home by the crusaders from the Eastern
battle-fields — shall come to be written by a
competent and thorough investigator, he will have
to extend his study of the sources to this despised
“fabulosus” Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel. And
the entire world of pious biblical: legend, which
Islam has said and sung in the Arabic, Persian,
Turkish, and all its other tongues, to the delight
of the wise and the simple for twelve centuries now,
is contained almost fully developed, from beginning
to end, but clearer, purer, and incomparably more
poetically conceived, in our Targum-Haggadah.
The Editio Princeps dates Leiria, 1494. The
later editions are embodied in the Antwerp, Paris,
and London Polyglotts. Several single books have
likewise been repeatedly edited (comp. Wolff,
Le Long, Rosenmiiller, &c.).
JUDGES V.
TARGUM
[JONATHAN-BEN-UZZIEL |
TO THE PROPHETS.
1 AND amines and Ba-
rak the son of Abinoam
gave praise for the miracle
and the salvation which
were wrought for Israel
on that day, and spake :
2 When the children of
Israel rebel against the
Law, then the nations
come over them and drive
them out of their cities ;
but when they return to do the Law, then they
are mighty over their enemies, and drive them
|out from the whole territory of the land of
Israel. Thus has been broken Sisera and all
his armies to his punishment, and to a miracle
and a salvation for Israel. Then the wise
returned to sit in the houses of the synagogue
. and to teach unto the people the doctrine
of the Law. Therefore praise ye and bless the
Lord.
AUTHORISED
VERSION.
1 ΤῊΕΝ sang Deborah!
and Barak the son οὗ
Abinoam on that day, |
saying,
2 Praise ye the Lorp for
the avenging of Israel,
when the people willingly
offered themselves.
' bled,
1655
|
TARGUI
AUTHORISED : ae: ἔξ ΝΣ.
VERSION [JONATHAN-BEN-UzzIEL]
ce TO THE PROPHETS.
3 Hear, Oyekings; give| 3 Hear, ye kings (ye
ear, O ye princes; I, even| who came with Sisra to
I, will sing unto the, the battle-array), listen,
Lorp ; I will sing praise| ye rulers [ye who were
to the Lorp God of Israel. | with Jabin the king of
Kenaan: not with your
|armies nor with your power have ye con-
| quered and become mighty over the house of
| Israel]—said Deborah in prophecy before God :
|I praise, give thanks and blessings before the
, Lord, the God of Israel.
4 Lorp, when thou went-| 4 [0 Lord, Thy Law
est out of Seir, when thou) which Thou gavest to
marchedst out of the field | Israel, when they trans-
of Edom, the earth trem-| gress it, then the nations
and the heavens | rule over them: but
dropped, the clouds also| when they return to it,
dropped water. | then they become power-
‘ful over their enemies. ]
O Lord, on the day when Thou didst reveal
Thyself to give it unto them from Seir, Thou
| becamest manifest unto them in the splendour
‘of Thy glory over the territories of Edom:
| the earth trembled, the heavens showered down,
i the clouds dropped rain.
5 The mountains melted | 5 The mountains trem-
from before the Lory, even | bled before the Lord, the
that Sinai from before the | mountains of Tabor, the
Loxrp God of Israel. mountain of Hermon, and
- = the mountain of Carmel,
cane with each ee and said one to the
other: Upon me the Shechinah will rest, and
to me will It come. But the Shechinah rested
upon Mount Sinai, which is the weakest and
smallest of all the mountains. . . . This Sinai
trembled and shook, and its smoke went up as
goes up the smoke of an oven: because of the
glory of the God of Israel which had manifested
itself upon it.
6 When they transgress-
ed in the days of Shamgar
the son of Anath in the
days of Jael, ceased the
wayfarers: they who had
walked in well-prepared
ways had again to walk in
furtive paths.
7 Destroyed were the
open cities of the land of
Israel: their inhabitants
were shaken off and driven
about, until I, Deborah,
was sent to prophesy over
the house of Israel.
8 When the children of
Israel went to pray unto
new idols [errors], which
recently had come to be
worshipped, with which
their fathers did not con-
cern themselves, there came over them the
nations and drove them out of their cities: but
when they returned to the Law, they could not
prevail against them until they made themselves
| strong, and Sisra went up against them, the
enemy and the adversary, with forty thousand
chiefs of troops, with fifty thousand holders of
the sword, with sixty thousand holders of spears,
with seventy thousand holders of shields, with
|eighty thousand throwers of arrows and slings,
besides nine hundred iron chariots which he had
with him, and his own chariots. All these thou-
/ sands and all these hosts could not stand before
Barak and the ten thousand men he had with him.
6 In the days of Sham-
gar the son of Anath, in|
the days of Jael, the high-
ways were unoccupied, |
and the travellers walked |
through byways.
7 The inhabitants of the
villages ceased, they ceased
in Israel, until that I De-
borah arose, that I arose
a mother in Israel.
8 They chose new gods ;|
then was war in the gates : |
was there a shield or spear
seen among forty thousand
in Israel?
1656
| TARGUM
| [JoNATHAN-BEN-UZZIEL ]
TO THE PROPHETS.
AUTHORISED
VERSION.
9 Spake Deborah in pro-
phecy : Iam sent to praise
the scribes of Israel, who,
while this tribulation last-
ed, ceased not to study in
the Law: and it redounds
| well unto them who sat in the houses of con-
gregation, wide open, and taught the people
| the doctrine of the Law, and praised and ren-
- dered thanks before the
Lord.
10 Speak, ye that ride 10 Those who had inter-
on white asses, ye that sit rupted their occupations
in judgment, and walk by areriding on asses covered
the way. with many-coloured capa-
iii ia ΓΙΒΟΠΒ and they ride about
freely in all the territory of Israel, and con-
| gregate to sitin judgment. They walkin their
old ways, and are speaking of the power Thou
hast shown in the land of Israel, &e.
9 My heart is toward the |
governors of Israel, that |
offered themselves will-
ingly among the people.
Bless ye the Lorp.
JUDGES XI.
39 AnD it was at the
end of two months, and
she returned to her father,
and he did unto her ac-
cording to the vow which
he had vowed: and she
had known no man. And it
became a statute in Israel.
ΤΕ Addition (ΞΘ ΤᾺ), that
no man should offer up his son or his daughter
as a burnt-offering, as Jephta the Gileadite
did, who asked not Phinehas the priest. If
he had asked Phinehas the priest, then he
would have dissolved his vow with money [for
animal sacrifices].
39 Anp it came to pass, |
at the end of two months, |
that she returned unto
her father, who did with |
her according to his vow |
which he had vowed : and |
she knew no man. And it
was a custom in Israel.
1 Sam. II.
1 ἀπὸ Heenan ae
and said, My heart re-
joiceth in the Lorp;
mine horn is exalted in
the Lorp; my mouth is
enlarged over mine ene-
mies ; because I rejoice in
thy salvation.
1 Anp Hannah prayed
in the spirit of prophecy,
and said: [Lo, my son
Samuel will become a pro-
phet over Israel; in his
days they will be freed
from the hand of the Phi-
listines ; and through his
| ands) shall’ be done unto
| them wondrous and mighty deeds: therefore]
be strong my heart in the portion which God
gave me. [And also Heman the son of Joel, the
{son of my son Samuel, shall arise, he and his
| fourteen sons, to say praise with nablia (harps 2)
jand cythers, with their brethren the Levites,
|to sing in the house of the sanctuary : there-
| fore] Let my horn be exalted in the gift which
God granted unto me. [And also on the
|miraculous punishment that would befal the
| Philistines who would bring back the ark
οὗ the Lord in a new chariot, together with
8 sin-offering : therefore let the congrega-
|tion of Israel say] I will open my mouth
᾿ἴο speak great things over my enemies; be-
—_— cause I rejoice in thy
salvation.
2 There is none holy as 2 [Over Sanherib the
the Lorp: for there 18) king of Ashur did she
none beside thee, neither| prophesy, and she said :
a
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
TARGUM
(JonarHan-BEN-UzziIEL |
]
AUTHORISED |
| TO THE PROPHETS.
VERSION.
is there any rock like our He will arise with all his
God. armies over Jerusalem,
- anda great sign will be
| done with πῆτη. There shall fall the corpses of
his troops: Therefore praise ye all the peoples
|and nations and tongues, and ery}: There is
| none holy but God ; there is not beside Thee ;
and Thy ppoule shall say, There is none
mighty but our God.
3 [Over Nebuchadnez-
zar the king of Babel did
she prophesy and say: Ye
Chaldeans, and all nations
is a God of knowledge, who will once rule over
and by him actions are) Israel] Do not speak
weighed. | grandly; let no blasphemy
| go out from your mouth :
| for God knows all, and
over all his servants he
| extends his judgment;
also from you he will take
punishment of your guilt.
4 [Over the kingdom
Javan she prophesied and
said] The bows of the
mighty ones [of the Ja-
vanites] will be broken ;
{and those of the house of
the Asmoneans] who are
weak, to them will be
done miracles and mighty
deeds.
3 Talk no more so ex-
ceeding proudly ; let not |
arrogancy come out οἵ,
your mouth : for the Lorp
4 The bows of the}
mighty are broken, and
they that stumbled are)
girded with strength.
1 Sam. XVII.
8 Anp he stood and
cried unto the armies of
Israel, and said unto
them, Why are ye come
out to set your battle in
array ? Am not I a Philis-
tine, and ye servants to
Saul? choose you a man
for you, and let him come
down to me.
8 Ney ΕΝ arose, tl
he cried unto the armies
of Israel, and said unto
them: Why have you
put yourselves in battle
array? Am I not the
Philistine, and you the
servants of Saul? [1
am Goliath the Philistine
from Gath, who have killed
—| the two sons of Eli, the
oiege Chofna oa Pinehas, and carried cap-
tive the ark of the covenant of the Lord, I who
have carried it to the house of Dagon, my
Error, and it has been there in the cities
of the Philistines seven months. And in every
battle which the Philistines have had I went
at the head of the army, and we conquered
in the battle, and we strew the killed like the
dust of the earth, and until now have the
Philistines not thought me worthy to become
captain of a thousand over them. And you, O
children of Israel, what mighty deed has Saul
the son of Kish from Gibeah done for you
that you made him king over you? If he is a
valiant man, let him come out and do battle
with me; but if he is a weak man], then
choose for yourselves a man, and let him come
out against me, &e.
1 Kines XIX.
11, 12 Ann he said, Go 11, 12 Ann he said [to
forth, and stand upon the | Elijah], Arise and stand on
mount before the Lorp. ube, mountain before the
And, behold, the Lorp | Lord. And God revealed
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (‘TARGUM)
AUTHORISED
VERSION.
TARGUM
(JonATHAN-BEN-UzziEL]
TO THE PROPHETS.
passed by, and a great and
strong wind rent the ]
mountains, and brake in
pieces the rocks, before
the Lorp ; but the Lorp
was not in the wind : and
after the wind an earth-
quake ; but the Lorp was
not in the earthquake :
And after the earthquake
a fire; but the Lord was
not in the fire: and after
the fire a still small voice.
himself : and before him a
host of angels of the wind,
cleaving the mountain
and breaking the rocks
before the Lord; but not
in the host of angels was
the Shechinah. And after
the host of the angels of
the wind came a host of
angels of commotion ; but
not in the host of the
angels of commotion was
the Shechinah of the
Lord. And after the host
of the angels of commotion came a host of
angels of fire; but not in the host of the
13 And it was so, when
Elijah heard ἐέ, that he
wrapped his face in his
mantle, and went out, and
stood in the entering in
of the cave : and, behold,
there came a voice unto
him, and said, What doest
thou here, Elijah?
jangels of fire was the Shechinah of the Lord.
But after the host of the angels of the fire came
voices singing in silence.
13 And it was when
Elijah: heard this, he hid
his face in his mantle, and
he went out and he stood
at the door of the cave;
}and, lo! with him was a
voice, saying, What doest
thou here, O Elijah! &c.
22 For the Lorp és our |
IsaArAH XXXII.
22 For the Lord is our
judge, the Lorn is our| judge, who delivered us
lawgiver, the Lorp is our | with his power from Miz-
king; he will save us.
raim; the Lord is our
teacher, for He has given
us the doctrine of the Torah from Sinai; the
| Lord is our king: He will deliver us, and give
/us righteous restitution from the army of Gog.
JEREM. X.
11 Tuus shall ye say
unto them, The gods that
have not made the heavens
and the earth, even they
shall perish from the earth,
and from under these
heayens.
Errors :—O house
11 Tuts is the copy of
the letter which Jeremiah
the prophet sent to the
remaining ancient ones of
the captivity in Babel:
“And if the nations among
whom you are will say
‘unto you, Pray to our
of Israel, then you shall
answer thus, and speak in this wise:
Errors unto which you pray are Errors which
are of no use: they cannot rain from hea-
ven; they cannot cause fruit to grow from
the earth. They and their worshippers will
perish from the earth, and will be destroyed
from under these heayens.
The
Micau VI.
ξ΄
4 For I brought thee up
out of the land of Egypt,
and redeemed thee out of
the house of servants ; and
I sent before thee Moses,
Aaron, and Miriam.
thee the tradition of
4 For I have taken thee
out from the land of Miz-
raim, and have released
thee from the house of
thy bondage: and haye
sent before thee three pro-
phets ; Moses, to teach
the ordinances ; Aaron, to
atone for the people; and Miriam, to teach
| the women.
1657
111. and IV. TARGUM oF JONATHAN-BEN-
UzziIEL AND JERUSHALMI-TARGUM ON THE PEN-
TATEUCH.
Onkelos and Jonathan on the Pentateuch and
Prophets, whatever be their exact date, place, au-
thorship and editorship, are, as we have endea-
voured to show, the oldest of existing Targums, and
belong, in their present shape, to Babylon and the
Babylonian academies flourishing between the 3rd
and 4th centuries 4.D. But precisely as two parallel
and independent developments of the Oral Law
(awn ) have sprung up in the Palestinian and
Babylonian Talmuds respectively, so also recent in-
vestigation has proved to demonstration the exist-
ence of two distinct cycles of Targums on the
Written Law (anawn)—i. e. the entire body of
the Old Testament. Both are the offspring of the
old, primitive institution of the public “reading
and translating of the Torah,” which for many
hundred years had its place in the Palestinian
synagogues. The one first collected, revised, and
edited in Babylon, called—more especially that
part of it which embraced the Pentateuch (Onkelos)
—the Babylonian, Ours, by way of eminence, on
account of the superior authority inherent in all
the works of the Madinchaé (Babylonians, in contra-
distinction to the Maarbae or Palestinians), The
other, continuing its oral life, so to say, down to a
much later period, was written and edited—less
carefully, or rather with a much more faithful
retention of the oldest and youngest fancies of Me-
turgemanim and Darshanim—on the soil of Judaea
itself. Of this entire cycle, however, the Penta-
teuch and a few other books and fragmentary pieces
only have survived entire, while of most of the other
books of the Bible a few detached fragments are all
that is known, and this chiefly from quotations.
The injunction above mentioned respecting the sab-
batical reading of the Targum on the Pentateuch—
nothing is said of the Prophets—explains the fact,
to a certain extent, how the Pentateuch Targum has
been religiously preserved, while the others have
perished. This circumstance, also, is to be taken
into consideration, that Palestine was in later cen-
turies well-nigh cut off from communication with
the Diaspora, while Babylon, and the gigantic
literature it produced, reigned paramount over all
Judaism, as, indeed, down to the 10th century, the
latter continued to have a spiritual leader in the
person of the Resh Gelutha (Head of the Golah),
residing in Babylon. As not the least cause of the.
loss of the great bulk of the Palestinian Targum
may also be considered the almost uninterrupted
martyrdom to which those were subjected who pre-
ferred, under all circumstances, to live and die in
the Land of Promise.
However this may be, the Targum on the Pen-
tateuch has come down to us: and not in one, but
in two recensions. More surprising still, the one
hitherto considered a fragment, because of its em-
bracing portions only of the individual books, has
in reality never been intended to embrace any
further portion, and we are thus in the possession
of two Palestinian Targums, preserved in their
original forms. The one, which extends from the
first verse of Genesis to the last of Deuteronomy, is
known under the name of Targum Jonathan (ben
Uzziel) or Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch.
The other, interpreting single verses, often single
words only, is extant in the following proportions:
1658
a third on Genesis, a fourth on Deuteronomy, a
fifth on Numbers, three-twentieths on Exodus, and
about one-fourteenth on Leviticus. The latter is
generally called Targum Jerushalmi, or, down to
the 11th century (Hai Gaon, Chananel), Zargum
Lrets Israel, Vargum of Jerusalem or of the land
of Israel. That Jonathan ben Uzziel, the same to
whom the prophetical Targum is ascribed, and who
is reported to have lived either in the 5th-4th
century B.C., or about the time of Christ himself
(see above), could have little to do with a Tar-
gum which speaks of Constantinople (Num. xxiv.
19, 24), describes very plainly the breaking-up of
the West-Roman Empire (Num. xxiv. 19-24),
mentions the Turks (Gen. x. 2), and even Mo-
hammed’s two wives, Chadidja and Fatime (Gen.
xxi. 21), and which exhibits not only the fullest
acquaintance with the edited body of the Baby-
lonian Talmud, by quoting entire passages from it,
but adopts its peculiar phraseology :—not to mention
the complete disparity between the style, language,
and general manner of the Jonathanic Targum on
the Prophets, and those of this one on the Pentateuch,
strikingly palpable at first sight,—was recognised
by early investigators (Morinus, Pfeiffer, Walton,
&c.), who soon overthrew the old belief in Jonathan
b. Uzziel’s authorship, as upheld by Menahem
Rekanati, Asariah de Rossi, Gedaljah, Galatin, Fagius,
&c. But the relation in which the two Targums,
so similar and yet so dissimilar, stood to each other,
how they arose, and where and when—all these
questions have for a long time, in the terse words
of Zunz, caused many of the learned such dire
misery, that whenever the “Targum Hierosolymi-
tanum comes up,” they, instead of information on it
and its twin-brother, prefer to treat the reader to a
round volley of abuse of them. Not before the
first half of this century did the fact become fully
and incontestibly established (by the simple pro-
cess of an investigation of the sources), that both
Targums were in reality one-—that both were known
down to the 14th century under no other name
than Targum Jerushalmi—and that some forgetful
scribe about that time must have taken the abbre-
viation “| 7. J. over one of the two documents,
and, instead of dissolving it into Targum-Jerushalmi,
dissolved it erroneously into what he must till
then have been engaged in copying—viz., Targum-
Jonathan, sc. ben Uzziel (on the Prophets). ‘This
error, fostered by the natural tendency of giving
a well-known and far-famed name—without in-
quiring too closely into its accuracy—to a hitherto
‘anonymous and comparatively little known ver-
sion, has been copied again and again, until it found
its way, a hundred years later, into print. Of
the intermediate stage, when only a few MSS. had
received the new designation, a curious fact, which
Azariah de Rossi (Cod. 37 b) mentions, gives evi-
dence. “ I saw,” he says, ‘‘ two complete Targums
on the whole Pentateuch, word for word alike;
one in Reggio, which was described in the margin,
‘Targum of Jonathan b. Uzziel;” the other in
Mantua, described at the margin as ‘Targum Je-
rushalmi.’” In a similar manner quotations from
either in the Aruch confound the designation. Ben-
jamin Mussaphia (d. 1674), the author of additions
and corrections to the Aruch, has indeed pronounced
it as his personal conjecture that both may be one
and the same, and Drusius, Mendelssohn, Rappo-
port, and others shared his opinion, Yet the
difficulty of their obvious dissimilarity, if they
were identical, remained to be accounted for. Zunz
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
tries to solve it by assuming that Pseudo-Jona-
than is the original Targum, and that the frag-
mentary Jerushalmi is a collection of variants to
it. The circumstance of its also containing por-
tions identical with the codex, to which it is sup-
posed to be a collection of readings, he explains by
the negligence of the transcriber. Frankel, how-
ever, followed by Traub and Levysohn, has gone a
step furthers From the very identity of a propor-
tionately large number of places, amounting to
about thirty in each book, and from certain pal-
pable and consistent differences which run through
both recensions, they have arrived at a different
conclusion, which seems to carry conviction on the
face of it, viz., that Jerushalmi is a collection
of emendations and additions to single portions,
phrases, and words of Onkelos, and Pseudo-Jo-
nathan a further emendated and completed edition
to the whole Pentateuch of Jerushalmi-Onkelos.
The chief incentive to a new Targum on the Penta-
teuch (that of Onkelos being well known in Pales-
tine), was, on the one hand, the wish to explain
such of the passages as seemed either obscure in
themselves or capable of greater adaptation to the
times; and on the other hand the great and para-
mount desire for legendary lore, and ethical and ho-
miletical motives, intertwined with the very letter of
Scripture, did not and could not feel satisfied with
the (generally) strictly literal version of Onkelos,
as soon as the time of eccentric, prolix, oral Targums
had finally ceased in Palestine too, and written
Targums of Babylon were introduced as a substi-
tute, once for all. Hence variants, exactly as found
in Jerushalmi, not to the whole of Onkelos, but to
such portions as seemed most to require ‘* improve-
ment” in the direction indicated. And how much
this thoroughly paraphrastic version was preferred
to the literal is, among other signs, plainly visible
from the circumstance that it is still joined, for
instance, to the reading of the Decalogue on the
Feast of Weeks in the synagogue. At a later period
the gaps were filled up, and the whole of the exist-
ing Jerushalmi was recast, as far again as seemed
fitting and requisite. This is the Jonathan, so called
for the last tour hundred years only. And thus
the identity in some, and the divergence in other
places finds its most natural solution.
The Jerushalmi, in both its recensions, is written
in the Palestinensian dialect, the peculiarities of
which we have briefly characterised above. It is
older than the Masora and the conquest of Western
Asia by the Arabs. Syria or Palestine must be
its birthplace, the second half of the 7th century
its date, since the instances above given will not
allow of any earlier time. Its chief aim and pur-
pose is, especially in its second edition, to form an
entertaining compendium of all the Halachah and
Hageadah, which refers to the Pentateuch, and takes
its stand upon it. And in this lies its chief use to
us. There is hardly a single allegory, parable, mystic
digression, or tale in it which is not found in the
other haggadistic writings—Mishna, Talmud, Me-
chilta, Sifra, Sifri, &c.; and both Winer and Peter-
mann, not to mention the older authorities, have
wrongly charged it with inventing its interpreta-
tions. Even where no source can be indicated, the
author has surely only given utterance to the lead-
ing notions and ideas of his times, extravagant and
abstruse as they may oftentimes appear to our mo-
dern Western minds. Little value is inherent in its
critical emendations on the exegesis of Onkelos. It
sometimes endeavours either to find an entirely new
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
signification for a word, and then it often falls into
grave errors, or it restores interpretations rejected
by Onkelos, only it must never be forgotten that
translation is quite a secondary object with Jeru-
shalmi. It adheres, however, to the general method
followed by Onkelos and Jonathan. It dissolves
similes and widens too concise diction, Geogra-
phical names it alters into those current in its own
day. It avoids anthropomorphisms as well as an-
thropopathisms. The strict distinction between the
Divine Being and man is kept up, and the word
DP * before” is put as a kind of medium between
the former and the latter, no less than the other
—‘ Shechinah,”’ “ Word,” ““ Glory,” &c. It never
uses Elohim where the Scripture applies it to
man or idols. The same care is taken to extol
the good deeds of the people and its ancestors,
and to slur over and excuse the evil ones, &c.:—
all this, however, in a much more decided and
exaggerated form than either in Onkelos or Jona-
than. Its language and grammar are very cor-
rupt ; it abounds—chiefly in its larger edition,
the Pseudo-Jonathan—in Greek, Latin, Persian, and
Avabie words ; and even making allowances for the
many blunders of ignorant scribes, enough will
remain to pronounce the diction ungrammatical in
very many places. :
Thus much briefly of the Jerushalmi as one and
the same work. We shall now endeavour to point
out a few characteristics belonging to its two
recensions respectively. The first, Jerushalmi κατ᾽
ἐξοχήν, knows very little of angels; Michael is
1659
|to the Biblical Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, are added
the Angel of Death, Samael, Sagnugael, Shachassai,
Usiel ; seventy angels descend with God to see the
|building of the Babylonian tower; nine hundred
millions of punishing angels go through Egypt dur-
jing the night of the Exodus, &c. Jerushaimi makes
use but rarely of Halachah and Hagegadah, while
Jonathan sees the text as it were only through the
medium of Haggadah: to him the chief end. Hence
Jonathan has many Midrashim not found in Jeru-
shalmi, while he does not omit a single one con-
tained in the latter. There are no direct historical
dates in Jerushalmi, but many are found in Jona-
than, and since all other signs indicate that bat a
short space of time intervenes between the two,
the late origin of either is to a great extent
made manifest by these dates. The most striking
difference between them, however, and the one
which is most characteristic of either, is this, that
while Jerushalmi adheres more closely to the Jan-
guage of the Mishna, Jonathan has greater affinity to
that of the Talmud. Of either we subjoin short
specimens, which, for the purpose of easier compari-
son, and reference, we have placed side by side with
Onkelos. The Targum Jerushalmi was first printed
|in Bomberg’s Bible, Venice, 1518, ff., and was re-
printed in Bomberg’s edd., and in Walton, vol. iv.
| Jonathan to the Pentateuch, a MS. of which was
first discovered by Ashur Purinz in the Library of
the family of the Puahs in Venice, was printed for
the first time in 1590, as ““ Targum Jonathan ben
Uzziel,” at Venice, reprinted at Hanau, 1618,
,
the only one ever occurring: in Jonathan, on the
other hand, angelology flourishes in great vigour: | iv., &c.
|
GENESIS III. 17-24.
| Amsterdam, 1640, Prague, 1646, Walton, vol.
AUTHORISED
VERSION.
ONKELOS.
TARGUM
JERUSHALMI.
First Recension.
_TARGUM
[JONATHAN-BEN-UZzIEL ]
JERUSHALMI.
Second Recension.
17 Anp unto Adam he
said, Because thou hast
hearkened unto the voice
of thy wife, and hast eaten
of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, saying,
Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for
thy sake; in sorrow shalt
thou eat of it all the days
of thy life ;
18 Thorns also and
thistles shall it bring forth
to thee; and thou shalt
eat the herb of the field ;
17 Anp to Adam he said,
For that thou hast accepted
the word of thy wife, and
hast eaten from the tree of
which I have commanded
unto thee, and said, Thou
shalt not eat from it:
cursed shall the earth he
for thy sake; with trouble
shalt thou eat of it all the
days of thy life ;
18 And thorns’ and
thistles it shall grow for
thee; and thou shalt eat
the grass of the field ;
18 And thorns and
thistles shall it multiply
for thee ; and thou shalt eat
the grass that is on the face
of the earth. Then began
Adam and said, I- pray,
through the Mercy that is
before Thee, Jehovah, let
us not be accounted before
Thee as the beasts that eat
the grass on the face of the
field: may we be _ per-
mitted to arise and toil
with the toil of our hands,
and eat food from the fruits
of the earth; and thus
may there be a difference
before Thee between the
sons of man and the off-
spring of cattle.
17 Anp to Adam he said,
Because thou hast received
the word of thy wife, and
hast eaten from the fruit
of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, Thou
shalt not eat from it:
cursed be the earth, be-
cause it has not shown un-
to thee thy fault; in sor-
row shalt thou eat of it all
the days of thy life ;
18 And _ thorns and
thistles shall grow and
multiply for thy sake; and
thou shalt eat the grass
that is on the face of the
field. Adam answered and
said, I pray, by the Mercy
that is before Thee, Je-
hovah, that we may not
be deemed like unto the
beasts, that we should eat
grass that is on the face of
the field; may we be al-
lowed to arise and toil with
the toiling of our hands,
and eat food from the food
of the earth, and thus may
there be a distinction now
before Thee, between the
sons of men and the off-
spring of cattle.
1660 VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
|
| TARGUM
TARGUM
AUTHORISED tiene (JONATHAN-BEN-UZzI&L }
VERSION. ONKELOS. JERUSHALMI. JERUSHALMI.
|
First Recension.
Second Recension.
19 In the sweat of thy | 19 In the sweat of thy
face shalt thou eat bread,
till thou return unto the
ground ; for out of it wast
thou taken: for dust thou |
art, and unto dust shalt
thou return.
20 And Adam called his
wife’s name Eve; because
she was the mother of all
living.
21 Unto Adam also and |
to his wife did the Lorp|
God make coats of skins,
and clothed them.
22 And the Lorp God
said, Behold, the man is
become as one of us, to
know good and evil: and
now, lest he put forth his
hand, and take also of the
tree of life, and eat, and
live for ever :
23 Therefore the Lorp
God sent him forth from
the garden of Eden, to till
the ground from whence
he was taken.
24 So he drove out the
man; and he placed at the
east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims, [1] and a flam-
ing sword which turned
every way, to keep the way
of the tree of life.
μοι, and to
face shalt thou eat bread,
until thou returnest unto
the earth from which thou
art created: for dust art
dust shalt
thou return.
20 And Adam called the
name of his wife Chavah ;
for that she was the mother
of all sons of man.
21 And Jehovah Elohim
made unto Adam and his
wife garments of glory, on
the skin of their flesh, and
clothed them,
22 And Jehovah Elohim
said, Behold Adam is the
only one in the world
knowing good and evil:
perchance now he might
stretch forth his hand and
take also from the tree of |
life, and eat, and live for |
evermore.
23 And Jehovah Elohim
sent him from the garden
of Eden, to till the earth
whence he was created.
24 And he drove out
Adam ; and he placed be-
fore the garden of Eden
the Cherubim and the sharp
sword, which turns to
guard the way to the tree
of life.
22 And the Word of Je-
hovah Elohim said, Lo!
man, whom I created, is
alone in this world, as I
am alone in the highest
Heavens ; mighty nations
will spring from him ; from
him also willarise a people
that will know to dis-
tinguish between good and
evil: now it is better to
expel him from the garden
| of Eden, before he stretch
out his hand and take also
from the fruits of the tree
of life, and eat, and live
for ever,
24 And He _ expelled
Adam, and caused to reside
the splendour of His She-
chinah from the beginning
at the east of the garden of
Eden, above the two Cheru-
bim. Two thousand years
‘before the world was
created, he created the
Law, and prepared Gehin-
nom [Hell] and Gan Eden
[Paradise]: He prepared
Gan Eden for the Right-
/eous, that they may eat
and delight in the fruits of
19) τις ὦ Inv thestoileot:
the palm of thy hand shalt
thou eat food, until thou
returnest unto the dust
from which thou wert
created : for dust art thou,
and to dust shalt thou re-
turn: for from the dust
thou wilt once rise to give
judgment and account for
all that thou hast done,
on the day of the great
Judgment.
20 And Adam ealled the
name of his wife Chavah ;
for she is the mother of all
the sons of man.
21 And Jehovah Elohim
made unto Adam and his
wife garments of honour,
from the skin of the ser-
pent which he had cast out
of it, on the skin of their
flesh, instead of their
beauty which they had cast
off ; and he clothed them.
22 And Jehovah Elohim
said to the angels that
were ministering ‘before
him, Lo! there is Adam
alone on the earth, as I
am alone in the highest
Heavens, and there will
spring from him those who
know to distinguish be-
tween good and eyil: if
he had kept the command-
ment I commanded, he
would have been living and
lasting, like the tree of life,
for evermore. Now since
he has not kept what I
commanded, We _ decree
against him and expel him
from the garden of Eden,
before he may stretch out
his hand and take from the
fruits of the tree of life ;
for if he ate therefrom he
would live and remain for
ever.
23 And Jehovah Elohim
expelled him from the
garden of Eden, and he
went and he settled on the
Mount of Moriah, to till
the earth of which he was
created.
24 And He drove out
Adam from where He had
made to reside the glory
of His Shechinah from
the beginning between the
two Cherubim. Before He
created the world He has
created the Law: He has
prepared the garden of
Eden for the Righteous,
that they shall eat and de-
light in the fruits of the
tree, because they have
acted during their life ac-
cording to the doctrine of
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
1661
eS ee ee τ τ
AUTH.
VERSION. ONKELOS.
TARGUM JERUSHALMI.
First Recension.
|
TARGUM
(JONATHAN-BEN-UZZzIEL]
JERUSHALMI.
Second Recension.
the tree, because they kept the command-
ments of the Law in this world, and pre- |
pared Gehinnom for the wicked, for it is
like unto a sharp sword that eats from
both sides; He has prepared within it
sparks of light and coals which consume
the wicked, to punish them in the future
world for their not having kept the com-
mandments of the Law. For the tree of
life that is the Law; whosoever keeps
it in this world, he will live and last like
the tree of life : good is the Law to whom-
soever keeps it in this world, like the fruit
| of the tree of life in the world to come.
the Law in this world, and have kept
its commandments : He has prepared the
Gehinnom for the wicked, which is likened
unto a sharp sword that eats from two
sides: He prepared within it sparks of
light and coals of fire to judge with them
the wicked who rebelled in their lives
against the doctrine of the Law. Better
is this Law to him who acts according to
it than the fruits of the tree of life, for
the Word of Jehovah has prepared for
| him who keeps it, that he shall live and
| walk in the paths of the way of the life
| of the future world.
AUTHORISED
VERSION.
1 Anp Moses went up
from the plains of Moab
unto the mountain of Nebo,
tothe top of Pisgah, that
is over against Jericho.
And the Lorp shewed him
all the land of Gilead, unto
Dan, ;
2 And all Naphtali, and
the land of Ephraim, and
Manasseh, and all the land
of Judah, unto the utmost
sea,
"3 And the south, end the
plain of the valley of Jeri-
cho, the city of palm trees,
unto Zoar.
THe Last CHAPTER OF DEUTERONOMY, Vv. 1-3.
First Recension.
TARGUM
TARGUM -
Ξ {JONATHAN-BEN-UZZIEL |
ONKELOS. JERUSHALMI. JERUSHALMI.
Second Recension.
1 Anpd Moses ascended
from the encampment of
Moab to the mountain of
Nebo: the head of the
height that is opposite
Jericho. And Jehovah
showed him all the land
of Gilead unto Dan.
2 And all Naphtali and
the land of Ephraim and
Manasseh, and all the land
of Judah to the hindmost
sea.
|
| 8 And the west and the
plain of the valley of Jeri-
cho the city of the palms,
unto Zoar.
1 Anp Moses ascended |
from the plain of Moab to |
the mountain of Nebo, the |
summit of the hill which
is opposite Jericho. And
God showed him the whole
land: Gilead unto Dan of
Caesarea.
2 And all the land of}
Naphtali, and the land cf
Ephraim and Manasseh, |
and the whole land of Ju-
dah, to the hindmost sea.
3 And west, and the plain |
of the valley of Jericho the |
city which produces the |
palms, that is Zeér. ]
1 Anp Moses ascended
from the plains of Moab to
the mountain of Nebo, the
summit of the height
which is over against Je-
richo, and the word of Je-
hovah showed him all the
mighty ones of the land :
the powerful deeds which
Jephtha from Gilead would
do, and the victories of
Samson the son of Manoah,
from the tribe of Dan.
2 And the thousand
princes from the house of
Naphtali who joined issue
with Balak, and the kings
whom Joshua the son of
Nun from the tribe of
Efraim, would kill, and
the power of Gideon the
son of Joash from the tribe
of Manasseh, and all the
kings of Israel, and the
kingdom of the house of
Judah who would rule in
the land until the second
Sanctuary would be laid
low.
3 And the king of the
south who would join the
king of the north to de-
stroy the inhabitants of
= - --- - - -ἰ the land, and the Ammon-
ites and Moabites, the inhabitants of the valleys who would oppress Israel, and the exile of the
disciples of Elija who would be driven out from the plain of Jericho, and the exile of the disciples of
Elisha who would be driven out from the city of palms by their brethren, the house of Israel: two
hundred thousand men.
[Armillus] the evil one and the battle-array of Gog.
the sword: to save, &c.
ee eee eee τ eee
V. TARGUMS oF “ JOSEPH THE BLIND” ON
THE HAGIOGRAPHA.
“ When Jonathan ben
Uzziel began to paraphrase
the Cethubim”’ (Hagiographa), we read in the Tal-
mudical passage before quoted, ‘a mysterious voice
was heard saying: It is enough.
Thou hast re-
vealed the secrets of the Prophets—why wouldst
And the woes of each generation and the punishment of Armalgus
And in this great misery Michael will arise with
| thou also reveal those of the Holy Ghost ἢ "--
It would thus appear, that a Targum to these
books (Job excepted) was entirely unknown up
to a very late period.
Those Targums on the
Hagiographa which we now possess have been at-
tributed vaguely to different authors, it being
assumed in the first instance that they were the
work of one man.
Now it was Akylas the Greek
1662
above); now Onkelos, the Chaldee translator of the
Pentateuch, his mythical double; now Jonathan
b. Uzziel, or Joseph (Jose) the Blind (see above).
But the a sity in the different parts of the work |
warring too palpably against the unity of author-
ship, the blindness of the last-named authority
seemed to show the easiest way out of the difficulty.
Joseph was supposed to have dictated it to different
disciples at different periods, and somehow every
one of the amanuenses infused part of his own
individuality into his share of the work. Popular
belief thus fastened upon this Joseph the Blind,
since a name the work must needs have, and
to him in most of the editions, the Targum is
affiliated. Yet, if ever he did translate the Hagio-
grapha, certain it is that those which we possess
are not by his or his disciples’ hands—that is, of
the time of the 4th century. Writers of the 13th
century already refuted this notion of Joseph’s au-
thorship, for the assumption of which there never
was any other ground than that he was mentioned
in the Talmud, like Onkelos-Akylas and Jonathan,
in connection with Targum; and, as we saw, hee
is indeed reason to believe that ΠΕ had ἃ share in
the redaction of ‘ Jonathan” to the Prophets,
which falls in his time. . Between him and our
hagiographical Targums, however, many centuries
must have elapsed. Yet we do not even venture to
assign to them more than an approximate round
date, about 1000 A.p. Besides the Targums to
the Pentateuch and the Prophets, those now extant
range over Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth,
z.e. Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther,
Ecclesiastes ; the ‘Chronicles and Daniel. Ezra and |
Nehemiah alae are left without a Targum at
present ; yet we can hardly help believing that ere |
long one will also be found to the latter, as the
despaired- -of Chronicles was found in the 17th)
century, and Daniel—a sure trace of it at least—so
recently, that as yet nobody has considered it worth
his while to take any notice of it. We shall divide
these Targums into four groups: Proverbs, Job, |
Psalms ;—Megilloth ;—Chronicles ;—and Daniel.
1. TARGUM ON PSALMS, 708, PROVERBS.
Certain linguistic and other characteristics & |
exhibited by these three Targums, lead to the con-
CHAP.
Tarecum (Ver. 2).
xmytqw) xnvan yw
Moya ON panned
Ver. 3
xoow any ΝΟ ΡΟ
SSMYSIND N NPT
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
translator, mentioned in Bereshith Rabba (see |
clusion that they are nearly contemporaneous pro-
ductions, and that their birthplace is, most likely,
Syria. While the two former, however, are mere
paraphrases, the Targum on Proverbs comes nearer
to our idea of a version than almost any Targum,
except perhaps that of Onkelos, It adheres as
closely to the original text as possible. The most
remarkable feature about it, however, and one
which has given rise to endless speculations and
discussions, is its extraordinary similarity to the
Syriac Version. It would indeed sometimes seem
as if they had copied each other—an opinion
warmly advocated by Dathe, who endeavoured to
prove that the Chaldee shad copied or adapted the
Syrian, there being passages in the Targum which
could, he assumed, only be accounted for by a
misunderstanding of the Syriac translation.» It
has, on the other hand, been argued that there are
a greater number of important passages which dis-
tinctly show that the Targumist had used an
original Hebrew text, varying from that of the
Syriac, and had also made use of the LXX. against
the latter.i The Syriasms would easily be accounted
for by the Aramaic idiom itself, the forms of which
vary but little from, and easily merge into, the
sister dialect of Syria. Indeed nearly all of them
are found in the Talmud, a strictly Aramaic
work. It has been supposed by others that neither
of these versions, as they are now in our hands,
exhibit their original form. A late editor, as it
were, of the (mutilated) Targum, might have
derived his emendatious from that version which
came nearest to it, both in language and in close
adherence to the Hebrew text—viz., the Syriac ;
| and there is certainly every reason to condlude from
the woefully faulty state in which this Targum is
found (Luzzatto ‘counts several hundred corrupt
readings in it), that many and clumsy hands must
have been at work upon the later Codd. The most
likely solution of the difficulty, however, seems to be
| that indicated by Frankel—viz., that the LXX. is
| the common source of both versions, but in such a
| manner that the Aramaic has also made use of the
| Hebrew and the Greek—of the latter, however,
| through the Syriac medium. As a specimen of the
curious similarity of both versions, the following
two verses from the beginning of the book may find
a place here :—
il,
5
2-3.
Syr. (Ver. 2).
JLoyzs90 Ια. SoS
Ploamy, fis arshwso
Ver. 3.
JAS A:0 Ὁ aSanwsSo
apie μισὸ JLaasjo
8. e.g. The use "δε the word MR Seat for angel in Targ.
Ps. and Job, the ἢ, affixed to the 3rd p. plur. praef. Peal,
the infin. with praef. 5, besides several more or 1655 unusual
Greek and Syriac words common to all three.
he g.,ch. xxix.5, the Heb. word mp, “ city,” is rend- |
ered ja “city,” inSyr. Targum translates %9'75,
“a lie,” which is only to be accounted for by a misunder-
standing or misreading of the Syriac LO, where for
the second c the Chaldee translator read a Ὁ, ᾿Ξ
| i Prov. xxvi. 10, the Masoretic text reads: ΡΜ a)
(S9p> 72 bs; LXX. πολλὰ χειμάζεται σὰρξ ἀφρό-
νων (—brpp Ww) Tare. ΝΟΣ ΟἽ NWI WIT;
thus adopting exactly the reading of the LXX. against
| the received text: xxix. 21, JY 22 PID, quoted
in the same manner in Talm, Succah. 52 Ὁ; LXX. ὃς κα-
᾿τασπαταλᾷ ἐκ παιδὸς οἰκέτης ἔσται; evidently reading
ΠΡ I3y=Targ. 73 stay. Comp. also xxvii.
| 16, Xxx. 30, &e.
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
Compare also vers. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13; ch. ii.
vers. 9, 10, 13-15; iii. 2-9, &e.
We must not omit to observe that no early Jew-
ish commentator—Rashi, Ibn Ezra, i
the Targum either to Proverbs, or to Job and
Psalms. Nathan ben Jechiel (12th century) is the
first who quotes it.
Respecting the two latter Targums of this group,
Psalms and Job, it is to be observed that they
are, more or less, mere collections of fragments.
That there must have existed paraphrases to Job at
a very early period follows from the Talmudical
passages which we quoted in the introduction—nay,
we almost feel inclined to assume that this book,
considered by the learned as a mere allegory (“ Job
never was, and never was created,” is the dictum
found in the Talmud, Baba Bathra, 15a: 7. e.
he never had any real existence, but is a poetical,
though sacred, invention), opened the list of written
paraphrases. How much of the primitive version
is embodied in the one which we possess it is of
course next to impossible to determine, more espe-
cially in the state of infancy in which the investiga-
tion of the Targums as yet remains. So much,
however, is palpable, that the Targums of both
Psalms and Job in their present shape contain relics
of different authors in different times: some para-
phrasts, some strictly translators. Very frequently
a second version of the same passage is introduced |
by the formula TAN ON, “another Targum,”
and varies most w ridely from its predecessor; while,
more especially in the Psalms, a long series of
chapters translated literally, is followed by another
series translated in the wildest and most fanciful
character. The Cod. Erpen. still exhibits these va-
vious readings, as such, side by side, on its margin;
thence, however, they have in our printed editions
found their way into the text. How much of these
variants, or of the entire text, belongs to the Pales-
tinian Cycles, which may well have embraced the
whole Torah :—or whether they are to be considered
exclusively the growth of later times, and have thus
but’a very slender connexion with either the original
Babylonian or the Palestinian Targum-works, future
investigation must determine.
The most useful in this group is naturally the
Targum on Proverbs, it being the one which trans-
lates most closely, or rather the only one which
does translate at all. Besides the explanation it
gives of difficult passages in the text, its peculiar
affinity to the Syriac Version naturally throws some
light upon both, and allows of emendations in and
through either. As to Job and Psalms, their chief
use lies in their showing the gradual dying stages
of the idiom in which they are written, and also in
their being in a manner guides to the determination
of the date of certain stages of Haggadah.
2,3. TARGUMS ON THE FIVE MEGILLOTH.
These Targums are likewise not mentioned before
the 12th century, when the Aruch quotes them
severally :—although Esther must have been trans-
lated at a very early period, since the Talmud
already mentions a Targum on it. Of this, we
need hardly add, no trace is found in our present
Targum. The freedom of a ‘ version” can go no
further than it does in these Targums on the Me-
gilloth. They are, in fact, mere Haggadah, and
bear the most striking resemblance to the Midrash
on the respective books. Curiously enough, the
gradual preponderance of the Paraphrase over the
text is noticeable in the following order: Ruth,
1665
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs.
The latter is fullest to overflowing of those “' nugae
atque frivolitates,’ which have so sorely tried
the temper of the wise and grave. Starting from
the almost comical notion that all they found in
the books of Mohammedanism and of Judaism, of
Rome and of Greece, if it seemed to have any
reference to “ Religio,” however unsupported, and
however plainly bearing the stamp of poetry—
> a religious
creed, and the creed forced upon every single be-
liever:—they could not but get angry with mere
‘day-dreams’ being interspersed with the sacred
literature of the Bible. Delitzsch, a scholar of
our generation, says of the Targums in general
that “history becomes in them most charming,
most instructive poetry ; but this poetry is not the
invention, the phantasma of the writer, but the old
and popular venerable tradition or lezend . . . . the
Targums are poetical, both as to their contents and
form” (Gesch. d. Jiid. Poesie, p.27) : and further,
‘The wealth of legend in its gushing fullness
did not suffer any formal bounds; legend bursts
upon legend, like wave upon wave, not to be
dammed in even by any poetical forms. Thus the
Jerusalem Targum in its double Recensions [to the
Pentateuch ], and the Targums on the five Megilloth
are the most beautiful rational works of art,
through which there runs the golden thread of
Scripture, and which are held together only by the
unity of the idea” (p. 135). Although we do not
share Delitzsch’s enthusiasm to the full extent, yet
we cannot but agree with him that there are, to-
gether with stones and dust, many pearls of precious
price to be gathered from these much despised,
because hardly known, books.
The dialect of these books occupies the mean
between the East and West Aramean, and there
is a certain unity of style and design about all the
five books, which fully justifies the supposition
that they are, one and all, the work of one author.
It may be that, taken in an inverted series, they
mark the successive stages of a poet’s life; glow-
ing, rapturous, overflowing in the first; stately,
sober, prosy in the last. As to the time of its
writing or editing, we have again to repeat, that
it is most uncertain, but unquestionably belongs to
a period much later than the Talmud. The Book
of Esther, enjoying both through its story-like form
and the early injunction of its being read or heard by
every one on the Feast of Purim, a great circulation
and popularity, has been targumised many times,
and besides the one embodied in the five Megilloth,
there are two more extant (not three, as generally
stated: the so-called third being only an abbrevia-
tion of the first), which are called respectively the
first: a short one without digressions, and the second
—( Targum sheni): a larger one, belonging to the
Palestinian Cycle. The latter Targum isa collection
of Eastern romances, broken up and arranged to
the single verses: of gorgeous hues and extravagant
imagination, such as are to be met with in the
Adshaib or Chamis, or any Eastern collection of
legends and tales.
VI. TARGUM ON THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES.
This Targum was unknown, as we said before,
up to avery recent period. In 1680, it was edited
for the first time from an Erfurt MS. by M. F. Beck,
and in 1715 from a more complete as well as correct
MS. at Cambridge, by D. Wilkins. The name of
Hungary occurring in it, and its frequent use of the
1664
Jerusalem-Targum to the Pentateuch, amounting
sometimes to simple copying (comp. the Genealo-
gical Table in chap. i., &c.), show sufficiently that
its author is neither “ Jonathan b. Uzziel” nor
“* Joseph the Blind,’ as has been suggested. But
the language, Style, and the Haggadah, with which
it abounds, point to a late period and point out Pa-
lestine as the place where it was written. Its use
must be limited to philological, historical, and geo-
graphical studies; the science of exegesis will profit
little by it. The first edition appeared under the
title Paraphrasis Chaldaica libr. Chronicorum, cura
M. F. Beckii, 2 tom. Aug. Vind. 1680-83, 4to.; the
second by D. Wilkins, Paraphrasis...auctore R.
Josepho, το. Amst., 1715, 4to. The first edition
has the advantage of a large number of very learned
notes, the second that of a comparatively more cor-
rect and complete text.
VII. THE TARGUM TO DANIEL.
It is for the first time that this Targum, for the
non-existence of which many and weighty reasons
were given (that the date of the Messiah’s arrival
was hidden in it, among others), is here formally in-
troduced into the regular rank and file of Targums,
although it has been known for now more than five-
and-twenty years. Munk found it, not indeed in the
Original Aramaic, but in what appears to him to
be an extract of it written in Persian. The MS.
(Anc. Fond, No. 45, Imp. Library) is inscribed
“ History of Daniel,” and has retained only the first
words of the Original, which it translates likewise
into Persian. This language is then retained
throughout.
After several lecends known from other Targums,
follows a long prophecy of Daniel, from which the
book is shown to have been written after the first
Crusade. Mohammad and his successors are men-
tioned, also a king who coming from Europe (Τὸ
PND) will go to Damascus, and kill the Ish-
maelitic (Mohammedan) kings and princes; he will
break down the minarets (NII), destroy the
mosques (NI‘73D!D), and no one will after that
dare to pronounce the name of the Profane (Sypp
=Mohammad). The Jews will also have to suffer
great misfortunes (as indeed the knightly Crusaders
won their spurs by dastardly murdering the help-
less masses, men, women, and children, in the
Ghettos along the Rhine and elsewhere, before they
started to deliver the Holy tomb). By a sudden
transition the Prophet then passes on to the ‘‘ Mes-
siah, son of Joseph,’ to Gog and Magog, and
to the “true Messiah, the son of David.’ Munk
rightly concludes that the book must have been
composed in the 12th century, when Christian
kings reigned for a brief period over Jerusalem
(Wotice sur Saadia, Par. 1838).
VIII. There is also a Chaldee translation extant
of the apocryphal pieces of Esther, which, entirely
lying apart from our task, we confine ourselves to
mention without further entering into the subject.
De Rossi has published them with Notes and Dis-
sertations. Tiibingen, 1783, 8vo.
Further fragments of the PALESTINIAN TARGUM.
Besides the complete books belonging to the Pales-
tinian Cycle of Targum which we have mentioned,
and the portions of it intersected as ‘ Another
Reading,” ‘‘ Another Targum,” into the Babylonian
Versions, there are extant several independent frag-
ments of it. Nor need we as yet despair of find-
VERSIONS, ANCIENT (TARGUM)
ing still further portions, perhaps one day to see
it restored entirely. There is all the more hope
for this, as the Targum has not been lost very long
yet. Abudraham quotes the Targum Jerushalmi
to Samuel (i. 9, 13). Kimchi has preserved several
passages from it to Judges (xi. 1, consisting of 47
words); to Samuel (i. 17, 18: 106 words); and
Kings (i. 22, 21: 68 words; ii. 4, 1: 174 words;
iv. 6: 55 words; iv. 7: 72 words; xiii. 21: 9
words), under the simple name of Toseftah, 7.e. Ad-
dition, or Additional Targum. Luzzatto has also
lately found fragments of the same, under the
names “Targum of Palestine,” “ Targum of Je-
rushalmi,” “ Another Reading,” &c., in an African
Codex written 5247 A.M. = 1487 A.D., viz. to
1 Sam. xviii. 19; 2 Sam. xii. 12; 1 Kings v. 9, v.
11, v. 13, x..18, x. 26, xiv..133 to Hosea i. 15
Obad. i. 1.—To: Isaiah, Rashi (Zsaak?, not as people
still persist in calling him, Jarchi), Abudraham and
Farissol quote it: and a fragment of the Targum
to this prophet is extant in Cod. Urbin. Vatican
No. 1, containing about 120 words, and beginning :
“Prophecy of Isaiah, which he prophesied at the
end of his prophecy in the days of Manasseh the
Son of Hezekiah the King of the Tribe of the House
of Judah on the 17th of Tamuz in the hour when
Manasseh set up an idol in the Temple,” &c. Isaiah
predicts in this his own violent death. Parts of this
Targum are also found in Hebrew, in Pesiktah
Rabbathi 6 a, and Yalkut Isa. 58 d. <A Jerusalem
Targum to Jeremiah is mentioned by Kimchi; to
Ezekiel by R. Simeon, Nathan (Aruch), and likewise
by Kimchi, who also speaks of a further additional
Targum to Jonathan for this Book. A ‘ Targum-
Jerushalmi” to Micah is known to Rashi, and of
Zechariah a fragment has been published in Bruns
(Repert. Pt. 15, P. 174) from a Reuchlinian MS,
(Cod. 354, Kennic. 25), written 1106. The passage,
found as a marginal gloss to Zech. xii. 10, reads as
follows :—
“Targum Jerushalmi. And I shall pour out upon
the House of David and the inhabitants of Jeru-
salem the spirit of prophecy and of prayer for truth.
And after this shall go forth Messiah the Son of
Efraim to wage war against Gog. And Gog will
kill him before the city of Jerushalaim. They
will look up to me and they will ask me where-
fore the heathens have killed Messiah the Son of
Efraim. They will then mourn over him as mourn
father and mother over an only son, and they will
wail over him as one wails over a firstborn.”—A
Targum Jerushalmi to the third chapter of Ha-
bakkuk, quoted by Rashi, is mentioned by de Rossi
(Cod. 265 and 405, both 13th century). It has been
suggested that a Targum Jerushalmi on the Pro-
phets only existed to the Haftarahs, which had at
one time been translated perhaps, like the portion
from the Law, in public; but we have seen that
entire books, not to mention single chapters, pos-
sessed a Palestinian Targum, which never were in-
tended or used for the purpose of Haftarah. And
there is no reason to doubt that the origin of this
Targum to the Prophets is precisely similar to, and
perhaps contemporaneous with, that which we traced
to that portion which embraces the Pentateuch.
The Babylonian Version, the “ Jonathan ”-Targum,
though paraphyastic, did not satisfy the apparently
more imaginative Palestinian public. Thus from
heaped-up additions and marginal glosses, the step
to a total re-writing of the entire Codex in the
manner and taste of the later times and the dif+
ferent locality, was easy enough. From a critique
VERSION, AUTHORISED
of the work as such, however, we must naturally
keep aloof, as long as we have only the few speci- |
mens named to judge from. But its general spirit
and tendency are clear enough. So is also the ad- |
vantage to which even the minimum that has sur-
vived may some day be put by the student of Mid- |
rashic literature, as we have briefly indicated above.
We cannot conclude without expressing the hope
—probably a vain one—that linguistic studies may |
soon turn in the direction of that vast and most in- |
teresting, as well as important, Aramaic literature,
of which the Targums form but a small item.
The writer finally begs to observe that the trans-
lations of all the passages quoted from Talmud and
Midrash, as well as the specimens from the Targum, |
have been made by him directly trom the respective
originals.
N. Pfeiffer, Critica Sacr.; Tho. Smith, Diatribe ; |
Gerhard, De Script. Sacr.; Helvicus, De Chald. |
Bibl. Paraphr.; Varen, De Targ. Onkel.; Wolf, |
Bibl. Hebr.; Carpzov, Critica Sacra; Joh. |
Morinus, Ezercitt. Bibl. ; Schickard, Bechin. |
Happer.; Jerar, Proleg. Bibliae ; Rivet, Lsagoge |
ad S. 8.; Allix, Judic. Eccles. Jud.; Huet, De |
Claris Interpp.; Leusden, Philol. Hebr.; Prideaux, |
Connect.; Rambach, Inst.. Herm. Sacr.; Elias |
Levita, Meturgeman; Tishbi; Luzzatto, Oheb
Ger; Perkovitz, Otch Or; Winer, Onkelos ; |
Anger, De Onkeloso; Vitringa, Synagoga ;
Azariah De Rossi, Meor Enajim; Petermann, De |
duabus Pent. Paraphr.; Dathe, De ratione con- |
sensus vers. Chald. et Syr. Prov. Sal.; Lovy, in |
Geiger’s Zeitschr.; Levysohn and Traub in Frankel’s |
Monatsschr. ; Zunz, Gottesdienstl, Vortrage ; |
Geiger, Urschrift ; Frankel, Vorstudien zur LEX. ; |
Beitrage f. Pal. Exeg. Zeitschrift ; Monatsschrift ; |
Geiger, Zeitschrift; Fiirst, Orient; Hall. Allg. |
Liter. Zeitg. 1821 and 1832, Introductions of
Walton, Eichhorn, Keil, Havernick, Jahn, Herbst,
Bertheau, Davidson, &c.; Gesenius, Jesaia ; Horne,
Aruch; Geschichten of Jost, Herzfeld, Gratz, ὅσο. ; |
Delitzsch, Gesch. d. Jiid. Poesie; Sach’s Beitrége; |
First, Chald. Gramm.; ἘΣ. Deutsch in Westerm. |
Monatschr., 1859; Zeitschrift and Verhand- |
lungen der Deutschen Morgenlind. Geselisch.,
&e. &e. [E. D.]
VERSION, AUTHORISED. The history |
of the English translations of the Bible connects |
itself with many points of interest in that of the
nation and the Church. The lives of the indivi-
dual translators, the long struggle with the indif-
ference or opposition of men in power, the religious
condition of the people as calling for, or affected by, |
the appearance of the translation, the time and place
and form of the successive editions by which the
demand, when once created, was supplied ;—each of
these has furnished, and might again furnish, ma-
terials for a volume. It is obvious that the work |
now to be done must lie within narrower limits ;
and it is proposed, therefore, to exclude all that be- |
longs simply to the personal history of the men, or
the general history of the time, or that comes within
the special province of Bibliography. What will
be aimed at will be to give an account of the several
versions as they appeared ; to ascertain the qualifi-
cations of the translators for the work which they
1666
undertook, and the principles on which they acted ;
to form an estimate of the final result of their
labours in the received Version, and, as consequent
on this, of the necessity or desirableness of a new
or revised translation ; and, finally, to give such a
survey of the literature of the subject as may help
the reader to obtain a fuller knowledge for himself.
T. EARLY TRANSLATIONS.—It was asserted by
Sir Thomas More, in his anxiety to establish a
point against Tyndal, that he had seen English
translations of the Bible, which had been made
before Wycliffe, and that these were approved by
the Bishops, and were allowed by them to be read
by laymen, and even by devout women (Dialogues,
ch. viii-xiv. col. 82). There seem good grounds,
however, for doubting the accuracy of this state-
ment. No such translations—versions, 7. 6. of
the entire Scriptures—are now extant. No traces
of them appear in any contemporary writer.
Wycliffe’s great complaint is, that there is no
translation (Forshall and Madden, Wycliffe’s Bible,
Pref. p. xxi. Prol. p. 59). The Constitutions of
Archbishop Arundel (A.D. 1408) mention two only,
and these are Wycliffe’s own, and the one based on
his and completed after his death. More’s statement
must therefore be regarded either as a rhetorical
exaggeration of the fact that parts of the Bible had
been previously translated, or as rising out of a mis-
take as to the date of MSS. of the Wyclitie version.
The history of the English Bible will therefore begin,
as it has begun hitherto, with the work of the first
great reformer. One glance, however, we may give,
in passing, to the earlier history of the English
Church, and connect some of its most honoured
names with the great work of making the truths
of Scripture, or parts of the Books themselves, it
not the Bible as a whole, accessible to the people.
We may think of Caedmon as embodying the whole
history of the Bible in the alliterative metre of
Anglo-Saxon poetry (Bede, Hist. Eccl. iv. 24); of
Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne, in the 7th century,
as rendering the Psalter; of Bede, as translating in
the last hours of his life the Gospel of St. John
(Epist. Cuthberti); of Alfred, setting forth in his
mother-tongue as the great ground-work of his
legislation, the four chapters of Exodus (xx.-xxiii.)
that contained the first code of the laws of Israel
(Pauli’s Life of Alfred, ch. v.). The wishes of
the great king extended further. He desired that
all the free-born youth of his kingdom should
be able to read the English Scriptures” * (Jbid.),
Portions of the Bible, some of the Psalms, and
extracts from other Books, were translated by him
for his own use and that of his children. The
traditions of a later date, seeing in him the repre-
sentative of all that was good in the old Saxon
time, made him the translator of the whole Bible
(Ibid. Supp. to ch. v.).
The work of translating was, however, carried on
by others. One Anglo-Saxon version of the four
Gospels, interlinear with the Latin of the Vulgate,
known as the Durham Book, is found in the Cot-
tonian MSS. of the British Museum, and is referred
to the 9th or 10th century. Another, known as
the Rushworth Gloss, and belonging to the same
period, is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.»
a So Pauli (Eng. transl.). But would “ Englisc gewrit”
mean “the Scriptures’ exclusively? Do not the words of
Alfred point to a general as well as a religious education ἢ
b One interesting fact connected with this version is |
that its text agrees with that of the Codex Bezae where
VOL. 11.
that MS. differs most from the textus veceptus of the N. T.
Another is its publication by Foxe the Martyrologist in
1571, at the request of Abp. Parker. It was subsequently
edited by Dr. Marshall in 1665.
It may be noticed, as bearing upon a question afterwards
50
1666
Another, of a somewhat later date, is in the same
collection, and in the library of C. C. College, Cam-
bridge. The name of Aldhelm, Bishop of Sher-
borne, is connected with a version of the Psalms ;
that of Aelfric, with an Epitome of Scripture His-
tory, including a translation of many parts of the
historical Books of the Bible (Lewis, Hist. of
Transl, ch. 1.; Forshall and Madden, Preface ;
Bagster’s Lnglish Hexapla, Pref.). The influence
of Norman ecclesiastics, in the reigns that preceded
or followed the Conquest, was probably adverse to
the continuance of this work. They were too far
removed from sympathy with the subjugated race
to care to educate them in their own tongue. The
spoken dialects of the English of that peried would
naturally seem to them too rude and uncouth to
be the channel of Divine truth. Pictures, mys-
teries, miracle plays, rather than books, were the
instruments of education for all but the few who,
in monasteries under Norman or Italian superin-
tendence, devoted themselves to the study of
theology or law. In the remoter parts of England,
however, where their influence was less felt, or the
national feeling was stronger, there were those who
carried on the succession, and three versions of the
Gospels, in the University Library at Cambridge,
in the Bodleian, and in the British Museum, be-
longing to the 11th or 12th century, remain as
attesting their labours. The metrical paraphrase
of the Gospel history, known as the Ormulum, in
alliterative English verse, ascribed to the latter
half of the 12th century, is the next conspicuous
monument, and may be looked upon as indicating a
desire to place the facts of the Bible within reach
of others than the clergy.¢ The 13th century, a
time in England, as throughout Europe, of reli-
gious revival, witnessed renewed attempts. <A
prose translation of the Bible into Norman-French,
cire. A.D. 1260, indicates a demand for devotional
reading within the circle of the Court, or of the
wealthier merchants, or of convents for women of
high rank. Further signs of the same desire are
found in three English versions of the Psalms—one
towards the close of the 13th century ; another by
Schorham, cire. A.D. 1320; another—with other
eanticles from the O.T. and N.T.—by Richard
tolle of Hampole, cire. 1349; the last being
accompanied by a devotional exposition: and in one
of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, and of all
St. Paul’s Epistles (the list includes the Apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans), in the Library of C. C.
College, Cambridge. The fact stated by Arch-
bishop Arundel in his funeral sermon on Anne of
Bohemia, wife of Richard IJ., that she habitually
read the Gospels in the vulgar tongue, with divers
expositions, was probably true of many others of
high rank.4 Jt is interesting to note these facts.
not as detracting from the glory of the great Re-
the subject of much discussion, that in this and the otber
Anglo-Saxon versions the attempt is made to give verna-
cular equivalents even for the words which, as belonging
to a systematic theology, or for other reasons, most later |
versions have left practically untranslated. ‘Thus baptisma
is “fyllith” (washing); poenitentia, “ doed-bote” (redress
for evil deeds). So seribae are ‘‘bocere’’ (bookmen).
Synagogues, “ gesamnungum ” (meetings); amen, “ soth-
lice”’ (in sooth); and phylacteries, “ healsbec” (neck-
books). See Lewis, Hist. of Translations, p. 9.
¢ The Ormulum, edited by Dr. White, was printed at, |
the Oxford University Press in 1852.
4 Chronologically, of course, the Gospels thus referred
to may have been Wycliffe’s translation; but the strong
VERSION, AUTHORISED
former of the 14th century, but as showing that
for him also there had been a preparation; that
what he supplied met a demand which had for
many years been gathering strength. It is almost
needless to add that these versions started from
nothing better than the copies of the Vulgate,
more or less accurate, which each translator had
before him (Lewis, ch. I.; Forshall and Madden,
Preface).
1. Wycutrre (b. 1324; ἃ. 1384).—(1). It is
singular, and not without significance, that the first
translation from the Bible connected with the name
of Wycliffe should have been that of part of the
Apocalypse. The Last Age of the Church (A.D.
1356) translates and expounds the vision in which
the Reformer read the signs of his own times, the
sins and the destruction of “ Antichrist and his
meynee” (=multitude). Shortly after this he
completed a version of the Gospels, accompanied by
a commentary “so that pore Cristen men may
some dele know the text of the Gospel, with the
comyn sentence of olde holie doctores” (Preface).
Wycliffe, however, though the chief, was not the
only labourer in the cause. The circle of English
readers was becoming wider, and they were not
content to have the Book which they honoured
above all others in a tongue not their own
Another translation and commentary appear to
have been made about the same time, in ignorance
of Wyéliffe’s work, and for the “manie lewid
men that gladlie would kon the Gospelle, if it were
draghen into the Englisch tung.” The fact that
many MSs. of this period are extant, containing
in English a Monotessaron, or Harmony of the
Gospels, accompanied by portions of the Episties,
or portions of the O. T’., or an epitome of
Scripture history, or the substance of St. Paul’s
Epistles, or the Catholic Epistles at full length,
with indications more or less distinct, of Wyclitie’s
influence, shows how wide-spread was the feeling,
that the time had come tor an English Bible.
(Forshall and Madden, Pref. pp. xiii.-xvii.) These
preliminary labours were followed up by a com-
plete translation of the N.T. by Wycliffe himself.
The O.T. was undertaken by his coadjutor, Nicholas
de Hereford, but was interrupted probably by a
citation to appear before Archbishop Arundel in
1382, and ends abruptly (following so far the order
of the Vulgate) in the middle of Baruch. Many
of the MSs, of this version now extant present a
different recension of the text, and it is probable
that the work of Wycliffe and Hereford was revised
by Richard Purvey, circ. a.D. 1388. Τὸ him also
is ascribed the interesting Prologue, in which the
translator gives an account both of his purpose and
his method. (Forshall and Madden, Pref. p. xxv.)
(2). The former was, as that of Wycliffe had
been, to give an English Bible to the English
opposition of Arundel to the work of the Reformer
makes it probable that those which the queen used be-
longed to a different school, like that of the versions just
mentioned.
e The authorship of this book has however been disputed
(comp. Todd’s Preface).
£“One comfort is of knightes; they saveren much
the Gospelle, and have wille to read in Englische the
Gospelle of Christes life’ (Wycliffe, Prologue). Compare
the speech ascribed to John of Gaunt (13 Ric. II.): “ We
will not be the dregs of all, seeing other nations have
the law of God, which is the law of our faith, written
in their own language” (Foxe, Pref. to Saxon Gospels
Lewis, p. 29).
VERSION, AUTHORISED
people. He appeals to the authority of Bede, of
Alfred, and of Grostéte, to the examples of
“ Fyenshe, and Beemers (Bohemians), and Britons.”
He answers the hypocritical objections that men
were not holy enough for such a work ; that it was
wrong for ‘‘ idiots” to do what the great doctors
of the Church had left undone. He hopes ‘ to
make the sentence as trewe and open in Englishe
as it is in Latine, or more trewe and open.”
It need hardly be said, as regards the method of
the translator, that the version was based entirely
upon the Vulgate.s If, in the previous century,
scholars like Grostéte and Roger Bacon, seeking
knowledge in other lands, and from men of other
races, had acquired, as they seem to have done,
some knowledge both of Greek and Hebrew, the
succession had, at all events, not been perpetuated.
The war to be waged at a later period with a |
different issue between Scholastic Philosophy and
«“ς Humanity” ended, in the first struggle, in the
triumph of the former, and there was probably no
one at Oxford among Wycliffe’s contemporaries
who could have helped him or Purvey in a transla-
tion from the original. It is something to find at
such a time the complaint that ‘‘ learned doctoris
taken littel heede to the lettre,” the recognition that
the Vulgate was not all sufficient, that ‘ the texte
of oure bokis” (he is speaking of the Psalter, and
the difficulty of understanding it) “ discordeth much
from the Ebreu.”2 The difficulty which was thus
felt was increased by the state of the Vulgate text.
The translator complains that what the Church
had in view was not Jerome’s version, but a later
and corrupt text ; that “‘ the comune Latyne Bibles
han more neede to be corrected as manie as I have
seen in my life, than hath the Englishe Bible late
translated.” To remedy this he had recourse to
collation. Many MSS. were compared, and out of
this comparison, the true reading ascertained as far
as possible. The next step was to consult the
Glossa Ordinaria, the commentaries of Nicholas
de Lyra, and others, as to the meaning of any
difficult passages. After this (we recognise here,
perhaps, a departure from the right order) gram-
mars were consulted. Then came the actual work
of translating, which he aimed at making idiomatic
rather than literal. As he went on, he submitted
his work to the judgment of others, and accepted
their suggestions.i It is interesting to trace these
early strivings after the true excellence of a transla-
tor; yet more interesting to take note of the
spirit, never surpassed, seldom equalled, in later
translators, in which the work was done. No-
where do we find the conditions of the work,
intellectual and moral, more solemnly asserted.
“A translator hath grete nede to studie well the
sentence, both before and after,” so that no equi-
vocal words may mislead his readers or himself,
and then also ‘‘he hath nede to lyve a clene life,
and be ful devout in preiers, and have not his wit
occupied about worldli things, that the Holie
1667
Spiryt, author of all wisedom, and cunnynge and
truthe, dresse (= train) him in his work, and suffer
him not for to err” (Forshall and Madden, Prol.
p- 60).
(3). The extent of the circulation gained by this
version may be estimated from the fact that, in
spite of all the chances of time, and all the system-
atic efforts for its destruction made by Archbishop
Arundel and others, not less than 150 copies are
known to be extant, some of them obviously made
for persons of wealth and rank, others apparently
for humbler readers. It is significant as bearing,
either on the date of the two works, or on the
position of the writers, that while the quotations
from Scripture in Langton’s Vision of Piers Plow-
man are uniformly given in Latin, those in the
Persone’s Tale of Chaucer are given in English,
which for the most part agrees substantially with
Wycliffe’s translation.
(4). The following characteristics may be noticed
as distinguishing this version: (1) The general
homeliness of its style. The language of the Court
or of scholars is as far as possible avoided, and that
of the people followed. In this respect the principle
has been acted on by later translators. The style
of Wycliffe is to that of Chaucer as Tyndal’s is to
Surrey’s, or that of the A. V. to Ben Jonson’s.
(2) The substitution, in many cases, of English
equivalents for quasi-technical words. Thus we
find ** fy” or “fogh” instead of ‘* Raca’’ (Matt.
v. 22); “they were washed” in Matt. iii. 6;
“ yichesse”’ for “ mammon”’ (Luke xvi. 9, 11, 13);
“bishop” for ‘ high-priest’’ (passim). (3) The
extreme literalness with which, in some instances,
even at the cost of being unintelligible, the Vulgate
text is followedyas in 2 Cor, i. 17-19.
111, TyNnpALt.—The work of Wycliffe stands by
itself. Whatever power it exercised in preparing
the way for the Reformation of the 16th century,
it had no perceptible influence om later transla-
tions. By the reign of Henry VIII. its English
was already obsolescent, and the revival of classical
scholarship led men to feel dissatisfied with a ver-
sion which had ayowedly been made at second-
hand, not from the original. With Tyndal, on the
other hand, we enter on a continuous succession.
He is the patriarch, in no remote ancestry, of the
Authorised Version. With a consistent, unswerv-
ing purpose, he devoted his whole life to this one
work ; and through dangers and difficulties, amid
enemies and treacherous friends, in exile and loneli-
ness, accomplished it. More than Cranmer or
Ridley he is the true hero of the English Reforma-
tion. While they were slowly moving onwards,
halting between two opinions, watching how the
Court-winds blew, or, at the best, making the
most of opportunities, he set himself to the task
without which, he felt sure, Reform would be im-
possible, which, once accomplished, would render
it inevitable. ‘‘ Eve many years,” he said, at the
age of thirty-six (A.D. 1520), he would cause “a
g A crucial instance is that of Gen. iii. 15: “ She shall
trede thy head.”
h This knowledge is, however, at second hand, ‘bi
witnesse of Jerom, of Lire, and other expositouris.”
i It is worth while to give his own account of this
process :—‘ First this simple creature,” his usual way of
speaking of himself, “ hedde myche travaile, with diverse
felawis and helperis, to gedere manie elde bibles, and
othere doctoris, and comune glosis, and to make oo Latyn
bible sumdel trewe, and thanne to studie it of the new,
the text with the glose, and othere doctoris, as he mizte,
and speciali Lire on the elde testament, that helpid full
myche in this werk, the thridde time to counsel with
elde grammarians and elde dyvynis of harde wordes and
harde sentences how those mizte best be understode and
translated, the iijjth tyme to translate as clearlie as he
coude to the sentence, and to have manie good felawis
and kunnynge at the correcting of the translacionn”
(Preface, c. xv.). The note at the close of the preface,
on the grammatical idioms of different languages, the
many English equivalents, e. g., for the Latin ablative
absolute, shews considerable discernment.
902
1668
boy that driveth the plough” to know more of
Scripture than the great body of the clergy then
knew (Foxe, in Anderson’s Annals of English Bible,
i. 56). We are able to forma fairly accurate
estimate of his fitness for the work to which he
thus gave himself. The change which had come
over the Universities of Continental Europe since
the time of Wycliffe had affected those of England.
Greek had been taught in Paris in 1458. The first
Greek Grammar, that of Constantine Lascaris, had
been printed in 1476. It was followed in 1480
by Craston’s Lexicon. The more enterprising
scholars of Oxford visited foreign Universities for
the sake of the new learning. Grocyn (ἃ. 1519),
Linacre (4. 1524), Colet (ἃ. 1519), had, in this
way, from the Greeks whom the fall of Con-
stantinople had scattered over Europe, or fiom
their Italian pupils, learnt enough to enter, in
their turn, upon the work of teaching. When
Erasmus visited Oxford in 1497, he found in these
masters a scholarship which even he could admire.
Tyndal, who went to Oxford cire, 1500, must
have been within the range of their teaching. His
two great opponents, Sir Thomas More and Bishop
Tonstal, are known to have been among their
pupils. It is significant enough that after some
years of study, Tyndal left Oxford and went to
Cambridge. Such changes were, it is true, com-
mon enough. The fame of any great teacher
would draw round him men from other Univer-
sities, from many lands. In this instance, the
reason of Tyndal’s choice is probably not far to
seek (Walter, biog. Notice to Tyndal’s Doctrinal
Treatises). Krasmus was in Cambridge from
1509 to 1514. All that we know of Tyndal’s
character and life, the fact especially that he had
made translations of portions of the N.. as early
as 1502 (Offor, Life of Tyndal, p. 9), leads to the
conclusion that he resolved to make the most of
the presence of one who was emphatically the
scholar and philologist of Europe. It must be
remembered, too, that the great scheme of Cardinal
Ximenes was just then beginning to interest the
minds of all scholars. The publication of the
Complutensian Bible, it is true, did not take
place till 1520; but the collection of MSS. and
other preparations for it began as early as 1504,
In the mean time Erasmus himself, in 1516,
brought out the first published edition of the
Greek Testament; and it was thus made acces-
sible to all scholars. Of the use made by Tyndal
οἵ these opportunities we have evidence in his
coming up to London (1522), in the vain hope of
persuading Tonstal (known as a Greek scholar, an
enlightened Humanist) to sanction his scheme of
rendering the N. T. into English, and bringing a
translation of one of the orations of Isucrates as a
proof of his capacity for the work, The attempt
was not successful. ‘ At the last I understood not
only that there was no room in my Lord of Lon-
don’s palace to translate the N.T., but also that
there was no place to do it in all England” (Pref.
to Five Books of Moses).
VERSION, AUTHORISED
It is not so easy to say how far at this time any
knowledge of Hebrew was attainable at the English
universities, or how far Tyndal had used any means
of access that were open to him. It is probable
that it may have been known, in some measure,
to a few bolder than their fellows, at a time far
earlier than the introduction of Greek. The large
body of Jews settled in the cities of England
must have possessed a knowledge, more or less ex-
tensive, of their Hebrew books. On their banish-
ment, to the number of 16,000, by Edward I.,
these books fell into the hands of the monks, super-
stitiously reverenced or feared by most, yet drawing
some to examination, and then to study. Grostéte,
it is said, knew Hebrew as well as Greek. Roger
Bacon knew enough to pass judgment on the Vul-
gate as incorrect and misleading. Then, however,
came a period in which linguistic studies were
thrown into the background, and Hebrew became
an unknown speech even to the best-read scholars.
The first signs of a revival meet us towards the
close of the 15th century. The remarkable fact
that a Hebrew Psalter was printed at Soncino in
1477 (forty years before Erasmus’s Greek Testa-
ment), the Pentateuch in 1482, the Prophets in
1486, the whole of the O. T. in 1488, that by
1496 four editions had been published, and by
1596 not fewer than eleven (Whitaker, Hist. and
Crit. Inquiry, p. 22), indicates a demand on the
part of the Christian students of Europe, not less
than on that of the more learned Jews. Here also
the progress of the Complutensiau Bible would
have attracted the notice of scholars. The ery
raised by the “Trojans ” of Oxford in 1519 (chiefly
consisting of the friars, who from the time of
Wyclitfe had all but swamped the education of
the place) against the first Greek lectures—that to
study that language would make men Pagans, that
to study Hebrew would make them Jews—shows
that the latter study as well as the former was the
object of their dislike and fear! (Anderson, i. 24;
Hallam, Lit. of Eur. i. 403).
Whether Tyndal had in this way gained any
knowledge of Hebrew before he left Kngland in
1524 may be uncertain. The fact that in 1530-31
he published a translation of Genesis, Deuteronomy,
and Jonah,” may be looked on as the first-fruits
of his labours, the work of a man who was
giving this proof of his power to translate from
the original (Anderson, Annals, i. 209-288). We
may perhaps trace, among other motives for the
many wanderings of his exile, a desire to visit
the cities Worms, Cologne, Hamburgh, Antwerp
(Anderson, pp. 48-64), where the Jews lived
in greatest numbers, and some of which were
famous for their Hebrew learning. Of at least a
fair acquaintance with that language we have, a
few years later, abundant evidence in the table of
Hebrew words prefixed to his translation of the
five books of Moses, and in casual etymologies
scattered through his other works, 6. g. Mammon
(Parable of Wicked Mammon, p. 68"), Cohen
(Obedience, p. 255), Abel Mizraim (p. 347), Pesah
k The boast of Bacon, that any one using his method
could learn Hebrew and Greek within a week, bold as it
is, shews that he knew something of both (De Laude Sac.
Script. c. 28).
1 As indicating progress, it may be mentioned that the
first Hebrew professor, Robert Wakefield, was appointed
at Oxford in 1530, and that Henry VILI.’s secretary, Pace,
knew Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldeé.
m The existence of a translation of Jonah by Tyndal, |
{
previously questioned by some editors and biographers,
has been placed beyond a doubt by the discovery of a copy
(believed to be unique) in the possession of the Ven. Lord
Arthur Hervey. It is described in a letter by him to the
Bury Post of Feb. 3, 1862, transferred shortly afterwards
to the Atheneum.
n The references to Tyndal are given to the Parker
Society edition.
VERSION, AUTHORISED
(p. 353). A remark (Preface to Obedience, p. 148)
shows how well he had entered into the general
spirit of the language. ‘The properties of the
Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with
the Englishe than with the Latine. Thé manner of
speaking is in both one, so that in a thousand places
thou needest not but to translate it into Englishe
word for word.” When Spalatin describes him in
1534 it is as one well-skilled in seven languages, and
one of these is Hebrew ° (Anderson, i. 397),
The N. T. was, however, the great object of his
care. First the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark
were published tentatively, then in 1525 the whole
of the N. Τὶ was printed in 4to. at Cologne and in
small 8vo. at Worms.P The work was the fruit of a
self-sacrificing zeal, and the zeal was its own reward.
In England it was received with denunciations. Ton-
stal, Bishop of London, preaching at Paul’s Cross,
asserted that there were at least 2000 errors in it,
and ordered all copies of it to be bought up and
burnt. An Act of Parliament (35 Hen. VIII. cap. 1)
forbade the use of all copies of Tyndal’s ‘false trans-
lation.” Sir Τὶ More (Dialogues, 1. c. Supplication
of Souls, Confutation of Tindal’s Answer) entered
the lists against it, and accused the translator of
heresy, bad scholarship, and dishonesty, of “ corrup-
ting Scripture after Luther’s counsel.” The treat-
ment which it received from professed friends was
hardly less annoying. Piratical editions were printed,
often carelessly, by trading publishers at Antwerp.4
A scholar of his own, George Joye, undertook (in
1534) to improve the version by bringing it into
closer conformity with the Vulgate, and made it the
vehicle of peculiar opinions of his own, substituting
“life after this life,’ or ‘‘ verie life,” for ‘1esur-
rection,” as the translation of ἀνάστασις. (Comp.
Tyndal’s indignant protest in Pref. to edition of
1534.) Even the most zealous reformers in England
seemed disposed to throw his translation overboard,
and encouraged Coverdale (infra) in undertaking
another. Jn the mean time the work went on.
Editions were printed one after anothers The
last appeared in 1535, just before his death, ‘ dili-
gently compared with the Greek,” presenting for
the first time systematic chapter-headings, and
with some peculiarities in spelling specially in-
tended for the pronunciation of the peasantry
(Offor; Life, p. 82). His heroic life was brought
to a close in 1536. We may cast one look on
its sad end—the treacherous betrayal, the Judas-
kiss of the false friend, the imprisonment at Vil-
vorden, the last prayer, as the axe was about to
fall, ** Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.’’s
1669
The work to which a life was thus nobly devoted
was as nobly done. To Tyndal belongs the honour
of having given the first example of a translation
based on true principles, and the excellence of later
versions has been almost in exact proportion as they
followed his. Believing that every part of Scripture
had one sense and one ouly, the sense in the mind οἵ
the writer (Obedience, p. 304), he made it his work,
᾿ using all philological helps that were accessible, to
attain that sense. Believing that the duty of a_
translator was to place his readers as nearly as
possible on a level with those for whom the books
were originally written, he looked on all the later
theological associations that had gathered round the
words of the N. T. as hindrances rather than helps,
and sought, as far as possible, to get rid of them.
Not “grace,” but ‘favour,’ even in John i, 17
(in edition of 1525); not ‘ charity,” but “ love ;”
not ‘ confessing,” but ““ acknowledging ;” not
“penance,” but ‘ repentance; not “ priests,” but
“seniors” or “ elders;” not ‘‘ salvation,” but
‘health ;” not “church,” but “ congregation,” are
instances of the changes which were then looked on
as startling and heretical innovations (sir T. More,
ἰ. 6.). Some of them we are now familiar with. In
others the later versions bear traces of a reaction
in favour of the older phraseology. In this, as in
other things, Tyndal was in advance, not only of
his own age, but of the age that followed him. To
him, however, it is owing that the versions of the
English Church have throughout been popular, and
not scholastic. All the exquisite giace and sim-
plicity which have endeared the A. V. to men of the
most opposite tempers and contrasted opinions—to
J.H. Newman (Dublin Review, June, 1853) and
J. A. Froude—is due mainly to his clear-sighted
truthfulness.t The desire to make the Bible a people’s
beok led him in one edition to something like a
provincial, rather than a national translation, but
on the whole it kept him free from the besetting
danger of the time, that of writing for scholars,
not for the peopie; of a version full of ‘ ink-
horn”’ phrases, not in the spoken language of the
English nation. And throughout there is the per-
vading stamp, so often wanting in other like works,
of the most thorough truthfulness. No word has
been altered to court a king’s favour, or please
bishops, or make out a case for or against a par-
ticular opinion. He is working freely, not in the
fetters of prescribed rules. With the most entire
sincerity he could say, “I call God to record,
against the day we shall appear before our Lord
Jesus to give a reckoning of our doings, that I
© Hallam’s assertion that Tyndal’s version “ was avow-
edly taken from Luther’s” originated probably in an
inaccurate reminiscence of the title-page of Coverdale’s
(Lit. of Europe, i. 526).
Pp The only extant copy of the 8vo. edition is in the
Library of the Baptist College at Bristol. It was repro-
duced in 1862 in fac-simile by Mr. Francis Fry, Bristol,
the impression being limited to 177 copies. Mr. Fry
proves, by a careful comparison of type, size, water-mark,
and the like, with those of other books from the same
press, that it was printed by Peter Schoeffer of Worms.
4 In two of these (1534 and 1535) the words, “ This cup
is the New Testament in my blood,” in 1 Cor. xi. were
omitted (Anderson, i. 415). By a like process Mr,
Anderson (i. 63) fixes Cologne as the place, and Peter
Quentel as the printer of the 4to.
τ The localities of the editions are not without interest.
Hamburgh, Cologue, Worms, in 1525; Antwerp in 1526,
"27, ᾽28: Marlborow (= Marburg) in 1529; Strasburg
(Joye’s edit.) in 1531; Bergen-op-Zoom in 1533 (Joye’s);
Johne, vi.at Nuremberg in 1533; Antwerp in 1534 (Cotton,
Printed Editions, pp. 4-6).
5 ‘Il'wo names connect themselves sadly with this ver-
sion. A copy of the edition of 1534 was presented specially
to Anne Boleyn, and is now extant in the British Museum.
Several passages, such as might be marked for devotional
use, are underscored in red ink. Another reforming Lady,
Joan Bocher, was known to have been active in circulating
Tyndal’s N. T. (Neal, i. 43; Strype, Mem. i. ο. 26).
t The testimony of a Roman Catholic scholar is worth
quoting :—“ In point of perspicacity and noble simplicity,
propriety of idiom and purity of style, no English version
has as yet surpassed it’? (Geddes, Prospectus for a new
Translation, p. 89). ‘Lhe writer cannot forbear adding
Mr, Froude’s judgment in his own words:—‘ The pe-
culiar genius, if such a word may be permitted, which
breathes through it, the mingled tenderness and majesty,
the Saxon simplicity, the preternatural grandeur, un-
equalled, unapproached, in the attempted improvements
of modern scholars,—all are here, and bear the impress
of the mind of one man, and that man William Tyndal ”
(Hist. of Eng. iii. 84).
1670
never altered one syllable of God’s word against
my conscience, nor would this day, if all that is in
the world, whether it be pleasure, honour, or riches,
might be given me”’ (Anderson, i. 349).
IV. CovERDALE.—(1.) A complete translation of
the Bible, different from Tyndal’s, bearing the name
of Miles Coverdale, printed probably at Zurich,
appeared in 1535. The undertaking itself, and the
choice of Coverdale as the translator, were probably
due to Cromwell. Tyndal’s controversial treatises,
and the polemical character of his prefaces and notes,
had irritated the leading ecclesiastics and embittered
the mind of the king himself against him. All that
he had written was publicly condemned. ‘There
was no hope of obtaining the king’s sanction for
anything that bore his name. But the idea of an
English translation began to find favour. The rup-
ture with the see of Rome, the marriage with Anne
Boleyn, made Henry willing to adopt what was
urged upon him as the surest way of breaking for
ever the spell of the Pope’s authority. The bishops
even began to think of the thing as possible. It
was talked of in Convocation. They would take it
in hand themselves. ‘The work did not, however,
make much progress. The great preliminary ques-
tion whether “ venerable’? words, such as hostia,
penance, pascha, holocaust, and the like, should be
retained, was still unsettled (Anderson, i. 414).™
Not till “the day after doomsday” (the words are
Cranmer’s) were the English people likely to get
their English Bible from the bishops (ib. i. 577).
Cromwell, it is probable, thought it better to lose
no further time, and to strike while the iron was
hot. A divine whom he had patronised, though
not, like Tyndal, feeling himself called to that spe-
cial work (Pref. to Coverdale’s Bible), was willing
to undertake it. ‘To him accordingly it was en-
trusted. There was no stigma attached to his name,
and, though a sincere reformer, neither at that time
nor afterwards did he occupy a sufficiently promi-
nent position to become an object of special perse-
cution.*
(2.) The work which was thus executed was done,
as might be expected, in a very different fashion
from Tyndal’s. Of the two men, one had made
this the great object of his life, the other, in his
own language, “ sought it not, neither desired it,”
but accepted it as a task assigned him, One pre-
pared himself for the work by long years of labour in
Greek and Hebrew. ‘The other is content to make
a translation at second hand “ out of the Douche
(Luther’s German Version) and the Latine.”¥ The
VERSION, AUTHORISED
one aims at a rendering which shall be the truest
and most exact possible. The other loses himself in
weak commonplace as to the advantage of using
many English words for one and the same word
in the original, and in practice oscillates between
“ penance” and ‘ repentance,” ‘ love” and “ cha-
rity,” “ priests” and “ elders,’ as though one set
of words were as true and adequate as the other
(Preface, p. 19). In spite of these weaknesses,
however, there is much to like in the spirit and
temper of Coverdale. He is a second-rate man,
labouring as such contentedly, not ambitious to
appear other than he is. He thinks it a great gain
that there should be a diversity of translations. He
acknowledges, though he dare not name it, the ex-
cellence of Tyndal’s version,’ and regrets the mis-
fortune which left it incomplete. He states frankly
that he had done his work with the assistance of
that and of five others. If the language of his
dedication to the king, whom he compares to Moses,
David, and Josiah, seems to be somewhat fulsome
in its flattery, it is, at least, hardly more offensive
than that of the Dedication of the A. V., and there
was more to palliate it.®
(8.) An inspection of Coverdale’s version serves
to show the influence of the authorities he fol-
lowed.¢ The proper names of the O. T. appear for
the most part in their Latin form, Elias, Eliseus,
Ochozias; sometimes, as in Esay and Jeremy, in
that which was familiar in spoken English. Some
points of correspondence with Luther’s version are
not without interest. Thus “ Cush,” which in
Wycliffe; Tyndal, and the A. V. is uniformly ren-
dered ‘‘ Ethiopia,” is in Coverdale ‘‘ Morians’ land”
(Ps. Ixviii. 31; Acts viii. 27, &c.), after the
“¢ Mohrenlande” of Luther, and appears in this
form accordingly in the P. B. version of the Psalms,
The proper name Rabshakeh passes, as in Luther,
into the ““ chief butler” (2 K. xviii. 17; Is. xxxvi.
11). In making the sons of David “ priests ” (2 Sam.
viii. 18), he followed both his authorities. ᾿Επίσκοποι
are “bishops” in Acts xx. 28 ( overseers” in A. V.).
‘* Shiloh,’ in the prophecy of Gen. xlix. 10, becomes
“the worthy,” after Luther’s “ der Held.” ‘* They
houghed oxen” takes the place of ‘they digged
down a wall,” in Gen. xlix. 6. The singular word
“ὁ Lamia” is taken from the Vulg., as the English
rendering of Ziim (‘* wild beasts,’ A. V.) in Is,
xxxiv. 14, The “ tabernacle of witness,’ where
the A. V. has “ congregation,” shows the same
influence. In spite of Tyndal, the Vulg. ‘* plena
gratia,’ in Luke i. 28, leads to “full of grace ;”
u A list of such words, 99 in number, was formally laid
before Convocation by Gardiner in 1542, with the pro-
posal that they should be left untranslated, or Englished
with as little change as possible (Lewis, Hist. ch. 2),
x It is uncertain where this version was printed, the
title-page being silent on that point. Zurich, Cologne,
and Frankfort have all been conjectured. Coverdale is
known to have been abroad, and may have come in
contact with Luther.
y There seems something like an advertising tact in
this title-page. A scholar would have felt that there
was no value in any translation but one from the original.
But the “Douche ”’ would serve to attract the Reforming
party, who held Luther’s name in honour; while the
“ Latine’’ would at least conciliate the conservative feel-
ing of Gardiner and his associates. Whitaker, however,
maintains that Coverdale knew more Hebrew than he
chose, at this time, to acknowledge, and refers to his trans-
lation of one difficult passage (“‘ Ye take youre pleasure
under the okes and under all grene trees, the children
beyinge slaine in the valleys,” Is. lvii. 5) as proving an
independent judgment against the authority of Luther
and the Vulgate (Hist. and Crit. Enquiry, p. 52).
τ “ Tf thou [the reader] be fervent in prayer, God shall
not only send thee it [the Bible] in a better [version] by
the ministration of those that began it before, but shall
also move the hearts of those that before meddled not
withal.”
4 ‘The five were probably—(1) The Vulgate, (2) Luther’s,
(3) The German Swiss version of Zurich, (4) the Latin of
Pagninus, (5) T'yndal’s. Others, however, have conjec-
tured a German translation of the Vulgate earlier than
Luther's, and a Dutch version from Luther (Whitaker, Hist.
and Crit. Enquiry, p. 49).
b He leaves it to the king, e. g., “ to correct his transla-
tion, to amend it, to improve [= condemn] it, yea, and
clean to reject it, if your godly wisdom shall think
necessary.”
¢ Ginsburg (App. to Coheleth) has shewn that, with
regard to one book at least of the O. T., Coverdale fol-
lowed the German-Swiss version printed at Zurich in
1531, with an almost servile obsequiousness.
VERSION, AUTHORISED
while we have, on the other hand, “ congregation ”
throughout the N. 'T. for ἐκκλησία, and “ love”’
instead of “ charity” in 1 Cor. xiii. It was the result
of the same indecision that his language as to the
Apocrypha lacks the sharpness of that of the more
zealous reformers. ‘* Baruch” is placed with the
canonical books, after ‘* Lamentations.” Of the rest
he says that they ave “ placed apart,” as “not held
by ecclesiastical doctors in the same repute” as the
other Scriptures, but this is only because there are
“*dark sayings’? which seem to differ from the
“open Scripture.’ He has no wish that they
should be ‘despised or little set by.” “ Patience
and study would show that the two were agreed.”
(4.) What has been stated practically disposes of
the claim which has sometimes been made for this
version of Coverdale’s, as though it had been made
from the original text (Anderson, i. 564; Whitaker,
Hist. and Crit. Inquiry, p. 58). It is not improbable,
however, that as time went on he added to his know-
ledge. ‘The letter addressed by him to Cromwell
(Remains, p. 492, Parker Soc.) obviously asserts,
somewhat ostentatiously, an acquaintance “ not only
with the standing text of the Hebrew, with the inter-
pretation of the Chaldee and the Greek,” but also
with ‘‘the diversity of reading of all texts.” He, at
any rate, continued his work as a pains-taking editor.
Fresh editions of his Bible were published, keeping
their ground in spite of rivals, in 1537, 1539, 1550,
1553. He was called in at a still later period to
assist in the Geneva version. Among smaller facts
connected with this edition may be mentioned the ap-
pearance of Hebrew letters—of the name Jehovah—
in the title-page (i717), and again in the margin of
the alphabetic poetry of Lamentations, though not
of Ps. cxix. The plural form ‘* Biblia” is retained
in the title-page, possibly however in its later use
as a singular feminine [comp. BIBLE], There are no
notes, no chapter-headings, no divisions into verses.
The letters A, B, C, D, in the margin, as in the early
editions of Greek and Latin authors, are the only
helps for finding places. Marginal references point
to parallel passages. The O. T., especially in Genesis,
has the attraction of woodcuts. Each book has a
table of contents prefixed to it.4
V. MatrHew.—(1.) In the year 1537, a large
folio Bible appeared as edited and dedicated to the
king, by Thomas Matthew. No one of that name
appears at all prominently in the religious history
of Henry VIII., and this suggests the inference that
the name was pseudonymous, adopted to conceal the
real translator. The tradition which connects this
Matthew with John Rogers, the proto-martyr of
the Marian persecution, is all but undisputed. It
rests (1) on the language of the indictment and
sentence which describe him (Foxe, Acts and Monu-
ments, p. 1029, 1563 ; Chester, Life of Rogers, pp.
418-423) as Joannes* Rogers liad Matthew, as if
it were a matter of notoriety ; (2) the testimony of
Foxe himself, as representing, if not personal know-
ledge, the current belief of his time; (3) the occur-
rence at the close of a short exhortation to the
Study of Scripture in the Preface, of the initials
J. R.;& (4) internal evidence. | This subdivides
itself, (a.) Rogers, who had graduated at Pembroke
Coll. Cambridge in 1525, and had sufficient fame
to be
Oxford, accepted the office of chaplain to the mer-
invited to the new Cardinal's College at.
1671
chant adventurers of Antwerp, and there became
acquainted with Tyndal, two years before the
latter’s death, Matthew's Bible, as might be
expected, if this hypothesis were true, reproduces
Tyndal’s work, in the N, Τὶ, entirely, in the Ο, Τ᾽,
as far as 2 Chr., the rest being taken with oc-
casional modifications from Coverdale. (6.) The
languave of the Dedication is that of one who
has mixed much, as Rogers mixed, with foreign
reformers. “This hope have the godlie even in
strange countries, in your grace’s godliness.”
(2.) The printing of the book was begun appar-
ently abroad, and was carried on as far as the end
of Isaiah, At that point a new pagination begins,
and the names of the London printers, Grafton and
Whitechurch, appear. The history of the hook was
probably something like this: Coverdale’s transla-
tion had not given ‘satisfaction—least of all were the
more zealous and scholar-like reformers contented
with it. As the only complete English bible, it
was, however, as yet, in possession of the field.
Tyndal and logers, therefore, in the year preceding
the imprisonment of the former, determined on
another, to include O. T., N. T., and Apocrypha,
but based throughout on the original. Left to
himself, Rogers carried on the work, probably at
the expense of the same Antwerp merchant who
had assisted Tyndal (Poyntz), and thus got as far
as Isaiah, The enterprising London printers, Graf-
ton and Whitechurch, then came in (Chester, Life
of Rogers, p. 29). It would be a good speculation
to enter the market with this, and so drive out
Coverdale’s, in which they had no interest. They
accordingly embarked a considerable capital, 500/.,
and then came a stroke of policy which may be
described as a miracle of audacity. Rogers’s name,
known as the friend of ‘Tyndal, is suppressed, and
the simulacrum of Thomas Matthew disarms suspi-
cion. ‘The book is sent by Grafton to Cranmer.
He reads, approves, rejoices. He would rather
have the news of its being licensed than a thousand
pounds (Chester, pp. 425-427). Application is
then made both by Grafton and Cranmer to Crom-
well, The king’s license is granted, but the pub-
lisher wants more. Nothing less than a monopoly
for five years will give hima fair‘margin of profit.
Without this, he is sure to be undersold by pirati-
cal, na ostthes(ts editions, badly ‘printed, on inferior
paper. Failing this, he trusts that the king will
order one copy to be bought by every incumbent,
and six by every abbey. If this was too much, the
king might, at least, impose that obligation on all
the popishly-inclined clergy. That will bring in
something, besides the good it may possibly do them
(Chester, p. 450). The application was, to some
extent, successful. A copy was ordered, by royal
proclamation, to be set up in every church, the
cost being divided between the clergy and the
parishioners. This was, therefore, the first Autho-
rised Version. It is scarcely conceivable, however,
that Henry could have read “the book which he thus
sanctioned, or known that it was substantially
identical with what had been publicly stigmatised
in his Acts of Parliament (μέ supra). What had
before given most offence had been the polemic cha-
racter of Tyndal’s annotations, and here were notes
bolder, and more thorough still. Even the significant
W. T. does not appear to have attracted notice.
4 A careful reprint, though not a fac-simile, of Cover- |
| for William Tyndal,
dale’s version has been published by Bagster (1838).
e These ornamental initials are curiously «selected. |
H. R. for the king’s name, W. T. (at the end of the O.T.)
R. G. for Richard Grafton the
| prin ter.
1672
(3.) What has been said of Tyndal’s Version
applies, of course, to this. There are, however,
signs of a more advanced knowledge of Hebrew.
All the technical words connected with the Psalms,
Neginoth, Shiggaion, Sheminith, &c., are elaborately
explained. Ps. ii. is printed as a dialogue. The
names of the Hebrew letters are prefixed to the
verses of Lamentations. Reference is made to the
Chaldee Paraphrase (Job vi.), to Rabbi Abraham
(Job xix.), to Kimchi (Ps. iii.). A like range
of knowledge is shown in the N. T. Strabo is
quoted to show that the Magi were not kings,
Macrobius as testifying to Herod’s ferocity (Matt.
ii.), Erasmus’s Paraphrase on Matt. siii., xv. The
popular identification of Mary Magdalene with “ the
woman that was a sinner’’ is discussed, and re-
jected (Luke x.). More noticeable even than in
Tyndal is the boldness and fullness of the exevetical
notes scattered throughout the book. Strong and
earnest in asserting what he looked on as the cen-
tral truths of the Gospel, there was in Rogers a
Luther-like freedom in other things which has not
appeared again in any authorised translation or
popular commentary. He guards his readers
against looking on the narrative of Job i. as literally
true. He recognises a definite historical starting-
point for Ps. xlv. (‘¢ The sons of Korah praise Solo-
non for the beauty, eloquence, power, and noble-
ness, both of himself and of his wife’’), Ps. xxii.
(΄ David declareth Christ’s dejection..... and all,
under figure of himself”), and the Song of Solomon
(Solomon made this balade for himself and_ his
wife, the daughter of Pharaoh, under the shadow of
himself, figuring Christ,” &c.). The chief duty of
the Sabbath is ‘* to minister the fodder of the Word
to simple souls,” to be ‘‘ pitiful over the weariness
of such neighbours as laboured sore all the week
long.” ‘ When such occasions come as turn our
rest to occupation and labour, then ought we to
yemember that the Sabbath was made for man, and
not man for the Sabbath” (Jer. xvii.). He sees in
the Prophets of the N. T. simply ‘‘ expounders of |
Holy Scripture” (Acts xv.). To the man living
in faith, ‘* Peter’s fishing after the resurrection, and
all deeds of matrimony are pure spiritual ;’’ to
those who are not, “learning, doctrine, contempla-
tion of high things, preaching, study of Scripture, |
founding of churches and abbeys, are works of the |
flesh” (Pref. to Romans ).£ Neither is outward
circumcision or outward baptism worth a pin of
themselves, save that they put us in remembrance
to keep the covenant’ (1 Cor. vii.). “He that
desireth honour, gaspeth after lucre. . . . castles,
parks, lordships . . . . desireth not a work, much
less a good work, and is nothing less than a bishop ”
(1 Tim. iii.), Ez. xxxiv. is said to be “ against
bishops and curates that despise the flock of Christ ἢ
The ἄγγελος ἐκκλησίας of Rey. ii. and iii, appears
(as in Tyndal) as “the messenger of the congrega-
tion.” Strong protests against Purgatory are found |
in notes to Ez. xviii. and 1 Cor. iii., and in the
“Table of Principal Matters” it is significantly
stated under the word Purgatory that “it is not in
the Bible, but the purgation and remission of our
sins is made us by the abundant mercy of God.’
and distinctly asserts the inferiority of the books. the foresaid tongues.”
VERSION, AUTHORISED
from Coverdale, as if it had not been worth while to
give much labour to it.
(4.) A few points of detail remain to be noticed.
In the order of the books of the N. T. Rogers fol-
lows Tyndal, agreeing with the A. V. as far as the
Epistle to Philemon. This is followed by the
Kpistles of St. John, then that to the Hebrews, then
those of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude.
Woodcuts, not very freely introduced elsewhere,
are prefixed to every chapter in the Revelation.
The introduction of the “Table”? mentioned above
gives Rogers a claim to be the Patriarch of Con-
cordances, the ‘‘ father’? of all such as write in
Dictionaries of the Bible. Reverence for the He-
brew text is shown by his striking out the three
verses which the Vulgate has added to Ps. xiv. In
a later edition, published at Paris, not by Rogers
himself, but by Grafton, under Coverdale’s superin-
tendence, in 1539, the obnoxious Prologue and
Pretaces were suppressed, and the notes systemati-
cally expurgated and toned down. The book was
in advance of the age. Neither booksellers nor
bishops were prepared to be responsible for it.
Vi. TAVERNER (1539). (1.) The boldness of
the pseudo-Matthew had, as has been said, fright-
ened the ecclesiastical world from its propriety.
Coverdale’s Version was, however, too inaccurate to
keep its ground. It was necessary to find another
editor, and the printers applied to Richard Taverner.
But little is known of his life. The fact that,
though a layman, he had been chosen as one of the
canons of the Cardinal’s College at Oxford indicates
a reputation for scholarship, and this is confirmed
by the character of his translation. It professes, in
the title-page, to be “* newly recognised, with great,
diligence, after the most faithful exemplars.” The
editor acknowledges “the labours of others (¢. ὁ.
Tyndal, Coverdale, and Matthew, though he does not
name them) who have neither undiligently nor un-
learnedly travelled,” owns that the work is not one
which can be done “ absolutely’ (¢. 6. completely)
by one or two persons, but requires ‘‘a deeper con-
ferring of many learned wittes together, and also
a juster time, and longer leisure ;” but the thing
had to be done; he had been asked todo it. He had
“used his talent” as he could.
(2.) In most respects this may be described as
an expurgated edition of Matthew's. There is a
Table of Principal Matters, and there are notes ;
but the notes are briefer, and less polemical. The
passages quoted above are, 6. 6. omitted wholly or
in part. The Epistles follow the same order as
before.
VII. Cranmer. (1.) In the same year as
Taverner’s, and coming from the same press, ap-
peared an English Bible, in a more stately folio,
printed with a more costly type, bearing a higher
name than any previous edition. The title-page is
an elaborate engraving, the spirit and power of which
indicate the hand of Holbein. The king, seated on
| his throne, is giving the Verbum Det to the bishops
/and doctors, and they distribute it to the people,
while doctors and people are all joining in cries of
“Vivat Rex.” It declares the book fo be ““ truly
| translated after the verity of the Hebrew and Greek
The Preface to the Apocrypha explains the name, |
texts’’ by ““ divers excellent learned men, expert in
A preface, in April, 1540,
No notes are added, and the translation is taken | with the initials T. C., implies the archbishop’s
—__ | Sanction.
In a later edition (Nov. 1540), his name
Ὁ The long preface to the Romans (seven folio pages; , 2ppears on the titlepage, and the names of his coad-
was substantially identical with that in Tyndal’s edition Jutors ave given, Cuthbert (Tonstal) Bishop of Dur-
ham, and Nicholas (Heath) Bishop of Rochester ;
of 1534.
φ
. VERSION, AUTHORISED
but this does not exclude the possibility of others |
having been employed for the first edition.
(2.) Cranmer’s Version presents, as might be ex-
pected, many points of interest. The prologue gives
a more complete ideal of what a translation ought
to be than we have as yet seen. Words not in the
original are to be printed in adifferent type. They
are added, even when “ not wanted by the sense,”
to satisfy those who have “ missed them” in previ-
ous translations, ἢ. 6. they represent the various
readings of the Vulgate where it differs from the
Hebrew. The sign * indicates diversity in the
Chaldee and Hebrew. It had been intended to give
all these, but it was found that this would have
taken too much time and space, and the editors
purposed therefore to print them ina little volume by
themselves. The frequent hands (6555) in the margin,
in like manner, show an intention to give notes at the
end ; but Matthew’s Bible had made men cautious,
and, as there had not been time for “ the King’s
Council to settle them,” they were omitted, and no
help given to the reader beyond the marginal refer-
ences. In absence of notes, the lay-reader is to sub-
mit himself to the ““ godly-learned in Christ Jesus.”’
There is, as the title-page might lead us to expect,
a greater display of Hebrew than in any previous
version. The Books of the Pentateuch have their
Hebrew names given, Gereschith (Genesis), Velle
Schemoth (Exodus), and so on. 1 and 2 Chr. in like
manner appear, as Dibre Haiamim. In the edition
of 1541, many proper names in the O. T. appear in
the fuller Hebrew form, as 6. 4. Amaziahu, Jere-
miahu. In spite of this parade of learning, how-
ever, the edition of 1539 contains, perhaps, the
most startling blunder that ever appeared under
the sanction of an archbishop’s name. ‘The editors
adopted the Preface which, in Matthew’s Bible, had
been prefixed to the Apocrypha. In that preface
the common traditional explanation of the name
was concisely given. They appear, however, to
have shrunk from offending the conservative party
in the Church by applying to the books in question
so damnatory an epithet as Apocrypha. They
looked ont for a word more neutral and respectful,
and found one that appeared in some MSs. of Je-
rome so applied, though in strictness it belonged to
an entirely different set of books. They accordingly
substituted that word, leaving the preface in all
other respects as it was before, and the result is the
somewhat ludicrous statement that the ‘‘ books were
called Hagiographa,”’ because ‘‘ they were read in
secret and apart’””!
(3.) A later edition in 1541 presents a few modi-
fications worth noticing. It appears as “authorised”’
to be ‘used and frequented” in every church in
the kingdom.” The introduction, with all its
elaborate promise of a future perfection disappears,
and, in its place, there is a long preface by Cranmer,
avoiding as much as possible all references to other
translations, taking a safe Via Media tone, blaming
those who ‘‘ refuse to read,’ on the one hand, and
“inordinate reading,’ on the other. This neutral
character, so characteristic of Cranmer’s policy, was
doubtless that which enabled it to keep its ground
during the changing moods of Henry’s later years.
It was reprinted again and again, and was the
Authorised Version of the English Church till 1568
—the interval of Mary’s reign excepted. From it,
accordingly, were taken most, if not all, the portions
of Scripture in the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552,
s Such, e.g., as “ worthy fruits of penance.”
1673
The Psalms, as a whole, the quotations from Scrip-
ture in the Homilies, the sentences in the Com-
munion Services, and some phrases elsewhere, still
preserve the remembrance of it. The oscillating
character of the book is shown in the use of “love”
instead of “charity ” in 1 Cor, xiii. ; and “‘ congre-
gation” instead of “ church” generally, after Tyn-
dal; while in 1 Tim. iv. 14, we have the singular
rendering, as if to gain the favour of his opponents,
“ with authority of priesthood.’ The plan of indi-
cating doubtful texts by a smaller type was ad-
hered to, and was applied, among other passages, to
Ps, xiv. 5, 6, 7, and the more memorable text of
1 John v. 7, The translation of 1 Tim. iii. 16,
‘¢ All Scripture given by inspiration of God, is pro-
fitable,” &c., anticipated a construction of that text
which has sometimes been boasted of, and sometimes
attacked, as an innovation. In this, however, Tyndal
had led the way.
VIII. GeNEVA.—(1.) The experimental transla-
tion of the Gospel of St. Matthew by Sir Jolin Cheke
into a purer English than before (Strype, Life of
Cheke, vii. 3), had so little influence on the versions
that followed that it hardly calls for more than a
passing notice, as showing that scholars were as
yet unsatisfied. The reaction under Mary gave a
check to the whole work, as far as England was con-
cerned ; but the exiles who fled to Geneva entered on
it with more vigour than ever. Cyanmer’s Version
did not come up to their ideal. Its size made it too
costly. There were no explanatory or dogmatic notes.
It followed Coverdale too closely; and where it
deviated, did so, in some instances, in a retrograde
direction. The Genevan refugees—among them
Whittingham, Goodman, Pullain, Sampson, and
Coverdale himself—laboured ‘for two years or
more, day and night.” They entered on their
“ oreat and wonderful work” with much ‘‘ fear
and trembling.” ‘Their translation of the N. T. was
“ dilivently revised by the most approved Greek
examples” (MSS. or editions?) (Preface). The
N. T., translated by Whittingham, was printed by
Conrad Badius in 1557, the whole Bible in 1560.
(2.) Whatever may have been its faults, the
Geneva Bible was unquestionably, for sixty years,
the most popular of all versions. Largely imported
in the early years of Elizabeth, it was printed in
England in 1561, and a patent of monopoly given
to James Bodleigh. This was transferred, in 1070,
to Barker, in whose family the right of printing
Bibles remained for upwards of a century. Not less
than eighty editions, some of the whole Bible, were
printed between 1558 and 1611. It kept its ground
for some time even against the A. V., and gave way,
as it were, slowly and under protest. The causes of
this general acceptance are not difficult to ascertain.
The volume was, in all its editions, cheaper and
more poxtable—a small quarto, instead of the large
folio of Cranmer’s “ Great Bible.’ It was the first
Bible which laid aside the obsolescent black letter,
and appeared in Roman type. It was the first
which, following the Hebrew example, recognised
the division into verses, so dear to the preachers or
hearers of sermons. It was accompanied, in most
of the editions atter 1578, by a Bible Dictionary of
considerable merit. The notes were often really
helpful in dealing with the difficulties of Scripture,
and were looked on as spiritual and evangelical.
It was accordingly the version specially adopted by
the great Puritan party through the whole reign of
Elizabeth, and: far into that of James. As might
be expected, it was based on Tyndal’s Version, often
1674
returning to it where the intermediate renderings
had had the character of a compromise.
(3.) Some peculiarities are worthy of special
notice:—(1) It professes a desire to restore the
‘true writing’? of many Hebrew names, and we
meet accordingly with forms like Izhak (Isaac),
Jaacob, and the like. (2) It omits the name of St.
Paul from the title of the Epistle to the Hebrews ;
and, in a short Preface, leaves the authorship an
open question. (3) It avows the principle of
putting all words not in the original in Italics.
(4) It presents, in a Calendar prefixed to the Bible,
something like a declaration of war against the esta-
blished order of the Church’s lessons, commemo-
rating Scripture facts, and the deaths of the great
Reformers, but ignoring saints’ days altogether.
(5) It was the first English Bible which entirely
omitted the Apocrypha. (6) The notes were cha-
racteristically Swiss, not only in their theology, but
in their politics. They made allegiance to kings
dependent upon the soundness of their faith, and in
one instance (note on 2 Chr. xv. 16) at least
seemed, to the easily startled James I., to favour
tyrannicide.}
(4.) The circumstances of the early introduction
of the Geneva Version are worth mentioning, if
only as showing in how different a spirit the great
fathers of the English Reformation, the most con-
servative of Anglican theologians, acted from that
which has too often animated their successors. Men
talk now of different translations and various read-
ings as likely to undermine the faith of the people.
When application was made to Archbishop Parker,
in 1565, to support Bodleigh’s application for a
licence to reprint the Geneva Version in 12mo., he
wrote to Cecil in its favour. He was at the time
looking forward to the work he afterwards accom-
plished, of ‘one other special Bible for the
Churches, to be set forth as convenient time and
leisure should permit ;’ but in the mean time it
would “ nothing hinder, but rather doo much good,
to have diversity of translations and readings”
(Strype, Life of Parker, iii. 6).1 In many of the
later reprints of this edition the N. T. purports to
be based upon Beza’s Latin Version; and the notes
are said to be taken from Joac. Camer, P. Leseler,
Villerius, and Fr. Junius.
IX, Tue Bisnors’ Brste.—(1.) The facts just
stated will account for the wish of Archbishop
Parker, in spite of his liberal tolerance, to bring
out another version which might establish its
claims against that of Geneva. Great preparations
were made. The correspondence of Parker with
his Suffragans presents some points of interest, as
showing how little agreement there was as to the
true theory of a translation. Thus while Sandys,
Bishop of Worcester, finds fault with the “ common
translation” (Geneva ?), as ‘ following Munster too
much,” and so “ swerving much from the Hebrew,”
Guest, Bishop of St. David’s, who took the Psalms,
acted on the principle of translating them so as to
agree with the N. T. quotations, ‘* for the avoiding
of offence ;” and Cox, Bishop of Ely, while laying
VERSION, AUTHORISED
down the sensible rule that ‘ inkhorn terms were to
be avoided,” also went on to add “ that the usual
terms were to be retained so far forth as the Hebrew
will well bear” (Strype, Parker, iii. 6). The prin-
ciple of pious frauds, of distorting the truth for the
sake of edification, has perhaps often been acted on
by other translators. It has not often been so ex-
plicitly avowed as in the first of these suggestions.
(2.) The bishops thus consulted, eight in number,
together with some deans and professors, brought
out the fruit of their labours in a magnificent folio
(1568 and 1572). Everything had been done to make
it attractive. A long erudite preface vindicated
the right of the people to read the Scriptures,
and (quoting the authority of Bishop Fisher) ad-
mitted the position which later divines have often
been slow to admit, that ‘‘ there be yet in the
Gospel many dark places which, without all doubt,
to the posterity shall be made much more open.”
Wood-engravings of a much higher character than
those of the Geneva Bible were scattered profusely,
especially in Genesis. Three portraits of the Queen,
the Earl of Leicester, and Lord Burleigh, beautiful
specimens of copperplate engraving, appeared on the
titlepages of the several parts.‘ A map of Palestine
was given, with degrees of latitude and longitude,
in the edition of 1572. A most elaborate series of
genealogical tables, prepared by Hugh Broughton,
the great Rabbi of the age (of whom more hereafter),
but ostensibly by Speed the antiquary (Broughton’s
name being in disfavour with the bishops), was pre-
fixed (Strype, Parker, iv. 20; Lightfoot, Life of
Broughton). In some points it followed previous
translations, and was avowedly based on Cranmer’s.
“A new edition was necessary.” “Ἢ This had led
some well-disposed men to recognize it again, not as
condemning the former translation, which has been
followed mostly of any other translation, excepting
the original text” (Pref. of 1572). Cranmer’s
Prologue was reprinted. ‘The Geneva division into
verses was adopted throughout.
(3.) Some peculiarities, however, appear for the
first and last time. (1) The Books of the Bible
are classified as legal, historical, sapiential, and pro-
phetic. This was easy enough for the O. T., but
the application of the same idea to the N.T. pro-
duced some rather curious combinations. The Gos-
pels, the Catholic Epistles, and those to Titus, Phi-
lemon, and the Hebrews, are grouped together as
lecal, St. Paul’s other Epistles as sapiential; the
Acts appear as the one historical, the Revelation
as the one prophetic Book. (2) It is the only
Bible in which many passages, sometimes nearly
a whole chapter, have been marked for the ex-
press purpose of being omitted when the chapters
were read in the public service of the Church.
(3) One edition contained the older version of the
Psalms from Matthew’s Bible, in parallel columns
with that now issued, a true and practical ac-
knowledgment of the benefit of a diversity of
translations. (4) The initials of the translators
were attached to the Books which they had seve-
rally undertaken. The work was done on the plan
h The note “ Herein he showed that he lacked zeal, for
she ought to have died,’ was probably one which Scotch
fanatics had handled in connexion with the name of |
James’s mother.
i The Geneva Version, as published by Barker, is that
popularly known as the Breeches Bible, from its rendering
of Gen. iii. 7. It had however been preceded in this by |
Wycliffe’s.
k The fitness of these illustrations is open to question.
| Others still more incongruous found their way into the
text of the edition of 1572, and the feelings of the Puritans
| were shocked by seeing a woodcut of Neptune in the
initial letters of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum, while that of
the Ep. to the Hebrews went so far as to give Leda
and the Swan. There must, to say the least, have been
very slovenly editorship to permit this.
VERSION, AUTHORISED
of limited, not joint liability. (5) Here, as in the
Geneva, there is the attempt to give the Hebrew
proper names more accurately, as, 6. g., in Heva,
Tsahac, Uziahu, το.
(4.) Of all the English versions, the Bishop’s
Bible had probably the least success. It did not
command the respect of scholars, and its size and
cost were far from meeting the wants of the people.
its circulation appears to have been practically
limited to the churches which were ordered to be
supplied with it. It had however, at any rate, the
right to boast of some good Hebrew scholars among
the translators. One of them, Bishop Alley, had
written a Hebrew Grammar; and though vehe-
mently attacked by Broughton (Townley, Literary
History of the Bible, iii. 190), it was defended as
vigorously by Fulke, and, together with the A. V.,
received trom Selden the praise of being ‘‘ the best
translation in the world” (Zable Talk, Works, iii.
2009).
X. Ruems and Douay.—(1.) The successive
changes in the Protestant versions of the Scriptures
were, as might be expected, matter of triumph io
the controversialists of the Latin Church. Some
saw in it an argument against any translation of
Scripture into the spoken language of the people.
Others pointed derisively to the want of unity
which these changes displayed. There were some,
however, who took the line which Sir T. More and
Gardiner had taken under Henry VII. They did
not object to the principle of an English translation.
They only charged all the versions hitherto made with
being false, corrupt, heretical. To this there was the
yeady retort, that they had done nothing: that their
bishops in the reign of Henry had promised, but
had not performed. It was felt to be necessary
that they should take some steps which might en-
able them to turn the edge of this reproach, and
the English refugees who were settled at Kheims—
Martin, Allen (afterwards cardinal), and Bristow—
undertook the work. Gregory Martin, who had
graduated at Cambridge, had signalized himself by
an attack on the existing versions," and had been
answered in an elaborate treatise by Fulke, Master
of Catherine Hall, Cambridge (A Defence of the
Sincere and True Translation, &c.). The charges are
mostly of the same kind as those brought by Sir
T. More against Tyndal. “* The old time-honoured
words were discarded. The authority of the LXX.
and Vulgate was set at nought when the trans-
lator’s view of the meaning of the Hebrew and
Greek differed from what he found in them.” The
new model translation was to avoid these faults.
It was to command the respect at once of priests
and people. After an incubation of some years it
was published at Rheims in 1582. Though Martin
was competent to translate from the Greek, it pro-
fessed to be based on ‘‘ the authentic text of the
Vulgate.” Notes were added, as strongly dogmatic
as those of the Geneva Bible, and often keenly con-
troversial. The work of translation was completed
somewhat later by the publication of the O. T. at
Douay in 1609. The language was precisely what
might have been expected from men who adopted
Gardiner’s ideal of what a translation ought to be.
At every page we stumble on “ strange ink-horn
words,” which never had been English, and never
1675
could be, such, ¢.g., as “ the Pasche and the
Azymes” (Mark xvi. 1), “the arch-synagogue”
(Mark ν. 35), “in prepuce” (Rom. iv. 9), obdu-
rate with the fallacie of sin” (Heb. iii. 13), “a
greater hoste” (Heb. xi. 4), “ this is the annuntia-
tion” (1 John v. 5), “ pre-ordinate” (Acts xiii.
48), “the justifications of our Lord” (Luke i. 6),
‘what is to me and thee” (John ii. 4), ““ longa-
nimity ” (Rom. ii. 4), “ purge the old leaven that
you may be a new paste, as you are azymes "
(1 Cor. iv. 7), ‘¢ you are evacuated from Christ”
(Gal. v. 4), and so on.”
(2.) A style such as this had, as might be ex-
pected, but few admirers. Among those few, how-
ever, we find one great name. Bacon, who leaves
the great work of the reign of James unnoticed,
and quotes almost uniformly from the Vulgate,
goes out of his way to praise the Rhemish Version
for having restored ‘‘ charity” to the place from
which Tyndal had expelled it, in 1 Cor, xiii. (Of
the Pacification of the Church).
ΧΙ. AUTHORISED VERSION.—(1.) The position
of the English Church in relation to the versions
in use at the commencement of the reign of James
was hardly satisfactory. The Bishops’ Bible was
sanctioned by authority. That of Geneva had the
strongest hold on the affections of the people.
Scholars, Hebrew scholars in particular, found
grave fault with both. Hugh Broughton, who
spoke Hebrew as if it had been his mother- tongue,
denounced the former as being full of ““ traps ‘and
pitfalls,’ ‘* overthrowing all religion,” and pro-
posed a new revision to be effected by an English
Septuagint (72), with power to consult gardeners,
artists, and the like, about the words connected
with their several callings, and bound to submit
their work to ‘‘ one qualified for difficulties.” This
ultimate referee was, of course, to be himself
(Strype, Whitgift, iv. 19, 23). Unhappily, neither
his temper nor his manners were such as to win
favour tor this suggestion. Whitgift disliked him,
worried him, drove him into exile. His feeling
was, however, shared by others; and among the
demands of the Puritan representatives at the
Hampton Court Conference in 1604 (Dr. Reinolds
being the spokesman), was one for a new, or, at
least, a revised translation. The special objections
which they urged were neither numerous (three
passages only—Ps. cv. 28, evi. 30, Gal. iv. 25,
were referred to) nor important, and we must con-
clude either that this part of their case had not
been carefully got up, or that the bullying to
which they were exposed had had the desired etfect
of throwing them into some confusion. The bishops
treated the difficulties which they did raise with
supercilious scorn. They were “ trivial, old, and
often answered.” Bancroft raised the ery of alarm
which a timid Conservatism has so often raised
since. If every man’s humour were to be fol-
lowed, there would be no end of translating”
(Cardwell, Conferences, p. 188). Cranmer’s words
seemed likely to be fulfilled again. Had it been
left to the “bishops, we might have waited for
the A.V. “till the day after doomsday.” Even
when the work was done, and the translators
acknowledged that the Hampton Court Conference
had been the starting-point of it, they could not
m “A discovery of the manifold corruptions of Holy
Scriptures by the Heretikes of our days, specially of the
English sectaries.’”’ The ianguage of this and other like
books was, as might be expected, very abusive. The
Bible, in Protestant translations, was ‘‘not God’s word,
but the devil’s.”
n Even Roman Catholic divines have felt the superiority
of the A. V., and Challoner, in his editions of the N. T. in
1748, and the Bible, 1763, often follows it in preference to
the Rheims and Douay translations.
1676
resist the temptation of a fling at their opponents.
The objections to the Bishops’ Bible had, they said,
been nothing more than a shift to justify the
refusal of the Puritans to subscribe to the Com-
munion Book (Preface to A.V.). But the king
disliked the politics of the Geneva Bible. Either
repeating what he had heard from others, or
exercising his own judgment, he declared that
there was as yet no good translation, and that
that was the worst of all. Nothing, however,
was settled at the Conference beyond the hope
thus held out.
(2.) But the king was not forgetful of what he
thought likely to be the glory of his reign. The
work of organising and superintending the arrange-
ments for a new translation was one specially con-
genial to him, and in 1606 the task was accordingly
commenced. The selection of the fifty-four scho-
lars® to whom it was entrusted, seems, on the
whole, to have been a wise and fair one. Andrews,
Saravia, Overal, Montague, and Barlow, repiesented
the “higher”? party in the Church; Keinolds,
Chaderton, and Lively that of the Puritans.P Scho-
larship unconnected with party was represented by
Henry Savile and John Boys. One name is indeed
conspicuous by its absence. The greatest Hebrew
scholar of the age, the man who had, in a letter to
Cecil (1595), urged this very plan of a joint transla-
tion, who had already translated several books of
the O.T. (Job, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Lamentations)
was ignominiously excluded. This may have been,
in part, owing to the dislike with which Whitgitt
and Bancroft had all along regarded him. But in
part, also, it was owing to Broughton’s own cha-
racter. An unmanageable temper showing itself
in violent language, and the habit of stigmatizing
those who difiered from him, even on such questions
as those connected with names and dates, as here-
tical and atheistic, must have made him thoroughly
impracticable; one of the men whose presence
throws a Committee or Conference into chaos.4
(5.) What reward other than that of their own
consciences and the judgment of posterity were the
men thus chosen to expect for their long and labo-
rious task? The king was not disposed to pay
them out οἵ his state revenue. Gold and silver
were not always plentiful in the household of the
English Solomon, and fiom him they received
nothing (Heywood, State of Auth. Bibl. Revision).
There remained, however, an ingenious form of
liberality, which had the merit of being inexpen-
sive. A king’s letter was sent to the archbishops
and bishops, to be transmitted by them to their
chapters, commending all the translators to their
favourable notice. They were exhorted to contri-
bute in all 1000 marks, and the king was to be
informed of each man’s liberality. If any livings
in their gift, or in the gift of private persons,
became vacant, the king was to be informed of it,
that he might nominate some of the translators to
the vacant preferment. Heads of colleges, in like
manner, were enjoined to give free board and
lodging to such divines as were summoned from the
VERSION, AUTHORISED
country to labour in the great work (Strype;
Whitgift, iv.). That the king might take his
place as the director of the whole, a copy of fifteen
instructions was sent to each translator, and appa-
rently circulated freely in both Universities.
(4.) The instructions thus given will be found
in Fuller (/. c.), and with a more accurate text in
Burnet (Reform. Records). 1t will not be necessary
to give them here in full; but it will be interesting
to note the bearing of each clause upon the work
in hand, and its relation to previous versions.
(1) The Bishops’ Bible was to be followed, and as
little altered as the original will permit. This
was intended probably to quiet the alarm of those
who saw, in the proposal of a new version, a con-
demnation of that already existing. (2) The names
of prophets and others were to be retained, as
nearly as may be as they are vulgarly used. This
was to guard against forms like Izhak, Jeremiahu,
&e., which had been introduced in some versions,
and which some Hebrew scholars were willing to
introduce more copiously. To it we owe probably
the forms Jeremy, Elias, Osee, Core, in the N.T.
(3) The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the
word Church not to be translated Congregation.
The rule was apparently given for the sake of this
special application. ‘* Charity,” in 1 Cor. xiii.
was probably also due to it. The earlier versions,
it will be remembered, had gone on the opposite
principle. (4) When any word hath divers signi-
fications, that to be kept which hath been most
commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being
agreeable to the propriety of the place and the
analogy of faith. This, like the former, tends to
confound the functions of the preacher and the
translator, and substitutes ecclesiastical tradition
for philological accuracy. (5) The division of the
chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little
as possible. Here, again, convenience was more in
view than truth and accuracy, and the result is
that divisions are perpetuated which are manifestly
arbitrary and misleading. (6) No marginal notes
to be affixed but only for the explanation of Hebrew
and Greek words. This was obviously directed
against the Geneva notes, as the special objects of
the king’s aversion. Practically, however, in
whatever feeling it originated, we may be thankful
that the A.V. came out as it did, without note or
comment. The open Bible was placed in the hands
of all readers. he work of interpretation was left
free. Had an opposite course been adopted, we
might have had the tremendous evil of a whole
body of Exegesis imposed upon the Church by
authority, reflecting the Calvinism of the Synod of
Dort, the absolutism of James, the high-flying
prelacy of Bancroft. - (7) Such quotations of places
to be marginally set down as may serve for fit
reference of one Scripture to another. The prin-
ciple that Scripture is its own best interpreter was
thus recognised, but practically the marginal refer-
ences of the A.V. of 1611 were somewhat scanty,
most of those now printed having been added in
later editions. (8 and 9) State plan of translation.
° Only forty-seven names appear in the king’s list
(Burnet, Reform. Records). Seven may have died, or de-
clined to act; or it may have been intended that there
should be a final Committee of Revision. A full list is
given by Fuller (Ch. Hist. x.); and is reproduced, with
biographical particulars, by Todd and Anderson.
p This side was, however, weakened by the death of
Reinolds and Lively during the progress of the work.
The loss of the latter, Hebrew professor at Cambridge for
thirty years, was every way deplorable.
4 It deserves notice that Broughton is the only English
translator who has adopted the Eternal as the equivalent
for Jehovah, as in the French version. To him also
perhaps, more than to any other divine, we owe the true
interpretation of the Descent into Hell,
VERSION, AUTHORISED
Each company of translators is to take its own
books ; each person to bring his own corrections.
The company to discuss them, and having finished
their work, to send it on to another company, and
so on. (10) Provides for differences of opinion
between two companies by referring them to a
general meeting. (11) Gives power, in cases of
difficulty, to consult any scholars. (12) Invites
suggestions from any quarter. (13) Names the
directors of the work: Andyews, Dean of West-
minster; Barlow, Dean of Chester ; and the Regius
Professors of Hebrew and Greek at both Univer-
sities. (14) Names translations to be followed
when they agree more with the original than the
Bishops’ Bible, 80. Tyndal’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s,
Whitchurch’s, (Cranmer’s), and Geneva. (15)
Authorises Universities to appoint three or four
overseers of the work.
(5.) It is not known that any of the correspond-
ence connected with this work, or any minute of
the meetings for conference is still extant. Nothing
is more striking than the silence with which the
version that was to be the inheritance of the Eng-
lish people for at Jeast two centuries and a half was
ushered into the world. Here and there we get
glimpses of scholars coming from their country
livings to their old college haunts to work diligently
at the task assigned them (Peck, Desiderata Curiosa,
ii. 87). We see the meetings of translators, one
man reading the chapter which he has been at
work on, while the others listen, with the original,
or Latin, or German, or Italian, or Spanish versions
in their hands (Selden, Zable Talk). We may re-
present to ourselves the differences of opinion,
settled by the casting vote of the ‘‘odd man,” or
by the strong overbearing temper of a man like
Bancroft,t the minority comforting themselves with
the thought that it was no new thing for the truth
to be outvoted (Gell, Hssay towards Amendment
of last Eng. transl. of Bible, p. 321).8 Dogmatic
interests were in some cases allowed to bias the
translation, and the Calvinism of one party, the pre-
latic views of another, were both represented at the
expense of accuracy (Gell, /. c.).t
(6.) For three years the work went on, the sepa-
rate companies comparing notes as directed. When
the work drew towards its completion it was neces-
sary to place it under the care of a select few.
Two from each of the three groups were accordingly
selected, and the six met in London, to superintend
the publication. Now, for the first time, we find
any more definite remuneration than the shadowy
promise held out in the king’s letter, of a share in
the 1000 marks which Deans and Chapters would
not contribute. The matter had now reached its
1677
business stage, and the Company of Stationers
thought it expedient to give the six editors thirty
pounds each, in weekly payments, for their nine
months’ labour. The final correction, and the task
of writing the arguments of the several books, was
eiven to. Bilson, bishop of Winchester, and Dr.
Miles Smith, the latter of whom also wrote the
Dedication and the Preface. Of these two documents
the first is unfortunately familiar enough to us,
and is chiefly conspicuous for its servile adulation.”
James I. is “ that sanctified person,”’ “ enriched with
singular and extraordinary graces,” that had ap-
peared ‘‘as the sun in his strength.” To him they
appeal against the judgment of those whom they
describe, in somewhat peevish accents, as ‘* Popish
persons or self-conceited brethren.” The Pretace
to the Reader is more interesting, as throwing light
upon the principles on which the translators acted.
They “never thought that they should need to
make a new translation, nor yet to make of a
bad one a good one.” “ Their endeavour was to
make a good one better, or out of many good ones
one principal good one.” They claim credit for
steering a middle course between the Puritans who
“left the old ecclesiastical words,” and the obscurity
of the Papists “ retaining foreign words of purpese
to darken the sense.” They vindicate the practice,
in which they indulge very freely, of translating
one word in the original by many English words,
partly on the intelligible ground that it is not
always possible to find one word that will express
all the meanings of the Greek or Hebrew, partly on
the somewhat childish plea that it would be unfair
to choose some words for the high honour of being
the channels of God’s truth, and to pass over others
as unworthy.
(7.) The version thus published did not all at
once supersede those already in possession. The fact
that five editions were published in three years,
shows that there was a good demand. But the
Bishops’ Bible probably remained in many Churches,
(Andrews takes his texts from it in preaching before
the king as late as 1621), and the popularity of the
Geneva Version is shown by not less than thirteen
reprints, in whole or in part, between 1611 and 1617.
It is not easy to ascertain the impression which the
A. V. made at the time of its appearance. Pro-
bably, as in most like cases, it was far less for good or
evil than friends or foes expected. The Puritans, and
the religious portion of the middle classes generally,
missed the notes of the Geneva book (F fillew Ch.
Hist. x. 50,51). The Romanists spoke: as oe
of the unsettling effect of these frequent changes,
and of the marginal readings as leaving men in doubt
what was the truth of Scripture. x One frantic cry
r Miles Smith, himself a translator and the writer of
the Preface, complained of Bancroft that there was no
contradicting him (Beara, Revised Eng. Bible).
8 Gell’s evidence, as having been chaplain to Archbishop
Abbot, carries some weight with it. His works are to be
found in the Brit. Mus. Library, Mr. Scrivener’s statement
to the contrary being apparently an oversight (Supplement
to A. V. of N. T. p. 101).
t The following passages are those commonly referred
to in support of this charge: (1) The rendering “ such as
should be saved,’ in Acts ii. 47. (2) The insertion of
the words “ any man” in Heb. x. 38 (“ the just shall live
by faith, but if any man draw back,” &c.), to avoid an
inference unfavourable to the doctrine of Final Perse-
verance. (3) The use of “bishopric,” im Acts i. 20, of
“ oversight,’”’ in 1 Pet. v. 2, of ‘‘ bishop,” in 1 Tim. iii. 1,
&c., and “overseers,” in Acts xx. 28, in order to avoid
the identification of Bishops and Elders. (4) The chapter-
heading of Ps, exlix. in 1611 (since altered), “The Prophet
exhorteth to praise God for that power which he hath
given the Church to bind the consciences of men.’’ Blunt
(Duties of a Parish Priest, Lect. 11.) appears, in this ques-
tion, on the side of the prosecution; Trench (On the A. VY.
of the N. T.c. x.) on that of the defence. The charge of an
undue bias against Rome in 1 Cor. xi. 27, Gal. v. 6, Heb.
xiii. 4, is one on which an acquittal may be pronounced
with little or no hesitation. :
u It may be at least pleaded, in mitigation, that the flattery
of the translators is outdone by that of Francis Bacon.
x Whitaker’s answer, by anticipation, to the charge is
worth quoting: ‘No inconvenience will follow if inter-
pretations or versions of Scripture, when they have become
obsolete, or ceased to be intelligible, may be afterwards
changed or corrected” (Dissert. on Script. p. 232, Parker
Soc. ed.). The wiser divines of the English Church had
not then learnt to raise the cry of finality.
1678 VERSION,
was heard from Hugh Broughton the rejected
(Works, p. 661), who “ would rather be torn in
pieces by wild horses than impose such a version
on the poor churches of England.” Selden, a few
years later, gives a calmer and more favourable
judgment. It is “the best of all translations as
giving the true sense of the original.” This, how-
ever, is qualified by the remark that “no book in
the world is translated as the Bible is, word for
word, with no regard to the difference of idioms.
This is well enough so long as scholars have to do
with it, but when it comes among the common
people, Lord! what gear do they make of it!”
( Table-Talk). The feeling of which this was the
expression, led even in the midst of the agitations
of the Commonwealth to proposals for another revi-
sion, which, after being brought forward in the
Grand Committee of Religion in the House of Com-
mons in Jan. 1656, was referred to a sub-com-
mittee, acting under Whitelocke, with power to
consult divines and report. Conferences were ac-
cordingly held frequently at Whitelocke’s house, at
which we find, mingled with less illustrious names,
those of Walton and Cudworth. Nothing, how-
ever, came of it (Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 564 ;
Collier, Ch. Hist. ii. 9). No report was ever made,
and with the Restoration the tide of conservative
feeling, in this as in other things, checked all plans
of further alteration. Many had ceased to care for
the Bible at all. Those who did care were content
with the Bible as it was. Only here and there was
a voice raised, like R. Gell’s (wt supra), declaring
that it had defects, that it bore in some things the
stamp of the dogmatism of a party (p. 321).
(8.) The highest testimony of this period is that
of Walton. From the editor of the Polyglott, the
few words “inter omnes eminet”’ meant a good
deal (Pref.). With the reign of Anne the tide of
glowing panegyric set in. It would be easy to put
together a long catena of praises stretching from
that time to the present. With many, of course,
this has been only the routine repetition of a tradi-
tional boast. ‘Our unrivalled Translation,” and
“our incomparable Liturgy,” have been, equally,
phrases of course. But there have been witnesses
of a far higher weight. In proportion as the Eng-
lish of the 18th century was infected with a La-
tinised or Gallicised style, did those who had a
purer taste look with reverence to the strength and
purity of a better time as represented in the A. V.
Thus Addison dwells on its ennobling the coldness
of modern languages with the glowing phrases of
Hebrew (Spectator, No. 405), and Swift confesses
that “the translators of the Bible were masters of
an English style far fitter for that work than any
we see in our present writings ” (Letter to Lord
Oxford). Each half-century has naturally added
to the prestige of these merits. The language of
the A. V. has intertwined itself with the contro-
versies, the devotion, the literature of the English
people. It has gone, wherever they have gone, over
the face of the whole earth. The most solemn and
tender of individual memories ave, for the most part,
associated with it. Men leaving the Church of
England for the Church of Rome turn recretfully
with a yearning look at that noble “ well of Eng-
lish undefiled,’ which they are about to exchange
for the uncouth monstrosities of Rheims and Douay.
In this case too, as in so many others, the position
of the A. V. has been strengthened, less by the skill
of its defenders than by the weakness of its assail-
ants. While from time to time, scholars and divines
AUTHORISED
(Lowth, Newcome, Waterland, Trench, Ellicott),
have admitted the necessity of a revision, those who
have attacked the present version and produced new
ones have been, for the most part, men of narrow
knowledgé and defective taste (Purver, and Har-
wood, and Bellamy, and Conquest), just able to
pick out a few obvious faults, and showing their
competence for the task by entering on the work
of translating or revising the whole Bible single-
handed. One memorable exception must not, how-
ever, be passed over. Hallam (Lit. of Europe, iii.
ch. 2, ad fin.) records a brief but emphatic protest
against the ‘“ enthusiastic praise” which has been
lavished on this translation. ‘ It may, in the eyes
of many, be a better English, but it is not the
English of Daniel, or Raleigh, or Bacon,... It
abounds, in fact, especially in the O. T., with obso-
lete phraseolovy, and with single words long since
abandoned, or retained only in provincial use.” The
statement may, it is believed, be accepted as an
encomium. If it had been the English of the men
of letters of James’s reign, would it have retained
as it has done, for two centuries and a half, its hold
on the mind, the memory, the affections of the
English people ?
XII. ScHEMES For A Reviston.—(1.) A notice
of the attempts which have been made at various
times to bring about a revision of the A. V. though
necessarily brief and imperfect, may not be without
its use for future labourers. he first half of the
18th century was not favourable for such a work.
An almost solitary Hssay for a New Translation
by H. R. (Ross), 1702, attracted little or no notice
(Todd, Life of Walton, i. 134). A Greek Testa-
ment with an English translation, singularly vulgar
and offensive, was published in 1729, of which
extracts are given by Lewis (Hist. of Transl. ch. v.).
With the slight revival of learning among the
scholars of the latter half of that period the subject
was again mooted. Lowth in a Visitation Sermon
(1758), and Secker in a Latin Speech intended for
Convocation (1761), recommended it. Matt. Pilk-
ington in his Remarks (1759), and Dr. Thomas
Brett, in an Essay on Ancient Versions of the
ible (1760), dwelt on the importance of consulting
them with reference to the O. T. as well as the,
N. T., with a view to a more accurate text than
that of the Masoretic Hebrew, the former insisting
also on the obsolete words which are seattered in the
A. V., and giving a useful Alphabetic list of them.
A folio New and literal translation of the whole
Bible by Anthony Purver, a Quaker (1764), was a
more ambitious attempt. He dwells at some length
on the ‘‘ obsolete, uncouth, clownish” expressions
which disfigure the A. V. He includes in his list
such words as ‘ joyous,’ ‘solace,’ ‘ damsel,”
“ day-spring,” ‘ bereaved,” ‘‘ marvels,” “ bondmen.”
He substitutes ‘he hearkened to what he said,” for
‘he hearkened to his voice;’ “ eat victuals,’ for
“eat, bread’ (Gen. iii. 19) ; was in favour with,”
for “found grace in the eyes of;” “was angry,”
for “ his wrath was kindled.” In spite of this
defective taste, however, the work has considerable
merit, is based upon a careful study of the original,
and of many of the best commentators, and may be
contrasted favourably with most of the single-handed
translations that have followed. It was, at any rate,
far above the depth of degradation and folly which
was reached in Harwood’s Literal Translation of the
N. T. “ with freedom, spirit, and elegance”’ (1768).
Here again, a few samples are enough to show the
character of the whole. “The young lady is not
VERSION, AUTHORISED
dead” (Mark ν. 39). “A gentleman of splendid
family and opulent fortune had two sons”? (Luke xv.
11). “The clergyman said, You have given him
the only right and proper answer” (Mark xii. 32).
“ We shall not pay the common debt of nature, but
by a soft transition, &c.” (1 Cor. xv. 51).
(2.) Biblical revision was happily not left entirely
in such hands as these. A translation by Worsley
“according to the present idiom of the English
tongue” (1770) was, at least. less oflensive. Dure!]
(Preface to Job), Lowth ( Preface to Isaiah), Blayney
(Pref. to Jeremiah, 1784), were all strongly in favour
of a new, or revised translation. Durell dwells most
on the arbitrary additions and omissions in the
A.V. of Job, on the total absence in some cases,
of any intelligible meaning. Lowth speaks chiefly
of the faulty state of the text of the O. T., and
urges a correction of it, partly from various read-
ings, partly from ancient versions, partly from con-
jecture. Each of the three contributed, in the best
way, to the work which they had little expectation
of seeing accomplished, by labouring steadily at a
single book and committing it to the judement of
the Church.y Kennicott’s labours in collecting
MSS. of the Ο. T. issued in his State of the pr esent
Hebrew Text (1753, 59), and excited expectations
that there might before long be something like a
basis for a new version in a restored original.
A more ambitious scheme was started by the
Roman Catholic Dr. Geddes, in his Prospectus for
a New Translation (1786). His remarks on the
history of English translations, his candid acknow-
ledgment of the excellences of the A. V., and espe-
cially of Tyndal’s work as pervading it, his critical
notes on the true principles of translation, on the
A. V. as falling short of them, may still be read
with interest. He too like Lowth finds fault with
the superstitious adherence to the Masoretic text,
with the undue deference to lexicons, and disregard
of versions shown by our translators. The proposal
was well received by many Biblical scholars, Lowth,
Kennicott, and Barrington, being foremost among
its patrons. The work was issued in parts, accord-
ing to the terms of the Prospectus, but did not get
further than 2 Chron. in 1792, when the death of the
translator put a stop to it. Partly perhaps owing
to its incompleteness, but still more from the ex-
treme boldness of a Preface, anticipating the conclu-
sions of a later criticism,2 Dr. Geddes’s translation
fell rapidly into disfavour. A Sermon by White
(famous for his Bampton Lectures) in 1779, and
two Pamphlets by J. A. Symonds, Professor of
Modern History at Cambridge, the first on the
Gospels and the Acts, in 1789; the second on the
Epistles, in 1794, though attacked in an Apology
for the Liturgy and Church of England (1795),
helped to keep the discussion from oblivion.
(3.) The revision of the A. V., like many other
salutary reforms, was hindered by the French Re-
volution. In 1792, Archbishop Newcome had pub-
lished an elaborate defence of such a scheme, citing
a host of authorities (Doddridge, Wesley, Campbell,
in addition to those already mentioned), and taking
1679
the same line as Lowth, Revised translations of
the N. T. were published by Wakefield in 1795, by
Newcome himself in 1796, by Scarlett in 1798.
Campbell’s version of the Gospels appeared in
1788, that of the Epistles by Macknight in 1795.
But in 1796 the note of alarm was sounded. <A
feeble pamphlet by George Burges (Letter to the
Lord Bishop of Ely), took the ground that ‘* the
present period was unfit,’ and from that time,
Conservatism, pure and simple, was in the as-
cendant. To suggest that the A. V. might be
inaccurate, was almost as bad as holding “ French
principles.” There is a long interval before the
question again comes into anything like prominence,
and then there is a new school of critics in the
Quarterly Review and elsewhere, ready to do battle
vigorously for things as they are. The opening of
the next campaign was an article in the Classical
Journal (No, 36), by Dr. John Bellamy, proposing
a new translation, followed soon afterwards by its
publication under the patronage of the Prince Regent
(1818). The work was poor and unsatisfactory
enough, and a tremendous battery was opened upon
it in the Quarterly Review (Nos. 37 and 38), as
afterwards (No. 46) upon an unhappy critic, Sir
J.B. Burges, who came forward with a Pamphlet in
its defence (Reasons in favour of a New Transla-
tion, 1819). The rash assertion of both Bellamy and
Burges that the A. V. had been made almost entirely
from the LXX. and Vulgate, and a general deficiency
in all accurate scholarship, made them easy victims.
The personal element of this controversy may well
be passed over, but three less ephemeral works
issued from it, which any future labourer in the
same field will find worth consulting. Whitaker's
Historical and Critical Inquiry, was chiefly an
able exposure of the exaggerated statement just
mentioned. H. J. Todd, in his Vindication of the
Authorised Translation (1819), entered more fuily
than any previous writer had done into the history
of the A. V., and gives many facts as to the lives
and qualifications of the translators not easily to be
met with elsewhere. The most masterly, however,
of the manifestoes against all change, was a pamphlet
(Remarks on the Critical Principles, &c., Oxtord,
1820), published anonymously, but known to have
been written by Archbishop Laurence. The strength
of the argument lies chiefly in a skilful display of
all the difficulties of the work, the impossibility of
any satisfactory restoration of the Hebrew of the
O. T., or any settlement of the Greek of the N. T.,
the expediency theretore of adhering to a Textus re-
ceptus in both. The argument may not be decisive,
but the scholarship and acuteness brought to bear on
it make the book instructive, and any one entering
on the work of a translator ought at least to read it,
that he may know what difficulties he has to face.
(4.) A correspondence between Herbert Marsh,
bishop of Peterborough, and the Rev. H. Walter, in
1828, is the next link in the chain. Marsh had
spoken (Lectures on Biblical Criticism, p. 295)
with some contempt of the A. V. as based on
Tyndal’s, Tyndal’s on Luther’s, and Luther’s on
y Whatever be the demerits of Lowth’s Isaiah, it de-
serves something better than the sarcasm of Hurd, that
“its only use was to shew how little was to be expected
from any new translation.” As the Boswell of Warburton,
Hurd could not resist the temptation of attacking an old
antagonist of his master’s.
z “] will not pretend to say that it [the history of the
Pentateuch] is entirely unmixed with the leaven of the
heroic ages. Let the father of Hebrew be tried by the
same rules of criticism as the father of Greek history.”
8 A short epitome of this portion of Todd’s book has
been published by the S. P. C. K. as a tract, and will be
found useful.
b About this period also (1819) a new edition of New-
come’s version was published by Belsham and other
Unitarian ministers, and, like Bellamy’s attempt on the
O.'T., had the effect of stiffening the resistance of the
great body of the clergy to all proposals for a revision.
1680
Munster’s Lexicon, which was: itself based on the
Vulgate. There was, therefore, on this view, no
real translation from the Hebrew in any one of
these. Substantially this was what Bellamy had
said before, but Marsh was a man of a difierent
calibre, and made out a stronger case. Walter, in
his answer, proves what is plain enough, that Tyndal
knew some Hebrew, and that Luther in some instances
followed Rabbinical authoiity and not the Vulgate ;
but the evidence hardly goes to the extent of show-
ing that Tyndal’s version of the O. T. was entirely
independent of Luther’s, or Luther’s of the Latin.
(5.) The last five-and-twenty years have seen
the question of a revision from time to time gaining
fresh prominence.
have sometimes thrown it back by meddling with
it in wrong ways, others, able scholars and sound
theologians, have admitted its necessity and helped it
forward by their work. Dr, Conquest’s Bible, with
620,000 emendations” (1841), has not commanded
the respect of critics, and is almost self-condemned by
the silly ostentation of its title. The motions which
have from time to time been made in the House of
Commons by Mr. Heywood, have borne little fruit
beyond the display of feeble Liberalism and yet
feebler Conservatism by which such debates are, for
the most part, characterised; nor have the discus-
sions in Convocation, though opened by a scholar
of high repute (Professor Selwyn), been much more
productive. Dr. Beard’s, A revised English Bible
the Want of the Church (1857), though tending to
overstate the defects of the A. V., is yet valuable as |
containing much information, and representing the
opinions of the more Jearned Nonconformists. Far
more important, every way, both as virtually an
authority in favour of revision, and as contri-
buting largely to it, are Professor Scholefield’s |
Hints for an Improved Translation of the N. T. |
(1832). In his second edition, indeed, he disclaims
any wish for a new translation, but the principle
“which he lays down clearly and truly in his preface,
that if there is ‘‘ any adventitious difficulty result-
ing from a defective translation, then it is at the
same time an act of charity and of duty to clear |
away the difficulty as much as possible,” leads
legitimately to at least a revision; and this conclu-
sion Mr. Selwyn in the last edition of the Hints
(1857). has deliberately adopted. To Bishop Elli-
cott also belongs the credit of having spoken at
once boldly and wisely on this matter. Putting the
question whether it would be right to join those
who oppose all revision, his answer is,
forbid. . . . It is in vain to cheat our own souls
with the thought that these errors (in A. V.) are
either insignificant or imaginary. There are errors,
there are inaccuracies, there are misconceptions,
there are obscurities .... and that man who,
after being in any degree satisfied of this, permits
himself to lean to the counsels of a timid or popular
obstructiveness, or who, intellectually unable to
test the truth of these allegations, nevertheless per-
mits himself to denounce or deny them, will...
have to sustain the tremendous charge of having
dealt deceitfully with the inviolable word of God”’
(Pref. to Pastoral Epistles). The translations ap-
pended by Dr. Ellicott to his editions of St. Paul’s |
© Mr. Malan’s careful translation of the chief Oriental |
and other versions of the Gospel according to St. John,
and Mr. Scrivener’s notes on St. Matthew, deserve to be
mentioned as valuable contributions towards the work
which they deprecate.
If men of second-rate power |
*¢ God |
A high American authority, Mr. |
VERSION, AUTHORISED
Epistles, proceed on the true principle of altering
the A. V. “only where it appears to be incorrect,
inexact, insufficient, or obscure,” uniting a profound
reverence for the older translators with a bold
truthfulness in judging of their work. The copious
| collation of all the earlier English versions makes
this part of his book especially interesting and
valuable. Dr. Trench (On the A. V. of the N. T.,
1858), in like manner, states his conviction that
“a revision ought to come,” though as yet, he
thinks, “the Greek and the English necessary to bring
it to a successful issue are alike wanting” (p. 3).
The work itself, it need hardly be said, is the fullest
contradiction possible of this somewhat despondent
statement, and supplies a good store of materials
| for use when the revision actually comes. The
Revision of the A. V. by Five Clergymen (Dr.
| Barrow, Dr. Moberly, Dean Alford, Mr. Humphry,
and Dr. Ellicott), represents the same school of
conservative progress, has the merit of adhering to
the clear, pure English of the A. V., and does not
deserve the censure which Dr. Beard passes on it
as ‘‘ promising little and performing less.” As yet,
| this series includes only the Gospel of St. John, and
the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The
publications of the American Bible Union are signs
that there also the same want has been felt. The
translations given respectively by Alford, Stanley,
Jowett, and Conybeare and Howson, in their re-
spective Commentaries, are in like manner, at once
| admissions of the necessity of the work, and con-
tributions towardsit. Mi. Sharpe (1840) and Mr.
Highten (1862) have ventured on the wider work
of translations of the entire N. T. Mr. Cookesley
has published the Gospel of St. Matthew as Part I.
of a like undertaking. !t might almost seem as if
at last there was something like a consensus of
scholars and divines on this question. That as-
sumption would, however, be too hasty. Partly
the vis inertiae, which in a large body like the
clergy of the English Church, is always great,
partly the fear of ulterior consequences, partly also
the indifference of the majority of the laity, would
probably, at the present moment give at least a
| numerical majority to the opponents of a revision.
Writers on this side are naturally less numerous,
but the feeling of Conservatism, pure and simple,
has found utterance in four men representing difter-
ent sections, and of different calibre,—Mr. Scrivener
(Supp. to A. Eng. V. of N. T.), Dr. M‘Caul (Reasons ,
for holding fast the Authorized English Version),
Mr. Ο. 8. Malan (A Vindication, &c.), and Dr.
Cumming (Revision and Translation).¢
XIII. PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION.—
(1.) To take an accurate estimate of the extent to
which the A. V. requires revision would call for no-
thing less than an examination of each single Book,
and would therefore involve an amount of detail
incompatible with our present limits. To give a
few instances only, would practically fix attention
on a part only of the evidence, and so would lead to
a false rather than a true estimate. No attempt,
therefore, will be made to bring together individual
| passages as needing correction. A few remarks on
the chief questions. which must necessarily come
before those who undertake a revision will not,
George P. Marsh, may also be referred to as throwing
the weight of his judgment into the scale against any
revision at the present moment (Lectures on the English
Language, Lect, xxviii.).
|
VERSION, AUTHORISED
perhaps, be out of place. Examples, classified under
corresponding heads, will be found in the book by
Dr. Trench already mentioned, and, scattered in the |
form of annotations, in that of Professor Scholefield.
(2.) The translation of the N. T. is from a Text
confessedly imperfect. What editions were used is
a matter of conjecture ; most probably, one of those
published with a Latin version by Beza between
1565 and 1598, and agreeing substantially with the
Textus receptus of 1633. It is clear, on principle,
that no revision ought to ignore the results of the
textual criticism of the last hundred years. ΤῸ shrink
from noticing any variation, to go on printing as the
inspired Word that, which there is a preponderant
reason for believing to be an interpolation or a
mistake, is neither honest nor reverential. To do
so for the sake of greater edification is simply to |
offer to God the unclean sacrifice of a lie. The
authority of the A. V. is at any rate in favour of
the practice of not suppressing facts. In Matt. i.
11, xxvi. 26; Luke xvii. 36; John viii. 6; Acts
xiii. 18; Eph. vi. 9; Heb. ii. 4; James ii. 18;
1 John 1. 23; 1 Pet. ii, 21; 2 Pet. ii. 11; 18;
2 John 8, different readings are given in the margin,
or, as in 1 John ii. 23, indicated by a different
type. In earlier versions, as has been mentioned, |
1 John v. 7 was printed in smaller letters. The |
degree to which this should be done will, of ccurse,
require discernment. An apparatus like that in |
Tischendorf or Alford would obviously be out of |
place. Probably the useful Greek Testament edited
by Mr. Scrivener might serve as an example of a
middle course.
(3.) Still less had been done at the commence-
ment of the 17th century for the text of the O. T’.
The Jewish teachers, from whom Protestant divines
derived their knowledge, had given currency to the |
belief that in the Masoretic text were contained the
ipsissima verba of Revelation, free from all risks of
error, from all casualties of transcription. The
conventional phrases, “the authentic Hebrew,”
“‘ the Hebrew verity,” were the expression of this |
undiscerning reverence.2 They refused to apply the
same rules of judgment here which they applied to |
the text of the N. T. They assumed that the |
Masoretes were infallible, and were reluctant to |
acknowledge that there had been any variations |
since. Hyven Walton did not escape being attacked |
as unsound by the great Puritan divine, Dr. John |
Owen, for having called attention to the fact of
discrepancies (Proleg. cap. vi.). The materials for |
a revised text are, of course, scantier than with the
N. T.; but the labours of Kennicott, De Rossi, J
H. Michaelis, and Davidson have not been fruit- |
less, and here as there, the older versions must be
admitted as at least evidence of variations which
once existed, but which were suppressed by the
rigorous uniformity of the later Rabbis. Conjec-
tural emendations, such as Newcome, Lowth and
Ewald have so freely suggested, ought to be ven-
tured on in such places only as ave quite unin-
telligible without them.
(4.) All scholars worthy of the name are now
agreed that as little change as possible should be
ἃ The Judaising spirit on this matter culminated in the
Formula Helvetici Consensus, which pronounces the exist-
ing O. T. Text to be “ tum quoad consonas, tum quoad
vocalia, sive puncta ipsa, sive punctorum potestatem, tum
quoad res, tum quoad verba, θεόπνευστος.
e The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance and the Eng-
lishman’s Greek Concordance, published by Walton and
Maberly, deserve mention as useful helps for the student
VOL: I. !
1681
made in the language of the A. V. Happily there
is little risk of an emasculated elegance such as
might have infected a new version in the last cen-
tury. The very fact of the admiration felt for the
A. V., and the general revival of a taste for the
literature of the Elizabethan period, are safeguards
against any like tampering now. Some words,
however, absolutely need change, as being altogether
obsolete ; others, more numerous, have been slowly
passing into a different, often into a lower or a
narrower meaning, and are therefore no longer what
they once were, adequate renderings of the original.
(5.) The self-imposed law of fairness which led
the A. V. translators to admit as many English
words as possible to the honour of representing one
in the Hebrew or Greek text has, as might be ex-
pected, marred the’ perfection of their work. Some-
times the effect is simply the loss of the solemn
emphasis of the repetition of the same word.
Sometimes it is more serious, and attects the mean-
ing. While it would be simple pedantry to lay
down unconditionally that but one and the same
word should be used throughout for one in the
original, there can be no doubt that such a limita-
tion is the true principle to start with, and that
instances to the contrary should be dealt with as
exceptional necessities. Side by side with this
fault, there is another just the opposite of it. One
English word appears for several Greek or Hebrew
words, and thus shades of meaning, often of im-
portance to the right understanding of a passage,
are lost sight of. Taken together, the two forms
of error, which meet us in well-nigh every chapter,
make the use of an English Concordance absolutely
misleading.¢
(6.) Grammatical inaccuracy must be noted as a
defect pervading, more or less, the whole extent of
the present version of the N. T. Instances will be
found. in abundance in Trench and Scholefield
(passim), and in any of the better Commentaries.
The true force of tenses, cases, prepositions, articles,
is continually lost, sometimes at the cost of the finer
shades which give vividness and emphasis, but some-
times also entailing more serious errors. In justice
to the translators of the N. T., it must be said that,
situated as they were, such errors were almost in-
evitable. They learnt Greek through the medium
of Latin. Lexiconsf and grammars were alike in
the universal language of scholars; and that lan-
guage was poorer and less inflected than the Greek,
and failed utterly to represent, 6. g. the force of its
| article, or the difference of its aorist and perfect
. | tenses.
Such books of this nature as were used by
the translators were necessarily based upon a far
scantier induction, and were therefore more meagre
and inaccurate than those which have been the
fruits of the labours of later scholars. Recent
scholarship may in many things. fall short cf that of
an earlier time, but the introduction of Greek lexi-
cons and grammars in English has been beyond all
doubt a change tor the better.
(7.) The field of the O. T. has been far less
adequately worked than that of the N. T., and He-
brew scholarship has made far less progress than
of the A. V. in overcoming this difficulty.
f Constantine's and Scapula’s were the two principally
used. During the half century that preceded the A. V.
the study of Greek had made great progress, was taught
at all the great schools in 1586, and made part of the
system of new ones then founded. Nowell, Dean of St.
Paul’s, published a Greek version of the Catechism, ‘The
Grammar chiefly in use was probably Colet’s (?).
Ge
1682
Greek. Relatively, indeed, there seems good ground
for believing that Hebrew was more studied in the
early part of the 17th century than it is now. It
was newer and more popular. The reverence
which men felt for the perfection of the ““ Hebrew
verity”? made them wiiling to labour to learn a
language which they looked upon as half-divine.
But here also there was the same source of error,
The early Hebrew lexicons represented partly, it is
true, a Jewish tradition; but partly also were
based upon the Vulgate (Bishop Marsh, Lectures,
ii. App. 61). The forms of cognate Shemitic lan-
guages had not been applied as a means for ascer-
taining the precise value of Hebrew words. The
grammars, also in Latin, were defective. Little as
Hebrew professors have, for the most part, done in
the way of exegesis, any good commentary on the
O. T. will show that here also there are errors as
serious as in the N.'T. In one memorable case,
the inattention, real or apparent, of the translators
to the force of the Hiphil torm of the verb (Lev. iv.
12) has led to a serious attack on the truthfulness
of the whole narrative of the Pentateuch (Colenso,
Pentateuch Critically Examined, Part 1. ch. vii.).
(8.) The division into chapters and verses is a
matter that ought not to be passed over in any
future revision. The former, it must be remem-
bered, does not go further back than the 13th cen-
tury. The latter, though answering, as far as the
O. T. is concerned, to a long-standing Jewish ar-
rangement, depends, in the N. T., upon the work of
Robert Stephens. [BrBLe.] Neither in the O. T.
nor in the N. T. did the verse-division appear in any
earlier English edition than that of Geneva. The
inconveniences of changing both are probably too
great to be risked, The habit of referring to
chapter and verse is too deeply rooted to be got
rid of. Yet the division, as it is, is not seldom arti-
ficial, and sometimes is absolutely misleading. No
one would think of printing any other book, in prose
or poetry, in short clauses like the verses of our
Bibles, and the tendency of such a division is to
give a broken and discontinuous knowledge, to
make men good textuaries but bad divines. An
arrangement like that of the Paragraph Bibles of
our own time, with the verse and chapter divisions
relegated to the margin, ought to form part of any
authoritative revision.&
(9.) Other points of detail remain to be noticed
briefly : (1) The chapter headings of the A. V. often
go beyond their proper province. If it is intended
to give an authoritative commentary to the lay
reader, let it be done thoroughly. But if that
attempt is abandoned, as it was deliberately in
1611, then for the chapter-headings to enter, as
they do, upon the work of interpretation, giving,
as in Canticles, Psalms, and Prophets, passim,
mystical meanings, is simply an inconsistency.
¢ As examples of what may be said on both sides on
this point, the reader may be referred to an article on
Paragraph Bibles in No. 208 of the Edinburgh Review
(subsequently reprinted by the Rev, W. Harness, 1855)
and the Pamphlet by Dr. M'Caul (Reasons for holding
fast) already mentioned. Reeves’s Bibles and Testaments
(1802) and Boothroyd’s translation (1824) should be men-
tioned as having set the example followed by the Reli-
gious Tract Society in their Paragraph Bible.
h Jn all these points there has been, to a much larger
extent than is commonly known, a work of unauthorized
revision. Neither italics, nor references, nor readings, nor
chapter-headings, nor, it may be added, punctuation, are
the same now as they were in the A. V. of 1611. The
VERSION, AUTHORISED
What should be a mere table of contents becomes a
gloss upon the text. (2) The use of italics in
printing the A. V. is at least open to some risks.
At first they seem an honest confession on the part
of the translators of what is or is not in the ovigi-
nal, On the other hand, they tempt to a loose
translation. Few writers would think it necessary
to use them in translating other books. If the
words do not do more than represent the sense of the
original, then there is no reason for treating them
as if they were added at the discretion of the
translators. If they go beyond that, they are of
the nature of a gloss, altering the force of the ori-
ginal, and have no right to be there at all, while the —
fact that they appear as additions frees the trans-
lator from the sense of responsibility. (3) Good
as the principle of marginal references is, the mar-
‘gins of the A. V., as now printed, are somewhat
inconveniently crowded, and the references, being
often merely verbal, tend to defeat their own pur-
pose, and to make the reader weary of referring.
They need, accordingly, a careful sifting; and
though it would not be desirable to go back to
the scanty number of the original edition of 1611,
something intermediate between that and the pre-
sent over-abundance would be an improvement.
(4) Marginal readings, on the other hand, in-
dicating variations in the text, or differences in
the judgment of translators, might be profitably
increased in number. ‘The results of the labours of
scholars would thus be placed within the reach of
all intelligent readers, and so many difficulties and
stumbling-blocks might be removed.®
(10.) What has been said will serve to show at once
to what extent a new revision is required, and what
are the chief difficulties to be encountered. And the
work, it is believed, ought not to be delayed much
longer, Names will occur to every one of men
competent to undertake the work as far as the
N. T. is concerned; and if such alterations only
were to be introduced as commanded the assent of
at least two-thirds of a chosen body of twenty or
thirty scholars, while a place in the margin was
given to such renderings only as were adopted by
at least one-third, there would be, it is believed, at
once a great change for the better, and without
any shock to the feelings or even the prejudices
of the great mass of readers. Men fit to under-
take the work of revising the translation of the
O. T. are confessedly fewer, and, for the most part,
occupied in other things. The knowledge and the
power, however, are there, though in less measure,
and even though the will be for the time.absent, a
summons to enter on the task from those whose
authority they are bound to respect, would, we
cannot doubt, be listened to. It might have the
result of directing to their proper task and to a
fruitful issue energies which are too often with-
chief alterations appear to have been made first in 1683,
and afterwards in 1769, by Dr. Blayney, under the sanction
of the Oxford Delegates of the Press (Gentleman’s Maga-
zine, Nov. 1789). A like work was done about the same
time by Dr. Paris at Cambridge. There had, however,
been some changes previously. The edition of 1638, in
particular, shews considerable augmentations in the italics
(Turton, Text of the English Bible, 1833, pp. 91, 126). To
Blayney also we owe most of the notes on weights and
measures, and coins, and the explanation, where the text
seems to require it, of Hebrew proper names. The whole
question of the use of Italics is discussed elaborately by
Turton in the work just mentioned.
VILLAGES
drawn to ephemeral and unprofitable controversies.
As the revised Bible would be for the use of the
English people, the men appointed for the purpose
ought not to be taken exclusively from the English
Church, and the learning of Nonconformists should,
at least, be fairly represented. The changes re-
commended by such a body of men, under con-
ditions such as those suggested, might safely be
allowed to circulate experimentally for two or
three years. When they had stood that trial, they
might without risk be printed in the new Autho-
rized Version. Such a work would unite reverence
for the past with duty towards the future. In
undertaking it we should be, not slighting the
translators on whose labours we have entered, but
following in their footsteps. It is the wisdom of
the Church to bring out of its treasures things new
and old. [E. H. P.]
VILLAGES.? It is evident that chatser, “a
village,” lit., an enclosure, a collection of huts, is
often used, especially in the enumeration of towns
in Josh. xiii., xv., xix., to imply unwalled suburbs
outside the walled towns. And so it appears to
mean when we compare Ley. xxv. 31 with v. 34.
Migrash,» A. V. “suburbs,” 7. ὁ. a place thrust out
from the city (see also Gen. xli. 48). Arab villages,
as found in Arabia, are often mere collections of
stone huts, “long, low, rude hovels, roofed only
with the stalks of palm-leaves,” or covered for a
time with tent-cloths, which are removed when the
tribe change their quarters. Others are more solidly
built, as are most of the modern villages of Pales-
tine, though in some the dwellings are mere mud-
huts (Robinson, i. 167, ii. 13, 14, 44, 387; Hassel-
quist, Trav. p.155; Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. p. 233, App.
§83, p. 525). Arab villages of the Hedjaz and
Yemen often consist of huts with circular roofs of
leaves or grass, resembling the description given by
Sallust of the Numidian mapalia, viz. ships with
the keel uppermost (Sallust, Jug. 18; Shaw, Trav.
p- 220; Niebuhr, Deser. de Ar. p. 54).
There is little in the O. T. to enable us more pre-
cisely to define a village of Palestine, beyond the
fact that it was destitute of walls or external de-
fences. Persian villages are spoken of in similar
terms (Ez. xxxviii. 11; Esth. ix. 19).
By the Talmudists a village was defined as a
place destitute of a synagogue (Lightfoot, Chorogr.
Century, ch. xeviii.). Galilee, in our Lord’s
time, contained many villages and village-towns,¢
and Josephus says that in his time there were in
Galilee 204 towns and villages,4 some of which last
had walls (Joseph. Vit. ὃ 45). At present the
country is almost depopulated (Raumer, Pal. p.
105; Stanley, S. § P.'p. 384). Most modern
Turkish and Persian villages have a Menzil or
a1. Bath. See DAuGETER.
2. VW; ; ἔπαυλις, κώμη ; villa, castellum, oppidum,
especially described as unwalled, Lev. xxv. 31. (Stanley,
S. ὦ P. App. $87.)
3. (a) 153, from “5S, “cover’’ (Ges. 706); κώμη ;
villa, (Ὁ) V5, only once, Neh. vi. 23 coun; viculus.
(c) 755, only once, 1 Sam. vi. 183 κώμη ; villa.
4. (a) M5, from me (Ges. 1125, “ to separate,” also
“to judge,” like κρίνω ; once “ village,” i.e. a place of
separated dwellings, Hab. iii. 14); δυνάστης ; bellator.
See Perizzirr. (b) pr, Judg. v. 7,11; A. V. follow-
(c) nite.
ing Targ., “ villages ;” lit., rulers or warriors.
VINE 1683
Medhafeh, a house for travellers (Burckhardt, Syria,
p- 295; Robinson, ii. 19; Martyn, Life, p. 437).
The places to which in the O. T. the term
chatser is applied were mostly in the outskirts
of the country (Stanley, p. 526). In the Ν, T.
the term κώμη is applied to Bethphage (Matt. xxi.
2), Bethany (Luke x. 38; John xi. 1), Emmaus
(Luke xxiv. 13), Bethlehem (John vii. 42). A dis-
tinction between city or town (πόλις) and village
(κώμη) is pointed out (Luke viii. 1). On the other
hand, Bethsaida is called πόλις (John i. 45; Luke
ix. 10), and also κώμη (Mark viii. 23, 26), unless
by the latter word we are to understand the suburbs
of the town, which meaning seems to belong to
“country ’€ (Mark vi. 56). The relation of de-
pendence on a chief town of a district appears to be
denoted by the phrase ‘* villages of Caesarea Phi-
lippi” (Mark viii. 27).
In the Hebrew language the prefix Caphar im-
plied a recular village, as Capernaum, which place,
however, had in later times outgrown the limits
implied by its original designation (Lightfoot, 7. c. ;
Stanley, pp. 521-527; 1 Mace. vii. 31). [H. W. P.]
VINE. The well-known valuable plant ( Vitis
vinifera), very frequently referred to in the Old
and New ‘Testaments, and cultivated from the
earliest times. The first mention of this plant
occurs in Gen. ix. 20, 21, where Noah is repre-
sented as having been its first cultivator. The
Egyptians say that Osiris first taught men the use
of the vine. That it was abundantly cultivated
in Egypt is evident from the frequent represen-
tations on the monuments, as well as from the
Scriptural allusions. See Gen. xl. 9-11, Pharaoh’s
dream ; and Num. xx. 5, where the Israelites com-
plain that the wilderness was ‘no place of figs or
of vines,” evidently regretting that they had left
the vines of Egypt. Comp. also Ps. lxxviii. 47;
“Ἢ destroyed their vines with hail” (see on this
subject Celsius, Hierob, ii. p. 412).
The vines of Palestine were celebrated both for
luxuriant growth and for the immense clusters of
grapes which they produced. When the spies were
sent forth to view the promised land, we are told
that on their arrival at the valley of Eshcol they
cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes, and
bare it between two on a staff (Num. xiii. 23).
This they did no doubt for convenience of carriage,
and in order that the grapes on that splendid
cluster might not be bruised. Travellers have fie-
quently testified to the large size of the grape-
clusters of Palestine. Schulz (Leitungen des
Héchsten, v. p. 285, quoted by Rosenmiiller,
Bib. Bot. p. 223) speaks of supping at Beitshin, a
village near Ptolemais, under a vine whose stem
was about a foot and a half in diameter, and whose
πόλις (unwalled), Ez. xxxviii. 11. (ὦ) ὙΠ, properly a
dweller in the country, paganus; φερεζαῖος ; oppidum.
ΒΞ nin; ἔπαυλις ; vicus; Num. xxxii. 41, Deut. ili.
14, Judg. x. 4: a word applied by modern Bedouins to
their own villages (Stanley, p. 527). See HavorH-Jarr.
6. DITA ; 3 περισπόρια ; suburbana; lit.,
for flocks (Ges. pp. 306-7).
In N. T. the word κώμη is also rendered “ town.”
b wan, from wa,
pastures
“drive cut.”
© κωμοπόλεις, vicos et civitates, Mark i. 38.
ἃ πόλεις καὶ κῶμαι.
* ἀγροί.
bay) Ses
1684 VINE
height was about thirty feet, which by its branches
formed a hut upwards of thirty feet broad and
long. ‘“* The clusters of these extraordinary vines,”
he adds, “are so large that they weigh ten or
tyrelye pounds, and the berries may be. compared
with our small plums.” See also Belon, Observat.
li, p. 340; “ Les seps des vignes sont fort gros et
les rameaux fort spacieux. Les habitants entendent
bien comme il la faut gouverner. Car ils la plantent
si loing l’une de l’autre, qu’on pourroit mener une
charrette entre deux. Ce n’est pas grande merveille
si les raisins sont si beaux et le vin si puissant.”
Strabo states that it is recorded that there ave vines
in Margiana whose stems are such as would re-
quire two men to span round, and whose clusters
are two cubits long (Geograph, i. p. 112, ed.
Kramer). Now Margiana is the modern district of
Ghilan in Persia, south-west of the Caspian Sea,
and the very country on whose hills the vine: is
believed to be indigenous. Nothing would be
easier than to multiply testimonies relative to
the large size of the grapes of Palestine, from the
published accounts cf travellers such as Elliot,
Laborde, Mariti, Dandini (who expresses his sur-
prise at the extraordinary size of the grapes of
Lebanon), Russell, &. We must be content with
quoting the following extract from Kitto’s Physical
History of Palestine, p. 330, which is strikingly
illustrative of the spies’ mode of carryjng the grapes
from Esheol :— Even in our own country a bunch
of grapes was produced at Welbeck, and sent as a
present from the Duke of Rutland to the Marquis
of Rockingham, which weighed nineteen pounds.
It was conveyed to its destination—more than
twenty miles distant—on a staff by four labourers,
two of whom bore it in rotation.” The greatest
diameter of this cluster was nineteen inches and a
half, its cireumference four feet and a half, and its
length nearly twenty-three inches.
Especial mention is made in the Bible of the
vines of Eshcol (Num. xiii. 24, xxxii. 9), of Sibmah,
Heshbon, and Eleaieh (Is. xvi. 8, 9,10; Jer. xlviii.
32), and Engedi (Cant, i. 14). Prof. Stanley
thus speaks of the vineyards of Judah, which he
saw along the slopes of Bethlehem :—* Here, more
than elsewhere in Palestine, are to be seen on the
sides of the hills, the vineyards marked by their
watchtowers and walls, seated on their ancient ter-
yaces—the earliest and latest symbol of Judah.
The elevation of the hills and table-lands of Judah
is the true climate of the vine. He ‘ bouna his
foal to the vine, and his ass’s colt to the choice
vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his
clothes in the blood of grapes.’ It was from the
Judaean valley of Eshcol, ‘the torrent of the
cluster, that the spies cut down the gigantic
cluster of grapes. ‘A vineyard on a hill of olives,’
with the ‘fence,’ and ‘ the stones gathered out,’
and ‘the tower in the midst of it,’ is the natural
figure which, both in the prophetical and evan-
gelical records, represents the kingdom of Judah”’
(5. and P. p. 164). From the abundance and ex-
cellence of the vines, it may readily be understood
how frequently this plant is the subject of meta-
phor in the Holy Scriptures. Thus Israel is a
vine brought from Egypt, and planted by the
Lord’s hand in the land of promise ; 100m had been
prepared for it (compare with this the passage from
Belon quoted above); and where it took root. it
filled the land, it covered the hills with its shadow,
its boughs were like the goodly cedar-trees (Ps.
Iyxx. 8-10), Comp. Gmelin (Travels through
VINE
Russia and N. Persia, iii. p. 431), who thus
speaks of the vines of Ghilan:—‘‘It is fond of
forests, . . . and is frequently found about pro-
montories, and their lower part is almost entirely
covered with it. There, higher than the eye can
reach, it winds itself about the loftiest trees; and
its tendrils, which here have an aim’s thickness,
so spread and mutually entangle themselves far
and wide, that in places where it grows in the
most luxuriant wildness it is very difficult to find
a passage.’ To dwell under the vine and fig-tree
is an emblem of domestic happiness and peace (1 K.
iv. 25; Mic. iv. 4; Ps. cxxviii. 3); the rebellious
people of Isyael are compared to ‘* wild grapes,”
“an empty vine,” “the degenerate plant of a
strange vine,’ &. (Is. v. 2, 4, but see COCKLE ;
Hos. x. 1; Jer. 11, 21). It is a vine which our
Lord selects to show the spiritual union which
subsists between Himself and his members (John
xv. 1-6).
The following Hebrew words denote the vine :—
1. Gephen (}D4), or, more definitely, gephen
hayyayin ("57 15,3), of frequent occurrence in the
Bible, and used in a general sense. Indeed gephen
sometimes is applied to a plant that resembles a vine
in some particulars, as ΠῚ 52 (gephen sadeh),
2 K. iv. 39; Ὁ Ὁ: probably the Colocynth plant
regan! App. A], or DID {D4 (gephen sélém),
the vine of Sodom, certainly not a vine. (See below.)
2. Sorék (pw), or sdrékah (IP DW), i is a term
expressive of some choice kind of vine (Jer. ii. 21 ;
Is. ν. 2; Gen. xlix. 11), supposed to be identical
with that now called in Morocco serki, and in
Persia hishmish, with small round dark berries, and
soft stones. (See Niebuhr, Descript. de [ Arabie,
p- 147; and Oedmann, Sammlung, ii. 97.) From
the passage in Jeremiah, it is clear that the sdrék
denotes not another species of vine, but the common
vine which by some process of cultivation attained
a high state of excellence.
3. Nazir (433), originally applied to a Nazarite
ae 1
who did not shave his hair, expresses an ‘‘ undressed
vine” (A. V.), ὅν e. one which every seventh and
every fiftieth year was not pruned. (See Gesenius,
Nes. S. V.)
Grapes are designated by various names: (1)
Esheol Ovi) is either “a cluster,” ie or un-
lipe, like racemus, or a “ single grape” (as in
Is, Ixy. 8, Mic. vii. 1). (2) End (AY ; Arab.
Wes;
uniipe grapes (Is. xviii. 5). (4) Zemdrah (7791),
39
“a cluster’).
(3) Béser (25), sour, 1,6
“a grape cut off.” ‘The blossom” of the vine
is called semdadar (V7), Cant. ἢ. 19, 15,
“ς Grape-stones” are probably meant by chartsan-
nim (D'S); A. V. “ kernel,’ Num. vi. 4.
“The cuticle” of the grape is denominated zag
(7), Num. J. ¢.; “the tendrils” by sdstyim
(COIN), Joel i. 7.
The ancient Hebrews probably allowed the vine
to grow trailing on the ground, or upon supports,
This latter mode of cultivation appears to be
alluded to by Ezekiel (xix. 11, 12): “her strong
‘yods were broken and withered.” Dr. Robinson,
VINE
who has given us much information on the vines of
Palestine, thus speaks of the manner in which he
saw them trained near Hebron :—‘ They are
planted singly in rows, eight or ten feet apart in
each direction. The stock is suffered to grow up
large to the height of six or eight feet, and is then
fastened in a sloping position to a strong-stake,
and the shoots suffered to grow and extend from
one plant to another, forming a line of festoons.
Sometimes two rows are made to slant towards
each other, and thus form by their shoots a sort of
arch. These shoots are pruned away in autumn”
(Bib. Res. ii. 80, 81).
The vintage, batstr (W823); which formerly
was a season of general festivity, as is the case more
or less in all vine-growing countries, commenced in
September. The towns are deserted, and the people
live among the vineyards (O73) in the lodges and
tents (Bib. Res. 1. c. 5 comp. Judg, ix. 27; Jer.
xxv. 30; Is. xvi. 10). The grapes were gathered
with shouts of joy by the “ grape-gatherers ”
ΟΞ) (Jer. xxv. 30), and put into baskets (see Jer.
vi. 9). They were then carried on the head and
shoulders, or slung upon a yoke, to the “wine-press”
(nj). [Wine.] Those intended for eating were
perhaps put into flat open baskets of wickerwork, as
was the custom in Egypt (Wilkinson, ἄπο. Egypt. i.
43). In Palestine at present the finest grapes, says
Dr. Robinson, are dried as raisins, tsimmik (DVDS),
and the juice of the remainder, after having been
trodden and pressed, “is boiled down to a syrup
which, under the name of dibs (73), is much uséd
by all classes, wherever vineyards are found, as a
condiment with their food.” For further remarks on
the modes of making fermented drinks, &c., of the
juice of the grape, see under WINE. The vineyard
(D453), which was generally on a hill (Is. v. 1;
Jer. xxxi. 5: Amos ix. 13), was surrounded by a
wall or hedge in order to keep out the wild boars
(Ps. Ixxx. 13), jackals, and foxes (Num. xxii, 24;
Cant. ii. 15; Neh. iv. 3; Ez. xiii. 4,5; Matt.
xxi. 33), which commit sad havoc amongst the
vines, both by treading them down and by eating
the grapes. Within the vineyard was one or more
towers of stone in which the vine-dressers, cérémim
(2:3), lived (Is. 1. 8, v. 2; Matt. xxi. 33; see
also Robinson, Bib, Res. i. 213; ii. 81). The press,
gath (13), and vat, yekeb (1P"), which was dug
(Matt. xxi. 33) or hewn out of the rocky soil, were
part of the vineyard furniture (Is. ν. 2). See WINE,
p- 1774, for a figure of a large footpress with vat,
represented in operation. The winepress of the
Hebrews was probably of the form there depicted.
[Far, p. 614 α.}
The vine in the Mosaic ritual was subject to
the usual restrictions of the ‘seventh year” (Ex.
xxiii. {1}, and the jubilee of the fiftieth year (Ley.
xxv. 11). The gleanings, δἰ δἰ δέλ cniddyy, were to
be left for the poor and stranger (Jer. xlix. 9;
Deut, xxiv. 21). The vineyard was not to be
sown “* with divers seeds”’ (Deut. xxii. 9), but fig-
trees were sometimes planted in vineyards (Luke
xiii. 6). Comp. 1 K. iv. 25: “Every man under
his vine and under his fig-tree.” Persons passing
through a vineyard were allowed to eat the grapes
therein, but not to carry any away (Deut. xxiii.
24).
Besides wild-boars, jackals, and foxes, ether ene-
VINE OF SODOM 1685
mies, such as birds, locusts, and caterpillars, occa-
sionally damaged the vines.
Beth-haccerem, ‘‘ the house of the vine” (Jer.
vi. 1; Neh. iii. 14), and Abel-ceramim, “ the plain
of the vineyards,”’ took their respective names from
their vicinity to vineyards. Gophna (now πα),
a few miles N. of Jerusalem, is stated by Eusebius
(Onom. Φάραγξ βότρυοΞ) to have derived its name
from its vines. But see OPHNI. [W. H.]
VINE OF SODOM (ΣΟ 153, gephen Sédom :
ἄμπελος Σοδόμων : vinea Sodomorum) occurs only
in Deut. xxxii. 32, where of the wicked it is said—
“‘their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the
fields of Gomorrah.” [Ὁ is generaily supposed that
this passage alludes to the celebrated apples of
Sddom, of which Josephus (Bell. Jud. iv. 8, $4)
speaks, and to which apparently Tacitus (Hist. v. 6)
alludes. Much has been written on this curious
subject, and various trees have been conjectured to
be that which produced those
* Dead Sea fruits that tempt the eye,
But turn to ashes on the lips,”
of which Moore and Byron sing.
The following is the account of these fruits, as
given by Josephus : speaking of Sodom, he says—
“6 ΤῈ was of old a happy land, both in respect of its
fruits, and the abundance of its cities. But now it
is all burnt up. Men say that, on account of the
wickedness of its inhabitants, it was destroyed by
lightning. At any rate, there are still to be seen "
remains of the divine fire and traces of fine cities,
and moreover ashes produced in the fruits, which
indeed resemble edible fruit in colour, but, on being
plucked by the hand, are dissolved into smoke and
ashes.”’ ‘Tacitus is more general, and speaks of αὐΐ
the herbs and flowers, whether growing wild or
planted, turning black, and crumbling into ashes.
Some travellers, as Maundrell (Zarly Trav. in
Palestine, p. 454, Bohn, 1848), regard the whole
story as a fiction, being unable either to see or hear
of any fruit that would answer the required de-
scription. Pococke supposed the apples of Sodom to
be pomegranates, “ which, having a tough, hard rind,
and being left on the trees two or three years, may
be dried to dust inside, and the outside may remain
fair.” Hasselquist (Zrav. p. 287) seeks to iden-
tify the apples in question with the egg-shaped
fruit of the Solanum melonyena when attacked by
some species of tenthredo, which converts the whole
of the inside into dust, while the rind remains
entire and keeps its colour. Seetzen in his letters
to Baron Zach (Monat. Correspond. xviii. p. 442)
thought he had discovered the apples of Sodom in
the fruit of a kind of cotton-tree, which grew in
the plain of El Ghor, and was known by the name
of Adschar. The cotton is contained in the fruit,
which is like a pomegranate, but has no puip.
Chateaubriand concludes the Jong-sought fruit to
be that of a thorny shrub with small taper leaves,
which in size and colour is exactly like the little
Egyptian lemon; when dried, this fruit yields a
blackish seed, which may be compared to ashes, and
which in taste resembles bitter pepper. Burckhardt
(Trav. in Syria, p. 392) and Irby and Mangles
believe that the tree which produces these cele-
brated apples is one which they saw abundantly
in the Ghor to the east of the Dead Sea, known by
the vernacular name of asheyr or oshar. This
tree bears a fruit of a reddish-yellow colour, about
three inches in diameter, which contains a white
substance resembling the finest silk, and enveloping
1686 VINE OF SODOM
some seeds, This silk is collected by the Arabs,
and twisted into matches for their firelocks. ¢ Dr.
Robinson (Bib. Res. i. 523), when at “Ain Jidy,
without knowing at the mome:it whether it had
been observed by former travellers or not, instantly
pronounced in favour of the Osher fruit being the
apples of Sodom. His account of this tree is
minute, and may well be quoted :—‘‘ The dsher of
the Arabs,’’ which he identifies with the Asclepias
(Calotropis) procera of botanists, ‘‘ is found in
abundance in Upper Egypt and Nubia, and also
in Arabia Felix; but seems to be confined in
Palestine to the borders of the Dead Sea. We
saw it only at’ Ain Jidy; Hasselquist found it in
the desert between Jericho and the northern shore ;
and Irby and Mangles met with it of large size at
the south end of the sea, and on the isthmus of the
peninsula, We saw here several trees of the kind,
the trunks of which were six or eight inches in
diameter, and the whole height from ten to fifteen
feet. It has a greyish cork-like bark, with long
oval leaves... . it discharges copiously from
its broken leaves and flowers a milky fluid. The
fruit greatly resembles externally a large smooth
apple or orange, hanging in clusters of three
or four together, and when ripe is of a yellow
colour. It was now fair and delicious to the eye,
and soft to the touch; but, on being pressed or
struck, it explodes with a puff, like a bladder or
pnff-ball, leaving in the hand only the shreds of the
thin rind and a few fibres. It is indeed filled
chiefly with air, which gives it the round form
. .. . after a due allowance for the marvellous in
all popular reports, I find nothing which does not
apply almost literally to the fruit of the “Osher, as
we saw it. It must be plucked and handled with
great care, in order to preserve it from bursting.”
Mr. Walter Elliot, in an article “ on the Poma
Sodomitica, or Dead-Sea apples” (Zrans. of the
Entomol. Soc. ii. p. 14, 1857-1840), endeavours
to show that the apples in question are oak galls,
which he found growing plentifully on dwarf oaks
(Quercus infectoria) in the country beyond the Jor-
dan. He tells us that the Arabs asked him to bite one
of these galls, and that they laughed when they saw
his mouth full of dust. ‘*That these galls are the
tiue Dead-Sea apples,” it is added, “ there can no
longer be a question: nothing can be more beauti-
ful than their rich, glossy, purplish-red exterior :
nothing more bitter than their porous and easily
pulverized interior” (p. 16). The opinion of Po-
cocke may, we think, be dismissed at once as being
a most improbable conjecture. The objection to the
Solanum melongena is that the plant is not peculiar
to the shores or neighbourhood of the Sea of Sodom,
but is generally distributed throughout Palestine,
besides which it isnot likely that the fruit of which
Josephus speaks should be represented by occasional
diseased specimens of the fruit of the egg-apple;
a‘ You do not mention the Solanum Sodomaeum, which
I thought bad been quoted as one apple of the Dead Sea,
and which is the plant I always thought to be as probably
the fruit in question as any other. The objection to
S. melongena is, that it is a cultivated plant; to the oak
gall, that it is wholly absent from the Dead Sea dis-
trict, though it answers the description best, so far as
its beautiful exterior and powdery bitter interior are
concerned.
“The Vine of Sodom, again, I always thought might
refer to Cucumis colocynthis [see GourD, App. A], which
is bitter and powdery inside; the term vine would
scarcely be given to any but a trailing or other plant of
the habit of a vine. The objection to the Calotropis
VINEGAR
we must look for some plant, the normal character
of whose fruit comes somewhere nearer to the
required conditions. Seetzen’s plant is the same as
that mentioned by Burckhardt, Irby and Mangles,
and Robinson, 7. 6. the “Osher, Chateaubriand’s
thorny shrub, with fruit like small lemons, may
be the Zukkum (Balanites Aeyyptiaca), but it cer-
tainly cannot be the tree intended. It is not at all
probable that the oak-galls of which Mr. Elliot
speaks should be the fruit in question; because
these being formed on a tree so generally known
as an oak, and being common in all countries,
would not have been a subject worthy of especial
remark, or have been noticed as something peculiar
to the district around the Sea of Sodom. The fruit
of the ’dsher appears to have the best claim to
represent the apples of Sodom; the Calotropis
procera is an Indian plant, and thrives in the
warm valley of ’Ain Jidy, but is scarcely to be
found elsewhere in Palestine, The readiness with
which its fruit, ‘‘fair to the eye,” bursts when
pressed, agrees well with Josephus’s account; and
although there is a want of suitableness between
“the few fibres” of Robinson, and the ‘‘ smoke and
ashes” of the Jewish historian, yet, according to
a note by the editor of Seetzen’s Letters, the fruit
of the Calotropis in winter contains a yellowish dust,
in appearance resembling certain fungi, but of
pungent quality. [W. H.]
VINEGAR (jN: ὄξος : acetum). The He-
brew term chomets was applied to a beverage, con-
sisting generally of wine or strong drink turned
sour (whence its use was proscribed to the Naz-
arite, Num. vi. 3), but sometimes artificially
made by an admixture of barley and wine, and
thus liable to fermentation (Mishn. Pes. 3, §1).
It was acid even to a proverb (Prov. x. 26), and
by itself formed a nauseous draught (Rs. lxix. 21),
but was serviceable for the purpose of sopping
bread, as used by labourers (Ruth ii. 14). The
degree of its acidity may be inferred from Prov.
xxv. 20, where its effect on nitre is noticed. Simi-
lar to the chomets of the Hebrews was the acetum
of the Romans,—a thin, sour wine, consumed by
soldiers (Veget. Re Mil. iv. 7) either in a pure
state, or, more usually, mixed with water, when
it was termed posca (Plin. xix. 29; Spart. Hadr.
10). This was the beverage of which the Saviour
partook in His dying moments (Matt. xxvii. 48 ;
Mark xv. 36; John xix. 29, 30), and doubtless it
was refreshing to His exhausted frame, though
offered in derision either on that occasion or pre-
viously (Luke xxiii. 36). The same liquid, min-
gled with gall (as St. Matthew states, probably
with the view of marking the fulfilment of the
prediction in Ps. Ixix. 21), or with myrrh (as
St. Mark states with an eye to the exact historical
fact»), was offered to the Saviour at an earlier stage
procera (Asclep. gigantea, Lin.) is, that it is very scarce
and not characteristic of the district, being found in one
spot only. The beautiful silky cotton would never
suggest the idea of anything but what is exquisitely
lovely—it is impossible to imagine anything more beau-
tiful: to assume that a diseased state of it was intended,
is arguing ad ignotum ab ignoto, and a very far-fetched
idea.” [J. D. Hooxrr.]
Dr. Hooker's remark, that the term vine must refer to
some plant of the habit of a vine, is conclusive against the
claims of all the plants hitherto identified with the Vine
of Sodom. The C colocynthis alone possesses the required
condition implied in the name. [W. H.]
b St. Mark terms it οἶνος ἐσμυρνισμένος. There is no
΄
VINEYARDS, PLAIN OF THE
of His sufferings, in order to deaden the perception of
pain (Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23), [W.L. B.]
VINEYARDS, PLAIN OF THE (28
DYDD : Ἐβελχαρμείν ; Alex. ABeA ἀαμπελωνων :
Abel quae est vineis consita). This place, men-
tioned only in Judg. xi. 33, has been already noticed
under ABEL (5: see vol. i. p. 4a). To what he
has there said, the writer has only to call atten-
tion to the fact that a ruin bearing the name of
Beit el Kerm,—* house of the vine,’ was encoun-
tered by De Saulcy to the north of Kerak (Narr.
j. 353). This may be the Abel ceramim of Jeph-
thah, if the Aroer named in the same passage is the
place of that name on the Arnon (W. Mojeb). It
is however by no means certain; and indeed the j
probability is that the Ammonites, with the in-
stinct of a nomadic or semi-nomadic people, betook
themselves, when attacked, not to the civilized and
cultivated country of Moab (where Beit-el-Kerm
is situated), but to the spreading deserts towards
the east, where they could disperse themselves after
the usual tactics of such tribes. [G.]
VIOL. For an explanation of the Hebrew word
translated “ viol” see PSALTERY. The old English
viol, like the Spanish viguela, was a six-stringed
guitar. Mr. Chappell (Pop. Mus. i. 246) says
“the position of the fingers was marked on the
fingerboard by frets, as in guitars of the present
day. The ‘ Chest of Viols’ consisted of three, four,
five, or six of different sizes; one for the treble,
others for the mean, the counter-tenor, the tenor,
and perhaps two for the bass.” Etymologically
viol is connected with the Dan. Frol and the A. 8,
frdele, through the Fr. viole, Old Fr. vielle, Med.
Lat. vitella. In the Promptorium Parvulorum we
find “ Fyyele, viella, fidicina, vitella.” Again, in
North’s Plutarch (Antonius, p. 980, ed. 1595) there
is a description of Cleopatra’s barge, ‘‘ the poope
whereof was of gold, the sailes of purple, and the
owers of silver, which kept stroke in rowing after
the sound of the musicke of flutes, howboyes,
cytherns, vyol/s, and such other instruments as
they played vpon in the barge.” {Wie Ae Wiel]
VIPER. [SERPENT.]
VOPH'SI (°D5): Σαβί ; Alex. Ἰαβί: Vapsi).
Father of Nahbi, the spy selected from the tribe of
Naphtali (Num. xiii. 14).
VOWS. The practice of making vows, 7. 6.
incurring voluntary obligations to the Deity, on
fulfilment of certain conditions, such as deliverance
from death or danger, success in enterprises, and
the like, is of extremely ancient date, and common
in all systems of religion. The earliest mention of
a vow is that of Jacob, who, after his vision at
Beth-el, promised that in case of his safe return he
would dedicate to Jehovah the tenth of his goods,
and make the place in which he had set up the
memorial stone a place of worship (Gen. xxviii.
18-22, xxxi. 13). Vows in general are also men-
tioned in the Book-of Job (xxii. 27).
Among instances of heathen usage in this respect
the following passages may be cited: Jer. xliv. 25,
and Jonah i. 16; Hom. Z/. i. 64, 93, vi. 95, 308 ;
Odyss. iii. 382; Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 819; Virg.
difficulty in the application of otvos and ὄξος to the same |
substance; but whether the μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον οἵ
St. Matthew can in any way be identified with the
ἐσμυρνισμένος of Mark, is doubtful.
The term χολή |
VOWS 1687
Georg. 1. 486; Aen. v. 234; Hor. Carm. i. 5,
13, iti. 29, 59; Liv. xxii. 9, 10; Cic. Att. viii.
16; Justin xxi. 3; a passage which speaks of im-
moral vows; Vell. Pat. ii. 48.
The Law therefore did not introduce, but regu-
lated the practice of vows. ‘Three sorts are men-
tioned—I. Vows of devotion, Neder; II. Vows of
abstinence, sar or Lsar;, 11, Vows of destruc-
tion, Cherem.
J. As to vows of devotion, the following rules
are laid down: A man might devote to sacred uses
possessions or persons, but not the first-born either
of man or beast, which was devoted already (Ley.
xxvii. 26.) [Frest-Born. |
a. If he vowed land, he might either redeem it
or not. If he intended to redeem, two points were
to be considered, 1, the rate of redemption ; 2. the
distance, prospectively and retrospectively, from
the year of jubilee. ‘The price of redemption was
fixed at 50 shekels of silver for the quantity of
land which a homer of barley (eight bushels)
would suftice to sow (Lev. xxvii. 16 ; see Knobel),
This payment might be abated under the direction
of the priest according to the distance of time from
the jubilee-year, But at whatever time it was re-
deemed, he was required to add to the redemption-
price one-fifth (20 per cent.) of the estimated value.
If he sold the land in the mean time, it might not
then be redeemed at all, but was to go to the priests
in the jubilee-year (ver. 20).
The purchaser of land, in case he devoted and
also wished to redeem it, was required to pay a
redemption-price according to the priestly valua-
tion first mentioned, but without the additional
fifth. In this case, however, the land was to revert
in the jubilee to its original owner (Lev. xxvii. 16,
24, xxv. 27; Keil, Hebr. Arch. §66, 80).
The valuation here laid down is evidently based
on the notion of annual value. Supposing land to
require for seed about 3 bushels of barley per
acre, the homer, at the rate of 32 pecks, or 8
bushels, would be sufficient for about 24 or 3
acres. Fifty shekels, 25 ounces of silver, at five
shillings the ounce, would give 6/. 5s., and the
yearly valuation would thus amount to about 2/.
per acre,
The owner who wished to redeem, would thus
be required to pay either an annual rent or a
redemption-price answering to the number of years
short of the jubilee, but deducting Sabbatical years
(Lev. xxv. 3, 15, 16), and adding a fifth, or 20
per cent. in either case. Thus, if a man devoted
an acre of land in the jubilee year, and redeemed it
in the same year, he would pay a redemption price
of 49-6=43 years’ value, + 20 per cent.=
1030. 4s., or an annual rent of 2/. 8s. ; a rate by
no means excessive when we consider, 1, the
prospect of restoration in the jubilee; 2. the un-
doubted fertility of the soil, which even now, under
all disadvantages, sometimes yields an hundredfold
(Burckhardt, Syria, p. 297).
If he refused or was unable to redeem, either the
next of kin (Goel) came forward, as he had liberty
to do, or, if no redemption was effected, the land
became the property of the priests (Ley. xxv. 20,
Xxvil. 21; Ruth ii. 12, iv. 1, &c.).
In the case of a house devoted, its value was to
may well have been applied to some soporific substance.
a D997), from V7, “to make vow” (Ges. 855). See
τὴν Bo ia
also ANATHEMA.
1688 VOWS
be assessed by the priest, and a fifth added to the
redemption price in case it was redeemed (Lev.
xxvii. 15). Whether the rule held good regarding
houses in walled cities, viz., that the liberty of
redemption lasted only for one year, is not certain ;
but as it does not appear, that houses devoted but
not redeemed became the property of the priests,
and as the Levites and priests had special towns
assigned to them, if seems likely that the price
only of the house, and not the house itself, was
made over to sacred uses, and thus that the act of
consecration of a house means, in fact, the consecra-
tion of its value. The Mishna, however, says, that
if a devoted house fell down, the owner was not
liable to payment, but that he was liable if he had
devoted the value of the house ( Hracin, v. 5).
ὃ. Animals fit for sacrifice, if devoted, were not
to be redeemed or changed, and if a man attempted
to do so, he was required to bring both the devotee
and the changeling (Let. xxvii. 9, 10, 33). They
were to be free from blemish (Mal. i. 14). An
animal unfit for sacrifice might be redeemed, with
the addition to the priest’s valuation of a fitth,
or it became the property of the priests, Lev. xxvii.
12,13. [OFFERING.]
c. The case of persons devoted stood thus: A
man might devote either himself, his child (not the
first-born), or his slave. If no redemption took
place, the devoted person became a slave of the
sanctuary—see the case of Absalom (2 Sam. xv. ὃ 5
Michaelis, 8124, ii. 166, ed. Smith). [Nazarire. ]
Otherwise he might be redeemed at a valuation
according to age and sex, on the following scale
(Lev. xxvii. 1-7):
A. 1, A male from one month to5 yearsold, εξ, 8. d.
5 shekels . ae ree Με Gate =) 1S
2. From 5 years to 20 years, 20 shekels . =210 0
3. From 20 years to 60 years, 50 shekels. =6 5 0
4. Above 60 years, 15 shekels . esse Ὁ
B. 1. Females from one mouth to 5 years,
3 shekels . Sieyrede ot aoa =0 7 6
2. From 5 years to 20 years, 10 shekels . =1 5 0
3. From 20 years to 60 years, 30 shekels. =3 15 0
4. Above 60 years, 10 shekels . . ——- sO)
If the person were too poor to pay the redemption
price, his value was to be estimated by the priest,
not, as Michaelis says, the civil magistrate (Lev.
xxvii. 8; Deut. xxi. 5; Mich. §145, ii. 283).
Among general regulations affecting vows, the
following may be mentioned :—
1. Vows were entirely voluntary, but once made
were regarded as compulsory, and evasion of per-
formance of them was held to be contrary to true
religion (Num, xxx. 2; Deut. xxiii. 21; Eccl. v. 4).
2. If persons in a dependent condition made
vows, as (@) an unmarried daughter living in her
father’s honse, or (0) a wife, even if she afterwards
became a widow, the vow, if (a) in the first case
her father, or (>) in the second, her husband heard
and disallowed it, was void; but if they heard
without disallowance, it was to remain good (Num.
xxx. 5-16). Whether this principle extended to
all children and to slaves is wholly uncertain, as
no mention is made of them in Scripture, nor by
Philo when he discusses the question (de Spec. Leg.
6, ii. 274, ed. Mangey). Michaelis thinks the
omission of sons implies absence of power to control
them (§83, i. 447).
3. Votive offerings arising from the produce of
any impure traffic were wholly forbidden (Deut.
xxili. 18). A question has risen on this part of
the subject as to the meaning of the word celeb,
VULGATE, THE
dog, which is understood to refer either to immoral
intercourse of the grossest kind, or literally and
simply to the usual meaning of the word. The
prohibition against dedication to sacred uses of gain
obtained by female prostitution was doubtless
directed against the practice which prevailed in
Phoenicia, Babylonia, and Syria, of which mention
is made in Lev. xix. 29; Baruch vi. 43; Herod.
1.199; Strabo, p. 561; August. de civ. Dei, iv.
10, and other authorities quoted by Spencer, (de
| leg. Hebr. ii. 35, p. 566). Following out this
view, and bearing in mind the mention made in
2K, xxiii. 7, of a practice evidently connected with
idolatrous worship, the word celeb has been some-
times rendered cinaedus; some haye understood it
to refer to the first-born, but Spencer himself,
ii. 35, p. 572 ; Josephus, Ant. iv. 8, §9 ; Gesen. ii.
| 685, and the Mishna, Témurah, vi. 3, all under-
stand dog in the literal sense. [ Doc. |
IL, 1Π|. For vows of abstinence, see CORBAN ;
and for vows of extermination, ANATHEMA, and
Ἐν Χο 8... Mics ive la:
Vows in general and their binding force as a test
of religion are mentioned—Job xxii. 27; Prov. vii.
14; Ps. xxii. 25, 1. 14, lvi. 12, Ixvi. 13, exvi. 145
Is. xix. 21; Nah. i. 15.
Certain refinements on votive consecrations are
noticed in the Mishna, 6. g.:
1. No evasion of a vow was to be allowed which
substituted a part for the whole, as, “1 vowed a
sheep but not the bones” (eda. ii. 5).
2. A man devoting an ox or a house, was not
liable if the ox was lost, or the house fell down;
but otherwise, if he had devoted the value of the
one or the other of these.
3. No devotions might be made within two
years before the jubilee, nor redemptions within
the year following it. If a son redeemed his
| father’s land, he was to restore it to him in the
jubilee (Zrac. vii. 3).
4, A man might devote some of his flock, herd,
and heathen slaves, but not all these (cbd. viii. 4).
5. Devotions by priests were not redeemable, but
were transferred to other priests (7)..6).
6. A man who vowed not to sleep on a bed, might
sleep on askin ifhe pleased (Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 673).
7. The sums of money arising from votive con-
secrations were divided into two parts, sacred (1) to
the altar ; (2) to the repairs of the Temple (Reland,
Ant. c. x. 84).
It seems that the practice of shaving the head at
the expiration of a votive period, was not limited to
the Nazaritic vow (Acts xviii, 18, xxi. 24).
The practice of vows in the Christian Church,
though evidently not forbidden, as the instance just
quoted serves to show, does not come within the
scope of the present article (see Bingham, Antiq.
xvi. 7, 9, and Suicer, εὐχή). [ΕΠ ΠΕ ΩΙ
VULGATE, THE. (Latrmn VERSIONS OF
THE Bree.) The influence which the Latin Ver-
sions of the Bible have exercised upon Western
Christianity is scarcely less than that of the LXX.
upon the Greek Churches. But both the Greek
and the Latin Vulgates have been long neglected.
The revival of letters, bringing with it the study of
the original texts of Holy Scripture, checked for a
time the study of these two great bulwarks of the
Greek and Latin Churches, for the LXX. in fact
| belongs rather to the history of Christianity than to
| the history of Judaism, and, in spite of recent
labours, their importance is even now hardly recog-
|
VULGATE, THE
nised. In the case of the Vulgate, ecclesiastical
controversies have still further impeded all efforts
of liberal criticism. The Romanist (till lately)
regarded the Clementine text as fixed beyond appeal ;
the Protestant shrank from examining a subject
which seemed to belong peculiarly to the Romanist.
Yet, apart from all polemical questions, the Vulgate
should have a very deep interest for all the Western
Churches. For many centuries it was the only
Bible generally used; and, directly or indirectly, it
is the real parent of all the vernacular versions of
Western Europe. The Gothic Version of Ulphilas
alone is independent of it, for the Slavonic and mo-
dern Russian versions are necessarily not taken into
account. With England it has a peculiarly close
connexion. ‘The earliest translations made from it
were the (lost) books of Bede, and the Glosses on
the Psalms and Gospels of the 8th and 9th cen-
turies (ed. Thorpe, Lond. 1835, 1842). In the
10th century Aelfric translated considerable por-
tions of the O, T. (Heptateuchus, &c., ed. Thwaites,
Oxon. 1698). But the most important monument
of its influence is the great English Version of
Wiclif (1324-1384, ed. Forshall and Madden, Uxtd.
1850), which is a literal rendering of the current
Vulgate text. In the age of the Reformation the
Vulgate was rather the guide than the source of
the popular versions. ‘The Romanist translations
into German (Michaelis, ed. Marsh, ii. 107),
French, Italian, and Spanish, were naturally de-
rived from the Vulgate (R. Simon, Hist. Crit. Ν.
T. Cap. 28, 29, 40,41). Of others, that of Luther
(N. T. in 1523) was the most important, and in this
the Vulgate had great weight, though it was made
with such use of the originals as was possible.
From Luther the influence of the Latin passed to
our own Authorised Version. Tyndale had spent
some time abroad, and was acquainted with Luther
before he published his version of the N. T. in
1526. Tyndale’s version of the O. T., which was
unfinished at the time of his martyrdom (1536),
was completed by Coverdale, and in this the in-
fluence of the Latin and German translations was
predominant. A proof of this remains in the Psalter
of the Prayer Book, which was taken from the
“ Great English Bible” (1539, 1540), which was
merely a new edition of that called Matthew’s,
which was itself taken from Tyndale and Coverdale.
This version of the Psalms follows the Gallican
Psalter, a revision of the Old Latin, made by
Jerome, and afterwards introduced into his new
translation (comp. §22), and differs in many re-
spects from the Hebrew text (e.g. Ps. xiv.). It
would be out of place to follow this question into
detail here. It is enough to remember that the
first translators of our Bible had been familiarised
with the Vulgate from their youth, and could not
have cast off the influence of early association. But
the claims of the Vulgate to the attention of
scholars rest on wider grounds, It is not only the
source of our current theological terminology, but
it is, in one shape or other, the most important early
witness to the text and interpretation of the whole
Bible. The materials available for the accurate
study of it are unfortunately at present as scanty
as those yet unexamined are rich and varied (comp.
§ 30). The chief original works bearing on the
Vulgate generally are—
R. Simon, Histoire Critique du V. T, 1678-85:
NV. T. 1689-93.
Hody, De Bibliorum
textibus originalibus,
Oxon. 1705.
VULGATE, THE 1689
Martianay, Hieron. Opp. (Paris, 1693, with the
prefaces and additions of Vallarsi, Verona, 1734,
and Maffei, Venice, 1767).
Bianchini (Blanchinus not Blanchini), Vindiciae
Canon. SS. Vulg. Lat. Edit. Romae, 1740.
Bukentop, Lux de Luce... Bruxellis, 1710.
Sabatier, Bibl. SS. Lat. Vers. Ant., Remis,
1743.
Van Ess, Pragmatisch-kritische Gesch. d. Vuly.
Tiibingen, 1824.
Vercellone, Variae Lectiones Vulg. Lat. Bibli-
orum, tom. i., Romae, 1860; tom. ii., pars prior,
1862.
In addition to these there are the controversial
works of Mariana, Bellarmin, Whitaker, Fulke, &c.,
and numerous essays by Calmet, D. Schulz, Fleck,
Riegler, &c., and in the N. T. the labours of Bent-
ley, Sanftl, Griesbach, Schulz, Lachmann, Tre-
gelles, and Tischendorf, have collected a great
amount of critical materials. But it is not too
much to say that the noble work of Vercellone has
made an epoch in the study of the Vulgate, and
the chief results which follow from the first in-
stalment of his collations are here fer the first time
incorporated in its history. The subject will be
treated under the following heads :—
I. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE NAME
VULGATE. §§ 1-3.
Il. THe OLD Latin Versions. §§4-13. Ori-
gin, 4-5, Character, 6. Canon, 7. Revisions:
Itala, 8-11. Remains, 12-13.
Ili. Tue Lasours oF JEROME. §§ 14-20.
Occasion, 14. Revision of Old Latin of N. T., 15-
17. Gospels, 15-16. Acts, Epistles, &c., 17.
Revision of Ὁ. T. from the LXX., 18, 19. Tyans-
lation of O. T. from the Hebrew, 20.
IV. THe History oF JEROME’S TRANSLATION
TO THE INTRODUCTION OF PRINTING. §§ 21-24.
Corruption of Jerome’s text, 21-22. Revision of
Alcuin, 23. Later revisions: divisions of the text,
24,
V. THE History OF THE PRINTED TEXT.
§§ 25-29. arly editions, 25. The Sixtine and
Clementine Vulgates, 26. Their relative merits,
27. Later editions, 28, 29.
VI. THe MATERIALS FOR THE REVISION OF
JEROME’S TEXT. §§ 30-32. MSS. of O. T., 30,
Bile | Off Laie Lies BV
VII. THe CRITICAL VALUE OF THE LATIN
VERSIONS. §§ 33-39. in Ὁ. T., 33. Jn N. T.,
34-38. Jerome’s Revision, 34-36. The Old Latin,
37. Interpretation, 39.
VII. THE LANGUAGE OF THE LATIN VER-
SIONS. §§ 40-45. Provincialisms, 41,42. Grae-
cisms, 43. Influence on Modern Language, 45.
I, THe ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE NAME
VULGATE.—1. The name Vulgate, which is equi-
valent to Vulgata editio (the current text of Holy
Scripture), has necessarily been used differently in
various ages of the Church. There can be no
doubt that the phrase originally answered to the
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Greek Scriptures. In this
sense it is used constantly by Jerome in his Com-
mentaries, and his language explains sufliciently
the origin of the term: ‘* Hoc juxta LXX. interpretes
diximus, quorum editio toto orbe vulgata est”
(Hieron. Comm. in Is. lxv. 20). “ Multum in hoe
loco LXX. editio Hebraicumque discordant. Pri-
mum ergo de Vulgata editione tractabimus et
postea sequemur ordinem veritatis” (id. xxx. 22),
In some places Jerome distinctly quotes the Greek
1690 VULGATE, THE
text: ‘ Porro in editione Vulgata dupliciter legimus ;
quidam enim codices habent δῆλοί εἶσιν, hoc est
manifesti sunt: alii δειλαῖοί εἰσιν, hoc est meticu-
losi sive miseri sunt” (Comm. in Osce, vii. 13 ; comp.
8-11, &c.). But generally he regards the Old
Latin, which was rendered from the LXX., as sub-
stantially identical with it, and thus introduces
Latin quotations under the name of the LXX. or
Vulgata editio: “ ... miror quomodo vulgata edi-
tio . . . testimonium alia interpretatione subver-
terit: Congregabor et glorificabor coram Domino.
. - - Illud autem quod in LXX. legitur: Congre-
gabor et glorificabor coram Domino .. .” (Comm.
in Is, xlix.5). So again: “ Philisthaeos . . . alieni-
genas Vulgata scribit editio” (ib. xiv. 29). “...
Palaestinis, quos indifferenter LXX. alienigenas vo-
cant” (in Ezek, xvi. 27). In this way the trans-
ference of the name from the current Greek text
to the current Latin text became easy and natural ;
but there does not appear to be any instance in the
age of Jerome of the application of the term to the
Latin Version of the O. T. without regard to its
derivation from the LXX., or to that of the N. T.
2. Yet more: as the phrase κοινὴ ἔκδοσις came
to signify an uncorrected (and so corrupt) text, the
same secondary meaning was attached to vulgata
editio. Thus in some places the vulgata editio
stands in contrast with the true Hexaplaric text of
the LXX. One passage will place this in the clearest
light: “... . breviter admoneo aliam esse editionem
quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius, omnesque
Graeciae translatores κοινὴν, id est, communem ap-
pellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nune Aov-
κιανὸς dicitur; aliam LXX. interpretum quae in
ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et anobis in Latinum
sermonem fideliter versa est... Κοινὴ autem
ἰδία, hoc est, Communis editio, ipsa est quae et
LXX., sed hoc interest inter utramque, quod
kowvy pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate
scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est; ea autem
quae habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus,
ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et
immaculata LXX. interpretum translatio reservatur”
(Ep. evi. ad Sun. et Fret. § 2).
3. This use of the phrase Vulgata editio to de-
scribe the LXX. (and the Latin Version of the
LXX.) was continued to later times. It is sup-
ported by the authority of Augustine, Ado of
Vienne (A.D. 860), R. Bacon, &c. ; and Bellarmin
distinctly recognizes the application of the term, so
that Van Ess is justified in saying that the Council
of Trent erred in a point of history when they de-
scribed Jerome’s Version as “vetus et vulgata
editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa
ecclesia probata est” (Van Ess, Gesch. 34). As
a general rule, the Latin Fathers speak of Je-
rome’s Version as ‘‘our”’ Version (nostra editio,
nostri codices); but it was not unnatural that the
Tridentine Fathers (as many later scholars) should
be misled by the associations of their own time,
and adapt to new circumstances terms which had
grown obsolete in their original sense. And when
ἃ This has been established with the greatest fulness
by Card. Wiseman, 7wo Letters on 1 John v. 7, addressed
to the editor of the Catholic Magazine, 1832-3; republished
with additions, Rome, 1835; and again in his collected
Essays, vol. i. 1853. Eichhorn and Hug had maintained
the same opinion ; and Lachmann has further confirmed it
WW. T. i. Praef.).
b In the absence of all evidence it is impossible to say
how far the Christians of the Italian provinces used the
Greek or Latin language habitually.
VULGATE, THE
the difference of the (Greek) “ Vulgate” of the early
Church, and the (Latin) “‘ Vulgate”’ of the modern
Roman Church has once been apprehended, no
further difficulty need arise from the identity of
name. (Compare Augustine, Hd. Benedict. Paris,
1836, tom. V, p. xxxiii.; Sabatier, i. 792; Van Ess,
Gesch, 24-42, who gives very full and conclusive
references, though he fails to perceive that the Old
Latin was practically identified with the LXX.)
II. Tue OLp Latin VERsIons.—4. The history
of the earliest Latin Version of the Bible is lost in
complete obscurity. All that can be affirmed with
certainty is that it was made in Afiica.# During
the first two centuries the Church of Rome, to
which we naturally look for the source of the
version now identified with it, was essentially Greek.
The Roman bishops bear Greek names; the earliest
Roman liturgy was Greek; the few remains of the
Christian literature of Rome are Greek.b The same
remark holds true of Gaul (comp. Westcott, Hist.
of Canon of N. T. pp. 269, 270, and reff.) ; but
the Church of N. Africa seems to have been Latin-
speaking from the first. At what date this Church
was founded is uncertain. A passage of Augustine
(ec. Donat. Ep. 37) seems to imply that Africa was
converted late; but if so, the Gospel spread there
with remarkable rapidity. At the end of the second
century Christians were found in every rank, and
in every place; and the master-spirit of Tertul-
lian, the first of the Latin Fathers, was then raised
up to give utterance to the passionate thoughts of his
native Church. It is therefore from Tertullian that
we must seek the earliest testimony to the existence
and character of the Old Latin ( Vetus Latina).
5. On the first point the evidence of TERTULLIAN,
if candidly examined, is decisive. He distinctly re-
cognizes the general currency of a Latin Version of
the N. T., though not’ necessarily of every book at
present included in the Canon, which even in his
time had been able to mould the popular language
(adv. Prax. 5: In usu est nostrorum per simplici-
tatem interpretationis ... De Monog.11: Sciamus
plane non sic esse in Graeco authentico quomodo in
usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut
simplicem eversionem . . .). This was characterized
by a “rudeness” and “ simplicity,” which seems
to point to the nature of its origin. In the words
of Augustine (De doctr. Christ. ii. 16 (11) ), “any
one in the first ages of Christianity who gained
possession of a Greek MS., and fancied that he had
a fair knowledge of Greek and Latin, ventured to
translate it.” (Qui scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in
Graecam verterunt numerari possunt ; Latini autem
interpretes nullo modo, Ut enim cuivis primis
fidei temporibus in manus venit Codex Graecus, et
aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere
videbatur, ausus est interpretari.)¢ Thus the ver-
sion of the N. T. appears to have arisen from indi-
vidual and successive efforts ; but it does not follow
by any means that numerous versions were simul-
taneously circulated, or that the several parts of
the version were made independently.4 Even if it
¢ Card. Wiseman has shown (Hssays, i. 24, 25) that
“interpretor”? and “verto’’ may be used of a revision ;
but in connexion with primis fidei temporibus they seem
certainly to describe the origin of the Version.
4 It would be out of place here to point out minute
differences in rendering which show that the translation
was the work of different hands. Mill (Prolegg. 521 ff.)
has made some interesting collections to establish this
result, but be places too much reliance on the version
of D, (Cod. Bezae).
VULGATE, THE
had been so, the exigencies of the public service
must soon have given definiteness and substantial
unity to the fragmentary labours of individuals.
The work of private hands would necessarily be sub-
ject to revision for ecclesiastical use. The separate
books would be united in a volume; and thus a
standard text of the whole collection would be esta-
blished. With regard to the O. T. the case is less
clear. It is probable that the Jews who were settled
in N. Africa were confined to the Greek towns ;
otherwise it might be supposed that the Latin
Version of the O. T. is in part anterior to the
Christian era, and that (as in the case of Greek) a
preparation for a Christian Latin dialect was already
made when the Gospel was introduced into Africa.
However this may have been, the substantial simi-
larity of the different parts of the Old and New
Testaments establishes a real connexion between
them, and justifies the belief that there was one
popular Latin version of the Bible current in Africa
in the last quarter of the second century. Many
words which are either Greek (machaera, sophia,
perizoma, poderis, agonizo, &c.) or literal transla-
tions of Greek forms (vivitico, justifico, &c.) abound
_ in both, and explain what Tertullian meant when
he spoke of the “ simplicity’’ of the translation
(compare below § 43).
6. The exact literality of the Old Version was
not confined to the most minute observance of order
and the accurate reflection of the words of the ori-
ginal: in many cases the very forms of Greek
construction were retained in violation of Latin
usage. A few examples of these singular anomalies
will convey a better idea of the absolute certainty
with which the Latin commonly indicates the text
which the translator had before him, than any general
statements: Matt. iv. 13, habitavit in Capharnaum
maritimam ; id. 15, terra Neptalim vzam maris ; id.
25, ab Jerosolymis . . . et trans Jordanem; v. 22,
reus erit in gchennam ignis; vi. 19, ubi tinea et
comestura exterminat. Mark xii. 31, majus horum
praeceptorum aliud non est. Luke x. 19, nihil vos
nocebit. Acts xix. 26, non solum Ephesi sed paene
VULGATE, THE
accusantium vel etiam defendentium. 1 Cor. vii.
32, sollicitus est quae sunt Domini. It is obvious
that there was a continual tendency to alter expres-
sions like these, and in the first age of the Version
it is not improbable that the continual Graecism
which marks the Latin texts of D, (Cod. Bezae),
and Ky ( Cod. Laud.), had a wider currency than it
could maintain afterwards,
7. With regard to the African Canon of the
N. T. the old Version offers important evidence.
From considerations of style and language it seems
certain that the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, and
2 Peter, did not form part of the original African
Version, a conclusion which falls in with that which
is derived from historical testimony (comp. The
Hist. of the Canon of the N. T. p. 282 ff.). In
the O. T., on the other hand, the Old Latin erred
by excess and not by defect ; for as the Version was
made from the current copies of the LXX., it included
the Apocryphal books which are commonly contained
in them, and to these 2 Esdras was early added.
8. After the translation once received a definite
shape in Africa, which could not have been long
after the middle of the second century, it was not
publicly revised. The old text was jealously guarded
by ecclesiastical use, and was retained there at a
time when Jerome’s version was elsewhere almost
universally received. The well-known story of the
disturbance caused by the attempt of an African
bishop to introduce Jerome’s “ cucurbita’”’ for the
oll “ hedera” in the history of Jonah (August. Ep.
civ. ap. Hieron. Epp., quoted by Tregelles, Intro-
duction, p. 242) shows how carefully intentional
changes were avoided. But at the same time the
text suffered by the natural corruptions of copying,
especially by interpolations, a form of error to
which the Gospels were particularly exposed (comp.
§ 15). In the Ο. T. the version was made from
the unrevised edition of the LXX., and thus from
the first included many false readings, of which
Jerome often notices instances (e.g. Ep. cvi. ad
Sun. et Fret.). In Table A two texts of the Old
Latin are placed for comparison with the Vulgate
1691
totius Asiae.
Cod. Wirceb.
Precatus sum Dominum Deum
meum et dixi: ‘
Domine Deus, magne et mirabilis,
qui servas testamentum tuum,
et misericordiam diligentibus te,
et servantibus praecepta tua:
Peccavimus, fecimus injurias,
nocuimus et declinayimus
a praeceptis tuis et a judiciis tuis,
et non exaudivimus servos tuos pro-
fetas,
qui loquebantur ad reges nostros,
et ad omnes populos terrae.
Tibi, Domine, justitia :
nobis autem, et fratribus nostris,
confusio faciei ;
Sicut dies hic viro Judae
et inhabitantibus Hierusalem,
et omni Israel,
qui proximi sunt et qui longe sunt,
in qua eos disseminasti ibi,
contumacia eorum,
qua exprobaverunt tibi, Domine,
Rom. ii. 15, inter se cogitationwn
of Jerome.
TABLE A. DAN. ix. 4-8.¢
August. Hp. cxi. ad Victor.
Precatus sum Dominum Deummeum,
et confessus sum et dixi:
Domine Deus, magne et mirabilis,
et qui servas testamentum tuum,
et misericordiam diligentibus te,
et servantibus praecepta tua:
Peccavimus, adversus legem fecimus,
impie egimus et recessimus et de-
clinavimus
a praeceptis tuis et a judiciis tuis,
et non exaudivimus servos tuos pro-
phetas,
qui loquebantur im nomine tuo ad
reges nostros,
et ad omnem populwim terrae.
Tibi, Domine, justitia :
nobis autem
confusio faciei ;
Sicut dies hic viro Juda,
et habitantibus Jerusalem,
et omni Israel,
qui proximi sunt et qui longe sunt,
in omni terra in qua eos dissemi-
nasti ibi,
propter contumaciam eorum,
quia improbaverunt te, Domine.
Vulgata nova.
Oravi Dominum Deum meum,!
et confessus sum? et dixi:
Obsecro Domine Deus, magne et ter-
ribilis,
custodiens pactum,
et misericordiam diligentibus te,
et custodientibus mandata tua:
Peccavimus, iniquitatem% fecimus,
impie egimus, et recessimus et de-
clinavimus
ἃ mandatis tuis ac judiciis,
Non obedivimus servis tuis pro-
phetis,
qui locuti sunt in nomine tuo regibus
nostris,
principibus nostris, patribus nostris,
omnique populo terrae.
Tibi, Domine, justitia :
nobis autem +
confusio faciei ;
Sicut est hodie viro Juda5
et habitatoribus Jerusalem,
et omni Israel,
his qui prope sunt, et his qui procul,
in universis terris ad quas ejecisti
605
propter iniquitates eorum,
wm quibus peccaverunt in te.
e The differences in the two first columns are marked by italics. The
italics in col. 3 mark where the text of Jerome differs from both the other
texts.
2 ete. s.om. Tol.
4 a. om. Tol.
» m.om. Tol.
3 inique, Tol.
5 Judae, Tol.
1692 VULGATE, THE
9. The Latin translator of Irenaeus was pro-
bably contemporary with Tertullian,f and his
renderings of the quotations from Scripture con-
firm the conclusions which have been already drawn
as to the currency of (substantially) one Latin
version. It does not appear that he had a Latin
MS. before him during the execution of his work,
but he was so familiar with the common transla-
tion that he reproduces continually characteristic
phrases which he cannot be supposed to have
derived from any other source (Lachmann, JV. 7.
i, pp. x. xi.). CYPRIAN (f A.D. 257) carries on
the chain of testimony far through the next cen-
tury ; and he is followed by Lactantius, Juvencus,
J. Firmicus Maternus, Hmtary the deacon (Am-
brosiaster), HILARY of Poitiers (¢ A.D. 449), and
Lucirer of Cagliari (f A.D. 370). Ambrose
and Augustine exhibit a peculiar recension of the
same text, and Jerome offers some traces of it.
From this date MSS. of parts of the African text
have been preserved (§12), and it is unnecessary
to trace the history of its transmission to a later
time.
10. But while the earliest Latin Version was
preserved generally unchanged in N. Africa, it fared
differently in Italy. There the provincial rudeness
of the version was necessarily more offensive, and
the comparative familiarity of the leading bishops
with the Greek texts made a revision at once more
feasible and less startling to their congregations.
Thus in the fourth century a definite ecclesiastical
recension (of the Gospels at least) appears to have
been made in N. Italy by reference to the Greek,
which was distinguished by the name of Jtala.
This Augustine recommends on the ground of its
close accuracy and its perspicuity (Aug. De Doctr.
Christ. 15, in ipsis interpretationibus Itala& caeteris
praeferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum per-
spicuitate sententiae), and the text of the Gospels
which he follows is marked by the latter charac-
teristic when compared with the African. In the
other books the difference cannot be traced with
accuracy ; and it has not yet been accurately deter-
mined whether other national recensions may not
have existed (as seems certain from the evidence
which the writer has collected) in Ireland (Britain),
Gaul, and Spain.
11. The Jtaia appears to have been made in
some degree with authority: other revisions were
made for private use, in which such changes were
introduced as suited the taste of scribe or critic.
The next stage in the deterioration of the text was
the intermixture of these various revisions; so that
at the close of the fourth century the Gospels were
in such a state as to call for that final recension
which was made by Jerome. What was the nature
of this confusion will be seen from the accompanying
tables (B and C, on opposite page) more clearly
than from a lengthened description.
12. The MSS. of the Old Latin’which have been
VULGATE, THE
preserved exhibit the various forms of that version
which have been already noticed. Those of the
Gospels, for the reason which has been given, pre-
sent the different types of text with unmistakeable
clearness. In the O. T. the MS. remains are too
scanty to allow of a satisfactory classification.
i. MSS. of the Old Latin Version of the Ὁ, T.
1. Fragments of Gen. (xxxvii., xxxviii., xli.,
xlvi., xlviii.-l., parts) and Ex, (x., xi., xvi.,
xvii., xxiii.—xxvii., parts) from Cod. E ($30)
of the Vulgate: Vercellone, i. pp. 183-4,
307-10.
2. Fragments (scattered verses) of the Penta-
teuch: Miinter, Miscell. Hafn. 1821, pp.
89-95.
3. Fragments (scattered verses of 1, 2 Sam.
and 1, 2 Kings, and the Canticles), given by
Sabatier.
4. Corbei. 7, Saec. xiii. (Sabatier), Esther.
5. Pechianus (Sabatier), Fragm. Esther.
6. Orat. (Sabatier), Esther i.-iii.
7. Majoris Monast. Saec. xii. (Martianay, Sa-
batier), Job.
8. Sangerm. Psalt. Saec. vii. (Sabatier).
9, Fragments of Jeremiah (xiv.—xli., detached
verses), Ezekiel (xl.—xlviii., detached frag-
ments), Daniel (iii. 15-23, 33-50, viil., ΧΙ.»
fragments), Hosea (ii.—vi., fragments), from
a palimpsest MS. at Wiirzburg (Saec. vi.,
vii.): Miinter, Miscell. Hafn. 1821.
11. Fragmenta Hos. Am. Mich..... ed.
E. Ranke, 1858, ἄς, (This book the writer
has not seen.)
12. Bodl. Auct. F. 4, 32. Fragments of
Deuteronomy and the Prophets, ‘* Graece et
Latine litteris Saxonicis,” Sec. viii. ix.b
ii. MSS. of the Apocryphal books.
1. Reg. 3564, Saec. ix. (Sabatier), Tob, and Jud.
2,3. Sangerm. 4, 15, Saec. ix. (Sabatier),
Tob. and Jud.
4. Vatic. (Reg. Suec.), Saec. vii., Tob.
5. Corbei. 7 (Sabatier), Jud.
6. Pechian. (Sabatier), Saec. x., Jud.
The text of the remaining books of the Vetus
Latina not having been revised by Jerome
is retained in MSS. of the Vulgate.
iii. MSS. of the N. T.
(1.) Of the Gospels.
African (7. e: unrevised) text.
a. Cod. Vercellensis, at Vercelli, written
by Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli in the
4th cent. Published by Irici, 1748,
and Bianchini, Ev. Quadr. 1749.
ὁ. Cod. Veronensis, at Verona, of the 4th
or 5th cent. Published by Bianchini
(as above).
ὁ. Cod. Colbertinus, in Bibl. Imp. at
Paris, of the 11th cent. Published by
Sabatier, Versiones antiquac.
f It should be added that Dodwell places him much
later, at the close of the 4th cent. Comp. Grabe, Prolegc.
ad Iren. ii. § 3.
g It is unnecessary now to examine the conjectures
which have been proposed, wsitata-quae, illa-quae. ‘Vhey
were made at a time when the history of the Old Latin
was unknown.
h To these must probably be added the MSS. of Genesis
and the Psalter in the possession of Lord Ashburnaam,
said to be “of the fourth century.”
The text of the Oxford MS. (No. 12) is extremely
interesting, and offers many coincidences with the earliest
African readings. The passages contained in it are
(a) Deut. xxxi. 75 24-305; xxxii. 1-4. (8) Hos. ii. 1845
iv. 1-3a5 9a; vi. 1b, 25 165 x. 12q@5 xii. 6; vili. 3, 4
Amos iii. 8; v. 35.14. Mich. iii. 25 iv. 1, 25 5 (part);
v. 23 vi. 8; vii. 6, 7. Joel iii. 18. Obad. 15. Jon. i.
80,9. Nah. iii.13. Hab. 11. 4 ὃ ; iii. 3. Zepban.i. 14-16;
18 (part). Agg.ii.7,8. Zech. i.4 (part); viii. 16,17, 19b;
ix. 91 xili. 5; 7. Mal. i. 6 (part), 100,113 11. 7; iii. 1,
Zech.ii.863; Mal. iv.2,13; 5, θα. (y) Gen. i. 1-ii. 3; Ex.
xiv. 24-xv. 33 Is. iv. l-v. 73 lv. 1-55 Ps. xli. 1-4; Gen.
xxii. 1-19.
1693
θην πο "τὼ μι "7059: “UUM ὯΡΉ “ITIA 19 "XXX ‘pubou ‘nbuny “χη
Ὃ Ἴοτι ‘sod ‘m0 “2 η9Ριιθοϑι *d ound 9 (079 “17 πο) ynbY wngnqanow 9a
‘osup wagnn ‘bun “Ὅ90 wnaQuanbun) ΡΥ ΦΉ ΘΗ apaIA1QaD ΒΉ (11 UL Ὅ Ὃ “sNUYosN.Y UE “UWNnLapNL | DANA “ΘγὈ}ττπ τ τ} Anyvqauay onbunovnh Ὁ ivqay snuvs oenby wouonyout ysod wwvuyostd ur yassypusos
:(Uoxrg-o[Suy) spedson pwof.vay Jo suoyyrpINA ‘sndwuaz uC waguaonG ‘uz πο ‘wypinb “Ἢ 292 19} | -ap Jond ind 11 ‘snun oyMQnuUns 29 ΘΠ} ἀπηθαθλοτα yo AVUTOS|d UT yvqopuadsop 9 due, tanpunoes
“1 ὍΟΗΡ Ὁ avnby wnjow ysod *f srnums “wmwognjpu ‘snd ‘a anb swonby ynqoaow 29 ‘asd U2 gogap | Taq, Toye snpesuy "ppwsyjaq aporw.iqgay “μιν 050.(91}} τοὶ 1886 ὭΡΡΥ “IN Ἢ JO SsuoNVvA 1
-uaosip *(SIq) s2waposnwayy 70.190 sayp—: (STAT) ZOST ΜΌΠ JO suonewA αὶ
sutifur *qauag “onnb “fur "100 79
VULGATE, THE
doy snuvs stA
τὸ 2101} yaqny sud
«ἴπ01 wl anjgnu einb Jasstaousoo 19
{π0} 900} STI JOSSIpPIA tM oUNT
wNS IVIL we
suoquy souuv
wopnd outoy τηι Woy Ne 7015
ungnqaua,
anbuinsonb asonbum Ὁ yeqay suues
aenbe wauoyou ysod
yossipusosip snawd ofa anbonb
wonby yoqarou 4a
wmpursrd ur yoqapurdsyp
sndtmo} umpunoas zug Wleyne snjosuy
umjour avnbe
mnyUeyedxe WNAOpLIe
τὰπ ΟΡ 70 wNAdd9RO wnayuUaNnbuny
BUSvIN ΟΡΠΊΠΠτι 286 900} sty Ur
ΒΙΠΘΟΌΠ 5ποτηιοα enbuinb
opwspag 90ι9.η 7 WMyruyut0usos aenb
vutosid voryrqoid wadns
21oy Snuvs st
19 Ἵ101} yaqny snd
-W9} mol 4{17)}}}}0{4 Ὅτ1|}0 JsSs{Aaouso0o 29
ταθ9} ΘΟ Ὁ 5Π1 79ΞΒΤΡΤΔ wad ὉΓΠΠῊ
TNS Θ᾽} ΠΑΠῸΤ τι
stioqvy souuv ΠΠΛΧΧΧ
292 OWoy wopmNb wayne yey
ψ (NJaQDY UOW βγη...
-npduiaxa 5109}... U2 90Y% ngogaazap
anbiunsonb a.onbuy) Ὁ yeqoy snurs
aunbe wau0nnjou ysod 1.027}: U2
yossipusostp ord ofa anbwnomne)
pnby wngnqarout 4o
Y1U0IDINU U2 .LNgNQnaAn})
ΘΠ Π|91 waupnnoas woyne snjasay
: mngjow ovnbe um
-uvpedxea μη. (00171}} 01 ταπαορταθ
{πη ΟΡ τι 8}0 τὰ ΟΟΘ 80 1{{712}19}}]
BUSBUL OPHIR 78 6 908 51Π| UT
suaqey soorjsod anburmb
pprosyjaganoraiqar 4anyeurmoudos apnb
euyosid voryeqoad wadns
sye τὸ yWoup yaqoy snd
119} wl wnynw BINd JassTAoUsod 49
» 70qa0n0 SUI JaSsIpIA Mand OUNTT
suoqvy souUv TITAXXx
192 wNYIND owoy WO NV WITT
anbuinsonb a.ofuo, Ὁ yeqoy snurs
avnbr saworjow 2504 71.070 70 UWA
yasstpucosip .Lowd ofa anbunomb
pnbp wngoqaaou 4a
2.L0INIDU UL » LNgDQnan}
snduto} tinpundes zu Wayne snjesuwy
TuNnjou eenbe want}
-uvjoodxo γι)1.1001}1}}0.{Ὁ 1 ταπαοριιῦ
UMAOPNY]Y πιιποῦθθῸ {01.109}
nubou opnjaqnu yeqaorl 51 τ
MpIMSYIAT ara1g7 Inyeurmousos 901}
sulosid roryeqoid wadns
STULITOS.LOIT] 159
SIUIOSN.LALY SL Wpusose 20
UINLoepnye snjsay 5910 yo OavTy 2504
2S ὃ Ἵ ᾿“᾿ἰημ 00
"8120. Ί100 101 Ββοια 9Π1 JO τοιτο UN ATO.ANS ST 5125 }010.2)
*MUIOUUL IIL U2 910159 17}00Ὁ),1
“εὐθύ SIQOA UL 51 200 Ὁ
ESISIptoo 7111 Yor) ut
‘Ian 1022} {8105 18 as)
“unquu | 108 159 tino
“NSUoD DIQUNISQns WAND MUO
“7.10. ond ur umn.eaa ya
injanburjaa WOU SUSE
2qn ταῦ
avapro nuwayab Ut
wmnibapur vend
1961 τππιιϑοι
ΠῚ ΘΙΤΟΙΊΤΙΤ wWa972Qap 81 οα1 00
9.).Ὁ (1 anbwunonnb 111 150 5 1791:
tune aura
2LIUDLZYOPUMIS 92 SN{NIO 15 201
“ἹΠΌΓΠΙΟΤΟΣ UT ITU
tmojueqvy sopad sonp wend
WRIA py
a.uuar wINpoTd 161] 489 τππποα
wna ynd
92 WwIZIrpuros 10 sod 15 70
# GD) sisuaqqog “pop
"soa wajua ayaqey τποουᾶ 79
“5 SIQOA UL 9JaqvyT
2 sujaupuos pnzqr onb ut
1Iony wns)nsur [es isponb
ies 7159 TInuog
“UNIOUIVS MULAQOU. SVUUO 79
wnjaryyps auhr unua svuaug
sunginbuajxa WOU SUB 19
N9L.L0UL TOT WNL SrU.taa TAN
βγη, wavumayes ur 297200
Wd} Uoqey ΞΟΙΠΌΟ sonp ταῦ
“(1 TanuSer ut
AITOIJUL WISN? 11} 2450 τππποα
91} Σ wna 9010
2ὈΖΙ|ΠΌΡΤΙΠΟΘ 57222} ΒΏΤΠΌΟ 18 pon?
snjynbuyxa τιοὰ StUsT 79
“NPL.LOW WOU τππιο9 βυμίμθα, TaN
‘sanqunburjaaur svubse
ὉΠ ΠΟ 9 UL 1941UL
τα97 ΠΟ ὉΠ sapad sonp urenb
UUIZAY VARTA UL
OI[OIZUL TMpnryo 161] 259 TINUOG
Swng. pyndup
ezjepuros 91 sunq sod 1510]
*(ayes[n A) srmugouup “pod
SNUIOSN.LNY STL ITpPUdOSe 19
UIN.LOoRpNs*? SNYSaJ 5910 7019 davy ysOg
“POL YY “QD
SIUUL[OSOLOT FT W29NY IS]
$1117 080.0UT SIL 7101|9058 719
Winloovpny* Θ112591 sarp 79.12 ὉΘΌΠ 4SO
(Π511) 5001 ἼΗΙ
‘OD ATAViL
“mand 10} WAIMS “ sryaqny TOY a70qQMY 3 "5. $*STT OU UT pajd01100 IV S.IOII9 Tassord oT] JO ὁτπο!
yy Ula? ” 5
‘A ΝΠΟΡ
“806, aque ajaquy τπϑονᾷ 19
Ua] DS SIQOA ΠῚ ΘΊΘΑΘΗ
ἀ ngarpuoo ond Ut
\uony wnpnsur [es spond
nga] 105. 259 tug
«5 9105 WNADI/LWOYS BUUWO 79
Sungaryws aubr wmnua suo
sinpnBuyxe WOU S{UST 49
{UNQVLOUL TOTL UN.L09 $21,190 TON
saufe wrenuees ΠῚ 27720
To} Ueqvy] sojnoo sonp tuynb
‘pa
TMUsoI UL ΘΙΤΟΧΊΤΙ wazyuaqny
wnjnoo wnun qi} 7159 TinUOg
91] “una ana
yezepuvos 57,212 snjNoo Ispond)
singin furjxa Uo 5191 19
“μηγεοῦ MOU TUM.IOa βυπίμθα, τα τὶ
Swmapqinbuyxaur wauBe Ur
‘cavuusyes Ul ITT
τπ0} 9 ὉΠ sapad sonp ταῦθ
We}IA UL
AIOIUI TaNpoD Iq 2159 τππποα
Suna aposqn
“22 JezITepuvos snNy sed 1510
| CD) μα “POD
“OP-PP XE ΣΥ͂Σ “A ATAVL
gélMoy snuvs st |
|
BUS aIVILUAIGUL wr
ingnqaua
suaqny soory.i0d A
*sagoa wa ajaqey Word 40
“QDS SIQOA UL ΘΊ ΘΟ
gsapuos wnp)2 ond ut
Srieny wngonjnfur yes 15 ponb
[Ws 159 uUMUOg
fUNJANYS DULAQOID WAWA SLUWO
"INjar.LOUl TOU βγη θα, 19
“unjganbursxa ou stust in
‘cuvuMayad Uy 9.(10.{22{1
to} ΠΟ] ΌΠ SojNdo sonp wend
faq Tanusar ur 911014
Ul WNISN) 141} 159 wwWa παπποῦ
1] tag Ὁ wna aunxa
qezljRpuvos 50,2 snqnoo Ispon/)
SunganBurjsxa UOT WN.L0a STUSL 719
*UNJaL.LOUL TOU UUNLO9 βγη, (θα, TON
‘soqunbuagwaur sruber
tavuteyes UL 1111πι|
‘uloymaqry Soped sonp wend
uUpU.ajaY TARILA UT e107 UL
UINpHeyp 161} 159. wewW MUO
92 Ὁ wn DynduDp
‘99 yeztyepuvos snny Sed 15 45]
(Ὁ) “μιοηγο) “POD
-ἴπ9} wngynu wl vimb Jasstaousoo 70
TW}UsONf SI JASSIPLA WIND oUNFT
suoqvy SOUNL IITA 72 UIXXX
ταῖν nja.iauay anbunonnb yeqoy snurs
ovuby wawororw ysod n2.107DjNWw U2
jolopudosip snrud anbumnornd 79
apursrd ur goqapuaosrp
sndure} wnpunoss zug woyne sujosay
wmTjury}dedxo tun1oplue
τ Π ΟΡ Ὁ]Ὸ Wndodsaro wraquansun?
VUSBUL ΟΡΠΊ ΠΛ yeqaovl ww 511Π| ΠῚ
pprpsyjagT ana.qayy αὐ θατυποτιῇοῦ aynby
dWoy snuvs sta.
19 41010 yawaqny snd
TUS 9yVITTLAgUL
OULOY 192 WAIN’ 7010
anne
wonby ynqaaout 4a
mnjour ornbe
suaqey soonaod A
evupsid voyeqoid wadns
SIIMO[OSNAOIF] UT wWagNny 1511
811{{97057}.{01}} 511 ypUdOSB 49
UWNJOoRpne? Ssnysaz Solp 7019 OBY 2501
"(ἀππι) 609 wWoplabar
“son wage ayaqry ταθοϑ 4a
“{{9705 SIGOA UT OJAqQuyT
ἃ syarpuos 20,2}. onb ut
QLiony wrsynsur ΤῸΒ Isponb
*ungary | yes 7250 τπ ΠΟ. 1
“DS ayps MUAINIA URUA SLUWWE
sunjonburjxa TOU wWn,Loa SyUst 49
“(1.119
-2.10UL UOT 27.109 βοπ θη, τα}
‘wiruueyos Ul 7277
{π9} 9601] soynoo sonp wend
“96 WNUusal Ul
OTOIVUY WISN? 1411 150 ταππιοα
ay] SUNIL aUnxa
yeztyepuvos 5722 Ssnynoo Is pon?)
“ungonbunjxa UOU Wn.L0A SINBL 4a
~2.10UL UO ταπῖοθ sauidaa Iqn
“unqua)
«αἰθπτιο qos ΠῚ 191
τι9γ πο ὉΠ sepod senp tend
UNULAJAY WRIA UL
ΘατΟ }π| TANpNe]O 7259 1q1 NTO
sung pynduy
0} yezl[epuvos sunny sod 15 45]
*(q) ‘uaUowa, “POD
τὸ Mog snus stA
19 JOIP » 29(0η 0}
sndwag unl wg Bind Jasstaousod 49
{π97} 90 Ὁ SYT JOSsIplA TMS UN
TNS JVILMAGUL we
suoquy souuv Ο]00 Xxx
1ὴι OWO0Y WopINh Wane 4.80]
umyom ornbe
tunuryoodxe WNIOpLIE
WMIOpNVpD TANLOd9vd 07,19 hum
VUSRU OpNITATNUL yRqoov!l SI UT
suaqvy snor.od anbuinb
»DPIZYIOT MAQaH Anjyeurutousos annrb
wuosid voyeqord
SyUTATOSOLOLFT 97ND IST
811Π|05 0.01} Syl 10 9050 19
WNIOovpue snqsef ΒΌΤΡ 7019 oVY] 1504
“SHAT ἽΜΌΝΠ
Q- LEST “Yong.ypr VUUATA κα
*soa waguar ayoqey τπαϑουα 19
UAVs S\GOA UT 919quyT
dé suaypuoo 7171 onb ut
Quony wnsynsiz [es isponb
{us 189 tuanuoq 79
SUNAUQNIVSUL DIPSOY SVUAULO
sumanburjxa wou swust 49
sinqua
στον TOU W409 SoUttaa τῶι
ὙΠῸ ΘΙΘΩ UT 27770
τπΟγ} ΠΟ ὉΠ soynoo sonp wend
faq tanusar ut
aITOIQUT WISN? 141) 159 TUNTOY
ἐλ 77} aurea
“01 WZITRpULOS SN{NIO 15.2.7
Sunjanburjea WOU WNL09 STUST 19
“ingar.tow VOU TUN 5 γε θα, TON
“8111η170γ 17 πολι 250 5100} 107),
Suvutieyes UT 117}1ππ|
τ9} ΠΌΘΟΥ soped sonp παθ Ὁ
uputagay We LA UT
dIPOAJUT UUNpo]D 161} 159. TMUOG
swung) pyndup
‘a7 qeziyRpuvos sunny sod 15 107
Ὁ) “190.ι904. "POD
1694 VULGATE, THE
d. Cod. Claromontanus, in the Vatican
Libr., of the 4th or 5th cent. It con-
tains a great part of St. Matthew, and
is mainly African in character. Pub-
lished by Mai, Script. vet. nov. Coll.
ii. 1828.
e. Cod. Vindobonensis, at Vienna, of 5th
or 6th cent. It contains fragments of
St. Mark and St. Luke. Edited by
Alter in two German periodicals.
Cod. Bobbiensis, at Turin, of the 5th
cent. It contains parts of St. Matthew
and St. Mark. The chief parts pub-
lished by Tischendorf in the Jahr-
biicher d. Literatur, Vienna, 1847 ff.
The text is a remarkable revision of
the African.
τ
g. The readings of a Speculum, published |
by Mai, Patrum nova collectio, i. 2,
1852. Comp. Tregelles, Introduction,
240.
h. Cod. Sangallensis, of the 5th or 4th
cent. It contains fragments of St.
Matthew and St. Mark. Transcribed
by Tischendorf.
i The critical value of these revised ante-Hieronymian
texts is unduly underrated. Each recension, as the re-
presentative of a revision of the oldest text by the help
of old Greek MSS., is perhaps not inferior to the recen-
sion of Jerome; and the MSS. in which they are seve-
rally contained, though numerically inferior to Vulgate
MSS., are scarcely inferior in real authority.
Κ It would be impossible to enter in detail in the pre-
sent place into the peculiarities of the text presented by
this group of MSS. It will be observed that copies are
included in it which represent historically the Irish (, e),
Scotch (8), Mercian (¢), Northumbrian (δ), and—if we
may trust the very uncertain tradition which represents
the Gospels of St. Chad as written by Gildas (comp.
Lib. Landav. Ὁ. 615, ed. 1840)—Welsh Churches. Bentley,
who had collated more or less completely four of them,
observed their coincidence in remarkable readings, but
the individual differences of the copies no less than their
wide range both in place and age exclude the idea that
all were derived from one source. They stand out asa
remarkable monument of the independence, the antiquity,
and the influence of British (Irish) Christianity.
For the present it must suffice to give a few special
readings which show the extent and character of the
variations of this family from other families of MSS. The
notation of the text is preserved for the sake of brevity.
Matt. viii. 24.—Fluctibus + erat autem (enim γ) illis
ventus contrarius (contr. vent. ¢) (y ὃ ε ¢).
Matt. x. 29.—Sine voluntate Dei patris vestri qui in
coelis est (sine p. vol. α. 6. inc. €). Sine p. v. vol. qui inc.
6. ¢**. Sine patre vestro voluntate, &c., ¢* (y ε ὦ.
Matt. xiv. 35.—Loci illius venerunt et [om. ven. et.
ὃ ζ] adoraverunt eum et (ὃ ε ¢).
Matt. xxvii. 49.—Alius autem accepta lancea pupugit
(pupungit) latus ejus et exit (-iit -ivit) aqua et sanguis
(7 ὃ ὁ).
Mark xiii. 18.—Ut hieme non fiat (-et) fuga vestra
( ὃ ε) vel sabbato (δ ε), ut non fra (sic) fuga vestra
hieme vel sabbato (¢).
Luke xxiii. 2.—Nostram + εἰ solventem legem (+ nos-
tram ¢) et prophetas (δ ε ¢).
Luke xxiv. 1.—Ad mon. + Maria Magdalena et altera
Maria et quaedam cum eis (δ ε).
John xix. 30.—Cum autem expiravit (asp. ε trdiset
spm (sic) ¢) velamentum (velum a ε ¢) templi scissum
est medium a summo usque (ad a) deorsum (a Ὑ ε ¢).
John xxi, 6.—Invenietis.+ Dixerunt autem Per totam
noctem laborantes nihil cepimus: in verbo autem tuo
mittimus (laxttemus [sic 1.6. laxabimus ] rete e, mitemus
(sic) ¢) (y ε ¢).
VULGATE, THE
t. Cod. Palat., at Vienna, of the 5th
cent. Published by Tischdf. 1847. A
very important MS., containing St.
John, and St. Luke nearly entire, and
considerable parts of the other Gospels.
To these must be added a very remark-
able fragment of St. Luke published by
A.M. Ceriani, from a MS. of the 6th
cent. in the Ambrosian Libr. at Milan:
Monum, Sacra, .... 1861; anda
purple fracment at Dublin (Saec. v.)
containing Matt. xiii. 13-25, published
by Dr. Todd in Proceedings of
Rk. I A. i. 374.
k. Cod. Corbeiensis, St. Matt. Edited
by Martianay and Sabatier.
Ttalic revision.i
l. Cod. Brixianus, of the 6th cent. The
best type of the talic text. Published
by Bianchini, 7. ὁ. Comp. Lachm.
NV. T. i. Praef. xiv.
m. Cod. Monacensis, of the 6th cent.
Transcribed by Tischendorf. ἡ
Trish (British) revision.*
Other readings more or less characteristic are Matt. ii.
14, matrem om ejus; ii. 15, est um a Domino; iv. 9, vade
+ retro; iv. 6, de te + ut custodiant te in omnibus viis
tuis; v. 5, lugent + nunc; v. 48, sicut pater; vi. 13,
patiaris nos induci, &e.
As amore continuous specimen the following readings
occur in one chapter in the Hereford Gospels in which
this Latin text, with a few others only, agrees closely
with the Greek: Luke xxiv. 6, esset in Gal. 7, tertia
die; 16, agnoscerent eum; 20, tradiderunt eum; 24,
viderunt : 28, finxit longius ire; 38, quare cogitationes ;
39, pedes meos ; 44, haec sunt verba mea quae locutus sum
ad vos. Other remarkable readings in the same passage
are 8, horum verborum; 18, Respondens wnus om. et;
21, quo haec omnia; 27, et erat incipiens ; 29, inclinata
est dies jam.
A comparison of the few readings from the Gospels
given in the Epistle of Gi~pAs according to the Cambridge
MS. (Univ. Libr. Dd. 1, 17), for the text in Stevenson’s
edition is by no means accurate, shows some interesting
coincidences with these Irish (British) MSS. (For the
explanation of the additional references see § 31.)
Matt. v. 15.—Supra yde¢ K WF (6); v. 16, mag-
nificent ὃ (a,b); v. 19, qui enim y ε P (ab); vii. 2,
judicabitur de vobis « (a, b); vii. 3, non consideras (a);
vii. 4, in oculo tuo est y; vii. 6, miseritis (a, Ὁ); vii. 15,
attendite + vobisy ὃ (b); vii. 17, bonus fructus 6 O
(a, b); id et mala malos; vii. 23, operarit iniquitatis
(a) ; vii. 27, impigerunt O; x. 28, et corpus et animam,
ε, c. et an. y ὃ: Xv. 14, caect duces sunt; xvi. 18, infirm
ydeCBHOZKo¢ (a); xvi. 19, quaccunque; id. erunt
ligata ὃ (b); xxiii. 3, vero opera ὃ ¢ db; id., et zpst non f.
ὃ ε ¢ (Ὁ) ; xxii. 13, gui claud. D. id. vos autem ὃ ¢ HO φ.
Thus of twenty-one readings which differ from Cod.
Am. thirteen are given in one or other of those MSS. which
have been supposed to present a typical British (Irish)
text, and of these eleven are found in the Rushworth
MS. alone. While on the other hand nine readings agree
with Cod. Veron. and seven with Cod. Vercell., and every
reading is supported by some old authority. Thus, though
the range of comparison is very limited, the evidence of
these quotations, as far as it goes, supports the belief in a
distinct British text.
In the Evangelic quotations in the printed text of Sr.
PATRICK, out of seventeen variations, eight (as far as I can
find) are supported by no known Latin authority: the
remainder are found in y, 6,e or. Bacutarius | have
not been able to examine, though his writings are not
unlikely to offer some illustrations of the early text.
SEepuLtus (Opus Paschale), as might have been ex-
VULGATE, THE
(a.) Cambridge Univ. Libr. Kk. 1, 24.
Saec. viii.? St. Luke, i. 15-end, and
St. John, i. 18-xx. 17. Bentley’s X.
Capitula wanting in St. Luke ; xiv. in
St. John. No Ammonian Sections.
(Plate ii. fig. 1.)
(B.) Cambridge Univ. Libr. Ti. 6, 32.
Saec. viii.-x. Zhe. Book of Deer.
St. Matt. i.-vii. 23. St. Mark, i. 1,
vy. 36. St. Luke, i. 1,iv.2. St. John,
entire. Wery many old and peculiar
readings. Nearer Vulg. than (a), but
very carelessly written. No Am-
monian Sections or Capitula. Be-
longed to monks of Deer in Aberdeen-
shire. Comp. Mr. H. Bradshaw in the
Printed Catalogue.
(y.) Lichfield, Book of St. Chad. Saec.
viii. St. Matt., St. Mark, and St.
Luke, i.-iii. 9. Bentley’s &.
(δ.) Oxford, Bodl. 1). 24 (3946). Suaec.
viii. Zhe Gospels of Mac Regol. or
the Rushworth MS. Bentley’s x. No
Capit., Sect., or Prefaces. A collation
of the Latin text in the Lindisfarne
text of St. Matt. and St. Mark (¢omp.
p- 1711, notes), together with the
Northumbrian gloss, has been pub-
lished by Rev. J. Stevenson. De-
ficient Luke iv. 29-vili. 38.™
(e.) Oxford, C. C. Coll. 122. Saec.
x., xi? Bentley’s C. Has Canons and
Prefaces, but no Sect. or Capit.
(¢.) Hereford (Saxon) Gospels. Saec. viii.
(ix.). The four Gospels, with two
small lacunae. Without Prefaces,
Canons, Capitula, or Sections. <A
very important copy, and probably
British in origin.2 (Plate ii. fig. 5.)
(n.) The Book of Armagh (all N. T.),
Trin. Coll. Dublin: written A.D. 807.
Comp. Proceedings of R. I. A. iii.
pp. 316, 356. Sir W. Betham, Irish
Antiq. Researches, 11.9
(θ.) A copy found in the Domhnach
VULGATE, THE 1695
Airgid (Royal I. Acad.), Saec, v. vi.
Comp. Petrie, Transactions of R.T. A.,
xviii, 1838. O’Curry’s Lectures,
Dublin, 1861, pp. 321 ff., where a fac-
simile is given.
(t.) (κ.) Two copies in Trin. Coll.
Dublin, said to be ““ ante-Hierony-
mian, Saec. vii.’’P
To these must be added a large number of Ivish,
including under this term North British MSS.,
which exhibit a text more nearly approaching the
Vulgate, but yet with characteristic old readings.
Such are :—
Brit. Mus., Hari. 1802. Saec. x.-xii. A.D.
1138? Prefaces all at the beginning. No
Capitula or Sections. Bentley’s W. (Plate
ii. fig. 4,)
Brit. Mus., Harl. 1023. Saec. x.-xii? No
Capitula or Sections. (Plate ii. fig. 3.)
Lambeth. The Book of Mac Durnan.4 Saec.
x. Has Sections, but no Prefaces or
Canons.
Dublin, 7. C. C. The Book of Kells. Saec.
Vili.
Dublin, 7. C. C. The Book of Durrow. Saec.
vill.
Dublin, ZT. C. C. The Book of Dimma,
Saec. viii.
Dublin, T. C. C. The Book of Moling. Saec.
vill.
Gallican (?) revision.s
Brit. Mus., Egerton, 609, formerly Majoris
Monasterii; iv. Gospp. deficient from
Mark vi. 56 to Luke xi. 1. This MS. is
called mm, and classified under Vulgate
MSS. in the editions of the N. T., but it
has been used only after Calmet’s very
imperfect collation, and offers a distinct
type of text. Pracf. Can. No Capitula.
(2.) Of the Acts and Epistles.
n. Cod. Bobbiensis, at Vienna, A few
fragments of the Acts and Cath. Epp.
Edited by Tischendorf, Jahrbiicher d.
Iii, No
pected from his foreign training, gives in the main a
pure Vulgate text in his quotations from the Vulgate.
When he differs from it (6. g. Luke x. 19, 20; John xi.
43 prodi), he often appears to quote from memory, and
differs from all MSS.
The quotations given at length in the British copy of
Juvencus (Camb. Univ. Libr. Ff. 4,42) would probably
repay a careful examination.
1 This MS., in common with many Irish MSS. (e.g.
Brit. Mus. Harl. 1802, 2795, the Book of MacDurnan,
and some others, as Harl. 1775, Cotton. Tib, A ii.), sepa-
rates the genealogy in St. Matt. from the rest of the
Gospel, closing v.17 with the words Finit Proiogus, and
then adding Incipit Evangelium.
m ‘(he reading of this MS. in Matt. xxi. 28 ff. is very
remarkable: Homo quidam habebat duos filios et acce-
dens ad primum dixit fili vade operare in viam* meam.
ille autem respondens dixit eo dne et non iit accedens
autem ad alterum dixit similiter at ille respondens ait
nolo. postea autem poenitentia motus abiit in viniam.*
quis ex duob: fecit voluntatem patris. dicunt * novissi-
mus.
n For the opportunity of examining this MS. the writer
is indebted to the kindness of the Rev. J. Jebb, D.D.,
Canon of Hereford.
© This MS. contains the Ep. to the Laodicenes, with
ii. p. 263. The stichometry is as follows: Matheus versus
habet MMDCC, Marcus MDCC, Lucas MMDCCC, Jo-
hannis MMCCC. Id. p. 318*.
P Dr. Reeves undertook to publish the text of the
Book of Armagh, with collations of 1, x, and other MSS.
in T. C. D., but the writer has been unable to learn whe-
ther he will carry out his design. The MSS. ἡ --κ the
writer knows only by description, and very imperfectly.
9 Facsimiles of many of these “Irish” MSS. are given
in Westwood’s Paleographia Sacra and in O'Curry’s
Lectures. The text of most of them (even of those col-
lated by Bentley) is very imperfectly known, and it
passes by a very gradual transition into the ordinary
type of Vulgate. The whole question of the general
character and the specific varieties of these MSS. requires
careful investigation. The Table (F) will give some idea
of their variations from the common text. The Stow St.
John, at present in Lord Ashburnham’s collection, pro-
bably belongs to this family.
™ These four MSS. I know only by Mr. Westwood’s
descriptions in his Palaeographia Sacra; and to Mr.
Westwood belongs the credit of first directing attention
to Irish MSS. after the time of Bentley.
s The text of this recension, which I believe to be con-
tained also in g!, and Bentley’s p (comp. p. 1713, notes) is
closely allied to the British type. As to the Spanish text
I have no sufficient materials to form an estimate of its
the note Sed Hirunumus eam negat esse Pauli: Betham | character.
1696 VULGATE, THE
ο. Cod. Corbei., a MS. of Ep. of St.
VULGATE, THE
13. It will be seen that for the chief part of the
James. Published by Martianay, 1695. | O. T., and for considerable parts of the N. T.
p. (Of St. Paul’s Epp.) Cod. Clarom.,
the Latin text of Dg. Published by
Tischendorf.
q. (Of St. Paul’s Epp.) Cod. Sangerm.,
the Latin text of E,, said to have an
independent value, but imperfectly
known.
r. (Of St. Paul’s Epp.) Cod. Boern., the
Latin text of G,, is in the main an
old copy, adapted in some points to
the Greek.
s. (See Gospels).
t. Fragments of St. Paul’s Epistles tran-
scribed at Munich by Tischendorf.
u, v. (Acts) the Latin text of D, and Εν
(Cod. Bezae and Cod. Laud),
To these must be added, from the result of a
purtial collection :—
αι. Oxford, Bodl. 3418 (Selden, 50).
Acts. Saec. viii., vii. An uncial MS,
of the highest interest. Deficient xiv.
26, fidei—xv. 32, cum essent. Bentl.
Χο. Among its characteristic readings
may be noticed: v. 34, foras modicum
apostolos secedere; ix. 40, surge in
nomine Domini Ihu Xti.; xi. 17, ne
daret illis Spiritum Sanctum credenti-
bus in nomine [hu Xti.; xiii. 14,
Paulus et Barnabas; xvi. 1, et cum
circuisset has nationes pervenit in
Derben. (Plate i. fig. 4).
49. Oxford, Bodl. Laud. Lat. 108 (E,
POT) qa Sacewaxen St... baulissEippenin
Saxon letters. Ends Hebr. xi. 34,
aciem gladit, Corrected apparently
by three hands, The original text was
a revision of the Old Latin, but it has
been much erased. In many cases it
agrees with d almost or quite alone:
δ᾽ ἢ: Rom. ii, 14, 16, iii. 22, 26,
Xs αν el Soni mos) ΠΠ6
Epistles to Thess. are placed before the
Ep. to Coloss. ‘This arrangement,
which is given by Augustine (De
Doctr. Christ. ii. 13), appears to have
prevailed in early English MSS., and
occurs in the Saxon Cambridge MS.,
and several other MSs. of the Bible
quoted by Hody, p. 664. Comp.
§31 (2) 8.t
The well-known Harleian MS. 1772
(892, (2) 3) ought to be reckoned
rather among the Old than the Vul-
gate texts. A good collection of its
more striking variations is given in the
Harleian Catalogue. In the Acts and
Epistles (no less than in the Gospels)
there are indications of an unrevised
(African) and vevised texts, but the
materials are as yet too impertect to
allow of an exact determination of the
different types.
(3.) In the Apocalypse the text depends on im
and early quotations, especially in Primasius.
t A very interesting historical notice of the use of the
Old Latin in the North of England is given by Bede, who
says of Ceolfrid, a contemporary abbot, “ Bibliothecam
uttiusque Monasterii [Wearmouth and Jarrow] magna
(e.g. Apoc. Acts), the old text rests upon early
quotations (principally Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer
of Cagliari, for the African text, Ambrose and Au-
gustine for the Italic). These were collected by
Sabatier with great diligence up to the date of his
work; but more recent discoveries (6, g. of the
Roman Speculuin) have furnished a large store of
new materials which have not yet been fully em-
ployed. (The great work of Sabatier, already often
referred to, is still the standard work on the Latin
Versions. His great fault is his neglect to distin-
guish the different types of text, African, Italic,
British, Gallic; a task which yet remains to be
done. The earliest work on the subject was by
Flaminius Nobilius, Vetus Test. sec. LXX. Latine
redditum .... Romae, 1588. The new collations
made by Tischendorf, Mai, Miinter, Ceriani, have
been noticed separately.)
Il]. THe Lasours oF JEROME.—14. It has been
seen that at the close of the 4th century the Latin
texts of the Bible current in the Western Church
had fallen into the greatest corruption. The evil
was yet greater in prospect than at the time; for
the saparation of the East and West, politically and
ecclesiastically, was growing imminent, and the fear
of the perpetuation of false and conflicting Latin
copies proportionately greater. But in the crisis
of danger the great scholar was raised up who pro-
bably alone for 1500 years possessed the qualifica-
tions necessary for producing an original version of
the Scriptures for the use of the Latin Churches.
Jerome—Eusebius Hieronymus—was born in 329
A.D. at Stridon in Dalmatia, and died at Bethlehem
in 420 a.p. From his early youth he was a
vigorous student, and age removed nothing from
his zeal. He has been well called the Western
Origen (Hody, p. 350), and if he wanted the large-
ness of heart and generous sympathies of the great
Alexandrine, he had more chastened critical skill
and closer concentration of power. After long and
self-denying studies in the East and West, Jerome
went to Rome A.D. 382, probably at the request
of Damasus the Pope, to assist in an important
synod (Zp. eviii. 6), where he seems to have been
at once attached to the service of the Pope (Zp.
exxiii. 10). His active biblical labours date from
this epoch, and in examining them it will be con-
venient to follow the order of time, noticing (1)
the Revision of the Old Latin Version of the N. T.;
(2) the Revision of the Old Latin Version (from
the Greek) of the O. T.; (3) the New Version of
the O. T. from the Hebrew.
(1.) The Revision of the Old Latin Version
of the N. T.—15. Jerome had not been long at
Rome (A.D. 383) when Damasus consulted him on
points of Scriptural criticism (/p. xix. ‘* Dilectionis
tuae est ut ardenti illo strenuitatis ingenio....
vivo sensu scribas”). The answers which he re-
ceived (Epp. xx., xxi.) may well have encouraged
him to seek for greater services; and apparently in
the same year he applied to Jerome for a revision
of ‘the current Latin version of the N. T. by the
help of the Greek original. Jerome was fully
sensible of the prejudices which such a work would
excite among those “‘ who thought that ignorance
we a eee SS eee
geminasse industria. Ita ut tres Pandectas novae trans-
lationis, ad unum vetustae translationis, quem de Roma
attulerat, ipse superadjungeret..... ” (Hist. Abbot. Wire-
muth. et Girwiens. Quoted by Hedy, De Text. p. 409).
VULGATE, THE
was holiness” (Zp. ad Mare. xxvii.), but the need
of it was urgent. “ There were,” he says, ‘* almost
as many forms of text as copies” (** tot sunt ex-
emplaria pene quot codices,” Praef. in Hvv.). Mis-
takes had been introduced « by false transcription,
by clumsy corrections, and by careless interpola-
tions ” (7d.), and in the confusion which had ensued
the one remedy was to go back to the original
source (Graeca veritas, Graeca origo). The Gospels
had naturally suffered most. Thoughtless scribes
inserted additional details in the narrative from the
parallels, and changed the forms of expression to those
with which they had been originally familiarized
(id.). Jerome therefore applied himself to these first
(“ haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor
tantum Evangelia”). But his aim was to revise
the Old Latin, and not to make a new version,
When Augustine expressed to him his gratitude for
“his translation of the Gospel” (Zp. civ. 6, “non
parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo quo Evan-
gelium ex Graeco interpretatus es ”), he tacitly
corrected him by substituting for this phrase * the
correction of the N. T.” (Ep. exii. 20, “ Si me, ut
dicis, in N, T. emendatione suscipis....”’). For
this purpose he collated euly Greek MSS., and
preserved the current rendering wherever the sense
was not injured by it (“... Evangelia.. . codicum
Graecorum emendata collatione sed veterum. Quae
ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discre-
parent, ita calamo temperavimus (all. imperavimus)
ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare,
correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant:”
Praef. ad Dam.). Yet although he proposed to
himself this limited object, the various forms of
corruption which had been introduced were, as he
describes, so numerous that the difference of the
Old and Revised (Hieronymian) text. is throughout
clear and striking. Thus in Matt. ν. we have the
following variations :—
Vetus Latina.
7 ipsis miserebitur Deus.
Vulgata nova (Hieron.).
7 ipsi misericordiam con-
sequentur,
11 dixerint. . . mentientes,
— propter me.
12 ante vos,
11 dixerint...
— propter justitiam.
12 ante vos patres eorum
(Luke vi. 26).
17 non veni solvere legem
aut prophetas.
18 fiant: coelum οἱ terra
transibunt, verba au-
tem mea non praeter-
tbunt.
22 fratri suo sine causa.
25 es cum illo in ira.
17 non veni solvere,
18. fiant.
22 fratri suo.
25 es in via cum eo (and
often).
29 mittatur in gehennam,
37 quod autem his abun-
dantius.
41 et alia duo,
29 eat in gehennam.
37 quod autem amplius.
41 adhuc alia duo.
43 odies. 43 odio habebis.
44 vestros, et benedicite qui | 44 vestros benefacite,
maledicent vobis οἱ
benefacite.
Of these variations those in vers, 17, 44, are only
partially supported by the old copies, but they
illustrate the character of the interpolations. from
which the text suffered. In St. John, as might be
expected, the variations are less frequent. The
6th chapter contains only the following :—
2 sequebatur autem.
21 (volebant).
23 (quem benedixerat Do-
minus (alii aliter) ),
39 haec est enim.
2 ef sequebatur.
21 (voluerunt).
23 (gratias agente Domino),
39 haec est autem.
ἃ In giving the readings of Vetus Latina the writer has
throughout confined himself to those which are supported
VOL. II,
VULGATE, THE
Vetus Latina,
39 (Patris mei).
1697
Vulgata nova (Hieron.),
39 (Patris mei qui misit
me),
53 (ad manducandum),
66 (a patre meo).
67 ex hoc.
53 (manducare).
66 (a patre).
67 ex hoc ergo,
16. Some of the changes which Jerome intro-
duced were, as will be seen, made purely on lin-
guistic grounds, but it is impossible to ascertain on
what principle he proceedetl in this respect (comp.
$35). Others involved questions of interpretation
(Matt. vi. 11, supersubstantialis for ἐπιούσιος).
But the greater number consisted in the removal of
the interpolations by which the synoptic Gospels
especially were disfigured. These interpolations,
unless his description is very much exaggerated,
must have been far more numerous than are found
in existing copies; but examples stil] occur which
show the important service which he rendered to
the Church by checking the perpetuation of apocry-
phal glosses: Matt. iii. 3, 15 (v. 12); (ix. 21);
xx, 28; (xxiv. 36); Mark i. 3, 7, Srive 19):
xvi. 4; Luke (v. 10); viii. 48; ix, 43, 50; xi,
36 ; xii. 38; xxiii. 48; Jobn vi. 56. As a check
upon further interpolation he inserted in his text
the notation of the Eusebian Canons [New ΤΕδτά-
| MENT, §21]; but it is worthy of notice that he in-
cluded in his revision the famous pericope, John vii,
53, viii. 11, which is not included in that analysis.
17. The preface to Damasus speaks only of a
revision of the Gospels, and a question has been
| raised whether Jerome really revised the remaining
books of the N. T. Augustine (A.D. 403) speaks
only of “ the Gospel ” (Hp. civ. 6, quoted above),
and there is no preface to any other books, such as
is elsewhere found before all Jerome’s versions or
editions. But the omission is probably due to the
comparatively pure state in which the text of the
rest of the N. T. was preserved. Damasus had
requested (Pracf. ad Dam.) a revision of the whole,
and when Jerome had faced the more invidious and
| difficult part of his work there is no reason to think
that he would shrink from the completion of it.
In accordance with this view he enumerates (A.D.
398) among his works “the restoration of the
(Latin version of the) N. T. to harmony with the
original Greek.” (Zp. ad Lucin. Ixxi. 5: “ N. T.
Graecae reddidi auctoritati, ut enim Veterum
Librorum fides de Hebraeis voluminibus examinanda
est, ita novorum Graecae (?) sermonis normam desi-
derat.” De Vir. ΠΙ. cxxxv.: “N.T. Graecae fidei
reddidi. Vetus juxta Hebraicam transtuli.”) It is
yet more directly conclusive as to the fact of this
revision, that in writing to Marcella (cir. A.D. 385)
on the charges which had been brought against him
for “ introducing changes in the Gospels,” he quotes
three passages from the Epistles in which he asserts
the superiority of the present Vulgate reading to
that of the Old Latin (Rom. xii. 11, Domino servi-
entes, for tempori servientes; 1 Tim. v. 19, add.
nisi sub duobus aut tribus testibus; 1 Tim. i. 15,
fidelis sermo, for humanus sermo). An examina-
tion of the Vulgate text, with the quotations of
ante-Hieronymian fathers and the imperfect evi-
dence of MSS., is itself sufficient to establish the
reality and character of the revision. ‘This will be
apparent from a collation of a few chapters taken
from several of the later books of the N. Το bat
it will also be obvious that the revision was hasty
and imperfect; and in later times the line between
by a combination of authorities, avoiding the peculiarities
of single MSS., and (if possible) of a single family.
9 Q
1698 VULGATE, THE
the Hieronymian and Old texts became very indis-
tinct. Old readings appear in MSS. of the Vulgate,
and on the other hand no MS. represents a pure
African text of the Acts and Epistles.
ACTS i.
Versio Vetus.x |
cum conversaretur cum) 4
illis... quod audistis |
4-25,
Vulg.
convescens ... quam au-
distis per os meum.
rs
5 tingemini. [a me. 5 baptizabimini.
6 at ili convenientes. 6 Igitur qui convenerant.
7 at ille respondens dixit. | 7 Dixit autem.
8 superveniente S. S. | 8 supervenientis 8.8.
10 intenderent. Comp. iii. | 10 intuerentur.
ΕΠ): Vie los Σ᾿ 47)
(ΧΙ. 9).
13 ascenderunt in supe-|13 in coenaculum ascend-
riora. erunt.
— erant habitantes. — manebant.
14 perseverantes unanimes 14 persev. unanimiter in
orationi. oratione.
Et hic quidem possedit.
18 Hic igitur adquisivit. | 18
1 viris qui nobiscum sunt
21 qui convenerunt nobis- | 2
cum viris, congreqati.
25 ire. Comp. xvii. 30. 25 ut abiret.
ACTS xvii. 16-34,
16 circa simulacrum. | 16 tdololatriae deditam.
17 Judaeis. 17 cum Judaeis.
18 seminator. 18 seminiverbius.
22 superstitiosos. 22 superstitiosiores.
23 perambulans. | 23 praeten Tens.
— culturas vestras. — simulacra vestra.
26 ex uno sanguine. 26 ex uno.
1: 19Ξ315-
13 nolo autem.
15 quod in me promptum
Rom.
13 Non autem arbitror.
15 quod in me est promptus
sum. est.
1 Cor. x. 4-29.
4 sequenti se (sequenti, | 4 consequente eos.
q), (Cod. Aug. f).¥
6 in figuram.
7 idolorum cultores (g
corr.) efficiamur.
12 putat (g corr.).
6 in figura (f), (g).
7 idololatrae (idolatres, f)
efficiamini (f).
12 existimat (f).
15 sicut prudentes, vobis | 15 ut (sicut, f, g) prudenti-
dico. bus loquor (dico, f, g).
16 quem (f, g). 16 cui.
— communicatio (alt.)(f, g). = participatio.
21 participare (f, g).
| 21 participes esse.
29 infideli (g).
| 29 (aliena); alia (f).
2 Cor. iii. 11-18.
14 dum (quod g corr.) non | 14 non revelatum (f ).
revelatur iG corr.).
18 de (a g) gloria in glori- | [18 a claritate in
am (g). tatem.
14-25,
14 pollicitationem (E ).
15 spernit (f).
25 At ubi venit fides (f).
PHIL. 11. 2-30,
2 unum (g). | 2 idipsum (f).
6 cum... constitutus (g). | 6 cum... esset (f).
12 dilectissimi (g). | 12 carissimi (f).
26 sollicitus (taedebatur,g). | 26 maestus (f).
23 sollicitus itaque. | 28 festinantius ergo (fest.
] ego, f: fest. autem, g).
30 parabolatus de anima 30 tradens animam suam
swa (g). ὩΣ
1 TIM. iii.
1 Humanus (g corr.).
2 docibilem (g). |
4 habentem in obsequio.
8 turpilucros.
clari-
GAL, 11].
14 benedictionem (g).
15 irritum facit (irritat, g).
25 veniente autem fide (g).
1-12.
1 fidelis (f).
2 doctorem (f ).
| 4 habentem subditos (f, g).
8 turpe lucrum sectantes
(f) (turpil. s. g).
12 filios bene regentes (g | 12 qui filiis suis bene prae-
corr.). | sint (f).
x See note n, p. 1695.
y The Tatin readings of Cod. Aug. have been added, as
offering an interesting example of the admixture of a few
old readings with the revised text. Those of Cod. Boern.
(g) differ, as will be seen, very widely from them,
VULGATE, THE
2.) The Revision of the O. T. from the LXX.
—18. About the same time (cir. A.D. 383) at which
he was engaged on the revision of the N. T., Jerome
undertook also a first revision of the Psalter. This
he made by the help of the Greek, but the work
was not very complete or careful, and the words in
which he describes it may, perhaps, be extended
without injustice to the revision of the later books
of the N. T.: “ Psalterium Romae .. . emendaram
et juxta LXX. interpretes, licet cursim magna
illud ex parte correxeram” (Praef. in Lib. Ps.).
This revision obtained the name of the Roman
Psalter, probably because it was made for the use
of the Roman Church at the request of Damasus,
where it was retained till the pontificate of Pius V.
(A.D. 1566), who introduced the Gallican Psalter
generally, though the Roman Psalter was still re-
tained in three Italian churches (Hody, p. 383, “ in
una Romae Vaticana ecclesia, et extra urbem in
Mediol«mensi et in ecclesia S. Marci, Venetiis’’).
In a short time ‘‘ the old error prevailed over the
new correction,” and at the urgent request of Paula
and Eustochium Jerome commenced a new and
more thorough revision (Gallican Psalter). The
exact date at which this was made is not known,
but it may be fixed with great probability very
shortly after A.D. 387, when he retired to Beth-
lehem, and certainly before 391, when he had
begun his new translations from the Hebrew. In
the new revision Jerome attempted to represent as
far as possible, by the help of the Greek versions,
the real reading of the Hebrew. With this view
he adopted the notation of Origen [SEPTUAGINT ;
compare Praef. in Gen., &c.], and thus indicated
all the additions and omissions of the LXX. text
reproduced in the Latin. The additions were marked
by an obelus (+—}; the omissions, which he sup-
plied, by an asterisk ( x ). The omitted passages
he supplied by a version of the Greek of Theodotion,
and not directly from the Hebrew (‘ unusquisque
. ubicunque viderit virgulam praecedentem (+)
ab ea usque ad duo puncta (’) quae impressimus,
sciat in LXX. interpretibus plus haberi. Ubi autem
stellae ( * ) similitudinem perspexerit, de Hebraeis
voluminibus additum noverit, aeque usque ad duo
puncta, jucta Theodotionis dumtaxat editionem, qui
simplicitate sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non
discordat,” Praef. ad Ps.; compare Praeff. in Job,
Paralip. Libr. Solom. juxta LXX. Intt. Ep. evi.
ad Sun. et Fret.). This new edition soon obtained
a wide popularity. Gregory of Tours is said to
have introduced it from Rome into the public
services in France, and from this it obtained the
name of the Gallican Psaiter. The comparison
of one or two passages will show the extent and
nature of the corrections which Jerome introduced
into this second work, as compared with the Roman
Psalter. (See Table D, opposite. )
How far he thought change really necessary will
appear from a comparison of a few verses of his
translation from the Hebrew with the earlier re-
vised septuagintal translations. (See Table E.)
Numerous MSS, remain which contain the Latin
Psalter in two or more forms. Thus Bibl. Bodl.
Laud. 35 (Saec. x.?) contains a triple Psalter,
Gallican, Roman, and Hebrew: Coll. C. C. Oxon.
xii. (Saec. xv.) Gallican, Roman, Hebrew: Jd. x.
z In one place Jerome seems to include these two revi-
sions in one work: “ Psalterium. . . certe emendatissimum
juxta LXX. interpretes nostro labore dudum Roma sus-
cipit”... (Apol. adv. Ruf. ii. 30).
VULGATE, THE
(Saec. xiv.) Gallican, Hebrew, Hebr. text- with
interlinear Latin: Brit. Mus. Harl. 634, a double
Psalter, Gallican and Hebrew: Brit. Mus. Arund.
155 (Saec. xi.) a Roman Psalter with Gallican
corrections: (oll. SS. Trin. Cambr., R. 17, 1,
a triple Psalter, Hebrew, Gallican, Roman (Saec.
xii.): Id. R. 8, 6, a triple Psalter, the Hebrew
text with a peculiar interlinear Latin version,
Jerome’s Hebrew, Gallican. An example of the
unrevised Latin, which, indeed, is not very satis-
factorily distinguished from the Roman, is found
VULGATE, THE 1699
|with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear version, Univ.
| Libr. Cambr., Ff., i. 23 (Saec. xi.). H. Stephens
| published a ‘* Quincuplex Psaltcrium, Galiicum,
Rhomaicum, Hebraicum, Vetus, Conciliatum. .. .
| Paris, 1513,” but he does not mention the MSS.
from which he derived his texts.
19. From the second (Gallican) revision of the
Psalms Jerome appears to have proceeded to a
| revision of the other books of the O. T., restoring
all, by the help of the Greek, to a general con-
formity with the Hebrew. In the Preface to the
TABLE D.
In Tables D, E, and F, the passages are taken from Martianay’s and Sabatier’s texts, without any reference to MSS.,
so that the variations cannot be regarded as more than approximately correct.
Ps, wills 4-6.
Psalt. Romanum.
Quoniam videbo coelos, opera di
tuorum:
lunam et stellas quas tu fundasti.
Vetus Latina.
(Wist quod) Quid est homo, quod memor es ejus ?
Nisi quia (quod) | aut filius hominis, quoniam visitas eum ?
Minorasti. Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis ;
gloria et honore coronasti eum :
et constituisti
tuarum.
eum super opera manuun
Psalt. Gallicanum.
| Quoniam videbo coelos * tuos /” opera di-
gitorum tuorum ;
lunam et stellas quae + tu ” fundasti.
Quid est homo, quod memor es ejus?
aut filius hominis, quoniam visitas eum?
Minwisti eum paulo minus ab angelis ;
gloria et honore coronasti eum,
+ et /’ constituisti eum super opera manuum
tuarum.
gitorum
ΡῈ χὰσ
Exspectans exspectavi Dominum :
et respexit me ;
et exaudivit deprecationem meam ;
et eduxit me de lacu miseriae,
et de luto faecis.
Et statuit super petram pedes meos ;
et direxit gressus meos.
Et immisit in os meum canticum noy
hymnum Deo nostro.
respexit me.
deprecationem.
hymnum. |
ix. 1-4,
Exspectans exspectavi Dominum :
et intendit mihi;
et yex//audivit preces meas ;
et eduxit me de lacu miseriae,
tet "de luto faecis.
Et statuit super petram pedes meos ;
yet" direxit gressus meos.
Kt immisit in os meum canticum novum:
carmen Deo nostro.
|
|
|
um:
Ps. xvi. (xv.) 8-11 (Acts ii. 25-28).
Providebam Dominum
| semper,
(Domino.) in conspec
quoniam a dextris est mihi, ne commovear.
Propter hoe delectatum est cor meum,
et exsultavit lingua mea:
insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe.
jocundatum.
apud inferos. inferno (-um) ;
Notas mihi fecisti vias vitae:
Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in
nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.
adimplebis me laetitia cum vultu tuo:
delectationes in dextra tua, usque in finem.
| Frovidebam Dominum
| semper,
| quoniam a dextris est mihi, ne commovear.
Propter hoc Jaetatum est cor meum,
et exsultavit lingua mea:
| + insuper "et caro mea requiescet in spe.
Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in
inferno ;
nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.
Notas mihi fecisti vias vitae:
adimplebis me laetitia cum vultu tuo:
delectationes in dextera tua + usque /’ in finem.
tu meo in conspectu mco
TABLE E.
Ps. xxxiil. (xxxiv.) 12-
Vetus Latina.
Quis est homo qui vult vitam,
et cupit videre dies bonos?
Cohibe linguam tuam a malo:
et labia tua ne loquantur dolum.
Deverte a malo et fac bonum:
inquire pacem et sequere eam.
Oculi Domini super justos
et aures ejus ad preces eorum.
Vultus Domini super facientes mala.
Quis est homo qui
diligit dies videre
Oculi Domini supe
Vultus autem Dom
mala.
|
|
|
|
|
Vulgata.
Prohibe linguam tuam a malo:
et labia tua ne loquantur dolum.
Diverte a malo et fac bonum:
inquire pacem, et persequere eam.
et aures ejus im preces eorum.
16 (1 Pxgr. iii. 10-12),
Jerome’s transl. from the Helyr.
Quis est vir qui velit vitam
diligens dies videre bonos?
Custodi linguam tuam a malo,
et labia tua ne loquantur dolum.
Recede a malo et fac bonum :
quaere pacem et persequere cam.
Oculi Domini ad justos
et aures ejus ad clamores eorum.
Vultus Domini super facientes ma-
lum.
vult vitam,
bonos ?
r justos
ini super facientes
Ps. xxxix. (xl.) 6-8
Sacrificium et oblationem noluisti : Sacrificium et obla
aures autem perfecisti mihi.
Holocausta etiam pro delicto non
postulasti.
Tunc dixi: Ecce venio.
In capite libri scriptum est de me
ut faciam voluntatem tuam.
Holocaustum et
|
| postulasti:
Ps. xviii. (xix.) 5
In omnem terram exiit sonus
eorum : eorum :
et in jinibus orbis terrae verba et in jimes orbis te
eorum.
aures autem perfecisti mihi. |
Tune dixi: Ecce venio.
In capite libri scriptum est de me,
ut facerem voluntatem tuam.
In omnem terram exivit sonus
(HEBR. x. 5-10
tionem noluisti: Victima et oblatione non indiges:
aures fodisti mihi.
Holocaustum et pro peccato non
petisti.
Tune dixi: Ecce venio.
In volumvine libri scriptum est de me,
ut facerem placitum tibi,
pro peccato non
(Rom. x. 18).
In universam terram exivit sonus
eorum :
et in jinem orbis verba eorum.
5 Q2
rrae verba eorum.
|
1
1700 VULGATE, THE
Revision of Job, he notices the opposition which he
had met with, and contrasts indignantly his own
labours with the more mechanical occupations of
monks which excited no reproaches (“Si aut fiscel-
Jam junco texerem aut palmarum folia complicarem
. - - nullus morderet, nemo reprehenderet. Nunc
autem .. . corrector vitiorum falsarius vocor”).
Similar complaints, but less strongly expressed,
occur in the Preface to the Books of Chronicles, in
which he had recourse to the Hebrew as well as to
the Greek, in order to correct the innumerable
errors in the names by which both texts were de-
formed. In the preface to the three Books of So-
lomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles) he notices
no attacks, but excuses himself for neglecting to
revise Keclesiasticus and Wisdom, on the ground
that ‘‘he wished only to amend the Canonical Scrip-
tures” (‘ tantummodo Canonicas Scripturas vobis
emendare desiderans”’). No other prefaces remain,
and the revised texts of the Psalter and Job have
alone been preserved; but there is no reason to
doubt that Jerome carried out his design of revising
all the ‘‘ Canonical Scriptures” (comp. Lp. exii.
ad August. (cir. A.D. 404), ‘* Quod autem in aliis
quaeris epistolis: cur prior mea in libris Canonicis
interpretatio asteriscos habeat et virgulas praeno-
tatas . . .”). He speaks of this work as a whole in
several places (6. g. adv. Ruf. ii, 24, “ Egone contra
LXX. interpretes aliquid sum locutus, quos ante
annos plurimos diligentissime emendatos meae lin-
guae studiosis dedi . . .?”” Comp. Jd. iii. 25; Ep.
Ixxi. ad Lucin., “ Septuaginta interpretum editio-
nem et te habere non dubito, et ante annos plu-
rimos (he is writing A.D. 398) diligentissime
emendatam studiosis tradidi’”’), and distinctly re-
presents it as a Latin version of Origen’s Hexaplar
text (Zp. evi. ad Sun. et Fret., “ Ka autem quae
habetur in “EfamAo?s et quam non vertimus’’),
if, indeed, the reference is not to be confined to the
Psalter, which was the immediate subject of dis-
cussion. But though it seems certain that the
revision was made, there is very great difficulty in
tracing its history, and it is remarkable that no
allusion to the revision occurs in the Preface to the
new translation of the Pentateuch, Joshua (Judges,
Ruth), Kings, the Prophets, in which Jerome
touches more or less plainly on the difficulties of
his task, while he does refer to his former labours
on Job, the Psalter, and the Books of Solomon in
the parallel prefaces to those TEES and also in his
Apology against Rufinus (ii. 27, 29, 30, 31). It
has, indeed, been supposed (V. ‘dan si, Praef. in Hier.
x.) that these six books only were published by
Jerome himself. The remainder may have been
put into circulation surreptitiously. But this sup-
position is not without difficulties. Augustine,
writing to Jerome (cir. A.D. 405), earnestly begs
for a copy of the revision from the LXX., ‘of the
publication of which he was then only lately aware
(ip, xevi. 54, “ Deinde nobis mittas, obsecro, inter-
pretationem tuam de Septuaginta, qowum te edidisse
nesctebam ;” comp. §34). It does not appear whether
the request was granted or not, but at a much later
period (cir, A.D. 416) Jerome says that he cannot
furnish him with ‘‘a copy of the LXX. (7. 6. the
Latin Version of it) furnished with asterisks and
obeli, as he had lost the chief pi art of his former
labour by some person’s treachery ” “Ωρ. CXXXIYV.,
aA question has been raised whether Daniel Ὁ was not,
translated at a later time (comp. Vit. Hieron. xxi.), as
Jerome does not include him among the prophets in the
Prol, Gal.; but in a letter written A.p. 394 (2p. 111].
| mus Ὁ:
VULGATE, THE
“ Pleraque prioris laboris fraude cujusdam amisi-
However this may have been, Jerome
could not have spent more than four (or five) years
on the work, and that too in the midst of other
labours, for in 491 he was already engaged on the
versions from the Hebrew which constitute his
great claim on the lasting gratitude of the Church.
(3.) The Translation “of the O. T. from the He-
brew.—20. Jerome commenced the study of Hebrew
when he was already advanced in middle life (cir.
A.D. 374), thinking that the difficulties of the lan-
guage, as he quaintly paints them, would serve to
subdue the temptations of passion to which he was
exposed (Lp. exxv. ὃ 12; comp. Praef. in Dan.).
From this time he continued the study with un-
abated zeal, and availed himself of every help to
perfect his knowledge of the language. His first
teacher had been a Jewish convert ; but afterwards
he did not seruple to seek the instruction of Jews,
whose services he secured with great difficulty and
expense. This excessive zeal (as it seemed) exposed
him to the misrepresentations of his enemies, and
Rufinus indulges in a silly pun on the name of one
of his teachers, with the intention of showing that
his work was not “supported by the authority in
the Church, but only ofa second Barabbas”’ (Ruf
Apol. ii. 12; Hieron. Apol. i. 13; comp. Ep.
Ixxxiv. §3, and Praef. in Paral.). Jerome, how-
ever, was not deterred by opposition from pursuing
his object, and it were only to be wished that he
had surpassed his critics as much in generous cour-
tesy as he did in honest labour. He soon turned
his knowledge of Hebrew to use. In some of his
earliest critical letters he examines the force of He-
brew words (pp. xviii., xx., A.D. 381, 383); and
in A.D. 384, he had been engaged for some time in
comparing the version of Aquila with Hebrew MSS.
(Zp. xxxii. § 1), which a Jew had succeeded in ob-
taining for him from the synagogue (Zp. xxxvi. §1).
After retiring to Bethlehem, he appears to have
devoted himself with renewed ardour to the study
of Hebrew, and he published several works on the
subject (cir. A.D. 389; Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. &e.).
These essays served asa prelude to his New Version,
which he now commenced. This version was not
undertaken with any ecclesiastical sanction, as the
revision of the Gospels was, but at the urgent re-
quest of private friends, or from his own sense of
the imperious necessity of the work. Its history
is told in the main in the Prefaces to the several in-
stalments which were successively published. The
Books of Samuel and Kings were issued first, and
to these he prefixed the famous Prologus galeatus,
addressed to Paula and Kustochium, in which he
gives an account of the Hebrew Canon. It is im-
possible to determine why he selected these books
for his experiment, for it does not appear that he
was requested by any one to do so, The work
itself was executed with the greatest care. Jerome
speaks of the translation as the result of constant
revision (Prol. Gal., “ Lege ergo primum Samuel
et Malachim meum: meum, inquam, meum. Quid-
quid enim crebrius vertendo et emendando sollicitius
et didicimus et tenemus nostrum est”). At the
time when this was published (cir. A.D. 391, 392)
other books seem to have been already translated
(Prol. Gal. omnibus libris quos de Hebraeo ver-
timus”); and in 393 the sixteen | prophets * were in
ad Paul.) he places him ‘distinctly among the four greater
prophets. The Preface to Daniel contains no mark of time :
it appears only that the translation was made after that
of Tobit, when Jerome was not yet familiar with Chaldee.
VULGATE, THE
circulation, and Job had lately been put into the
hands of his most intimate friends (Mp. xlix. ad
Pammach.). Indeed, it would appear that already |
in 392 he had in some sense completed a version of
the O. T. (De Vir. Jil. exxxv., “ Vetus juxta He-|
braicum transtuli.” This treatise was written in
that year); but many books were not completed |
and published till some years afterwards. The next
books which he put into circulation, yet with the
provision that they should be confined to friends
(Praef. in Ezr.), were Ezra and Nehemiah, which |
he translated at the request of Dominica and Roga-
tianus, who had urged him to the task for three
years. This was probably in the year 594 (Vit.
Hieron. xxi. 4), for in the Preface he alludes to his
intention of discussing a question which he treats
in Lp. lvii., written in 595 (De optimo Gen. inter.
pret.). In the Preface to the Chronicles (addressed |
to Chromatius), he alludes to the same Epistle as
“lately written,” and these books may therefore be
set down to that year. The three Books of So-
lomon followed in 398,¢ having been ‘ the work
of three days’? when he had just recovered from
a severe illness, which he suffered in that year
(Praef. “ Itaque longa aegrotatione fractus . . . . |
VULGATE, THE 1701
what year. ‘The Preface, however, is not quoted in
the Apology against Rufinus (a.p. 400), as those of
all the other books which were then published, and
it may therefore be set down to a later date (Hody,
p- 357). The remaining books were completed at
the request of Eustochium, shortly after the death
of Paula, A.D. 404 (Praef. in Jos.). hus the
whole translation was spread over a period of about
fourteen: years, from the sixtieth to the seventy-sixth
year of Jerome’s life. But still parts of it were
finished in great haste (e.g. the Books of Solomon).
A single day was sufficient for the translation of
Tobit (Praef. in Tob.); and ‘‘one short effort”
(una lucubratiuncula) for the translation of Judith.
Thus there are errors in the work which a more
careful revision might have removed, and Jerome
himself in many places gives renderings which he
prefers to those which he had adopted, and admits
from time to time that he had fallen into error
(Hody, p. 362). Yet such defects are trifling
when compared with what he accomplished suc-
cessfully. The work remained for eight centuries
the bulwark of Western Christianity; and as a
monument of ancient linguistic power the trans-
lation of the O. T. stands unrivalled and unique.
tridui opus nomini vestro [Chromatio et Heliodoro] It was at least a direct rendering of the original,
consecravi.”” Comp. Zp. Ixxiii. 10). The Octa- | and not the Version of a version. The Septuagintal
teuch now alone remained (Zp, Ixxi. 5, ἡ. ὁ. Pen- tradition was at Jength set aside, and a few passages
tateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Esther, Praef. will show the extent and character of the differences
by which the new translation was distinguished
from the Old Latin which it superseded.
in Jos.). Of this the Pentateuch (inscribed to De-|
siderius) was published first, but it is uncertain in |
TABL
i FE.
Mic. v. 2 (Marr. ii. 6).
Vetus Latina.
Et tu Bethlehem domus Ephrata
nequaquam minima es ut sis in millibus Judae :
ex te mihi egredietur
ut sit in principem Israel,
et egressus ejus ab initio,
ex diebus saccult.
Vulgata nova.
Et tu Bethlehem Ephrata,
parvulus es in millibus Judae :
ex te mihi egredietur
qui sit dominator in Israel,
et egressus ejus ab initio,
a diebus aeternitatis.
. JER. xxxviii. (xxxi.)
Vox in Rhama audita est,
lamentatio et fletus et luctus,
Rachel plorantis filios suos,
et noluit conquiescere,
quia non sunt.
(Marv. ii. 18).
Vox in excelso audita est
lamentationis luctus et fletus,
Rachel plorantis filios suos ;
et nolentis [noluit] consolart
super eis [5. filiis suis}, quia nom sunt.
15
Is? ixs is ΟΜ ΠΤ: iv. 15,16).
Hoc primum bibe velociter fac
regio Zabulon, terra Neptalim ;
et reliqui qui juxta mare estis
trans Jordanem Galilaeae gentium
Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris
vidit lucem magnam :
qui habitatis in regione et umbra mortis
lux orietur vobis.
Primo tempore alleviata est
‘terra Zabulon et terra Nephthali:
et novissimo aggravata est via maris
trans Jordanem Galilaeae gentium.
Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris
vidit lucem magnam 3
habitantibus in regione umbrae mortis
lux o7ta est eis.
15. 111. 4 (Marr. viii. 17).
Iste peccata nostra portat
et pro nobis dolet.
Vere languores nostros ipse tulit
et dolores nostros ipse portavit.
ZECH. ix. 9 (Mart. xxi. 5).
Gaude vehementer, filia Sion,
praedica filia Jerusalem :
Ecce Rex tuus veniet tibi justus et salvans :
ipse mansuetus et ascendens super
subjugalem et pullum novum.
Exsulta satis, filia Sion,
jubila filia Jerusalem.
Ecce Rex tuus veniet tibi justus et salvator :
ipse pauper et ascendens super
asinam et super pullum jilium asinae.
Is, Ixi. 1, 2 (LUKE iv. 18, 19).
Spiritus Domini super me, \
propter quod unxit me:
evangelizure paupertbus misit me,
sanare contritos corde,
Spiritus Domini (al. add. Dei) super me,
eo quod unxerit Dominus me:
ad annunciandum mansuetis misit me,
ut mederer contritis corde,
Ὁ Sophronius (De Vir. Jil. cxxxiv.) had also then trans-
lated into Greek Jerome’s version of the Psalms and
Prophets.
c The date piven by Hody (a.p. 388) rests on a false
reference (p. 356).
1702 VULGATE, THE
Is. Ixi. 1, 2 (LUKE iv.
Vetus Latina.
praedicare captivis remissionem,
et caecis ut videant :
yocare annum acceptabilem Domino
et diem retributionis:
consolari omnes lugentes.
VULGATE, THE
18, 19).—continued,
Vulgata nova.
et praedicarem captivis indulgentiam,
et clausis apertionem :
ut praedicarem (al. et annunciarem) annum placa-
bilem Domino
et diem ultionis Deo nostro :
ut consolarer omnes lugentes.
Rom. ix. 25).
| Et dicam non populo meo:
| Populus meus es tu.
Et ipse dicet :
Deus meus es tu.
Hos. ii. 24 (
Et dicam non populo meo :
Populus mens es tu.
Et ipse dicet :
Dominus Deus meus es tu.
Hos. i.
Et erit in loco ubi dictwm est eis:
Non populus meus vos :
Vocabuntur Filii Dei viventis.
10 (Rom. ix. 26).
Et erit in loco ubi dicetur eis :
Non populus meus vos:
Dicetur eis: Filii Dei viventis.
|
Is. xxviii. 16
Ecce ego immittam in fundamenta Sion lapidem .. .
et qui crediderit non confundetur.
(kom. x. 11).
Ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidem .. .
qui crediderit non festinet.
|
Hos, xiii. 14 (
De morte redimam illos:
ubi est causa tua mors?
ubi est aculeus tuus, Inferne?
1 Cor. xv. 55).
| De morte redimam eos:
| ero mors tua, ὁ mors,
| morsus tuus ero, Inferne.
Et spiritus in faciem mihi occurrit,
Horruerunt capilli mei et carnes.
Exsurrexi et non cognovi.
Inspexi, et non erat figura ante faciem meam :
sed auram tantum et vocem audiebam.
Quid enim? Nunquid homo coram Domino mundus
erit,
aut ab operibus snis sine macula vir ?
Si contra servos suos non credit,
et adversus angelos suos pravum quid reperit.
Habitantes autem domos luteas,
de quibus et nos ex eodem luto sumus,
percussit illos tanquam tinea,
et a mane usque ad vesperam ultra non sunt ;
et quod non possent sibi ipsis subvenire perierunt.
Afflavit enim eos et aruerunt,
interierunt, quia non habebant sapientiam.
JOB iv. 15-21.
| Et cum spiritus me praesente transiret,
inhorruerunt pili carnis meae.
Stetit quidam, cujus non agnoscebam vultuin
imago coram oculis meis, :
et vocem quasi aurae lenis audivi. ;
Nunquid homo Dei comparatione justificabitur,
aut factore suo purior erit vir ?
Kece qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles :
et in angelis suis reperit pravitatem.
Quanto magis hi qui habitant domos luteas,
qui terrenum habent fundamentum,
consumentur velut a tinea?
De mane usque ad vesperam succidentur :
et quia nullus intelligit in aeternum peribunt.
| Qui autem reliqui fuerint auferentur ex eis:
Morientur, et non in sapientia.
IV. Tue History or JEROME’S TRANSLATION
TO THE INVENTION OF PRINTING.—21. The cri-
tical labours of Jerome were received, as such
labours always are received by the multitude, with
a loud outcry of reproach. He was accused of
disturbing the repose of the Church and shaking
the foundations of faith, Acknowledged errors, as
he complains, were looked upon as hallowed by
ancient usage (Praef. in Job. ii.) ; and few had the
wisdom or candour to acknowledge the importance
of seeking for the purest possible text of Holy
Scripture. Even Augustine was carried away by
the popular prejudice, and endeavoured to dis-
courage Jerome from the task of a new translation
(Ep. civ.), which seemed to him to be dangerous
and almost profane. Jerome, indeed, did little to
smooth the way for the reception of his work. The
violence and bitterness of his language is more like
that of the rival scholars of the 16th century than of
aChristian Father; and there are few more touching
instances of humility than that of the young Au-
gustine bending himself in entire submission before
the contemptuous and impatient reproof of the ve-
teran scholar (Zp. exii. s.f.). But even Augustine
could not overcome the force of early habit. To the
d When he quotes it, he seems to consider an expla-
nation necessary (De doctr. Christ. iv. 7, 15): “ Ex illius
prophetae libro potissimum hoc faciam .....non autem se-
cundum LXX. interpretes, qui etiam ipsi divino spiritu
interpretati, ob hoc aliter videntur nonnulla dixisse, ut
ad spiritualem sensum magis admoneretur lectoris in-
tentio sed sicut ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloquium,
|last he remained faithful to the Italic text which he
had first used ; and while he notices in his Retracta-
tiones several faulty readings which he had formerly
embraced, he shows no tendency to substitute ge-
nerally the New Version for the ΟΙα. ἃ In such
cases Time is the great reformer. Clamour based
upon ignorance soon dies away ; and the New trans-
lation gradually came into use equally with the Old,
and at length supplanted it. In the 5th century it
was adopted in Gaul by Eucherius of Lyons, Vin-
cent of Lerins, Sedulius and Claudianus Mamertus
(Hody, p. 398) ; but the Old Latin was still retained
in Africa and Britain (id.). In the 6th century
the use of Jerome’s Version was universal among
scholars except in Africa, where the other still lin-
gered (Junilius); and at the close of it Gregory
the Great, while commenting on Jerome’s Version,
acknowledged that it was admitted equally with
the Old by the Apostolic See (Praef. in Job. ad
Leandrum, “ Novam translationem dissero, sed ut
comprobationis causa exigit, nunc N ovam, nunc
Veterem, per testimonia assumo; ut quia sedes
Apostolica (cui auctore Deo praesideo) utraque
utitur mei quoque labor studii ex utraque
fulciatur ”). But the Old Version was not
| pretante, translata sunt.” i
| no definite reference, as far as [have observed, to Jerome Β
critical labours. He notices, however, some false readings :
| Lib. i. vii.; Ps. xliii. 22 (Rom. viii. 36) 5 Wisd. viii. 7;
| Eccles. i. 2; id. xix. 43 Matt. v. 22, om. sine causa; Lib,
ii. xii.; Matt. xx. 17 (dodecim for duo).
VULGATE, THE
authoritatively displaced, though the custom of
the Roman Church prevailed also in the other
churches of the West. ‘Thus Isidore of Seville,
(De Offic. Eccles. i. 12), after affirming the inspira-
tion of the LXX., goes on to recommend the Version
of Jerome, “ which,’ he says, “15. used univers- |
ally, as being more truthful in substance and more
perspicuous in language.’ ‘*[Hieronymi] editione
generaliter omnes ecclesiae usquequaque utuntur,
pro eo quod veracior sit in sententiis et clarior in
verbis :” (Hody, p. 402). In the 7th century the
traces of the Old Version grow rare.
Toledo (A.D. 676) affirms with a special polemical
purpose the authority of the LXX., and so of the
Old Latin ; but still he himself follows Jerome when |
not influenced by the requirements of controversy
(Hody, pp. 405, 406). In the 8th century Bede
speaks of Jerome’s Version as “ our edition” (Hody,
p- 408); and from this time it is needless to trace |
its history, though the Old Latin was not wholly
forgotten.e Yet throughout, the New Version made
its way without any direct ecclesiastical authority. |
It was adopted in the different Churches gradually,
or at least without any formal command. (Compare |
Hody, pp. 411 ff. for detailed quotations.)
22. But the Latin Bible which thus passed gra-
dually into use under the name of Jerome was a
strangely composite work. The books of the O. T., |
with one exception, were certainly taken from his
Version from the Hebrew; but this had not only
been variously corrupted, but was itself in many
particulars (especially in the Pentateuch) at va-
riance with his later judgment. Long use, how-
ever, made it impossible to substitute his Psalter
lated two only, Judith and Tobit.
were retained from the Old Version against his
judgment; and the Apocryphal additions to Daniel
and Esther, which he had carefully marked as apo-
cryphal in his own Version, were treated as integral
parts of the books. A few MSS. of the Bible faith-
fully preserved the ‘ Hebrew Canon,” but the
great mass, according to the general custom of
copyists to omit nothing, included everything which |
In the N. T. |
had held a place in the Old Latin.
the only important addition which was frequently
interpolated was the apocryphal Epistle to the Lao-
diceans. The text of the Gospels was in the main
Jerome’s revised edition; that of the remaining
books his very incomplete revision of the Old Latin.
Thus the present Vulgate contains elements which
belong to every period and form of the Latin Ver-
sion—(1.) Unrevised Old Latin: Wisdom, Ecclus.,
1, 2 Mace., Baruch. (2.) Old Latin revised from
the LXX.: Psaiter. (3.) Jerome’s free transla-
tion from the original text: Judith, Tobit. (4.)
Julianus of |
VULGATE, THE 1708
Jerome’s translation from the Original: O. T.
except Psalter. (5.) Old Latin revised from Greek
MSS.: Gospels. (6.) Old Latin cursorily revised :
the remainder of N. I’.
The Revision of Alewin.—23. Meanwhile the text
of the different parts of the Latin Bible was rapidly
deteriorating. ‘The simultaneous use of the Old and
New Versions necessarily led to great corruptions,
of both texts. Mixed texts were formed according
to the taste or judgment of sciibes, and the con-
fusion was further increased by the changes which
were sometimes introduced by those who had some
knowledge of Greek. From this cause scarcely
any Anglo-Saxon Vulgate MS. of the 8th or 9th
centuries which the writer has examined is wholly
free from an admixture of old readings. Several
remarkable examples are noticed below (§ 32);
and in rare instances it is dificult to decide whether
the text is not rather a revised Vetus than a cor-
rupted Vulgata nova (e.g. Brit. Mus. Reg, i. E.
vi.; Addit. 5463). As early as the 6th century,
Cassiodorus attempted a partial revision of the text
(Psalter, Prophets, Epistles) by a collation of old
MSS. But private labour was unable to check the
| growing corruption; and in the 8th century this
had arrived at such a height, that it attracted the
attention of Charlemagne. Charlemagne at once
sought a remedy, and entrusted to Alcuin (cir. A.D.
302) the task of revising the Latin text for public
use. This Alcuin appears to have done simply by
the use of MSS. of the Vulgate, and not by refer-
ence to the original texts (Porson, Letter vi. to
Travis, p. 145). The passages which are adduced
_ by Hody to prove his familiarity with Hebrew, are in
from the Hebrew for the Gallican Psalter; and |
thus this book was retained from the Old Version, |
as Jerome had corrected it from the LXX. Of the |
Apocryphal books Jerome hastily revised or trans- |
The remainder |
fact only quotations from Jerome, and he certainly
left the text unaltered, at least in one place where
Jerome points out its inaccuracy (Gen. xxv. 8).&
The patronage of Charlemagne gave a wide currency
to the revision of Alcuin, and several MSS. remain
which claim to date immediately from his time.»
According to a very remarkable statement, Char-
lemagne was more than a patron of sacred criticism,
aud himself devoted the last year of his life to the
correction of the Gospels “ with the help of Greeks
and Syrians” (Van Ess, p. 159, quoting Theganus,
Script. Hist. Franc. ii. p. 277).
24, However this may be, it is probable that
Aleuin’s revision contributed much towards presery-
ing a good Vulgate text. The best MSS. of his re-
cension do not differ widely from the pure Hierony-
mian text, and his authority must have done much
to check the spread of the interpolations which re-
appear afterwards, and which were derived from
the intermixture of the Old and New Versions.
Examples of readings which seem to be due to him
/ occur: Deut. i. 9, add. solitudinem ; venissemus, for
-etis; id. 4, ascendimus, for ascendemus ; ii. 24, in
manu tua, for in manus tuas; iv. 53, vidisti, for ~
vivisti; vi. 13, ipsi, add. soli; xv. 9, oculos, om.
e Thus Bede, speaking of a contemporary abbot, says |
that he increased the library of two monasteries with |
great zeal, ‘‘ita ut tres Pandectas ” (the name for the |
collection of the Holy Scriptures adopted by Alcuin, in
place of Bibliotheca) ‘‘novae translationis ad unum ve-
adjungeret ....” (Hody, p. 409).
f Jerome notices this fruitful source of error: “Si quid
pro studio ex latere additum est non debet poni in corpore, |
ne priorem translationem pro scribentium voluntate con-
turbat ” (Zp. cvi.ad Sun. et Fret.). Bede, Walafrid Strabo,
and others, complain of the same custom.
& Hieron. Quaest. in Gen. xxv. 8; Comm. in Eccles. ix. |
406: id. xii. 490.
| Library at Paris.
tustae transiationis, quam de Roma attulerat, ipse super- |
h Among these is that known as Charlemagne’s Bible,
Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546, which has been described by
Hug, Εἴη]. §123. Another is in the library of the Oratory
at Rome (comp. §30, Cod. D). A third is in the Imperial
All of these, however, are later than
the age of Charlemagne, and date probably from the time
| of Charles the Bald, a.p. 875.
i Mr. H. Bradshaw suggests that this statement de-
rives some confirmation from the Preface which Charle-
magne added to the collection of Homilies arranged by
Paulus Diaconus, in which he speaks “ of the pains which
he had taken to set the church books to rights.’”” A copy
of this collection, with the Preface (xi.th cent.), is pre-
served in the Library of St. Peter’s Coll. Cambr.
1704 VULGATE, THE
tuos; xvil. 20, filius, for filii; xxi. 6, add. venient ;
xxvi. 16, at, for et. But the new revision was gradu-
ally deformed, though later attempts at correction
were made by Lantiane of Canterbury (A.D. 1089,
Hody, p. 416), Card. Nicolaus (A.pD. 1150), and
the Cistercian Abbot Stephanus (cir. A.D. 1150).
In the 13th century Correctoria were drawn up,
especially in France, in which varieties of reading
were discussed ;* and Roger Bacon complains loudly
of the confusion which was introduced into the
VULGATE, THE
“Common, that is the Parisian copy,” and quotes
a false reading from Mark viii. 38, where the cor-
rectors had substituted confessus for confusus
(Hody, pp. 419 ἢ). Little more was done for
the text of the Vulgate till the invention of print-
ing ; and the name of Laurentius Valla (cir. 1450)
alone deserves mention, as of one who devoted
the highest powers to the criticism of Holy Scrip-
ture, at a time when such studies were little
esteerned.™
k Vercellone has given the readings of three Vatican
Corvectoria, and refers to his own essay upon them in
Atti della Pontif. Acad. Rom. di Archeoloyia, xiv.
There is a Correctorium in Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 A, viii.
m ‘The divisions of the Latin Versions into capitula were
very various. Cassiodorus (7 560 A.D.) mentions an ancient
division of some books existing in his time (“ Octateuchi
{t. ὁ. Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth] titulos....
eredidimus imprimendos a majoribus nostris ordine cur-
rente descriptos.” De Inst. Div. Litt. i.), and in other
books (1, 2 Chron., the Books of Solomon), he himself made
a corresponding division.
the sections which he indicates do not seem to establish
the existence of any generally received arrangement; and
the variety of the capitulation in the best existing MSs.
of his Version proves that no one method of subdivision
could claim his authority. The divisions which are given
in MSS. correspond with the summary of contents by which
the several books are prefaced, and vary considerably in
length. ‘They are called indiscriminately capitula, breves,
titulit. Martianay, in his edition of the Bibliotheca, gives
a threefold arrangement, and assigns the different terms
to the three several divisions; thus Genesis has xxxviii
tituli, xlvi breves, Ixxxii (or cliv) capitula. But while
Jerome does not appear to have fixed any division of the
Bible into chapters, he arranged the text in lines (versus,
στίχοι) for convenience in readiug and interpretation ;
and the lines were combined in marked groups (membra,
κῶλα). In the poetical books a further arrangement
marked the parallelism of the answering clauses (Mar-
tianay, Prolegg. iv. Ad Div. Bibl.), ‘Che number of lines
(versus) is variously given in different MSS. (Comp. Ver-
cellone, Var. Lect. App. ad Jos.) For the origin of the
present division of the Vulgate, see Brie, i. 213.
An abstract of the capitula and versus given in the
Alcuin Ms., known as “ Charlemagne’s Bible” (Brit. Mus.
Addit. 10,546), will give a satisfactory idea of the con-
tents, nomenclature, and arrangement of the best copies
of the Latin Bible.
Epistola ad Paulinum. Praefatio.
Bresit, i.e. Genesis, capp. Ixxxii. habet versos iii. Dce-
Ellesmoth, i.e. kxodus. capp. XXXviiii. ¥. ΠῚ.
Leviticus, Hebraice
Vatecra,. . . capp. Ixxxviiii., ¥. 11. ccc.
Numeri. . « capp. Ixxviiii. hab. vers. numr. ii.
Addaburim, Grece
Deuteronomium... capp. οἷν. habet vers. i. pc.
Praefatio Jesu Naue et Judicum.
Josue Ben Nun. . Capp. Xxxiil. habet vers. 1. pccL.
Softim, i. 6. Judicum,
(liber). . . . app. xviii. habet vers. numr.
1. DCCL.
Ruth. .« . + - .none. habet ver. num. ΟΟΙ,.
Praefatio (Prologus galeatus).
Sanvuhel (Reyun), lib.
(MOS ow eo εὐ 7 Ὁ
Samuhel (Regun), lib.
sec. « . »« «+ .capp. xviii. habet versus, ii.
Malachim, i. e. Regum,
lib. tert. . capp. xviiii. (for xviii.) habet vers, ii, p.
Malachin, i. e, Regum,
lib. quart.. . . « capp. xvii. habet versus 11, cox.
Prologus.
SOTTO ἀῶ BOGE 1.59
+ capp. xxvi. habet versus, il. ccc.
cc.
- none. habet vers.
Tl, DLXXX,
Prologus.
Jerome mentions capitula, but |
Hieremias (with Lam. and
Prayer) . .« . . «none. habet versus till. ccccn.
Prologus. εἰ
Hiezecheel (-tel). + . «
WET oe Ὁ
Osee, Johel, Amos, Abdias,
Jonas, Michas, Nawm, Aba-
none, none.
none, habet versus 1. pcccL.
cuc, Sophonias, Aggeus,
Zacharias, Malachias . none. none.
Prologus.
OD ee SN Ge etry
Origo Proph. David . .
Liber Psalmorum (Gallican)
Epist. ad Chroni. et Heliod.
Liber Proverbiorum . capp. lx. habet versus
1. DCCXL,
none.
habet versus CCLXXx,
habet versus 1. pec.
habet Versus Ii. pec,
none. ¥. 1. DCC.
Praefatio.
none. habet vr. Vv.
Ecclesiastes . . . capp. Xxxi-
Cantica Canticorum . . none.
Liber Sapientiae . capp. xlviii.
Ecclesiasticus . . capp. Cxxvii.
Praefatio.
Dabreiamin, lib. prim. . none. hab, (sic).
Paralypominon (lib. sec.). none. none,
Praefatio. ;
Liber Ezraé. « © « «© —— ——
Prologus.
Hester (with add.) . . . none, habet versus ¥. pec.
Praefatio.
TORUS Tas) «tee a OUes nNOnes
Prologus.
Judith « . « +» «© Ὁ — habet versusi.c.
Liber Machabr. prim. . . - ΙΧ]. none,
Machabr. liber 566... 9. « . lv. ——
Praef. ad Damasum,
Argumentum.
Canones,
Prologus.
Mattheus δ γεν me:
WMC CUS πο γώ Δ ὦ
Lwcas pei ee ae
capp. Ixxxi. habet vers. il. pce.
capp. Xlvi. hab. ¥. 1. pec.
capp. Ixxiii. vers. Ti. pece.
Johannes « +e » C&pp. XXXV. Vers. 1. DGCC.
Lib. Actuwm Apost. capp. Ixxiiii. habet vers. iii. pe.
Prologus septem Epistolarum Can.
Epistl. Sct. Jacobi. . capp. Xx. none.
Kpistl. Sct. Petri prim. capp: xx. ——
Hpistl. Sct. Petri sec. . capp. xi. ——
Kpistl. Sct. Joh. prim. . capp. Xx. —~
Epistl. Sct. Joh. sec. . capp. v. ——
Epistl. Sct. Joh. tert. . capp. v. ——
Epistl. Sct. Jud... . capp. vii. ——
Epla. ad Romanos . . — capp. li. habet versus pccccxt.
Epla. ad Cor. prim. —. capp. 1xxii. none.
Epla. ad Cor. sec. . capp. xxviii. hab. vers. ccxcm.
Epla. ad Galathas . capp. xxxvii. habet versus ccxmr.
Epla. ad Ephesios . « capp. xxxi. habet versus CCCXVIL.
Epla. ad Philippenses . capp. xviiii. none.
Kpla. ad Thess. prim. . capp. xxv. habet versus CCXIIr.
Epla. ad Thess, sec. « capp. viiii. none.
Epla. ad Colosenses « capp. Xxxi. none.
Epla. ad Tim. prim, . capp. Xxx. vers. CCXXX.
Epla. ad Tim. sec. . . Capp. XXy. none.
Eplu.ad Tit. . «© «. «Capp. xX. none.
Epla. ad Philem. . . Capp. iiii. none,
Epla, ad Hebr. . . capyp. xxxviiii. none,
Epla. ad Laodicenses . . none, none,
habet Versus I. Dec.
each of the books of
Apocalypsis . . + « Capp. Χχν.
An argumentum is given before
VULGATE, THE
VY. Tuer Hisrory or THe ΡΕΙΝΤΕΡ TExr.—
25. It was a noble omen for the future progress of
printing that the first book which issued from the
press was the Bible; and the splendid pages of the
Mazarin Vulgate (Mainz, Gutenburg and Fust)
stand yet unsurpassed by the latest efforts of typo-
graphy. This work is referred to about the year
1455, and presents the common text of the 15th
century. Other editions followed in rapid succession
(the first withadate, Mainz, 1462, FustandSchoiffer),
but they offer nothing of critical interest. The
first collection of various readings appears in a
Paris edition of 1504, and others followed at Venice
and Lyons in 1511, 1513; but Cardinal Ximenes
(1502-1517) was the first who seriously revised
the Latin text (“*.... contulimus cum quamplu-
rimis exemplaribus venerandae vetustatis; sed his
maxime, quae in publica Complutensis nostrae
Universitatis bibliotheca reconduntur, quae supra
octingentesimum abhinc annum litteris Gothicis
conscripta, ea sunt sinceritate ut nec apicis
lapsus possit in eis deprehendi,’ Praef.)™, to
which he assigned the middle place of honour in
his Polyglott between the Hebrew and Greek texts
[comp. ΝΕ TrsraMeEnrt, p. 521]. The Complu-
tensian text is said to be more correct than those
which preceded it, but still it is very far from
being pure. This was followed in 1528 (2nd edi-
tion 1532) by an edition of R. Stephens, who had
bestowed great pains upon the work, consulting
three MSS. of high character and the earlier edi-
tions, but as yet the best materials were not open
for use. About the same time various attempts
were made to correct the Latin from the original
texts (Erasmus, 1516; 9 Pagninus, 1518-28 ; Card.
Cajetanus ; Steuchius, 1529 ; Clarius, 1542), or even
to make a new Latin version (Jo. Campensis, 1533).
A more important edition of R. Stephens followed
in 1540, in which he made use of twenty MSS.
and introduced considerable alterations into his
VULGATE, THE 1705
former text. In 1541 another edition was pub-
lished by Jo. Benedictus at Paris, which was based
on the collation of MSS. and editions, and was often
reprinted afterwards. Vercellone speaks much more
highly of the Biblia Ordinaria, with glosses, &c.,
published at Lyons, 1545, as giving readings in
accordance with the oldest MSS., though the sources
from which they are derived are not given ( Variae
Lect. xcix.). The course of controversy in the 16th
century exaggerated the importance of the differ-
ences in the text and interpretation of the Vulgate,
and the confusion called for some remedy. An
authorized edition became a necessity for the Romish
Church, and, however gravely later theologians may
have erred in explaining the policy or intentions
of the Tridentine Fathers on this point, there can be
no doubt that (setting aside all reference to the
original texts) the principle of their decision—the
preference, that is, of the oldest Latin text to any
later Latin version—was substantially right.P
Tie Sixtine and Clementine Vulgates.—26. The
first session of the Council of Trent was held on
Dec. 13th, 1545. After some preliminary ariange-
ments the Nicene Creed was formally promulgated
as the foundation of the Christian faith on Feb. 4th,
1546, and then the Council proceeded to the ques-
tion of the authority, text, and interpretation of
Holy Scripture. A committee was appointed to
report upon the subject, which held private meet-
ings from Feb. 20th to March 17th. Considerable
varieties of opinion existed as to the relative value
of the original and Latin texts, and the final decree
was intended to serve as a compromise.4 This was
made on April 8th, 1546, and consisted of two
parts, the first of which contains the list of the
canonical books, with the usual anathema on those
who refuse to receive it; while the second, “ On the
Edition and Use of the Sacred Books,” contains no
anathema, so that its contents are not articles of
faith.t The wording of the decree itself contains
the N. T. except the Catholic Epistles and the Ep. to the
Laodiceans, and the whole MS. closes with sixty-eight
hexameter Latin verses.
The divisions agree generally with Brit. Mus. Harl. 2805,
and Lambeth 3, 4. In the Vallicellian Alcuin MS. (comp.
p. 1710p) the apocryphal Zp. to the Laodiceans is not
found ; but it occurs in the same position in the great
Bible in the King’s Library (1 Εἰ. vii. viii.), with four
capitula.
Many examples of the various divisions into capitula
are given at length by Thomasius, Opera, i. ed. Vezzosi,
Romae, 1747. ὙΠῸ divisions of the principal MSS. which
the writer has examined are given below, §30.
Bentley gives the following stichometry from Cod.
Sangerm. (g'):—
ΤΡ. ad Rom., Scribta de Chorintho. Versos Dccce, (so
two other of B.'s MSS.).
ad Cor. i., Scribta de Philipis. Versus DCCCLXX.
ad Cor. ii., Scribta de Macedonia. Versus DLXx.
(sic).
ad Galat., Scribta de urbe Roma, Verst CCLXIMXC.
(sic).
ad Ephes., Scribta de urbe Roma. Versus cccxt.
ad Philip., Scribta de urbe Roma. Versi ccc.
ad Coloss., Scribta de urbe Roma. Versi ccvitt.
ad Thess. i., Scripta de Athenis. Versi CLXIUI.
ad hess. ii., Scripta de urbe Roma. Versus ΟΥ̓ΤΙΙ.
ad Tim. i., Scribta de Lauditia. Versus ccxxx.
ad Tim. ii., Scripta a Roma, Versus CLXXI.
ad Tit., Scripta de Nicopolin. Versus LXvu.
ad Philem., Scribta de urbe Roma. Versus XXXIUI.
ad Hebr., Scribta de Roma. Versus Dco.
No verses are given from this MS. for the other books.
n The copy which fs here alluded to is still in the
library at Alcala, but the writer is not aware that it has
been re-examined by any scholar. There is also a second
copy of the Vulgate of the 12th cent. A list of Biblical
MSS. at Alcala is given in Dr. Tregelles’ Printed Text of
NV. T., pp. 15-18.
© Erasmus himself wished to publish the Latin text as
he found it in MSS.; but he was dissuaded by the advice
of a friend, “urgent rather than wise” (“ amici consiliis
improbis verius quam felicibus’’).
P Bellarmin justly insists on this fact, which has been
strangely overlooked in later controversies (De Verbo
Dei, x. ap. Van Ess, §27): ‘Nec enim Patres [Tridentini]
fontium ullam mentionem fecerunt. Sed solum ex tot
latinis versionibus, quae nunc circumferuntur, unam dele-
gerunt, quam ceteris anteponerent..... antiquam novis,
probatam longo usu recentibus adhuc, ac ut sic loquar,
ὉΙΜΙΘΊΒΙ τς - - ἢ
a The original authorities are collected and given at
length by Van Ess, ὁ 17.
τ Insuper eadem Sacrosancta Synodus considerans non
parum wtilitatis accedere posse ecclesiz Dei, si ex omni-
bus latinis editionibus, que circumferuntur sacrorum
librorum, quaenam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat,
statuit et declarat, ut hac ipsa vetus et vulgata editio,
quae longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est,
in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, preedicationibus
et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur; et ut nemo
illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat. ...
Sed et impressoribus modum. ... imponere volens.... .
decrevit et statuit ut posthac sacra scriptura potissimum
vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime
imprimatur.....
1706 VULGATE, THE
several marks of the controversy from which it
arose, and admits of a far more liberal construction
than later glosses have affixed to it. In affirming
the authority of the ‘Old Vulgate’ it contains no
estimate of the value of the original texts. The
question decided is simply the relative merits of the
current Latin versions (‘‘ si ex omnibus Latinis
versionibus quae circumferuntur ....”), and this
only in reference to public exercises. The object
contemplated is the advantage (utilitas) of the
Church, and not anything essential to its constitu-
tion. It was further enacted, as a check to the
licence of printers, that “ Holy Scripture, but espe-
cially the old and common (Vulgate) edition (evi-
dently without excluding the original texts), should
be printed as correctly as possible.” In spite, how-
ever, of the comparative caution of the decree, and
the interpretation which was affixed to it by the
highest authorities, it was received with little
favour, and the want of a standard text of the
Vulgate practically left the question as unsettled
as before. The decree itself was made by men
little fitted to anticipate the difficuities of textual
criticism, but afterwards these were found to be so
great that for some time it seemed that no autho-
rized edition would appear. The theologians of
Belgium did something to meet the want. In
1547 the first edition of Hentenius appeared at
Louvain, which had very considerable influence upon
later copies. It was based upon the collation of Latin
MSS. and the Stephanie edition of 1540. In the
Antwerp Polyglott of 1568-72 the Vulgate was bor-
rowed from the Complutensian (Vercellone, Var.
Lect. ci.); but in the Antwerp edition of the Vulgate
of 1573-4 the text of Hentenius was adopted with
copious additions of readings by Lucas Brugensis.
This last was designed as the preparation and tem-
porary substitute for the Papal edition: indeed it
may be questioned whether it was not put forth as
the “correct edition required by the Tridentine de-
cree”’ (comp. Lucas Brug. ap. Vercellone, cii.). But
a Papal board was already engaged, however de-
sultorily, wpon the work of revision. The earliest
trace of an attempt to realise the recommendations
of the Council is found fifteen years after it was
made. In 1561 Paulus Manutius (son of Aldus
Manutius) was invited to Rome to superintend the
printing of Latin and Greek Bibles (Vercellone,
Var. Lect. &c., i. Prol. xix.n.). During that year
and the next several scholars (with Sirletus at
their head) were engaged in the revision of the
text. In the pontificate of Pius V. the work was
continued, and Sirletus still took a chief part in it
(1569, 1570, Vercellone, 7. ὁ. xx. n.), but it was
currently reported that the difficulties of publishing
|
|
VULGATE, THE
an authoritative edition were insuperable. Nothing
further was done towards the revision of the Vul-
gate under Gregory XIII., but preparations were
made for an edition of the LXX. This appeared in
1587, in the second year of the pontificate of Sixtus
V., who had been one of the chief promoters of the
work. After the publication of the LXX., Sixtus
immediately devoted himself to the production of
an edition of the Vulgate. He was himself a
scholar, and his imperious genius led him to face
a task from which others had shrunk. ‘ He had
felt,” he says, “" from his first accession to the papal
throne (1585), great grief, or even indignation
(indigne ferentes), that the Tridentine decree was
still unsatisfied ;” and a board was appointed, under
the presidency of Card. Carafa, to arrange the ma-
terials and offer suggestions for an edition. Sixtus
himself revised the text, rejecting or confirming the
suggestions of the board by his absolute judgment ;
and when the work was printed he examined the
sheets with the utmost care, and corrected the errors
with his own hand.’ The edition appeared in 1590,
with the famous constitution Aeternus ille (dated
March 150, 1589) prefixed, in which Sixtus athrmed
with characteristic decision the plenary authority
of the edition for all future time. ‘‘ By the fulness
of Apostolical power” (such are his words) “ we
decree and declare that this edition . . . . approved
by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to
be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and
unquestioned, in all public and private discussion,
reading, preaching, and explanation.” * He further
forbade expressly the publication of various read-
ings in copies of the Vulgate, and pronounced that
all readings in other editions and MSS. which vary
from those of the revised text “are to have no
credit or authority for the future” (ea in iis quae
huic nostrae editioni non consenserint, nullam in
posterum fidem, nullamque auctoritatem habitura
esse decernimus). It was also enacted that the
new revision should be introduced into all missals
and service-books ; and the greater excommunica-
tion was threatened against all who in any way
contravened the constitution. Had the life of Sixtus
been prolonged, there is no doubt but that his iron
will would have enforced the changes which he
thus peremptorily proclaimed ; but he died in Aug.
1590, and those whom he had alarmed or offended
took immediate measures to hinder the execution
of his designs. Nor was this without good reason.
He had changed the readings of those whom he had
employed to report upon the text with the most
arbitrary and unskilful hand; and it was scarcely
an exaggeration to say that his precipitate ‘“ self-
reliance had brought the Church into the most
5. The original words are both interesting and im-
portant: “Nos....ipsius Apostolorum Principis aucto-
ritate confisi....haudquaquam gravati sumus....hune
quoque non mediocrem accuratae lucubrationis laborem
suscipere, atque ea omnia perlegere quae alii collegerant
aut senserant, diversarum lectionum rationes perpendere,
sanctorum doctorum sententias recognoscere ; quae quibus
anteferenda essent dijudicare, adeo ut in hoc laboriosissi-
mae emendationis curriculo, in quo operam quotidianam,
eamque pluribus horis collocandam duximus, aliorum
quidem labor fuerit in consulendo, noster autem in eo
quod ex pluribus esset optimum deligendo: ita tamen
ut veterem multis in Ecclesia abhine saeculis receptam
lectionem omnino retinuerimus.
graphiam in Apostolico Vaticano Palatio nostro.....
exstruximus .... ut in ea emendatum jam Bibliorum
Novam interea ‘l'ypo- |
perficeretur, nostra nos ipsi manu correximus, si qua
praelo vitia obrepserant, et quae confusa aut facile con-
fundi posse videbantur .... distinximus” (Hody, p. 496 ;
Van Ess, p. 273).
ΣΡ ex certa nostra scientia, deque Apostolicae
potestatis plenitudine statuimus ac declaramus, eam
Vulgatam sacrae, tam veteris, quam novi Testamenti
paginae Latinam editionem, quae pro authentica a
Concilio Tridentino recepta est, sine ulla dubitatione, aut
controversia censendam esse hanc ipsam, quam nunc,
prout optime fieri poterit, emendatam et in Vaticana
Typographia impressam in universa Christiana Republica,
atque in omnibus Christiani orbis Ecclesiis legendam
evulgamus, decernentes eam... . pro vera, legitima,
authentica et indubitata, in omnibus publicis privatisque
disputationibus, lectionibus, praedicationibus, et explana-
volumen excuderetur; eaque res quo magis incorrupte | tionibus recipiendam et tenendam esse.”
VULGATE, THE
serious peril.”" During the brief pontificate of
Urban VII. nothing could be done ; but the reaction
was not long delayed. On the accession of Gregory
XIV. some went so far as to propose that the edi-
tion of Sixtus should be absolutely prohibited ; but
Bellarmin suggested a middle course. He proposed
that the erroneous alterations of the text which had
been made in it (‘* quae male mutata erant”)
“should be corrected with all possible speed and
the Bible reprinted under the name of Sixtus, with
a prefatory note to the effect that errors (aliqua
errata) had crept into the former edition by the
carelessness of the printers.” * This pious fraud,
or rather daring falsehood,y for it can be called by
no other name, found favour with those in power.
A commission was appointed to revise the Sixtine
text, under the presidency of the Cardinal Colonna
(Columna). At first the commissioners made but
slow progress, and it seemed likely that a year
would elapse before the revision was completed
(Ungarelli, in Vercellone, Pro/eg. lviii.). The mode
of proceedings was therefore changed, and the com-
mission moved to Zagarolo, the country seat of Co-
lonna ; and, if we may believe the inscription which
still commemorates the event, and the current re-
port of the time, the work was completed in nineteen
days. But even if it can be shown that the work
extended over six months, it is obvious that there
was no time for the examination of new authorities,
but only for making a rapid revision with the help
of the materials already collected. The task was
hardly finished when Gregory died (Oct. 1591), and
the publication of the revised text was again delayed.
His successor, Innocent IX., died within the same
year, and at the beginning of 1592 Clement VIII.
was raised to the popedom. Clement entrusted the
final revision of the text to Toletus, and the whole
u Bellarmin to Clement VIII.: “ Novit beatitudo vestra
cui se totamque ecclesiam discrimini commiserit Sixtus V.
dum juxta propriae doctrinae sensus sacrorum bibliorum
emendationem aggressus est; nec satis scio an gravius
unquam periculum occurrerit” (Van Ess, p. 290).
x The following is the original passage quoted by Van
Ess from the first edition of Bellarmin’s Autobiography
(p. 291), anno 1591: ‘Cum Gregorius XIV. cogitaret quid
agendum esset de bibliis a Sixto V. editis, in quibus erant
permulta perperam mutata, non deerant viri graves, qui
censerent ea biblia esse publice prohibenda, sed.N. (Bellar-
minus) coram pontifice demonstravit, biblia illa non esse
prohibenda, sed esse ita corrigenda, ut salvo honore Sixti V.
pontificis biblia illa emendata proderentur, quod fieret si
quam celerrime tollerntur quae male mutata erant, et
biblia recuderentur sub nomine ejusdem Sixti, et addita
praefatione qua significaretur in prima editione Sixti
prae festinatione irrepsisse aliqua errata, vel typogra-
phorum vel aliorum incuria, et sic N. reddidit Sixto pon-
tifici bona pro malis.” The last words refer to Sixtus’
condemnation of a thesis of Bellarmin, in which he denied
“ Papam esse dominum directum totius orbis;’” and it was
this whole passage, and not the Preface to the Clementine
Vulgate, which cost Bellarmin his canonization (Van Ess,
from the original documents, pp. 291-318). It will be
observed that Bellarmin first describes the errors of the
Sixtine edition really as deliberate alterations, and then
proposes to represent them as errors.
y The evidence collected by Van Ess (pp. 285 ff.), and
even the cautious admissions of Ungarelli and Vercellone
(pp. xxxix,-xliv.), will prove that this language is ποῦ
too strong.
z This fact Bellarmin puts in stronger light when
writing to Lucas Brugensis (1603) to acknowledge his
critical collations on the text of the Vulgate: ‘ De libello
ad me misso gratias ago, sed scias velim biblia vulgata
VULGATE, THE 1707
before the end of 1592. The Preface, which is
moulded upon that of Sixtus, was written by
Bellarmin, and is favourably distinguished from
that of Sixtus by its temperance and even modesty.
The text, it is said, had been prepared with the
greatest care, and though not absolutely perfect
was at least (what is no idle boast) more correct
than that of any former edition. Some readings
indeed, it-is allowed, had, though wrong, been
left unchanged, to avoid popular offence. But yet
even here Bellarmin did not scruple to repeat the
fiction of the intention of Sixtus to recal his edition,
which still disgraces the front of the Roman Vul-
gate by an apology no less needless than untrue.*
Another edition followed in 1593, and a third in
1598, with a triple list of errata, one for each of
the three editions. Other editions were afterwards
published at Rome (comp. Vercellone, civ.), but
with these corrections the history of the authorized
text properly concludes,
27. The respective merits of the Sixtine and
Clementine editions have been often debated. In
point of mechanical accuracy, the Sixtine seems to
be clearly superior (Van Ess, 565 ff.), but Van
Ess has allowed himself to be misled in the esti-
mate which he gives of the critical value of the
Sixtine readings. The collections lately published
by Vercellone » place in the clearest light the strange
and uncritical mode in which Sixtus dealt with the
evidence and results submitted to him. The recom-
mendations of the Sixtine correctors are marked by
singular wisdom and critical tact, and in almost
every case where Sixtus departs from them he is in
error. This will be evident from a collation of
the readings in a few chapters as given by Vercel-
lone. ‘Thus in the first four chapters of Genesis
the Sixtine correctors are right against Sixtus: i. 2,
27, 313 ἢ. 18, 205 iii. 1, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22; iv.
non esse a nobis accuratissime castigata, multa enim de
industria justis de causis pertransivimus, quae correctione
indigere videbantur.”
“ The original text of the passages here referred to is
full of interest : “ Sixtus V. ... opus tandem confectum
typis mandari jussit. Quod cum jam esset excusum et
ut in lucem emitteretur, idem Pontifex operam daret
{implying that the edition was nof published], animad-
vertens non pauca in Sacra Biblia preli vitia irrepsisse,
quae iterata diligentia indigere viderentur, totum opus
sub incudem revocandum censuit atque decrevit [of this
there is not the faintest shadow of proof]...... Accipe
igitur, Christiane lector..... ex Vaticana typographia
veterem ac vulgatam sacrae scripturae editionem, quanta
fieri potuit diligentia castigatam: quam quidem sicut
omnibus numeris absolutam, pro humana imbecillitate
affirmare difficile est, ita ceteris omnibus quae ad hanc
usque diem prodierunt emendatiorem, purioremque esse,
minime dubitandum...... In bac tamen pervulgata lec-
tione sicut nonnulla consulto mutata, ita etiam alia, quae
mutanda videbantur, consulto immutata relicta sunt, tum
quod ita faciendum esse ad offensionem populorum vitan-
dam 5. Hieronymus non semel admonuit πὰ quod ... .”
The candour of these words contrasts strangely with the
folly of later champions of the edition.
In consequence of a very amusing mistranslation of a
phrase of Hug, it has been commonly stated in England
that this Preface gained, instead of cost, Bellarmin his
canonization: (Hug, Hinl. i.490, ‘ Welche ihn um seine
Heiligsprechung gebracht haben soll”). ‘The real offence
lay in the words quoted above (note “).
» The most important of these is the Codex Carafianus,
a copy of the Antwerp edition of 1583, with the MS.
corrections of the Sixtine board. This was found by
Ungarelli in the Library of the Roman College of SS.
Blaise and Charles. Comp. Vercellone, Praef. xi.
1708 VULGATE, THE
1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19; and on the other hand
Sixtus is right against the correctors ini. 15; The
Gregorian correctors, therefore (whose results are
given in the Clementine edition), in the main simply
restored readings adopted by the Sixtine board and
rejected by Sixtus. In the Book of Deuteronomy
the Clementine edition follows the Sixtine correctors
where it differs me the Sixtine edition: i. 4, 19,
oles ii. Ὧι: iv. 6; 22, 28, 30, 33, 99; γ΄ 24: vi.
AP OVI las Ieee s Xl, os Xi, 11; 12 , 15, &e.;
and every change (except probably vi. τις xii. 11,
12) is right ; while on the other hand in the same
chapters there are, as far as I have observed, only
two instances of variation without the authority of
the Sixtine correctors (xi. 10,32). But in point of
fact the Clementine edition errs by excess of caution.
Within the same limits it follows Sixtus against the
correctors wrongly in ii. 335 iii. 10, 12, 13, 16,
19, 20; iv. 10, 11, 28, 42; vi. 3; xi. 28; and in
the whole book admits in the following passages ar-
bitrary changes of Sixtus: iv. 10; v. 24; vi. 13;
xii. 15, 32; xviii. 10,11; xxix. 23.¢ In the N. T.,
as the report of the Sixtine correctors has not yet
been published, it is impossible to say how far the
same law holds good; but the following comparison
of the variations of the two editions in continuous
passages of the Gospels and Epistles will show that
the Clementine, though not a pure text, is yet very
far purer than the Sixtine, which often gives Old
Latin readings, and sometimes appears to depend |
simply on patristic authority ἃ (7. e. pp. 11.) :—
Sixtine. | Clementine,
Matt. i. 23, vocabitur (pp. ll.) | — vocabunt.
ii. 5, Juda (gat.mm. &c.) | — Judae.
13, surge, accipe (?) | — surge et accipe.
lii. 2, appropinquabit (iv. | — appropinquavit.
17), (MSS. Gallic. |
pp. 11.). sai
3, de quo dictum est | — qui dictus est.
(tol. it.). |
10, arboris (Tert.). — arborum.
iv. 6, ut... tollant (it.). | — et... tollent.
7, Jesus rursum. — Jesus: Rursum.
15, Galilaeae (it. am. | — Galilaea.
&c.).
16, ambulabat (?) — sedebat.
v. 11, vobis homines (gat. | — vobis.
mm. &c.).
30, abscinde (?). — abscide.
40, in judicio (it.). — judicio.
vi. 7, eth. faciunt (it.) — ethnici.
30, enim (it.). — autem.
vii. 1, et non judicabimini, — ut non judicemini.
nolite condemnare |
et non condemna-
bimini (?) |
4, sine, frater (it. pp. | — sine.
11. Ϊ
23, ἃ me omnes (it.| — ame.
pp. lL).
VULGATE, THE
Siztine. Clementine.
Matt. vii.25, supra (pp. 11. tol. — super.
«e.). Ϊ
29. scribae (it.). | — scribae eorum,
Vili. 9, alio (it. am. &e.). ᾿ | — alii.
12, ubi (pp. ll.). — ibi.
18, jussit discipulos — jussit.
(it.). |
20, caput suum (it. — caput.
tol.). |
28, venisset Jesus (it.). | — venisset.
32, magno impetu (it.). | — impetu.
38, haec omnia (9). -— omnia.
34, rogabant eum ut | — rogabant ut.
Jesus (?).
Ephes. 1,15, in Christo J. (pp. 11. | — in Domino J.
Bodl.).
21, dominationem (?). [- εὐ dominationem.
ii. 1, vos convivificavit || — vos.
(pp. lL).
11, vos eratis (pp. ll. | — vos.
Bedl. &c.).
—. dicebamini (pp. ll.). | — dicimini.
12, qui (pp. ll. Bodl. | — quod.
&e,).
22, Spiritu Sancto (pp. | — Spiritu.
ll. Sang. &c.).
iii. 8, mihi enim (pp. 11.). | — mihi.
16, virtutem (it.). — virtute.
—, in interiore homine |— in interiorem ho-
(pp. ll. Bodl.), minem.,
iv. 22, deponite (it.) — deponere.
30, in die (pp. ll. Bodl. , — in diem.
&c.).
v. 26, mundans eam (pp. | | — mundans.
11.). |
27, in gloriosam (?). | — gloriosam.
, in praeparationem
(it.).
in catena ista (it. ?).
| — in praeparatione.
20, — in catena ita.
(Some of the readings of Bodl. (§13, (3) sy) are added.
Jt. is used, as is commonly done, for the old texts gene-
rally ; and the notation of the MSS. is that usually followed.)
28, While the Clementine edition was still recent
some thoughts seem to have been entertained of re-
vising it. Lucas Brugensis made important. collec-
tions for this purpose, but the practical difficulties
were found to be too great, and the study of various
readings was reserved for scholars (Bellarmin. ad
Lucam Brug. 1606). In the next generation use
and controversy gave a sanctity to the authorized
text. Many, especially in Spain, pronounced it to
have a value superior to the originals, and to be
| inspired in every detail (comp. Van Ess, 401,
ip ay P:
402; Hody, 111. ii, 15); but it is useless to dwell
on the history of such extravagancies, from which
the Jesuits at least, following their great champion
Bellarmin, wisely kept aloof. It was a more serious
matter that the universal acceptance of the papal
text checked the critical study of the materials on
which it was professedly based. At length, how-
ever, in 1706, Martianay published a new, and in
¢ The common statement that the Clementine edition |
follows the revision of Alcuin, while the Sixtine gives the
true text of Jerome, is apparently a mere conjectural |
assertion. In Deuteronomy, Sixtus gives the Alcuinian |
reading in the following passages: 1.19; iv. 30, 333; xxi. 6;
and I have not observed one passage where the Giemene |
tine text agrees with that of Alcuin unless that of Sixtus |
does also.
Passages have been taken from the Pentateuch, because |
in that Vercellone has given complete and trustworthy |
materials. The first Book of Samuel, in which the later |
corruptions are very extensive, gives results generally of |
the same character. Great and obvious interpolations are
preserved both in the Sixtine and Clementine editions: |
ive 1. 0.01.1: Xili 15. 5)xiv, 22,43 xvod, 125 xvii. 365 |
Xx. 15 (chiefly from the LXX.). The Sixtine text gives
the old reading displaced from the Clementine: iif. 2, 35 |
iv. 1, 4; vii. 10(?); ix. 1(?), 25. The Clementine restores |
i
the old reading against Sixtus: i. 9, 193 ii. 1], 17, 26, 305
Tv. 9 (0) (21s wi 9's x75) Ky 12) ΧΙ Ὁ 11 lo; 25. ΣΙΝ
18; xiv. 2 (Ὁ), 14, 15. Thus in fifteen chapters Clement
alone gives the old readings sixteen times, Sixtus alone
| five times. Vercellone, in the second part of his Variae
Lectiones, which was published after this article was
printed, promises a special discussion of the interpola-
tions of 1 Sam., which were, as might have been ex-
pected, expunged by the Sixtine correctors. Vercellone
ad 1 Reg, iv. 1.
a The variations between the Sixtine and Clementine
editions were collated by T. James, Bellwm papale, 8. con-
cordia discors..... Lond. 1600; and more completely,
with a collation of the Clementine editions, by H. de Buken-
top, Lua de luce, lib. iii. pp. 315 ff. Vercellone, correcting
earlier critics, reckons that the whole number of varia-
tions between the two revisions is about 3000 (Prolegg.
xl viii. nota).
VULGATE, THE
the main better text, chiefly from original MSS., in
his edition of Jerome. Vallarsi added fresh colla-
tions in his revised issue of Martianay’s work, but
in both cases the collations are imperfect, and it is
impossible to determine with accuracy on what MS.
authority the text which is given depends. Sa-
batier, though professing only to deal with the
Old Latin, published important materials for the
criticism of Jerome’s Version, and gave at length
the readings of Lucas Brugensis (1743). More
than a century elapsed before anything more of im-
portance was done for the text of the Latin version
of the O. T., when at length the fortunate discovery
of the original revision of the Sixtine correctors
again directed the attention of Roman scholars to
their authorised text. he first-fruits of their
labours are given in the volume of Vercellone
already often quoted, which has thrown more light
upon the history and criticism of the Vulgate than
any previous work. There are some defects in the
arrangement of the materials, and it is unfortunate
that the editor has not added either the authorised
or corrected text ; but still the work is such that
VULGATE, THE 1709
every student of the Latin text must wait anxiously
for its completion.
29. The neglect of the Latin text of the O. T.
is but a consequence of the general neglect of the
criticism of the Hebrew text. In the N. T. far
more has been done for the correction of the Vulgate,
though even here no critical edition has yet been pub-
lished. Numerous collations of MSS., more or less
perfect, have been made. In this, as in many other
points, Bentley pointed out the true path which
others have followed. His own collation of Latin
MSS. was extensive and important (comp. Ellis,
Bentleti Critica Sacra, xxxv. tt.).© Griesbach added
new collations, and arranged those which others
had made. Lachmann printed the Latin text in his
larger edition, having collated the Codex Ful-
densis tor the purpose. _ Tischendorf has laboured
among Latin MSS. only with less zeal than among
Greek. And Tregelles has given in his edition of
the N. T. the text of Cod. Amiatinus from his own
collation with the variations of the Clementine
edition. But in all these cases the study of the
Latin was merely ancillary to that of the Greek text.
© The materials which Bentley collected (see p. 1711,
note f) are an invaluable help for investigation, but they
will not supersedeit. It is, indeed, impossible to determine
on what principle he inserted or omitted variations. Some-
times he notes with the greatest care discrepancies of
orthography, and at other times he neglects important
differences of text. Thus in Johni. 18-51 he gives cor-
rectly 23 variations of the Cambridge MS. (Kk. 1,
24) and omits 51; and in Luke i. 1-39 he gives 13 vari-
ations of St. Chad’s Gospels and omits 30; and there
is nothing in the character of the readings recorded
which can have determined the selection, as the varia-
tions which are neglected are sometimes noted from other
MSS., and are in themselves of every degree of impor-
tance. A specimen from each of the volumes which
contain his collations will show the great amount of
labour which he bestowed upon the work ; and, hitherto,
no specimen has been published. The student may find
it interesting to compare the variations noted with those
in Table B.
Coll. SS. Trin. Cambr., Mark ix. 45-49.
B. 17, 5.
Puy el
12ppé Et si pes tuus te scandal-
eum bh izat, amputa illum: bonum
2 φπμὶ
est tibi clawdum introire in
vitam aeternam, quam dnos
pedes habentem mitti in
gebennam ignis inextingui-
bilis: [ubi vermis eorum
120pyWC clon
[ ] del. τ
. - Leas .
riepxyC seorum Ψ non moritur, et ignis , non
μφ
extingwitur. Quod si oculus
gueopyC
dé.acowph ei@p tuus scandalizat te e7[i]ce
2 pd
12pC caex eum: bonum est tibi Juscum
introire in regnum Dei, quam
duos oculos habentem mitti
in gehennam ignis:] πὶ
γερμχν vermis eorum non moritur,
φμ
stin μι gue ορν εὖ ignis non extingui-
cae pp
del. ξ΄, ni or tur. Omnis [enim] igne
|| salietur, et omnis victima
ομ. 2
[1 del. exporpMHExCy [sale] salietur. Bonum est
1
τὺ sal: quod si sal insulsum
fuerit, in quo illud condietis?
Mark ix. 45-49.
Mp
Habete in, vobis sal,
pacem habete inter vos.
||} omnes enim igne examin-
antur μ.
Coll. SS. Trin. Cambr.
ὯΒ: 17:.52
ater x sal:::: sic
salem aeomatHéx
et
In this excerpt a—q¢ (except y) represent French
MSS. collated chiefly by T. Walker; M, H, the MSS. in
the Brit. Mus. marked Harl. 2788, Harl. 2826 respec-
tively; €, the Gospels of St. Chad; x, the Gospels of
Mac Regol; y, the Gospels of St. John C. Oxon. (comp.
the lists p. 1692, seq.).
. Coll. SS. Trin. Cambr. Mark ix. 45-49.
(B. 17, 14.)
2EHOTD1
o€12PK Et si pes tuus te scandal-
izat, amputa illum: bonum
2 1 F
12D clo E est tibi clawdum introire in
vitam aeternam, quam duos
pedes habentem mitti in ge-
hennam ignis inexstingui-
bilis: ubi vermis eorum non
moritur, et ignis non exstin-
ὃ K T P B (semper)
rie Z.
gue Z. [1 del. Z. guitur. [Quod si oculus tuus
scandalizat te, ejice eum:
bonum est tibi luscum in-
troire in regnum Dei, quam
duos oculos habentem mitti
in gehennam igniss, ubi ver-
mis eorum non moritur, et
ignis,a non exstinguitur.]
YED EPBF
Omnis enim igne salietur, et
aK inextinguibilis (erased)
rie Z (erased) em Y
gue Z (erased)
aeorum K (erased)
ni O alli Ἡ B (sic)
omnis victima [sale] salie-
tur. Bonum est sal: quod si
sal insulsum fuerit, in quo
DoYéZF dd. OBPHK
lum P sal PK
DZEHOY
dietur (corr. -is) E. illud condietis? Habete in
THPDKéY¢
ZR salem BDE _ vobis sal, et pacem habete
inter vos.
The collations in this volume are, as will be seen, some-
what confused. Many are in Bentley’s hand, who has
added numerous emendations of the Latin text in B. 17,
14. Thus, on the same page from which this example is
taken, we find: Mark ix. 20, ab infantia. fo. leg. ab
infanti. παιδιόθεν. X. 14, Quos quum videret. forte leg.
Quod οἷ videret (sic a p. m. O: a later note). x. 38, Et
baptismum quo ego. leg. Aut baptisma, quod ego. For
the MSS. quoted, see the lists already referred to.
1710 VULGATE, THE
Probably from the great antiquity and purity of
the Codd. Amiatinus and Fuldensis, there is com- |
paratively little scope for criticism in the revision
of Jerome’s Version ; but it could not be an unpro- |
fitable work to examine more in detail than has yet |
been done the several phases through which it has |
passed, and the causes which led to its gradual cor-
ruption. (A full account of the editions of the
Vulgate is given by Masch [Le Long], Bibliotheca
Sacra, 1778-90. Copies of the Sixtine and Clem-
entine editions are in the Library of the Bvitish
Museum.)
VI. THE MATERIALS FOR THE REVISION OF }
JEROME’S TEXT.—30. Very few Latin MSS. ot
the O.T. have been collated with critical accu-
racy. The Pentateuch of Vercellone (Romae, 1860) |
is the first attempt to collect and arrange the ma- |
terials for determining the Hieronymian text in a
manner at all corresponding with the importance of
the subject. Even in the N. T. the criticism of the
Vulgate text has always been made subsidiary to
that of the Greek, and most of the MSS. quoted |
have only been Beaniced cursorily. In the follow-
ing list of MSS., which is necessarily very imper- |
fect, the Salinion of Vercellone (from whom most |
of the details, as to the MSS. which he has ex-
amined, are derived) has been followed as far as
possible; but it is much to be regretted that he |
marks the readings of MSS. Correctoria and editions |
in the same manner.
i. MSS. of Old Test. and Apocrypha.
A (Codex Amiatinus, Bibl. Laurent. Flor.) at |
Florence, written about the middle of the 6th cent.
(cir. 541, Tischdf.) with great accuracy, so that
both in age and worth it stands first among the |
authorities for the Hieronymian text. It contains |
Jerome’s Psalter from the Hebrew, and the whole |
Latin Bible, with the exception of Baruch. The |
variations from the Clementine text in the N. T. have |
been edited by F. F. Fleck (1840) ; and Tischendorf
and Tregelles separately cullated the N. Τὶ in 1843 |
and 1846, the former of whom published a com- |
plete edition (1850; 2nd ed. 1854) of this part of
the Ms., availing himself also of the collation of |
Tregelles. The O.'T. has been now collated by
Vercellone and Palmieri for Vercellone’s Variae
Lectiones (Vercellone, i. p. Ixxxiv.). The MS. was |
rightly valued by the Sixtine correctors, who in
many places follow its authority alone, or when
only feebly supported by other evidence: 6. 4. Gen.
ii. 18, v. 26, vi. 21, vii. 3, 5, ix. 18, 19, x. 1.
B (Codex Toletanus, Bibl. Eccles. Tolet.), at
Toledo, written in Gothic letters about the 8th cent.
The text is generally pure, and closely approaches
to that of A, at least in Ὁ. T. A collation of this |
MS. with a Louvain edition of the Vulgate (1569,
fol.) was made by Christopher Palomares by the |
command of Sixtus V., and the Sixtine correctors
set a high value upon its readings: e.g. Gen. vi.
4. The collation of Palomares was published by |
Bianchini ( Vindiciae, pp. lv. ff.), from whom it
has been reprinted by Migne (Hieron. Opp. x. 875 |
ff.). Vercellone has made use of the original col-
lation preserved in the Vatican Library, which is
not always correctly transcribed by Bianchini; and
at the same time he had noted the various readings
which have been neglected owing to the difference |
between the Louvain and Clementine texts. The
MS. contains all the Latin Bible (the Psalter from
the Hebrew), with the exception of Baruch, A
new collation of the MS. is still desirable; and for
VULGATE, THE
the N. T. at least the work is one which might
easily be accomplished.
| “ΠΟ (Codex Paullinus, vy. Carolinus, Romae, Mon.
_S. Benedict. ap. Basil. S. Paulli extr. moenia), a
MS. of the whole Latin Bible, with the exception of
Baruch. Vercellone assigns it to the 9th century.
| It follows the recension of Aleuin, and was one of
the MSS. used by the original board appointed by
Pius IV. for the revision of the Vulgate. It has
been collated by Vercellone.
D (Codex Vallicellianus olim Statianus, Romae,
Bibl. Vallicell. Orat. B. vi. ), an Alcuinian MS. of the
Bible also used by the Roman correctors, of the same
date (or a little older) and character as C. Comp.
Woes Praef. ad Hieron, ix. 15 (ed. Migne), and
| note }, p. 1703. Collated by Vercellone.
| E (Codex Ottobonianus olim Cervinianus, Vatic.
| 60), a MS. of a portion of the O. T., imperfect at
| the beginning, and ending with Judg. xiii. 20. It
is s of the 8th century, and gives a text older than
| Aleuin’s recension. It contains also important
| fragments of the Old Version of Genesis and Exodus
| published by Vercellone in his Variae Lectiones, i.
Coll. by Vercellone.
F (Romae, Coll. SS. Blasii et Caroli), a MS. of
the entire Latin Bible of the 10th century. [0 fol-
as in the main, the recension of Alcuin, with
some variations, and contains the Roman Psalter.
| Les by Vercellone,
| G (Romae, Coll. SS. Blasii et Caroli), a MS, of
the 15th century, of the common late type. Coll.
| by Vercellone.
H, L, P, Q, are used by Vercellone to mark the
| yeadings given by Martianay, Hentenius, Castel-
| Janus, and R. Stephanus, in editions of the Vulgate.
I, Saec. xiii. .Collated in part by C. J. Bauer,
| Eichhorn, Repertorium, xvii.
Kk (Monast. SS. Trin. Cavae), a most important
MS. of the whole Bible, belonging to the monastery
of La Cava, near Salerno. An exact copy of it
|was made for the Vatican Library (num, 8484)
| by the command of Leo XII., and this has been
used by Vercellone for the books after Leviticus.
For the three first books of the Pentateuch he had
only an imperfect collation. The MS. belongs to
the 6th or 7th century (Mai, Nova Patrum Bibl.
i, 2, 7; Spicil. Rom. ix. Praef. xxiii.), and pre-
sents a peculiar text. ‘Tischendorf has quoted it on
1 John v. 7, 8.
M, N, O, are Correctoria in the Vatican Library.
| ΒΒ, S (Romae, Coll. SS. Blasii et Caroli), Saec.
xiv., of the common late type given in the editions
| of the 15th century. T. Saec. x., xi.; U.Saec. xii.,
two MSS. of the type of the recension of Alcuin.
V (Romae, Coll. SS, Blasii et Caroli), Saec. xiii.,
akin to F.
These MSS., of which Vercellone promises com-
plete collations thus represent the three great types,
of the Hieronymian text: the original text in various
stages of decadence (A, B, K); the recension of Al-
cuin (C, D, F, T, U, V); and the current later text
(E, G, R, S). But though perhaps no MS. will
ever surpass A in general purity, it is to be hoped
|that many more MSS., representing the ante-
| Aleuinian text, may yet be examined.
| ΘΙ, Martianay, in his edition of the Divina Bib-
_liotheca, quotes, among others, the following MSS.,
but he uses them in such a way that it is impossible
to determine throughout the reading of any par-
ticular MS. :—
| Codex Memmianus, Saec. x.
| Codex Carcassonensis, Saec. x.
}. Brit. Mus.—Harl. 1775. 5
VoL II. ἘΠῚ Ἢ
΄σοῦν 6
CTNONTBIT
UUTSeCXOUOBUS FECITao
-LUNTATEMpaATRIS
OICUNT§ ots pRIMUS
o1ciTILLisibs
AMENDICOUODIS
qe ΙΑΡΌΒΙΙ caN IeTme
2.Brit. Mus.—Addit. 5463
wr COONE
GINONJBJT
GOJSEXOUOB-FECITCI0
TUNTATECPRTIRYIS
OJCUNT, NOWJSSICUS
3. Stonyhurst—{ St. Cuthbert's, St. John. )
NON haBemus Regen
NIsi caesarem
UNCERSO TRADOITEIS ILLUuad
UTCRUCIFIGERETUR
τ USCepeRUNT AUTEM Iho
eT OuxerRuNt
CT BaloLans SIBI CRUCEM
4: Oxon, Bodl.—348. (Seld. 30. )
ErAir GUNucbus Ccceaqua qals we
PRODIBET BAPTIZART ΟἸΧΊΤ phiLrppuf
SICRGOIS EXTOTOCOROE CET ᾿ς
ET RESPOND ENS AIT Credoodiplia
Ε556 Ib xpM Er7lus SIT SiARG
SPECIMENS OF UNCIAL MSS. OF THE LATIN BIBLE.
#. G. Netherelift, fac-sim.
VULGATE, THE
Codex Sungermanensis (1), Saec. x.
Oodex Regius, 3563-4.
Codex Sangermanensis (2), a fragment.
Codex Narbonensis. (Index MSS. Codd.
Hieron. ix. pp. 135 ff. ed. Migne.)
To these, Vallarsi, in his revised edition, adds a
collation, more or less complete, of other MSS.
for the Pentateuch (Joshua, Judges )—of
Cod. Palatinus, 3
Cod. Urbinas.
For the Books of Samuel and Kings,
Cod. Veronensis, a MS. of the very highest
value. (Comp. Vallarsi, Praef. 19 ff. ed.
Migne.)
For the Psalms.
Codd. Reg. Suec. ii. 1286.
Cod. Vatic, 154.
Cod. 8S. Crucis (or 104, Cisterciensis), (the
most valuable).
For Daniel.
Cod. Palat. 3.
Cod. Vatic. 333.
For Esther, Tobit, and Judith.
Cod. Reg. Suec. 7.
Cod. Vatic. Palat. 24.
But of all these only special readings are known.
Other MSS. which deserve examination are :—
1. Brit. Mus. Addit. 10, 546. Saec. ix.
(Charlemagne’s Bible) an Alcuinian copy. Comp.
p- 1704, note ™.
2. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 Εἰ, vii. viii. Saec. ix. x.
(Bentley’s MS. R).f
3. Brit. Mus. Addit. 24,142. Saec.ix.x. (Im-
portant : apparently taken from a much older copy.
The Psalter is Jerome’s Version of the Hebrew. The
Apocryphal books are placed after the Hagiographa,
with the heading: Incipit quartus ordo eorum
librorum qui in Veteri Testamento extra Canonem
Hebracorum sunt. The MS, begins Gen, xlix. 6.)
f Bentley procured collations of upwards of sixty
English and French Latin MSS. of the N. T., which are
still preserved among his papers in Trin. Coll. Cambridge,
B. 17,5, and B. 17,14. A list of these, as given by Bentley,
is printed in Ellis’s Fentieit Critica Sacra, pp. xxxv. ff.
I have identified and noticed the English MSS. below
(comp. p. 1712). Of Bibles Bentley gives more or less
complete collations of the N. T. from Paris. Bibl. Reg.
3562 (A.D. 876) ; 3561, Saec. ix.; 3563-4, Saec. ix.; 35642,
Saec. ix., x. All appear to be Alcuinian.
Sir F. Madden has given a list of the chief MSS. of the
Latin Bible (19 copies) in the Gentleman’s Magazine,
1236, pp. 580 ff. ‘This list, however, might be increased.
¢ For all critical purposes the Latin texts of this
edition are worthless. In one chapter taken at random
(Mark viii.) there are seventeen errors in the text of the
Lindisfarne MS., including the omission of one line with
the corresponding gloss.
h The accompanying Plates will give a good idea of
the external character of some of the most ancient and
precious Latin MSS. which the writer has examined. For
permission to take the tracings, from which the facsimiles
were made, his sincere thanks are due to the various
Institutions in whose charge the MSS. are placed.
PL. 1. fig. i. Brit. Mus. Harl. 1775, Matt. xxi. 30, 31, Ho
domine—et me{retrices]. his MS. (like figs. 2,3) exhibits
the arrangement of the text in lines (versus, στίχοι). The
original reading novissimus has been changed by a late
hand into primus. A characteristic error of sound will be
noticed, ibit for ivit (b for v), which occurs also in fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Brit. Mus. Add. 5463. Matt. xxi. 30, 31, ait—
novissimus. This magnificent MS. shows the beginning
of contraction (duob’) and punctuation.
VULGATE, THE
4. Brit. Mus. Harl.
lacunae. Saec. ix
5. Brit. Mus. Egerton 1046.
Eccles. Cant. Sap. Ecclus,
Good Vulgate.
6. Lambeth, 3,4. Saec. xii.
32. ii. MSS. of the N. T.
A, B, C, D, F, &c., as enumerated before. To
ἤ ΕἾ be added the Codex Fuldensis of the
whole N. T., which, however, contains the Gospels
in the form of a Harmony. The text of the MS. is
of nearly equal value with that of A, and both seem
to have been derived from the same source (Tischdf.
Prolegg. Cod. Am. p. xxiii.). The MS. has been
collated by Lachmann and Buttmann, and a com-
plete edition is in preparation by E. Ranke.
Other Vulgate MSS. of parts of the N. T. have
been examined more or less carefully. Of the
Gospels, Tischendort (Proleg. cexlix. ff.) gives
a list of a considerable number, which haye been
examined very imperfectly, Of the more important
of these the best known are :—
711
2805 to Psalms with some
Saec. viii. Prov.
(with some lacunae).
For. Prag. (at Pragne and Venice). Published
by Bianchini, in part after Dobrowsky.
Harl. (Brit. Mus. Harl. 1775). Saec. vii.
in part by Griesbach (Symb. Crit. i. 305 ff.).
Per, Fragments of St. Luke, edited by Bianchini.
Brit. Mus. Cotton. Nero D, iv. Saec. viii.
(Bentl. Y). The Lindisfarne (St. Cuthbert) Gospels
with interlinear Northumbrian gloss. Ed. by Ste-
venson, for Surtees Society (St. Matt.; St. Mark).
The Northumbrian gloss by Bouterwek, 1857.
Stevenson has added a collation of the Latin of the
Rushworth Gospels & (p. 1695, No. δ).
The following, among many others in the United
Kingdom, deserve examination :}—
(1.) Of the Gospels.
1. Brit. Mus. Harl. "ΤῸ τς Sae
ey'’s Z
Coll.
c. vii. (Gries-
A new and
bach’s Harl. Bentle
ae
)
Fig. 3. Stonyhurst. John xix. 15-17, non habemus—
crucem. This MS., unlike the former, seems to have
been prepared for private use. It is written throughont
with the greatest regularity and care. ‘The large capitals
probably indicate the beginnings of membra (κῶλα). The
words are here separated.
Fig. 4. Oxf. Bodl. 3418.
stare.
Pl. ii. Fig. 1. Cambr. Univ. Libr. Kk. i. 24. John v.
4, sanus fiebat—homo ibi. This MS. offers a fine ex-
ample of the semi-uncial “Irish” character, with the
characteristic dotted capitals, which seems to have been
used widely in the 8th century throughout Ireland and
central and northern England. The text contains a most
remarkable instance of the incorporation of a marginal
gloss into the body of the book (hoc in Grecis exemplari-
bus non habetur), without any mark of separation by
the original hand. This clause also offers a distinct proof
of the revision of the copy from which the MS. was de-
rived by Greek MSS. The contraction for autem is
worthy of notice.
Fig. 2. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 B. vii.
“Saxon” writing.
Figs. 3, 4. Brit. Mus. Harl. 1023. Matt. xxvii. 49, with
the addition Alius autem—et sanguis. Ibid. 1802. Matt.
xxi. 30, 31, et non iit—puplifcani]. το characteristic
specimens of later Irish writing. The contractions for
eum, autem, ejus, et, aqua, in fig 3, and for et, non, enim,
quia in fig. 4, are noticeable.
Fig. 5. Hereford Gospels. John i. 3, 4, ‘actu est—
compraechendei unt. Probably a British type of the
“Trish”? character. The symbol fur est (+), and the ch
for h, are to be observed.
Acts viii. 36, 37, et ait—
Another type of
1712 VULGATE, THE
complete collation of this most precious
MS. is greatly to be desired. It contains
the Prefaces, Canons, and Sections, with
blank places for the Capitula.i (Plate I.,
fig. 1.)
2. Brit. Mus, Reg. 1 E. vi. Saec. vii. (Bent
ley’s P). A very important English MS.,
with many old readings, Praef. Can, (no
Sections), Cap. Mt. xxviii. Me. xii. (?) Le.
xx. Joh. xiv. Supposed to have formed
part of the Biblia Gregoriana: Westwood,
Archaeological Journal, xl. p. 292.
3. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 B. vii. Saec. viii. (Bent-
ley’s H). Another very important MS.,
preserving an old text.* Praef. Can, (Sect.)
Cap. Mt. Ixxxvii. (sic). Me. xlvi. Le. χοῖν.
Joh.xlv. (Plate Il., fig. 2.)
4. Brit. Mus. Cotton. Otho C . Saec. viii.
(Fragments of Matt. and Mark. Bentley’s
$). Injured by fire: restored and mounted,
1848, The complement of 24.
5. Brit. Mus. Addit. 5463. Saec. viii. (Bent-
ley’s F), A magnificent (Italian) uncial
MS. with many old readings. Praef. Can.
(Sect.) Cap. Mt. xxviii. Mc. xiii. Le. xx.
Joh. xiv. (Plate I., fig. 2.)
6. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2788. Saec. viii., ix.
(Codex aureus i. Bentley’s M,). Good Vul-
gate.
7. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2797. Saec. viii. ix.
(Codex aureus ii.) Vulgate of late type.
8. Brit. Mus. Rey. 2 A. xx. Saec. viii. (Lec-
tiones quaedam ex Evangeliis.) Good Vul-
gate.
9, Brit. Mus. Harl. 2790, cir. 850. A fine
copy, with some old readings.
10. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2795. Saec. ix. (In red
letters.) Vulgate of late type.
11. Brit. Mus. Harl, 2823. Saec. ix.
Vulgate, with versus.
12. Brit. Mus. Hari. 2826. Saec. ix. viii.
(Bentley’s H,). Good Vulgate.
13. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 A, xviii. Saec. ix. x.
(Cod, Athelstani. Bentley’s Ὁ). Many old
and peculiar readings.
14, Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 Ὁ, 111. Saec. x.
13, but most carelessly written.
Good
Like
VULGATE, THE
15. Brit. Mus. Addit. 11,848. Saec. ix. Care-
fully written and corrected. Closely re-
sembling 20.
16. Brit. Mus. Addit. 11,849. Saec. ix. Vul-
gate of late type.
17. Brit. Mus. Hgerton, 768. Saec. ix, (St.
Luke and St. John.) Some important read-
ings.
18. Brit. Mus. Zgerton, 873. Saec. ix. Good
Vulgate. Praef. Can, (Sect.) Cap. Matt.
xxvill. Me. xiii. Les xx. Joh! xiv:
19. Brit. Mus. Addit. 9381. Saec. ix. From
St. Petroc’s, Bodmin. Some peculiar read-
ings. Praef. Can. (Sect.) Tituli, Mt. cclii.
(Cap. \xxxiv. versus 11DCC.). Me. elxxxvi.
Le. ecexl. Joh. cexxvi.
20. Brit. Mus. Cotton. Tib. A, ii. Saec. x.
(The Coronation Book. Bentley’s E). Many
old readings in common with 1, 3, 5, but
without great interpolations.™
21. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 Ὁ. ix. Saec. xi. (Ca-
nute’s Book. Bentley's A). Good Vulgate.
22. Cambridge Univ. Libr. Ll. 1, 10. (Passio
et Resurrectio ex iv. Evv.). Saec. viii.
Written (apparently) for Ethelwald, Bp. of
Lindisfarne.
23. Cambridge, C. C. C. Libr. eclxxxvi. (iv.
Gospels, with Eusebian Canons.) Saec. vi.,
vii. Supposed by many to have been sent
by Gregory the Great to Augustine. Cap.
Matt. xxviii. Mark xiii. Luke xx. John
xiv. Vulgate with many old readings. It
has been corrected by a very pure Vulgate
text. Described and some readings given
by J. Goodwin, Publ. of Cambr. Antiqua-
rian Society, 1847.2
24. Cambridge, C. C. C. Libr. excvii. (Frag-
ments of St. John and St. Luke, extending
over John i. 1-x. 29, and Luke iv. 5—xxiii.
26, with Eusebian Canons.) Saec. viii.
The fragments of St. John were published
by J. Goodwin, /. c. <A curiously mixed
text, forming a connecting link between the
“Trish” text and the Vulgate, but with-
out any great interpolations. See No. 4.
Comp. p. 1694.
25. Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B. 10, 4, iv.
99
i The varying divisions into capitula probably indicate
different families of MSS., and deserve attention, at least
in important MSS. The terms breviariwm, capitula,
breves, appear to be used quite indiscriminately. One
term is often given at the beginning and another at the
end of the list. Brit. Mus. Addit. 9381 gives tituli (a di-
vision into smaller sections) as well as capitula.
k This MS. contains the addition, after Matt. xx. 28,
in the following form :—
Vos autem quaecritis de modico
crescere et de maximo minut
Cum autem introveretis
ad coenam. vocati
Nolite recumbere in supe
rioribus locis —_ [veniat
Ne forte dignior te super
et accedens is qui te invitavit
Dicat tibi adhuc inferius
accede et confundaris
Si autem recubueris in in
Feriori loco et venerit hu
milior te
Dicet tibi qui te invitabit
Accede adhuc superius et
erit tibi hoc utilius.
The same addition is given in the first hand of Oxford
Bodl, 857, and in the second hand of B.M. Add. 24,142,
with the following variations: introieritis, advenerit,
invitavit. In BM. Reg. A. xviii. the variations are
much more considerabie: pusillo, majori muinores esse,
introeuntes autem et rogati ad coenam, locis eminen-
tioribus, clarior, om. is, ad coenam vocavit, deorsum, in
l. inf. rec., supervenerit, ad coenam vocavit, adhuc sursum
accede, om. hoc.
m Bentley has also given a collation of another Cot-
tonian MS. (Otho, B. ix.) very similar to this, which
almost perished in the fire in 1731. Mr. EK. A. Bond,
Deputy Keeper of the MSS., to whose kindness the writer
is greatly indebted for important help in examining the
magnificent collection of Latin MSS. in the British
Museum, has shown him fragments of a few leaves of
this MS. which were recovered from the wreck of the
fire. By a singular error Bentley calls this MS., and not
Tib. A. ii, the Coronation Book. Comp. Smith, Cotton.
Cat.
4 A complete edition of this text, with collations of
London Brit. Mus. Harl. 1775. Reg. 1 E. vi., 1 B, vii. ;
Addit. 5463; Oxford, Bodl, 857, is, 1 believe, in prepara-
tion by the Rey. G. Williams, Fellow of King’s College,
Cambridge.
VoL. UL
Ὑ}1)
“urs-onf Δ] ΟΝ Ὁ Ὁ
“379818 NILV7 3HL JO “SSW ΗΘΙΒΙ @ HS!ILi8e JO ΘΝΞΙΝΙ9365
- aunrgeug~pdsacdiu0ss Uo tus $a ugg
599} Jielgaugaul xnq UiNUIWIOY anh oat
2119 249 921n ολοῖι τι — unasvtQgonb
‘sjadsoy ρ1Ο:ΘΑΘῊ ᾿Ὁ
προ ας wy tee μας 1 aan on τὺ
; : IIIA Ec diny anu
ΔῈΝ oe aaa ane vi Δ πὸ: ιϑϑιηοειαιιοια, Θ νοσεῖ 19},
ἐξ “Ὁ γ7011 259. :ΦΟΏ]ΟΧΒ Sin Ὁ
᾿ Χ5 As
Jog ynSup th βρϑαμχοί ep) aSnefnel MNLULPOUPOS AVvSUuapuUoO
PRUP] nadyoop.4 Bp aaungiLdryay ap BU ONIMuUsypius 91Mia,
"S301 “(AVH—'SOW 4G ὃ LA ‘g ‘T ‘Soy—'snyy “ug. ἃ
LQ} OULOY UDOPIND ΡΟ “UMIQo πο
JNQWHPIUWISS SHorsM19o0y UNADQEHHeIA|P
.-ONDUINIOND ouoti tno) 2neetisninwe
ΤΟ LAM “AGU, “AU ᾿ασιθρ Ἢ
VULGATE, THE
Gospels, Saec. ix. (Cap.) Matt. xxvii. Me. |
xiii. Le. xxi. Joh. xiv. Good Vulgate, with
some old readings. (Bentley’s T.)
26. Cambridge, Coll. D. Joh. C. 23. The
Bendish Gospels, Saec. ix. Good Vulgate,
very carefully written.
27. Oxford, Bodl. 857 (Ὁ. 2, 14). Saec. vii.
Begins, Matt. iv. 14, ut adim.—ends John
xxi. 15, with a lacuna from Matt, viii. 29,
dicentes — ix. 18, defuncta est. Sect.
Praef. (Cap.) Mc. xiii. Le. xx. Joh, xiv.
Closely akin to 23.°
28. Durham, “ Codex Evangeliorum plus mille
Δ ΠΟΥ ΠΏ, litteris capitalibus ex Bibliotheca
Dunelmensi.” (Bentley’s K.) Ends John
i427.
29. Durham, “ Codex Evangeliorum plus mille
annorum, sed imperfectus.”’ (Bentley’s .)
Begins Mark i. 12. Two very important
MSS. Both have many old readings in
common with 1, 3, 4, 5.
30. Stonyhurst, St. Cuthbert’s St. John,
found in 1105 at the head of St. Cuthbert
when his tomb was opened. Saec. vii. Very
pure Vulgate, agreeing with Cod. Am. in
many very remarkable readings: e.g. i. 15,
dizi vobis; ii. 4, tibi et mihi; iv. 10, re-
spondit Jesus dixit ; iv. 16, et veni, om.
huc, &e.P (Plate I. fig. 3.)
Of the Acts and Epistles and Apoc. :—
1. Oxford, Bbdl. Seld. 30 (Acts). See 812,
(2). (Plate I. fig. 4.)
- Oxford, Bodl. Zaud. E, 67 (Epp. Paul).
See §12, (2).
. Brit. Mus., Harl. 1772. (Epp. Paul. et
Cath. (except 3 Jo. Jud.) Apoc.). Saec. viii.
Griesbach, Symb. Crit. i. 326 ff., a most im-
portant MS. (Bentley’s M.) See §12, (2).
. Brit. Mus. Harl. 7551. (Fragm. of Cath.
Epp. and St. Luke.) Saec. viii, (Bentley’s
a, γ.)
o By a very strange mistake Tischendorf describes this |
MS. as “ multorum Ni. Ti. fragmentorum.”
Ρ It may be interesting to give a rough classification of
these MSS., all of which the writer has examined with
more or less care. Many others of later date may be
of equal value; and there are several early copies in
private collections (as at Middlehill) and at Dublin (e.g.
the (Vulgate) Book of St. Columba, Saec. vii. West- |
wood, Pal. Sacra) which he has been obliged to leave
unexamined.
Group i. Vulgate text approaching closely on the whole
to the Cod. Amiat.: 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30.
Group ii. Vulgate text of a later type: 7, 10, 16.
Group iii. A Vulgate text mainly with old readings: |
1, 9, 17, 19, 23, 27.
Group iv. A mixed text, in which the old readings are
numerous and important: 2, 3, 4 (24), 5, 13, 14, 15,
20, 28, 29.
A more complete collation might modify this arrange-
ment, but it is (I believe) approximately true.
a This MS. contains the Epistle to the Laodicenes after
that to the Hebrews, and also.the addition 1 Joh. ν, 7,
in the following form: Quia tres sunt qui testimonium
dant sps, et aqua, et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in
coelo tres sunt, pater verbum et sps, et tres unum sunt.
lt is remarkable that the two other oldest authorities in
support of this addition, also support the Epistle to the |
Laodicenes—the MS. of La Cava, and the Speculwm pub-
lished by Mai.
r A fragment containing prefatory excerpts to a copy
VOL. ΤΙ.
VULGATE, THE
5. Brit. Mus. Addit. 11,852. Saec. ix.
Paul. Act. Cath. Epp. Apoc.
gate.4
6. Brit. Mus. eg. 1 A. xvi. Saec. xi.
Vulgate. .
7. Cambridge, Coll. SS. Trin. B. 10, 5.
Saec. ix. (Collated by F. J. A. Hort.
Bentley’s 5.) In Saxon letters: akin to 2.7
8. Cambridge, Coll. SS. Trin. Cod. Aug. (F4).
Published by Εἰ, H. Scrivener, 1859.8
9, ** Codex ecclesiae Lincolniensis 800 an-
norum.” (Bentley’s &, Act. Apoc.)
10. Brit. Mus. Reg.2 F.i. Saec. xii. (Bentley's
B.) Paul. Epp. xiv. cum commentario.
Many old readings.
1713
᾿ Epp.
Good Vul-
G ood
A Lectionary quoted by Sabatier (Saec. viii.), and
the Mozarabic Liturgy, are also of great critical
value.
In addition to MSS, of the Vulgate, the Anglo-
Saxon Version which was made from it is an im-
portant help towards the criticism of the text. Of
this the Heptateuch and Job were published by E.
Thwaites, Oxfd. 1699; the (Latin-Saxon) Psalter,
by J. Spelman, 1640, and B. Thorpe, 1835; the
Gospels, by Ayvchbp. Parker, 1571, T. Marshall,
| 1665, and more satisfactorily by B. Thorpe, 1842,
and St. Matt. by J. M. Kemble (and C. Hardwick)
with two Anglo-Saxon texts, formed on a collation
of five MSS., and the Lindisfarne text and gloss.
Comp. also the Frankish Version of the Harmony
of Ammonius, ed. Schmeller, 1841.
VII. THE CriricaAL VALUE OF THE LATIN
VERSIONS.—33, The Latin Version, in its various
forms, contributes, as has been already seen, more
or less important materials for the criticism of the
original texts of the Old and New Testaments, and
of the Common and Hexaplaric texts of the LXX.
The bearing of the Vulgate on the LXX. will not be
noticed here, as the points involved in the inquir
more properly belong to the history of the LX
Little, again, need be said on the value of the
of St. Paul’s epistles written in a hand closely resembling
this is found B.M. Cotton. Vitell. C. viii.
s From an examination of Bentley’s unpublished col-
lations, it may be well to add that of the eighteen French
MSS., which he caused to be compared with the Clementine
text (Lutet. Paris.apud Claudium Sonnium, MpCxxvin.
See Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17,5), the following are the most
important, and would repay a complete collation. The
writer has retained Bentley’s notation: some of the MSS,
may probably have passed into other collections.
a. S. Germani a Pratis. See. viii. Gold uncials on
purple vellum. Matt. vi. 2, wi—to end. Mark ix.
47, eice—xi. 13, vidisset. xii. 23, resurrexerint—to
end. Good Vulgate.
p. 5. Germani a Pratis. (g' of Tischdf. &c.) A very
important MS., containing part of O.T., the whole
of N.T. (of Gallican text?), and “tria folia Pas-
toris.” Existing collations are very incomplete.
At the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which
precedes the Shepherd, the MS. has (according to
Bentley) the following note: Explicit ad Hebraeos.
Lege cum pace. Bibliotheca Hieronimi Presbi-
teri Bethleem secundum Graecum ex emendatis. mis
exemplaribus conlatus (sic).
S. Germani a Pratis, 1, 2, A.D. 809.
. Bibl. Regiae, Paris. 3706. 4Gosp. Sec.ix. Many
old readings.
. Bibl. Regiae, Paris. 3706 (2.3). 4 Gosp., with some
lacunae. See. viii. Many old readings.
S. Martini Turonensis. Lit. aureis. See. viii. An
important MS. (Gallican?). Comp, p. 1695, note 5.
i 155
ΘΙ να
.
ΕἸ
2
1714 VULGATE, THE
translation of Jerome for the textual criticism of
the O. T. As‘a whole his work is a remarkable
monument of the substantial identity of the Hebrew
text of the 4th century with the present Masoretic
text; and the want of trustworthy materials for
the exact determination of the Latin text itself, has
made all detailed investigation of his readings im-
possible or unsatisfactory. The passages which
were quoted in the premature controversies of the
16th and 17th centuries, to prove the corruption of
the Hebrew or Latin text, are commonly of little
importance as far as the text is concerned. It will
be enough to notice those only which are quoted by
Whitaker, the worthy antagonist of Bellarmin
(Disputation on Scripture, pp. 163, ff., ed. Park.
Soe.).
Gen. i. 30, om. all green herbs (in Vet. L.) ;
iii, 15, /psa conteret caput tuum. There seems
good reason to believe that the original reading was
ipse. Comp. Vercellone, ad loc. See also Gen. iv.
16.
iii. 17, in opere tuo, JTIAPYA for FNAYA.
iv. 16, om. Nod, which is specially noticed in
Jerome’s Quaest. Hebr.
vi. 6, add. et praecavens in futurum. The words
are a gloss, and not a part of the Vulgate text.
vill. 4, wicesimo septimo, for septimo decimo.
So LXX.
Id. 7, egrediebatur et non revertebatur. The
non is wanting in the best MSS. of the Vulgate,
and has been introduced from the LXX.
xi. 15, trecentis tribus, for quadringentis tribus.
So LXX.
ix. 1, fundetur sancuis illius.
xxxvii. 2. Sedecim for septemdecim.
a transcriptural error.
xxxix. 6,0m. ‘* Wherefore he left—Joseph.”
xl. 5, om. ‘‘The butler—prison.”
xlix. 10. Comp. Vercellone ad loc.
33, 0m.
In xxiv. 6, xxvii. 5, xxxiv. 29, the variation
is probably in the rendering only. The remaining
passages, li. 8; ili. 6; iv. 6, 13, 26 ; vi. 3; xiv. 3;
ἘΜΠ 0: seh, Ὁ. seal! G) 2 Sethe 2H Bu Στ 91:
XXVil. 33; xxxi. 325 xxxvili. 5, 23: xlix, 22, con-
tain differences of interpretation ; and in xxxvi. 24,
xli, 45, the Vulgate appears to have preserved im-
portant traditional renderings,
34, The examples which have been given show
the comparatively narrow limits within which the
Vulgate can be used for the criticism of the Hebrew
text. The Version was made at a time when the
present revision was already established; and the
freedom which Jerome allowed himself in rendering
the sense of the original, often leaves it doubtful
whether in reality a various reading is represented
by the peculiar form which he gives to a particular
passage. In the N. T. the case is far different.
In this the critical evidence of the Latia is separable
into two distinct elements, the evidence of the Old
Latin and that of the Hieronymian revision. The
latter, where it differs from the former, represents
the received Greek text of the 4th century, and so
far claims a respect (speaking roughly) equal to
that due to a first-class Greek MS.; and it may be
fairly concluded, that any reading opposed to the
combined testimony of the oldest Greek MSS. and
the true Vulgate text, either arose later than the
4th century, or was previously confined within a
very narrow range. ‘The corrections of Jerome do
not carry us back beyond the age of existing Greek
MSS., but, at the same time, they supplement the
Om. “by man.”
Probably
*
VULGATE, THE
original testimony of MSS. by an independent wit-
ness. ‘The substance of the Vulgate, and the copies
of the Old Latin, have a more venerable authority.
The origin of the Latin Version dates, as has been
seen, from the earliest age of the Christian Church.
The translation, as a whole, was practically fixed
and current more than a century before the tran-
scription of the oldest Greek MS. Thus it is a
witness to a text more ancient, and, therefore,
caeteris paribus, more valuable, than is represented
by any other authority, unless the Peshito in its
present form be excepted. ‘This primitive text was
not, as far as can be ascertained, free from serious
corruptions (at least in the synoptic Gospels) from
the first, and was variously corrupted afterwards.
But the corruptions proceeded in a different direc-
tion and by a different law from those of Greek
MSS., and, consequently, the two authorities
mutually correct each other. What is the nature
of these corruptions, and what the character and
value of Jerome’s revision, and of the Old Latin,
will be seen from some examples to be given in
detail. _
35, Before giving these, however, one prelimi-
nary remark must be made. In estimating the
critical value of Jerome’s labours, it is necessary
to draw a distinction between his different works.
His mode of proceeding was by no means uniform ;
and the importance of his judgment varies with
the object at which he aimed. ‘The three versions
of the Psalter represent completely the three dif-
ferent methods which he followed. At first he
was contented with a popular revision of the
current text (the Roman Psalter) ; then he insti-
tuted an accurate comparison between the current
text and the original (the Gadlican Psalter) ; and
in the next place he translated independently,
giving a direct version of the original (the Hebrew
Psalter). These three methods follow, one an-
other in chronological order, and answer to the
wider views which Jerome gradually gained of the
functions of a biblical scholar. The revision of the
N.T. belongs unfortunately to the first period. When
it was made, Jerome was as yet unused to the task,
and he was anxious not to arouse popular prejudice.
His aim was little more than to remove obvious
interpolations and blunders ; and in doing this he
likewise introduced some changes of expression
which softened the roughness of the old version,
and some which seemed to be required for the true
expression of the sense (9. g. Matt. vi. 11, super-
substantialem for quotidianum). But while he
accomplished much, he failed to carry out even this
limited purpose with thorough completeness. A
rendering which he commonly altered was still suf-
fered to remain in some places without any obvious
reason (6. 9. μυστήριον, δοξάζω, ἀφανίζω) ; and
the textual emendations which he introduced (apart
from the removal of glosses) seem to have been
made after only a partial examination of Greek
copies, and those probably few in number. The
result was such as might have been expected,
The greater corruptions of the Old Latin, whether
by addition or omission, are generally corrected
in the Vulgate. Sometimes, also, Jerome gives
the true reading in details which had been lost
in the Old Latin: Matt. i. 25, cognoscebat ; ii.
23, prophetas; v. 22, om. εἰκῆ ; ix. 15, lugere;
John iii. 8; Luke ii. 53, 6 πατήρ; iv. 12: but
not rarely he leaves a false reading uncorrected
(Matt. ix. 28, vobis; x. 42), or adopts a false
reading where the true one was also current ; Matt.
VULGATE, THE
Xvi. 6; xviii, 29; xix. 4; John i. 3, 165 vi. 64.
Even in graver variations he is not exempt from
error. The famous pericope, John vii. 53-viil.
11, which had gained only a partial entrance into
the Old Latin, is certainly established in the Vulgate.
The additions in Matt. xxvii. 35, Luke iv. 19,
John vy. 4,.1 Pet. iii. 22, were already generally
or widely received in the Latin copies, and Jerome
left them undisturbed. The same may be said of
Mark xvi. 9-20; but the ““ heavenly testimony ”
(1 John v. 7), which is found in the editions of the
Vulgate, is, beyond all doubt, a later interpolation,
due to an African gloss; and there is reason to
believe that the interpolations in Acts viii. 37,
ix. 5, were really erased by Jerome, though they
maintained their place in the mass of Latin copies.
36. Jerome’s revision of the Gospels, was far
more complete than that of the remaining parts of
the N. T. It is, indeed, impossible, except in the
Gospels, to determine any substantial difference in
the Greek texts which are represented by the Old
and Hieronymian Versions. Elsewhere the differ-
ences, as far as they can be satisfactorily estab-
lished, are differences of expression and not of
text; and there is no sufficient reason to believe that
the readings which exist in the best Vulgate MSS.,
when they are at variance with other Latin autho-
rities, rest upon the deliberate judgment of Jerome.
On the contrary, his Commentaries show that he
used copies differing widely from the recension
which passes under his name, and even expressly
condemned as faulty in text or rendering many
passages which are undoubtedly part of the Vulgate.
Thus in his Commentary on the Galatians he con-
demns the additions, iii. 1, veritati non obedire ;
v. 21, homicidia ; and the translations, i. 16, non
acquievi carni et sanguini (for non contuli cum carne
et sanguine); v. 9, modicum fermentum totam
massam corrumpit (for modicum fermentum totam
conspersionem fermentat); v. 11, evacuatum est
(for cessavit); vi. 3, seipsum (seipse) seducit (for
mentem suam decipit). And in the text of the
Epistle which he gives there are upwards of fifty
readings which differ from the best Vulgate text, of
which about ten are improvements (iv. 21; v. 13,
233; vi. 13, 15, 16, &c.), as many more inferior
readings (iv. 17, 26, 30, &c.), and the remainder
differences of expression: malo for nequam, recto
pede incedunt tor recte ambulant, rursum for
iterwn. The same differences are found in his
Commentaries on the other Epistles: ad Lphes.
1.65, ii. 14 iv. 195 v, 22, 312 ad Tet. ii. 15.
From this it will be evident that the Vulgate text
of the Acts and the Epistles does not represent the
critical opinion of Jerome, even in the restricted
sense in which this is true of the text of the Gospels.
But still there are some readings which may with
probability be referred to his revision: Acts xiii. 18,
mores eorum sustinuit for nutriit (aluit) eos.
Rom. xii. 11, Domino for tempori, Eph. iv. 19,
illuninabit te Christus for continges Christum.
Gal. ii. 5, neque ad horam cessimus tor ad horam
cessimus. 1 Tim. ν. 19, add. nisi sub duobus aut
tribus testibus.
37. The chief corruptions of the Old Latin con-
sist in the introduction of glosses. These, like the
corresponding additions in the Code Bezae (D,),
are sometimes indications of the venerable antiquity |
of the source from which it was derived, and seem
to carry us back to the time when the evangelic
tradition had not yet been wholly superseded by
the written Gospels, Such are the interpolations
VULGATE, THE 1715
at Matt. ili, 15; xx. 28; Luke iii, 22 (compare
also Luke i. 46; xii. 38); but move frequently
they are derived from parallel passages, either by
direct transference of the words of another evangelist,
or by the reproduction of the substance of them,
These interpolations are frequent in the synoptic
Gospels; Matt. iii. 3; Mark xvi. 4; Luke i. 29,
vi. 10; ix, 43, 50, 545 xi. 23 and occur also in
St. John vi. ὅθ, ἄς. But in St. John the Old Latin
more commonly errs by defect than by excess. Thus
it omits clauses certainly or probably genuine: iii.
31; iv. 9; v. 36; vi. 23; viii. 58, &c. Some-
times, again, the renderings of the Greek text are
free: Luke i. 293 ii. 153; vi. 21. Such variations,
however, are rarely likely to mislead. Otherwise
the Old Latin text of the Gospels is of the highest
value. There are cases where some Latin MSS,
combine with one or two other of the most ancient
witnesses to support a reading which has been
obliterated in the mass of authorities: Luke vi. 1;
Mark xvi. 9 ff.; v.33; and not unfrequently (comp.
§ 35) it preserves the true text which is lost in the
Vulgate: Luke xiii, 19; xiv. 5; xv. 28.
38. But the places where the Old Latin and the
Vulgate have separately preserved the true reading
are rare, when compared with those in which they
combine with other ancient witnesses against the
great mass of authorities. Every chapter of the
Gospels will furnish instances of this agreement,
which is often the more striking because it exists
only in the original text of the Vulgate, while the
later copies have been corrupted in the same way as
the later Greek MSS.: Mark ii. 163 iii. 25 (?);
viii. 13, &c.; Rom. vi. 8; xvi. 24, &c. In the first
few chapters of St. Matthew, the following may be
noticed: i. 18 (bis); ii. 185 iii. 10; v. 4, 5, 11,
30, 44,47; vi. 5, 135 vii. 10, 14, 29; vill. 32
(x. 8), ἄς, It is useless to multiply examples
which occur equally in every part of the N. T.:
Luke ii. 14, 40; iv. 2, &c.; John i. 52; iv. 42,
Bile Ve GOR vat BES sakes Ie Bi aes thi, iO).
31, 37, &c.; 1 Cor. i. 1, 15, 22, 27, &e. On the
other hand, there are passages (comp. § 35) in which
the Latin authorities combine in giving a false read-
ing: Matt. vi. 15; vii. 10; viii. 28 (2), &c.; Luke
iva Wt: xiits 295. 275, Sil Seas Actsmail) 20; ὅτις
1 Tim. iii. 16, &. But these are comparatively
few, aud commonly marked by the absence of all
Eastern corroborative evidence. It may be impos-
sible to lay down definite laws for the separation of
readings which are due to free rendering, or care-
lessness, or glosses, but in practice there is little difti-
culty in distinguishing the variations which are
due to the idiosyncrasy (so to speak) of the Version
from those which contain real traces of the original
text. And when every allowance has been made
for the rudeness of the original Latin, and the haste
of Jerome’s revision, it can scarcely be denied that
the Vulgate is not only the most venerable but also
the most precious monument of Latin Christianity.
For ten centuries it preserved in Western Europe a
text of Holy Scripture far purer than that which was
current in the Byzantine Church ; and at the revival
of Greek learning, guided the way towards a revision
of the late Greek text, in which the best biblical
critics have followed the steps of Bentley, with ever-
deepening conviction of the supreme importance of
the coincidence of the earliest Greek and Latin
authorities.
39. Of the interpretative value of the Vulgate
little need be said. There can be no doubt that
in dealing with the N. T., at least, ue are now
Ὁ Re 2
1716 VULGATE, THE
in possession of means infinitely more varied and
better suited to the right elucidation of the text
than could have been enjoyed by the original
African translators. It is a false humility to rate
as nothing the inheritance of ages. If the inves-
tigation of the laws of language, the clear per-
ception of principles of grammar, the accurate
investigation of words, the minute comparison of
ancient texts, the wide study of antiquity, the
long lessons of experience, have contributed nothing
towards a fuller understanding of Holy Scripture,
all trust in Divine Providence is gone. If we are
not in this respect far in advance of the simple
peasant or half-trained scholar of North Africa, or
even of the laborious student of Bethlehem, we
have proved false to their example, and dishonour
them by our indolence. It would be a thankless
task to quote instances where the Latin Version
renders the Greek incorrectly. Such faults arise
most commonly from a servile adherence to the
exact words of the original, and thus that which
is an error in rendering proves a fresh evidence of
the scrupulous care with which. the translator
generally followed the text before him. But while
the interpreter of the N. T. will be fully justified
in setting aside without scruple the authority of
early versions, there are sometimes ambiguous
passages in which a version may preserve the
traditional sense (John i. 3, 9, viii. 25, &c.) or
indicate an early difference of translation ; and then
its evidence may be of the highest value. But
even here the judgment must be free. Versions
supply authority for the text, and opinion only for
the rendering.
VIU. THE LANGUAGE OF THE LATIN VER-
stons. — 40. The characteristics of Christian
Latinity have been most unaccountably neglected
by lexicographers and grammarians. It is, indeed,
only lately that the full importance of provincial
dialects in the history of languages has been fully
recognised, and it nay be hoped that the writings
of Tertullian, Arnobius, and the African Fathers
generally, will now at lensth receive the attention
which they justly claim. But it is necessary to
go back one step further, and to seek in the
remains of the Old Latin Bible the earliest and the
purest traces of the popular idioms of African
Latin. It is easy to trace in the patristic writings
the powerful influence of this venerable Version ;
and, on the other hand, the Version itself exhibits
numerous peculiarities which were evidently bor-
rowed from the current dialect. Generally it is
necessary to distinguish two distinct elements both
in the Latin Version and in subsequent writings :
(1) Provincialisms and (2) Graecisms. The former
are chiefly of interest as illustrating the history
of the Latin language; the latter as marking, in
some degree, its power of expansion. Only a few
remarks on each of these heads, which may help
to guide inquiry, can be offered here; but the
careful reading of some chapters of the Old Version
(9. g. Psalms, Ecclus., Wisdom, in the modern Vul-
gate) will supply numerous illustrations.t
(1.) Provincialisms.—41. One of the most. in-
teresting facts in regard to the language of the
Latin Version is the reappearance in it of early
forms which are found in Plautus or noted .as
t Card. Wiseman (Two Letters, &c., republished in
Essays, i. pp. 46-64) has examined this subject in some
detail, and the writer has fully availed himself of his
examples, in addition to those which he had himself col-
VULGATE, THE
archaisms by grammarians, These establish in a
signal manner the vitality of the popular as dis-
tinguished from the literary idiom, and, from the
great scarcity of memorials of the Italian dialects,
possess a peculiar value. Examples of words, forms,
and constructions will show the extent to which
this phenomenon prevails.
(a) Words:
Stultiloquium, multiloquium, vaniloquus
(Plautus) ; stabilimentum (id.); datus
(subst. id.) ; condignus (id.) ; aratiun-
cula (id.); versipellis (id.) ; saturitas
(id.) ; stacte (id.); cordatus (Ennius) ;
custoditio (Festus); decipula, dejero
(Plautus); exentero (id.); scius (Pac.)
mino (to drive, Festus).
(B) Forms:
Deponents as Passive: consolor, hortor,
promereor (Heb. xiii. 16); ministror.
Irregular inflections: partibor absconsus ;
conversely, exies, &c.
tapetia (Plautus), huec (fem. pl.)
Unusual forms: pascua (fem.); murmur
(mase.); sal (neut.); retia (sing.) ;
certor, odio, cornum, placor (subst.),
dulcor.
(y) Constructions :
Emigro with ace. (Ps. lxi. 7, emigrabit te
de tabernaculo); dominor with gen.;
noceo with acc. ; sui, suus for ejus, &e. 5
non for ne prohibitive ; capit impers.
42. In addition to these there are many other’
peculiarities which evidently belong to the African
(or common) dialect, and not merely to the Christian
form of it. Such are the words minorare, mino-
ratio, improperium, framea (a sword), ablactatio,
annualis, alleviare, pectusculum, antemurale, pani-
fica, paratura, tortura, tribulare (met.), tribulatio,
vulefacere, veredurius, viare, victualia, virectum
(viretum), vitulamen, volatilia (subst.), quaternio,
reclinatorium, scrutinium, sponsare, stratoria
(subst.), sufferentia, sufficientia, superabundantia,
sustinentia, cartallus, cassidile, collactaneus, condul-
care, genimen, grossitudo, refectio (κατάλυμα). 6:-
terminium, defunctio (decease), substuntia (abs.),
incolatus.
New verbs are formed from adjectives: pessimare,
proximare, approximare, assiduare, pigritari,
salvare (salvator, salvatio), obviare, jucundare,
and especially a large class in -fico: mortifico, vivi-
fico, sanctifico, glorifico, clarifico, beatifico, casti-
fico, gratifico, fructifico.
Other verbs worthy of notice are: appropriare,
appretiare, tenebrescere, indulcare, tnplanare
(planus), manicare.
In this class may be reckoned also many
(1) New substantives derived from adjectives :
possibilitas, pracclaritas, paternitas, praescientia,
religiositas, nativitas, supervacuitas, magnalia.
or verbs: requietio, respectio, creatura, subitatio,
extollentia.
(2) New verbals: accensibilis, acceptabilis, doci-
bilis, productilis, passibilis, receptibilis, reprehenst-
bilis, suadibilis, subjectibilis, arreptitius ; and parti-
cipial forms: pudoratus, angustiatus, timoratus,
sensatus, disciplinatus, magnatus, linguatus.
lected. The Thesawrus of Faber (ed. 1749) is the most
complete for Ecclesiastical Latin; and Dutripon’s Con-
cordan‘e is, as far as the writer has observed, complete
for the authorised Clementine text.
VULGATE, THE
(3) New adjectives: animacquus, temporaneus,
unigenitus, querulosus; and adverbs, terribiliter, una-
nimiter, spiritualiter, cognoscibiliter, fiducialiter.
The series of negative compounds is peculiarly
‘worthy of notice: dmmemoratio, increditio, incon-
summatio ; inhonorare; inauxiliatus, indeficiens,
inconfusibilis, importabilis.
Among the characteristics of the late stage of a
language must be reckoned the excessive frequency
of compounds, especially formed with the preposi-
tions. These are peculiarly abundant in the Latin
Version, but in many cases it is difficult to deter-
mine whether they are not direct translations of the
late LXNX. forms, and not independent forms: 6. g.
addecimare, adinvenire -ntio, adincrescere, per-
efjluere, permundare, propurgare, superexaltare,
superinvalescere, supererogare, reinvitare, rememo-
ratio, repropitiari, subinferre. Of these many are
the direct representatives of Greek words: super-
adulta (1 Cor. vii. 36), swperseminare (Matt. xiii.
25), comparticipes, concaptivus, complantatus, &c.
(supersubstantialis, Matt. vi. 11); and others are
formed to express distinct ideas: subcinericius, sub-
nervare, &c.™
2.) Graecisms.—43. The “simplicity” of the
Old Version necessarily led to the introduction of
very numerous Septuagintal or N. T. forms, many
of which have now passed into common use. In
this respect it would be easy to point out the differ-
ence which exists between Jerome’s own work and
the original translation, or his revision of it. Ex-
amples of Greek words are: zelare, perizoma, py-
thon, pythonissa, proselytus, prophetes -tissa -tizare
-tare, poderis, pompatice, thesaurizare, anathema-
tizare, agonizare, agonia, aromatizare, angelus
-icus, peribolus, pisticus, probatica, papyrio, pasto-
phoria, telonium, eucharis, acharis, romphaea,
bravium, dithalassus, doma (thronus), thymiato-
rium, tristega, scandalum, sitarcia, blasphemare,
&c., besides the purely technical terms: patriarcha,
Parasceve, Pascha, Paracletus. Other words based
oa the Greek ave: aporior, angario, apostatare,
apostolatus, acedior (axndia).
Some close renderings are interesting: amodo
(ἀπὸ τοὐτουῚ; propitiatorium (ἱλαστήριον), inid-
ipsum (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ), rationale (λογεῖον, Ex.
xxviii. 15, &c.), scenofactorius (Acts xviii. 3), se-
miniverbius (Acts xvii, 18), subintroductus (Gal.
ii. 4), supercerturi (Jude 3), civilitus (Acts xxii.
28), intentator malorum (Jam. i, 13). To this
head also must be referred such constructions as
zelare with accus. (ζηλοῦν tiva) ; fucere with inf.
(ποιεῖν... γενέσθαι) ; potestas with inf. (ἐξουσία
ἀφιέναι) ; the use of the inf. to express an end (Acts
vii. 43, ἐποιήσατε προσκυνεῖν) or a result (Luke
i. 25, ἐπεῖδεν ἀφελεῖν, respexit auferre); the in-
troduction of quia for ὅτι in the sense of that (Luke
i. 58, audierunt ... quia), or for ὅτι recitativum
(Matt. vii. 23, Confitebor illis quia... .); the dat.
with assequi (Luke i. 3, παρακολουθεῖν V.L.);
the use of the gen. with the comparative (John i.
50, majora horum); and such Hebraisins as vir
mortis (1 K. ii. 26). Comp. § 6,
Generally it may be observed that the Vulgate
Latin bears traces of a threefold influence derived
VULGATE, THE 1717
from the original text; and the modifications of
form which are capable of being carried back to
this source, occur yet more largely in modern
languages, whether in this case they are to be
referred to the plastic power of the Vulgate
on the popular dialect, or, as is more likely, we
must suppose that the Vulgate has preserved a
distinct record of powers which were widely work-
ing in the times of the Empire on the common
Latin. ‘These are (1) an extension of the use of
prepositions for simple cases, 6. 4. in the renderings
of ἐν, Col, iii. 17, facere in verbo, &c.; (2) an
assimilation of pronouns to the meaning of the
Greek article, e.g. 1 John i. 2, ipsa vita; Luke
xxiv. 9, lis undecim, &c.; and (3) a constant
employment of the definitive and epithetic genitive,
where classical usage would have required an
adjective, 6. 4. Col. i. 13, filius caritatis suae ; iii.
12, viscera misericordiae.
44, The peculiarities which have been enume-
rated ave found in greater or less frequency through-
out the Vulgate. It is natural that they should be
most abundant and striking in the parts which have
been preserved least changed from the Old Latin,
the Apocrypha, the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse.
Jerome, who, as he often says, had spent many
years in the schools of grammarians and rhetoricians,
could not fail to soften down many of the asperities
of the earlier version, either by adopting variations
already in partial use, or by correcting faulty ex-
pressions himself as he revised the text. An ex-
amination of a few chapters in the Old and New
Versions of the Gospels will show the character and
extent of the changes which he ventured to intro-
duce :—Luke i, 60, οὐχί, non, Vet. L. nequaquam,
Vulg.; id. 65, ἐν ὅλῃ TH ὀρεινῇ; in omni montana,
Vet. L. super omnia montana, Vulg.; ii. 1, pro-
fiteretur, professio, Vet. 1,, describeretur, de-
scriptio, Vulg.; id. 13, exercitus caelestis, Vet. L.
militiae caelestis, Vulg.; id. 34, quod contradice-
tur, Vet. L. cui contr. Vulg.; id. 49, in propria
Patris mei, Vet. L. in his quae patris met sunt,
Vulg. Some words he seems to have changed con-
stantly, though not universally: e.g. obauditio,
obaudio (obedientia, obedio) ; mensurare (metiri) ;
dilectio (caritas); sacramentum (mysterium), το,
And many of the most remarkable forms are con-
fined to books which he did not revise: elucidare,
inaltare (jucundari) ; fumigabundus, illamentatus,
indisciplinatus, insuspicabilis ; exsecramentum (ex-
terminium), gaudimonium; extollentia, honorifi-
centia ; horripilatio, inhonoratio.
45. Generally it may be said that the Scriptural
idioms of our common language have come to us
mainly through the Latin; and in a wider view
the Vulgate is the connecting link between classical
and modern languages. It contains elements which
belong to the earliest stage of Latin, and exhibits
(if often in a rude form) the flexibility of the popular
dialect. On the other hand, it has furnished the
source and the model for a large portion of current
Latin derivatives. Even a cursory examination of
the characteristic words which have been given will
show how many of them, and how many corre-
sponding forms, have passed into living languages,*
ἃ Tt would be interesting to trace the many striking
parallelisms between the Vulgate and the African Ap-
puleius (e.g. incredibilis (act.) ineffugibilis, molestare,
&c.), or the Spanish Seneca (e. g. inquietudo, inpunitus,
&e.).
x Probably the most remarkable example of the in-
fluence of theology upon popular language, is the entire
suppression of the correlatives of verbum in all the
Romance languages. The forms occur in the religious
technical sense (the Word), but otherwise they are re-
placed by the representatives of parabola (parola, parole,
ὅθ). Compare Diez, Eiym. Worth. 253.
1718 VULTURE
To follow out this question in detail would be out
of place here; but it would furnish a chapter in the
history of language fruitful in results and hitherto
unwritten. Within a more limited range, the au-
thority of the Latin Versions is undeniable, though
its extent is rarely realised, The vast power which
they have had in determining the theological terms
of Western Christendom can hardly be overrated.
By far the greater part of the current doctrinal
terminology is based on the Vulgate, and, as far
as can be ascertained, was originated in the Latin
Version. Predestination, ἡ ustification, supereroga-
tion (supererogo), sanctification, salvation, medi-
ator, regeneration, revelation, visitation (met.),
propitiation, first appear in the Old Vulgate.
Grace, redemption, election, reconciliation, satis-
faction, inspiration, scripture, were devoted there
to a new and holy use. Sacrament (μυστήριον)
and communion are from the same source; and
though baptism is Greek, it comes to us ou the
Latin. It would be easy to extend the list by the
addition of orders, penance, congregation, priest.
But it can be seen from the forms already brought
forward that the Latin Versions have left their mark
both upon our language and upon our thoughts;
and if the right method of controversy is based
upon a clear historical perception of the force of
words, it is evident that the study of the Vulgate,
however much neglected, can never be neglected
with impunity. It was the Version which alone
they knew who handed down to the Reformers the
rich stores of mediaeval wisdom ; the Version with
which the greatest of the Reformers were most
familiar, and from which they had drawn their
earliest knowledge of Divine truth, [Β. F. W.]
VULTURE. The rendering in A. V. of the
Heb. my (dayydh) and MNT; and also in Job
xxviii. 7, οἵ ΓΝ, ayyah ; elsewhere, i in Ley. xi. 14,
and Deut. xiv. 48; more correctly rendered ‘kite :”
LXX. γύψ and ἴκτινος, Vulg. vultur; except in
Is. xxxiv. 15, where LXX. read Znuios, and Vulg.
correctly milvus.
There seems no doubt but that the A. V. transla-
tion is incorrect, and that the original words refer
to some of the smaller species of raptorial birds, as
kites or buzzards. ma is evidently synonymous
with Arab. add, λ᾽ gaa the vernacular for the
“kite” in North Africa, and without the epithet
“‘yed” for the black kite especially. Bochart
( Hieroz, ii. 2, 195) explains it Vultur niger. The
Samaritan and all other Eastern Versions agree in
rendering it “kite.” 78 (ayydh) is yet more cer-
tainly referable to this bird, which in other passages
it is taken to represent. Bochart (Hieroz. ii. Ὁ. 2,
c. 8, p. 193) says it is the same bird which the
Arabs call Ly (yaya) from its ery ; but does not
state what species this is, supposing it apparently
to be the magpie, the Arab name for which, how-
ever, is C3LaaxlJ, οἱ agaag.
There are two very diflerent species of bird com-
prised under the English term vulture: the griffon
(Gyps fulvus, Sav.), Arab. »»»» Heb.
wa, nesher ; invariably rendeied “eagle” by A.V.;
2 6586} 5
and the percnopter, or Egyptian vulture (Neophron
.
percnopterus, Sav.), Arab. X@=>y, rakhma ; Heb.
DM, rdcham:; rendered ‘ gier-eagle” by A. V.
? ? > > ν᾿
Lie 8
VULTURE
The identity of the Hebrew and Arabic terms in
these cases can scarcely be questioned. However
degrading the substitution of the ignoble vulture
for the royal eagle may at first sight appear in
many passages, it must be borne in mind that the
griffon is in all its movements and characteristics a
majestic and royal bird, the largest and most power-
ful which is seen on the wing in Palestine, and far
surpassing the eagle in size and power. Its only
rival in these respects is the Bearded Vulture or
Lammergeyer, a more uncommon bird everywhere,
and which, since it is not, like the griffon, bald on the
head and neck, cannot be referred to as nesher (see
Mic. i. 16). Very different is the slovenly and
cowardly Egyptian vulture, the familiar scavenger
of all Oriental towns and villages, protected for its
useful habits, but loathed and despised, till its name
has become a term of reproach like that of the dog
or the swine.
If we take the Heb. ayyah to refer to the red kite
caine regalis, Temm.), and dayydah to the black kite
(milvus ater, Temm.), we shall find the piercing sight
of the former referred to by Job (xxviii. 7), and
the gregarious habits of the latter by Isaiah (xxxiv.
15). Both species are inhabitants of Palestine, the
red kite being found all over the country, as for-
merly in England, but nowhere in great numbers,
generally soaring at a great height over the plains,
according to Dr. Roth, and apparently leaving the
country in winter. The black kite, which is so
numerous everywhere as to be gregarious, may be
seen at all times of the year, hovering over the
villages and the outskirts of towns, on the look-out
for offal and garbage, which are its favourite food.
Vulture-like, it seldom, unless pressed by hunger,
attacks living animals. It is therefore never mo-
lested by the natives, and builds its nest on trees
in their neighbourhood, fantastically decorating it
with as many rags of coloured cloth as it can
collect.
There are three species of vulture known to
inhabit Palestine :—
1. The Lammergeyer (Gypaetos barbatus, Cuv.),
which is rare everywhere, and only found in deso-
late mountain regions, where it rears its young in
the depth of winter among inaccessible precipices.
It is looked upon by the Arabs as an eagle rather
than a vulture.
2. The Griffon (Gyps fulvus, Say.), mentioned
above, remarkable for its power of vision and the
great height at which it soars. Aristotle (Anim.
Hist. vi. 5) notices the manner in which the griffon
scents its prey from afar, and congregates in the
wake of an army. The same singular instinct was
remarked in the Russian war, when vast numbers
of this vulture were collected in the Crimea, and
remained till the end of the campaign in the neigh-
bourhood of the camp, although previously they
had been scarcely known in the country. ‘* Where-
soever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered
together” (Matt. xxiv. 28); “Where the slain
are, there is she” (Job xxxix. 30). The writer
observed this bird universally distributed in all the
mountainous and rocky districts of Palestine, and
especially abundant in the south-east. Its favourite
breeding-places are between Jerusalem and Jericho,
and all round the Dead Sea.
The third species is the Egyptian vulture (Neo-
phron percnopterus, Say.), otten called Pharaoh’s
hen, observed in Palestine by Hasselquist and all
subsequent travellers, and very numerous every-
where. ‘Two other species of very large size, the
WAGES
eared and cinereous vultures ( Vultur nubicus, Smith,
and Vultur cinereus, L.), although inhabitants of the
neighbouring countries, and probably also of the
south-east of Palestine, have not yet been noted in
collections from that country. ΕΕΡΦΘΡΊΣΙ
WwW
WAGES.* The earliest mention of wages is of a
recompence not in money but in kind, to Jacob from
Laban (Gen. xxix. 15, 20, xxx. 28, xxxi. 7, 8, 41). |
This usage was only natural among a pastoral and
changing population like that of the tent-dwellers
of Syria. In Egypt, money payments by way of
wages were in use, but the terms cannot now be
ascertained (Ex. ii. 9). The only mention of the
rate of wages in Scripture is found in the parable
of the householder and vineyard (Matt. xx. 2),
where the labourer’s wages are set at one denarius
per day, probably = 7$d., a rate which agrees with
Tobit v. 14, where a drachma is mentioned as the |
rate per day, a sum which may be fairly taken as
equivalent to the denarius, and to the usual pay of
a soldier (ten asses per diem) in the later days of |
the Roman republic (Tac. Ann. i. 17; Polyb. vi.
39). It was perhaps the traditional remembrance
of this sum as a day’s wages that suggested the
mention of ““ drachmas wrung from the hard hands
of peasants” (Shakspeare, Jul. Caes. iv. 3). In
earlier times it is probable that the rate was lower,
as until lately it was throughout India. In Scot-
land we know that in the last century a labourer’s
daily wages did not exceed sixpence (Smiles, Lives of
Engineers, ii. 96), But it is likely that labourers,
and also soldiers, were supplied with provisions
(Michaelis, Laws of Moses, §150, vol. ii. p. 190,
ed. Smith), as is intimated by the word ὀψώνια,
used in Luke iii. 14, and 1 Cor. ix. 7, and also
by Polybius, vi. 39. The Mishnah (Baba metzia,
vii. 1, §5), speaks of victuals being allowed or
not according to the custom of the place, up to the |
value of a denarius, 7. 6. inclusive of the pay.
The Law was very strict in requiring daily pay-
ment of wages (Ley. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15);
and the Mishnah applies the same rule to the use of
animals (Baba metzia, ix. 12). The employer
who refused to give his labourers sufficient victuals
is censured (Job xxiv. 11), and the iniquity of
withholding wages is denounced (Jer. xxii. 13;
Mal. iii. 5; James v. 4).
Wages in general, whether of soldiers or labourers,
are mentioned (Hag. i. 6; Ez. xxix. 18,19; John iv.
36). Burckhardt mentions a case in Syria resembling
closely that of Jacob with Laban—a man who served
eight years for his food, on condition of obtaining his
master’s daughter in marriage, and was afterwards
compelled by his father-in-law to perform acts of
service for him (Syria, p. 297). ΠΡ ἘΠ
WALLS 1719
| WAGGON. [Carr and Cuarior.] The
_ Oriental waggon or arabah is a vehicle composed of
two or three planks fixed on two solid circular
blocks of wood, from two to five feet in diameter,
which serve as wheels, To the floor are sometimes
attached wings, which splay outwards like the sides
of a wheelbarrow. For the conveyance of pas-
_sengers, mattresses or clothes are laid in the bottom,
|and the vehicle is drawn by buffaloes or oxen
(Arundell, Asia Minor, ii. 191, 235, 238 ; Olearius,
Trav. p. 309; Ker Porter, Trav. ii. 533.) Egyp-
tian carts or waggons, such as were sent to convoy
| Jacob (Gen, xlv. 19, 21, 27), are described under
/Cart. The covered waggons for conveying the
materials of the tabernacle were probably con-
structed on Egyptian models. They were each
drawn by two oxen (Num. vii. 3, 8). Herodotus
mentions a four-wheeled Egyptian vehicle (ἄμαξα)
used for sacred purposes (Her. ii. 63). [H. W. P.]
WALLS.» Only a few points need be noticed
in addition to what has been said elsewhere on wall-
construction, whether in brick, stone, or wood.
(Bricks; Hanpicrarr; Morrar.]| 1. The prac-
tice common in Palestine, of carrying foundations
_ down to the solid rock, as in the case of the Temple,
_and in the present day with structures intended to
be permanent (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, §2; Luke vi.
48; Robinson, ii. 338; Col. Ch. Chron. (1857),
p- 459). The pains taken by the ancient builders
to make good the foundations of their work may
still be seen, both in the existing substructions
and in the number of old stones used in more
|modern constructions. Some of these stones—
ancient, but of uncertain date—are from 20 feet to
| 30 feet 10 inches long, 3 feet to 6 feet 6 inches
broad, and 5 feet to 7 feet 6 inches thick (Rob. 1.
233, 282, 286, iii. 228). As is the case in number-
less instances of Syrian buildings, either old or
built of old materials, the edges and sometimes the
faces of these stones are “" bevelled” in flat grooves.
|This is commonly supposed to indicate work at
least as old as the Roman period (Rob. i. 261, 286,
ii. 75, 76, 278, 353, ili, 52, 58, 84, 229, 461, 493,
511; Fergusson, Hdbk. of Arch. p. 288). On the
contrary side, see Col. Ch. Chron. (1858), p. 350.
But the great size of these. stones is far exceeded
by some of those at Baalbek, three of which are
each about 63 feet long; and one, still lying in the
quarry, measures 68 feet 4 inches in length, 17
feet 2 inches broad, and 14 feet 7 inches thick.
Its weight can scarcely be less than 600 tons (Rob.
iii. 505, 512; Volney, Trav. ii. 241).
2. A feature of some parts of Solomon’s build-
ings, as described by Josephus, corresponds remark-
| ably to the method adopted at Nineveh of encrusting
or veneering a wall of brick or stone with slabs of a
| more costly material, as marble or alabaster (Joseph.
Ant. viii. 5, §2; Fergusson, Hdbk. 202, 203).
3. Another use of walls in Palestine is to sup-
port mountain roads or terraces formed on the sides
21. (DY, NIDWD; μισθός ; merces.
, 2. ΠΡῸΞ 3 μισθός 3; opus: wages for work done, from
bye, sc a ” (Ges. p. 1117).
bale πον; χορηγία ; muri: only in Ezr. vy. 3.
2. (a) V4 shi tle maceria. (ὦ) 73 ; φραγμοί;
maceria. (0) m4 ; διάστημα, φραγμός ; sepes.
3. Mon 3 τεῖχος τ. MUTUS.
4. On 3 δύναμις ; virtus: also προτείχισμα 3 ager.
5. PAM and PM; τοῖχος ; paries.
6. PII; mepérerxos 5 muri: only in Dan. ix. 25.
7. (a) 53. (b) ons, Chald. ; τοῖχος ; paries.
8. VW) 5 τοῖχος ; partes.
9. Wt; τεῖχος ; murus.
1720 WANDERING
of hills for purposes of cultivation (Rob. ii. 493, iii.
14, 45).
4. The ‘path of the vineyards” (Num. xxii. 24)
is illustrated by Robinson as a pathway through vine-
yards, with walls on each side (B. R. ii, 80; Stanley, |
S. and P. 102,420; Lindsay, Trav. p. 239 ; Maun-
drell, Early Trav. p. 437). [Winpow.] [H.W.P.]
_ WANDERING IN THE WILDERNESS.
[ WILDERNESS OF WANDERING. |
WAR. The most important topic in connexion
with war is the formation of the army, which is
destined to carry it on. This has been already
described under the head of ARMY, and we shall
therefore take up the subject from the point where
that article leaves it. Before entering on a war
of aggression the Hebrews sought for the Divine
sanction by consulting either the Urim and Thum-
mim (Judg. i. 1, xx, 27,28; 1 Sam. xiv. 37, xxiii.
2, xxviii. 6, xxx. 8), or some acknowledged prophet
1 K. xxii. 6; 2 Chr. xviii. 5). The heathens
betook themselves to various kinds of divination
for the same purpose (Ez. xxi. 21). Divine aid
was further sought in actual warfare by bringing
into the field the Ark of the Covenant, which was
the symbol of Jehovah Himself (1 Sam. iv. 4-18,
xiv. 18), a custom which prevailed certainly down
to David’s time (2 Sam. xi. 11; comp. Ps. Ixviii.
1, 24). During the wanderings in the wilderness
the signal for warlike preparations was sounded by
priests with the silver trumpets of the sanctuary
ΓΝ ας ὦ; ἀχχι. θὴ-
war were not interchanged between the belligerents ;
but occasionally messages either deprecatory or
defiant were sent, as in the cases of Jephthah and
the Ammonites (πᾶσ, xi. 12-27), Ben-hadad and
Ahab (1 K, xx. 2), and again Amaziah and Jehoash
(2K. xiv. 8). Before entering the enemy’s district
spies were sent to ascertain the character of the
country and the preparations of its inhabitants
for resistance (Num. xiii. 17; Josh. ii. 1; Judg.
vii. 10; 1 Sam. xxvi. 4). When an engagement
was imminent a sacrifice was offered (1 Sam. vii. 9,
xiii. 9), and an inspiriting address delivered either
by the commander (2 Chr. xx. 20) or by a priest
(Deut. xx. 2). Then followed the battle-signal,
sounded forth from the silver trumpets as already
described, to which the host responded by shouting
the war-cry (1 Sam. xvii. 52; Is. xlii. 18 ; Jer.
1. 42; Ez. xxi. 22; Am. i. 14). The combat
assumed the form of a number of hand-to-hand
contests, depending on the qualities of the individual
soldier rather than on the disposition of masses.
Hence the high value attached to fleetness of foot
and strength of arm (2 Sam. i, 23, ii. 18; 1 Chr.
xii. 8). At the same time various strategic devices
were practised, such as the ambuscade (Josh. viii.
2,12; Judg. xx. 36), surprise (Judg. vii. 16), or
Formal proclamations of
WAR
circumvention (2 Sam. v. 23). Another mode of
settling the dispute was by the selection of champions
(1 Sam. xvii.; 2 Sam. ii. 14), who were spurred
on to exertion by the ‘offer of high reward (1 Sam.
XVil. 25, xviii. 20 ; 2 Sam. xviii. 11; 1 Chr. xi. 6).
The contest having been decided, the conquerors
were recalled from the pursuit by the sound of a
trumpet (2 Sam. 11. 28, xviii. 16, xx. 22).
The siege of a town or fortress was conducted in
the following manner :—A line of circumvallation ἃ
was drawn round the place (Ez. iv. 2; Mic. v. 1),
constructed out of the trees found in the neighbour-
hood (Deut. xx. 20), together with earth and any
other materials at hand. This line not only cut
off the besieged from the surrounding country, but
also served as a base of operations for the besiegers,
The next step was to throw out from this line one
or more “ mounts” or *‘ banks”’> in the direction
of the city (2 Sam. xx. 15; 2 K. xix. 32; Is. xxxvii.
33), which was gradually increased in height until
it was about half as high as the city wall. On
this mound or bank towers were erected (2 K.
2Oay5 1.5. er Π|., PMID The) An cats US) zeal 2)
xxvi. 8), whence the slingers and archers might
attack with effect. Battering-rams ἃ (Hz. iv. 2, xxi.
22) were brought up to the walls by means of the
bank, and scaling-ladders might also be placed on
it. Undermining the walls, though practised by the
Assyrians (Layard, Nin, ii. 371), is not noticed in
the Bible: the reference to it in the LXX. and
Vulg., in Jer. li. 58, is not warranted by the ori-
ginal text. Sometimes, however, the walls were
attacked near the foundation, either by individual
warriors who protected themselves from above by
their shields (Ez. xxvi. 8), or by the further use of
such a machine as the Helepolis,® referred to in
1 Mace. xiii. 49, Burning the gates was another
mode of obtaining ingress (Judg. ix. 52). The
water-supply would naturally be cut off, if it were
possible (Jud. vii. 7). The besieged, meanwhile,
strengthened and repaired their fortifications (Is.
xxii. 10), and repelled the enemy from the wall by
missiles (2 Sam. xi. 24), by throwing over beams
and heavy stones (Judg. ix. 53; 2 Sam. xi. 21;
Joseph. B. J. v. 3, 89, 6, 83), by pouring down
boiling oil (B. J. iii. 7, §28), or lastly by erecting
fixed engines for the propulsion of stones and arrows
(2 Chr. xxvi. 15). [ENGINE.] Sallies were also
made for the purpose of burning the besiegers’
works (1 Mace. vi. 31; B. J. v. 11, §4), and
driving them away from the neighbourhood. The
foregoing operations receive a large amount of illus-
tration trom the representations of such scenes on
the Assyrian slabs! We there see the ‘ bank”
thrown up in the form of an inclined plane, with
the battering-ram hauled up on it assaulting the
walls: moveable towers of considerable elevation
breught up, whence the warriors discharge their
= SID, lit. an “enclosing” or “ besieging,” and hence
applied to the wall by which the siege was effected.
b noob. Saalschiitz (Archéiol. ii. 504) understands this
term of the scaling-ladder, comparing the cognate sullam
(Gen. xxviii. 12), and giving the verb sh@phac, which ac-
companies solldh, the sense of a “hurried advancing” of
the ladder.
c py. Some doubt exists as to the meaning of this
term. The sense of “turrets” assigned to it by Ge-
senius (Zhes. p. 330) has been objected to on the ground
that the word always appears in the singular number,
and in connexion with the expression “ round about”
the city. Hence the sense of “circumvallation’’ has
been assigned to it by Michaelis, Keil (Archdol. ii. 303)
and others. It is difficult, however, in this case, to see
any distinction between the terms déyél and matzér,
The expression “round about” may refer to the cus-
tom of casting up banks at different points: the use
of the singular in a collective sense forms a greater
difficulty.
d on3.
e This is described by Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 4,
§10) as a combination of the testudo and the battering-
ram, by means of which the besiegers broke through the
lower part of the wall, and thus “leaped into the city,’
not from above, as the words primd facie imply, but
from below.
WAR
WASHING HANDS AND FEET 1721
arrows into the city: the walls undermined, or | lation took part (Ex. xv. 1-21; Judg. v.; 1 Sam.
attempts made to destroy them by picking to pieces
the lower courses: the defenders actively engaged
in archery, and averting the force of the battering-
ram by chains and ropes: the scaling-ladders at
length brought, and the conflict become hand-to-
hand (Layard’s Nin, ii. 366-374).
The treatment of the conquered was extremely
severe in ancient times. The leaders of the host
were put to death (Josh. x. 26; Judg. vii. 25),
with the occasional indignity of decapitation after
death (1 Sam. xvii. 51; 2 Mace. xv. 30; Joseph.
B. J.i. 17, §2). The bodies of the soldiers killed
in action were plundered (1 Sam, xxxi. 8; 2 Mace.
viii. 27): the survivors were either killed in some
savage manner (Judg. ix. 45; 2 Sam. xii. 31;
2 Chr. xxv. 12), mutilated (Judg. i. 6; 1 Sam.
xi. 2), or carried into captivity (Num. xxxi. 26;
Dent. xx. 14). Women and children were occa-
sionally put to death with the greatest barbarity
Cake ivans 125i. 10.;,.15.. τρὶς Πρ» Sis Ἡοϑ χα,
14, xiii. 16; Am. 1. 18; Nah. iii. 10; 2 Mace. v.
13): but it was more usual to retain the maidens
as concubines or servants (Judg. v. 30; 2 K. v. 2).
Sometimes the bulk of the population of the con-
quered country was removed to a distant locality,
as in the case of the Israelites when subdued by the
Assyrians (2 K. xvii. 6), and of the Jews by the
Babylonians (2 K, xxiv. 12, xxv. 11). In addition
to these measures, the towns were destroyed (Judg.
ix. 45; 2 K. ili. 25; 1 Mace. v. 28, 51, x. 84),
the idols and shrines were carried off (Is. xlvi. 1, 2),
or destroyed (1 Mace. v. 68, x. 84) ; the fruit-trees
were cut down, and the fields spoiled by over-
spreading them with stones (2 K. iii. 19, 25); and
the horses were lamed (2 Sam. viii. 4; Josh. xi. 6,
9). Ifthe war was carried on simply for the pur-
pose of plunder or supremacy, these extreme mea-
sures would hardly be carried into execution; the
conqueror would restrict himself to rifling the trea-
suries (1 K. xiv. 26; 2 K. xiv. 14, xxiv. 13), or
levying contributions (2 K. xviii. 14).
The Mosaic law mitigated to a certain extent the
severity of the ancient usages towards the con-
quered. With the exception of the Canaanites, who
were delivered over to the ban of extermination by
the express command of God, it was forbidden to
the Israelites to put to death any others than males
bearing arms: the women and children were to be
kept alive (Deut. xx. 13, 14). In a similar spirit
of humanity the Jews were prohibited from felling
fruit-trees for the purpose of making siege-works
(Deut, xx. 19). The law further restricted the
power of the conqueror over females, and secured
to them humane treatment (Deut. xxi. 10-14).
The majority of the savage acts recorded as having
been practised by the Jews were either in reta-
liation for some gross provocation, as instanced in
the cases of Adoni-bezek (Judg. i. 6, 7), and of
David’s treatment of the Ammonites (2 Sam. x.
2-4, xii. 31; 1 Chr. xx. 3); or else they were
done by lawless usurpers, as in Menahem’s treat-
ment of the women of Tiphsah (2 K. xv. 16). The
Jewish kings generally appear to have obtained
credit for clemency (1 K. xx. 31).
The conquerors celebrated their success by the
erection of monumental stones (1 Sam. vii. 12;
2 Sam. viii. 13, where, instead of “ gat him a
name,” we should read ‘“ set wp a memorial”), by
hanging up trophies in their public buildings (1
Sam. xxi. 9, xxxi. 10; 2 K. xi. 10), and by tri-
umphal songs and dances, in which the whole popu-
xviii. 6-8; 2 Sam. xxii.; Jud. xvi, 2-17; 1 Mace.
iv. 24). The death of a hero was commemorated
by a dirge (2 Sam. i. 17-27; 2 Chr. xxxv. 25), or
| by a national mourning (2 Sam. iii. 31). The fallen
warriors were duly buried (1 Κα. xi. 15), their arms
being deposited in the grave beside them (Iz. xxxii.
27), while the enemies’ corpses were exposed to the
beasts of prey (1 Sam. xvii. 445 Jer. xxv. 33). The
Israelites were directed to undergo the purification
imposed on those who had touched a corpse, before
they entered the precincts of the camp or the sanc-
tuary (Num. xxxi. 19). The disposal of the spoil has
already been described under Boory. [W. L. B.]
WASHING THE HANDS AND FEET.
The particular attention paid by the Jews to the
cleansing of the hands and feet, as compared with
other parts of the body, originated in the social
usages of the East. As knives and forks were dis-
pensed with in eating, it was absolutely necessary
that the hand, which was thrust into the common
dish, should be scrupulously clean; and again, as
sandals were ineffectual against the dust and heat
of an Eastern climate, washing the feet on enter-
ing a house was an act both of respect to the com-
pany and of refreshment to the traveller. The
former of these usages was transformed by the Pha-
risees of the New Testament age into a matter of
ritual observance (Mark vii. 3), and special rules
were laid down as to the times and manner of its
performance. The neglect of these rules by our
Lord and His disciples drew down upon Him the
hostility of that sect (Matt. xv. 2; Luke xi, 38).
Whether the expression πυγμῇ used by St. Mark
has reference to any special regulation may per-
haps be doubtful; the senses “oft”? (A. V.), and
“diligently” (Alford), have been assigned to it,
but it may possibly signify ‘‘ with the fist,” as
though it were necessary to close the one hand,
which had already been cleansed, before it was
applied to the unclean one. This sense appears
preferable to the other interpretations of a similar
character, such as “‘ up to the wrist” (Lightfoot) ;
“up to the elbow ” (Theophylact); “ having
closed the hand”? which is undergoing the washing
(Grot. ; Scalig.). The Pharisaical regulations on
this subject are embodied in a treatise of the Mishnah,
entitled Yadaim, from which it appears that the
ablution was confined to the hand (2, §3), and that
great care was needed to secure perfect purity in the
water used. The ordinary, as distinct from the
ceremonial, washing of hands before meals is still
universally prevalent in Eastern countries (Lane, 1.
190; Burckhardt’s Wotes, i. 63).
Washing the feet did not rise to the dignity of a
ritual observance, except in connexion with the ser-
vices of the sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 19,21). It held
a high place, however, among the rites of hospi-
tality. Immediately that a guest presented himself
at the tent-door, it was usual to offer the necessary
materials for washing the feet (Gen. xviii. 4, xix.
2, xxiv. 32, sliii. 24; Judg. xix. 21; comp. Hom.
Od. iv. 49). It was a yet more compliment-
ary act, betokening equally humility and_atiec-
tion, if the host actually performed the office for
his guest (1 Sam. xxv. 41; Luke vii. 38, 44; John
xiii. 5-14; 1 Tim. v.10), Such a token of hospi-
tality is still occasionally exhibited in the East,
either by the host, or by his deputy (Robinson’s
Res. ii. 229; Jowett’s Res. pp. 78, 79). The feet
were again washed before retiring to bed (Cant.
χει A symbolical significance is attached in John
1722 WATCHES OF NIGHT
xiii. 10 to washing the feet as compared with bath-
ing the whole body, the former being partial (νίπτω),
the latter complete (Aovw), the former oft-repeated
in the course of the day, the latter done once for
all; whence: they are adduced to illustrate the dis-
tinction between occasional sin and a general state of
sinfulness. After being washed, the feet were on
festive occasions anointed (Luke vii. 38 ; John xii.
3). The indignity attached to the act ‘of washing
- another’s feet, appears to have been extended to the
vessel used (Ps. Ix. 8). LW. L. B.]
WATCHES OF NIGHT CTU : φυ-
λακή). The Jews, like the Greeks and Romans,
divided the night into military watches instead of
hours, each watch representing the period for which
sentinels or pickets remained on duty. The proper
Jewish reckoning recognised only three such watches,
entitled the first or ‘‘ beginning of the watches’’®
(Lam. ii. 19), the middle watch» (Judg. vii. 19),
and the morning watch® (Ex. xiv. 24; 1 Sam. xi.
11). These would last respectively from sunset
to 10 p.m.; from 10 P.M. to 2 A.M.; and from
2 a.m. to sunrise. It has been contended by Light~
foot (Hor. Heb. in Matt. xiv. 25) that the Jews
really reckoned four watches, three only of which
were in the dead of the night, the fourth being in
the morning. This, however, is rendered impro-
bable by the use of the term ‘“ middle,” and is
opposed to Rabbinical authority (Mishnah, Berach,
1, §1; Kimchi, on Ps. Ixiii. 7; Rashi, on Judg.
vii. 19). Subsequently to the establishment of the
Roman supremacy, the number of watches was in-
creased to four, which were described either accord-
ing to their numerical order, as in the case of the
“fourth watch’? (Matt. xiv. 25; comp. Joseph.
Ant. v. 6, §5), or by the terms “even, midnight,
cock-crowing, and morning” (Mark xiii. 35). ‘These
terminated respectively at 9 P.M., midnight, 3 A.M.,
and 6 A.M. Conformably to this, the guard of
soldiers was divided into four relays (Acts xii. 4),
showing that the Roman régime was followed in
Herod’s army. Watchmen appear to have patrolled
the streets of the Jewish towns (Cant. iii. 3, v. 75
Ps. exxvii. 1,4 where for ‘“* waketh”’ we should sub-
stitute ‘‘ watcheth ;” Ps. cxxx. 6). [W. L. B.]
WATER OF JEALOUSY (Num. v. 11-31),
dn 2, “ waters of bitterness,” sometimes with
DYTIN added, as “ causing a curse as als
ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ ; Philo, ii. 310, πότος ἐλέγχου).
WATER OF JEALOUSY
The ritual prescribed consisted in the husband’s
bringing the woman before the priest, and the
essential part of it is unquestionably the oath,
to which the “ water’ was subsidiary, symbolical,
and ministerial. With her he was to bring the
tenth part of an ephah of barley-meal as an
offering. Perhaps the whole is to be regarded
from a judicial point of view, and this “ offering ᾿
in the light of a court-fee.e God Himself was
suddenly invoked to judge, and His presence re-
cognised by throwing a handful of the barley-
meal on the blazing altar in the course of the rite.
In the first instance, however, the priest ‘‘ set her
before the Lord”? with the offering in her hand.
The Mishnah (Sotah) prescribes that she be clothed
in black with a rope girdle around her waist ;
and from the direction that the priest “ shall
uncover her head” (ver. 18), it would seem she
came in veiled, probably also in black. As she
stood holding the offering, so the priest stood hold-
ing an earthen vessel of holy water‘ mixed with
the dust from the floor of the sanctuary, and de-
claring her free from all evil consequences if inno-
cent, solemnly devoted her in the name of Jehovah
to be “a curse and an oath among her people,” if
guilty, further describing the exact consequences
ascribed to the operation of the water in the ‘‘ mem-
bers” which she had ‘‘ yielded as servants to un-
cleanness” & (vers. 21, 22, 27; comp. Rom. vi.
19; and Theodoret, Quaest. x. in Num.). He then
“wrote these curses in a book, and blotted them
out with the bitter water,’ and, having thrown,
probably at this stage of the proceedings, the handful
of meal on the altar, ‘* caused the woman to drink ”
the potion thus drugged, she moreover answering to
the words of his imprecation, ‘* Amen, Amen.”
Josephus adds, if the suspicion was unfounded, she
obtained conception, if true, she died infamously.
This accords with the sacred text, if she ‘be clean,
then shall she be free and shall conceive seed” (ver.
28), words which seem to mean that when restored
to her husband’s affection she should be blessed with
fruitfulness; or, that if conception had taken place
before her appearance, it would have its proper
issue in child-bearing, which, if she had been un-
faithful, would be intercepted by the operation of
the curse. It may be supposed that a husband
would not be forward to publish his suspicions of
his own injury, unless there were symptoms of ap-
parent conception,» and a risk of a child by another
being presented to him as his own. In this case
= ΤΟΝ WIND. > maa AN NWowN.
e9pan ΠΤ ΟΝ. a ἡρϑ).
e Yet being an offering to “ bring iniquity to re-
membrance”’ (v, 15), it is ceremonially rated as a “sin
offering ;” hence no oil is to be mixed with the meal
before burning it, nor any frankincense to be placed upon
it when burnt, which same rule was applied to “sin
offerings”? generally (Lev. v. 11). With meat offerings,
on the contrary, the mixture of oil and the imposition of
frankincense were prescribed (ii. 1, 2, 7, 14, 15).
t Pyobably not the “ water of separation” for purifica-
tion, mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, for as its
ceremonial property was to defile the pure and to purify
the unclean (Num, xix. 21) who touched it, it could hardly
be used in a rite the object of which was to establish the
innocence of the upright or discover the guilt of the
sinner, without the symbolism jarring. Perhaps water
from the laver of the sanctuary is intended.
g The words nbps, bp, nPp), rendered in the
A.V. by the word “ rot,” rather indicate, according to
Gesen. 8.0. pp, to “become or make lean.” Michaelis
-
thought ovarian dropsy was intended by the symptoms.
Josephus says, τοῦ τε σκέλους ἐκπεσόντος αὐτῇ, καὶ THY
κοιλίαν ὑδέρου καταλαμβάνοντος (Ant. iii. 11, ὁ 6).
h This is somewhat supported by the rendering in the
A.V. of the words nvans xd NUM), v. 13, by “neither
she be taken with the manner,” the italicised words being
added as explanatory, without any to correspond in the
original, and pointing to the sudden cessation of “the
manner ” or “ custom of women” (Gen. xviii. 11, xxxi. 35),
i.e. the menstrual flux, suggésting, in the case of a woman
not past the age of child-bearing, that conception had
taken place. If this be the sense of the original, the sus-
picions of the husband would be so far based upon a fact.
It seems, however, also possible that the words may be an
extension of the sense of those immediately preceding,
AD PS IY} when the connected tenour would be, “ and
there be no witness against her, and she be not taken,”
i.e. taken in the fact; comp. John viil. 4, αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ
κατειλήφθη ἐπαυτοφώρῳ μοιχευομένη.
WATER OF SEPARATION
the woman’s natural apprehensions regarding her
own gestation would operate very strongly to make
her shrink from the potion, if guilty. For plainly,
the effect of such a ceremonial on the nervous
system of one so circumstanced, might easily go far
to imperil her life, even without the precise symp-
toms ascribed to the water. Meanwhile the rule
would operate beneficially for the woman, if inno-
cent, who would be during this interval under the
protection of the court to which the husband had
himself appealed, and so far secure against any
violent consequence of his jealousy, which had thus
found a vent recognized by law. Further, by thus
interposing a period of probation the fierceness of
conjugal jealousy might cool. On comparing this
argument with the further restrictions laid down in
the treatise Sotah tending to limit the application
of this rite, there seems grave reason to doubt whether
recourse was ever had to it in fact. [ADULTERY. ]
The custom of writing on a parchment words
cabalistic or medical relating to a particular case,
and then washing them off, and giving the patient
the water of this ablution to drink, has descended
among Oriental superstitions to the present day,
and a sick Arab would probably think this the
most natural way of “ taking”’ a prescription. See,
on the general subject, Groddeck de vett. Hebr.
purgat. castitatis in Ugol. Thesaur, (Winer).
The custom of such an ordeal was probably tradi-
tional in Moses’ time, and by fencing it round with
the wholesome awe inspired by the solemnity of
the prescribed ritual, the lawgiver would deprive it
to a great extent of its barbarous tendency, and
would probably restrain the husband from some of
the ferocious extremities to which he might other-
wise be driven by a sudden fit of jealousy, so
powerful in the Oriental mind. On the whole it
is to be taken, like the permission to divorce by a
written instrument, rather as the mitigation of a
custom ordinarily harsh, and as a barrier placed in
the way of uncalculating vindictiveness. Viewing
the regulations concerning matrimony as a whole,
we shall find the same principle animating them in
all their parts—that of providing a legal channel
for the course of natural feelings where irrepres-
sible, but at the same time of surrounding their
outlet with institutions apt to mitigate their in-
tensity, and so assisting the gradual formation of a
gentler temper in the bosom of the nation. The
precept was given ‘because of the hardness of
their hearts,” but with the design and the tendency
of softening them, (See some remarks in Spencer,
de Leg. Hebr.) isle seb]
WATER OF SEPARATION, [Puririca-
TION. |
WAVE-OFFERING (ADI, “a waving,”
from 513, “* to wave,” Fyn) 395 nmpwn, “a
waving betore Jehovah”). This rite, together with
that of “heaving” or “ raising” the offering, was
an inseparable accompaniment of peace-offerings.
In such the right shoulder, considered the choicest
part of the victim, was to be “" heaved,” and viewed
as holy to the Lord, only eaten therefore by the
priest ; the breast was to be “ waved,” and eaten
by the worshipper. On the second day of the
Passover a sheat of corn, in the green ear, was to
be waved, accompanied by the sacrifice of an un-
blemished lamb of the first year, from the per-
formance of which ceremony the days till Pentecost
were to be counted. When that feast arrived, two
loaves, the first-fruits of the ripe corn, were to be
WAVE-OFFERING 1723
offered with a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and two
lambs of the first year for a peace-oflering, These
likewise were to be waved.
The Scriptural notices of these rites are to be
found in Ex. xxix. 24, 28; Lev. vii. 30, 34, viii.
Qi, xe 20, xoll4, 15, xxiii, 10; 15, 20; Num. vi.
20, xviil. 11, 18, 26-29, &c.
We find also the word ΠῚ applied in Ex.
xxxviii. 24, to the gold offered by the people for the
furniture of the sanctuary. It is there called
nm|ynw Ant. It may have been waved when
presented, but it seems not impossible that 75 1IN
had acquired a secondary sense so as to denote
** free-will offering.” In either case we must suppose
the ceremony of waving to have been known to and
practised by the Israelites before the giving of the
Law.
It seems not quite certain from Ex. xxix. 26, 27,
whether the waving was performed by the priest or
by the worshipper with the former’s assistance.
The Rabbinical tradition represents it as done by
the worshipper, the priest supporting his hands
from below.
In conjecturing’ the meaning of this rite, rerard
must be had, in the first instance, to the kind of
sacrifice to which it belonged. It was the accom-
paniment of peace-oflerings. These not only, like
the other sacrifices, acknowledged God’s greatness
and His right over the creature, but they witnessed
to a ratified covenant, an established communion
between God and man. While the sin-oftering
merely removed defilement, while the burnt-offer-
ing gave entirely over to God of His own, the
victim being wholly consumed, the peace-offering,
as establishing relations between God and the wor-
shipper, was participated in by the latter, who ate,
as we have seen, of the breast that was waved.
The Rabbis explain the heaving of the shoulder
as an acknowledgment that God has His throne in
the heaven, the waving of the breast that He is
present in every quarter of the earth. The one
rite testified to His eternal majesty on high, the
other to His being among and with His people.
It is not said in Lev. xxiii. 10-14, that a peace-
offering accompanied the wave-sheaf of the Pass-
over. On the contrary, the only bloody sacrifice
mentioned in connexion with it is styled a burnt-
offering. When, however, we consider that every-
where else the rite of waving belongs to a peace-
offering, and that besides a sin and a burnt-oftering,
there was one in connexion with the wave-loaves of
Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 19), we shall be wary of con-
cluding that there was none in the present case,
The significance of these rites seems considerable.
The name of the month Abib, in which the Pass-
over was kept, means the month of the green ear
of corn, the month in which the great produce of
the earth has come to the birth. In that month
the nation of Israel came to the birth ; each suc-
ceeding Passover was the keeping of the nation’s
birthday. Beautifully and naturally, therefore,
were the two births—that of the people into national
life ; that of their needful sustenance into yearly life
—combined in the Passover. All first-fruits were
holy to God: the first-born of men, the first-produce
of the earth. Both principles were recognized in the
Passover, When, six weeks after, the harvest had
ripened, the first-fruits of its matured produce were
similarly to be dedicated to God. Both were waved,
the rite which attested the Divine presence and
working all around us being surely most appropriate
and significant in their case. [F. G.]
1724 WAY
WAY. This word has now in ordinary parlance
so entirely forsaken its original sense (except in
combination, as in * highway,” “* causeway ”’), and
is so uniformly employed in the secondary or meta-
phorical sense of a ‘‘ custom” or ‘ manner,” that
it is difficult to remember that in the Bible it most
frequently signifies an actual road or track. Our
translators have employed it as the equivalent of
no less than eighteen distinct Hebrew terms. Of
these, several had the same secondary sense which
the word “way” has with us. Two others (TN
and 22) are employed only by the poets, and
are commonly rendered “ path” in the A.V. But
the term which most frequently occurs, and in the
majority of cases signifies (though it also is now
and then used metaphorically) an actual road, is
qi derec, connected with the German treten and
the Enelish “ tread.’ It may be truly said that
there is hardly a single passage in which this word
occurs which would not be made clearer and more
real if “road to’? were substituted for ‘ way of.”
Thus Gen. xvi. 7, ‘‘ the spring on the road to
Shur;” Num. xiv. 24, “the road ‘to the Red Sea ;”
1 Sam. vi. 12, “ the road to Bethshemesh;” Judg.
ix. 37, “ the road to the oak ἃ of Meonenim;” 2 K,
xi, 19, “ the road to the gate.” It turns that which
is a mere general expression into a substantial reality.
And so in like manner with the word ὁδός in the
New Testament, which is almost invariably trans-
lated “‘ way.” Mark x. 32, “ They were on the
road going up to Jerusalem ;” Matt. xx. 17, “ and
Jesus took the twelve disciples apart in the road” —
out of the crowd of pilgrims who, like themselves,
were bound for the Passover.
There is one use of both deree and 686s which
must not be passed over, viz. in the sense of a reli-
gious course. In the Old Test. this occurs but
rarely, perhaps twice: namely in Amos viii. 14,
“the manner of Beersheba,’’ where the prophet is
probably alluding to some idolatrous rites then
practised there; and again in Ps. exxxix. 24, “ look
if there be any evil way,” any idolatrous practices,
‘in me, and lead me in the everlasting way.” But
in the Acts of the Apostles ὁδός, ‘‘ the way,” ‘‘ the
road,” is the received, almost technical, term for
the new religion which Paul first resisted and
afterwards supported. See Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 23,
xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22. In each of these the word
“that” is an interpolation of our translators, and
should have been put into ifalics, as it is in
xxiv. 22.
The religion of Islam is spoken of in ‘the Koran
as “the path,” (et tartk, iv. 66), and “the right
path” (i, 5; iv. 174). Gesenius ( Zhes. 353)
has collected examples of the same expression in
other languages and religions, [G. ]
WEAPONS. [Arms.]
WEASEL (75h, choled: γαλῆ : mustela) occurs
only in Lev. xi. 29, in the list of unclean animals.
According to the old versions and the Talmud, the
Heb. chéled denotes “a weasel” (see Lewysohn,
Zool. des Talm. p. 91, and Buxtorf, Lex. v. Rab.
et Tulm. p. 756) 3 but if the word is identical with
σο9
the Arabic chuld (XLS) and the Syriac chuldo
(: Saw) as Bochart Sai ii. 4 Pe and others
ie mis is more obscure in τὰν A. v. even 1 than the
others :—* Come along by the plain of Mconenim.”
HAVING
have endeavoured to show, there is no doubt that
“a mole” is the animal indicated. Gesenius ( hes.
p- 474), however, has the following very true ob-
servation: “Satis constat animalium nomina_per-
saepe in hae lingua hoc, in alia cognata aliud, id
vero simile, animal significare,’ He prefers to
render the term by ‘‘ Weasel.”
Moles are common enough in Palestine; Hassel-
quist (Zrav. p. 120), speaking of the country
between Jaffa and Kama, says he had never seen in
any place the ground so cast up by moles as in
these plains. There was scarce a yard’s lensth
between each mole-hill. It is not improbable that
both the Yalpa europaea and the T. caeca, the
blind mole of which Aristotle speaks (Hist. Anim.
i. 8, §3), occur in Palestine, though we have no
definite information on this point. The family of J/us-
telidae also is doubtless well represented. Perhaps
it is better to give to the Heb. term the same signi-
fication which the cognate Arabic and Syriac hav ἘΣ
and understand a ‘‘mole’’ to be denoted by it.
[ MouE. | [W. H.]
WEAVING (338). The art of weaving appears
to be coeval with the first dawning of civilization.
In what country, or by whom it was invented, we
know not; but we find it practised with great skill
by the Egyptians at a very early period, and hence
the invention was not unnaturally attributed to
them (Plin. vii. 57). The “ vestures of fine linen”
such as Joseph wore (Gen. xli. 42) were the product
of Egyptian looms, and their quality, as attested by
existing specimens, is pronounced to be not inferior
to the finest cambric of modern times (Wilkinson,
ii. 75). The Israelites were probably acquainted
with the process before their sojourn in Egypt; but
it was undoubtedly there that they attained the
proficiency which enabled them to execute the
hangings of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxxv. 35; 1 Chr.
iv. 21), and other artistic textures. At a later
period the Egyptians were still famed for their ma-
nufactures of “fine” (ὦ. e. hackled) flax and of
chért,» rendered in the A. V. ‘ networks,’ but
more probably a white material either of linen or
cotton (Is. xix. 9). From them the Tyrians pro-
cured the “ fine linen with broidered work” for the
sails of their vessels (Ez. xxvii. 7), the handsome
character of which may be inferred from the repre-
sentations of similar sails in the Egyptian paintings
(Wilkinson, ii. 131, 167). Weaving was carried on
in Egypt, generally, but not universally, by men
(Herod. ii. 35 ; comp. Wilkinson, 11. 84). This was
the case also among the Jews about tke time of the
Exodus (1 Chr. iv. 21), but in later times it usually
fell to the lot of the females to supply the household
with clothing (1 Sam. ii. 19 ; 2 K. xxiii. 7), and an
industrious housewife would produce a surplus for
sale to others (Prov. xxxi, 13, 19, 24).
The character of the loom and the process of
weaving can only be inferred from incidental notices.
The Egyptian loom was usually upright, and the
weaver stood at his work. ‘The cloth was fixed
sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom, so
that the remark of Herodotus (ii. 85) that the
Egyptians, contrary to the usual practice, pressed
the woof downwards, must be received with reser-
vation (Wilkinson, ii. 85), That a similar variety
of usage prevailed among the Jews, may be inferred
from the remark of St. John (xix. 23), that the
seamless coat was woven “ from the top” (€« τῶν
b mn.
WEAVING
ἄνωθεν).
the Romans rectae, implying that they were made
at an upright loom at which the weaver stood to
his work, thrusting the woof upwards (Plin. viii.
74). The modern Arabs use a procumbent loom,
raised above the ground by short legs (Burckhardt’s
* Notes, i. 67). The Bible does not notice the loom
itself, but speaks of the beam © to which the warp
was attached (1 Sam. xvii. 7; 2 Sam. xxi. 19);
and of the pin@ to which the cloth was fixed, and
on which it was rolled (Jude. xvi. 14). We have
also notice of the shuttile,¢ which is described by a
term significant of the act of weaving (Job vii. 6);
the thrum® or threads which attached the web to
the beam (Is. xxxviii. 12, margin); and the web®
itself (Judge. xvi. 14; A. V. “beam”). Whether
the two terms in Lev. xiii. 48, rendered “ warp” &
and ‘‘ woof,’ really mean these, admits of doubt,
inasmuch as it is not easy to see how the one
could be affected with leprosy without the other:
perhaps the terms refer to certain kinds of texture
(Knobel, im /oc.). The shuttle is occasionally dis-
pensed with, the woof being passed’ through with
the hand (Robinson’s Bib. Kes. i. 169). The
speed with which the weaver used his shuttle, and
the decisive manner in which he separated the
web from the thrum when his work was done,
supplied vivid images, the former of the speedy
passage of life (Job vii. 6), the latter of sudden
death (Is. xxxviii. 12).
The textures produced by the Jewish weavers
were very various. The coarser kinds, such as
‘tent-cloth, sackcloth, and the ‘hairy garments”
of the poor were made of goat’s or camel’s hair
(Ex. xxvi. 7; Matt. iii. 4). Wool was extensively
used for ordinary clothing (Lev. xiii. 47; Prov.
xxvii. 26, xxxi. 13; Ez. xxvii. 18), while for finer
work flax was used, varying in quality, and pro-
ducing the different textures described inthe Bible as
“Jinen” and ‘fine linen.” The mixture of wool and
flax in cloth intended for a garment was interdicted
(Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 11). With regard to
the ornamental kinds of work, the terms rikmah,
“needlework,” and ma’dséh chdshéb, * the work of
the cunning workman,” have been already discussed
under the head of EMBROIDERER, to the effect that
both kinds were produced in the loom, and that the
distinction between them lay in the addition of a
device or pattern in the latter, the rikmah con-
sisting simply of a variegated stuff without a pattern.
We may further notice the terms: (1) shdbatsi
and tashbéts * applied to the robes of the priest (Ex.
xxviii. 4, 39), and signifying tesselated (A. V.
‘‘ broidered’’), ἡ. 6. with depressions probably of a
square shape worked in it, similar to the texture
described by the Romans under the term scutulatus
(Plin. viii. 73; Juv. ii. 97); this was produced in
the loom, as it is expressly said to be the work of
the weaver (Ex. xxxix. 27), (2) Mashzdr! (A.V.
“twined”), applied to the fine linen out of which
the curtains of the tabernacle and the sacerdotal
vestments were made (Ex. xxvi. 1, xxviii. 6, &.):
in this texture each thread consisted of several finer
threads twisted together, as is described to have
a heptad of any ‘thing
WEEK 1725
*
Tunics of this kind were designated by | been the case ἐν: the famed corslet of Amasis
(Herod. iii. 47). (3) Mishbetsoth zahab™ (A. V.
“of wrought gold”), textures in which gold thread
was interwoven @s. xiv. 13) ‘The Baby lonians
were particularly skilful in this branch of weaving,
and embroidered groups.of men or animals on the
robes (Plin. viii. 74; Layard, Nin. ii. 413):
the ‘goodly Babylonish garment”’ secreted by
Achan was probably of this character (Josh. vii. 21).
The sacerdotal vestments are said to have been
woven in one piece without the intervention of
any needlework to join the seams (Joseph. Ant, iii.
7, 84). The “ coat without seam” (χιτὼν ἄῤῥα-
gos) worn by Jesus at the time of his crucifixion
(John xix. 23), was probably of a sacerdotal cha-
racter in this respect, but made of a less costly
material (Carpzov, Appar. p. 72).
[W. L. B.]
WEDDING. [Marrrace. |
WEEK (YI, or yay, from yaw, “ seven,”
, but particularly used for a
ce of seven days: ᾿εβδύμας: septimana). We
have also, and much oftener, APAY, or nyaw
D5.
Whatever controversies exist respecting the origin
of the week, there can be none about the great an-
tiquity, on particular occasions at least, among the
Shemitic races, of measuring time by a period of
seven days. This has been thought to be implied
in the phrase respecting the sacrifices of Cain and
Abel (Gen. iv. 3), “in process of time,” literally
“at the end of days.’ It is to be traced in the
narrative of the subsidence of the Flood (Gen. Viil.
10), “and he stayed yet other seven days;” and
we find it recognized by the Syrian Laban (Gen.
reall) ye fulfil her week.” It is neédless to say
that. this division of time is a marked feature
of the Mosaic law, and one into which the whole
year was parted, the Sabbath sufficiently showing
that. The week of seven days was also made
the key to a scale of seven, running through
the Sabbatical years up to that of jubilee. [See
SABBATH; SABBATICAL YEAR; and JUBILEE,
YEAR OF. |
The origin of this division of time is a matter
which has given birth to much speculation, Its
antiquity is so great, its observance so wide-spread,
and it occupies so important a place in sacred things,
that it has been very generally thrown back as far
as the creation of man, who on this supposition was
told from the very first to divide his time on the
model of the Creator’s order of working and resting.
The week and the Sabbath are, if this be so, as old
as man himself; and we need not seek for reasons
either in the human mind or the facts with which
that mind comes in contact, for the adoption of
such a division of time, since it is to be referred
neither to man’s thoughts nor to man’s will. A
purely theological ground is thus established for
the week and for the sacredness of the number
seven. They who embrace this view support it
by a reference to the six days’ creation and the
Divine rest on the seventh, which they consider to
have been made known to man from the very first,
τ HID ; so called from its resemblance to a plough-
man’s yoke.
4 FID. This term is otherwise understood of the
warp, as in the LXX. and the Vulgate (Gesen. Thes.
p. 890).
© aS . The same word describes both the web and
the shuttle.
tmp. 6 nw. bh ΣΎ,
ipa. k yawn. 1 UID.
™ ant myawi.
1726 WEEK
and by an appeal to the exceeding prevalence of
the hebdomadal division of time from the earliest
age—an argument the force of which is considered
to be enhanced by the alleged absence of any natural
ground for it.
To all this, however, it may be objected that we
are quite in the dark as to when the record of the
six days’ creation was made known, that as human
language is used and human apprehensions are ad-
dressed in that record, so the week being already
known, the perfection of the Divine work and
Sabbath may well have been set forth under the
figure of one, the existing division of time mould-
ing the document, instead of the document giving
birth to the division; that old and wide-spread as
is the recognition of that division, it is not uni-
versal ; that the nations which knew not of it were
too important to allow the argument from its pre-
valency to stand; and that so far from its being
without ground in nature, it is the most obvious
and convenient way of dividing the month. Each
of these points must now be briefly considered :—
Ist. That the week rests on a theological ground
may be cheerfully acknowledged by both sides; but
nothing is determined by such acknowledgment as
to the original cause of adopting this division of
time. The records of creation and the fourth com-
mandment give no doubt the ultimate and there-
fore the deepest ground of the weekly division,
but it does not therefore follow that it was not
adopted for lower reasons before either was known.
Whether the week gave its sacredness to the number
seven, or whether the ascendency of that number
helped to determine the dimensions of the week, it
is impossible to say. ‘The latter fact, the ancient
ascendency of the number seven, might rest on
divers grounds. The planets, according to the
astronomy of those times, were seven in number ;
so are the notes of the diatonic scale; so also many
other things naturally attracting observation.
2ndly. The prevalence of the weekly division
was indeed very great, but a nearer approach to
universality is required to render it an argument
for the view in aid of which it is appealed to. It
was adopted by all the Shemitic races, and, in the
later period of their history at least, by the Egyp-
tians. Across the Atlantic we find it, or a division
all but identical with it, among the Peruvians. It
also obtains now with the Hindoos, but its antiquity
among them is matter of question. It is possible
that it was introduced into India by the Arabs and
Mohammedans. So in China we find it, but whether
universally or only among the Buddhists admits of
doubt. (See, for both, Priaulx’s Questiones Mo-
swicae, a work with many of the results of which
we may be well expected to quarrel, but which
deserves, in respect not oly of curious learning, but
of the vigorous and valuable thought with which
it is impregnated, te be far more known than it is.)
On the other hand, there is no reason for thinking
the week known till a late period either to Greeks
or Romans.
ς΄ 3rdly. So far from the week being a division of
time without ground in nature, there was much to re-
commend its adoption. Where the days were named
from planetary deities, as among first the Assyrians
and Chaldees, and then the Egyptians, there of
course each period of seven days would constitute a
whole, and that whole might come to be recognized
by nations that disregarded or rejected the practice
which had shaped and determined it. But further,
the week is a most natural and nearly an exact qua-
WEEK
dripartition of the month, so that the quarters of
the moon may easily have suggested it.
- It is beside the purpose of this article to trace
the hebdomadal division among other nations than
the Hebrews. The week of the Bible is that with
which we have to do. Even if it were proved that
the planetary week of the Egyptians, as sketched
by Dion Cassius (Hist. Rom. xxxvii. 18), existed
at or before the time of the Exodus, the children
of Israel did not copy that. Their week was
simply determined by the Sabbath; and there is
no evidence of any other day, with them, having
either had a name assigned to it, or any particular
associations bound up with it., The days seemed
to have been distinguished merely by the ordinal
numerals, counted from the Sabbath. We shall
have indeed to return to the Egyptian planetary
week at a later stage of our inquiry, but our first
and main business, as we have already said, is with
the week of the Bible.
We have seen in Gen. xxix. 27, that it was known
to the ancient Syrians, and the injunction to Jacob,
“9 fulfil her week,’ indicates that it was in use as a
fixed term for great festive celebrations. The most
probable exposition of the passage is, that Laban
tells Jacob to fulfil Leah’s week, the proper period
of the nuptial festivities in connexion with his mar-
riage to her, and then he may have Rachel also
(comp. Judg. xiv.). And so too for funeral observ-
ance, as in the case of the obsequies of Jacob,
Joseph “‘made a mourning for his father seven
days” (Gen. 1.10). But neither of these instances,
any more than Noah’s procedure in the ark, go
further than showing the custom of observing a
term of seven days for any observance of import-
ance. They do not prove that the whole year, or
the whole month, was thus divided at all times,
and without regard to remarkable events.
In Exodus of course the week comes into very
distinct manifestation. Two of the great feasts—
the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles—are pro-
longed for seven days after that of their initiation
(Exod. xii. 15-20, &c.), a custom which remains in
the Christian Church, in the rituals of which the
remembrances and topics of the great festivals are
prolonged till what is technically called the octave.
Although the Feast of Pentecost lasted but one day,
yet the time for its observance was to be counted
by weeks from the Passover, whence one of its
titles, ‘‘ the Feast of Weeks.”
The division by seven was, as we have seen, ex-
panded so as to make the seventh month and the
seventh year Sabbatical. To whatever extent the
laws enforcing this may have been neglected before
the Captivity, their effect, when studied, must have
been to render the words 2 2), ἑβδομάς, week,
capable of meaning a seven of years almost as
naturally as a seven of days. Indeed the generality
of the word would have this effect at any rate.
Hence their use to denote the latter in prophecy,
more especially in that of Daniel, is not mere arbi-
trary symbolism, but the employment of a not un-
familiar and easily understood language. This is not
the place to discuss schemes of prophetic interpre-
tation, nor do we propose giving our opinion of any
such, but it is connected with our subject to re-
mark that, whatever be the merits of that which in
Daniel and the Apocalypse understands a year by a
day, it cannot be set aside as forced and unnatural.
Whether days were or were not intended to be thus
understood in the places in question, their being so
would have been a congruous, and we may say
WEEKS, FEAST OF
logical attendant on the scheme which counts weeks
of years, and both would have been a natural com-
putation to minds familiar and occupied with the
law of the Sabbatical year.
In the N. T. we of course find such clear recog-
nition of and familiarity with the week as needs
scarcely be dwelt on. Sacred as the division was,
and stamped deep on the minds and customs of
God’s people, it now received additional solemnity
from our Lord’s last earthly Passover gathering up
His work of life into a week.
Hence the Christian Church, from the very first,
was familiar with the week. St. Paul’s language
(1 Cor. xvi. 2, κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων) shows this.
We cannot conclude from it that such a division of
time was observed by the inhabitants of Corinth
generally ; for they to whom he was writing,
though doubtless the majority of them were Gen-
tiles, yet knew the Lord’s Day, and most probably
the Jewish Sabbath. But though we can infer no
more than this from the place in question, it is clear
that if not by this time, yet very soon after, the
whole Roman world had adopted the hebdomadal
division. Dion Cassius, who wrote in the 2nd
century, speaks of it as both universal and recent
in his time. He represents it as coming from
Egypt, and gives two schemes, by one or other of
which he considers that the planetary names of the
different days were fixed (Dion Cassius, xxvii. 18).
Those names, or corresponding ones, have perpetu-
ated themselves over Christendom, though no asso-
ciations of any kind are now connected with them,
except in so far as the whimsical conscience of some
has quarrelled with their Pagan origin, and led to
an attempt at their disuse. It would be interest-
ing, though foreign to our present purpose, to in-
quire into the origin of this planetary week. A
deeply-learned paper in the Philological Museum,
by the late Archdeacon Hare,* gives the credit of
its invention to the Chaldees. Dion Cassius was
however pretty sure to have been right in tracing
its adoption by the Roman world to an Egyptian
origin. It is very striking to reflect that while
Christendom was in its cradle, the law by which
she was to divide her time came without collusion
with her into universal observance, thus making
things ready for her to impose on mankind that
week on which all Christian life has been shaped—
that week grounded on no worship of planetary
deities, nor dictated by the mere wish to quadri-
partite the month, but based on the earliest lesson
of revelation, and proposing to man his Maker’s
model as that whereby to regulate his working
and his rest—that week which once indeed in
modern times it has been attempted to abolish,
because it was attempted to abolish the whole
Christian faith, but which has kept, as we are sure
it ever will keep, its ground, being bound up with
that other, and sharing therefore in that other’s
invincibility and perpetuity. [F. G.]
WEEKS, FEAST OF. [PEnrecosv.]
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
I. WEIGHTS.
Introduction.—It will be well to explain briefly
the method of inquiry which led to the conclusions
stated in this article, the subject being intricate,
and the conclusions in many main particulars
different from any at which other investigators
have arrived. The disagreement of the opinions
-8..--
a Philolog. Mus. vol. i.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1727
respecting ancient weights that have been formed
on the evidence of the Greek and Latin writers
shows tke importance of giving the first place to
the evidence of monuments. The evidence of the
Bible is clear, except in the case of one passage, but it
requires a monumental commentary. The general
principle of the present inquiry was to give the
evidence of the monuments the preference on all
doubtful points, and to compare it with that of lite-
rature, so as to ascertain the purport of statements
which otherwise appeared to be explicable in two,
or even three, different ways. Thus, if a certain
talent is said to be equal to so many Attic drachms,
these are usually explained to be drachms on the
old, or Commercial, standard, or on Solon’s reduced
standard, or again on the further reduced standard
equal to that of Roman denarii of the early em-
perors; but if we ascertain from weights or coins
the weight of the talent in question, we can decide
with what standard it is compared, unless the text
is hopelessly corrupt.
Besides this general principle, it will be necessary
to bear in mind the following postulates.
1. All ancient Greek systems of weight were
derived, either directly or indirectly, from an Eastern
source.
2. All the older systems of ancient Greece and
Persia, the Aeginetan, the Attic, the Babylonian,
and the Euboic, are divisible either by 6000, or by
3600.
3. The 6000th or 3600th part of the talent is a
divisor of all higher weights and coins, and a mul-
tiple of all lower weights and coins, except its two-
thirds.
4. Coins are always somewhat below the standard
weight.
5. The statements of ancient writers as to the
relation of different systems are to be taken either
as indicating original or current relation. When a
set of statements shows a special study of metro-
lory we must infer original relation ; isolated state-
ments may rather be thought to indicate current
relation. All the statements of a writer, which are
not borrowed, probably indicate either the one or
the other kind of relation.
6. The statements of ancient writers are to be
taken in their seemingly-obvious sense, or discarded
altogether as incorrect or unintelligible.
7. When a certain number of drachms or other
denominations of one metal are said to correspond
to a certain number of drachms or other denomina-
tions of another metal, it must not be assumed that
the system is the same in both cases.
Some of these postulates may seem somewhat
strict, but it must be recollected that some, if not
all, of the systems to be considered have a mutual
relation that is very apt to lead the inquirer to
visionary results if he does not use great caution in
his investigations,
The information respecting the Hebrew weights
that is contained in direct statements necessitates
an examination of the systems used by, or known to,
the Greeks as late as Alexander’s time. We begin
with such an examination, then state the direct data
for the determination of the Hebrew system or
systems, and finally endeavour to effect that deter-
mination, adding a comparative view of all our
main results.
I. Early Greek talents.—Thvree principal systems
were used by the Greeks before the time of Alex-
ander, those of the Aeginetan, the Attic, and the
Euboic talents. "
1728 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
1. The Aeginetan talent is stated to have con-
tained 60 minae, and 6000 drachms. The following
points are incontestably established on the evidence
of ancient writers. Its drachm was heavier than
the Attic, by which, when unqualified, we mean
the drachm of the full monetary standard, weighing
about 67°5 grains Troy. Pollux states that it con-
tained 10,000 Attic drachms and 100 Attic minae.
Aulus Gellius, referring to the time of Demo-
sthenes, speaks of a talent being equal to 10,000
drachms, and, to leave no doubt, says they would
be the same number of denarii, which in his own
time were equal to current reduced Attic drachms,
the terms drachms and denarii being then used in-
terchangeably. In accordance with these statements,
we find a monetary system to have been in use in
Macedonia and Thrace, of which the drachm weighs
about 110 grs.,in very nearly the proportion required
to the Attic (6: 10 :: 67°5: 112°5).
The silver coins of Aegina, however, and of many
ancient Greek cities, follow a lower standard, of
which the drachm,has an average maximum weight
of about 96 grs. The famous Cyzicene staters of
electrum appear to follow the same standard as the
coins of Aegina, for they weigh about 240 grs., and
are said to have been equal in value to 28 Attic
drachms of silver, a Daric, of 129 grs., being equal
to 20 such drachms, which would give the Cyzicenes
(20: 129 :: 28 : 180) three-fourths of gold, the
very proportion assigned to the composition of elec-
trum by Pliny. If we may infer that the silver
was not counted in the value, the Cyzicenes would
be equal to low didrachms of Aegina. The drachm
obtained from the silver coins of Aegina has very
nearly the weight, 92°3 grs., that Boeckh assigns
to that of Athens before Solon’s reduction, of which
the system continued in use afterwards as the
Commercial talent. The coins of Athens give a
standard, 67°5 grs., for the Solonian drachm that
does not allow, taking that standard for the basis of
computation, a higher weight for the ante-Solonian
drachm than about that computed by Boeckh.
An examination of Mr, Burgon’s weights from
Athens, in the British Museum, has, however, in-
duced us to infer a higher standard in both cases,
These weights bear inscriptions which prove their
denominations, and that they follow two systems.
One weighing 9980 grs. troy has the inscription
MNA ΑΓῸΡ (μνᾶ ayopaios?), another weighing
7171,simply MNA. We have therefore two systems
evidently in the relation of the Commercial Attic,
and Solonian Attic (9980 : 7171 : : 138°88 : 99-7
instead of 100), a conclusion borne out by the fuller
data given a little later (5.1. 2). The lower weight
is distinguished by AEMO on a weight of 3482
‘ ὯΔ
2.-- 6964) ors.
(X2=6964) grs., and by ΟΔ΄ΊΟ OF ὅπ of 884
(X8=7072): its mina was therefore called δη-
μοσία. The identity of these two systems, the
Market and the Popular, with the Commercial and
Solonian of Athens, is therefore evident, and we
thus obtain a higher standard for both Attic talents.
From the correct relation of the weights of the two
minae given above, we may compute the drachms
of the two talents at about 99°8 and 71:7 gers.
The heavier standard of the two Attic systems
afforded by these weights reduces the difficulty that
is occasioned by the difference of the two Aeginetan
standards.
We thus obtain the following principal standards
of the Aeginetan weight.
a. The Macedonian talent, or Aeginetan of the
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
writers, weighing about 660,000 grs., containing
60 minae and 6000 drachms.
ὃ. The Commercial talent of Athens, used for the
coins of Aegina, weighing, as a monetary talent,
never more than about 576,000 grs., reduced from
a weight-talent of about 598,800, and divided into
the same principal parts as the preceding.
It may be objected to this opinion, that the coins
of Aegina should rather give us the true Aeginetan
standard than those of Macedonia, but it may be
replied, that we know from literature and monu-
ments of but two Greek systems heavier than the
ordinary or later Attic, and that the heavier of these
systems is sometimes called Aeginetan, the lighter,
which bears two other names, never.
2. The Attic talent, when simply thus desig-
nated, is the standard weight introduced by Solon, .
which stood to the older or Commercial talent in
the relation of 100 to 1388. Its average maxi-
mum weight, as derived from the coins of Athens
and the evidence of ancient writers, gives a drachm
of about 67°5 ars. ; but Mr. Burgon’s weights, as
already shown, enable us to raise this sum to 71°7.
Those weights have also enabled us to make a very
curious discovery. We have already seen that two
minae, the Market and the Popular, are recognized
in them, one weight, having the inscription MNA
ATOP (μνᾶ ayopaios?), weighing 9980 grs., and
another, inscribed MNA (μνᾶ Snuoota]|), weighing
7171 grs., these being in almost exactly the rela-
tion of the Commercial and ordinary Attic minae
δημόσιαι. There is no indication of any third
system, but certain of the marks of value prove
that the lower system had two talents, the heavier
of which was double the weight of the ordinary
talent. No. 9 has the inscription TETAPT, “ the
quarter,” and weighs 3218 grs., giving a unit of
12872 grs.; no. 14, inscribed ἘΜῈ, the “half
quarter,’ weighs 1770 grs., giving a unit of 14160
grs. We thus obtain a mina twice that of Solon’s
reduction. The probable reason for the use of this
larger Solonian talent will be shown in a later
place (§ 1V.). These weights are of about the date
of the Peloponnesian War. (See Table A.)
From these data it appears that the Attic talent
weighed about 430,260 grs. by the weights, and
that the coins give a talent of about 405,000 grs.,
the latter being apparently the weight to which
the talent was reduced after a time, and the maxi-
mum weight at which it is reckoned by ancient
writers. It gradually lost weight in the coinage,
until the drachm fell to about 57 grs. or less, thus
coming to be equivalent to, or a little lighter than,
the denarius of the early Caesars. It is important,
when examining the statements of ancient writers,
to consider whether the full monetary weight of the
drachm, mina, or talent, or the weight after this
last reduction, is intended. There are cases, as in
the comparison of a talent fallen into disuse, where
the value in Attic drachms or denarii so described
is evidently used with reference to the full Attic
monetary weight.
3. The Euboic talent, though used in Greece, is
also said to have been used in Persia, and there
can be no doubt of its Eastern origin. We there-
fore reserve the discussion of it for the next section
(ΠΩΣ
II. Foreign talents of the same period.—Two
foreign systems of the same period, besides the He-
brew, are mentioned by ancient writers, the Baby-
lonian talent and the Euboic, which Herodotus
᾽
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1729
A.— TABLE OF MR. BURGON’S WEIGHTS FROM ATHENS.
All these weights are of lead, except nos. 15 and 38, which are of bronze.
| |
Weight : ὶ Value Attic Excess ᾿ a Excess
No one | Inscription. Type. ans Com- OF | Value eifie or
troy. ct οὶ mercial.6 deficiency | Set deficiency.
1 | 9980 | MNA ATOP) Dolphin A Mina ΤῊΣ | :
2 9790 Id. D (Mina) —190 ke alee
SG? ΓΜΝΑΙ Id. A sake Ἰ | Mina ] bora
4 | 7048 Id. d aa Ἶ | (Mina) | —123
5 | 4424 Diota B 0 5s |} MINA? | —356°6
6 3878 ‘Tortoise B ὃ |= ΜΙ NA? | +288°5
7 | 3482 | AEMO Id B arte γὰρ: ἐ Mina —103°5
8 | 3461 Turtle B : | τς ὦ Mina —124°5
9 | 3218 | TETAPT | Tortoise A?or D? oc 3 MINA —367°5
10 | 2959 Half diota d 66 Aa it | 4 MINA? + 90°6
11 2865 MO Turtle B ΤΟΝ ba 4 MINA? = Gof
12| 2210 | AEMO Half diota σ ἘΣ | ae: | § MINA —180°3
13 1872 Half turtle B set tae MINA | + 19:2
14 1770 EMITETAP) Half tortoise B srt ἡ ΠΝ | MINA — 221
15 1698 Crescent B? 4 Mina? —2938 | EHC i
16 | 1648 He Ὁ B 4+ Mina? —-348 Ξ ] ᾿
11.»}Ρ 1603 | M sete B? or D?| 4 Mina? — 393 OMe δ
18] 1348 ΙΒ as A ΤΡῚΣ bats 2 deca- | — 86:2
| drachms. |
19 | 1231 MO Quarter diota? B + MINA ? + 36:8
20} 1172 | AH Crescent B : 75 MINA? = ΡΕΣΤΙ
om 171 Crescent B 6 wir oh yet qs MINA? = 94-7
22 | 1082 Half turtle 3 B τὸ Mina? +84 | § Mina? —113-1
23'| 1045 | AEMO Crescent E spi ΓΔΕ | ὁ Mina? —150°1
24 988 | AEMO Diota in wreath? | B 5 0 ὙΠ" |2Mina? | + 91:06
25 928°5) AEMO Owl, A. in field4 | C arate | + Mina + 321
26 924 Half crescent and | B τς ] i Mina + 21:0
star
27 915°5| ae D? apie oh | 2 Mina + 191
28 910°5 ᾿ 5 | a ies 4 Mina + 141]
29 | 901 Quarter diota B 3 ΟΝ τα ° |9 op) 46
a0) 559. 7.Δ΄.ὄ πὸ Aes ἃ : |iMing | = 7:3
31 884 AE OTAO ° . CP? - . 4 Mina | — 12°3
32) 869 Rose C? : iMina | — 27°3
33 859 | AEMO Uncertain obj. in | d ines Lees | |
| wreath 4 | 4 Mina — 31:8
34 845 Half-crescent B AEG Ye 4Mina? | — 51°3
35 756°5 A cake D? 4 didrachms —41°9 ]
36 541°5) ay ee B cd S08 8 drachms ? — 521
31} _527°5| "1 yas B Rofimina?| «58:6 eerie Hie OTN
38 450 ΔῊΝ ΤΣ B? 5 drachms ? —49 6 drachms ? | + 19°7
39 411 a Res B 4 drachms ? +11°8 6 drachms ? | — 19°2
40 | 388 LS Be 4 drachms? | —11°2 | 5 drachms? + 29:4
1 Countermark, tripod. 2 Countermark, prow. 3 Turtle, headless ? 4 Countermark.
5 Explanation of signs: A, Scarcely injured. B, A little weight lost. C, More than a little lost. Ὁ, Much
d, Much corroded. E, Very much weight lost. When two signs are given, the former is the more
6 The weight of the Commercial Attic mina is here assumed to be about 9980 grs. 7 The weight
The heavier talent is indicated by capital letters.
weight lost.
probable.
of the Solonian Attic mina is here assumed to be about 7171 grs.
B.—TABLE OF WEIGHTS FROM NINEVEH.
Two weights in the series are omitted in this table: one is a large duck representing the same weight as no. 1,
but much injured; the other is a small lion, of which the weight is doubtful, as it cannot be decided whether it was
adjusted with one or two rings.
{ Π !
No Form and | Pheenician | Cuneiform Marks Con- | Weight. |Computed| Division of
* | Material. | Inscription. | Inscription. | of Value dition.! | Grs. troy. | Weight. | Gt. T. |LesserT.
1 | Duck stone Sli XXX Manehs Bs A | 233,300 | 239,760 | : ἐ
2 an oe Pree X Manehs are B 77,500 79,920 eran et
3 » »» Ξ ue ans nN B | 15,000 UR OSL saat e |
4 | Lion bronze | XV Manehs are τ Β | 230,460 | 239,760} ἘΠ
Give, ΠΑ» ιν, 85 V Manehs} V Manehs ᾿ Β | 77,820 79,920/ qs |
6 +> 9» | IIL Manehs} ΠῚ Manehs ses Cc | 44,196} 47,952) o6 |
q se a II Manehs' 11 Manehs x A | 30,744 31,968 aby |
8 » >> | 1 Manehs; II Manehs p B | 29,796 Td. ahh ΠΡ ἡ:
] |
9 ai Aas II Manehs ; ᾿ Β 14,604] 15,984 ον 45
TOM te iy ae seit! i A 15,984 Id. a
1 Ἐν, Manel Maneh ἷ Β 14,124 Id. ag
12 2 iba ee Sy ae ἅ Β 10,272 ? ecw.
13 rine Maneh Maneh ΣΕ Β 7,224 7,992 | δι
14 ΕΣ Maneh Maneh πῆς Β 7,404 ΤΟ alg ec ao
1 ᾽» ΞΡ SW sis ἘΠ: Β 3,708 3599601 see Ee
16 pn) ope Fifth ap! ine B 3,060 3,196 | }M
17 Se Ad Quarter ke B 3,648 3,996 | 2M | 4
18 | Duck stone seek III C 2,904 S506), |e ent) eee
19 Be ΣΝ, Ξ 5 IT B 2,748 Id. : ee ec
20 29 9 - ΠΠΠΠ Β 1,968 2,13 ὃ τὰ
VOL. II.
1
A, Well preserved.
B, Somewhat injured.
C, Much injured.
1730 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
relates to have been used by the Persians of his
time respectively for the weighing of their silver
and gold paid in tribute.
1. The Babylonian talent may be determined
from existing weights found by Mr, Layard at
Nineveh. ‘These are in the forms of lions and ducks,
and are all upon the same system, although the same
denominations sometimes weigh in the proportion
of 2to 1. On account of their great importance
we insert a table, specifying their weights, inscrip-
tions, and degree of preservation. (See Table B,
previous page.)
From these data we may safely draw the follow-
ing inferences,
The weights represent a double system, of which
the heavier talent contained two of the lighter talents.
The heavier talent contained 60 manehs. The
maneh was divided into thirtieths and sixtieths,
We conclude the units having these respective rela-
tions to the maneh of the heavy talent to he divi-
sions of it, because in the case of the first a thirtieth
is a more likely division than a fifteenth, which it
would be if assigned to the lighter talent, and be-
cause, in the case of the second, ejght sixtieths is a
more likely division than eight thirtieths.
The lighter talent contained 60 manehs. Accord-
ing to Dr. Hincks, the maneh of the lighter talent
was divided into sixtieths, and these again into
thirtieths. The sixtieth is so important a division in
any Babylonian system, that there can be no doubt
that Dr. Hincks is right in assigning it to this talent,
and moreover its weight is a value of great conse-
quence in the Babylonian system as well as in one
derived from it. Besides, the sixtieth bears a dif-
ferent name from the sixtieth of the heavier talent,
so that there must have been a sixtieth in each,
unless, but this we have shown to be unlikely, the
latter belongs to the lighter talent, which would
then have had a sixtieth and thirtieth. The follow-
ing table exhibits our results.
Heavier Talent. Grs. troy.
dy Maneh 266°4
2 zl; Maneh 532°8
60 30 Maneh 15,984
3600 1800 60 Talent 959,040
Lighter Talent.
3y of 4; Maneh 4-44
30 ἐὺ Maneh 13:
1800 00 Maneh 7.992
108000 3600 60 Talent 479,520
Certain low subdivisions of the lighter talent
may be determined from smaller weights, in the
British Museum, from Babylonia or Assyria, not
found with those last described. These are, with
one exception, ducks, and have the following weights,
which we compare with the multiples of the smallest
subdivision of the lighter talent,
Smaller Babylonian or Assyrian
¢ Thirticths of Sixtieth of
Weights.
Maneh,
Grs. troy. Unit, 4-44 supped
1. Duck, marked IT, wt.329 80. 355°2 3:0.
2. ” jaa 30. 133°2 a
ass 119 Boge el
Ai ΤΩΣ 25; 111 100
Secukss 87+ 22. 97:6 88
6. Weight like short 188 21. 93-9 84
stopper.
7. Duck. 80+ 20. 88:8 80
5:0... 40— 10, 44:4 40
Die ae 34— 8. 35°5 32
10 ἐν, ce 10 5. 22. 2 20
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Before comparing the evidence of the coins which
we may suppose to have been struck according to
the Babylonian talent, it will be well to ascertain
whether the higher or lower talent was in use, or
whether both were, in the period of the Persian
coins.
Herodotus speaks of the Babylonian talent as not
greatly exceeding the Euboic, which has been com-
puted to be equivalent. to the Commercial Attic, but
more reasonably as nearly the same as the ordinary
Attic. Pollux makes the Babylonian talegt equal to
7000 Attic drachms. Taking the Attic pene at
67°5 grs., the standard probably used by Pollux,
the Babylonian talent would weigh 472,500, which
is very near the weight of the lighter talent, Aelian
says that the Babylonian talent was equal to 72
Attic minae, which, on the standard of 07:5 to the
drachm, gives a sum of 486,000. We may there-
fore suppose that the lighter talent was generally,
if not universally, in use in the time of the Persian
coins.
Herodotus relates that the king of Persia received
the silver tribute of the satrapies according to the
Babylonian talent, but the gold, according to the
Euboic. We may therefore infer that the silver
coinage of the Persian monarchy was then adjusted
to the former, the gold coinage to the latter, if there
was a coinage in both metals so early. The oldest
coins, both gold and silver, of the Persian monarchy,
are of the time of Herodotus, if not a little earlier ;
and there are still more ancient pieces, in both
metals, of the same weights as Persian gold and
silver coins, which are found at or near Sardes, ‘and
can searcely be doubted to be the coinage of Croesus,
or of another Lydian king of the 6th century. The
| larger silver coins of the Persian monarchy, and
those of the satraps, are of the following denomina-
tions and weights :—
Grs. troy.
Piece of threesigli . -. . . 253°5
‘Riecetot twolsicli 6 an va ee) 189
Siclos oe eer canes 84°5
The only denomination of which we know the
/name is the siglos, which, as having the same type
as the Daric, appears to be the oldest Persian silver
‘coin. It is the ninetieth part of the maneh of the
lighter talent, and the 5400th of that talent. The
piece of three sigli is the thirtieth part of that
maneh, and the 1890th of the talent. If there
were any doubt as to these coins being struck upon
the Babylonian standard, it would be removed in
the next part of our inquiry, in which we shall
show that the relation of gold and silver occasioned
these divisions.
2. The Euboic talent, though bearing a Greek
/name, is rightly held to have been originally an
Eastern system. As it was used to weigh the gold
sent as tribute to the king of Persia, we may infer
| that it was the standard of the Persian gold money ;
(and it is reasonable to suppose that the coinage of
| Euboea was upon its standard. If our result as to
| the talent, when tested by the coins of Persia and
| Euboea, confirms this inference and supposition, it
_may be considered sound.
| We must now discuss the celebrated passage of
| Herodotus on the tribute of the Persian satrapies.
| He there states that the Babylonian talent contained
| 70 Euboic minae (iii. 89). He specifies the amount
| of silver paid in Babylonian talents by each pro-
| vince, and then gives the sum of the silver accord-
ing to the Euboic standard, reduces the gold paid
| to its equivalent in silver, reckoning the former at’
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
thirteen times the value of the latter, and lastly
gives the sum total. His statements may be thus
tabulated :-—
Sum of items, Equivalent in E Τὶ Equivalent Difference.
silver, at 70 minae=B, Τὶ stated,
1740 B.T. = 9030E. T. 9540 KE. T. + 510
Gold tribute,
360 E. T.
Equivalent at 13 to 1.
4680 E. T. Id.
ΠΟΙ ΑΙ ΤΣ 1 ΤΌ ΕΝ ΤΙ 14,220
Total stated 14,560 14,560
Difference . +850 +340.
It is impossible to explain this double error in
any satisfactory manner. It is, however, evident
that in the time of Herodotus there was some such
relation between the Babylonian and Euboic talents
as that of 11°66 to 10. ‘This is so near 12 to 10
that it may be inquired whether ancient writers
speak of any relative value of gold to silver about
this time that would make talents in this propor-
tion easy for exchange, and whether, if such a pro-
portion is stated, it is confirmed by the Persian
coins. The relative value of 13 to 1, stated by Hero-
dotus, is very nearly 12 to 1, and seems as though
it had been the result of some change, such as might
have been occasioned by the exhaustion of the sur-
face-gold in Asia Minor, or a more careful working
of the Greek silver-mines. The relative value 12
to 1 is mentioned by Plato (Hipparch.). About
Plato’s time the relation was, however, 10 to 1.
He is therefore speaking of an earlier period. Sup-
posing that the proportion of the Babylonian and
Euboic talents was 12 to 10, and that it was based
upon a relative value of 12 to 1, what light do the
Persian coins throw upon the theory? If we take
the chief or only Persian gold coin, the Daric, as-
suming its weight to be 129 grs., and multiply it
by 12, we obtain the product 1548. If we divide
this product as follows, we obtain as aliquot parts
the weights of all the principal and heavier Persian
silver coins :—
1548 + 6 = 258 three sigli.
= 9 = 172 two sigli.
= 18 = 86 sigli.
On these grounds we may suppose that the
Euboi¢ talent was to the Babylonian as 60 to
72, or 5 to 6. Taking the Babylonian maneh
at 7992 gys., we obtain 399,600 for the Euboic
talent.
This result is most remarkably confirmed by
an ancient bronze weight in the form of a lion
discovered at Abydos in the Troad, and bearing
in Phoenician characters the following inscription :
sapd tr vino dapd ape, « Approved,” or
“found correct, on the part of the satrap who is
appointed over the silver,” or ““ money.” It weighs
396,000 grs., and is supposed to have lost one or
two pounds weight. It has been thought to be a
weizht of 50 Babylonian minae, but it is most un-
likely that there should have been such a division
of the talent, and still more that a weight should
have been made of that division without any dis-
tinctive inscription. If, however, the Euboic talent
was to the Babylonian in the proportion of 5 to θ,
50 Babylonian minae would correspond to a Eu-
boic talent, and this weight would be a talent of
that standard. We have calculated the Euboic
talent at 399,600 grs., this weight is 396,000, or
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1731
3600 deficient, but this is explained by the sup-
posed loss of one (5760) or two (11,520) pounds
weight.
We have now to test our result by the Persian
gold money, and the coins of Euboea.
The principal, if not the only, Persian gold coin
is the Daric, weighing about 129 grs, This, we
have seen, was the standard coin, according to
which the silver money was adjusted. Its double
in actual weight is found in the silyer coinage, but
its equivalent is wanting, as though for the sake of
distinction. The double is the thirtieth of the
maneh of the lighter or monetary Babylonian
talent, of which the Daric is the sixtieth, the latter
being, in our opinion, a known division. ‘The
weight of the sixtieth is, it should be observed,
about 133:2 ors., somewhat in excess of the weight
of the Daric, but ancient coins are always struck
below their nominal weight. The Daric was thus
the 3600th part of the Babylonian talent. It is
nowhere stated how the Euboic talent was divided,
but if we suppose it to have contained 50 minae, then
the Daric would have been the sixtieth of the mina,
but if 100 minae, the thirtieth. In any case it
would have been the 3000th part of the talent. As
the 6000th was the chief’ division of the Aeginetan
and Attic monetary talents, and the 3000th, of the
Hebrew talent according to which the sacred tyi-
bute was paid, and as an Egyptian talent contained
6000 such units, no other principal division of the
chief talents, save that of the Babylonian into
3600, being known, this is exactly what we should
expect.
The coinage of Euboea has hitherto been the great
obstacle to the discovery of the Euboic talent. For
the present we speak only of the silver coins, for
the only gold coin we know is later than the earliest
notices of the talent, and it must therefore have
been in Greece originally, as far as money was con-
cerned, a silver talent. The coins give the follow-
ing denominations, of which we state the average
highest weights and the assumed true weights, com-
pared with the assumed true weights of the coins
of Athens :—
COINS OF EUBOEA. CoINs OF ATHENS.
Highest Assumed true Assumed true
weight. weight. weight.
258 Tetradrachm 270
19} 129 Didrachm 135
85 86
63 64°5 Drachm 67°75
43 43 Tetrobolon 45
It must be remarked that the first Euboic deno-
mination is known to us only from two very early
coins of Eretria, in the British Museum, which
may possibly be Attic, struck during a time of
Athenian supremacy, for they are of about the
weight of very heavy Attic tetradrachms.
It will be perceived that though the weights of
all denominations, except the third in the Kuboic
list, are very near the Attic, the system of division
is evidently different. The third Euboie denomi-
nation is identical with the Persian siglos, and indi-
cates the Persian origin of the system. The second
piece is, however, identical with the Daric. It
would seem that the Persian gold and silver systems
of division were here combined; and this might
perfectly have been done, as the Daric, though a
division of the gold talent, is also a division of the
* Since this was written we have ascertained that
M. de Vogiié has supposed this lion to be a Euboic talent
(Revue Archéologique, τι. 5. Jan. 1862). See also Archaeo -
logical Journal, 1860, Sept. pp. 199, 200.
oS: 2
1732 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
silver talent. As we have noticed, the Daric is
omitted in the Persian silver coinage for some spe-
cial reason. ‘The relation of the Persian and Greek
systems may be thus stated :
Persian silver, Persian gold, Greek Euboic.
Babylonian. Euboic. Actual weight. Assumed.
253°5 258
169
129 121 129
84°5 85 86
63 64°5
43 43
The standard weights of Persian silver coins are
here assumed from the highest average weight of |
the siglos. We hold that the coins of Corinth
probably follow the Euboic system.
The only gold coin of Euboea known to us has
the extraordinary weight of 49°4 ers. It is of
Carystus, and probably in date a little before Alex-
ander’s time. It may be upon a system for gold
money derived from the Kuboic, exactly as the
Euboic was derived from the Babylonian, but it is
not safe to reason upon a single coin.
3. The talents of Egypt have hitherto formed a
most unsatisfactory subject. We, commence our
inquiry by stating all certain data.
The gold and silver coins of the Ptolemies follow
the same standard as the silver coins of the kings of
Macedon to Philip II. inclusive, which are on the
full Aeginetan weight. The copper coins have been
thought to follow the same standard, but this is an
error.
The ancient Egyptians are known to have
two weights, the MeN or UTeN, containing
smaller weights bearing the name KeT, as M.
Shabas has proved. The former name, if rightly
read MeN, is a maneh or mina, the latter, accord-
ing to the Copts, was a drachm or didrachm
( Ie > KITE, CKITE S. drachma, di-
drachma, the last form not being known to have
the second signification). A weight, inscribed “ Five
KeT,” and weighing 698 grs., has been discovered.
It probably originally weighed about 700 (Revue
Archéologique, τι. s.). We can thus determine the
KeT to have weighed about 140 ors., and the MeN
or UTeN about 1400. An examination of the cop-
per coins of the Ptolemies has led us to the in-
teresting discovery that they follow this standard
and system. The following are all the heavier
denominations of the copper coins of the earlier Pto-
lemies, and the corresponding weights: the coins
vary much in weight, but they clearly indicate
their standard and their denominations :—
had
ten
EGYPTIAN COPPER COINS, AND WEIGHTS.
Coins. Weights.
Grs.
A cir. 1400. MeN, or UTeN (Maneh ?)
Beir. 700. ὅ KeT.
C cir. 280. - (2 KeT).
Deir. 140. Kel.
ον a aOe (ᾧ KeT).
We must therefore conclude that the gold and
silver standard of the Ptolemies was different from
the copper standard, the latter being that of the
ancient Egyptians. The two talents, if calculated
from the coins, which in the gold and silver are
below the full weight, are in the proportion of
about 10 (gold and silver) to 13 (copper) ; or, if
calculated from the higher correct standard of the
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
gold and silver system, in the proportion of about
10 to 12°7: we shall speak as to the exchange in
a later place (δ III.).
It may be observed that the difficulty of explain-
ing the statements of ancient writers as to the.
Kegyptian, Alexandrian, or Ptolemaic talent or
talents, probably arises from the use of two systems
which could be easily confounded, at least in their
lower divisions.
4, The Carthaginian talent may not be as old as
the period before Alexander, to which we limit our
inquiry, yet it reaches so nearly to that period that
it cannot be here omitted. ‘Those silver coins of
the Carthaginians which do not follow the Attic
standard seem to be struck upon the standard of
the Persian coins, the Babylonian talent. The only
clue we have, however, to the system is afforded
by a bronze weight inscribed 1319 Spun, and
weighing 321 grammes=4956°5 grs. (Dr. Levy in
Zeitschrift Deutsch. morgen!. Geselisch. xiv. p.710).
This sum is divisible by the weights of all the
chiet Carthaginian silver coins, except the ‘ deca-
drachm,” but only as sevenths, a system of division
we do not know to have obtained in any ancient
talent. The Carthaginian gold coins seem also to
be divisions of this mina on a different principle.
Ill. The Hebrew talent or talents and divisions.
—The data we have obtained enable us to examine
the statements respecting the Hebrew weights with
some expectation of determining this difficult ques-
tion. The evidence may be thus stated.
1. A talent of silver is mentioned in Exodus,
which contained 3000 shekels, distinguished as “ the
holy shekel,” or “ shekel of the sanctuary.” The
number of Israelite men who paid the ransom of
half a shekel a-piece was 603,550, and the sum
paid was 100 talents and 1775 shekels of silver
(Ex. xxx. 13, 15, xxxviii, 25-28), whence we easily
discover that the talent of silver contained 3000
shekels (603,550+2=301,775 shekels—1775=
300,000-+100 talents = 8000 shekels to the talent).
2. A gold maneh is spoken of, and, in a parallel
passage, shekels are mentioned, three manehs being
represented by 300 shekels, a maneh therefore con-
taining 100 shekels of gold.
%. Josephus states that the Hebrew talent of
gold contained 100 minae (λυχνία ἐκ χρυσοῦ. ++.
σταθμὸν ἔχουσα μνᾶς ἑκατὸν, ἃς Ἕ βραῖοι μὲν
καλοῦσι κίγχαρες, εἰς δὲ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν με-
ταβαλλόμενον γλῶσσαν σημαίνει τάλαντον.
Ant. iii. 6, §7).
4, Josephus states that the Hebrew mina of
gold was equal to two librae and a half (δοκὸν
ὁλοσφυρήλατον χρυσῆν, ἐκ μνῶν τριακοσίων
πεποιημένην. ἣ δὲ μνᾶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἰσχύει λίτρας
δύο καὶ ἥμισυ. Ant. xiv. 7, 81). Taking the
Roman pound at 5050 grs., the maneh of gold
would weigh about 12,625 gvs,
5. Epiphanius estimates the Hebrew talent at
125 Roman pounds, which, at the value given
above, are equal to about 631,250 gers.
6. A difficult passage in Ezekiel seems to speak
of a maneh of 50 or 60 shekels: “ And the shekel
[shall be] twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and
twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh ”
(xlv. 12). The ordinary text of the LXX. gives a
series of small sums as the Hebrew, though differing
in the numbers, but the Alex. and Vat. MSS. have
50 for 15 (εἴκοσι ὀβολοὶ, πέντε σίκλοι, πέντε
καὶ σίκλοι δέκα, καὶ πεντήκοντα σίκλοι ἣ μνᾶ
ἔσται ὑμῖν). The meaning would be, either that
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
there were to be three manehs, respectively con-
taining 20, 25, and 15 shekels, or the like, or
else that a sum is intended by these numbers
(20+25-+15)=60, or possibly 50. But it must
be remembered that this is a prophetical passage.
7. Josephus makes the gold shekel a Daric (Ant.
iii. 8, 810).
From these data it may be reasonably inferred,
(1.) that the Hebrew gold talent contained 100
manehs, each of which again contained 100 shekels
of gold, and, basing the calculation on the stated
value of the maneh, weighed about 1,262,500 grs.,
, basing the calculation on the correspondence
of the gold shekel to the Daric, weighed about
1,290,000 grs, (129100100), the latter being
probably nearer the true value, as the 23 librae
may be supposed to be a round sum, and (2.) that
the silver talent contained 3000 shekels, and is pro-
bably the talent spoken of by Epiphanius as equal
to 125 Roman pounds, or 631,250 grs., which
would give a shekel of 210°4 grs. It is to be
observed that, taking the estimate of Josephus as
the basis for calculating the maneh of the former
talent, and that of Epiphanius for calculating the
latter, their relation is exactly 2 to 1, 50 manehs at
24 pounds, making 125 pounds. It is therefore
reasonable to suppose that two talents of the same
system are referred to, and that the gold talent was
exactly double the silver talent.
Let us now examine the Jewish coins.
1. The shekels and half-shekels of silver, if we
take an average of the heavier specimens of the
Maccabaean issue, give the weight of the former as
about 220 grs. <A talent of 3000 such shekels
would weigh about 660,000 grs. This result
agrees very nearly with the weight of the talent
given by Epiphanius.
2. The copper coins are generally without any
indications of value. The two heaviest denomina-
tions of the Maccabaean issue, however, bear the
names “half” (ΠῚ) and “quarter” (90).
M. de Sauley gives the weights of three “ halves ”
as, respectively, 251°6 grs. (6: 3 grammes), 9590:2
(15°5), and 219-2 (14: 9). Tn Mr. Wigan’s collection
are two “ quarters,” weighing, respectively, 145°2
grs. and 118°9 gis.; the former being, apparently,
the one “‘ quarter ” of which M. de Saulcy gives the
weight as 142° (9°2 grammes). We are unable to
add the weights of any more specimens. There is
a smaller coin of the same period, which has an
average weight, according to M. de Saulcy, of 81°8
grs. (5'°3 grammes). If this be the third of the
“half,” it would give the weight of the latter at
245°4 ors. As this may be thought to be slender
evidence, especially so tar as the larger coins are
concerned, it is important to observe that it is con-
firmed by the later coins. From the copper coins
mentioned above, we can draw up the following
scheme, comparing them with the silver coins.
COPPER COINS. SILVER COINS.
Average Supposed Average Supposed
weight. weight. weight. weight.
Hallie. 290:4 200, isbekell 2 220 ld:
Quarter 132°0 125 Halfshekel 110 Id.
(Sixth).'81°8 83°3 [Third] . 73-3.
Itis evident from this list that the copper “ half”
and “ quarter” are half and quarter shekels, and
are nearly in the relation to the silver like denomi-
nations of 2 to 1. But this relation is not exact,
and it is therefore necessary to ascertain further,
whether the standard of the silver talent can be
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1733
raised, if not, whether the gold talent can be more
than twice the weight of the silver, and, should
this explanation be impossible, whether there is any
ground for supposing a third talent with a shekel
heavier than two shekels of the silver.
The silver shekel of 220 grs., gives a talent of
660,000 grs.: this is the same as the Aeginetan,
which appears to be of Phoenician origin. There is
no evidence of its ever having had a higher shekel or
didrachm.
The double talent of 1,320,000 grs., gives a
Daric of 132 grs., which is only 1 gr. and a small
fraction below the standard obtained from the
Babylonian talent.
The possibility of a separate talent for copper
depends upon the relations of the three metals.
The relation of gold to silver in the time of He-
rodotus was 1:13. The early relation upon which
the systems of weights and coins used by the Persian
state were founded was 1:12. Under the Ptolemies
it was 1:12°5, The two Hebrew talents, if that
of gold were exactly double that of silver, would
have been easy for exchange in the relation of 1: 12,
1 talent of gold corresponding to 24 talents of silver.
The relation of silver to copper can be best conjec-
tured from the Ptolemaic system. If the Hebrews
derived this relation from any neighbouring state,
Egypt is as likely to have influenced them as Syria ;
for the silver coinage of Egypt was essentially the
same as that of the Hebrew s, and that of Syria was
different. Besides, the relation of silver and copper
must have been very nearly the same in Syria and
Palestine as in Egypt during the period in which
the Jewish coinage had its origin, on account of the
large commerce between those countries. It has,
we venture to think, been satisfactorily shown
by Letronne that the relation of silver to copper
under the Ptolemies was 1:60, a mina of silver
corresponding to a talent of copper. It has, how-
ever, been supposed that the drachm of copper was
of the same weight as that of gold and silver, an
opinion which we have proved to be incorrect in
an earlier part of this article (811. 3). An im-
portant question now arises. Is the talent of cop-
per, when spoken of in relation to that of silver, a
talent of weight or a talent of account ?—in other
words, Is it of 6000 actual drachms of 140 515.
each, or of 6000 drachms of account of about 110 grs.
or a little less? This question seems to be answered
in favour of the former of the two replies by the
facts, (1) that the copper coins being struck upon
the old Egyptian weight, it is incredible that so
politie a prince as the first Ptolemy should have
introduced a double system of reckoning, which
would have given offence and seein confu-
sion ; (2) that the ancient Egyptian name of the
monetary unit became that οἵ the drachm, as is
shown by its being retained with the sense drachm
and didrachm by the Copts (§II. 3); and had there
been two didrachms of copper, that on the Egyptian
system would probably have retained the native
name. We are of opinion, therefore, that the
Egyptian copper talent was of 6000 copper
drachms of the weight of 140 grs. each. But
this solution still leaves a difficulty. We know
that the relation of silver to copper was 1: 60
in drachms, though 1:78 or 80 in weight. In
a modern state the actual relation would force
itself into the position of the official relation, and
1:60 would become 1:78 or 80; but this was not
necessarily the case in an ancient country in so
peculiar a condition as Egypt. Alexandria and a
1734 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
few other towns were Greek, the rest of the country |
purely Egyptian; and it is quite possible that, |
while the gold and silver coinage was current in the '
Greek towns, the Egyptians may have refused to
take anything but copper on their own standard,
The issue of copper coins above their value would
have been a sacrifice to the exchequer, if given in
exchange for gold or silver, rough or coined ; but
they might have been exclusively paid out for
salaries and small expenditure, and would have
given an enormous profit to the government, if,
repaid in small taxes. Supposing that a village
paid a silver mina in taxes collected from small |
proprietors, if they had only copper the government
would receive in excess 180,000 grs., or not much
less than a fifth of the whole amount. No one
who is conversant with the East in the present day
will deny the possibility of such a state of things in
Egypt under the Ptolemies. Our decision may be
aided by the results of the two theories upon the
relations of the metals.
AV = AR 1225 = A760
(Stater) (Mina) (Talent)
INF 1 ἘΞ KH 750
Nominal relation
78
Relation in weight AJ 1 = &12°5 = Αὐτὸ
975
BY 1500
It must be remembered that, in endeavouring to
determine which of these two relations is the correct
one, we must be guided by the evidence of anti-
quity, not by the mathematical proportions of the
results, for we are now not dealing with coins, but
with relations only originally in direct connection
with systems of coinage.
Letronne gives the relation of silver to copper |
among the Romans, at the end of the Third Punic
War, as 1: 112, reduced from 1: 83°3, both much
higher values of the former metal than 1:60. It
is therefore reasonable to suppose that the relation
of 1:80 is that which prevailed in Egypt under
the Ptolemies, and so at the time at which the
first Jewish coins were struck, that of Simon the
Maccabee.
We may therefore suppose that the Hebrew
talents of silver and copper were exchangeable in
the proportion of about 1:80, and, as we have
seen that the coins show that their shekels were of
the relative weight 1:2+, we may take as the
basis of our computation the supposition that 50
shekels of silver were equal to a talent of copper,
or 100 =1 talent double the former. We pre-
fer the former relation as that of the Egyptian
system.
220X50=11,000 grs. X60=660,000 —1500—440—2—220
Al Li
X70 770,000 513°3 256°6
X72 792,000 528 264
X75 825,000 550 275
X80 880,000 586°6 2933
Of these results, the first is too low, and the
fourth and fifth too high, the second and third
agreeing with our approximative estimate of the
shekel and half-shekel of copper. It is, however,
possible that the fourth result may be the true one,
as some coins give very nearly this standard.
Which is the right system can only be inferred from
the effect on the exchange, although it must be
remembered that very awkward exchanges of silver |
and copper may have obtained wherever copper was
not an important metal. Thus at Athens 8 pieces
of brass went to the obolus, and 7 lepta to the |
piece of brass. The former relation would be easy
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
of computation, the latter very inconvenient. Among
the Jews, the copper coinage was of more import-
ance: at first οἵ accurate fabric and not very
varying weight, afterwards the only coinage. Its
relation to the silver money, and afterwards to the
Egyptian and Phoenician currency of the same
weight, must therefore have been correct. On this
ground, we should prefer the relation of silver to
copper 1:72, giving a talent of 792,000 grs., or
nearly twice the Euboic. The agreement is re-
markable, but may be fortuitous,
Our theory of the Hebrew coinage would be as
follows :—
Gold ...Shekel or Daric (foreign) 129 grs.
Silver , .Shekel 220, Half-shekel 110.
Copper. Half (-shekel) 264, Quarter (-shekel)
132, (Sixth-shekel) 88.
We can now consider the weights.
The gold talent contained 100 manehs, and 10,000
shekels.
The silver talent contained 3000 shekels, 6000
bekas, and 60,000 gerahs,
The copper talent probably contained 1500
shekels.
The “ holy shekel,”’ or “ shekel of the sanctuary ”
(wpa Oops), is spoken of both of the gold (Ex.
xxxviii, 24) and silver (25) talents of the time
of the Exodus. We also read of “the king’s
weight” (401971 JAN, 2 Sam. xiv. 26). But there
is no reason for supposing different systems to be
meant.
The significations of the names of the Hebrew
weights must be here stated.
The talent (135) means “a circle,” or “ globe,”
probably ‘‘ an aggregate sum.”’
The shekel Op) signifies simply “a weight.”
The beka (YP3) or half-shekel, signifies “a divi-
sion,” or * half.” ἢ
The “ quarter-shekel ” (dpe ΜΔ) is once men-
tioned (1 Sam. ix. 8). ᾿ ;
The gerah (114 ) signifies *a grain,” or ‘* bean.”
IV. The history and relations of the principal
ancient talents.—It is necessary to add a view of
the history and relations of the talents we have dis-
cussed in order to show what light our theories
throw upon these matters. The inquiry must be
prefaced by a list of the talents :—
A. EASTERN TALENTS.
Hebrew gold. . 1,320,000 Hebrew silver. . 660,000
Babylonian (sil- Babylonian lesser
ven) ΠΣ: θοῦ (silver) .. " } 479,520
Egyptian . - 840,000
Persian gold. . . 399,600
Hebrew copper? . 792,000?
B. GREEK TALENTS.
Aeginetan . . . « ΕΙΣ ΤΣ - 660,000
Attic Commercial . Ξ . 598,800
Attic Commercial, lowered - 558,900
Attic Solonian, double - 860,520
Attic Solonian, ordinary . . . 430,260
Attic Solonian, lowered . 405,000
Euboic . κότος “ον. 387,000+4
We omit the talent of the coins of Aegina, as a
mere monetary variety of the Aeginetan, through the
Attic Commercial.
We take the Hebrew to be the oldest system of
weight. Apart from the evidence from its relation to
the other systems, this may be almost proved by
our finding it to obtain in Greece, in Phoenicia, and
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
in Judaea, as the oldest Greek and Phoenician
system, and as the Jewish system. As the Jewish
system, it must have been of far greater antiquity
than the date of the earliest coin struck upon it.
The weight according to which the ransom was
first paid must have been retained as the fixed
legal standard. It may seem surprising, when we
remember the general tendency of money to de-
preciate, of which such instances as those of the
Athenian silver and the English gold will occur to
the reader, that this system should have been pre-
served, by any but the Hebrews, at its full weight,
from the time of the Exodus to that of the earliest
Greek coins upon the Aeginetan standard, a period
probably of not much less than a thousand years; but
we may cite the case of the solidus of the Roman and
Byzantine emperors, which retained its weight from,
its origination under Constantine the Great until
the fall of Constantinople, and its purity from the
time of Constantine until that of Alexius Comnenus ;
and again the long celebrity of the sequin of Venice
and the florin of Florence for their exact weight. It
must be remembered, moreover, that in Phoenicia,
and originally in Greece, this svstem was that of
the great trading nation of antiquity, who would
have had the same interest as the Venetians and Flo-
rentines in maintaining the full monetary standard.
There is a remarkable evidence in favour of the an-
tiquity of this weight in the circumstance that,
after it had been depreciated in the coins of the
kings and cities of Macedon, it was restored in the
silver money of Philip II. to its full monetary
standard.
The Hebrew system had two talents for the
precious metals in the relation of 2: 1. The gold
talent, apparently not used elsewhere, contained
100 manehs, each of which contained again 100
shekels, there being thus 10,000 of these units,
weighing about 132 ers. each, in the talent.
The silver talent, also known as the Aeginetan,
contained 3000 shekels, weighing about 220 gs.
each, One gold talent appears to have been equal
to 24 of these. The reason for making the talent
of gold twice that of silver was probably merely for
the sake of distinction.
_ The Babylonian talent, like the Hebrew, con-
sisted of two systems, in the relation of 2 to 1,
upon one standard. It appears to have been formed
from the Hebrew by reducing the number of units
from 10,000 to 7200. The system was altered by
the maneh being raised so as to contain 120 instead
of 100 units, and the talent lowered so as to con-
tain 60 instead of 100 manehs. It is possible that
this talent was originally of silver, as the exchange,
in their common unit, with the Hebrew gold, in
the relation of 1:12, would be easy, 6 units of
the gold talent passing for 72 of the silver, so that
10 gold units would be equal to a silver maneh,
which may explain the reason of the change in
the division of the talent.
The derivation, from the lighter Babylonian talent,
of the Euboic talent, is easily ascertained. Their
relation is that of 6:5, so that the whole talents
could be readily exchanged in the relation of 12 : 1;
and the units being common, their exchange would
be even more easy.
The Egyptian talent cannot be traced to any
other. Hither it is an independent system, or,
perhaps, it is the oldest talent and parent of
the rest. The Hebrew copper talent is equally
obscure. Perhaps it is the double of the Persian
gold talent.
|
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1735
The Aeginetan talent, as we have seen, was the
same as the lesser or silver Hebrew talent. Its in-
troduction into Greece was doubtless due to the
Phoenicians. The Attic Commercial was a degyada-
tion of this talent, and was itself further degraded
to form the Attic Solonian, The Aeginetan talent
thus had five successive standards (1, Original
Aeginetan ; 2, Attic Commercial; 3, Id. lowered ;
4, Attic Solonian; 5, Id. lowered) in the following
relations :-—
i fa VAIS Afr Z
(i) Raab Oo EAB OR) Bey a(s
6° VALS
6° 4°3
The first change was probably simply a degrada-
tion. The second may have been due to the influ-
ence of a Graeco-Asiatic talent of Cyzicus or Phocaea,
of which the stater contained about 180 grs. of
gold, although weighing, through the addition of
60 gis. of silver, about 240 grs., thus implying a
talent in the relation to the Aeginetan of about
5:6. Solon’s change has been hitherto an unre-
solved enigma. The relation of the two Attic talents
is so awkward that scarcely any division is common
to them in weight, as may be inferred from the data
in the table of Athenian weights that we have given.
Had the heavier talent been divided into quarters,
and the lighter into thirds, this would not have
been the case. ‘The reason of Solon’s change is
therefore to be looked for in the influence of some
other talent. It has been supposed that this talent
was the Euboic, but this theory is destroyed by our
discovery that the Attic standard of the oldest coins
is below the weight-standard of about the time of
the Peloponnesian War, and thus that the reduc-
tion of Solon did not bring the weights down to
the Euboic standard. If we look elsewhere we
see that the heavier Solonian weight is almost the
same in standard as the Egyptian, the didrachm
of the former exceeding the unit of the latter by no
more than about 3 grs. This explanation is almost
proved to be the true one by the remarkable fact
that the Attic Solonian talent, apparently unlike
all other Greek talents, had a double talent, which
would give a drachm instead of a didrachm, equi-
valent to the Egyptian unit. At the time of
Solon nothing would be more likely than such an
Egyptian influence as this explanation implies. The
commercial relations of Egypt and Greece, through
Naucratis, were then active; and the tradition or
myth of the Egyptian origin of the Athenians was
probably never stronger. The degradation of the
Attic Solonian talent was no doubt effected by the
influence of the Euboic, with the standard of which
its lower standard is probably identical.
The principal authorities upon this subject are:
—Boeckh’s Metrologische Untersuchungen; Momm-
sen’s Geschichte des Rémischen Miinzwesens ; and
Hussey’s Ancient Weights. Don V. Vazquez
‘Queipo’s Essai sur les Systemes Metriques et
Monétaires des Anciens Peuples also contains much
information. The writer must express his obliga-
tions to Mr. de Salis, Mr. Vaux, and Mr. E. Wigan,
and more especially to his colleagues Mr. Madden
and Mr. Coxe, for valuable assistance. [R. S. P.]
II, MEASURES.
The most important topic to be discussed in con-
nexion with the subject of the Hebrew measures is
their relative and absolute value. Another topic,
of secondary importance perhaps, but possessing an
1736 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
independent interest of its own, demands a few pre-
fatory remarks, viz., the origin of these measures,
and their relation to those of surrounding countries.
The measures of length are chiefly derived from the
members of the human body, which are happily
adapted to the purpose from the circumstance that
they exhibit certain definite proportions relatively
to each other. It is unnecessary to assume that a
system founded on such a basis was the invention
of any single nation: it would naturally be adopted
by all in a rude state of society. Nevertheless,
the particular parts of the body selected for the
purpose may form more or less a connecting link
between the systems of various nations. It will be
observed in the sequel that the Hebrews restricted
themselves to the fore-arm, to the exclusion of the
foot and also of the pace, as a proper measure of
length. The adoption of foreign names is also
worthy of remark, as showing a probability that
the measures themselves were borrowed. Hence
the occurrence of words of Egyptian extraction,
such as fin and ephah, and probably ammah (for
“cubit”’), inclines us to seek for the origin of the
Hebrew scales both of length and capacity in that
quarter. The measures of capacity, which have no
such natural standard as those of length, would
more probably be settled by conventional usage,
and the existence of similar measures, or of a similar
scale of measures in different nations, would furnish
a strong probability of their having been derived
from some common source. Thus the coincidence
of the Hebrew bath being subdivided into 72 logs,
and the Athenian metrétés into 72 sxestae, can
hardly be the result of chance ; and, if there further
exists a correspondence between the ratios that the
weights bear to the measures, there would be still
further evidence of a common origin. Boeckh, who
has gone fully into this subject in his Metrologische
Untersuchungen, traces back the whole system of
weights and measures prevalent among the civilized
nations of antiquity to Babylon (p. 39). The
scanty information we possess relative to the He-
brew weights and measures as a connected system,
precludes the possibility of our assigning a definite
place to it in ancient metrology. The names
already referred to lead to the inference that Egypt
rather than Babylonia was the quarter whence it
was derived, and the identity of the Hebrew with
the Athenian scales for liquids furnishes strong
evidence that these had a community of origin. It
is important, however, to observe in connexion with
this subject, that an identity of ratios does not in-
volve an identity of absolute quantities, a distinc-
tion which very possibly escaped the notice of early
writers, who were not unnaturally led to identify
the measures in their absolute values, because they
held the same relative positions in the several scales.
We divide the Hebrew measures into two classes,
according as they refer to length or capacity, and
subdivide each of these classes into two, the former
into measures of length and distance, the latter into
liquid and dry measures.
1. Measures of length.
(1.) The denominations referring to length were
* JASN. b nab. Ξ nt.
a MON. This term is generally referred to a Coptic
origin, being deriv ed from a word, mahe or mahi, signifying
the “ fore-arm,” which with the article prefixed becomes
ammuahi (Boeckh, p. 265). Gesenius, however, refers it to
the Hebrew word signifying “mother,” as though the fore-
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
| derived for the most part from the arm and hand.
| bined in anything like a scale.
We may notice the following four as derived from
this source :—(a) The etsba,® or finger’s breadth,
mentioned only in Jer. lii.21. (b) The tephach,» or
hand breadth (Ex. xxv. 25; 1 K. vii. 26; 2 Chr.
iv. 5), applied metaphorically to a short period of
time in Ps. xxxix. 5. (6) The zereth,¢ or span, the
distance between the extremities of the thumb and
the little finger in the extended hand (Ex, xxviii. 16;
1 Sam. xvii. 4; Ez. xliii. 13), applied generally to
describe any small measure in Is. xl. 12. (d) The
ammah,4 or cubit, the distance from the elbow to
the extremity of the middle finger. This occurs
very frequently in the Bible in relation to buildings,
such as the Ark (Gen. vi. 15), the Tabernacle (Ex.
xxvi., xxvii.), and the Temple (1 K. vi. 2; Ez. xl.,
xli.), as well as in relation to man’s stature (1
Sam. xvii. 4; Matt. vi. 27), and other objects
(Esth. v. 14; Zech. v. 2). In addition to the
above we may notice:—(e) The gédmed,° lit. a
rod, applied to Eglon’s dirk (Judg. iii. 16). Its
length is uncertain, but it probably fell below the
cubit, with which it is identified in the A. V.
(f) The kdneh,! or reed (compare our word “ cane’),
for measuring buildings on a large scale (Kz. xl.
5-8, xli. 8. xlii. 16-19).
Little information is furnished by the Bible itself
as to the relative or absolute lengths described under
the above terms. With the exception of the notice
that the reed equals six cubits (Ez. xl. 5), we
have no intimation that the measures were com-
We should, indeed,
infer the reverse from the circumstance that Jere-
miah speaks of ‘‘ four fingers,’ where according to
the scale, he would have said ‘*a hand breadth ;”
that in the description of Goliath’s height (1 Sam.
xvii. 4), the expression “six cubits and a span,” is
used instead of ‘six cubits and a half ;” and that
Ezekiel mentions “span” and “ half a cubit”’ in
close juxtaposition (xliii. 13, 17), as though they
bore no relation to each other either in the ordinary
or the long cubit. That the denominations held a
certain ratio to each other, arising out of the pro-
portions of the members in the body, could hardly
escape notice ; but it does not follow that they were
ever worked up into an artificial scale. The most
important conclusion to be drawn from the Biblical
notices, is to the effect that the cubit, which may
be regarded as the standard measure, was of vary-
ing length, and that, in order to secure accuracy,
it was necessary to define the kind of cubit intended,
the result being that the other denominations, if
combined in a scale, would vary in like ratio. Thus
in Deut. iii. 11, the cubit is specified to be ‘after
the cubit of a man;”’ in 2 Chr. iii. 3 ‘after the
first,” or rather “after the olders measure ;” and
in Ez. xli. 8, “8 great cubit,” or literally “a cubit
to the joint,” w hich is further defined in xl. 5, to
be “ἃ cubit and an hand breadth.” These expres-
sions involve one of the most knotty points of
Hebrew archaeology, viz., the number and the re-
spective lengths of the Scriptunal cubits. That
there was more than one cubit, is clear; but whe-
ther there were three, or only two, is not so clear.
We shall have occasion to refer to this topic again
arm were in some sense the “ ee of the arm”’ (Thes.
p- 110).
e Ti. ADD.
g That the expression nav δ Ἢ appiies to priority of
time, as well as of order, is “clear from many passages, as
eC. Os Ὁ K. xvii. 54; Ezr. iii. 12; Hagg. ii. 3.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
for the present we shall confine ourselves to the
consideration of the expressions themselves. A
cubit “after the cubit of a man,” implies the exist-
ence of another cubit, which was either longer or
shorter than it, and from analogy it may be taken
for granted that this second cubit would be the
longer of the two. But what is meant by the
“ammdah of aman”? [5 it the cubitus in the ana-
tomical sense of the term, in other words, the bone
of the fore-arm between the elbow and the wrist ?
or is it the full cubit in the ordinary sense of the
term, from the elbow to the extremity of the middle
finger? What, again, are we to understand by Eze-
kiel’s expression, ‘* cubit to the joint’? The term
atstsil,8 is explained by Gesenius (7168. p. 144)
of the knuckles, and not of the “armholes,” as in
the A. V. of Jer. xxxviii. 12, where our trans-
lators have omitted all reference to the word yd-
déca, which follows it. A ‘ cubit to the knuckles”’
would imply the space from the elbow to the
knuckles, and as this cubit exceeded by a hand-
breadth the ordinary cubit, we should infer that it
was contradistinguished from the cubit that reached
only to the wrist. The meaning of the word
is, however, contested: Hitzig gives it the sense
of a connecting wall (Comm. on Jer.). Stur-
mius (Sciagr. p. 94) understands it of the edge of
the walls, and others in the sense of a wing of a
building (Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Jer.). Michaelis
on the other hand understands it of the knuckles
(Supplem. p. 119), and, so does Saalschiitz (Archdol.
ii. 165), The expressions now discussed, taken
together, certainly favour the idea that the cubit
of the Bible did not come up to the full length of
the cubit of other countries. A further question
remains to be discussed, viz., whether more than
two cubits were in vogue among the Hebrews. It
is generally conceded that the ‘* tormer ” or “ older”’
measure of 2 Chr. iii. 3, was the Mosaic or legal
cubit, and that the modern measure, the existence
ot which is implied in that designation, was some-
what larger. Further, the cubit ‘‘ after the cubit
of aman” of Deut. iii. 11, is held to be a com-
mon Measure in contradistinction to the Mosaic one,
and to have fallen below this latter in point of
length. In this case, we should have three cubits
—the common, the Mosaic or old measure, and the
new measure. We turn to Ezekiel and find a
distinction of another character, viz., a long and a
short cubit. Now, it has been urged by many
writers, and we think with good reason, that Ezekiel
would not be likely to adopt any other than the
old orthodox Mosaic standard for the measurements
of his ideal temple. If so, his long cubit would be
identified with the o/d measure, and his short cubit
with the one “after the cubit of a man,” and the
new measure of 2 Chr. iii. 3 would represent a
still longer cubit than Ezekiel’s long one. Other
explanations of the prophet’s language have, how-
ever, been offered: it has been sometimes assumed
that, while living in Chaldea, he and his coun-
trymen had adopted the long Babylonian cubit
(Jahn, Archaeol. $113); but in this case his short
cubit could not have belonged to the same country,
inasmuch as the ditlerence between these two
amounted to only three fingers (Herod. i. 178).
Again, it has been explained that his short cubit
was the ordinary Chaldean measure, and the long
a
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1737
one the Mosaic measure (Rosenmiiller, in Hz.
xl. 5); but this is unlikely on account of the re-
spective lengths of the Babylonian and the Mosaic
cubits, to which we shall hereafter refer. Inde-
pendently of these objections, we think that the
passages previously discussed (Deut. iii. 11 ; 2 Chr.
iii. 3) imply the existence of three cubits. It re-
mains to be inquired whether from the Bible
itself we can extract any information as to the
length of the Mosaic or legal cubit. The notices
of the height of the altar and of the height of the
lavers in the Temple are of importance in this
respect. In the former case three cubits is spe-
cified (Ex. xxvii. 1), with a direct prohibition against
the use of steps (Ex. xx. 26); in the latter, the
height of the base on which the laver was placed
was three cubits (1 K. vii. 27). If we adopt the
ordinary length of the cubit (say 20 inches), the
heights of the altar and of the base would be 5 feet.
But it would be extremely inconvenient, if not im-
possible, to minister at an altar, or to use a laver
placed at such a height. In order to meet this
difficulty without any alteration of the length of
the cubit, it must be assumedi that an inclined
plane led up to it, as was the case with the loftier
altar of the Temple (Mishn. Midd. 3, §1, 3).
But such a contrivance is contrary to the spirit of
the text; and, even if suited to the altar, would be
wholly needless for the lavers. Hence Saalschiitz
infers that the cubit did not exceed a Prussian foot,
which is less than an English foot (Archdol. ii.
167). The other instances adduced by him are not
so much to the point. The molten sea was not
designed for the purpose of bathing (though this
impression is conveyed by 2 Chr, iv. 6 as given in
the A. V.), and therefore no conclusion can be
drawn from the depth of the water in it. The
height of Og, as inferred from the length of his bed-
stead (9 cubits, Deut. iii. 11), and the height of
Goliath (6 cubits and a span, 1 Sam. xvii. 4), are
not inconsistent with the idea of a eubit about 18
inches long, if credit can be given to other recorded
instances of extraordinary stature (Plin. vil. 2, 16;
Herod. i. 68; Josephus, Ant. xviii. 4, §5). At
the same time the rendering of the LXX. in 1 Sam.
xvii. 4, which is followed by Josephus (Ant. vi.
9, §1), and which reduces the number of cubits to
four, suggests either an error in the Hebrew text,
or a considerable increase in the length of the cubit
in later times.
The foregoing examination of Biblical notices has
tended to the conclusion that the cubit of early
times fell far below the length usually assigned to
it; but these notices are so scanty and ambiguous
that this conclusion is by no means decisive. We
now turn to collateral sources of information, which
we will follow out as far as possible in chrono-
logical order. he earliest and most reliable testi-
mony as to the length of the cubit is supplied by
the existing specimens of old Egyptian measures.
Several of these have been discovered in tombs, car-
rying us back at all events to 1700 B.C., while the
Nilometer at Elephantiné exhibits the Jength of the
cubit in the time of the Roman emperors. No great
difference is exhibited in these measures, the longest
being estimated at about 21 inches, and the shortest
at about 204, or exactly 20°4729 inches ( Wilkinson,
Anc. Eg. ii. 258). They are divided into 28 digits,
b Soy,
1 Knobel assumes that there were steps, and that the
prohibition in Ex. xx. 26 emanates from an author who
wrote in ignorance of the previous directions (Comm. on
Bx. xxvii. 1).
1738 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
and in this respect contrast with the Mosaic cubit,
which, according to Rabbinical authorities, was di-
vided into 24 digits. There is some difficulty in
reconciling this discrepancy with the almost certain
fact of the derivation of the cubit from Egypt. 10
has been generally surmised that the Egyptian cubit
was of more than one length, and that the sepul-
chral measures exhibit the shorter as well as the
longer by special marks, Wilkinson denies the exist-
ence of more than one cubit (Anc. 1. ii. 257-259),
apparently on the ground that the total lengths of
the measures do not materially vary. It may be
conceded that the measures are intended to repre-
sent the same length, the variation being simply the
result of mechanical inaccuracy ; but this does not
decide the question of the double cubit, which rather
turns on the peculiarities of notation observable on
these measures. For a full discussion of this point
we must refer the reader to Thenius’s essay in the
Theologische Studien und Kritiken for 1846, pp.
297-342. Our limits will permit only a brief
statement of the facts of the case, and of the views
expressed in reference to them. The most perfect
of the Egyptian cubit measures are those preserved
in the Turin and Louvre Museums. These are
unequally divided into two parts, the one on the
right hand containing 15, and the other 13 digits.
In the former part the digits are subdivided into
aliquot parts from } to 45, reckoning from right to
left. In the latter part the digits are marked on
the lower edge in the Turin, and on the upper edge
in the Louvre measure. In the Turin measure the
three left-hand digits exceed the others in size, and
have marks over them indicating either fingers or
the numerals 1,2, 3, The four left-hand digits are
also marked off from the rest by a double stroke,
and ave further distinguished by hieroglyphic marks
supposed to indicate that they are digits of the old
measure. There are also special marks between the
6th and 7th, and between the 10th and 11th digits
of the left-hand portion. In the Louvre cubit
two digits are marked off on the lower edge by lines
running in a slightly transverse direction, thus pro-
ducing a greater length than is given on the upper
side. It has been found that each of the three
above specified digits in the Turin measure =), of
the whole length, less these three digits 3 or, to put
it in another form, the four left-hand digits =} of
the 25 right-hand digits: also that each of the two
digits in the Louvie measure = J, of the whole
length, less these two digits; and further, that
twice the left half of either measure = the whole
length of the Louvre measure, less the two digits,
Most writers on the subject agree in the conclusion
that the measures contain a combination of two, if
not three, kinds of cubit. Great difference of
opinion, however, is manifested as to particulars.
Thenius makes the difference between the royal
and old cubits to be no more than two digits, the
average length of the latter being 484-289 Καὶ milli-
métres, or 19°066 inches, as compared with
525°524 millimétres, or 20-611 inches and 523
millimétres, or 20°591 inches, the lengths of the
Turin and Louvre measures respectively. He ac-
counts for the additional two digits as originating
in the practice of placing the two fingers crossways
at the end of the arm and hand used in measuring,
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
so as to mark the spot up to which the cloth or
other article has been measured. He further finds,
in the notation of the Turin measure, indications
of a third or ordinary cubit 23 digits in length.
Another explanation is that the old cubit consisted
of 24 old or 25 new digits, and that its length was
462 millimétres, or 18°189 inches; and again,
others put the old cubit at 24 new digits, as
marked on the measures. The relative proportions
of the two would be, on these several hypotheses,
as 28: 26, as 28: 25, and as 28; 24.
The use of more than one cubit appears to have
also prevailed in Babylon, for Herodotus states
that the “ royal”’ exceeded the “ moderate” cubit
(πῆχυς μέτριος) by three digits (i. 178). The
appellation *‘ royal,” if borrowed from the Baby-
lonians, would itself imply the existence of another ;
but it is by no means certain that this other was
the ‘* moderate” cubit mentioned in the text. The
majority of critics think that Herodotus is there
speaking of the ordinary Greek cubit (Boeckh, p.
214), though the opposite view is affirmed by
Grote in his notice ot Boeckh’s work (Class. Mus.
i. 28). Even if the Greek cubit be understood, a
further difficulty arises out of the uncertainty
whether Herodotus is speaking of digits as they
stood on the Greek or on the Babylonian measure.
In the one case the proportions of the two would
be as 8:7, in the other case as 9: 8. Boeckh
adopts the Babylonian digits (without good reason,
we think), and estimates the Babylonian royal cubit
at 234°2743. Paris lines, or 20°806 inches (Ὁ. 219).
A greater length would be assigned to it according
to the data furnished by M. Oppert, as stated in
Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 315; for if the cubit and
foot stood in the ratio of 5: 3, and if.the latter
contained 15 digits, and had a length of 315 milli-
métres, then the leneth of the ordinary cubit
would be 525 millimetres, and of the royal cubit,
assuming, with Mr, Grote, that the cubits in each
case were Babylonian, 588 millimetres, or 29.149
inches.
teverting to the Hebrew measures, we should be
disposed to identify the new measure implied in
2 Chr. iii. 3 with the full Egyptian cubit; the
“ old” measure and Ezekiel’s cubit with the lesser
one, either of 26 or 24 digits; and the “ cubit of a
man” with the third one of which Thenius speaks.
Boeckh, however, identifies the Mosaic measure with
the full Egyptian cubit, and accounts for the dif+
ference in the number of digits on the hypothesis
that the Hebrews substituted a division into 24
for that into 28 digits, the size of the digits being
of course increased (pp. 266, 267). With regard
to the Babylonian measure, it seems highly im-
probable that either the ordinary or the royal cubit
could be identified with kKzekiel’s short cubit (as
Rosenmiiller thinks), seeing that its length on either
of the computations above offered exceeded that of
the Egyptian οὐ].
In the Mishnah the Mosaic cubit is defined to be
one of six palms (Celim, 17, 810). It is termed
the moderate! cubit, and is distinguished from a
lesser cubit of five palms on the one side (Celim,
ib.), and on the other side from a larger one, con-
sisting, according to Bartenora (in Cel. 17, §9), of
six palms and a digit. The palm consisted, accord-
k The precise amount of 484289 is obtained by taking
the mean of the four following amounts τ of 523°524,
the total length of the Turin measure, = 486130; twice
the left-hand division of the same measure, = 480°792;
the length of the 26 digits on the Louvre measure, =
486°375 ; and twice the left-hand division of the same,
= 483°860.
MAN YN.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
ing to Maimonides (ibid.), of four digits; and the
digit, according to Arias Montanus (Ant. p. 113),
of four barleycorns, This gives 144 barleycorns as
the length of the cubit, which accords with the
number assigned to the cubitus justus et mediocris
of the Arabians (Boeckh, p, 246).
the Mosaic cubit, as computed by Thenius (after
several trials with the specified number of barley-
corns of middling size, placed side by side), is
914°512 Paris lines, or 19-0515 inches (έ. u. Ar.
p- 110). It seems hardly possible to arrive at any
very exact conclusion by this mode of calculation.
Kisenschmid estimated 144 barleycorns as equal to
238-35 Paris lines (Boeckh, p. 269), perhaps from
having used larger grains than the average. The
writer of the article on “ Weights and Measures”
in the Penny Cyclopaedia (xviii. 198) gives, as the
result of his own experience, that 38 average grains
make up 5 inches, in which case 144 = 18947
inches ; while the length of the Arabian cubit
referred to is computed at 213°053 Paris lines
(Boeckh, p. 247). The Talmudists state that the
Mosaic cubit was used for the edifice of the Taber-
nacle and Temple, and the lesser cubit for the
vessels thereof." This was probably a fiction; for
the authorities were not agreed among themselves
as to the extent to which the lesser cubit was used,
some of them restricting it to the golden altar, and
parts of the brazen altar (Mishnah, (οἰ. 17, 810).
But this distinction, fictitious as it may have been,
shows that the cubits were not regarded in the
light of sacred and profane, as stated in works on
Hebrew archaeology. Another distinction, adopted
by the Rabbinists in reference to the palm, would
tend to show that they did not rigidly adhere to
any definite length of cubit: for they recognised
two kinds of palms, one wherein the fingers lay
loosely open, which they denominated a smiling
palm ; the other wherein the fingers were closely
compressed, and styled the grieving palm (Carpzov,
Appar, pp. 674, 676).
The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing
considerations are not of the decisive character that
we could wish. For while the collateral evidence
derived from the practice of the adjacent countries
and from later Jewish authorities favours the idea
tlft the Biblical cubit varied but little from the
length usually assigned to that measure, the evi-
dence of the Bible itself is in favour of one con-
siderably shorter. This evidence is, however, of so
uncertain a character, turning on points of criticism
and on brief notices, that we can hardly venture to
adopt it as our standard. We accept therefore, with
reservation, the estimate of Thenius, and from the
cubit we estimate the absolute length of the other
denominations according to the proportions existing
between the members of the poy the cubit equal-
ling two spans (compare Ex. xxv. 3, 10, with Joseph.
Ant. iii. 6, §$5, 6), the span thie palms, and the
palm four digits.
Inches.
Digit ol 25) TAei lake eee ae “7998
4 { Palm Σ Ξ 9). 1
12 9. | Span ara Ὁ ΒΟΥ
94 6 2 Ουθ τ. 19°0515
144 | 36 12 6 | Reed . 114°3090
The length of
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 1739
Land and area were measured either by the cubit
(Num. xxxv. 4,5; Ez. xl. 27) or by the reed (Hz.
xii. 20, xliii. 17, xlv. 2, xlviii. 20; Rev. xxi. 16).
There is no indication in the Bible of the use of a
square measure by the Jews." Whenever they wished
to define the size of a plot, they specified its length
and breadth, even if it were a perfect square, as in
Ez. xlviii. 16. The difficulty of defining an area
by these means is experienced in the interpretation
of Num. xxxv. 4, 5, where the suburbs of the
Levitical cities are described as reaching outward
from the wall of the city 1000 cubits round about,
and at the same time 2000 cubits on each side from
without the city. We can hardly understand these
two measurements otherwise than as applying, the
one to the width, the other to the external boundary
of the suburb, the measurements being taken respec-
tively perpendicular and parallel to the city walls.
But in this case it is necessary to understand the
words rendered ‘‘ from without the city,” in ver. 5,
as meaning to the exclusion of the city, so that the
length of the city wall should be added in each
case to the 2000 cubits. The result would be that
the size of the areas would vary, and that where
the city walls were unequal in length, the sides of
the suburb would be also unequal. For instance,
if the city wall was 500 cubits long, then the side
of the suburb would be 2500 cubits; if the city
wall were 1000 cubits, then the side of the suburb
would be 3000 cubits. Assuming the existence of
two towns, 500 and 1000 cubits square, the area
of the suburb would in the former case = 6,000,000
square cubits, and would be 24 times the size of
the town; while in the latter case the suburb
would be 8,000,000 square cubits, and only 8 times
the size of the town. This explanation is not wholly
satisfactory, on account of the disproportion of the
suburbs as compared with the towns: nevertheless
any other explanation only exaggerates this dispro-
portion. Keil, in his comment on Josh. xiv. 4,
assumes that the city wall was in all cases to be
regarded as 1000 cubits long, which with the 1000
cubits outside the wall, and measured in the same
direction as the wall, would make up the 2000
cubits, and would give to the side of the suburb in
every case a length of 3000 cubits. The objection
to this view is that there is no evidence as to an
uniform length of the city walls, and that the suburb
might have been more conveniently described as
3000 cubits on each side. All ambiguity would
have been avoided if the size of the suburb had
been decided either by absolute or relative acreage ;
in other words, if it were to consist in all cases of a
certain fixed acreage outside the walls, or if it were
made to vary in a certain ratio to the size of the
town. As the text stands, neither of these methods
can be deduced from it.
(2.) The measures of distance noticed in the Old
Testament are the three following :—(a) The tsa’ad,°
or pace (2 Sam. vi. 13), answering generally to our
yard. (b) The Cibrath hddrets,? yvendered in the
A. V. ‘a little way ”’ or “a little piece of ground ”
(Gen. xxxv. 16, xviii, 7; 2 Και 19). ‘The: ex=
pression appears to indicate some definite distance,
but we are unable to state with precision what that
distance was. The LXX. retains the Hebrew word
m Hence they were , denomin ated yan ΠΝ, “ ἘΠῚ
_of the building,” and 257577 "§, “cubit of the vessels.”
n The term “acre” occurs in the A. V. as the equiva.
lent for madnah (AY) in 1 Sam. xiv. 14, and for
tzemed ( Wee in Is.v.10. The latter term also occurs
in the passage first quoted, and would with more con-
sistency be rendered acre instead of “yoke.” It means
such an amount of land as a yoke of oxen would plough
inaday. Madnah means a furrow.
ony. » PINT N33.
1740 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
in the form Χαβραθά, as though it were the name
of a place, adding in Gen. xlviii. 7 the words κατὰ
τὸν ἱππόδρομον, which is thus a second translation
of the expression. If a certain distance was intended
by this translation, it would be either the ordinary
length of a race-course, or such a distance as a
horse could travel without being over-fatigued, in
other words, a stage. But it probably means a
locality, either a race-course itself, as in 3 Mace.
iv. 11, or the space outside the town walls where
the race-course was usually to be found. The
LXX. gives it again in Gen. xlviii. 7 as the equi-
valent for Ephrath. The Syriac and Persian ver-
sions render cibrath by parasang; a well-known
Persian measure, generally estimated at 30 stades
(Herod, ii. 6, v. 53), or from 3% to 4 English miles,
but sometimes at a larger amount, even up to 60
stades (Strab. xi. 518). The only conclusion to be
drawn from the Bible is that the cibrath did not
exceed and probably equalled the distance between
Bethlehem and Rachel’s burial-place, which is tra-
ditionally identified with a spot 13 mile north of
the town. (0) The derec yom,9 or mahdlac yom,
a day’s journey, which was the most usual method
of calculating distances in travelling (Gen. xxx. 36,
28S, 20) 8. ΠΧ: Wis IS ayy 9: NbN, xe BS, xa Bile
Seats (Sh IDs Heyy RIE Ne oie bo OK. why gle
Jon. iii. 3; 1 Mace. v. 24, 28, vii. 45; Tob. vi. 1),
though but one instance of it occurs in the New
Testament (Luke ii. 44). The distance indicated
by it was naturally fluctuating according to the
circumstances of the traveller or of the country
through which he passed. Herodotus variously
estimates it at 200 and 150 stades (iv. 101, v. 53):
Marinus (ap. Ptol. i. 11) at 150 and 172 stades;
Pausanias (x. 33, §2) at 150 stades ; Strabo (i. 35)
at from 250 to 300 stades; and Vegetius (De Re
Mil. i. 11) at from 20 to 24 miles tor the Roman
army. The ordinary day’s journey among the Jews
was 30 miles; but when they travelled in com-
panies only 10 miles: Neapolis formed the first
stage out of Jerusalem, according to the former,
and Beeroth according to the latter computation
(Lightfoot, Lwerc, in Luc. ii. 44), It is impossible
to assign any distinct length to the day’s journey:
Jahu’s estimate of 33 miles, 172 yards, and 4 feet,
is based upon the false assumption that it bore
some fixed ratio to the other measures of length.
In the Apocrypha and New Testament we meet
with the following additional measures:—(d) The
Sabbath-day’s journey.§ already discussed in a sepa-
rate article. (ὁ) The stadion, or “furlong,” a
Greek measure introduced into Asia subsequently
to Alexander's conquest, and hence first mentioned
in the Apocrypha (2 Macc. xi. 5, xii. 9, 17, 29),
and subsequently in the New Testament (Luke xxiv.
13; John vi. 19, xi. 18; Rev. xiv. 20, xxi. 16).
Both the name and the lensth of the stade were
borrowed from the footrace course at Olympia. It
equalled 600 Greek feet (Herod. ii. 149), or 125
Roman paces (Plin, ii. 25), or 606% feet of our
measnre. It thus falls below the furlong by 532
feet. The distances between Jerusalem and the
places Bethany, Jamnia, and Scythopolis, are given
with tolerable exactness at 15 stades (John xi. 18),
1 δὴ" 3199. FDP ALM.
8 σαββάτου ὃδός. t στάδιον.
Ν ἘΝῚ χ μίλιον.
Te) aie ama.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
240 stades (2 Mace. xii. 9), and 600 stades (2 Macc.
xii. 29). In 2 Mace. xi. 5 there is an evident error,
either of the author or of the text, in respect to the
position of Bethsura, which is given as only 5 stades
from Jerusalem. The ‘l'almudists describe the stade
under the term rés," and regarded it as equal to
625 feet and 125 paces (Carpzov, Appar. p. 679).
(f) The Mile,x¥ a Roman measure, equalling 1000
Roman paces, 8 stades, and 1618 English yards
[MILE].
2. Measures of capacity.
The measures of capacity for liquids were :—(a)
The logy (Lev. xiv. 10, &c.), the name originally
signifying a “ basin.” (ὁ) The hin,? a name of
Egyptian origin, frequently noticed in the Bible
(Hix. xxix. 40, xxx. 24; Num. xv. 4, 7,9; Ez.
iv. 11, &.). (0) The bath,* the name meaning
“measured,” the largest of the liquid measures
(1K. vii. 26, 38°; 2 Chr. i. 10; Bzr. vii. 225 "Ts:
v.10). With regard to the relative values of these
measures we learn nothing from the Bible, but we
gather from Josephus (Ant. iii. 8, §3) that the
bath contained 6 hins (for the bath equalled 72
xestae or 12 choés, and the hin 2 choés), and from
the Rabbinists that the hin contained 12 logs
(Carpzov, Appar. p. 685). The relative values
therefore stand thus :—
Log
12 Hin
72 6 | Bath
The dry measure contained the following deno-
minations :—(a) The cab,» mentioned only in 2 K.
vi. 25, the name meaning literally hollow or con-
cave. (b) The omer,® mentioned only in Ex, xvi.
16-36. The same measure is elsewhere termed
issdron,4 as being the tenth part of an ephah (comp.
Ex. xvi. 36), whence in the A. V. “tenth deal”
(Lev. xiv. 10, xxiii, 13; Num. xv. 4, &c.). The
word omer implies a heap, and secondarily a sheaf.
(0) The séah,° or “ measure,” this being the ety-
mological meaning of the term, and appropriately
applied to it, inasmuch as it was the ordinary mea-
sure for household purposes (Gen. xviii. 6; 1 Sam.
xxv. 18; 2 K. vii. 1, 16). The Greek equivalent
occurs in Matt. xiii. 83; Luke yiii. 21. The seah
was otherwise termed shdlish,f as being the third
part of an ephah (Is. xl. 12 ; Ps. Ixxx. 5). (d) The
ephah,? a word of Egyptian origin, and of frequent
recurrence in the Bible (Ex. xvi. 36; Lev. v. 11,
vi. 20; Num, v. 15, xxviii. 5; Judg. vi. 19; Ruth
ii, 17; 1 Sam. i. 24, xvii. 17; Ez. xlv. 11, 13, 14,
xlvi. 5, 7, 11, 14). (6) The /ethec,» or “half
homer,” literally meaning what is poured out: it
occurs only in Hos, iii, ὦ. (7) The homer,t
meaning heap (Lev. xxvii. 16; Num. xi. 32; Is. v.
10; Kz. xlv. 13). It is elsewhere termed cor,*
from the circular vessel in which it was measured
{π|Ὸ ἰνο ρν ΤΠ; Ὁ ΘΟ τς me IO Sen, δ ΒΖΓ
vii. 22; Ez. xlv. 14). The Greek equivalent occurs
in Luke xvi. 7.
The relative proportions of the dry measures are
to a certain extent expressed in the names issdrén,
meaning a tenth, and shd/ish, a third. In addi-
tion we have the Biblical statement that the omer
a yy.
ε windy,
h ἼΠῸ; ἡμίκορος.
ΚΞ: κόρος.
lel Ὁ
© AND; σάτον.
Ε TDN.
i ΩΓ.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
is the tenth part of the ephah (Ex. xvi. 36), and
that the ephah was the tenth part of a homer, and
corresponded to the bath in liquid measure (Ez.
xlv. 11). The Rabbinists supplement this by
stating that the Das contained three seahs, and
the seah six cabs ( ‘Carpzov, p. 683). We are thus
enabled to draw out the following scale of relative
values :—
Cab 4
14 | Omer
6 3k | Seah
18 10 : Ephah
180 100 30 | 10 | Homer
The above scale is constructed, it will be ob-
served, on a combination of decimal and duodecimal
ratios, the former prevailing in respect to the omer,
ephah, and homer, the latter in respect to the cab,
seah, and ephah.
decimal ratio alone appears, and hence there is a
fair presumption that this was the original, as it
was undoubtedly the most general, principle on
which the scales of antiquity were framed (Boeckh,
p- 38). Whether the decimal division was intro-
duced from some other system, or whether it was
the result of local usage, there is no evidence to
show.
The absolute values of the liquid and dry mea-
sures form the subject of a single inquiry, inasmuch
as the two scales have a measure of equal value,
viz. the bath and the ephah (Ez. xlv. 11): if either
of these can be fixed, the conversion of the other
denominations into their respective values readily
follows. Unfortunately the data for determining
the value of the bath or ephah are both scanty and
conflicting, Attempts have been made to deduce
the value of the bath ‘from a comparison of the
dimensions and the contents of the molten sea as
given in 1 K. vii. 23-26. If these particulars had
been given with greater accuracy and fulness, they |
would have furnished a sound basis for a calcula-
tion; but, as the matter now stands, uncertainty
attends every statement. The diameter is given as
10 cubits, and the circumference as 30 cubits, the
diameter being stated to be ‘‘ from one brim to
the other’ Assuming that the vessel was circular,
the proportions of the diameter and circumference
are not sufliciently exact for mathematical purposes,
nor are we able to decide whether the diameter was
measured from the internal or the external edge of the
vessel. The shape of the vessel has been variously
conceived to be circular and polygonal, cylindrical
and hemispherical, with perpendicular and with
bulging sides. The contents are given as 2000
baths in 1 K. vii. 26, and 3000 baths in 2 Chr.
iv. 5, the latter being probably a corrupt text.
Lastly, the length of the cubit is undefined, and
hence every estimate is attended with suspicion.
The conclusions drawn have been widely different,
as might be expected. If it be assumed that the
form of the vessel was cylindrical (as the descrip-
tion prima facie seems to imply), that its clear
diameter was 10 cubits of the value of 19°0515
English inches each, and that its full contents were
2000 baths, then the value of the bath would be
4:8965 gallons; for the contents of the vessel
would equal 2,715,638 cubic inches, or 9,793 gal-
lons. If, however, the statement of Josephus (Ant.
viii. 3, §5), as to the hemispherical form of the
vessel, be adopted, then the estimate would be re-
duced. Saigey, as quoted by Boeckh (p. 261), on
this hypothesis calculates the value of the bath at
In the liquid measure the duo- |
WKIGHTS AND MEASURES 1741
18°086 French litres, or 3°9807 English gallons.
If, further, we adopt Saalschiitz’s view as to the
length of the cubit, which he puts at 15 Dresden
inches at the highest, the value of the bath wil] be
further reduced, according to his calculation, to
104 Prussian quarts, or 2°6057 English gallons ;
while at his lower estimate of the cubit at 12
inches, its value would be little move than one-half
of this amount (Archdol. ii. 171). On the other
hand, if the vessel bulged, and if the diameter and
circumference were πε πε at the neck or nar-
rowest part of it, space might be found for 2000 or
even 3000 baths of greater value than any of the
above estimates. It is therefore hopeless to arrive
at any satisfactory conclusion from this source.
Nevertheless we think -the calculations are not
without their use, as furnishing a certain amount
of presumptive evidence, For, setting aside the
theory that the vessel bulged considerably, for
which the text furnishes no evidence whatever, all
the other computations agree in one point, viz. that
the bath fell far below the value placed on it by
Josephus, and by modern writers on Hebrew archae-
ology generally, according to whom the bath mea-
sures between 8 and 9 English gallons.
We turn to the statements of Josephus and other
early writers. The former states that the bath
equals 72 swestae (Anf. viii. 2, 89), that the hin
equals 2 Attic choés (70. iii. 8, 89, 9, 84), that
the seah equals 14 Italian modi (Ib. ix. 4, 85),
that the cor equals 10 Attic medimni (Lb. xv. 9,
§2), and that the issaron or omer equals 7 Attic
cotylae (Ib. iii. 6, 86). It may further be im-
plied from Anf. ix. 4, §4, as compared with 2 Κα.
vi. 25, that he regarded the cab as equal to 4 westés.
Now, in order to reduce these statements to con-
sistency, it must be assumed that in Ant. xv. 9, 82,
he has confused the medimnus with the metrétés,
and in Ant. iii. 6, 86, the cotylé with the estes.
Such errors throw doubt on his other statements,
aud tend to the conclusion that Josephus was not
really familiar with the Greek measures. This
impression is supported by his apparent ignorance
of the term metrétés, which he should have used
not only in the passage above noticed, but also in
viii. 2, §9, where he would naturally have substi-
tuted it for 72 wxestae, assuming that these were
Attic westue. Nevertheless his testimony must be
taken as decisively in favour of the identity of the
Hebrew bath with the Attic metrétés, Jerome (in
Matt. xiii. 33) affirms that the seah equals 14 modi,
and (in Hz. xlv. 11) that the cor equals 30 modii,—
statements that are glaringly inconsistent, inasmuch
as there were 30 seahs in the cor. The statements
of Epiphanius in his treatise De Mensuris are
equally remarkable for inconsistency. He states
(ii. 177) that the cor equals 30 modii: on this
assumption the bath would equal 51 sextarii, but
"8 gives only 50 (p- 178): the seah would equal
1 modius, but he gives 14 modii ( (p- 178), or, ac-
cording to his detonate of 17 sextarii to the modius,
212 sextarii, though elsewhere he assigns 56 sex-
Pei as its value. (p. 182): the omer would be
51, sextarii, but he gives 74 (ρ. 182), implying
45 modii to the cor: and, lastly, the epbah is iden-
tified with the Egyptian ar fabe (p. 182), which
was either 43 or 34 modii, according as if was in
the old or the new measure, though according to
his estimate of the cor it would only equal 3 modii.
Little reliance can be placed on statements so loosely
made, and the question arises whether the identifi-
cation of the bath with the metrétés did not arise
1742 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
out of the circumstance that the two measures held
the same relative position in the scales, each being
subdivided into 72 parts, and, again, whether the
assignment of 30 modii to the cor did not arise out
of there being 30 seahs in it. The discrepancies
can only be explained on the assumption that a wide
margin was allowed for a long measure, amounting to
an increase of 50 per cent. This appears to have been
the case from the definitions of the seah or σάτον
given by Hesychius, μόδιος γέμων, ἤγουν, ἕν ἥμισυ
μόδιον ᾿Ἰταλικόν, and again by Suidas, μόδιον ὕὑπερ-
πεπληρωμένον, ws εἶναι μόδιον ἕνα καὶ ἥμισυν.
Assuming, however, that Josephus was right in
identifying the bath with the metrétés, its value
would be, according to Boeckh’s estimate of the
latter (pp. 261, 278), 1993-95 Paris cubic inches,
or 87053 English gallons, but according to the
estimate of Bertheau (Gesch. p. 73) 1985°77 Paris
cubic inches, or 8°6696 English gallons.
The Rabbinists furnish data of a different kind
for calculating the value of the Hebrew measures.
They estimated the log to be equal to six hen eggs,
the cubic contents of which were ascertained by
measuring the amount of water they displaced
(Maimonides, in Cel. 17, 810). On this basis
Thenius estimated the log at 14:088 Paris cubic
inches, or 06147 English gallon, and the bath at
1014°39 Paris cubic inches, or 4°4286 gallons (S¢.
u. Kr. pp. 101,121). Again, the log of water is
said to have weighed 108 Egyptian drachmae,! each
equalling 61 barleyecorns (Maimonides, in Peah, 3,
§6, ed. Guisius.). Thenius finds that 6588 barley-
corns fill about the same space as 6 hen eggs (δέ.
u. Kr. p. 112). And again, a log is said to fill
a vessel 4 digits long, 4 broad, and 2,5 high (Mai-
monides, in Praef. Menachoth). This vessel would
contain 21-6 cubic inches, or °07754 gallon. The
conclusion arrived at from these data would agree
tolerably well with the first estimate formed on
the notices of the molten sea.
As we are unable to decide between Josephus
and the Rabbinists, we give a double estimate of
the various denominations, adopting Bertheau’s
estimate of the metrétés :—
(Josephus.) (Rabbinists.)
Gallons. Gallons.
Homer or Cor 86°696 or 44°286
Ephah or Bath . 8°6696 or 4°4286
Seah 2°8898 or 1°4762
Hin 1°4449 ΟΥ̓ “1381
Omer . “8669 or +4428
Cab *4816 or “240
Log “1204 ΟΥ̓ 0015
In the New Testament we have notices of the
following foreign measures:—(a) The metrétés™
(John ii. 6; A. V. “firkin”) for liquids. (6) The
choeniz® (Kev. vi. 6; A. V. measure”), for dry
goods. (c) The xestés,° applied, however, not to
the particular measure so named by the Greeks,
but to any small vessel, such as a cup (Mark vii.
4,8; A.V. “pot’’). (d) The modius, similarly
applied to describe any vessel of moderate dimen-
sions (Matt. v. 15; Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33;
A. VY. “bushel ”); though properly meaning a Ro-
man measure, amounting to about a peck.
The value of the Attic metrétés has been already
1 In the table the weight of the log is given as 104
drachms; but in this case the contents of the log are
supposed to be wine, The relative weights of water and
wine were as 27 ; 26,
ἴὰ μετρητής.
Ὁ ξέστης.
χοῖνιξ.
WELL
stated to be 8°6696 gallons, and consequently the
amount of liquid in six stone jars, containing on
the average 23 metrétae each, would exceed 110
gallons (John ii. 6). Very possibly, however, the
Greek term represents the Hebrew bath, and if the
bath be taken at the lower estimate assigned to it,
the amount would be reduced to about 60 gallons.
Even this amount far exceeds the requirements for
the purposes of legal purification,» the tendency of
Pharisaical refinement being to reduce the amount
of water to a minimum, so. that a quarter of a log
would suffice for a person (Mishnah, Yad. 1, §1).
The question is one simply of archaeological interest
as illustrating the customs of the Jews, and does
not affect the character of the miracle with which
it is connected. The choenix was +, of an Attic
medimnus, and contained nearly aquart. It repre-
sented the usual amount of corn for a day’s tood,
and hence a choenix for a penny, or denarius,
which usually purchased a bushel (Cic. Verr. iii.
81), indicated a great scarcity (Rev. vi. 6).
With regard to the use of fair measures, various
precepts are expressed in the Mosaic law and other
parts of the Bible (Lev. xix. 35, 36; Deut. xxv.
14, 15; Prov. xx. 10; Ez. xlv. 10), and in all
probability standard measures were kept in the
Temple, as was usual in the other civilized coun-
tries of antiquity (Boeckh, p. 12).
The works chiefly referred to in the present article
are the following:—Boeckh, Metrologische Unter-
suchungen, 1838; Classical Museum, vol. i.;
Theologische Studien und Kritiken for 1846;
Mishnah, ed, Surenhusius ; Wilkinson, Ancient
Egyptians, 2 vols. 1854; Epiphanius, Opera, 2 vols.
ed. Petavius. [W. L. B.]
WELL. The difference between a well (Déér)
and a cistern ( 6») [CiSTERN], consists chiefly in
the use of the former word to denote a receptacle
for water springing up freshly from the ground,
while the latter usually denotes a reservoir for rain-
water (Gen, xxvi. 19, 32; Prov. v. 15; John
iv. 14).
The special necessity of a supply of water (Judg.
i. 15) in a hot climate has always involved among
Eastern nations questions of property of the highest
importance, and sometimes given rise to serious
contention. ΤῸ give a name to a well denoted a
right of property, and to stop or destroy one once
dug was a military expedient, a mark of conquest
or an encroachment on territorial right claimed or
existing in its neighbourhood. Thus the well Beer-
sheba was opened, and its possession attested with
special formality by Abraham (Gen. xxi. 30, 31).
In the hope of expelling Isaac from their neighbour-
hood, the Philistines stopped up the wells which
had been dug in Abraham’s time and called by his
name, an encroachment which was stoutly resisted
by the followers of Isaac (Gen, xxvi. 15-35; see
also 2 K. iii. 19; 2 Chr, xxvi. 10; Burckhardt,
Notes, ii. 185, 194, 204, 276). The Kuran notices
abandoned wells as signs of desertion (Sur. xxii.)
To acquire wells which they had not themselves
dug, was one of the marks of favour foretold to
the Hebrews on their entrance into Canaan (Deut.
vi. 11). To possess one is noticed as a mark of in-
Sons “ΝΞ ; φρέαρ: puteus; in four places “ pit.”
2. 3; λάκκος ; cisterna; usually “pit.” [Pre.]
3. ΟΜ; usually “fountain.” [Founrarw.]
4. pd. [Founrany ; SpRING.]
T
WELL
dependence (Proy. ν. 15), and to abstain from the
use of wells belonging to others, a disclaimer of in-
terference with their property (Num. xx. 17, 19,
xxi, 22). Similar rights of possession, actual and
hereditary, exist among the Arabs of the present
day. Wells, Burckhardt says, in the interior of the
Desert, are exclusive property, either of a whole
tribe, or of individuals whose ancestors dug the
wells. If a well be the property of a tribe, the
tents are pitched near it, whenever rain-water be-
comes scarce in the desert; and no other Arabs are
then permitted to water their camels. But if the
well belongs to an individual, he receives presents
from all strange tribes who pass or encamp at the |
well, and refresh their camels with the water of it.
The property of such a well is never alienated ; and
the Arabs say, that the possessor is sure to be for-
tunate, as all who drink of the water bestow on
him their benedictions ( Notes on Bed. i. 228, 229 ;
comp. Num. xxi. 17, 18, and Judg. i. 15).
It is thus easy to understand how wells have
become in many cases links in the history and
landmarks in the topography both of Palestine and
of the Arabian Peninsula. The well once dug in
the rocky soil of Palestine might be filled with
earth or stones, but with difficulty destroyed, and
thus the wells of Beersheba, and the well near Nd-
bulus, called Jacob’s well, are among the most un-
doubted witnesses of those transactions of sacred |
history in which they have borne, so to speak, a_
prominent part. On the other hand, the wells dug
in the sandy soil of the Arabian valleys, easily de-
stroyed, but easily renewed, often mark, by their |
ready supply, the stations at which the Hebrew
pilgrims slaked their thirst, or, as at Marah, were
disappointed by the bitterness of the water. In like
manner the stations of the Mohammedan pilsrims
from Cairo and Damascus to Mecca (the Hadj
route) are marked by the wells (Robinson, i. 66,
69, 204, 205, ii. 283; Burckhardt, Syria, 318,
472, 474; App. III. 656, 660; Shaw, Zrav. 314;
Niebuhr, Descrip. de ! Ar., 347, 348; Wellsted, |
Trav. ii. 40, 43, 64, 457, App.).
Wells in Palestine are usually excavated from
the solid limestone rock, sometimes with steps to
descend into them (Gen. xxiv. 16; Burckhardt,
Syria, p. 232; Col. Ch. Chron. 1858, p. 470).
The brims are furnished with a curb or low wall
of stone, bearing marks of high antiquity in the |
WELL 1743
in the same way for the same purpose. Sometimes
a pulley or wheel is fixed over the well to assist
the work (Robinson, i. 204, ii. 248; Niebuhr,
Deser. de V Ar. 137, pl. 15; Col. Ch. Chron. 1859,
Ρ. 350; Chardin, Voy. iv. 98; Wellsted, Trav. i.
280). 2. The sakiyeh, or Persian wheel. This
consists of a vertical wheel furnished with a set of
buckets or earthen jars, attached to a cord passing
over the wheel, which descend empty and return
full as the wheel revolves. On the axis of the
wheel revolves a second wheel parallel to it, with
cogs which tw a third wheel. set horizontally at a
sufficient height from the ground to allow the
animal used in turning it to pass under. One or
| two cows or bulls are yoked to a pole which passes
through the axis of this wheel, and as they travel
round it turn the whole machine (Num. xxiv. 7;
Lane, Mod. Hy. ii. 163; Niebuhr, Voy. i. 120;
Col. Ch. Chron. 1859, p. 352 ; Shaw, p. 291, 408),
3. A modification of the last method, by which a
man, sitting opposite to a wheel furnished with
buckets, turns it by drawing with his hands one
set of spokes prolonged beyond its circumference,
and pushing another set from him with his feet
(Niebuhr, Voy. i. p. 120, pl. 15; Robinson, ii. 22,
iii. 89). 4. A method very common, both in ancient
and modern Egypt, is the shadoof, a simple con-
trivance consisting of a lever moving on a pivot,
which is loaded at one end with a lump of clay or
some other weight, and has at the other a bowl or
bucket. This is let down into the water, and,
when raised, emptied into a receptacle above ( Nie-
buhr, Voy. i. 120; Lane, M. 1. ii. 165; Wilkin-
son, «4... 1. 85, 72. 11. 4).
Wells are usually furnished with troughs of
wood or stone,° into which the water is emptied for
the use of persons or animals coming to the wells.
In modern times an old stone sarcophagus is often
used for this purpose. The bucket is very com-
monly of skin (Burckhardt, Syria, 63; Robinson,
i. 204, ii, 21,,315, iii. 35, 89, 109, 1345 Lord
Lindsay, Trav. 255, 237 ; Wilkinson, A. EZ. 1. c.;
Gen. xxiv. 20; Ex. ii..16).
furrows worn by the ropes used in drawing water |
(Rob. i. 204). This curb, as well as the stone |
cover, which is also very usual, agrees with the |
directions of the Law, as explained by Philo and |.
Josephus, viz. as a protection against accident (Ix.
xxi. 33 5 Joseph. Ant. iv. 8, §37; Philo, De Spec.
Leg. iii. 27, ii. 324, ed. Mangey; Maundrell, in
E, Trav. 455). It was on a curb of this sort that
our Lord sat when He conversed with the womar
of Samaria (John iv. 6), and it was this, the usual
stone cover, which the woman placed on the mouth |
of the well at Bahurim (2 Sam. xvii. 19), where |
A.V. weakens the sense by omitting the article.>
Sometimes the wells are covered with cupolas raised
on pillars (Burckhardt, App, V. p. 665).
The usual methods for raising water are the fol-
lowing:—1. The rope and bucket, or water-skin
(Gen. xxiv. 14-20; John iv. 11), When the well
is deep the rope is either drawn over the curb by
the man or woman, who pulls it out to the dis-
tance of its full length, or by an ass or ox employed
Ancient Egyptian machine for raising water, identical with
the shadoof of the present day. (Wilkinson.)
Unless machinery is used, which is commonly
worked by men, women are usually the water-
carriers. They carry home their water-jars on
their heads (Lindsay, p. 256). Great contentions
often occur at the wells, and they are often, among
b DID; τὸ ἐπικάλυμμα; velumen.
© np ; ποτιστήριον ; canals.
1744 WHALE
Bedouins, favourite places for attack by enemies
(Ex. ii. 16, 17; Judg.v. 11; 2 Sam. xxiii. 15,16;
Burckhardt, Syria, p. 63; Notes on Bed. i. 228;
Col. Ch. Chron. 1859, p. 473; Lane, WM. 1. 1. 252 ;
Robinson, iii. 153). [ΗΠ WeePsl
WHALE. As to the signification of the Hebrew
terms tan (JF) or 112) and tannin (}93M), variously
rendered in the A. V. by “dragon,” ‘ whale,’
“serpent,” ‘‘sea-monster,’ see DRAGON. It re-
mains for us in this article to consider the transac-
tion recorded in the Book of Jonah, of that prophet
having been swallowed by same “ great fish” (a4
by53), which in Matt. xii. 40 is called κῆτος,
rendered in our version by “ whale.”
Much criticism has been expended on the Scrip-
tural account of Jonah being swallowed by a large
fish; it has been variously understood as a literal
transaction, as an entire fiction or an allegory, as a
poetical mythus or a parable. With regard to the
remarks of those writers who ground their objec-
tions upon the denial of miracle, it is obvious that
this is not the place for discussion; the question
of Jonah in the fish’s belly will share the same
fate as any other miracle recorded in the Old
Testament,
The reader will find in Rosenmiiller’s Prolego-
mena several attempts by various writers to explain
the Scriptural narrative, none of which, however,
have anything to recommend them, unless it be in
some cases the ingenuity of the authors, such as
for instance that of Godfrey Less, who supposed
that the “ fish’ was no animal at all, but a ship
with the figure of a fish painted on the stern, into
which Jonah was received after he had been cast
out of his own vessel! Equally curious is the ex-
planation of G. C. Anton, who endeavoured to solve
the difficulty, by supposing that just as the prophet
was thrown into the water, the dead carcase of
some large fish floated by, into the belly of which
he contrived to get, and that thus he was drifted
to the shore! The opinion of Rosenmiiller, that
the whole account is founded on the Phoenician
fable of Hercules devoured by a sea-monster sent
by Neptune (Lycophron, Cassand. 33), although
sanctioned by Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, and other
German writers, is opposed to all sound principles
of Biblical exegesis. It will be our purpose to con-
sider what portion of the occurrence partakes of a
natural, and what. of a miraculous nature.
In the first place then, it is necessary to observe,
that the Greek word κῆτος, used by St. Matthew,
is not restricted in its meaning to ‘¢a whale,’ or
any Cetacean; like the Latin cete or cetus, it may
denote any sea-monster, either “ἃ whale,’ or “a
shark,” or “a seal,’ or “a tunny of enormous
size” (see Athen. p. 203 B, ‘ed. Dindorf; Odys.
xii. 97, iv. 446, 452; 7. xx. 147). Although two
or three species of whale are found in the Mediter-
ranean Sea, yet the “great fish” that swallowed
the prophet, cannot properly be identified with any
Cetacean, for, although the Sperm whale (Catodon
macrocephalus) has a gullet sufficiently large to
admit the body of a man, yet it can hardly be the
fish intended; as the natural food of Cetaceans
consists of small animals, such as medusae and
crustacea.
Nor again, can we agree with Bishop Jebb (Sa-
cred Literature, pp. 178, 179), that the κοιλία of
the Greek Testament denotes the back portion of a
whale’s mouth, in the cavity of which the prophet
WHEAT
was concealed ; for the whole passage in Jonah is
clearly opposed to such an interpretation.
The only fish, then, capable of swallowing a
man would be a large specimen of the White Shark
(Carcharias vulgaris), that dreaded enemy of
sailors, and the most voracious of the family of
Squalidae. This shark, which sometimes attains
the length of thirty feet, is quite able to swal-
low a man whole. Some commentators are scep-
tical on this point. It would, however, be easy to
quote passages from the writings of authors and
travellers in proof of this assertion; we confine our-
selves to two or three extracts. he shark “has a
large gullet, and in the belly of it are sometimes found
the bodies of men half eaten, sometimes whole and
entire” (Nature Displayed, iii. p. 140). But lest
the Abbé Pluche should not be consideved sufficient
authority, we give a quotation from Mr. Couch’s
recent publication, A History of the Fishes of the
British Islands. Speaking of white sharks, this
author, who has paid much attention to the habits
of fish, states that “ they usually cut asunder any
object of considerable size and thus swallow it ;
but if they find a difficulty in doing this, there is no
hesitation in passing into the stomach even what is
of enormous bulk; and the formation of the jaws
and throat render this a matter of but little diffi-
culty.” Ruysch says that the whole body of a man
in armour (loricatus), has been found in the stomach
of a white shark ; and Captain King, in his Survey of
Australia, says he had caught one which could have
swallowed a man with the greatest ease. Blumen-
bach mentions that a whole horse has been found in
a shark, and Captain Basil Hall reports the taking of
one in which, besides other things, he found the
whole skin of a buffalo which a short time before
had been thrown overboard from his ship (i. p. 27).
Dr. Baird of the British Museum (Cyclop. of Nat.
Sciences, p. 514), says that in the river Hooghly
below Calcutta, he had seen a white shark swallow
a bullock’s head and horns entire, and he speaks
also of a shark’s mouth being “ sufficiently wide to
receive the body of aman.” Wherever therefore
the Tarshish, to which Jonah’s ship was bound,
was situated, whether in Spain, or in Cilicia or
in Ceylon, it is certain that the common white
shark might have been seen on the voyage. The
C. vulgaris is not uncommon in the Mediterranean ;
it occurs, as Forskal (Descript. Animal. p. 20)
assures us, in the Arabian Gulf, and is common
also in the Indian Ocean. So far for the natural
porticn of the subject. But how Jonah could
have been swallowed whole wnhurt, or how he
could have existed for any time in the shark’s
belly, it is impossible to explain by simply natural
causes. Certainly the preservation of Jonah in a
fish’s belly is not more remarkable than that of the
three children in the midst of Nebuchadnezzar’s
“burning fiery furnace.’
Naturalists have recorded that sharks have the
habit of throwing up again whole and alive the
prey they have seized (see Couch’s Hist. of Fishes, i.
p. 33). “I have heard,” says Mr. Darwin, “ from
Dr. Allen of Forres, that he has frequently found a
Diodon floating alive and distended in the stomach
of a shark; and that on several occasions he has
known it eat its way out, not only through the
coats of the stomach, but through the sides of the
monster which has been thus killed”’ [W, H.]
WHEAT. The well-known valuable cereal,
cultivated from the earliest times, and frequently
mentioned in the Bible. In the A. V. the Heb.
WHEAT
words bar (VA or VA), daydn (73), riphdth
(MD), are oceasionally translated “ wheat ;”” but
there is no doubt that the proper name of this cereal,
as distinguished from “barley,” ‘ spelt,” &c., is
chittah (πῶ Π ; Chald. 037, chintin). As to the
former Hebrew terms see under Corn. The first
mention of wheat occurs in Gen. xxx. 14, in the
account of Jacob’s sojourn with Laban in Meso-
potamia. Much has been written on the subject
of the origin of wheat, and the question appears
to be still undecided. It is said that the Zriticum
vulgare has been found wild in some parts of
Persia and Siberia, apparently removed from the
influence of cultivation (Lnglish Cyclop. art. “ Triti-
cum”), Again, from the experiments of M. Esprit
Fabre of Agde it would seem that the numerous
varieties of cultivated wheat are merely improved
transformations of Aegilops ovata (Journal of the
Royal Agricult. Soc., No. xxxiii. p. 167-180).
M. Fabre’s experiments, however, have not been
deemed conclusive by some botanists (see an inte-
resting paper by the late Prof. Henfrey in No. xli.
of the Journal quoted above). Egypt in ancient
times was celebrated for the growth of its wheat ;
the best quality, according to Pliny (Nat. Hist.
xviii. 7), was grown in the Thebaid; it was all
bearded, and the same varieties, Sir G. Wilkinson
writes (Anc. Egypt. ii. 39, ed. 1854), “ existed
in ancient as in modern times, among which may
be mentioned the seven-eared quality described in
Pharaoh’s dream ”’ (Gen. xli. 22). This is the so-
called mummy-wheat, which, it has been said, has
germinated after the lapse of thousands of years;
but it is now known that the whole thing was
a fraud. Babylonia was also noted for the excel-
lence of its wheat and other cereals. “In grain,”
says Herodotus (i. 193), “ it will yield com-
monly two hundred fold, and at its greatest pro-
duction as much as three hundred fold. The blades
of the wheat and barley-plants are often four fingers
broad.” But this is a great exaggeration. (See also
Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. viii. 7.) Modern writers,
as Chesney and Rich, bear testimony to the great
fertility of Mesopotamia. Syria and Palestine pro-
duced wheat of fine quality and in large quantities
(Ps. exlvii. 14, Ixxxi. 16, &c.). There appear to
be two or three kinds of wheat at present grown in
Palestine, the Triticum vulgare (var. hybernum), the
T. spelta {see RYE], and another variety of bearded
wheat which appears to be the same as the Egyptian
kind, the J. compositum. In the parable of the
sower our Lord alludes to grains of wheat which
in good ground produce a hundred fold (Matt. xiii.
8). “The return of a hundred for one,” says
Trench, “is not unheard of in the Hast, though
always mentioned as something extraordinary.”
Laborde says ‘there is to be found at Kerek a
species of hundred wheat which justifies the text
of the Bible against the charges of exaggeration of
which it has been the object.’ The common Z7i-
ticum vulgare will sometimes produce one hundred
grains in the ear. Wheat is reaped towards the
end of April, in May, and in June, according to
the differences of soil and position; it was sown
either broadcast, and then ploughed in or trampled
in by cattle (Is. xxxii. 20), or in rows, if we rightly
understand Is. xxviii. 25, which seems to imply
that the seeds were planted apart in order to insure
larger and fuller ears. The wheat was put into
the ground in the winter, and some time after the
barley; in the Egyptian plague of hail, conse-
NOs. LL,
WIDOW 1745
quently, the barley suffered, but the wheat had not
appeared, and so escaped injury. Wheat was ground
into flour; the finest qualities were expressed by the
term,“ fat of kidneys of wheat,” MON nop abn
(Deut. xxxii. 14). Unripe ears are sometimes cut
off from the stalks, roasted in an oven, mashed and
boiled, and eaten by the modern gvptians (Sonnini,
Traw.). Rosenmiiller (Botany of the Bible, p. 80),
with good reason, conjectures that this dish, which
the Arabs cail #erik, is the same as the geres carmel
Gia tvs) of Lev. ii, 14 and 2K. iv. 42. The
Heb. word Kali (Sp, Ley. ii. 14) denotes, it is
probable, roasted ears of corn, still used as food in
the East. An “ ear of corn” was called Shibboleth
(ndayy, the word which betrayed the Ephraimites
(Judg. xii. 1, 6), who were unable to give the
sound of sh. The curious expression in Prov. xxvii.
22, «though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar
among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolish-
ness depart from him,” appears to point to the cus-
tom of mixing the grains of inferior cereals with
wheat ; the meaning will then be, “Let a fool be
ever so much in the company of wise men, yet he
will continue a fool.” Maurer (Comment. 1. c.)
simply explains the passage thus: ‘ Quomodo-
cunque tractaveris stultum non patietur se emen-
dari.” [Compare articles CoRN; AGRICULTURE ;
BARLEY, | [Wee]
WHIRLWIND (FED ; MD). The Hebrew
terms stiphah and se’drah convey the notion of a
violent wind or hurricane, the former because such
a wind sweeps away every object it encounters, the
latter because the objects so swept away are tossed
about and agitated. In addition to this, Gesenius
gives a similar sense to galgal,* in Ps. lxxvii. 18
(A. V. “heaven’’), and Ez. x. 13 (A. V. “ wheel”),
Generally, however, this last term expresses one of
the effects of such a storm in rolling along chaff,
| stubble, or such light articles (Ties. p. 288). It
does not appear that any of the above terms ex-
press the specific notion of a whirl-wind, i.e. a
gale moving violently round on its own axis—and
there is no warrant for the use of the word m the
A. V. of 2K. ii. 11. The most violent winds in
Palestine come from the east; and the passage in
Job xxxvii. 9, which in the A. V. reads, “ Out
of the south cometh the whirlwind,” should rather
be rendered, “Out of his chamber,” &c. The
whirlwind is frequently used as a metaphor of
violent and sweeping: destruction. Cyrus’ invasion
of Babylonia is compared to a southerly gale coming
out of the wilderness of Arabia (Is. xxi. 15 comp.
Knobel, in Joc.), the effects of which are most
prejudicial in that country. Similar allusions
occur in Ps, lviii. 9; Prov. i. 27, x. 25; Is. xl. 245
Dan. xi. 40. [W. L. B.]
WIDOW (AMPS: χήρα: vidua). Under the
Mosaic dispensation no legal provision was made for
the maintenance of widows. They were left de-
pendent partly on the affection of relations, more
especially of the eldest son, whose birthright, or
extra share of the property, imposed such a duty
upon him, and partly on the privileges accorded to
other distressed classes, such as a participation in
the triennial third tithe (Deut. xiv. 29, xxvi. 12),
in leasing (Deut. xxiv. 19-21), and in religious
02823.
ΒΕ
1746 WIDOW
feasts (Deut. xvi. 11, 14). In the spirit of these
regulations a portion of the spoil taken in war was
assigned to them (2 Mace. viii. 28, 30). A special
prohibition was laid against taking a widow’s gar-
ments in pledge (Deut. xxiv. 17), and this was
practically extended to other necessaries (Job xxiv.
3). In addition to these specific regulations, the
widow was commended to the care of the commu-
nity (Ex. xxii. 22; Deut. xxvii. 19; Is. i. 17; Jer.
vii. 6, xxii. 3; Zech. vii. 10), and any neglect or
oppression was strongly reprobated (Job xxii. 9,
xxiv. 2s) Ps. xciv. 65: ἶδι x) 2); Ez. xxii. 7; Mal.
iii. 55 Eeclus. xxxv. 14, 15; Bar. vi. 38; Matt.
xxiii, 14). In times of danger widows were per-
mitted to deposit their property in the treasury of
the Temple (2 Mace. iii. 10). With regard to the
remarriage of widows, the only restriction imposed
by the Mosaic law had reference to the contingency
of one being left childless, in which case the brother
of the deceased husband had a right to marry the
widow (Deut. xxv. 5, 6; Matt. xxii. 23-30).
[MArriaGE.] The high-priest was prohibited
from marrying a widow, and in the ideal polity
of the prophet Ezekiel the prohibition is extended
to the ordinary priests (Ez. xliv. 22).
In the Apostolic Church the widows were sus-
tained at the public expense, the relief being daily
administered in kind, under the superintendence of
officers appointed for this special purpose (Acts vi.
1-6). Particular directions are given by St. Paul as
to the class of persons entitled to such public main-
tenance (1 Tim. v. 3-16). He would confine it to
the “‘ widow indeed” (4 ὄντως χήρα), whom he
defines to be one who is left alone in the world
(μεμονωμένη), without any relations or Christian
friends responsible for her support (vers. 3-5, 16).
Poverty combined with friendlessness thus formed
the main criterion of eligibility for public support ;
but at the same time the character of the widow—
her piety and trustfulness—was to be taken. into
account (ver. 5). Out of the body of such widows
a certain number were to be enrolled (κατα-
λεγέσθω: A.V. “taken into the number’’), the
qualifications for such enrolment being (1.) that
they were not under sixty years of age; (2.) that
they had been “ the wife of one man,” probably
meaning but once married; and (3.) that they had
led useful and charitable lives (vers. 9, 10). The
object of the enrolment is by no means obvious. If
we were to form our opinion solely on the qualifi-
cations above expressed, we should conclude that
the enrolled widows formed an ecclesiastical order,
having duties identical with or analogous to those of
the deaconesses of the early Church. For why, if
the object were of an eleemosynary character, should
the younger or twice-married widows be excluded ?
The weight of modern criticism is undoubtedly in
favour of the view that the enrolled widows held
such an official position in the Church (Alford,
De Wette, Lange, &., in 1 Tim. v. 9,10). But
we can perceive no ground for isolating the passage
relating to the enrolled widows from the context,
or for distinguishing these from the “ widows in-
deed” referred to in the preceding and succeeding
verses. If the passage be read as a whole, then the
impression derived from it will be that the enrol-
ment was for an eleemosynary purpose, and that
the main condition of enrolment was, as before,
poverty. The very argument which has been ad-
duced in favour of the opposite view, in reality
equally favours this one; for why should unmayr-
ried or young women be excluded from an ecclesi-
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
astical order? The practice of the early Church
proves that they were not excluded. The author
of the <Apostolical Constitutions lays down the
rule that virgins should be generally, and widows
only exceptionally, appointed to the office of dea-
coness (vi. 17, §4); and though the directions
given to Timothy were frequently taken as a model
for the appointment of deaconesses, yet there was
great diversity of practice in this respect (Bingham’s
Ant. ii. 22, §§ 2-5). On the other hand, the re-
strictions contained in the Apostolic directions are
not inconsistent with the eleemosynary view, if we
assume, as is very possible, that the enrolled
widows formed a permanent charge on the public
funds, and enjoyed certain privileges by reason of
their long previous services, while the remainder,
who were younger, and might very possibly re-
marry, would be regarded in the light of temporary
and casual recipients. But while we thus believe
that the primary object of the enrolment was simply
to enforce a more methodical administration of the
Church funds, it is easy to understand how the
order of widows would obtain a quasi-official posi-
tion in the Church. Having already served a
voluntary diaconate, and having exhibited their
self-control by refraining from a second marriage,
they would naturally be looked up to as models of
piety to their sex, and would belong to the class
whence deaconesses would be chiefly drawn. Hence
we find the term “ widow” (χήρα) used by early
writers in an extended sense, to signify the adoption
of the conditions by which widows, enrolled as
such, were bound for the future. Thus Ignatius
speaks of “ virgins who were called widows”
(παρθένους Tas λεγομένας χήρας ; Lp. ad Smyrn.
13); and Tertullian records the case of a virgin
who was placed on the roll of widows (in viduatw)
while yet under twenty years of age (De Vel. Virg.
9). It is a further question in what respect these
virgins were called ‘‘ widows.” The annotations
on Ignatius regard the term as strictly equivalent
to ‘‘deaconess ” (Patres Apost. ii. 441, ed. Jacob-
son), but there is evidently another sense in which
it may be used, viz. as betokening celibacy, and
such we believe to have been its meaning, inasmuch
as the abstract term χηρεία is used in the sense of
continence, or unmarried state, in the Apostolical
Constitutions (παρθένος μὴ φέρουσα Thy ev νεό-
τητι χηρείαν ; δῶρον ἔχουσα χηρείας, iii. 1, §§1,
2). Weare not therefore disposed to identify the
widows of the Bible either with the deaconesses or
with the πρεσβύτιδες of the early Church, from
each of which classes they are distinguished in the
work last quoted (ii. 57, §8, viii. 13, §4). The
order of widows (τὸ χηρικόν) existed as a separate
institution, contemporaneously with these offices,
apparently for the same eleemosynary purpose for
which it was originally instituted (Const. Apost.
iii. 1, $1, iv. 5, §1). [ν.8ῃ
WIFE. [ΜΑΒΕΙΑΘΕ.]
WILD BEASTS. [Beasts, Appendix A.]
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING.
The historical magnitude of the Exodus as an
event, including in that name not only the exit from
Egypt, but the passage of the sea and desert, and
the entry into Canaan, and the strange scenery in
which it was enacted, no less than the miraculous
agency sustained throughout forty years, has given
to this locality an interest which is heightened, if
possible, by the constant retrospect taken by the
great Teacher of the New Testament and His apos-
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
tles, of this portion of the history of the race of
Israel, as full of spiritual lessons necessary for the
Christian Church throughout all ages. Hence this
region, which physically is, and has probably been
for three thousand years or more, little else than
a barren waste, has derived a moral grandeur and
obtained a reverential homage which has spread
with the diffusion of Christianity. Indeed, to
Christian, Jew, and Moslem it is alike holy ground.
The mystery which hangs over by far the greater
number of localities, assigned to events even of first-
rate magnitude, rather inflames than allays the
eagerness for identification ; and the result has been
a larger array of tourists than has probably ever
penetrated any other country of equal difliculty.
Burckhardt, Niebuhr, Seetzen, Laborde and Linant,
Riippell, Raumer, Russegger, Lepsius, Henniker,
Wellsted, Fazakerley, and Miss Martineau, are con-
spicuous amongst those who have contributed since
the close of the last century to deepen, to vivily,
and to correct our impressions, besides the earlier
works of Monconys in the 17th century, and Hassel-
quist and Pococke in the 18th; whilst Wilson,
Stewart, Bartlett, Bonar, Olin, Bertou, Robinson,
and Stanley, have added a rich detail of illustration
reaching to the present day. And thus it is at
leneth ‘‘ possible by the internal evidence of the
country itself to lay down, not indeed the actual
route of the Israelites in every stage, but in almost
all cases, the main alternatives between which we
must choose, and in some cases, the very spots
themselves.” Yet with all the material which now
lies at the disposal of the topographical critic, there
is often a real poverty of evidence where there
seems to be an abundance; and the single lines of
information do not weave up into a fabric of clear
knowledge. ‘* Hitherto no one traveller has traversed
more than one, or at most two routes of the Desert,
and thus the determination of these questions has
been obscured; first, by the tendency of every one
to make the Israelites follow his own track ; and
secondly, by his inability to institute a just compari-
son between the facilities or difficulties which attend
the routes which he has not seen. ‘This obscurity
will always exist till some competent traveller has
explored the whole Peninsula. When this has been
fairly done, there is little doubt that some of the
most important topographical questions now at issue
will be set at rest” (Stanley, S. g P. 33).
I. The uncertainties commence from the very
starting-point of the route of the Wandering. It is
impossible to fix the point at which in ‘the wilder-
ness of Etham” (Num. xxxiii. 6, 7) Israel, now a
nation of freemen, emerged from that sea into which
they had passed as a nation of slaves. But, slippery
as is the physical ground for any fixture of the
miracle to a particular spot, we may yet admire
the grandeur and vigour of the image of baptism
which Christianity has appropriated from those
waters. There their freedom was won; “not of
@ See a pamphlet by Charles T. Beke, Ph. D., “A Few
Words with Bishop Colenso,” 4, 5.
b Compare the use of the same word, of a multitude of
men or cattle, in Joel, i. 18, to express ἐν ἀπορίᾳ εἶναι,
without reference to egress or direction of course, merely
for want of food.
e Josephus (Ant. ii. 15, §3) speaks of the obstruction of
precipitous and impassable mountains, but when we con-
sider his extravagant language of the height of the build-
ings of the temple, it is likely that much more, when
speaking in general terms of a spot so distant, such ex-
pressions may be set down as simply rhetorical.
Γ
1747
themselves, it was the gift of God,” whose Pre-
sence visibly preceded, and therefore St. Paul says,
“they were baptized in the cloud,” and not only
“in the sea.” The fact that from “ Etham in the
edge of the wilderness,” their path struck across the
sea (Ex. xiii. 20), and from the sea into the same
wilderness of Etham, seems to indicate the upper
end of the furthest tongue of the Gulf of Suez as
the point of crossing, for here, as is probable, :ather
than lower down the same, the district on either
side would for a short distance on both shores have
the same name. There seems reason also to think
that this gulf had then, as also at Ezion-Geber
[ EZIONGEBER ], a further extension northward than
at present, owing to the land having upheaved its
level. This action seems to have been from early
times the predominant one, and traces of it have
recently been observed.* Thus it is probable as a
result of the same agency that the sea was even
then shallow, and the sudden action of a tidal sea
in the cul-de-sac of a narrow and shallow gulf is
well-known. Our own Solway Firth is a familiar
example of the rise and rush of water, surprising at
times, especially when combined with the action of
a strong wind, even those habitually cognizant of
its power. Similarly by merely venturing, it seems,
below high-water mark, our own King John lost
his baggage, regalia, and treasures in the estuary of
The Wash. Pharaoh’s exclamation, “ they are en-
tangled (O9323)> in the land,” merely expresses
the perplexity in which such a multitude having,
from whatever cause, no way of escape, would find
themselves. ‘‘ The wilderness hath shut them in,”
refers merely, it is probable, to his security in the
belief that, having reached the flat of the waste, they
were completely at the mercy of a chariot force,
like his, and rather excludes than implies the notion
of mountains.¢ The direction of the wind is “6 east”
in the Hebrew (ΒΡ m3); but in the LXX.
“south” (νότῳ), in Ex. xiv. 21. On a local
question the probable authority of the latter, exe-
cuted in Egypt near the spot, is somewhat enhanced
above its ordinary value. The furthest tongue of
the gulf, now supposed dry, narrows to a strait
some way below, 7. 6. south of its northern extremity,
as given in Laborde’s map (Commentary on Exod.),
and then widens again.4 In such a narrow pass
the action of the water would be strongest when
“the sea returned,” and here a wind anywhere
between E. and S.S.E., to judge from that map,
would produce nearly the same eflect; only the
more nearly due E, the more it would meet the sea
at right angles.© The probability is certainly that
Pharaoh, seeing his bondmen, now all but within
his clutch, yet escaping from it, would in the dark-
ness of night, especially as he had spurned calmer
counsels and remonstrances before, pursue with
headlong rashness, even although, to a sober judg-
ment guided ,by experience, the risk was plain.
ἃ Dr. Stanley (5. & P. 36) thinks that this supposed
extension “depends on arguments which have not yet
been thoroughly explored.”
e If the wind were direct S. it would at some points
favour the notion that ‘‘ the passage was not a transit but
a short circuit, returning again to the Egyptian shore, and
then pursuing their way round the head of the guif,” an
explanation favoured “ by earlier Christian commentators,
and by almost all the Rabbinical writers” (S. & P. 36).
The landing-place would on this view be considerably
north of the point of entering the sea,
5. Me
1748
There is a resemblance in the names Migdol and
the “‘ ancient ‘ Magdolum,’ twelve miles S. of Pelu-
sium, and undoubtedly described as ‘ Migdol’ by
Jeremiah and Ezekiel” (Jer. xliv. 1, xlvi. 14; Ezek.
xxix. 10, xxx. 6; S. g P. 37), also between the
same and the modern Mii/tala, ““ ἃ gentle slope
through the hills” towards Suez; and Pi-Hahiroth
perhaps is “Ajrid. The “wilderness of Etham”
probably lay on either side adjacent to the now dry
trough of the northern end of the gulf. Dr. Stewart
(Tent and Khan, 64) thinks the name Etham trace-
able in the Wady Adthi, on the Arabian shore,
but this and the preceding “Ajrid are of doubtful
identity. The probability seems on the whole to
favour the notion that the crossing lay to the N.
of the Jebel ’Atakah, which lies on the Egyptian
side S. of Suez, and therefore neither the Ayin
Misa,f£ nor, much less, the Hummam Pharain,
further down on the eastern shore—each of which
places, as well as several others, claims in local
legend to be the spot of landing—will suit. Still,
these places, or either of them, may be the region
where “Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the
sea-shore” (Ex. xiv. 30). The crossing place from
the Egyptian Wady Tawarik to the “Ayin Misa
has been supported, however, by Wilson, Olin,
Dr. Stewart (Tent and Khan, 56), and others.
The notion of Miktala being Migdol will best suit
the previous view of the more northerly passage.
The ‘ wilderness of Shur,” into which the Is-
yaelites ‘went out” from the Red Sea, appears
to be the eastern and south-eastern continuation of
that of Etham, for both in Ex. xv. 22, and in Num.
xxxili. 8, they are recorded to have “ gone three
days in the wilderness,” indicated respectively in
the two passages as that of Shur and that of Etham.
From the expression in Ex. xiii. 20, ‘“‘ Etham, the
edge of the wilderness,’’ the habitable region would
seem to have ended at that place. Josephus (Ant.
vi. 7, §3) seems to identify Pelusium with Shur,
comp. 1 Sam. xv. 7; but probably, he merely uses
the former term in an approximate sense, as a land-
mark well-known to his readers; since Shur is
described as ‘‘ over against, or before, Egypt ”
(Gen. xxv. 18), being perhaps the same as Sihor,
similarly spoken of in Josh. xiii. 3; Jer. ii, 18.
When so described, we may understand ‘“ Egypt”
to be taken in a strict sense as. excluding Goshen
and the Arabian nome. [GosHEN.] Shur “before
Egypt,” whatever the name may have meant, must
probably be viewed as lying eastward of a Jine
drawn from Suez to Pelusium; and the wilderness
named from it or from Etham, extended three days’
journey (for the Israelites) from the head of the
gulf, if not more. It is evident that, viewed from
Egypt, the wilderness might easily take its name
from the last outpost of the habitable region, whe-
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
ther town or village, whereas in other aspects it
might have a name of its own, from some land-
mark lying init. Thus the Egyptians may have
known it as connected with Etham, and the desert
inhabitants as. belonging to Shur; while from his
residence in Egypt and sojourn with Jethro, both
names may have been familiar to Moses. However
this may be, from Suez eastward, the large desert
tract, stretching as far east. as the Ghor and Mount
Seir, ἡ, 6. from 32° 40’ to 35° 10’ Εἰ. long., begins.
The 31st parallel of latitude, nearly traversing
El’ Arish, the “ River of Egypt,” on the Mediterra-
nean, and the southernmost extremity of the Dead
Sea, may be taken roughly to represent its northern
limit, where it really merges imperceptibly into
the “south country” of Judah. It is scarcely
called in Scripture by any one general name, but
the ‘* wilderness of Paran” most nearly approxi-
mates to such a designation, though lost, short of
the Egyptian or western limit, in the wilderness of
Shur, and perhaps, although not certainly, curtailed
eastward by that of Zin. On the south side of
the et- 77h range, a broad angular band runs across
the Peninsula with its apex turned southward, and
pointing towards the central block of granite monn-
tains. ‘This is a tract of sand known as the Debbet
er-Ramleh or Ramlah, but which name is omitted
in Kiepert’s map. The long horizontal range and
the sandy plain together form a natural feature in
marked contrast with the pyramidal configuration
of the southern or Sinaitic region. The ‘ wilder-
ness of Sinai’’ lies of course in that southern region,
in that part which, although generally elevated,
is overhung by higher peaks. How far this wilder-
ness extended is uncertain. The Israelites only
traversed the north-western region of it. The
ἐς wilderness of Sin ” was their passage into it from
the more pleasant district of coast Wadys with
water-springs which succeeded to the first-traversed
wilderness of Shur or Etham, where no water was
found. Sin may probably be identified with the
coast strip, now known as e/-da, reaching from a
little above the Jebel Feirdn, or as nearly as pos-
sible on the 29th parallel of latitude,g down to and
beyond Tur on the Red Sea. They seem to have
only dipped into the “‘Sin” region at its northern
extremity, and to have at once moved from the
coast towards the N.W. upon Sinai (Ex. xv, 22-27,
xvi. 1; Num. xxwiii. 8-11). It is often impossible
to assign a distinct track to this vast body —a nation
swarming onthe march. ‘The fact, of many, perhaps
most, of the ordinary avenues being incapable of
containing more than a fraction of them, would
often have compelled them to appropriate all or
several of the modes of access to particular points,
between the probabilities of which the judgment of
travellers is balanced.» Down the coast, however,
ΤΑ warm spring, the temperature of which is given by
Mr. Hamilton (Sinai, the Hedjaz and Soudan, 14) as
being 83° Fahrenheit. “Robinson found the water here
salt, and yielding a hard deposit, yet the Arabs called
these springs ‘sweet τ᾿ there are several of them” (Seetzen,
Reisen, iii. pt. iii. 431). The Hummdm (‘ warm baths’’)
Pharatn are similar springs, lying a little W. of S. from
Wady Useit,on the coast close to whose edge rises the
precipitous Jebel Hummam, so called from them, and here
intercepting the path along the shore. The Rev. R. 5.
Tyrwhitt, who made the desert journey in February, 1863,
says that there may be a warm spring out of the twelve
or thirteen which form the Ayén Masa, but that the
water of the larger well is cold, and that he drank of it,
& North of this limit lies the most southern wady which
has been fixed upon by any considerable number of autho-
rities for Elim, from which the departure was taken
into the wilderness of Sin. Seetzen, but he alone, sug-
gests that Elim is to be found in a warm spring in a
northerly direction from Vér, at a very slight distance,
which waters the extensive date-palm plantations there.
If this were so Tér itself would have certainly been in-
cluded in the radius of the camp; but it is unlikely that
they went so far south.
h It may be worth while to notice that the same ob-
servations apply to the battle in Rephidim with Amalek,
To look about for a battle-field large enough to give
sufficient space for two hosts worthy of representing
Israel and Amalek, and to reject all sites where this pos-
sibility is not obvious, is an unsafe method of criticism.
—_ Ψ αν ν
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
from Etham or the Suez region southwards, the course
is broad and open, and there the track would be more
definite and united, Before going into the further
details of this question, a glance may be taken at
the general configuration of the et-7%h region, com-
puted at 40 parasangs, or about 140 miles, in
length, and the same in breadth by Jakdt, the
famous geographer of Hamah (Seetzen, /eisen, iii.
47). For a description of the rock desert of Sinai,
in which nature has cast, as it were, a pyramid of
granite, culminating at Um Shaumer, 9300 feet
above sea-level, but cloven and sulcated in every
direction by wadys into minor blocks, see SENAT.
Il. The twin Gulfs of Suez and’ Akabah, into which
the Red Sea separates, embrace the Peninsula on its
W. and E. sides respectively. One or other of them
is in sight from almost all the summits of the
Sinaitic cluster, and from the highest points both
branches. The eastern coast of the Gult of Suez is
strewn with shells, and with the forests of sub-
marine vegetation which possibly gave the whole sea
its Hebrew appellation of the ‘* Sea of Weeds.” The
“ἐς huge trunks” of its ‘“ trees of coral may be seen
even on the dry shore;” while at Zur, cabins are
formed of madrepores gathered from it, and the
débris of conchylia lie thickly heaped on the beach.i
Similar “‘coralline forests” ave described (S. and
P. 83) as marking the coast of the Gulf of ’Akabah.
The northern portion of the whole Peninsula is a
plateau bounded southwards by the range of ef- 77h,
which droops across it on the map with a curve
somewhat like that of a slack chain, whose points
of suspension are, westwards, Suez, and eastward,
but further south, some ‘ sandstone cliffs, which
shut off” * this region from the Gulf of ’Akabah.
The north-western member of this chain converges
with the shore of the Gulf of Suez, till the two run
nearly parallel. Its eastern member throws off
several fragments of long and short ridges towards
the Gulf of *Akabah and the northern plateau called
from it et-Tth, The Jebel Dillal (Burckhardt,
Dhelel) is the most southerly of the continuations
of this eastern member (Seetzen, Feisen, iii. pt. iii.
413). The greatest elevation in the et-7th range
is attained a little W. of the meridian 34°, near its
most southerly point; it is here 4654 feet above
the Mediterranean. From this point the watershed
of the plateau runs obliquely between N. and E.
towards Hebron; westward of which line, and
northward from the westerly member of Jebel et-
Tih, the whole wady-system is drained by the great
Wady el- Arish, along a gradual slope to the Medi-
terranean. The shorter and much steeper slope
eastward partly converges into the large ducts of
Wadys Fikreh and el-Jeib, entering the Dead Sea’s
south-western angle through the southern wall of
the Ghor, and partly finds an outlet nearly parailel,
but further to the 5., by the Wady Jerafeh into
the’Arabah. The great depression of the Dead Sea
(1300 feet below the Mediterranean) explains the
1749
greater steepness of this eastern slope. In crossing
this plateau, Seetzen found that rain and wind had
worked depressions in parts of its flat, which con-
tained a few shrubs or-isolated bushes. This flat
rose here and there in heights steep on one side,
composed of white chalk with frequent lumps of
flint embedded (iii. 48). The plateau has a central
point in the station ™ Khan Nikhil, so named from
the date-trees which once adorned its wady, but
which have all disappeared. This point is nearly
equidistant from Suez westward, ’Akabah eastward,
el-’ Arish northward, and the foot of Jebel Misa
southward. It lies half a mile N. of the “ Hadj-
route,’ between Suez and ’Akabah, which traverses
“<a boundless flat, dreary and desolate” (ibid. 56),
and is 1494” feet above the Mediterranean—nearly
on the same meridian as the highest point before
assigned to θέ- 172. On this meridian also lies Um
Shaumer farther south, the highest point of the.
entire Peninsula, having an elevation of 9300
feet, or nearly double that of ef-7ih, A little to
the W. of the same meridian lies e/- Arish, and the
southern cape, Ras Mohammed, is situated about
549 17'. Thus the parallel 31°, and the meridian
34°, form important axes of the whole region of
the Peninsula. <A full description of the wilder-
ness of e¢-Tih is given by Dr. Robinson (i. 177, ὃ,
199), together with a memorandum ot the tra-
vellers who explored it previously to himself.
On the eastern edge of the plateau to the N. of
the et-Tih vange, which is raised terrace-wise by a
step from the level of the Ghor, rises a singular
second, or, reckoning that level itself, a third pla-
teau, superimposed on the general surface of the
et-Tih region. These Russegger (J/ap) distinguishes
as three terraces in the chalk ridges. Dr. Kruse, in
his Anmerkungen on Seetzen’s travels (iii. pt. ili.
410), remarks that the Jebel et-T7th is the montes
nigri, or μέλανες of Ptolemy, in whose view that
range descends to the extreme southern point of the
Peninsula, thus including of course the Sinaitic
region. ‘This confusion arose from a want of dis-
tinct conception of geographical details. The name
seems to have been obtained from the dark, or even
black colour, which is observable in parts (see
p- 1750, note).
The Hadj-route from Suez to ’Akabah, crossing
the Peninsula in a direction a little S. of E., may
stand for the chord of the are of the et- 7th range,
the length of which latter is about 120 miles. This
slope, descending northwards upon the Mediterra-
nean, is of limestone (S. and P, 7), covered with
coarse gravel interspersed with black flints and
drift (Russegger’s M/ap). But its desolation has
not always been so extreme, oxen, asses, and sheep
having once grazed in parts of it where now only
the camel is found. ‘Three passes through the
et-T%h range are mentioned by Robinson (i. p. 123 ;
comp. 561-3, App. xxii. )—er-Lakineh, the western 5
el-Miureikhy, the eastern ; and οἱ- Wirsah, between
The most reticulated mass of wadys in the whole penin-
sula, if deemed worth fighting for, would form a battle-
ground for all practical purposes, though not properly a
“field” of battle, and the battle might decisively settle |
supremacy within certain limits, although no regular |
method of warfare might be applicable, and the numbers |
actually engaged might be inconsiderable. It would
perhaps resemble somewhat more closely astreet fight for
the mastery of a tuwn.
i Stanley, S. & δ, 5; Hamilton, Sinai, the Hedjaz, and |
Soudan, 14,
k Stanley, 9. ὦ P. 8.
τῷ Seetzen, who crossed this route 6 hours to the E, of
this station, says that this road, and not the range of
et-Tih, is the political division of the country, all the
country to the S. of the road being reckoned as the Tur,
and that northwards as appertaining to Syria (Reisen,
iii. 410-11, comp. p. 58). His course lay between the
route ‘rom Hebron to ’Akabah, and that from Hebron
to Suez. He went straight southwards to Feirdn; a
route which no traveller has followed since.
n This measurement is a mean between that given in
Stanley (map, δ. & P.5), and Russegger’s estimate, as given
by Seetzen (Reisen, iii. pt. iii. 411).
1750
the two. These all meet S. of Ruhaibeh (Reho-
both, Gen. xxvi. 22?), in about N. lat. 31° 5’,
Εν long, 34° 42’, and thence diverge towards He-
bron and Gaza. The eastern® is noted by Rus-
segger as 4853 feetP above sea-level. Seetzen took
the et-7%th range for the ‘ Mount Seir,” passed on
the way from Sinai (Horeb, Deut. i. 2) to Kadesh
Barnea by the Israelites (Reisen, iii. 28; comp.
ibid. Kruse’s Anmerkungen, pt. iii. 417). It
would form a conspicuous object on the left to the
Israelites, going south-eastwards near the coast of
the Gulf of Suez. Seetzen, proceeding towards
Suez, 2. 6. in the opposite direction, mentions a high
sandy plain (Reisen, iii. p. 111), apparently near
Wady Ghitrtindel, whence its steep southern face was
visible in a white streak stretching westwards and
eastwards. Dr. Stanley (S. and P. 7) says, ‘‘how-
ever much the other mountains of the Peninsula vary
in form or height, the mountains of the Tih are al-
ways alike—always faithful to their tabular outline
and blanched desolation.” 4 They appear like ‘a long
limestone wall.” This traveller saw them, how-
ever, only “from a distance” (ibid. and note 2).
Seetzen, who crossed them, going from Hebron to
Sinai, says of the view from the highest ridge of
the lower mountain-line ; ‘‘ What a landscape was
that J looked down upon! On all sides the most
frightful wilderness extended out of sight in every
direction, without tree, shrub, or speck of green.
It was an alternation of flats and hills, for the most
part black as night, only the naked rock-walls on
the hummocks and heights showed patches of
dazzling whiteness? ....a striking image of our
globe, when, through Phaeton’s carelessness, the
sun came too near to it” (Leisen, iii. p. 50).
Similarly, describing the scenery of the Wady el-
Bidra, by which he passed the et-T%ih range (see
note ὃ below), he says: “On the S. side rose a con-
siderable range, desolate, craggy, and naked. All
was limestone, chalk, and flint. The chalk cliffs
gave the steep off-set of the 7th range on its S,
side the aspect of a@ snow mountain” (p. 62).
The other routes which traverse the Peninsula
are, that from Hebron to Suez along the maritime
plain, at a distance of from 10 to 30 miles from
the sea, passing e/~ Arish ; that from Suez to Zir
along the coast of the Gulf of Suez through the
Kéa: and that from *Akabah, near Eziongeber,
ascending the western wall of the ’Arabah through
the Wady el-Jeib, by several passes, not far
from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, to-
wards Hebron, in a course here nearly N.W., then
again N.’ A modern mountain road has been par-
tially constructed by Abbas Pasha in the pass of
the Wady Hebrdan, leading from the coast of the
Gulf of Suez towards the convent commonly called
© Seetzen probably took this eastern pass, which leads
out into the Wady Berah (Seetzen, El Bicra, called also
El Schdide, Reisen, iii. pt. tii. 411, Kruse’s Anmeriewngen,
comp. 111, 62). He, however, shortly before crossing the
range, came upon ‘‘a flat hill yielding wholesome pasture
for camels, considerable numbers (Haufen) of which are
met with here, also two herds of goats and some sheep ”’
(iii. 60); not strictly confirming the previous statement,
which is Dr. Robinson’s,
P It is not easy to reconcile this statement with the
figure (4645 ft.) given by Dr. Stanley (S. ὦ P., map,
p. 5) apparently as the extreme height of the mountain
El-Odjme (Stanley, J. Hdime), since we might expect that
the pass would be somewhat lower than the highest point,
instead of higher. On this mountain, see p. 1767, note i,
4 Seetzen (iii, 56) remarks that “the slope of the ec-Tih
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
St. Catharine’s. The ascent from the trough of the
*Arabah (which is steeper-sided at its N.W. ex-
tremity than elsewhere), towards the general plateau
is by the pass el-Khirdr, by which the level of
that broad surface is attained. The smaller plateau
rests obliquely upon the latter, abutting on the Dead
Sea at Masada, where its ἘΠῚ and that of the lower
floor converge, and is reached by ascending through
the higher Nukb es-Stifa. Its face, corresponding
to the southern face of the 7th plateau, looks con-
siderably to the W. of S., owing to this obliquity,
and is delineated like a well-defined mountain-wall
in Kiepert’s map, having at the 5.1, angle a bold
buttress in the Jebel Mitkhrah, and at the S.W.
another in the Jebel’ Ara@if en-Nakah, which stands
out apparently in the wilderness like a promontory
at sea. From the former mountain, its most
southerly point, at about 30° 20' N. L., this
plateau extends northward a little east, till it
merges in the southern slope of Judea, but at about
30° 50' N. L., is cut nearly through by the Wady
Fikreh, trenching its area eastward, and not quite
meeting the Wudy Murrah, which has its declivity
apparently toward the Wady el-’ Arish westward.
The face of mountain-wall mentioned above may
probably be ‘* the mountain of the Amorites,” or this
whole higher plateau may be so (Deut. i. 7,19, 20).
A line drawn northwards from Rds Mohammed
passes a little to the W. of Araif en-Nakah. A
more precise description of some parts of this plateau
has been given under KADESH.
On the whole, except in the Debbet cr-Ramleh,
sand is rare in the Peninsula. There is little or
none on the sea-shore, and the plain e/-Ada on the
S.W. coast is gravelly rather than sandy (S. and P.
8). Of sandstone on the edges of the granitic central
mass there is no lack.t It is chiefly found between
the chalk and limestone of et- 7%) and the southem
rocky triangle of Sinai. Thus the Jebel Dilldl
is of sandstone, in tall vertical cliffs, forming the
boundary of er-Ramleh on the east side, and similar
steep sandstone cliffs are visible in the same plain,
lying on its N. and N.W. sides (Seetzen, iii. 66 ;
comp. pt. iii. 413). In the Wady Mokatteb ‘the
soft surface of these sandstone cliffs offered ready
tablets’? to the unknown wayfarers who wrote the
‘‘ Sinaitic inscriptions.” ‘This stone gives in some
parts a strong red hue to the nearer landscape, and
softens into shades of the subtlest delicacy in the
distance. Where the surface has been broken away,
or fretted and eaten by the action of water, these
hues are most vivid (S. and P. 10-12). It has been
supposed that the Egyptians worked the limestone
of et-7ih, and that that material, as found in
the pyramids, was there quarried. The hardness
of the granite in the Jebel et-Tir has been em-
range shows an equal wildness” to that of the desert on
its northern side.
x Comp. Dr. Stanley’s description of the march down
the Wady Tayibeh “ between vast cliffs white on the one
side, and on the other of a black calcined colour” (5. ὦ P.
69).
s Nearly following this track in the opposite direction,
i.e. to the S.E., Seetzen went from Hebron to Wddara (al.
Madurah, or Modera), passing by Maon, el-Kirmel (the
“Carmel” of Nabal’s pasture-ground in 1 Sam. xxv. 2),
and γῶν (Reisen, iii. 10-18).
t A remarkable sandstone mountain on the S.W. plain
near the sea is the Jebel Naktis (“bell”), said to be so
called from the ringing sound made by the sand pouring
over its cliffs (Stewart, 7. & A. 386, comp. Russegger,
Reisen, iii. 277).
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
phatically noticed by travellers. Thus, in construct-
ing recently the mountain road for Abbas Pasha,
“‘the rocks” were found ‘obstinately to resist
even the gunpowder’s blast,’ and the sharp glass-
like edges of the granite soon wear away the work-
men’s shoes and cripple their feet (Hamilton, Sinaz,
the Hedjaz, and Soudan, 17). Similarly, Laborde
says (Comm. on Num. xxxiii. 36): “ In my journey
across that country (from Egypt, through Sinai to
the Ghoér), [had carried from Cairo two pair of shoes ;
they were cut, and my feet came through; when I
arrived at’Akabah, luckily I tound in the magazines
of that fortress two other pair to replace them. On
my return to Sinai, I was barefoot again. Hussein
then procured me sandals half an inch thick, which,
on my arrival in Cairo, themselves were reduced to
nothing, though they had well-preserved my feet.”
Seetzen noticed on Mount St. Catherine that the
granite was ‘ fine-grained and very firm” (iii. 90).
For the area of greatest relief in the surface of the
whole Peninsula, see SINAt, §1,2, 3. The name
Jebel et-Twr includes the whole cluster of moun-
tains from el-Fureia on the N. to Um Shaumer on
the S., and from Misa and ed-Deir on the E. to
Hum’r and Serbal on the W., including St. Cathe-
rine, nearly S.W. of Misa. By “Sinai” is gene-
rally understood the 77] βδα plateau, between the
Wady Ledjad (Stanley, Map) and the Wady
Shueib on its western and north-eastern flanks,
and bounded north-westward by the Wady er-
Raheh, and south-eastward by the Wady Sebayeh
(Sebaiyeh, Stanley, 2b.). The Arabs give the name
of Téir—properly meaning a high mountain (Stan-
ley, S. and P. 8)—to the whole region south of
the Hadj-route from Suez to ’Akabah as far as Ras-
Mohammed (see above, p. 1749, note™), The name
of Tur is also emphatically given to the cultivable
region lying S.W. of the Jebel et-Tir. Its fine
and rich date-palm plantation lies a good way
southwards down the Gulf of Suez. Here opens
on the sea the most fertile wady now to be found
in the Peninsula (Burckhardt, Arab. ii. 362; Well-
sted, ii, 9), receiving all the waters which tow
down the range of Sinai westward ἃ (Stanley, S. and
P19).
III. A most important general question, after
settling the outline of this ‘* wilderness,” is the ex-
tent to which it is capable of supporting animal and
human life, especially when taxed by the consumption
of such flocks and herds as the Israelites took with
them trom Egypt, and probably—though we know
not to what extent this last was supplied by the
manna—by the demand made on its resources by a
host of from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 souls.Y In
1751
answer to this question, “much,” it has been
observed (S. and P, 24), “may be allowed for the
spread of the tribes of Israel far and wide through
the whole Peninsula, and also for the constant
means of support from their own flocks and herds,
Something, too, might be elicited from the undoubted
fact that a population nearly, if not quite, equal to the
whole permanent population of the Peninsula does
actually pass through the desert, in the caravan οἱ
the 5000 African Pilgrims, on their way to Mecca.
But, amongst these considerations, it is important
to observe what indications there may be of the
mountains of Sinai having ever been able to furnish
greater resources than at present. These indications
are well summed up by Ritter (Sinai, pp. 926, 927).
There is no doubt that the vegetation of the wadys
has considerably decreased. In part, this would be an
inevitable effect of the violence of the winter torrents.
The trunks of palm-trees washed up on the shore οὗ
the Dead Sea, trom which the living tree has now
for many centuries disappeared, show what may
have been the devastation produced among those
mountains where the floods, especially in earlier
times, must have been violent to a degree unknown
in Palestine; whilst the peculiar cause—the im-
pregnation of salt—which has preserved the vestiges
of the older vegetation there, has here, of course, no
existence. The traces of such a destruction were
pointed out to Burckhardt (Arab. 538) on the
eastern side of Mount Sinai, as having occurred
within half a century before his visit; also to
Wellsted (ii, 15), as having occurred near Tar in
1832. In part, the same result has followed from
the reckless waste of the Bedouin tribes—reckless
in destroying and careless in replenishing. A fire, a
pipe, lit under a grove of desert trees, may clear
away the vegetation of a whole valley.
«<The acacia * trees have been of late years ruth-
lessly destroyed by the Bedouins for the sake of
charcoal,” which forms “the chief, perhaps it
might be said the only traffic of the Peninsula”
(S. and P, 24). Thus, the clearance of this tree
in the mountains where it abounded once, and
its decrease in the neighbour groups in which it
exists still, is accounted for, since the monks appear
to have aided the devastation, Vegetation, where
maintained, nourishes water and keeps alive its
own life; and no attempts to produce vegetation
anywhere in this desert seem to have failed. ‘ The
gardens at the wells of Moses, under the French
and English agents from Suez, and the gardens in
the valleys of Jebel Masa, under the care of the
Greek monks of the Convent of St. YCatherine,’’ are
conspicuous examples (7. 20). Besides, a traveller
“ The following positions by East longitude from Paris
are given in Seetzen, iii. pt. iii, Anmerk, 414 :—
Suez, 29° 57! 30", Berghaus.
’Akabah, 28° 45', Niebuhr; but 28° 55! by others.
Convent St. Catherine, 28° 36' 40" 5", Seetzen and Zach;
but 31° 37! 54" by Riippell.
Sinai, 28° 4θ'.
Ris Mohammed, 27° 43' 24",
But there must be grave errors in the figures, since Suez
is placed furthest to the east of all the places named,
whereas it lies furthest to the west; also’Akabah lies an
entire degree, by Kiepert’s map, to the east of the Con-
vent, whereas it is here put at less than 9'; and Ras
Mohammed, which lies further to the east than all these
except ’Akabah, is placed to the west of them all.
v Dr. Stanley (S. & P. 24, note 1), following Ewald
(Geschichte, ii. 61, 253, 259, 2nd edit.), says, “the most
recent and the most critical investigation of this (the
Israelitish) history inclines to adopt the numbers of 600,000
(males of the warlike age) as authentic.”
x Dr. Stanley (25) thinks the ark and wooden utensils
of the Tabernacle were of this timber. Seetzen (iii. 109)
saw no trees nearly big enough for such service, and thinks
it more probable that the material was obtained by pur-
chase from travelling caravans ; but it is not clear whether
he thinks that the tree (Mimosa Nilotica) is in this
wilderness below its usual size, or that not this but some-
thing else is the “Shittim-wood”’ of the A. Wis
y So called, but the proper name appears to be τῆς
ἁγίας μεταμορφώσεως, ἵ. 6. the Transfiguration of our
Lord, represented in the great mosaic of Justinian, in
the apse of its church, probably of his age, as is also
the name (Tyrwhitt). The transfer of the body of St.
Catherine thither from Egypt by angels is only one of the
local legends; but its association appears to have pre-
dominated with travellers (Seetzen, iii. pt. iil. 414, 5).
1752
in the 16th century calls the Wady er-Raheh in front
of the Convent, now entirely bare, “a vast green
plain.” In this wilderness, too, abode Amalek,
“the first of the nations,’ powerful enough seri-
ously to imperil the passage of the Israelites
through it, and importantly contributing to subse-
quent history under the monarchy. Besides whom
we have “king Arad the Canaanite, who dwelt in
the south,’ 7. ὁ. apparently on the terrace of moun-
tain overhanging the Ghdr near Masada on the
Dead Sea, in a region now wholly desolate. If his
people were identical with the Amorites or Canaan-
ites of Num. xiv. 43; Deut. i. 44, then, besides
the Amalekites of Ex. xvii. 8, we have one other
host within the limits of what is now desert, who
fought with Israel on equal or superior terms; and,
if they are not identical, we have two such (Num.
xiv. 40-45, xxi. 1, xxxiii. 40; Deut. i. 43, 44).
These must have been ‘something more than a
mere handful of Bedouins. The Egyptian copper-
mines, monuments, and hieroglyphics in Strabit el-
Khadim and the Wady Miighdra, imply a degree
of intercourse between Egypt and the Peninsula” in
a period probably older than the Exodus, ‘ of which
all other traces have long ceased. The ruined
cities of Edom in the mountains east of the ’Arabah,
and the remains and history of Petra itself, indi-
cate a traffic and a population in these remote
regions which now is almost inconceivable” (S. ὁ P.
26). Even the 6th and 7th centuries A.D. showed
traces of habitation, some of which still remain in
ruined cells and gardens, &c., far exceeding the tale
told by present facts. Seetzen, in what is perhaps as
arid and desolate a region as any in the whole
desert, asked his guide to mention all the neigh-
bouring places whose names he knew. He received
a list of sixty-three places in the neighbourhood of
Madirah, Petra, and “Akabah, and of twelve more
in the Ghor es-Saphia, of which total of seventy-
five all save twelve are now abandoned to the
desert, and have retained nothing save their names
—‘‘a proof,” he remarks, ‘‘ that in very early ages
this region was extremely populous, and that the
furious rage with which the Arabs, both before and
after the age of Mahomet, assailed the Greek em-
perors, was able to convert into a waste this
blooming region, extending from the limit of the
Hedjaz to the neighbourhood of Damascus ”’ (Reisen,
iii, 17, 18).
Thus the same traveller in the same journey
(from Hebron to Madiirah) entered a Wady called
el-Jemen, where was no trace of water save moist
spots in the sand, but on making a hole with the
hand it was quickly full of water, good and drink-
able (ib, 13). The same, if saved in a cistern, and
served out by sluices, might probably have clothed
the bare wady with verdure. This is confirmed
by his remark (ibid. 83), that a blooming vegeta-
tion shows itself in this climate wherever there is
water; as well as by the example of the tank
system as practised in Hindostan. He also notices
that there are quicksands in many spots of the
Debbet er-Ramleh, which it is difficult to under-
stand, unless as caused by accumulations of water
(ibid. 67). Similarly in the desert Wady el-
Kudeis between Hebron and Sinai, he found a spot
z Monconys quoted by Stanley, S. and P.
a Seetzen speaks in one place of a few shell-fish being
seen along its southurn shore, Compare Stanley, S. & P.
293. (Spa, THE SALT. ]
» The word Midbar has been examined under the head
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
of quicksand with sparse shrubs growing in it
(ib. 48).
Now the question is surely a pertinent one, as
compared with that of the subsistence of the flocks
and herds of the Israelites during their wanderings,
how the sixty-three perished communities named
by Seetzen’s guide can have supported themselves ?
It is pretty certain that fish cannot live in the
Dead Sea,* nor is there any reason tor thinking that
these extinct towns or villages were in any large
proportion near enough to its waters to avail them-
selves of its resources, even if such existed. To
suppose that the country could ever have supported
extensive coverts for game is to assume the most
difficult of all solutions of the question. The
creatures that find shelter about the rocks, as hares,
antelopes, gazelles, jerbeas, and the lizards that
burrow in the sand (e/-Dsobb), alluded to by this
traveller in several places (iii. 67, comp. pt. iil.
415-442, and Laborde, Comm. on Num. xxxiii. 42),
are far too few, to judge from appearances, to do
more than eke out a subsistence, the staple of which
must have been otherwise supplied ; and the same
remark will apply to such casual windfalls as
swarms of edible locusts, or flights of quails.
Nor can the memory of these places be probably
connected with the distant period when Petra, the
commercial metropolis of the Nabatheans, enjoyed
the carrying trade between the Levant and Egypt
westwards, and the rich communities further east.
There is least of all reason for supposing that by
the produce of mines, or by asphalt gathered from
the Dead Sea, or by any other native commodities,
they can ever have enjoyed a commerce of their
own. Weare thrown back, then, upon the suppo-
sition that they must in some way have supported
themselves from the produce of the soil. And the
produce for which it is most adapted is either that
of the date-palm, or that to which earlier parallels
point, as those of Jethro and the Kenites, and of
the various communities in the southern border of
Judah (Num. xxxiv. 4, 5; Josh. xv. 3,4; 1 Sam.
xxx, 27-31), viz. that of pasturage for flocks and
herds, a possibility which seems solely to depend on
adequately husbanding the water supplied by the
rains. This tallies with the use of the word
7°11), for “ wilderness,” 7. e. “ἃ wide open space,
= |e
with or without actual pasture, the country of the
nomads, as distinguished from that of the agricul-
tural and settled people” (S. and ἢ. 486, App.
89). here seems however to be implied in the
name a capacity for pasturage, whether actually
realized or not. ‘This corresponds, too, with the
“thin,” or rather “ transparent coating of vegeta-
tion,” seen to clothe the greater part of the Sinaitic
wilderness in the present day (#bid. 16, 22), and
which furnishes an initial minimum from which
human fostering hands might extend the prospect
of possible resources up to a point as far in excess
of present facts as were the numbers of the Israel-
itish host above the 6000 Bedouins computed now
to form the population of the desert. As regards
the date-palm, Hasselquist speaks as though it alone
afforded the means of life to some existing Arab
communities. Hamilton (Sinai, §c., 17) says that
of Drserr [vol. i. 429]. ‘The writer of that arucle has
nothing to add to it, except to call attention to the use of
the term in Jer. ii. 1, where the prophet in two words
vives an exact definition of a Midbar: “a land not
sown”? —that is, left to nature. [(.]
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
in his path by the Wady Hebrdn, towards the
modern Sinai, “small clumps of uncultivated
date-trees rise between the granite walls of the
pass, wherever the winter torrents have left suffi-
cient detritus for their nourishment.’ And again,
after describing the pass of the Convent, he con-
tinues, “beneath lies a veritable chaos, through
which now trickles a slender thread of water, where
in winter rushes down a boiling torrent”’* (7.
19). It is hardly too much to aflirm that the
resources of the desert, under a careful economy of
nature’s bounty, might be, to its present means of
subsistence, as that winter torrent’s volume to that
summer streamlet’s slender thread. In the Wady
Hebrdn this trayeller. found ‘‘ a natural bath,”
formed in the granite by the “Ain Hebran, called
“the Christians’ pool” (ib. 17). Two-thirds of
the way up the Jebel Misa he came upon “a
frozen streamlet” (7b. 30); and Seetzen, on the
14th of April, found snow lying about in sheltered
clefts of the Jebel Catharin, where the rays of
the sun could not penetrate (iii. 92). Hamilton
encountered on the Jebel Musa a thunderstorm,
with “ heavy rain” (Sinai, §c., 16). There
seems on the whole no deficiency of precipitation,
Indeed the geographical situation would rather
bespeak a copious supply. Any southerly wind
must bring a fair amount of watery vapour from
the Red Sea, or from one of its expanding arms,
which embrace the Peninsula on either side, like
the blades of a forfex; while at no greater distance
than 140 miles northward roll the waters of the
Mediterranean, supplying, we may suppose, their
quota, which the much lower ranges of the 7th
and Odjme cannot effectually intercept. Nor is
there any such shelter from rain-clouds on either
of the Gulfs of Suez and ’Akabah, as the long line
of mountains on the eastern flank of Egypt, which
screens the rain supply of the former from reaching
the valley of the Nile. On the contrary, the con-
formation of the Peninsula, with the high wedge of
granitic mountains at its core, would rather receive
and condense the vapours from either gulf, and
precipitate their bounty over the lower faces of
mountain and troughs of wady, interposed between
it and the sea. It is much to be regretted that
the low intellectual condition of the monks ἃ forbids
any reasonable hope οἵ adequate meteorological
observations to check these merely probable argu-
ments with reliable statements of fact; but in
the absence of any such register, it seems only fair
to take reasonable probabilities fully into view.
Yet some significant facts are not wanting to
redeem in some degree these probabilities from the
ground of mere hypothesis. ‘‘ In two of the great
wadys’’ which break the wilderness on the coast
of the Gulf of Suez, “ Ghirtndel, and Useit, with
its continuation of the Wddy Tayibeh, tracts of
vegetation are to be found in considerable luxuri-
e There is no mistaking the enormous amount of rain
which must fall on the Desert and run off uselessly into
the sea. In February all the wadys had evidently had
strong torrents down, and all across them from hill-side
to hill-side. The whole surface of wide valleys was
marked and ribbed like the bed of a stony and sandy
stream in England. The great plain of Murkhah was in-
tersected in all directions by these torrents, draining
the mountains about Nuwkb Badera. So all the wadys,
wherever there was a decided fall. Major Macdonald
(engaged at present in superintending the working of a
turquoise bed at Swrdbit el-Khadim) said that after a
sudden storm in the hills to the N., he had from two to
1753
ance.” The wadys leading down from the Sinai range
to the Gulf of Akabah ‘‘ furnish the same testi-
mony, ina still greater degree,” as stated by Riip-
pell, Miss Martineau, Dr. Robinson, and Burckhardt.
“In three spots, however, in the desert . . . this
vegetation is brought by the concurrence of the
general contiguration of the country to a still higher
pitch. By tar the most remarkable collection of
springs is that which renders the clusters of the
Jebel Misa the chief resort of the Bedouin tribes
during the summer heats, Four abundant sources
in the mountains immediately above the Convent
of St. Catherine must always have made that
region one of the most frequented of the desert. . .
Oases (analogous to that of Ammon in the western
desert of the Nile) are to be found wherever the
waters trom the different wadys or hills, whether
from winter streams or from such living springs as
have just been described, converge to a common
reservoir. One such oasis in the Sinaitie desert
seems to be the palm-grove of El-Wady at Tur,
described by Burckhardt as so thick that he could
hardly find his way through it (S. and P. 19, note
1; see Burckh. Arab. ii. 362), The other and the
more important is the Wady Feirdn, high up in
the table-land of Sinai itself (S. and P. 18, 19).”
Now, what nature has done in these favoured spots
might surely be seconded ὁ in others by an ample
population, familiarized, to some extent, by their
sojourn in Egypt with the most advanced agricul-
tural experience of the then world, and guided by
an able leader who knew the country, and found
in his wife’s family others who knew it even better
than he (Num. x. 31), It is)thus supposable that
the language of Ps. cvii. 35-38, is based on no
mere pious imagery, but on actual fact: ‘“ He
turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and
dry ground into water-springs. And there He
maketh the hungry to dwell, that they may prepare
a city for habitation; and sow the fields and plant
vineyards, which may yield fruits of increase. He
blesseth them so that they are multiplied greatly ;
and suffereth not their cattle to decrease.’ And
thus we may find an approximate basis of reality
for the enhanced poetic images of Isaiah (ali. 19,
ly. 13). Palestine itself affords abundant tokens of
the resources of nature so husbanded, as in the artifi-
cial “terraces of which there are still traces to the
very summits” of the mountains, and some of
which still, in the Jordan valley, ‘‘ are occupied by
masses of vegetation” (S. and P, 138, 297). In
favoured spots wild luxuriance testifies to the
extent of the natural resources, as in the wadys of
the coast, and in the plain of Jericho, where ‘* far
and wide extends the green circle of tangled
thickets, in the midst of which are the hovels of
the modern village, beside which stood, in ancient
times, the great city of Jericho” (db. 306). From
this plain alone, a correspondent of the British
three feet of water running furiously through his tents
for three hours, in Wady Maghara. Common industry in
digging tanks would make all the wadys “ blossom as the
rose’ ('yrwhitt).
ἃ See Dr. Stanley’s estimate of the inmates of the con-
vent (S. & P. 55, 56).
e Nay, it is possible that such works had already to
‘some extent been undertaken on account of the mining
colonies which certainly then existed at Wady Mughdara
and Strabit el-Khadim, and were probably supported on
the produce of the country, not sent on camels from
Egypt (Lyrwhitt).
1754.
Consul at Jaffa asserts that he could feed the whole
population of modern Syria (Cotton Supply Re-
porter, June 14, 1862). But a plantation redeemed
from the wilderness is ever in the position of a
besieged city ; when once the defence of the human
garrison is withdrawn, the fertility stimulated by
its agency must obviously perish by the invasion
of the wild. And thus we may probably suppose
that, from numberless tracts, thus temporarily
rescued from barrenness, in situations only mode-
rately favourable, the traces of verdure have van-
ished, and the desert has reclaimed its own; or
that there the soil only betrays its latent capacity
by an unprofitable dampness of the sand.
Seetzen, on the route trom Hebron to Sinai, after
describing an “ immense flinty plain,” the “ dreariest
and most desolate solitude,” observes that, ‘¢ as soon
as the rainy season is over and the warm weather sets
in, the pits (of rain-water) dry up, and it becomes
uninhabitable,” as “there are no brooks or springs
here” (iii. 55, 56). Dr. Stewart (The Tent and
the Khan, 14, 15) says of the Wady Ahthi, which
he would identify with Etham (Ex. xiii. 20; Num.
xxxili. 6), ‘* sand-hills of considerable height sepa-
rate it from the sea, and prevent the winter rains
from running off rapidly. A considerable deposit
of rich alluvial loam is the result, averaging from
2 to 4 inches in thickness, by sowing upon which
immediately after the rains the Bedouins could cer-
tainly reap a profitable harvest ; but they affect to
despise all agricultural labour. . Yet,” he adds,
‘the region never could have supplied food by its
own natural vegetation for so great a multitude of
flocks and herds as followed in the train of the
Israelites.” This seems rather a precipitate sen-
tence; for one can hardly tell what its improved
condition under ancient civilization may have
yielded, from merely seeing what it now is, after
being overrun for centuries by hordes of contemptu-
ous Bedouins. Still, as regards the general ques-
tion, we are not informed what numbers of cattle
followed the Israelites ont of Egypt. We only
know that “flocks and herds” went with them,
were forbidden to graze “before the mount”
(Sinai), and shared the fortunes of the desert with
their owners. It further appears that, at the end
of the forty years’ wandering, two tribes and a half
were the chief, perhaps the only, cattle-masters.
And, when we consider how greatly the long and
sore bondage of Egypt must have interfered with
their favourite pursuit during the eighty years of
Moses’ life before the Exodus, it seems reasonable
to think that in the other tribes only a few would
have possessed cattle on leaving Egypt. The notion
of a people “scattered abroad throughout all the
land of Egypt” (Ex. v. 12), in pursuit of wholly
different and absorbing labour, being able generally
to maintain their wealth as sheep-masters is
obviously absurd. It is therefore supposable that
Reuben, Gad, and a portion of Manasseh had, by
remoteness of local position, or other favourable
circumstances to us unknown, escaped the oppres-
sive consequences to their flocks and herds which
must have generally prevailed. We are not told
that the lambs at the first passover were obtained
from the flock of each family, but only that they were
bidden to ““ draw out and take a lamb for an house”
—a direction quite consistent in many, perhaps in
most cases, with purchase. Hence it is probable
that these two tribes and a half may have been the
chief cattle-masters first as well as last. If they
had enough cattle to find their pursuit in tending
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING -
them, and the others had not, economy would dictate
a transfer; and the whole multitude of cattle would
probably fare better by such an arrangement than
by one which left a few head scattered up and
down in the families of different, tribes. Nor is
there any reason to think that the whole of the
forty years’ sojourn was spent. in such locomotion
as marks the more continuous portion of the narra-
tive. The great gap in the record of events left
by the statement of Deut. i. 46, ‘* Ye abode in
Kadesh many days,” may be filled up by the sup-
position of quarters established in a favourable
site, and the great bulk of the whole time may
have been really passed in such stationary encamp-
ments. And here, if two tribes and a half only were
occupied in tending cattle, some resource of labour,
to avoid the embarrassing temptations of idleness -
in a host so large and so disposed to murmur,
would be, ina human sense, necessary. Nor can
any so probable an occupation be assigned to the
remaining nine and a half tribes, as that of drawing
from the wilderness whatever contributions it
might be made to afford. From what they had
seen in Egypt, the work of irrigation would be
familiar to them, and from the prospect before
them in Palestine the practice would at some time
become necessary: thus there were on the whole
the soundest reasons for not allowing their expe-
rience, if possible, to lapse. And, irrigation being
supposed, there is little, if any, difficulty in sup-
posing its results; to the spontaneousness of which
ample testimony, from various travellers, has
been cited above. At any rate it is unwise to
decide the question of the possible resources of the
desert from the condition to which the apathy and
fastidiousness of the Bedouins have reduced it in
modern times. On this view, while the purely
pastoral tribes would retain their habits unim-
paired, the remainder would acquire some slight
probation in those works of the field which were to
form the staple industry of their future country.
But, if any one still insists that the produce of the
desert, however supposably improved, could never
have yielded support for al/ “the flocks and
herds”—utterly indefinite as their number is—
which were carried thither; this need not invali-
date the present argument, much less be deemed
inconsistent with the Scriptural narrative. There
is nothing in the latter to forbid our supposing
that the cattle perished in the wilderness by hun-
dreds or by thousands. Even if the words of
Ps, evii. 38 be taken in a sense literally historical,
they need mean no move than that, by the time
they reached the borders of Palestine, the number
so lost had, by a change of favourable circum-
stances, been replaced, perhaps even by capture
from the enemy, over whom God, and not their own
sword, had given them the victory. All that is
contended. for is, that the resources of the wilder-
ness “were dowels utilized to the utmost, and
that the flocks and herds, so far as they survived,
were so kept alive. What those resources might
amount to, is perhaps nearly as indefinite an in-
quiry as what was the number of the cattle. The
difficulty would ** find its level ” by the diminution
of the latter till it fell within the limits of the
former; and in this balanced state we must be
content to leave the question.
Nor ought it to be left out of view, in consider-
ing any arguments regarding the possible change in
the character of the wilderness, that Egyptian
policy certainly lay, on the whole, in favour of
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
extending the desolation to their own frontier on
the Suez side; for thus they would gain the surest
protection against invasion on their most exposed
border ; and as Egypt rather aimed at the develop-
ment of a high internal civilization than an exten-
sion of influence by foreign conquest, such a desert
frontier would be to Egy pt a cheap defence. Thus
we may assume that the Pharaohs, at any rate
after the rise of the Assyrian empire, would discern
their interest and would act upon it, and that the
felling of wood and stopping of wells, and the obli-
teration, wherever possible, of oases, would sys-
tematically make the Peninsula untenable to a
hostile army descending from the N.E. or the N.
IV. It remains to trace, so far as possible, the track
pursued by the host, bearing in mind the limita-
tion before stated, that a variety of converging or
parallel routes must often have been required to
allow of the passage of so great a number. Assum-
ing the passage of the Red Sea to have been effected
at some spot N. of the now extreme end of the
Gulf of Suez, they would march from their point
of landing a little tothe E. of S. Here they were
in the wilderness of Shur, and in it ‘ they went |
three days and found no water.” The next point
mentioned is Marah. The’ Ain el-Hawara has been
thought by most travellers since Burckhardt’s time
to be Marah. Between it and the’ Aydin Musa the
plain is alternately gravelly, stony, and sandy,
while under the range of Jebel Warddn (a branch
of et- Tih) chalk and flints are found. There is no
water on the direct line of route (Robinson, i.
87-98). Hawdra stands in the lime and gypsum
region which lines the eastern shore of the Gulf of
Suez at its northern extremity. Seetzen (Reisen,
iii. 117) describes the water as salt, with purgative
qualities; but adds that his Bedouins and their
camels drank of it. He argues, from its incon-
siderable size, that it could not be the Marah of
Moses. ‘This, however, seems an inconclusive rea-
son. [MARAuH.] It would not be too near the point
of Janding assumed, as above, to be to the N. of
the Ayn Misa, nor even, as Dr, Stewart argues
(p. 55), too near for a landing at the “Ayin Misa |
itself,f when we consider the incumbrances which
would delay the host, and, especially whilst they were
new to the desert, prevent rapid marches. But the
whole region appears to abound in brackish or
bitter springs (Seetzen, ibid. iii. 117, &e. ; Anmerk.
430). For instance, about 12 hour nearer Suez
than the Wady Ghiurindel (which Lepsius took for
Marah, but which Niebuhr and Robinson regard as
more probably Elim), Seetzen (ibid. iii. 113; 114)
found a Wady &Ta/, with a salt spring and a salt
crust on the surface τ its bed, the same, he thinks,
as the spot where Niebuhr speaks of finding rock-
1755
salt. This corresponds in general proximity with
Marah, The neighbouring region is described
as a low plain girt with limestone hills, or more
rarely chalk. For the consideration of the miracle
of sweetening the waters, see MARAH. On this
first section of their desert-march, Dr. Stanley
(S. and P. 37) remarks, ‘* There can be no dispute
as to the general track of the Israelites after the
passage (of the Red Sea). If they were to enter
the mountains at all, they must continue in the
route of all travellers, between the sea and the
table-land of the Tih, till they entered the low hills
of Ghirindel, According to the view taken of the
scene of the passage, Marah may either be at
‘the springs of Moses, or else at Hawara or
Ghiuitindel.”” He adds in a note, “ Dr. Graul,
however, was told . . . of a spring near Zih el-
Amara, right (7. e. south) of Hawara, so bitter
that neither men nor camels could drink of it.
From hence the road goes straight to Wady
Ghirindel.” Seetzen also inclines to view favour-
ably the identification of e/-Amdra with Marah.
He gives it the title of a “* wady,” and precisely on
this ground rejects the pretensions of el-Hawdra
as being no “ wady,” but only a brook ; » whereas,
from the statement ‘‘ they encamped” at Marah,
Marah must, he argues, have been a wady.i It
seems certain, however, that Wady Ghiurtindel—
whether it be Marah, as Lepsius and (although
doubtfully) Seetzen thought, or Elim as Niebuhr,
Robinson, and Kruse—must have lain on the line of
march, and almost equally certain that it furnished
acamping station. In this wady Seetzen found more
trees, shrubs, and bushes than he anywhere else
saw in his journey from Sinai to Suez. He parti-
cularizes several date-palms and many tamarisks,
and notes that the largest quantity of the vegetable
manna, now to be found anywhere in the Peninsula,
is gathered here (iii. 116) from the leaves of the
last-named tree, which here grows ‘‘ with gnarled
boughs and hoary head; the wild acacia, tangled
by its desert growth into a thicket, also shoots out
its grey foliage and white blossoms over the desert”
(Stanley, S. and P. 68). The ‘‘ scenery” in this
region becomes ‘‘a succession of watercourses’ *
(ibid.); and the Wady Tayibeh, connected with
Ghirindel by Useit,| is so named from the goodly
water and vegetation which it contains. These
three wadys encompass on three sides the Jebel
Hummdm; the sea, which it precipitously over-
hangs, being on the fourth. To judge from the con-
figuration as given in the maps, there seems no
reason why all three should not have combined to
form Elim, or at any rate, as Dr. Stanley (bid. )
suggests, two of them. Only, from Num. xxxiii.
9, 10, as Elim appears not to have been on the sea,
f Dr. Aitoun, quoted by Dr. Stewart ᾳ. c.), if seems,
denies this.
& In the Wady Tal were found date-palms, wild trunk-
less tamarisks, and the white-flowering broom; also a small,
sappy growth, scarce a hand high, called el Szemmhh by
the Bedouins, which, when dried, is pounded by them and
mixed with wheat for bread. It has a saltish-sour taste,
and is a useful salad herb, belonging to the order Mesem-
bryanthemum, Linn. (Seetzen, ibid.).
h Yet he apparently allows as possible that Marah may
be found in a brook observed by Fiirer a little to the N.
of Ghitrindel (iii. 117).
i There is, however, a remarkable difference between
the indication of locality given by Seetzen to this wady,
and the position ascribed to the 7th el-Amdra, as above.
For Seetzen (or rather Dr. Kruse, commenting on his |
journal) says, Robinson passed the wady two hours nearer
Suez than Hawédra, and therefore so far to the north, not
south, of it (Reisen, iii. pt. iii. 430-1). Hence it is possible
that the Tih and the Wady el- Amara may be distinct locali-
ties, and the common name result from the common pro-
perty of a briny or bitter spring. Kiepert’s map (in Robin-
son, vol. i.) gives the two names Amara and Hawdra close
together, the former a little, but less than a mile, to the N.
k So Dr. Kruse notices that Dr. Robinson’s Arabs who
camped in Ghiriindel found, at half an hour’s distance
from their camping ground, a flowing brook and copious
fountains, such as they hitherto nowhere found in the
peninsula (Seetzen, iii. pt. iii. 430).
1 Robinson (i. 69) says that near this wady hot sul-
phureous springs were visited by Niebuhr, and are de-
scribed by Russegger.
1756
we must suppose that the encampment, if it ex-
tended into three wadys, stopped short of their
seaward extremities. The Israelitish host would
scarcely find in all three more than adequate
ground for their encampment. Beyond (7. e. to
the S.E. of Ghitrtindel), the ridges and spurs of
limestone mountain push down to the sea, across
the path along the plain (Robinson, i. 70, and
Map).
This portion of the question may be summed up
by presenting, in a tabular form, the views of some |
leading travellers or annotators, on the site of
Elim :—-
Wady Wady Some warm springs
Ghirindel. Usett. north of Tar, which
eee feed the rich date- |
Niebuhr, One or Laborde plantations of the
Robinson, both, ‘possibly,’ convent there,
Kruse. Stanley. Robinson Seetzen.
[By Lepsius ((. 12).
identified
with Marah.]
Dr. Kruse (Anmerk. 418) singularly takes the
words of Ex. xy. 27, “they encamped there (in
Elim) by the waters,” as meaning “ by the sea;”
whereas, from Num. xxxiii. 9, 10, it appears they
did not reach the sea till a stage further, although
their distance from it previously had been but
small.
From Elim, the next stage brought the people
again to the sea. This fact, and the enviable posi-
tion in respect of water supply, and consequent
great fertility, enjoyed by Tér on the coast, would
make it seem probable that Tir was the locality
intended; but as it lies more than seventy miles,
in a straight line, from the nearest probably assign-
able spot for Elim, such a distance makes it a
highly improbable site for the next encampment.
The probable view is that their seaside camp was
fixed much nearer tothe group of wadys viewed as
embracing Elim, perhaps in the lower part of the
Wady Tayibeh, which appears to have a point of
juncture with the coast (Stanley, S. and P. 38).
The account in Ex. xvi. knows nothing of this en-
campment by the sea, but brings the host at once
into “ the wilderness of Sin ;’’ but we must bear
in mind the general purpose of recording, not the
people’s history so much as God’s dealings with
them, and the former rather as illustrative of the
latter, and subordinate thereto. The evident de-
sign however, in Num. xxxiii. being, to place on
record their itinerary, this latter is to be esteemed
as the locus classicus on any topographical ques-
tions, as compared with others having a less special
relation to the track. The “‘ wilderness of Sin’’ is
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
an appellation no doubt representing some natural
feature, and none more probably than the alluvial
plain, which, lying at the edge of the sea, about
the spot we now regard them as having reached
begins to assume a significant appearance. The
modern name for this is el-Kda, identitied by
Seetzen™ with this wilderness (iii. pt. iii. 412).
Dr. Stanley ® calls el-Kda, at its initial point, ‘ the
plain of Murkhah,’ and thinks it is probably this
wilderness. Lower down the coast this plain ex-
pands into the broadest in the Peninsula, and some-
where in the still northern portion of it we must
doubtless place the ‘‘ Dophkah”’® and “ Alush” of
Num. xxxiii. 12-14.
In the wilderness of Sin occurred the first mur-
muring for food, and the first tall of manna. The
modern confection sold under that name is the ex-
udation collected from the leaves of the tamarisk
tree (tamariz Orientalis, Linn., Arab. tarfa, Heb.
opis) only in the Sinaitic valleys, and in no great
abundance.P_ If it results from the punctures made
in the leaf by an insect (the coccus manniparus,
Ehrenberg) in the course of June, July, and
August, this will not suit the time of the
people’s entering the region “ on the fifteenth day
of the second month after” their departure from
Egypt (Ex. xvi. 1-8). It is said to keep as a
hardened syrup for years (Laborde, Comment.
Geogr. on Ex, xvi. 13, 14), and thus does ποῦ an-
swer to the more striking characteristics described
in Ex, xvi. 14-26. [Manna.] Seetzen thought
that the gum Arabic, an exudation of the acacia,
was the real manna of the Israelites; ὦ, 6, Seetzen
regards the statement of “ bread from heaven” as
a fiction (Reisen, ili. 75-79). A caravan of a
thousand persons is said by Hasselquist ( Voyages,
&c., Materia Medica, 298, transl. ed. 1766) to
have subsisted solely on this substance for two
months. In the same passage of Ex. (v. 13) quails
are first mentioned.
In most portions of the earlier route it is more
important to show the track than to fix the sta-
tions ; and such an indication only can be looked
for where nothing beyond the name of the latter is
recorded. Supposing now that the alluvial plain,
where it first begins to broaden to a significant size,
is “the wildemess of Sin,” all further questions,
till we come to Sinai, turn on the situation assigned
to Rephidim. If, as seems most likely, Rephidim
be found at Fetran | REPHIDIM |, it becomes almost
certain that the track of the host lay to the north
of Serbd/,4 a magnificent five-peaked mountain,
which some have thought to be Sinai, and which be-
comes first visible at the plain of Murkhah. [Sin al. ]
™ He calls it the Wilderness of Sir, but this is plainly
a misprint for Sin.
n His map, however, omits the name el-Kaa. Robinson
thinks the wilderness of Sin is the maritime plain south-
east of Murkhah, but not certainly including the latter.
ο Seetzen thought that Dophkah might possibly be re-
traced in the name of a place in this region, el Tobbacha
(Kruse), For Alush there is no conjecture.
p Seetzen compares it to the round beads obtained from |
the mastich ; and says it is used as a purgative in Upper
Egypt, and that it is supposed to be brought out by the
great effect of heat on a sandy soil, since in Syria and |
elsewhere this tree has not the product.
4 Dr. Stanley notices that possibly, viewing Ghiriundel
(or Useit, which lies beyond it, from Suez) as Elim, the
host may have gone to the latter (the further point), and
then have turned back to the lower part of Ghiurtindel,
and there pitched by the “ Red Sea.” Then, he further
remarks, it was open to them to take a northern course
for Sinai (Jebel Misa), avoiding Serbal and Feiran alto-
gether (S. ὦ P. 38). But all this, he adds, seems “ not
likely.” That route passes by Surdbit el-Khadim to the
Jebel Misa. Robinson, who went by this way, conjec-
tured that el-Khidim was a place of pilgrimage to the
ancient Egyptians, and might have been the object of
Moses’ proposed journey of “ three days into the wilder-
ness” (i, 79). The best account of this locality by far,
which the present contributor has met with, is that in
the MS referred to at the end of this article. The
writer dwells especially on the immense remains of min-
ing operations, refuse of fuel, metal, &c., to be seen
there; also on the entrenched camp at Mighdra, dis-
covered recently by Major Macdanald, evidently a work
of great labour and of capacity for a large garrison.
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
The tabernacle was not yet set up, nor the order of
march organized, as subsequently (Num. x. 10,
&e.), hence the words ‘track’? or ‘‘ route,’ as
indicating a line, can only be taken in the most
wide and general sense. ‘lhe road slowly rises be-
tween the coast and Feirdn, which has an elevation
of just half the highest peak of the whole cluster.
Feiran must have been gained by some road striking
off from the sea-coast, like the Wady Mohatteb,
which is now the usual route from Cairo thither,
perhaps by several parallel or converging lines.
Those who reject Feiran for Rephidim will have
the onus of accounting for such a fruitful and
blooming spot as, from its position, it must always
have been, being left out of the route, and of find-
ing some other site for Rephidim, Possibly Tur
itself might be Rephidim, but then not one of the
sites generally discussed for Sinai will suit. It
seems better then to take Meirdn, or the adjacent
valley of es-Sheykh in connexion with it, for kephi-
dim. The water may have been produced in one,
and the battle have taken place in the other, of
these contiguous localities; and the most direct way
of reaching them from el-Murkhah (the “ wilder-
ness of Sin”) will be through the wadys Shellah
and Mokatteb. Dr. Stanley, who suggests the
road by the S. of Serbal, through Wady Hebran*
(Robinson, i. 95), as also a possible route to Sinai
(S. and P, 38, 4), and designates it “ the southern”
one, omits to propose any alternative station for
Rephidim; as he also does in the case of “the
northern” route being accepted. That route has
been already mentioned [page 1576, note 41, but is
of too remote a probability to require being here
taken into view. The Wady Mokatteb, the ‘“ writ-
ten,’ as its name imports, contains the largest
number of inscriptions known as the Sinaitic. They
are scratched on the friable surface of the sand-
stone masses which dot the valley on either side,
some so high as to have plainly not been executed
without mechanical aid and great deliberation.
They are described or noticed by Dr. Robinson,
Burckhardt, Laborde, Seetzen, and others, but
especially by Dr. Stanley (S. and P. 57-62). [See
on this subject SINAT, notes πὶ and °, |
V. Besides the various suggestions regarding
Horeb and Sinai given under SINAI, one occurs in
Dr. Kruse’s Anmerkungen on Seetzen, which is
worth recording here. Seetzen approached the Jebel
Misa from the N., a little W., by a route which
seems to have brought him into the region through
which Dr. Robinson approached it from the N.W.
On this Dr. Kruse remarks, ‘‘ Horeb lay in the
plain of Rephidim . . . a day’s march short of (vor)
Sinai, on a dry plain, which was extensive enough
for a camping-ground, with a rock-fountain struck
by Moses from the rock. This distance just hits
the plain es-Sheb (Seheb, Kiepert’s Map), which
Robinson entered before reaching the foremost
ridge of Sinai, and suits the peaked mountain e/-
Orf, in the highest point of this plain. That
this plain, too, is large enough for fighting in (as
1757
mentioned Ex. xvii. 9), is plain from Robinson’s
statement (i. 141) of a combat between two tribes
which took place there some years before his visit.
tobinson, from this rocky peak, which I took for
Horeb, in 13 hour reached the spring Gurbch, pro-
bably the one the opening of which was ascribed to
Moses, and thence in another hour came to the
steep pass Wikb Hawy, to mount which he took
24 hours, and in 21 hours more, crossing the plain
er-Raheh, arrived at the convent at the foot of Sinai.
Seetzen’s Arabs gave the name of Orribe * to a moun-
tain reached before ascending the pass, no doubt the
same as Robinson’s e/-Orf and the Horeb of Holy
Writ” (Reisen, iii. pt. iii. 422; comp. 414). He
seeks to reconcile this with Ex. xxxiii. 6, which de-
scribes the people, penitent after their disobedience
in the matter of the golden calf, as “ stripping them-
selves of their ornaments by the Mount Horeb,” by
supposing that they were by Moses led back again t
from Sinai, where God had appeared to him, and
immediately below which they had encamped, to
Horeb in the plain of Rephidim. But this must
have been a day’s journey backward, and of such a
retrograde movement the itinerary in Num. xxxiil.
14,15, 16, has no trace. On the contrary, it says,
“they removed from the desert of Sinai and pitched
in Kibroth Hattaavah.” Now, although they stayed
a year in the wilderness of Sinai (Ex. xix. 1; Num.
x. 11, 12), and need not be supposed to have had
but one camping station all the time, yet Rephidim
clearly appears to lie without the limits of that
wilderness (Ex. xvii. 1, xix. 1, 2; Num. xxxiil. 15),
and a return thither, being a departure from those
limits, might therefore, we should expect, be no-
ticed, if it took place; even though all the shiftings
of the camp within the wilderness of Sinai might
not be set down in the itinerary. Under SINAI an
attempt is made to reconcile the “ rock in Horeb ”
at Rephidim with a “ Mount Horeb” (the same, in
fact, as Sinai, though with a relative difference of
view), by regarding “ Horeb” as a designation de-
scriptive of the ground, applicable, through simi-
larity of local features, to either. If this be not
admitted, we may perhaps regard the Wady es-
Sheykh, a crescent concave southwards, whose
western horn joins Wady Feirdn, and whose
eastern finds a south-eastern continuation in the
plain er-Raheh (leading up to Jebel Misa, the
probable Sinai), as the Horeb proper. This con-
tains a rock called traditionally the “seat of Moses ”
(Schubert, Reisen, ii. 356). And this is to some
extent confirmed by the fact that the wady which
continues the plain er-Raheh to the N.W., forming
with the latter a slightly obtuse angle, resumes the
name of es-Sheykh. If we may suppose the name
“ Horeb,” though properly applied to the crescent
Wady es-Sheykh, which joins Feiran, to have had
such an extension as would embrace er-Rda/eh, then
the ‘rock in Horeb” might be a day’s journey
from the “ Mount (of) Horeb.”* This view, it may
be observed, does not exclude that just referred to
under SrvaI, but merely removes it from resting
" Through the wilderness of Kéa (from its northern
border) to the opening of Wady Hebran into it is δὲ hours’
journey. The manna tamarisk is found there ; and some
birds, called by Dr. Kruse “ Wiistenhiihnern,” which ke ap-
pears to think might be the quails ofScripture. Seetzen in
his journal plainly sets down the “ quails’ as being wholly
a mistake for locusts (Reisen, iii. pt. iii. 413, comp. 80).
s “Two hardly distinguishable mountains on either
side of the way (from the Wady Beitzaran) were named
Orribe and Freuech”’ ( Reisen, iii. 69).
t He thinks the reason why they were thus counter-
manded was because “ Horeb” was better supplied with
water, but he does not show that the “spring Gurbeh”’
adequately meets this cordition (7b. 422).
u The expression a7n WD in Ex. xxxiii. 6 may
probably be, like the expression O° 2Ni7 “WI, iii. 1,
and that of mm “WA, Josh, xxi, 11, &c., two nouns
in regimen, the ‘mount of Horeb.”
1758
on the sense there proposed for ‘* Horeb” (ann),
as a local appellative, to more general grounds.
But whatever may be the case with other sacred
localities, the identification of Sinai itself will pro-
bably never be free from obscurity. We seem to
have adequate information regarding all the eminent
mountains within the narrow compass to which our
choice is reduced, and of all the important passes.
Nor is it likely that any fresh clue of trustworthy
local tradition will be unravelled, or any new light
thrown on the text of the Scriptural statements.
Somewhere in the granitic nucleus of lofty mountain-
crests the answer, doubtless, lies.” For the grounds
on which a slight preponderance of probability rests |
in favour of the Jebel Miusa,* see SINAI. But
even that preponderance mainly rests on the view
that the numbers ascribed in our present text to the
host of Israel are trustworthy. If further criticism
should make this more doubtful than it now is,
that will have the probable effect of making the
question more vague rather than more clear than
it is at present. “This degree of uncertainty is a
great safecuard for the real reverence due to the
place. As it is, you may rest on your general
conviction and be thankful” (S. δ᾽ P. 76). The
tradition which has consecrated the Jebel Musa
can, we know, be traced to its source in a late year.
It has the taint of modernism and the detective
witness of the older tradition of Serba/. Dr. Stanley
thinks it ‘“‘ doubtful whether the scene of the giving
of the Law, as we now conceive it, ever entered
into the minds of those who fixed the traditional
site. The consecrated peak of the Jebel Musa was
probably revered simply as the spot where Moses
saw the vision of God, without reference to any
more general event” (8. ὁ P. 76), and this is
likely to have been equally true of Serbdl before
it. The Eastern mind seized on the spot as one
of devout contemplation by the one retired saint;
the Western searches for a scene which will bring
the people perceptibly into the region of that
Presence which the saint beheld.
Certain vivid impressions left on the minds of
travellers seem to bespeak such remarkable features
for the rocks of this cluster, and they are generally
so replete with interest, that a few leading details
of the aspect of principal mountains may find place
here. Approaching the granitic nucleus from the
N. side, Seetzen found himself ‘* ever between two
high wild and naked cliffs of granite.” ΑἸ] possible
forms of mountains blended in the view of the
group, conical and pointed, truncated, serrated, and
rounded (feisen, iii. 69,67). Immediately previous
to this he had been upon the perpendicular sand-
stone cliffs, which in e/-Dilla/ bounded the sandy
plain er-Ramleh on the eastern side, whilst similar
steep sandstone cliffs lay on the N. and N.W. On
a nearer view small bright quartz-grit (Quarz-
hiesel), of whitish-yellow and reddish hue, was ob-
served in the coarse-grained sandstone. Dr. Stanley,
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
approaching from the N.W., from Wady Shellal,
through Wadys Sidri and Feiran, found the rocks
of various orders more or less interchanged and
intermixed. In the first, “red tops resting on dark-
green bases closed the prospect in front,’ doubtless
both of granite. Contrast with this the description
of Jebel Masa, as seen from Mount St. Catherine
(ibid. 77), ““ the reddish granite of its lower mass,
ending in the grey green granite of the peak itself.”
Wady Sidri lies “ between red granite mountains
descending precipitously on the sands,” but just in
the midst of it the granite is exchanged for sand-
stone, which last forms the rock-tablets of the
Wady Mokatteb, lying in the way to Wady Fetran.
This last is full of ‘ endless windings,” and here
“‘ began the curious sight of the mountains, streaked
from head to foot, as if with boiling streams of
dark red matter poured over them, the igneous
fluid squirted upwards as they were heaved from
the ground.” . . . “The colours tell their own
story, of chalk and limestone and sandstone and
granite.” Besides these, ‘* huge cones of white clay
and sand are at intervals planted along these
mighty watercourses (the now dry wadys), appa-
rently the original alluvial deposit of some tre-
mendous antediluvian torrent, left there to stiffen
into sandstone” (71). The Wady Feirdn is
bounded southwards by the Jebel Nediyeh and the
Jebel Serbaél, which extend westwards to the mari-
time plain, and eastward to the Sinaitic group, and
on whose further or southern side lies the widest
part of el-Kda, previously noticed as the “ Wilder-
ness of Sin.” Seetzen remarks that Jebel Feiran
is not an individual mountain, but, like Sinai, a
conspicuous group (Reisen, iii. 107; comp. pt. ili.
413).
Serbal rises from a lower level than the Sinaitic
group, and so stands out more fully. Dr. Stewart’s
account of its summit confirms that of Burekhardt.
The former mounted from the northern side a
narrow plateau at the top of the easternmost peak.
A block of grey granite crowns it and several con-
tiguous blocks form one or two grottoes, and a
circle of loose stones rests in the narrow plateau at
the top (The Tent and the Khan, 117, 118). The
“five peaks,” to which “ in most points of view it
is reducible, at first sight appear inaccessible, but
are divided by steep ravines filled with fragments
of fallen granite.” Dr. Stanley mounted “ over
smooth blocks of granite to the top of the third or
central peak,” amid which “ innumerable shrubs,
like sage or thyme, grew to the very summit.”
Here, too, his ascent was assisted by loose stones
arranged by human hands. The peak divides into
ἐς two eminences,” on “ the highest of which, as on
the back of some petrified tortoise, you stand, and
overlook the whole peninsula” (S. δ᾽ P. 71, 72).
Russegger says “the stone of the peak of Serbal is
porphyry” (Reisen, iii. 276). Dr. Stewart men-
tions the extensive view from its summit of the
mountains “which arise from the western shore of
v The Tabula Peutingeraria gives in the interior of the
Sinaitic peninsula a wilderness indicated as ‘ desertum
ubi xL. annos erraverunt filii Israelis ducente Moyse,” and
marks therein a three-peaked mountain, with the words,
“hic legem acceperunt in monte Syna.” Dr. Kruse thinks
the “three peaks” mean Sinai (i.e. the Jebel Misa), |
Ag. Epistemé and the Jebel Hum’r (Seetzen, Reisen, iii. |
pt. iii. 421). q
x Dr. Kruse says, “ This highest 5.1, point of Sinai is
indisputably the ‘mountain of the Lord’ of Holy Writ, |
the modern Mount St. Catherine. The N.W. part of Sinai |
is, however, now named Chorif by the monks, not by the
Arabs, probably in order to combine Horeb with Sinai, by
which name they denote the most south-easterly point.
The ‘plain’ or ‘ wilderness’ of Sinai can be nothing else
than the high plain situated on the northern steep de-
clivity surrounded by the three before-named peaks of
Sinai, the opposite plateau of Jebel Fureid, and E. and W.
some low ridges. It is now called the plain Réheh, and is,
according to Robinson’s measurement, quite large enough
to hold two millions of Israelites, who here encamped
together” (ibid. 422).
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
the Gulf of ’Akabah,” seen in the N.E., and of the
Sinaitic range, “closely packed’? with the inter-
mediate Jebel Wateiadh, ‘forming the most con-
fused mass of mountain tops that can be imagined ”
(114,115). His description of the ascent of the east-
ern peak is formidable. He felt a rarity of the air,
and often had to climb or crawl flat on the breast.
It was like “ the ascent of a glacier, only of smooth
granite, instead of ice.’ At a quarter of an hour
from the summit he also “ found a stair of blocks of
granite, laid one above another on the surface of the
smooth slippery rock” (113). On the northern
summit are visible the remains of a building,
“‘oranite fragments cemented with lime and mor-
tar,” and ‘‘ close beside it three of those mysterious |
inscriptions,’ implying “that this summit was
frequented by unknown pilgrims who used those
characters” (S. and P. 72).
The approach to Jebel Misa from the W. is
only practicable on foot. It lies through Wady
Solam and the Nitkb Hdwy, “ Pass of the Wind,” Ὁ
whose stair of rock leads to the second or higher
stage of the great mountain labyrinth.
this pass would be a roaring torrent. It is amidst
masses of rock a thread of a stream just visible, and )
here and there forming clear pools, shrouded in
palms, or leaving its clue to be traced only by
rushes. From the head of this pass the cliff-front
of Sinai comes in sight through ‘* a long continued
plain between two precipitous mountain ranges of
black and yellow granite.”
tioned plain er-Raheh. Deep gorges enter it on
each side, and the convent and its gardens close
the view. The ascent of Jebel Misa, which con-
tains “high valleys with abundant springs,’ is by
a long flight of rude steps winding through crags
of granite. The cave and chapel “ of Elias” are
passed on the slope of the ascent, and the summit is
marked by the ruins of a mosque and of a Christian
church. But, Strauss adds, ‘‘ the ‘ Mount of Moses’
rose in the south higher and higher still,” and the
point of this, Jebel Misa, eighty feet in diameter,
is distant two hours and more from the plain below
(Sinai and Golgotha, 116). The Ras Stfsafeh
seems a small, steep, and high mountain, which is
interposed between the slope of Jebel Musa and
the plain; and, from its position, surveys both the
openings of es-Sheykh N.E, and of er-Raheh? N.W.,
which converge at its foot. Opposite to it, across
the plain, is the Jebel Fureiad, whose peak is cloven
asunder, and the taller summit is again shattered
and rent, and strewn, as by an earthquake, with its
own fragments. The aspect of the plain between
Jebel Fureia, which here forms a salient angle,
wedging southwards, and the Ras Stfsafeh, is de-
scribed as being, in conjunction with these moun-
tains, wonderfully suggestive, both by its grandeur
and its suitableness, for the giving and the receiving
of the Law. “That such a plain should exist at all
in front of such a cliff is so remarkable a coincidence
with the sacred narrative, as to furnish a strong
Elsewhere |
|
1759
internal argument, not merely of its identity with
the scene, but of the scene itself having been de-
scribed by an eye-witness” (S. and P. 42, 43).
The character of the Sinaitic granite is described by
Seetzen (Reisen, iii. 86) as being (1) flesh-red with
glass-coloured quartz and black mica, and (2)
greyish-white with abundance of the same mica.
He adds that the first kind is larger-grained and
handsomer than the second. Hamilton speaks of
“ Jong ridges of arid rock surrounding him in chaotic
confusion on every side,’ and “ the sharp broken
peaks of granite far and near as all equally deso-
late” (Sinai, the Hedjaz, and Soudan, 31). This
view of “granite peaks,” so thickly and wildly
set as to form ‘‘a labyrinth” to the eye, was what
chiefly impressed Dr. Stanley in the view from the
top of Jebel Musa (S. and P. 77). There the
weather-beaten rocks are full of curious fissures and
/holes (46), the surface being “a granite mass
cloven into deep gullies and basins” (76). Over
the whole mountain the imagination of votaries has
stamped the rock with tokens of miracle. The
dendrites * were viewed as memorials of the Burning
Bush. In one part of the mountain is shown the
impress of Moses’ back, as he hid himself from the
presence of God (ib. 30), in another the hoof-print
of Mahomet’s mule, in the plain below a rude hollow
between contiguous blocks of stone passes for the
mould of the head of the Golden Calf; while in the
_valley of the Leja, which runs, parallel to and
This is the often-men- |
overhung by the Jebel Misa’s greatest length,
into er-Rdheh, close to Rds Sifsafeh, the famous
“Stone of Moses” is shown—‘‘a detached mass
from ten to fifteen feet high, intersected with wide
slits or cracks.... with the stone between them
worn away, as if by the dropping of water from
the crack immediately above.” This distinctness of
the mass of the stone lends itself to the belief of the
Rabbis, that this ‘‘ rock followed” the Israelites
through the wilderness, which would not be the case
| with the non-detached off-set of some larger cliff.
The Koran also contains reference to ‘‘ the rock
with the twelve mouths for the twelve tribes of
Israel,” ἡ, 6. the aforesaid cracks in the stone, into
which the Bedouins thrust grass as they mutter
their prayers before it. Bishop Clayton accepted it
as genuine, so did Whiston the translator of Jose-
phus;> but it is a mere /usus naturae; and there is
another fragment, ‘less conspicuous,” in the same
valley, “‘ with precisely similar marks.” In the pass
ot the Wady es-Sheykh is another stone, called the
“Seat of Moses,” described by Laborde (8. and P.
45-48, and notes). Seetzen adds, some paces be-
yond the “Stone of Moses” several springs, copious
for a region so poor in water, have their source
from under blocks of granite, one of which is as big
as this ““ Stone of Moses.” These springs gush into a
very small dyke, and thence are conducted by a
canal to supply water to a little fruit-garden....
Their water is pure and very good. On this canal,
several paces below the basin, lies a considerably
y By this pass Dr. Stanley was himself conducted thither,
sending his camels round by the Wady es-Sheykh from
Feirdn, “the more accessible though more circuitous
route into the central upland.’ By this latter he sup-
poses the great bulk of the host of Israel may have
reached er-Rdheh and Sinai, while “the chiefs of the
people would mount”’ by the same pass which he took
(5. ὦ P. 42).
z Dr. Stewart (wh. sup. 122) says, ‘“ Ghebel Musa, the
Sinai of monkish traditions, is neither visible from the
Ghebel (ἱ. e. Ris) Stissafeh, nor from any other point in
ment of S. ὦ; P. 43, 44, that Moses, descending from the
Jebel Misa, would not be able to see what was going on
in the plain till he emerged upon it, the height of Sifsafeh
effectually intercepting the view.
4 These have become scarce on this mountain: Seetzen
(Reisen, iii. 86) expressly mentions that he observed none.
They are now found abundantly in the course of con-
structing Abbas Pasha’s mountain road (Stewart, 7. &-K.
132, 134).
Ὁ See his note on Ant. iii. 1, §7.
1760
bigger block of cranite than the ‘¢ Stone of Moses,”
“and the canal runs round so close to its side as to
be half-concealed by it” (Reisen, iii.95). He seems
to argue that this appearance and half-concealment
may have been made use of by Moses to procure
belief in his having produced the water miracu-
lously, which existed before. But this is wholly
inconsistent, as indeed is any view of this being the
actual ‘* rock in Horeb,” with his view of Rephidim
as situated at e/-Hessuch, the western extremity of
the Wady Feiran. Equally at variance with the
Scriptural narrative is the claim ofa hole in er-
Raheh, below Ras Stifsafeh, to be “the Pit of
Korah,’ whose story belongs to another and far
later stage of the march.
On Mount St. Catherine the principal interest lies
in the panorama of the whole Peninsula which it
commands, embraced by the converging horns of
the Red Sea, and the complete way in which it
overlooks the Jebel Misa, which, as seen from it,
is by no means conspicuous, being about 1000
feet lower. Seetzen mounted by a path strewn with
stones and blocks, having nowhere any steps, like
those mentioned as existing at Serbd/, and remarks
that jasper and porphyry chiefly constitute the
mountain. He reached the highest point in three
hours, including intervals of rest, by a hard, steep
path, with toilsome clambering; but the actual
time of ascending was only 1$ hours. ‘The date-
palm plantation of Tur is said to be visible from
the top; but the haze prevailing at the time pre-
vented this traveller from verifying it (/?eisen, iii.
89-93). The rock of the highest point of this
mountain swells into the form of a human body,
its arms swathed like that of a mummy, but head-
less—the counterpart, as it is alleged, of the corpse
of the beheaded Egyptian saint. . . . Not improbably
this grotesque figure furnishes not merely the illustra-
tion, but the origin, of the story ” of St. Catherine’s
body being transported to the spot, after martyr-
dom, from Egypt by angelic hands (9. and P. 45).
The remaining principal mountain is named vavi-
ously ed-Deir, “the Convent ;”’ ‘* Bestin,”’ from St.
Episteme, the first abbess of the nunnery ; ‘‘Solab,”
from ‘the Cross,’ which stands on its summit 5
and the ““ Mount of the Burning Bush,” from a
legend that a sun-beam shoots down, supposed
miraculously, on one day in. the year, through the
mountain into the chapel ‘ of the Burning Bush” ¢
(so called) in the convent (ib. 78). In the pass of
the Convent rocks arise on every side, in long succes-
sion, fantastically coloured, grey, red, blue, bright
yellow, and bronze, sometimes strangely marked
with white lines of quartz or black bands of basalt ;
huge blocks worn into fantastic shapes... . inter-
rupt the narrow track, which successive ages have
worn along the face of the precipice, or, hanging
overhead, threaten to overwhelm the traveller in
their fall. . The wady which contains this pass is
called by the name of Shweib—a corruption of
Hobab, the name of the father-in-law of Moses
(ib. 32, 33). At the foot of a mountain near the
convent Seetzen noticed “a range of rocks of black
horn-porphyry, of hornblende, and black jasper,
and between their scrolls or volutes white quartz.”
The gardens, as has been noticed, are in sight
e Dr, Stanley verified the possibility of the fact, and dis-
proved its miraculous character by examining the ravine
above the convent, through which, when the sun gains the
necessary altitude, a ray would reach the chapel (S. «& P. 46).
4 Here Dr. Stanley quitted the track pursued by Dr. Ro-
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
from the approach through er-Rdaheh, Seetzen en-
larges on their beauty, enhanced, of course, by the
savage wild about them; ‘‘indeed a blooming
vegetation appears in this climate wherever there is
water” (Reisen, iii. 70, 73, 87). These proved
capabilities of the soil are of interest in reference
to the Mosaic and to every period. As regards the
Convent, the reader may be referred to Dr. Stanley’s
animated description of its character, the policy of
its founder, and the quality of its inmates (S. and
P. 51-56). This traveller took three hours in the
ascent. ‘In the recesses between the peaks was
a ruined Bedouin village. On the highest level was
a small natural basin, thickly covered with shrubs
of myrrh—of all the spots of the kind that I saw,
the best suited for the feeding of Jethro’s flocks in
the seclusion of the mountain” (ib. 78). He
thought the prospect, however, from its summit
inferior in various ways to any of the other views
from the neighbouring mountains, Serbdl, St. Ca-
therin, Jebel Misa, or Rds Stifsdfeh.
The rocks, on leaving Sinai on the east for ’Aka-
bah, are curiously intermingled, somewhat as in the
opposite margin of the Wadys Sidri and Mokatteb.
Wady Seyél contains “hills of a conical shape,
curiously slanting across each other, and with an
appearance of serpentine and basalt. The wady
εν then mounted a short rocky pass—of hills
capped with sandstone—and entered on a plain of
deep sand—the first we had encountered—over
which were scattered isolated clumps of sandstone,
with occasional chalk. . . . At the close of this
plain, an isolated rock, its high tiers rising out of
lower tiers, like a castle.” Here “ the level ranges
of et-Tth rose in front.’’ And soon after, on strik-
ing down, apparently, north-eastwards, ‘‘a sandy
desert, amidst fantastic sandstone rocks, mixed
with lilac and dull green, as if of tufa,” succeeded.
After this came a desert strewn with “ fragments of
the Tih,” ἡ. e. limestone, but ‘presently,’ in the
“ Wady Ghizaleh,’¢ which turns at first nearly
due northward, and then deflects westiward, the
“ὁ high granite rocks” reappeared ; and in the Wady
el’ Ain, “the rocks rise, red granite or black
basalt, occasionally tipped as if with castles of sand-
stone to the height of about 1000 feet... . and
finally open on the sea, At the mouth of the pass
are many traces of flood—trees torn down, and
strewed along the sand” (7. 80, 81).
VI. We now pass on to resume the attempt to
trace the progress of the Israelites. Their sojourn of
a year in the neighbourhood of Mount Sinai was an
eventful one. The statements of the Scriptural
narrative which relate to the receiving of the two
Tables, the Golden Calf, Moses’ vision of God, and
the visit of Jethro, are too well known to need
special mention here; but beside these, it is certain
from Num. iii. 4, that before they quitted the
wilderness of Sinai, the Israelites were thrown into
mourning by the untimely death of Aaron’s two
sons, Nadab and Abihu. This event is probably
connected with the setting up of the tabernacle and
the enkindling of that holy fire, the sanctity of
which their death avenged. That it has a deter-
minate chronological relation with the promulga-
tions which from time to time were made in that
binson, which from the Convent he had hitherto followed ;
the latter continuing in a N.E. direction through Wady
Sumghy to the western shore of the Gulf of ’Akabah, the
former turning northwards by the Wady Ghiizdlch, as
above, immediately after passing the ’Ain el-Hiudherah.
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
wilderness, is proved by an edict in Ley. xvi.,
being fixed as subsequent té it (Lev. x., comp.
xvi. 1). The only other fact of history contained
in}Leviticus is the punishment of the son of mixed
parentage for blasphemy (xxiv, 10-14). Of course
the consecration of Aaron and his sons is mentioned
early in the Book in connexion with the laws relat-
ing to their office (viii., ix.). In the same wilder-
ness region the people were numbered, and the ex-
change of the Levyites against the firstborn was
effected; these last, since their delivery when God
smote those of Egypt, having incurred the obliga-
tion of sanctity to him. The offerings of the princes
of Israel were here also received. ‘The last incident
mentioned before the wilderness of Sinai was quitted
for that of Paran is the intended departure of
Hobab the Kenite, which it seems he abandoned at
Moses’ urgency. They now quitted the Sinaitic
region for that of Pavan, in which they went three
days without finding a permanent encampment,
although temporary halts must of course have been
daily made (Num. i., ix. 15-23; x. 18, 335 xi.
35; xii. 16). A glance at Kiepert’s, or any map
showing the region in detail, will prove that here a
choice of two main routes begins, in drder to cross
the intervening space between Sinai and Canaan,
which they certainly approached in the first in-
stance on the southern, and not on the eastern
side. Here the higher plateau surmounting the 77},
region would almost certainly, assuming the main
features of the wilderness to have been then as
they are now, have compelled them to turn its
western side nearly by the route by which Seetzen
came in the opposite direction from Hebron to Sinai,
or to turn it on the east by going up the ’Arabah,
or between the ’Arabah and the higher plateau.
Over its southern face there is no pass, and hence
the roads from Sinai, and those from Petra towards
Gaza and Hebron, all converge into one of two trunk-
lines of route (Robinson, i. 147, 151, 2, ii. 186).
Taberah and Kibroth-Hattaavah, both seem to belong
to the same encampment where Israel abode for at
least a month (xi. 20), being names given to it
from the two events which happened there, [TA-
BERAH, KipROTH-HATTAAVAH, QUAILS.] These
stations seem from Num. x. 11-13, 33-36, to have
lain in the wilderness of Paran; but possibly the
passage x. 11-13 should come after that 33-36, and
the ‘three days’ journey ” of ver. 33 lie still in the
wilderness of Sinai; and even Taberah and Haze-
roth, reached in xi., xii., also there. Thus they
would reach Paran only in xii. 16, and x. 12
would be either misplaced or mentioned by antici-
pation only. One reason for thinking that they did
not strike northwards across the 7ih range from
Sinai, is Moses’ question when they murmur,
“<shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together
for them, to suffice them ?” which is natural enough
if they were rapidly nearing the Gulf of ’Akabah,
but strange if they were posting towards the inland
heart of the desert. Again the quails © are brought
by “a wind from the sea’”’ (Num. xi. 22, 31); and
yarious travellers (Burckhardt, Schubert, Stanley)
testify to the occurrence of vast flights of birds in
this precise region between Sinai and ’Akabah.
Again, Hazeroth, the next station after these, is
e Seetzen supposes that what are called quails in Scrip-
ture were really locusts (Reisen, iii. 80); an opinion which
Coquerel (Laborde, Comm. Geogr. Ex. xvi. 13) appears to
have shared. But surely locusts, as edible, are too well
known in Scripture to make the confusion possible. Mr.
VOL, 11.
1761
coupled with Dizahab, which last seems undoubt-
edly the Dahab on the shore of that gulf (Deut. i.
1, and Robinson, ii. 187, note). This makes a sea-
ward position likely for Hazeroth. And as Taberah,
previously reached, was three days’ journey or more
from the wilderness of Sinai, they had probably
advanced that distance towards the N.E. and ’Aka-
bah; and the distance required for this will bring us
so near e/-Hudhera (the spot which Dr. Robinson
thought represented Hazeroth in fact, as it seems
to do in name), that it may be accepted as a highly
probable site. Thus they were now not far from
the coast of the Gulf of “Akabah, <A spot which
seems almost certain to attract their course was the
Wady el-~ Ain, being the water, the spring of that
‘rezion of the desert, which would have drawn around
it such “ nomadic settlements as are implied in the
name of Hazeroth, and such as that of Israel must
have been” (8. ὁ P. 82). Dr. Robinson remarks,
that if this be so, this settles the course to Kadesh
as being up the ’Arabah, and not across the plateau
of et-Tih. Dy. Stanley thinks this identification a
“faint probability,’ and the more uncertain as
regards identity, ‘‘as the name Hazeroth is one of
the least likely to be attached to any permanent. or
natural feature of the desert,” meaning “ simply
the enclosures, such as may still be seen in the Be-
douin villages, hardly less transitory than tents”
(S. & P. 81, 82). We rely, however, rather on
the combination of the various circumstances men-
tioned above than on the name. The Wady Hi-
derah and Wady-el’ Ain, appear to run nearly pa-
rallel to each other, from S.W. to N.E., nearly from
the eastern extremity of the Wady es-Sheylh, and
their N.E. extremity comes nearly to the coast,
marking about a midway distance between the Jebel
Misa and’ Akabah. In Hazeroth the people tarried
seven days, if not more (Num. xi. 35, xii.), during
the exclusion of Miriam from the camp while
leprous. The next permanent encampment brought
them into the wilderness of Paran, and here the
local commentator’s greatest difficulty begins.
For we have not merely to contend with the fact
that time has changed the desert’s face in many
parts, and obliterated old names for new; but we
have beyond this, great obscurity and perplexity in
the narrative. The task is, first, to adjust the un-
certainties of the record inter se, and then to try
and make the resultant probability square with the
main historical and physical facts, so far as the
latter can be supposed to remain unaltered. Besides
the more or less discontinuous form in which the
sacred narrative meets us in Exodus, a small portion
of Leviticus, and the greater part of Numbers, we
have in Num, xxxiii. what purports at first sight
to be a complete skeleton route so far as regards
nomenclature; and we further find in Deuteronomy
a review of the leading events of the wandering or
some of them, without following the order of occur-
rence, and chiefly in the way of allusion expanded
and dwelt upon. Thus the authority is of a threefold
character. And as, in the main narrative, whole
years are often sunk as uneventful, so in the itine-
rary of Num, xxxiii., on a near view great chasms
occur, which require, where all else bespeaks a
severe uniformity of method, to be somehow ac-
Tyrwhitt says that quails, or small partridges, which he
supposes rather meant, are, as far as he saw, more com,
mon in the desert than locusts.
£ Robinson, ub. sup.; comp. Stewart, 7. and Κὶ.
115.
5 U
1762
counted for. But, beyond the questions opened by
either authority in itself, we have difficulties of
apparent incongruity between them; such as the
omission in Exodus of Dophka and Alush, and of the
encampment by the Red Sea; and, incomparably
greater, that of the fact of a visit to Kadesh being
recorded in Num. xiii. 26, and again in xx. 1,
while the itinerary mentions the name of Kadesh
only once. These difficulties resolve themselves into
two main questions. Did Israel visit Kadesh once,
or twice? And where is it now to be looked for?
Before attempting these difficulties individually,
it may be as well to suggest a caution against
certain erroneous general views, which often appear
to govern the considerations of desert topography.
One is, that the Israelites journeyed, wherever they
could, in nearly a straight line, or took at any rate
the shortest cuts between point and point. This
has led some delineators of maps to simply register
the file of names in Num. xxxiii. 16-36 from
Sinai in rectilinear sequence to Kadesh, wherever
they may happen to fix its site, then turn the line
backward from Kadesh to Ezion-Geber, and then
either to Kadesh again, or to Mount Hor, and thence
again, and here correctly, down the ’Arabah south-
wards and round the south-eastern angle of Edom,
with a sweep northwards towards Moab. In
drawing a map of the Wanderings, we should mark
as approximately or probably ascertained the sta-
tions from Etham to Hazeroth, after which no
track should be attempted, but the end of the line
should lose itself in the blank space ; and out of the
same blank space it might on the western side of
the ’Arabah be similarly resumed and traced down
the ’Arabah, &c., as before described. All the sites
of intervening stations, as being either plainly con-
jectural merely, or lacking any due authority, should
simply be marked in the margin, save that Moserah
may be put close to Mount Hor, and Ezion-Geber
further S. in the ’Arabah [EzION-GEBER], from
which to the brook Zered and onwards to the plains
of Moab, the ambiguities lie in narrow ground, and
a probable light breaks on the route and its stations.
Another common error is, that of supposing that
from station to station, in Num. xxxiii., always re-
presents a day’s march merely, whereas it is plain
from a comparison of two passages in Ex. (xv.
22), and Num. (x. 33), that on two occasions
three days formed the period of transition between
station and‘station, and therefore, that not day’s
marches, but intervals of an indefinite number of
days between permanent encampments, are intended
by that itinerary; and as it is equally clear from
Num. ix. 22, that the ground may have been occu-
pied for “two days, or a month, or a year,” we
may suppose that the occupations of a longer period
only may be marked in the itinerary. And thus
the difficulty of apparent chasms in its enumeration,
for instance the greatest, between Ezion-Geber and
Kadesh (xxxiii. 35-37) altogether vanishes.
An example of the error, consequent on neglect-
_the search commences.
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
ing to notice this, may be seen in Laborde’s map
of the Wanderings, in his Commentary on Exodus
and Numbers, in which the stations named in
Num. xxviii. 18-34, are closely crowded, but be-
tween those of ver. 35 and those of ver. 37 a large
void follows, and between those of ver, 37 and those
of ver. 39 a still larger one, both of which, since on
referring to the text of his Commentary § we find
that the intervals all represent day’s marches, are
plainly impossible.
Omitting, then, for the present all consideration
of the previous intervals after Hazeroth, some sug-
gestions concerning the nomenclature and possible
sites of which will be found in articles under their
respective names, the primary question, did the
people visit Kadesh twice, or once only, demands to
be considered.
We read in Num. x. 11, 12, that ‘‘on the
twentieth day of the second month of the second
year . . . the children of Israel took their journeys
out of the wilderness of Sinai, and the cloud rested
in the wilderness of Paran.” The latter statement
is probably to be viewed as made by anticipation ;
as we find that, after quitting Kibroth-Hattaavah
and Hazeroth, ‘the people pitched in the wilder-
ness of Paran” (Num. xii. 16). Here the grand
pause was made while the spies, “sent,” it is again
impressed upon us (xiii. 3), ‘* from the wilderness
of Paran,” searched the land for “forty days,’ and
returned “to Moses and to Aaron, and to all the
congregation . . . unto the wilderness of Paran to
radesh.” This is the first mention of Kadesh in
the narrative of the Wanderings (vers. 25, 36). It
may here be observed that an inaccuracy occurs in
the rendering of Moses’ directions to the spies in
the A. V. of xiii. 17, “get you up by this way
southward” (3432), where “by the South,” 7. 6.
by the border lying in that direction from Palestine,
is intended, as is further plain from ver. 22, “ And
they ascended by the south and came to Hebron,”
t. e. they went northward.» Fyrom considerations
adduced under KADESH, it seems that Kadesh pro-
bably means firstly, a region of the desert spoken
of as having a relation, sometimes with the wilder-
ness of Paran, and sometimes with that of Zin
(comp. vers. 21, 26); and secondly, a distinct city
within that desert limit. Now all the conditions
of the narrative of the departure and return of the
spies, and of the consequent despondency, murmur-
ing, and penal sentence of wandering, will be satis-
fied by supposing that the name ‘‘ Kadesh,” here
means the region merely. It'is observable, also,
that Kadesh is not named as the place of departure,
but only as that of return. From Paran is the
start ; but from Zin (both regions in the desert)
And this agrees with the
political geography of the southern border, to which
the wilderness of Zin is always reckoned as pertain-
ing,i whereas that of Paran always lies outside
the promised land, Natural features of elevation,
depression, and slope,* are the only tokens to which
& He speaks of certain stations as “placées entre le
mont Sinai et Cades, espace qui ne comporte pas plus de
onze journées selon affirmation bien pusitive de Deuté- |
ronome”’ (1.1). He then proceeds to argue, ‘‘ Ces dix-sept |
stations réunies aux trois que nons venons d’examiner,
en forment vingt; il y a donc neuf stations. . .dont on ne
sait que faire.’ The statement quoted from Deuteronomy,
whether genuine, or an annotation that has crept into the
text, merely states the distance as ordinarily known and
travelled, and need not indicate that the Israelites crossed |
it at that rate of progress.
h The word for “southward” would be 1243, as found
in Ez. xl. 24, Josh. xvii. 9, 10. The word 24] appears
to mean the “dry” country, and hence to become the
appellative for the region on the south of Judah and
Simeon where springs were scarce; see The Negeb by
Rev. E. Wilton, pref. viii.
i Num. xxxiv. 4; Josh. xv. 3.
k For some good remarks on the level of the desert and
the slope between the south country, Dead Sea, and the
”Arabah, see Robinson, i, 587.
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
we can reasonably trust in deciding where the Paran
wilderness ends, and that of Zin begins. It has
been proposed under KAbrsH# to regard part of the
’ Avabah, including all the low ground at the southern
and south-western extremity of the Dead Sea, as
the wilderness of Zin. [Z1N.] Then the broad lower
north-eastern plateau, including both its slopes as
described above, will be defined as the Paran wilder-
ness proper. If we assume the higher superimposed
plateau, described above, to bear the name of “" Ka-
desh” as a desert district, and its south-western
mountain-wall to be “ the mountain of the Amor-
ites,” then the Paran wilderness, so far as syno-
nymous with Kadesh, will mean most naturally
the recion where that mountain-wall from Jebel
*Ardif en-Ndkah to Jebel Mitkhrah, and perhaps
thence northward along the other side of the angle
of the highest plateau, overhangs the lower terrace
of the 77h. Moses identifies the coming “ to Kadesh
Barnea”! with the coming to ‘‘ the mountain of the
Amorites” (Deut. i. 19, 20) whence the spies were
also despatched (vers. 22, 23), which is said to have
been from “ Paran”’ in Num. xiii. 3. Suppose the
spies’ actual start to have been made from some-
where on the watershed of the two slopes of et- Tih,
the spies’ best way then would have been by the
‘Wady el-Jerafeh into and so up the ’Arabah: this
would be beginning “ from the wilderness of Zin,”
as is said in Num. xiii. 21. Then, most naturally,
by his direction to them, “ go up into the moun-
tain” (Num. xiii, 17), which he represents as acted
on in Deut. i. 24, “and they turned and went up
into the mountain,” he meant them to mount the
higher plateau, supposed the region Kadesh. By
their ‘‘turning’’ in order to do so, it may be in-
ferred that their course was not direct to their
object, as indeed has been supposed in taking them
along the ’Arabah and again up its western side by
the passes el-Ahurar and es-Sufd (Zephath).™ By
these passes they must have left Zin or the ’Arabah,
there being no choice. During the forty days of
their absence, we may suppose the host to have
moyed from the watershed into the Kadesh-Paran
region, and not at this period of their wanderings
to have touched the city Kadesh at all. This is
quite consistent with, if it be not even confirmed
by, the words of the murmurers in xiv. 2, 3,
“¢ Would God we had died in this wilderness! And
wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land ;
and throughout the denunciation which fila
evidently on the same spot, the words “ the wilder-
ness,” and ‘ this wilderness,” often recur, but from
first to last there is no mention of a “ city.”
Now, in Deut. i. 19, where these proceedings
pass in review before Moses, in his words to the
people, there is, strictly speaking, no need to men-
tion Kadesh at all, for the people were all the time
in the wilderness.of Paran. Yet this last is so wide
a term, reaching almost from the ’Arabah to near
the Egyptian frontier, that Moses might naturally
use some more precise designation of the quarter
he meant. He accordingly ‘marks it by the proxi-
1763
mity of Kadesh. Thus, the spies’ return to “the ὁ
wilderness of Paran to Kadesh” means to that part
of the lower plateau where it is adjacent to the
higher, and probably the eastern side of it. The
expression “from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza,”
is decisive of an eastern site for the former (Josh.
x, 41).
Here, as is plain both from Num. xiv. 40-45 and
from Deut. i.41-44, followed the wayward attem pt of
the host to win their way, in spite of their sentence
of prohibition, to the “ hill” (Num. xiv. 40-45,
Deut. i. 41-44) or ““ mountain ” of the Amalekites
and Canaanites, or Amorites, and their humiliating
defeat. They were repulsed in trying to force the
pass at Hormah (or Zephath, Judg. i. 14), and the
region of that defeat is called ‘Seir,’” showing that
the place was also known by its Horite name ; and
here perhaps the remnant of the Horites were
allowed to dwell by the Edomites, to whose border
this territory in the message of Num. xx. 16, is
ascribed. [KapEsH.] Here, from the notice in
Num. xiv. 25, that these “" Amalekites and Ca-
naanites dwelt in the valley,” we may suppose
that their dwelling was where they would find
pasture for their flocks, in the wady e/-Fikreh and
others tributary to e/-Jeib, and that they took post
in the “ mountain” or * hill,” as barring the way
of the Israelites’ advance. So the spies had gone
by Moses’ direction ‘‘this way, by the South (not
‘southward,’ as shown above), up into the moun-
tain ;” and this same way, ““ the way of the spies,” ™
through the passes of el-htirar and es-Stifa, was the
approach to the city Kadesh also.
Here, then, the penal portion of the wanderings
commences, and the great bulk of it, comprising a
period of nearly thirty-eight years, passes over
between this defeat in Num. xiv., and the resump-
tion of local notices in Num. xx., where again the
names of “ Zin” and “ Kadesh ” are the first that
meet us.
The only events recorded during this period (and
these are interspersed with sundry promulgations
of the Ceremonial Law), are the execution of the
offender who gathered sticks on the Sabbath (Num.
xv. 32-36), the rebellion of Korah (xvi.), and,
closely connected with it, the adjudgment of the
pre-eminence to Aaron’s house with their kindred
tribe, solemnly confirmed by the judicial miracle of
the rod that blossomed. his seems to have been
followed by a more rigid separation between Levi
and the other tribes, as regards the approach to the
tabernacle, than had been practically recognized
before (xxvii. xviii. 22 ; comp. xvi. 40).
We gather, then, from Deut. i. 46, that the
greater part, perhaps the whole, of this period of
nearly thirty-eight years, if so we may interpret
the ‘“‘ many days” there spoken of, was passed in
Kadesh,—the region, that is, not the city; in
which, of course, the camp may have been shifted
at convenience, under direction, any number of
times. But Num. xx. 1 brings us to a new point
of departure. The people have grown old, or
! For “ Barnea,” as perhaps a Horite proper name, see
Kavesu, note 1.
m Mr. Wilton (Negeb, 12, 198-202), following Rowlands
(in Williams), makes Zephath es-Sebata on the northern
side of the high broad plateau, supposed here to be the
«mountain of the Amorites.” On this view the Israelites
must already have won that eminence from which it was
clearly the intention of the Amorites to repel them; and
must, when defeated, have been driven up hill from a
position occupied in the plain below. ‘The position es-
Stifa is on the S. side AE the high ground, and has. pro-
bably always been the pass by which to mountit. For
all this, see Mr. Wilton’s own map, or any one which
shows both es-Sebata and es-Siifa.
. Our A. V. here seems to have viewed ΤΙΝ Π, as
if derived from “ἢ ΓῚ “to spy.’ Gesen. renders it “re-
gions,” and the LXX. makes it a proper name 'A@apew.
It is not elsewhere found. Now the verb 44}} occurs in
the passage where the spies are sent forth, Num. xiii.,
xiv., which gives a presumption in favour of the A. V.
5 U 2
1764
“rather again young, in their wanderings. | Here,
then, we are at “the desert of Zin, in the first
month,” with the “ people abiding in Kadesh.” By
the sequel, ‘Miriam died there, and was buried
there,’ a more precise definition of locality now
seems intended ; which is further confirmed by the
. Subsequent message from the same place to the king
of Edom, ‘ Behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the
uttermost of thy border’? (vy. 16). This, then,
must be supposed to coincide with the encampment,
recorded as taking place “ in the wilderness of Zin,
which is Kadesh,” registered in the itinerary
(xxxiii. 36). We see then why, in that register of
specific camping-spots, there was no necessity for
any previous mention of ‘‘ Kadesh;” because the
earlier notice in the narrative, where that name
occurs, introduces it not as an individual encamp-
ment, but only as a region, within which perpetual
changes of encampment went on for the greater
part of thirty-eicht years. We also see that they
came twice to Kadesh the region, if the city Kadesh
lay in it, and once to Kadesh the city; but once
only to Kadesh the region, if the city lay without
it. Weare not told how the Israelites came into
possession of the city Kadesh, nor who were its
previous occupants. ‘The probability is that these
last were a remnant of the Horites, who after their
expulsion by Edom from Mount Seir [pom]
may have here retained their last hold on the
territory between Edom and the Canaanitish Amor-
ites of ‘the South.’ Probably Israel took it by
force of arms, which may have induced the attack
of ** Arad the Canaanite,’’® who would then feel his
border immediately threatened (Num. xxxiii. 40 ;
comp. xxi. 1). This warlike exploit of Israel may,
perhaps, be alluded to in Judges v. 4-as the oc-
casion when Jehovah “went out of Seir” and
“‘marched out of the field of Edom” to give His
people victory. The attack of Arad, however,
CONJECTURAL SITE.
(a) ’Ain Hasb, N.W. in the ’?Arabah.
(1) Kusheibeh, mouth of the Wady Abu,
near the foot of Mount Hor.
(2) Ain Ghitriindel.
(3) Wady el-Ghitdhagidh.
(4) Confluence of Wady el-Adhbeh with
el-Jerafeh.
Nom. xxxiii. 30-35.
(a) (Hashmonah).
(1) Moseroth.
(2) Bene-Jaakan.v
(3) Hor-hagidgad.
(4) Jotbathab.
(Ebronah).
(Ezion-geber).
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
though with some slight success ‘at first, only
brought defeat upon himself and destruction upon
his cities (xxi. 3).P We Jearn from xxxiii. 36 only
that Israel marched without permanent halt from
Ezion-geber upon Kadesh. This sudden activity:
after their long period of desultory and purposeless
wandering may have alarmed King Arad. The
itinerary takes here another stride from Kadesh to
Mount Hor. There their being engaged with the
burial of Aaron may have given Arad his fancied
opportunity of assaulting the rear of their march,
he descending from the north whilst they also were
facing southwards. In direct connexion with these
events we come upon a singular passage in Deuter-
onomy (x. 6, 7), a scrap of narrative imbedded in
Moses’ recital of events at Horeb long previous.4
This contains a short list of names of localities, on
comparing which with the itinerary, we get some
clue to the line of march from the region Kadesh
to Ezion-geber southwards.
We find at the part of their route in which
Aaron’s death took place, that stations named
ἐς Beeroth of the children of Jaakan, Mosera (where
Aaron died), Gudgodah, and Jotbath,” were suc-
cessively passed through ; and from Num, xxxiii. 38
we find that “ Aaron went up into Mount Hor. . .
and died there in the fortieth year... in the
first day of the fifth month.” Assuming for
Mount Hor the traditional site overhanging the
*Arabah, which they very soon after this quitted,
Mosera must have been close to it, probably in the
*Arabah itself. Now the stations which in the
itinerary come next before Ezion-geber, and which
were passed in the strictly penal wandering which
commenced from the region Kadesh, have names so
closely similar that we cannot doubt we are here
on the same ground. Their order is, however,
slightly changed, standing in the two passages as
follows :—
DEUvT. x. 6, 7.
(1) Beeroth of the children
of Jaakan.
(2) Mosera.
(3) Gudgodah.
(4) Jotbath.s
© More properly “ the Canaanitish king of Arad.”
P He ** took some of” the Israelites “ prisoners.’? It is
possible the name Mosera, or plur. Moseroth, may recall
this fact; the word “DID, (found only in the plur.),
meaning “ bonds”’ or “ fetters.” This would accord with
the suggestion of the text that Aaron’s burial gave Arad
the opportunity for his raid; for Mosera must have been
near Mount Hor, where that burial took place. It is
possible that the destruction of these cities may not
have really taken place till the entry into Canaan under
Joshua (Josh. xii. 14, Judg. i. 17), and may be mentioned
in Num. xxi. 2, 3, by anticipation only as a subsequent
fulfilment of the vow recorded as then made.
to suggest that Modera is the Mosera of Deut. x. 6, and
so Mr. Wilton (The Negeb, 28 &c.) has suggested, wish-
ing to identify it with Mount Hor.
for Mount Hor is the least doubtful of all in the Exodus.
Josephus clearly identifies it as we do; and there is
a strong improbability ina Jewish tradition fixing it in
Edomitish or in Nabathean territory, unless the testimony
in its favour had been overpowering. Modera might per-
haps be the hill called “Sin” (Zin?), mentioned by Josephus
as that in which Miriam was buried (Amdt. ἵν, 4, § 6, 7).
It is obvious | Σ : :
| was the grandson of Seir (1 Chr. i, 42, comp. Gen. xiv. 6,
But the received site |
a A somewhat similar fragment of narrative, but re-
lating to what perhaps took place during the time of the
allocution to the people between the paragraphs of which
it occurs, is found in Deut. iv. 41-433; and indeed the
mention of Aaron’s death, with the date and his age, and
of the attack of Arad, both of which had been detailed
before, is hardly less of a deviation from the dry enume-
ration of stations in the itinerary itself (Num, xxxiii.
38, 39), But it would be foreign to our present purpose
to enter on the critical questions which these passages
suggest. We assume their genuineness, and suppose them
displaced.
T See JAAKAN and Bene JAAKAN for the name. Jaakan
XXxVi. 27).
5 Dr, Robinson, judging from his visit, thinks that these
stations could not have lain to the S. of Mount Hor, as
that region is too poor in water to contain any such
place as Jotbath in Deut. x. 7, and corresponds rather
to the description given in Num. xxi. 4-6 (ii. 175).
He thinks that ’Ain et-Tayibeh is either Beeroth Bene
Jaakan or Moseroth, and Wady el-Ghiidhagidh Jotbath
(ibid.).
WILDERNESS OF
Now in Num. xx. 14, 16, 22-29, the narrative
conducts us from Kadesh the city, reached in or
: shortly before ‘‘ the fortieth year,” to Mount Hor,
where Aaron died, a portion of which route is ac-
cordingly that given in Deut..x. 6, 7; whereas the
parallel column from Num, xxxiii. gives substantially
the same route as pursued in the early part of the
penal wandering, when fulfilling the command given
in the region Kadesh, ‘turn you, get you into the
wilderness by the way of the Red Sea” (Num. xiv.
25; Deut. i. 40), which command we further learn
from Deut, ii. 1 was strictly acted on, and which a
march towards Ezion-geber would exactly fulfil.
These half-obliterated footsteps in the desert may
seem to indicate a direction only in which Kadesh
the city,t lay. Widely different localities, from
Petia eastward to el-Khdlesah on the north-west,
and westward to near the Jebel Hellak, have been
assigned by different writers. The best way is to
acknowledge that our research has not yet grasped
the materials for a decision, and to be content with
some such attempt as that under KApEsH, to fix
it approximately only, until more undoubted tokens
are obtained. The portion of the are of a circle
with es-Siifa for its centre, and a day’s journey—
about fifteen miles—for its radius, will not take in
el-Khdlesah, nor Petra," and the former name seems
to be traceable, with a slight metathesis, much
more probably in Chesi/* than in Kadesh.y The
highest plateau is marked with the ruins of Aboda,
and on the inferior one, some miles S.W. of the
defile of the Wady el-Fikreh stands a round conical
hill of limestone, mixed with sand, named Mada-
rah (Modura, or Modera), at a short day’s journey
from the southern end of the Dead Sea. Seetzen,
who visited it, had had his curiosity raised by a
Bedouin legend of a village having been destroyed
by Allah and buried under that hill for the wick-
edness of its people; and that, as a further attes-
tation, human skulls were found on the ground
around it. This statement he resolved by visiting
the spot into a simple natural phenomenon of some
curious rounded stones, or pebbles, which abound
in the neighbourhood. He thought it a legend of
Sodom ; and it might, with equal likelihood, have
been referred to the catastrophe of Korah (Seetzen,
Reisen, iii. 13), which, if our sites for Kadesh the
region and Paran are correct, should have occurred
in the neighbourhood, were it not far more probable
that the physical appearance of the round pebbles
having once given rise to the story of the skulls, the
legend was easily generated to account for them.
t Laborde (Comment. on Num. xxxiii. 36) places Kadesh
the city “prés des sources d’Embasch au fond de Ouadi
Djerafi”’ ( Wady el-Jerafeh). Dr. Robinson thought ’ Ain el-
Weibeh was Kadesh, the city, or, as he calls it, Kadesh
Barnea (see Map, vol.i., end). Dr. Stanley remarks that
there is no cliff (ὦ “ Ὁ) there. See his remarks quoted
under ΚΑΡΈΒΗ. Z
« Robinson puts es-Siifa at about two days’ journey
from the foot of Mount Hor, ii. 180-1.
x As suggested in Williams’s Holy City, i. 464.
y The northern Kadesh, or Kedesh, in Naphtali has the
very same consonants in its modern Arabic name as in the
Hebrew.
z A writer in the Journal of Sac. Lit. April, 1860,
connects this name with 3}, “ good,” from the goodness
of the water supply. This is not unlikely; but his view
of the name m0’, as from the same root as the Arabic
SEOs
Ko cde, Adhbeh, is very doubtful, the ¢ (Heb. })) being
probably radical. However, if el-’Adhbeh be, as he avers,
THE WANDERING 1765
The mountains on the west of the ’Arabah must
have been always poor in water, and form a dreary
contrast to the rich springs of the eastern side in
Mount Seir. From the cliff front of this last,
Mount Hor stands out prominently (Robinson, ii,
174-180). It has been suggested [Hor Hacip-
GAD] that the name Ha-gidgad, or Gudgodah,
may possibly be retraced in the Wady el-Ghidhd-
ghidh, which has a confluence with the Wady el-
Jerafeh. This latter runs into the ’Arabah on the
west side. That point of confluence, as laid down in
Kiepert’s map (Robinson, B. R. i.), is about fifteen
miles from the ’Arabah’s nearest point, and about
forty or forty-five from the top of Mount Hor. On
the whole it seems likely enough that the name ot
this Wady may really represent that of this station,
although the latter may have lain nearer the
*Avabah than the Wady now reaches, and this con-
jectural identification has been adopted above.
Jotbath, or Jotbatha,? is described as ‘‘a land ot
rivers of waters’? (Deut. x. 7); and may stand
for any confluence of wadys in sufficient force to
justify that character. It should certainly be in
the southern portion of the ’Arabah, or a little to
the west of the same.
The probabilities of the whole march from Sinai,
then, seem to stand as follows: They proceeded
towards the N.E. to the *Ain el-Hiderah (Haze-
roth), and thence quitted the maritime region,
striking directly northwards to el-’ Ain, and thence
by a route wholly unknown, perhaps a little to
the E. of N. across the lower eastern spurs of the
et-Tih yange, descending the upper course of the
Wady el-Jerafeh, until the south-eastern angle οὗ
the higher plateau confronted them at the Jebel
el-Mikhrah. ence, atter despatching the spies,
they moved perhaps into the ’Arabah, or along its
western overhanging hills, to meet their return.
Then followed the disastrous attempt at or near
es-Stifa (Zephath), and the penal wandering in the
wilderness of Kadesh, with a track wholly undeter-
mined, save in the last half-dozen stations to
Ezion-geber inclusively, as shown just above.
They then marched on Kadesh the city, probably
up the ’Arabah by these same stations, took it, and
sent from there the message to Edom. The refusal
with which it was met forced them to retrace the
*Arabah once more, and meanwhile Aaron died.
Thus the same stations (Deut. x. 6, 7) were passed
again, with the slight variation just noticed, pro-
bably caused by the command to resort to Mount
Hor which that death occasioned. Thence, after
a region of abundant “water, the place may correspond
with Jotbath, though the name do not. His map places
it about 17 miles N.W. of the modern extremity of the
Gulf of ’Akabah—i. 6, on the western side of the ’Arabab.
His general view of the route to and from Kadesh, and
especially of the site of Sinai and Mount Hor, is in-
admissible. See further towards the end of this article.
Burckhardt’s map gives another watery spot with palm-
trees in the ’Arabah itself, not far from its southern end,
which might also suit for Jotbath.
a Hengstenberg ‘(Authenticity of the Pent. ii. 356) has
another explanation of the deranged order of the stations
enumerated just above, based on the supposition that in
the two passages (Num. »xxiii. 30-35, Deut. x. 6, 7) the
march proceeded in two opposite directions; but this
would obviously require a reverse order of all the stations,
and not the derangement of two merely. Von Raumer
thought that the line of march threaded the “Arabah
thrice through, and, making allowance for the mistake of
giving it each time a nearly rectilinear direction, he is
not far wrong.
1766
reaching ’Akabah, and turning north-eastward, they
passed by a nearly straight line towards the eastern
border of Moab.
Of the stations in the list from Rithmah to
Mitheah, both inclusive, nothing is known. The
latter, with the few preceding it, probably belong
to the wilderness of Kadesh; but no line can be
assigned to the route beyond the indications of
the situation of that wilderness given above. In
the sequel to the burial of Aaron, and the refusal
of Edom to permit Israel to ‘‘ pass through his
border” » (which refusal may perhaps have been
received at Mount Hor (Moserah), though the
message which it answered was sent from the city
Kxadesh), occurred the necessity, consequent upon
this refusal, of the people’s “" compassing the land
of Edom” (Num. xxi. 4), when they were much
“ discouraged because of the way,” * and where the
consequent murmuring was rebuked by the visita-
tion of the “ fiery serpents” (vy. 5,6). There is near
Elath a promontory known as the Ras Um Haye,
“the mother of serpents,” which seem to abound
in the region adjacent ; and, if we may suppose this
the scene of that judoment, the event would be
thus connected with the line of march, rounding
the southern border of Mount Seir, laid down in
Deut. ii. 8, as being “ through the way of the plain
(ὦ. ὁ. the "Arabah) from Elath and from Ezion-
geber,” whence “turning northward,” having
‘© compassed that mountain (Mount Seir) long
enough,” they “ passed by the way of the wilder-
ness of Moab” (vy. 3, 8).
Some permanent encampment, perhaps repre-
sented by Zalmonah in Num. xxxiii, 41, 42, seems
here to have taken place, to judge from the urgent
expression of Moses to the people in Deut. ii. 13:
<< Now rise up, said I, and get you over the brook
Zered,” which lay further N. a little E., being
probably the Wady el-Ahsy (Robinson, ii. 157).
[ZereED.] The delay caused by the plague of ser-
peuts may be the probable account of this apparent
urgency, which would on this view have taken
place at Zalmonah; and as we have connected the
scene of that plague with the neighbourhood of
Elath, so, if we suppose Zalmonah¢ to have lain
in the Wady Ithm, which has its junction with the
”Arabah close to ’Akabah, the modern site of Elath,
this will harmonize the various indications, and
form a suitable point of departure for the last stage
of the wandering, which ends at the brook Zered
(vy. 14). Dr. Stanley, who passed through *Akabah,
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
thus describes the spot in question (S. and P. 84,
85): “’Akabah is a wretched village shrouded in a
palm-grove at the north end of the gulf, gathered
round a fortress built for the protection of the
Mecca pilgrimage. . . . This is the whole object of
the present existence of 7Akabah, which stands on
the site of the ancient Elath,—‘the Palm-Trees,’
so called from the grove. Its situation, however,
is very striking, looking down the beautiful gulf,
with its jagged ranges on each side. On the west
is the great black pass, down which the pilgrimage
descends, and from which ’Akabah (¢ the Pass’) de-
rives its name ; on the north opens the wide plain,
or Desert Valley, wholly different in character from
anything we have seen, still called, as it was in the
days of Moses, ‘the ’Arabah.’? Down this came
the Israelites on their return from Kadesh, and
through a gap up the eastern hills they finally
turned off to Moab. . . . This is the Wady Ithm,
which turns the eastern range of the “Arabah... . .
It is still one of the reular roads to Petra, and in
ancient times seems to have been the main approach
from Elath or *Akabah. . . . The only published
account of it is that of Laborde. These mountains
appear to be granite, till, as we advance north-
ward, we reach the entrance of the Wady Tubal,
where, for the first time, red sandstone appears in
the mountains, rising, as in the Wady el- Ain,
architecture-wise above grey granite.”
Three stations, Punon,® Oboth, and Ije-Abarim,
were passed between this locality and the brook or
valley of Zered (Num. xxi. 10-12, comp. xxxiii.
43, 44), which last name does not occur in the
itinerary, as neither do those of ‘the brooks of
Arnon,’ Beer, Mattanah, Nahaliel, and Bamoth,
all named in Num. xxi. 14-20; but the interval
between Ije-Abarim and Nebo, which last corre-
sponds probably (see Deut. xxxiv. 1) with the
Pisgah of xxi. 20, is filled by two stations merely,
named Dibon-gad and Almon-diblathaim, from
whence we may infer that in these two only were
permanent halts made. [DIBON-GAD, ALMON-
DIBLATHAIM.| In this stage of their progress
occurred the “digging” of the “well” by “ the
princes,” the successive victories over Sihon and
Og, and, lastly, the famous episodes of Balaam and
Phinehas, and the final numbering of the people,
followed by the chastisement of the Midianites
(Num. xxi. 17, xxii.-xxvi., xxxi. 1-125; comp.
Deut. ii. 24-37, iii. 1-17).
One passage remains in which, although the
Ὁ Dr. Robinson thinks that by the “ King’s Highway”
the Wady Ghuweir, opening a thoroughfare into the heart
of the Edomitish territory was meant (ii. 157), Though
the passage through Edom was refused, the burial of the
most sacred person of a kindred people may have been al-
lowed, especially if Mount Hor was already, as Dr. Stanley
suggests, a local sanctuary of the region (S. & P. 97-98).
ς The way up the ’Arabah was toilsome, and is so at
this day. Dr. Robinson calls it “a still more frightful
desert” than the Sinaitic (ii. 184). The pass at the head
of the Gulf of ’Akabah towards et-Tih “is famous for its
difficulty, and for the destruction which it causes io
animals of burden” (i. 175). Only two travellers, Laborde
and Bertou, have accomplished (or recorded their accom-
plishment of) the entire length of the ’Arabah.
d Yon Raumer identifies it with Madn, a few minutes
to the E. of Petra,
e Panon is spoken of by Jerome (Reland, 592) as
“Quondam civitas principum Edom nunc viculus in de-
serto, ubi aerum metalla damnatorum suppliciis effodi-
untur inter civitatem Petram et Zoaram.” Athanas.
Epist. ad Solit. Vitam Agentes, speaks of the condemnation
of a person to the mines of Phaeno, where he would only
live a fewdays. Winer says, Seetzen took Kalaaét Phenan
for Punon, referring to Monatl. Corresp. xvii. 137. La-
borde (Comment. on Num. xxxiii. 42) thinks that the
place named by Jerome and Athanasius cannot be Punon,
which he says lay S.E. of Petra. He adds that Burckhardt
and Von Raumer took Tifileh for Punon. He places
Oboth ‘dans les décombres de Butaieh (Butahy, Robinson),
laissant ainsi Maan a droite.”
£ Dr. Stewart (7. & K. 386) says, ‘‘ The river Arnon
empties itself into the Dead Sea, and between them rises
the lofty Gebel Atarous, which is believed to be the Nebo
or Pisgah of Scripture.’ He justifies this from its being
the highest mountain on the Moabitish border, and from
the hot spring Callirhoé being situated at its base, which
seems to correspond with the Ashdoth (“ springs” or
“streams”’) of Pisgah of Deut. iv. 49. He adds that
“Moses could have seen the land of Israel from that
mountain.” The Arnon is, without doubt, the Wady
el-Mojeb. Ar of Moab is Areopolis, Rabbath-Moab, now
Rabba. [Ar-Moap and Arnon. ]
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
event recorded belongs to the close of Moses’ life,
relating to his last words in the plain of Moab,
‘and as such lies beyond the scope of this article,
several names of places yet occur which are iden-
tical with some herein considered, and it remains
to be seen in what sense those places are connected
with the scene of that event. The passage in
question is Deut. i. 1, where Moses is said to have
spoken ‘on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in
the plain over against the Red Sea, between Paran
and Tophel, and Laban and Hazeroth and Dizahab.” 8
The words ‘on this side’ might here mislead,
meaning, as shown by the LXX. rendering, πέραν,
ἐς across”’ ΟΥ̓Κ’ beyond,” ἡ. 6. on the E. side, This
is a passage in which it is of little use to examine
the question by the aid of maps, since the more
accurate they are, the more probably will they
tend to confuse our view of it. The words seem to
forget that the Gulf of *Akabah presents its end to
the end of the ’Arabah (“ὁ plain,”), and to assume
that it presents the /ength of its coast, on which
Dizahab (Dahab) lies. ‘This length of coast is re-
garded, then, as opposite to the ’Avabah ; and thus
the “Arabah, in which Moses spoke, is defined by
“ Paran and Tophel,” lying on opposite edges of
the Dead Sea, or rather of the whole depression in
which it lies, which is in fact the ’Arabah continued
northward. Paran here is perhaps the El Paran to
which Chedorlaomer came in Gen. xiv. 6 [ParaNn],
and probably Tophel is the well-known Tiifilen to
the N.N.E, of Petra; and similarly the Red Sea,
“over against” which it is spoken of as lying, is
defined by Dizahab on its coast, and Hazeroth near
the same. The introduction of ‘‘ Laban” is less
clear, but probably means, from its etymology,
“ the white,’ ὁ, 6. the chalk. and limestone region,
which in the mountain-range of Zih, comes into
view from the Edomitish mountains (Stanley, S.
and P. 87), and was probably named, from that
point of view, by the paler contrast which it there
offered to the rich and varied hues of the sandstones
and granites of Mount Seir, which formed their
own immediate foreground.
A writer in the Journal of Sac. Lit., April,
1767
1860, on Sinai, Kadesh, and Mount Hor, pro-
pounds an entirely original view of these sites, in
conflict with every known tradition and hitherto
accepted theory.» For instance, Josephus identi-
fies Mount Hor with Petra and Kerek; Jerome
and Kosmas point to Serbd/ in the granitic moun-
tain region as Sinai; but this writer sets aside
Josephus’ testimony as a wholly corrupt tradition,
invented by the Rabbis in their prejudice against
the Idumeans, in whose territory between Eleu-
theropolis, Petra, and Kath (see Jerome on Obad.),
he asserts they all lay. [EpDomires.] Kadesh the
city, and perhaps Kadesh Barnea, did so lie, and
possibly Elusa, now el-Khdlesah, may retain a
trace of ““ Kadesh,” several types of which nomen-
clature are to be found in the region lying thence
southward [KapEsH]; but e/-A/dlesah lies too
far N. and W. to be the Kadesh Barnea to which
Israel came ‘ by the way of the spies,” and which
is clearly in far closer connexion with Zephath
(es-Stifa) than el-Khdlesah could be, On the con-
trary, there seems great reason for thinking that,
had so well-known and historical a place as Elusa
been the spot of any great event in the history of
the Exodus, the tradition would probably have been
traceable in some form or other, whereas there is
not a trace of any. Kadesh, again, lay ‘“‘in the
uttermost of the border” of Edom. Now, although
that border may not have lain solely KE. of the
’Arabah, it is utterly inconsistent with known facts
to extend it to Elusa; for then the enemies en-
countered in Hormah would have been Edomites,
whereas they were Amalekites, Canaanites, and
Amorites; and Israel, in forcing the pass, would
have been doing what we know they entirely ab-
stained from—attempting violence to the territory
of Edom. The “ designs” which this writer attri-
butes to the ““ Rabbis,” as regards the period up to
Josephus’ time, are gratuitous imputations; nor
does he cite any authorities for this or any other
statement. Nor was there any such feeling against
the Idumeans as he supposes.i They annexed part
of the territory of Judah and Simeon during the
Captivity, and were subsequently, by the warlike
B-pa AAD DID MAW WW! PINT TAs
3 MYM 429) SpA PAI IND are the
words of the Heb. text, from which the LXX. offers some
divergencies, being as follows:—mépav τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου ἐν
τῇ ἐρήμῳ πρὸς δυσμαῖς πλησίον τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης
ἀναμέσον Φαρὰν Τοφὸλ, καὶ Λοβὸν καὶ Αὐλὼν καὶ κατα-
χρύσεα. The phrase ΠῚ] Ὡ", if “Red Sea” be, as the
LXX. confirms, the true meaning, is here abridged
into 2. The word na Wa was possibly differently
read by the LXX. (query, a2, as if “the evening”
were =*“ the west,” δυσμαί), whilst Φαρὰν Τοφόλ looks
as though it were meant for one compound name; and
the two last names are translated, Hazeroth being=*“ en-
closures,” and Di-zahab—=“ the golden.” N.B. Hazeroth
elsewhere is represented by ᾿Ασηρώθ (Num. xi. 35, xii. 1,
16).
h Some incidental errors of this writer, though unim-
portant, may assist in forming an estimate of his work.
Thus he identifies Petra with Bozrah, the former being
the capital of the later Nabatheans, the latter that of
the Edom of the prophetic period and locally distinct.
Again he says, “ΟἹ all the people in the universe the race
most detested by the Jews were the Idumeans,” That
race has generally been thought, on good authority, to
be the Samaritans.
i Some feeling of rivalry there no doubt was; but
this writer vastly exaggerates it, in supposing that the
Jewish Rabbis purposely obliterated genuine traditions,
which referred these sites to Idumean territory—that of
a circumcised and vanquished race who had accepted the
place of “ proselytes of the covenant ”—in order to transfer
them to what was then the territory of the purely Gentile
and often hostile Nabatheans. Surely a transfer the other
way would have been far more likely. Above all, what
reason is there for thinking that the Rabbis of the period
busied themselves with such points at all? Zeal for sites
is the growth ofa later age. There is no proof that they
ever cared enough for Mount Hor to falsify for the sake
of it. As regards Jebel Odjme being Sinai, the writet
seems to have formed a false conception of Odjme,
which he draws as a prominent mountain boss in the
range of 7ih, taking that range for Horeb, and the pro-
minent mountain for Sinai. The best maps show that
it had no such predominance. They give it (. g.
Kiepert’s) as a distinct but less clearly defined and appa-
rently lower range, falling back into the northern plateau
in a N.W. direction from about the most southerly point
of the 7ih; which, from all the statements regarding it,
is a low horizontal range of limestone, with no such
prominent central point whatever, Russegger describes
particularly the mounting by the wall-like partition of
“Edjme” to the plateau of Edjme itself. “‘ The height,”
he says, “which we had here to mount is in no wise
considerable,” and adds, ‘“‘ we had now arrived at the
plateau” (Reisen, iii. 60, 61).
1758
Maccabees, annexed themselves, received circum-
cision and the law, by which an Edomite might,
‘in the third generation,’ enter the congregation
of Israel (Deut. xxiii. 8), so that by the New Testa-
ment period they must have been fully recognized.
The Jews proper, indeed, still speak of them as
“ foreigners,” but to them as having tne place of
kinsmen, a common share in Jerusalem, and care of
its sanctity as their ‘‘ metropolis ;” and Josephus
expressly testifies that they kept the et ee
there (Ant. xvii. 10, §25. comp. B. J. 4,
§4, 5). The zealots and the party of ee yal
appealed to their patriotism, somewhat as in our
Rebellion both parties appealed to the Scots.
It remains to notice the natural history of the
wilderness which we have been considering. A
number of the animals of the Sinaitic region have
been mentioned. [S1na1.] The domestic cattle of the
_Bedouins will of course be found, but camels more
numerously in the drier tracts of et-Tih. Schubert
(Reisen, ii. 354) speaks of Sinai as not being fre-
quented by any of the larger beasts of prey, nor
even by jackals. The lion has become very rare,
but is not absolutely unknown in the region (Negeb,
46,47). Foxes and hyenas, Ritter (xiv. 333) says,
are rave, but Mr. Tyrwhitt mentions hyenas as
common in the Wady Miaghdra; and Ritter (zbid.),
on the authority of Burckhardt, ascribes to the
region a creature which appears to be a cross be-
tween a leopard and a wolf, both of which are
rare in the Peninsula, but by which probably a
hyena is to be understood. A leopard-skin was ob-
tained by Burckhardt on Sinai, and a fine leopard
is stated by Mr. Tyrwhitt, to have been seen by
some of his party in their ascent of Um Shaumer
in 1862. Schubert continues his list in the
hyrax Syriacus, the ibex,* seen at Tifileh in
flocks of forty or fifty together, and a pair of
whose horns, seen by Burckhardt (Arab. 405-6) at
Kerek, measured 34 feet in length, the webr,! the
shrew-mouse, and a creature which he calls the
“ spring-maus”™ (mus jaculus or jerboa?), also a
canis famelicus, or desert-fox, and a lizard known
as the Agama Sinaitica, which may possibly be
identical with one of those described below. Hares
and jerboas are found in Wady Feiran. Schubert
quotes (7bid. note) Riippell as having found speci-
mens of helix and of coccinella in this wilderness ;
for the former, comp. Forskal, Icones Rerum Natur.
Tab. xvi. Schubert saw a fine eagle in the same
region, besides catching specimens of thrush, with
k Mr. Tyrwhitt commends the flesh of the ibex as
superior to any of the deer tribe that he had ever
eaten.
1 ἢ
Or Uabr, 39
monticola caro incolis
Anim, V.).
m Seetzen (iii. 41) saw holes in tke earth made, he
thought, by mice, in going from Hebron to Madara.
n Probably these birds have furnished a story to Pliny,
of their settling by night on the yards of ships in such
Vast numbers as to sink them (Λ΄. 7. x.).
ο With this compare the mention by Burckhardt (ap.
Ritter, xiv. 333) of a great wild-dog spoken of by the
Bedouins, and thought by Ritter to be perhaps the same
as the Derban of the Hedjaz desert.
ee
P LJ, rana (Freytag).
g
S-U-
Bales p> chamaeleon (Fr.). Mr. Tyrwhitt speaks of
“ feli similis sine cauda herbiphagus
edulis” (Forskal, Descript.
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
stonechat and other song-birds, and speaks of the
warbling of the birds as being audible from the
mimosa bush. Clouds of birds of passage were ©
visible in the Wudy Murrah. Near the same tract
of wilderness Dr. Stanley saw “ the sky darkened by
the flights of innumerable birds, which proved to
be large red-legyed cranes, 3 feet in height, with
black and white wings, measuring 7 feet from tip
to tip” (S. δ P. 82), At Tifileh crows abound.
On Serbal Dr. Stewart saw the red-legged partridge
(Lent and Khan, 117; comp. Burckhardt, Syria,
534); and the bird “ katta,” in some parts of the
Peninsula, comes in such numbers that boys some-
times knock over three or four at a single throw of
a stick.2 Hasselquist, who saw it here and in Egypt,
calls it a partridge, smaller than ours, and of a greyish
colour (204). Ritter (xiv. 333) adds linnets (?),
ducks, praivie-birds, heath-cocks, larks, a specimen
of finch, besides another small bird, probably red-
breast or chaffinch, the varieties of falcon known as
the brachydactylus and the niger, and, of course, on
the coast, sea-swallows, and mews. Flocks of blue
rock pigeons were repeatedly seen by Mr. Tyrwhitt.
Seetzen, going from Hebron to Madara, makes —
mention of the following animals, whose names
were mentioned by his guides, though he does not
say that any of them were seen by himself :—
wolf, porcupine, wild-cat, ounce, mole, wild-ass,
and three not easily to be identified, the Se//ek,
dog-shaped,° the Anasch, which devours the gazelle,
and the Lkkajib, said to be small and in shape like
a hedgehog. Seetzen’s list in this locality also
includes certain reptiles, of which such as can be
identified are explained in the notes :—el-Melledsha,
Umm el-Szleiman, el-Lidscha oy Leja,? el-Harraba
or Hirba,’ Dscherrar οὐ Jarrareh? el-Dab, other-
wise Dude,’ el-Hanne or Hanan,‘ el-Liffea; and
among birds the partridge, duck, stork, eagle.™
vulture (er-Rakham), crow (el-Grab), kite (Hi-
ddaych),* and an unknown bird called by him Um-
Salét. His guides told him of ostriches as seen near
Bteiaha on the way from Hebron to Sinai, and he
saw a nightingale, but it seems at no great distance
to the south of Hebron. The same writer also
mentions the edible lizard, e/-Dsob, as frequently
found in most parts of the wilderness, and his third
volume has an appendix on zoology, particularly
describing, and often with illustrations, many rep-
tiles and serpents of Egypt and Arabia, without,
however, pointing out such as are peculiar to the
wilderness. Among these are thirteen varieties of
one of these as seen by him at the entrance of Wady
es-Sheykh on the route from Suez to Sinai by Surabit
el-Khadim, which appeared green in shade and yellow in
sunshine.
‘
S-Ge
ἔτος Sy Scorpionum parvorum species, scorpio fe-
mina (Fr.).
>
z ae)
S Ce» Lacerta Aegypti (Fr.); and 523 “a worm;”
=
but this difference of signification seems to show that
they cannot represent one and the same animal, as
Seetzen’s text would seem to intend.
Guz ΣῪΝ
Ξ o> scarabaeus. α ο ἰὰς, aquila.
. e ΄
- =
* KSKS, milvius.
-
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
lizard, twenty-one of serpent, and seven of frog,
besides fifteen of Nile-fish. Laborde speaks of ser-
pents, scorpions, and black-scaled lizards, which per-
forate the sand, as found on the eastern border of
Edom near Tiifileh (Comm. on Num, xxxiii. 42),
The MS. of Mr. Tyrwhitt speaks of starting “a
large sand-coloured lizard, about 3 feet long, exactly
like a crocodile, with the same bandy-look about his
fore-legs, the elbows turning out enormously.” He
is described as covered not only “in scales, but in a
regular armour, which rattled quite loudly as he
yan.’ He “got up before the dromedary, and
vanished into a hole among some retem.” This
occurred at the head of the Wady Mokatteb.
Hasselquist (220) gives a Lacerta Scincus, ** the
Scinc,” as found in Arabia Petraea, near the Red
Sea, as well as in Upper Egypt, which he says is
much used by the inhabitants of the East as an
aphrodisiac, the flesh of the animal being given
in powder, and broth made of the recent flesh. He
also mentions the edible locust, Gryllus Arabicus,
which appears to be common in the wilderness, as
in other parts of Arabia, giving an account of the
-preparation of it for food (230-233). Burckhardt
names a cape not far from ’Akabah, Ras Um Haye,
from the number of serpents which abound there,
and accordingly applied to this region the descrip-
tion of the ‘fiery serpents’’¥ in Num. xxi. 4-9.
Schubert (ii. 362) remarked the first serpents in
going from Suez and Sinai to Petra, near e/-Htd-
herdh; he describes them as‘speckled. Burckhardt
(Syria, 499, 502) saw tracks of serpents, two inches
thick, in the sand. According to Riippell, serpents
elsewhere in the Peninsula are rare. He names two
poisonous kinds, Cerastes and Scytalis (Ritter, xiv.
329). The scorpion has given his name to the
“ Ascent of Scorpions,” which was part of the
boundary of Judah on the side of the southern
desert. Wady es-Zuweirah in that region swarmed
with them ; and De Saulcy says, “ you cannot turn
over a single pebble in the Nedjd (a branch wady)
without finding one under it” (De Saulcy, i. 529,
quoted in Negeb, 51).
The reader who is curious about the fish, mol-
lusca,z &c., of the Gulf of Suez should consult
Schubert (ii. 263, note, 298, note, and for the plants
of the same coast, 294, note). For a description of
the coral-banks of the Red Sea, see Ritter (xiv. 476
foll.), who remarks that these formations rise from
the coast-edge always ia longitudinal extension
parallel to its line, bespeaking a fundamental con-
nexion with the upheaval of the whole stretch of
shore from S.E. to N.W. A fish which Seetzen
calls the Alim may be mentioned as furnishing to
the Bedouins the fish-skin sandals of which they are
fond, Ritter (xiv. 327) thinks that fish may have
contributed materially to the sustenance of the
Israelites in the desert (Num. xi. 22), as they are
y Mr. Wilton (Negeb, 51) interprets “flying,” applied
(is. xxx. 6) to the serpent of the South, as “making
great springs;” and “fiery” as either denoting a sensa-
tion caused by the bite, or else “red-coloured ;” since
such are said to have been found by several travellers
whom he cites in the region between the Dead and Red
Seas.
z A number of these are delineated in Forskal’s Icones
Rerum Nat: among the later plates: see also his Vermes,
iv., Corallia Maris Rubri (ibid.). Also in Russegger’s
atlas some specimens of the same classes are engraved.
Schubert (ii. 370) remarks that most of the fish found
in the Gulf of ’Akabah belong to the tribes known as
Acanthurus and Chactodon (Hasselquist, 223). He saw a
1769
now dried and salted for sale in Cairo or at the
Convent of St. Catherine. In a brook near the foot
of Serbal, Schubert saw some varieties of elaphrus,
dyticus, colymbetes, gyrinus, and other water insects
(Reise, ii. 302, note).
As regards the vegetation of the desert, the most
frequently found trees are the date-palm (Phoenix
dactylifera), the desert acacia, and the tamarisk.
The palms are almost always dwarf, as described
S.§ P. 20, but sometimes the “d6m” palm is seen,
as on the shore of the Gulf of *Akabah (Schubert,
ii. 370; comp. Robinson, i. 161), Hasselquist, speak-
ing of the date-palm’s powers of sustenance, says
that some of the poorer families in Upper Egypt live
on nothing else, the very stones being ground into
a provender for the dromedary, This tree is often
found in tufts of a dozen or more together, the
dead and living boughs interlacing overhead, the
dead and living roots intertwining below, and thus
forming a canopy in the desert. The date-palms in
Wady Tir are said to be all numbered and regis-
tered. The acacia is the Mimosa Nilotica, and this
forms the most common vegetation of the wilder-
--
ness. Its Arabic name is es-Seyal (δίων), and
it is generally supposed to have furnished the
‘«Shittim wood” for the Tabernacle (Forskal, Deser.
Plant. Cent. vi. No. 90; Celsii, Hierob. i. 498 foll. ;
Ritter, xiv. 335 foll.). [SmirTAH-PrREE.] It is
armed with fearful thorns, which sometimes tear the
packages on the camels’ backs, and of course would
severely lacerate man or beast. The gum arabic is
gathered from this tree, on which account it is also
called the Acacia gummifera. Other tamarisks, be-
side the mannifera, mentioned above, are found in
the desert. Grass is comparatively rare, but its
quantity varies with the season. Robinson, on find-
ing some in Wady Sumghy, N.E. from Sinai, near
the Gulf of ’Akabah, remarks that it was the first
his party had seen since leaving the Nile. The
terebinth (Pistachia terebinthus, Arab. Bitm)®* is
well known in the wadys about Beersheba, but in
the actual wilderness it hardly occtrs. For a full
description of it see Robinson, ii. 222-3, and notes,
also i. 208, and comp. Cels. Hierobot. i. 34. The
‘‘ broom,” of the variety known as retem (Heb. and
Arab.), rendered in the A. V. by “ juniper,” is a
genuine desert plant; it is described (hobinson, i.
203, and note) as the largest and most conspicuous
shrub therein, having very bitter roots, and yielding
a quantity of excellent charcoal, which is the staple,
if one may so say, of the desert. The following are
mentioned by Schubert (ii. 352-4)> as found within
the limits of the wilderness:—Mespilus Aaronia,
Colutea haleppica, Atraphaxis spinosa, Ephedva
alaba, Cytisus uniflorus, and a Cynomorium, a
highly interesting variety, compared by Schubert
large turtle asleep and basking on the shore near the castle
of ’Akabah, which he ineffectually tried to capture.
* Seetzen met with it (iii. 47) at about 1 hour to the
W. of Wady el-’ Ain, between Hebron and Sinai; but the
mention of small cornfields in the same neighbourhood
shows that the spot has the character of an oasis.
b Schubert's floral catalogue is unusually rich. He
travelled with an especial view to the natural history of
the regions visited. His tracks extend from Cairo through
Suez, Ayfin Mfisa, and Tor, by way of Serbal, to Sinai,
thence to Mount Hor and Petra; thence by Madara and
Hebron to Jerusalem ; as well as in the northerly region
of Palestine and Syria. His book should be consulted by
| all students of this branch of the subject.
1770
to a well known Maltese one. To these he adds in
a note (iid.):—Dactylis memphitica, Gagea reti-
culata, Rumex vesicarius, Artemisia Judaica, Leys-
sera discoidea, Santolina fragrantissima, Seriola,
Lindenbergia Sinaica, Lamium amplexicaule,‘
Stachys aflinis, Sisymbrium iris, Anchusa Milleri,
Asperugo procumbens, Omphalodes intermedia,
Daemia cordata, Reseda canescens, and pruinosa,
Reaumuria vermiculata, Fumaria parviflora, Hype-
coum pendulum, Cleome trinervis, Aerua tomen-
tosa, Malva Honbezey, Fagonia,* Zygophyllum coc-
cineum,? Astragalus Fresenii, Genista monosperma.®
Schubert (ii. 357) also mentions, as found near Abu
Suweir, N.E. of Sinai, a kind of sage, and of what
is probably goat’s-rue, also (note, ibid.) a fine
variety of Astragalus, together with Linaria, Lotus,
Cynosurus echinatus, Bromus tectorum, and (365)
two varieties of Pergularia, the procera and the
tomentosa.
In the S.W. region of the Dead Sea grows the
singular tree of the apples of Sodom, the Asclepias
gigantea‘ of botanists. Dr. Robinson, who gives a
full description of it (1. 522-3), says it might be
taken for a gigantic species of the milk-weed or
silkweed found in the northern regions of the U.S.
He condemns the notion of Hasselquist (285, 287-
8) as an error, that the fruit of the So/anum me-
longela when punctured by a tenthredo, resulted in
the Sodom apple, retaining the skin uninjured, but
wholly changed to dust within (ὁ. 524). It is
the ’Osher of the Arabs. Robinson also mentions
willows, hollyhocks, and hawthorns in the Sinaitic
region, from the first of which the Ras Sifsafeh,
‘* willow-head,” takes its name (i. 106, 109;
Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. 17). He saw hyssop (Jddeh)
in abundance, and thyme (Za’ter), and in the
Wady Feirdn the colocynth, the Kirdhy or Kirdeeg
a green thorny plant with a yellow flower; and in
or near the ’Arabah, the juniper (’ Arar), the ole-
ander (Difich), and another shrub like it, the Zak-
nam, as also the plant e/-Ghudah, resembling the
Retem, but larger (i. 110, 83; ii. 124, 126, 119,
and note). He also describes the Ghirkiud, which
has been suggésted as possibly the ‘tree’ cast
by Moses into the waters of Marah (Ex. xv. 25).
It grows in saline regions of intense heat, bearing
a small red berry, very juicy, and slightly acidulous.
Being constantly found amongst brackish pools, the
“bane and antidote’ would thus, on the above sup-
position, be side by side, but as the fruit ripens in
June, it could not have been ready for its supposed
use in the early days of the Exodus (Robinson, i. 66-
69). He adds in a note that Forskal gives it (For.
Aeg. Arab. p. lxvi.), as the Peganum retusum, but
that it is more correctly the Nitraria tridentata of
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
Desfontaines (Flora Atlant. i. 372). The mountain
Um Shaumer takes its name from the fennel found
upon it, as perhaps may Serbd/ from the Ser,
myrrh, which ‘ creeps over its ledges up to the
very summit,”’—a plant noticed by Dr. Stanley as
“thickly covering” with its “shrubs” the “na-
tural basin” which surmounts ed-Deir, and as seen
in the Wady Seydl, N.E. from Sinai (S. §& P. 17,
78-80). Dy. Stanley also notices the wild thorn,
from which the Wady Sidri takes its name, the
fig-tree which entitles another Wady the “ Father
of Fig-trees” (Abi Hamad), and in the Wady
Seyal, “a yellow flowering shrub called Abei-
thiran, and a blue thorny plant called Silleh.”
Again, north-eastwards in Wady el- Ain were seen
‘rushes, the large-leaved plant called Esher,” and
further down the “ Lasaf, or caper plant, springing
from the clefts.” Seetzen’s mesembryanthemum,
described above, page 1755, note 8, is noticed by
Forskal, who adds that no herb is more common
in sandy desert localities than the second, the nodi-
florum, called in Arabic the ghasil ( Jaws). Has-
selquist speaks of a mesemb, which he calls the
“ὁ fio-marigold,” as found in the ruins of Alexandria ;
its agreeable saltish-aromatic flavour, and its use
by the Egyptians in salads, accord closely with
Seetzen’s description. Seetzen gives also Arabic
names of two plants, one called Zckedum by the
guides, described as of the size of heath with blue
flowers; the other named Subbh-el-dich, found to
the north of Wady el- Ain, which had a club-
shaped sappy root, ranged a foot high above the
earth, having scales instead of leaves, and covered,
when he saw it, with large, golden flowers cling-
ing close together, till it seemed like a little
ninepin (Kegel). Somewhat to the south of this
he observed the “ rose of Jericho” growing in the
dreariest and most desolate solitude, and which
appears always to be dead (Reisen, iii. 46, 54). In
the region about Madara he also found what he
calls ** Christ’s-thorn,” Arab. e/-Aussitch, and an
anonymous plant with leaves broader than a tulip,
perhaps the Esher mentioned above. The follow-
ing list of plants between Hebron and Madara is
also given by Seetzen, having probably been written
down by him from hearing them pronounced by
his Bedouin guides, and some accordingly it has not
been possible to identify with any known names,—el-
Khirrdy, mentioned in the previous column, note 8;
el-Bureid, a hyacinth, whose small pear-shaped bulb
is eaten raw by the Bedouins, e/- Arta,» el-Dschérra,
el-Sphara (or Zafra 9). el-Erbian, el-Gdime, Sche-
kera (or Shakooreeyeh),£ el-Metnan, described as a
small shrub, e/-Hmim, el-Schillueh, possibly the
¢ Both these are found in cultivated grounds only.
ἃ Shown in Forskal’s Icones Rer. Natur. tab. xi., where
several kinds of zygophyllum are delineated.
e Probably the same as the retem mentioned above.
f Many varieties of Asclepias, especially the Cordata,
are given by Forskal (Deser. Plant. cent. ii. 49-51). A
writer in the English Cyclopaed. of Nat. Hist. supports the
view of Hasselquist, which Dr. Robinson condemns, calling
this tree a Solanwm, and ascribing to a tenthredo the
phenomenon which occurs in its fruit.
4)
, yd arboris rarae nomen in desertuo crescentis
g sé
pri
cujus flores flaviores sunt quam plantae (wars,
un
memecylon tinctorium) appellatae” (Freytag). For this
and most of the notes on the Arabic names of plants
and animals, the present writer is indebted to Mr. E.
S. Poole.
- OF
h ἐς . : 5
, nomen arboris crescentis in arenis, flore
by}
saligneo, fructu ziziphino amaro, radicibus ramulisque
rubris, cujus recentiore fructu vescuntur cameli, cortice
autem coria concinnantur” (Freyt.). It grows to aman’s
height, with a flower like the salix aegyptiaca, but smaller,
with a fruit like the jujube, and the root red.
~—U-
i δ Ὁ ta sylvestris (Freyt.).
SoS ™
“=| cichorium; intybus (Forskal, Flor.
Condrilla (MS.
k
δ)
Aegypt. ap. Freyt.).
notes).
Succory or endive.
WILDERNESS OF THE WANDERING
same as that called Silleh, as above, by Dr. Stanley,
el-Khdla (or Khal), el- Handegik (or Handakook),™
el-Liddemma, el-Haddad, Kuli, Addan el- Hammar
(or Addn el-Himar).™ Some more rare plants, pre-
cious on account of their products, are the following:
Balsamum Aaronis, or nua behen, called by the
Arabs Festuck el-Ban, from which an oil is extracted
having no perfume of its own, but scented at plea-
sure with jessamine or other odoriferous leaf, &e.
to make a choice unguent. It is found in Mount
Sinai and Upper Egypt:—Cucurbita Ldgenaria,
Avyab. Charrah, found in Egypt and the deserts of
Arabia, wherever the mountains are covered with
rich soil. The tree producing the famous balsam
called ‘of Mecca,” is found many days’ journey
from that place in Arabia Petraea. Linnaeus, after
some hesitation, decided that it was a species of
Amyris. The olibanwm frankincense is mentioned
by Hasselquist as a product of the desert; but the
producing tree appears to be the same as that which
yields the gum arabic, viz., the Mimosa nilotica,
mentioned above. The same writer mentions the
Schoenanthus officinalis, * camel’s hay,” as growing
plentifully in the deserts of both the Arabias, and
regards it as undoubtedly one of the precious, aro-
matic, and sweet plants, which the Queen of Sheba
gave to Solomon (Hasselquist, 288, 255, 296-7;
comp. 250-1, 300). Fuller details on the facts of
natural history of the region will be found in the
writers referred to, and some additional authorities
may be found in Sprengel, Historia rei Herb.
vol, ii.
Besides these, the cultivation of the ground by
the Sinaitic monks has enriched their domain with
the choicest fruit trees, and with a variety of other
trees. The produce of the former is famed in the
markets of Cairo. The cypresses of the Convent
are visible far away among the mountains, and
there is a single conspicuous one near the ‘ cave of
Elias” on Jebel Masa. Besides, they have the
silver and the common poplar, with other trees, for
timber or ornament. The apricot, apple, pear,
quince, almond, walnut, pomegranate, olive, vine,
citron, orange, cornelian cherry, and two fruits
named in the Arabic Schellik and Bargth, have
been successfully naturalized there (Robinson, i.
94; Seetzen, iii. 70 &c.; Hasselquist, 425 ;
S. § P. 52). Dr, Stanley views these as mostly
introduced from Europe; Hasselquist on the con-
trary views them as being the originals whence
the finest varieties we have in Europe were first
brought. Certainly nearly all the above trees
are common enough in the gardens of Palestine and
Damascus,
[The present writer wishes to acknowledge the |
kindness of the Rev. R. S. Tyrwhitt of Oxford, in
allowing him a sight of a valuable MS. read by
that traveller before the Alpine Club. It is ex-
pected to be published in the Journal of that body,
but was not in print when this paper went to
press. The references to Mr. Tyrwhitt in the
preceding article, either relate to that MS., or to
his own remarks upon the article itself, which he
inspected whilst in the proof sheet. | ΠΗ H.]
1 e\\t, nomen plantae regionis Nedjid peculiaris
cui est flos; caulis exiguus; Laser; Ruta (Freyt.).
o-U-
τ ὦ 95 Qi» Lotus-plant (Preyt.). Distinct, it
WILLOWS 1771
WILLOWS (Ὁ), ’ardbim, only in pl. ;
ἰτέα ; (with bn) ἄγνου κλάδους ἐκ χειμάῤῥου,
κλῶνες ἄγνου : sulices), undoubtedly the cor-
rect rendering of the above Hebrew term, as
is proved by the old versions and the kindred
S--
Arabic gharab (WS). Willows are mentioned
in Ley. xxiii. 40, among the trees whose branches
were to be used in the construction of booths
at the Feast of Tabernacles; in Job xl. 22,
as a tree which gave shade to Behemoth (* the
hippopotamus”); in Is, xliv. 4, where it is said
that Israel’s offspring should spring up “ as willows
by the watercourses ;” in the Psalm (exxxvii. 2)
which so beautifully represents Israel’s sorrow
during the time of the Captivity in Babylon—*‘ we
hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst
thereof.” With respect to the tree upon which the
captive Israelites hung their harps, there can be
no doubt that the weeping willow (Salix Baby-
lonica) is intended. This tree grows abundantly on
the banks of the Euphrates, in other parts of Asia
as in Palestine (Strand’s Flora Palaest. No. 556),
and also in North Africa. Bochart has endeavoured
to show (Phaleg, i. cap. viii.) that country is
spoken of, in Is. xv. 7, as “ the Valley of Willows.”
This however is very doubtful. Sprengel (ist.
fei Herb. i. 18, 270) seems to restrict the arab
to the Salix Babylonica; but there can scarcely
be a doubt that the term is generic, and includes
other species of the large family of Salices, which
is probably well represented in Palestine and the
Bible lands, such as the Salix alba, S. viminalis
(osier), S. Aegyptiaca, which latter plant Sprengel
S - [9] -
identifies with the safsaf (Werasuc) of Abul’-
fadli, cited by Celsius (Hierob. ii. 108), which
word is probably the same as the Tsaphtsdphah
(ABYSS) of Ezekiel (xvii. 5), a name in Arabic
Burckhardt (Syria, p. 644),
mentions a fountain called “Ain Safsdf ( est
cslasuo), “the Willow Fountain” (Catafago,
Arabic Dictionary, p. 1051). Rauwolf (quoted
in bi. Bot. p. 274) thus speaks of the
safsaf :—*‘ These trees are of various sizes; the
stems, branches, and twigs are long, thin, soft, and
of a pale yellow, and have some resemblance to
those of the birch; the leaves are like those of the
common willow; on the boughs grow here and
there shoots of aspan long, as on the wild fig-
trees of Cyprus, and these put forth in spring
tender downy blossoms like those of the poplar ;
the blossoms are pale coloured, and of a delicious
fragrance; the natives pull them in great quan-
tities, and distil from them a cordial which is much
esteemed.”’ Hasselquist (Zrav. p. 449), under
the name of calaf, apparently speaks of the same
tree; and Forskal (Descript. Plant. p. Ixxvi.)
identifies it with the Salix Aegyptiaca, while he
considers the safsaf to be the S. Babylonica.
for “a willow.”
should seem, from the lote-tree, or niibk (a species of the
bird’s-foot trefoil?). Melitot (MS. notes),
n Comfrey (MS. notes).
1772 WILLOWS, BROOK OF THE
From these discrepancies it seems that the Arabic
words are used indefinitely for willows of different
kinds.
«The children of Israel,” says Lady Callcott
(Scripture Herbal, p. 533), “ still present willows
annually in their synagogues, bound up with palm
and myrtle, and accompanied with a citron.” In
this country, as is well known, sprigs of willow-
blossoms, under the name‘of ‘ palms,’ are often
carried in the hand, or borne on some part of the |
dress, by men and boys on Palm Sunday.
Before the Babylonish Captivity the willow was
always associated with feelings of joyful prosperity.
“It is remarkable,’ as Mr. Johns (Zhe Forest
Trees of Britain, ii. p. 240) truly says, “" for
having been in different ages emblematical of two
directly opposite feelings, at one time being associ-
ated with the palm, at another with the cypress.”
After the Captivity, however, this tree became the
emblem of sorrow, and is frequently thus alluded
to in the poetry of our own country; and “ there
can be no doubt,” as Mr. Johns continues, “ that
the dedication of the tree to sorrow is to be traced
to the pathetic passage in the Psalms.”
Various uses were no doubt made of willows by |
the ancient Hebrews, although there does not ap-
pear to be any definite allusion to them. The
Egyptians used ‘‘ flat baskets of wickerwork,
similar to those made in Cairo at the present day”
(Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. i. p. 43). Herodotus (i.
194) speaks of boats at Babylon whose framework
was of willow ; such coracle-shaped boats are re-
presented in the Nineveh sculptures (see Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 268). [W. H.]
WILLOWS, THE BROOK OF THE (ono
DAW: ἡ pdpayé”ApaBas: torrens salicum).
A wady mentioned by Isaiah (xv. 7) in his dirge
over Moab. His language implies that it was one |
of the boundaries of the country—probably, as
Gesenius (Jesaia, i. 532) observes, the southern
one. It is possibly identical with a wady men-
tioned by Amos (vi. 14) as the then recognized
southern limit of the northern? kingdom (Fiirst,
Handwbh.; Ewald, Propheten) This latter appears
in the A. V. as “the river of the wilderness”
(AIA '): ὃ χείμαῤῥος τῶν δυσμῶν : torrens
deserti). Widely as they differ in the A. V., it
will be observed that the names are all but identical
in the original, the only difference being that it is
plural in Isaiah and singular in Amos. In the
latter it is ha-Arabah, the same name which is
elsewhere almost exclusively used for the Valley of
the Jordan, the Ghor of modern Arabs. If the two
are regarded as identical, and the latter as the accu-
rate form of the name, then it is probable that the
Wady el-Ahsy is intended, which breaks down
through the southern part of the mountains of
Moab into the so-called Ghor es-Safieh, at the
lower end of the lake, and appears (though our in-
|
WILLS
formation as to that locality is very scanty) to form a
natural barrier between the districts of Kerak and
Jebal (Burckhardt, Syria, Aug. 7). This is not
improbably also the brook ZERED (nachal-Zered)
ot the earlier history.
Should, however, the Nachal ha-Arabim be ren-
dered ‘‘ the Willow-torrent ”—which has the sup-
port of Gesenius (/Jesaia) and Pusey (Comm. on
Amos, vi. 14)—then it. is worthy of remark that
the name Wady Sufsaf, ‘Willow Wady,” is still
attached to a part of the main branch of the ravine
which descends from Aerak to the north end of the
peninsula of the Dead Sea (Irby, May 9). Either
of these positions would agree with the require-
ments of either passage.
The Targum Pseudojonathan translates the name
Zered by ‘‘ osiers,” or ‘ baskets.”
The Rey. Myr. Wilton in his work on The
Negeb, or South Country of Scripture, endeavours
to identify the Machal ha-Arabah of Amos with
the Wady el-Jeib, which forms the main drain by
which the waters of the present Wady Arabah (the
great tract between Jebel Sherah and the moun-
tains of et-Zih) are discharged into the Ghor es-
Safich at the southern end of the Dead Sea. (This
important wady was first described by Dr. Robin-
son, and an account of it will be found in this
work under the head of ARABAH, vol. i. p. 89 }.)
This is certainly ingenious, but cannot be accepted
as more than a mere conjecture, without a single
consideration in its favour beyond the magnitude of
the Wady el-Jeib, and the consequent probability
that it would be mentioned by the Prophet.»
Over this name Jerome takes a singular flight
in his Commentary on Is. xv. 7, connecting it with
the Orebim (A.V. ‘‘ ravens”) who fed Elijah during
his seclusion :—‘*‘ Pro salicibus in Hebraeo legimus
Arabim quod potest et Arabes intelligi et legi
Orbim ; id est villa in finibus eorum sita cujus a
plerisque accolae in Monte Oreb Eliae praebuisse
alimenta dicuntur. . . .” The whole passage is a
curious mixture of topographical confusion and
what would now be denounced as rationalism. [G. ]
WILLS. The subject of testamentary disposi-
tion is of course intimately connected with that of
inheritance, and little need be added here to what
will be found above. [HemR, vol. i. p. 779.] Under
a system of close inheritance like that of the Jews,
the scope for bequest in respect of land was limited
by the right of redemption and general re-entry in
the Jubilee year. [JUBILEE, Vows.] But the
Law does not forbid bequests by will of such limited
interest in land as was consistent with those rights.
The case of houses in walled towns was different,
and there can be no doubt that they must, in fact,
have frequently been bequeathed by will (Lev.
xxv. 30). Two instances are recorded in the O. T.
under the Law, of testamentary disposition, (1)
effected in the case of Ahithophel (2 Sam. xvii. 23),
(2) recommended in the case of Hezekiah (2 K. xx.
a Amos is speaking of the northern kingdom only, not
of the whole nation, which excludes the interpretation of
the LXX., i. e., probably the Wady el-Arish, and also (if it
were not precluded by other reasons) that of Gesenius,
the Kidron.
b It is surely incautious (to say the least) to speak of
@ mere conjecture, such as this, in terms as positive
and unhesitating as if it were a certain and indisputable
identification—* Amos is the only sacred writer who
mentions the Wady el-Jeib; which he defines as the
southern limit of Palestine .... The minute accuracy of
the Prophet in speaking of it as the ‘nachal of the
Arabah’” (Negeb, &c., 34, 35). It has not even the
support that it was in the Prophet’s native district.
Amos was no “prophet of the Negeb.” He belonged to
the pasture-grounds of Tekoa, not ten miles from Jeru-
salem, and all his work seems to have lain in Bethel and
the northern kingdom. There is not one tittle of
evidence that he ever set foot in the Negeb, or knew
anything of it. Such statements as these are calculated
only to damage and retard the too-faltering progress
of Scripture topography.
WIMPLE
1; Is. χχχυ 1); and it may be remarked in
both, that the word “ set® in order,” marg. “ give
charge concerning,” agrees with the Arabic word
“command,” which also means “*make a will”
(Michaelis, Law of Moses, art. 80, vol. i. p. 430,
ed. Smith. Various directions concerning wills will
be found in the Mishna, which imply disposition of
land, Baba Bathr. viii. 6, 7). [Ee Ψ}ΕῚ Β:]
WIMPLE (nM5v). An old English word for
hood or veil, representing the Hebrew mitpachath
in Is. iii, 22. The same Hebrew word is translated
“veil” in Ruth iii. 15, but it signifies rather a
kind of shawl or mantle (Schroeder, De Vestitu
Mulier. Hebr.c.16). [Dress, p.456.] [W.L. B.]
WINDOW qibn 3; Chal. 13: θυρίς). The win-
dow of an Oriental house consists generally of
an aperture (as the word challén implies) closed
in with lattice-work, named in Hebrew by the
terms drubbaéh® (Kecl. xii. 3, A. V. ““ window;”
Hos, xiii. 3, A. V. “ chimney ”’), chdrakhkim ¢ (Cant.
ii. 9), and eshndh4 (Judg. v. 28; Prov. vii. 6,
A. V. “ casement’), the two former signifying the
interlaced work of the lattice, and the third the
coolness produced by the free current of air through
it. Glass has been introduced into Egypt in
modern times as a protection against the cold of
winter, but lattice-work is still the usual, and with
the poor the only, contrivance for closing the win-
dow (Lane’s Mod. Ey. i. 29). When the lattice-
work was open, there appears to have been nothing
in early times to prevent a person from falling
through the aperture (Acts xx. 9). The windows
generally look into the inner court of the house,
but in every house one or more look into the street,
and hence it is possible for a person to observe
the approach of another without being himself ob-
served (Judg. v. 28; 2 Sam. vi. 16; Prov. vii. 6;
Cant. ii. 9). In Egypt these outer windows gene-
rally project over the doorway (Lane, i. 27 ; Carne’s
Letters, i. 94). When houses abut on the town-
wall it is not unusual for them to have projecting
windows surmounting the wall and looking into the
country, as represented in Conybeare and Howson’s
St. Paul, 1. 124. Through such a window the spies
escaped from Jericho (Josh. ii. 15), and St. Paul
from Damascus (2 Cor. xi. 33), [W. L. B.]
WINDS (119). That the Hebrews récognised
the existence of four prevailing winds as issuing,
broadly speaking, from the four cardinal points,
north, south, east, and west, may be inferred from
their custom of using the expression “ four winds”
as equivalent to the “ four quarters” of the
hemisphere (Ez. xxxvii. 9; Dan. viii, 85) Zech.
ii. 6; Matt. xxiv. 31). The correspondence of
the two ideas is expressly stated in Jer. xlix. 36.
The North wind, or, as it was usually called « the
north,” ® was naturally the coldest of the four
(Ecclus. xliii, 20), and its presence is hence in-
voked as favourable to vegetation in Cant. iv. 16.
It is further described in Proy. xxv. 25, as bringing
(A. V. “driveth away”? in text; « bringeth forth”
in marg.) rain ; in this case we must understand the
north-west wind, which may bring rain, but was
WINDS 1773
certainly not regarded as decidedly tainy. The
difficulty connected with this passage has led to the
proposal of a wholly different sense for the term
tzdphon, viz. hidden place. The north-west wind
prevails from the autumnal equinox to the begin-
ning of November, and the north wind from June
to the equinox (v. Raumer’s Palast. p. 79). The
East wind crosses the sandy wastes of Avabia De-
serta before reaching Palestine, and was hence
termed ‘‘the wind of the wilderness” (Job i. 19;
Jer. xiii. 24). It is remarkably dry and penetrat-
ing, and has all the effects of the sirocco on vegeta-
tion (Ez. xvii. 10, xix. 12; Hos. xiii. 15; Jon.
iv. 8). It also blows with violence, and is hence
supposed to be used generally for any violent wind
(Job xxvii. 21, xxxviii, 24; Ps. xlviii. 7; Is. xxvii.
8; Ez. xxvii. 26). It is probably in this sense
that it is used in Ex. xiv. 21, though the east, or
at all events the north-east wind would be the one
adapted to effect the phenomenon described, viz. the
partition of the waters towards the north and south,
so that they stood as a wall on the right hand and
on the left (Robinson, Res. i. 57). In this as in
many other passages, the LXX. gives the “ south”
wind (νότος), as the equivalent for the Greek
kadim. Nor is this wholly incorrect, for in Egypt,
where the LXX. was composed, the south wind has
the same characteristics that the east has in Pales-
tine. The Greek translators appear to have felt the
difficulty of rendering kadim in Gen. xli. 6, 23, 27,
because the parching effects of the east wind, with
which the inhabitants of Palestine are familiar, are
not attributable to that wind in Egypt, but either
to the south wind, called in that country the ἀλα-
mdseen, οὐ to that known as the samoom, which
comes from the south-east or south-south-east
(Lane’s Mod. Eg. i, 22, 23). It is certainly pos-
sible that in Lower Egypt the east wind may be
more parching than elsewhere in that country, but
there is no more difficulty in assigning to the term
hadim the secondary sense of parching, in this pas-
sage, than that of violent in the others before quoted.
As such at all events the LXX. treated the term
both here and in several other passages, where it is
rendered kausén (καύσων, lit. the burner). In
James i. 11, the A. V. erroneously understands this
expression of the burning heat of the sun. In Pa-
lestine the east wind prevails from February to
June (v. Raumer, 79). The South wind,’ which
traverses the Arabian peninsula before reaching
Palestine, must necessarily be extremely hot (Job
xxxviil. 17; Luke xii. 55); but the rarity of the
notices leads to the inference that it seldom blew
from that quarter (Ps. Ixxviii. 26; Cant. iv. 16;
Ecclus. xliii. 16): and even when it does blow, it
does not carry the samoom into Palestine itself,b
although Robinson experienced the effects of this
scourge not far south of Beersheba (Res. i.
196). In Egypt the south wind (/thamdseen)
prevails in the spring, a portion of which in the
months of April and May is termed e/-khamdseen
from that circumstance (Lane i. 22). The West
and south-west winds reach Palestine loaded with
moisture gathered from the Mediterranean (Robin-
son, 1, 429), and are hence expressively termed by
a mY; ἐντέλλομαι ; dispono. ONS in Rabb. a will.
Ges. p. 1155.
> ΠΞῚΝ © Ds 4 avy
e DY. f Op. © DIN; jn.
h The term zilaphah ΩΣ in Ps. xi. 6 (A. V. “hor-
tible”) has been occasionally understood as referring to
the samoom (Olshausen, in loc.; Gesen. Thes. p. 418); but it
may equally well be rendered “ wrathful” or “avenging ”
(Hengstenberg, in loc.).
1774 WINE
the Arabs “the fathers of the rain” (y. Raumer,
.. 79). The little cloud “like a man’s hand” that
rose out of the west, was recognised by Elijah as a
presage of the coming downfall (1 Ix. xviii. 44),
and the same token is adduced by our Lord as one
of the ordinary signs of the weather (Luke xii. 54).
Westerly winds prevail in Palestine from November
to February.
In addition to the four regular winds, we have
notice in the Bible of the local squalls (λαῖλαψ :;
Mark iv. 37; Luke viii. 23), to which the Sea of
Gennesareth was liable in consequence of its prox-
imity to high ground, and which were sufficiently
violent to endanger boats (Matt. viii. 24; John
vi. 18). The gales which occasionally. visit Pales-
tine are noticed under the head of WHIRLWIND.
In the narrative of St. Paul’s voyage we meet with
the Greek term lips (Af) to describe the south-
west wind; the Latin Carus or Caurus (χῶρος);
the north-west wind (Acts xxvii. 12); and evpo-
κλύδων (a term of uncertain origin, perhaps a cor-
ruption of εὐρακύλων, which appears in some
MSS.), a wind of a very violent character (τυφω-
vikds) coming from E.N.E. (Acts xxvii. 14 ; Conyb.
and Hows. St. Paul, ii. 402). {EUROCLYDON. |
The metaphorical allusions to the winds are very
numerous; the east wind, in particular, was re-
garded as the symbol of nothingness (Job xv. 2;
Hos. xii. 1), and of the wasting destruction of war
(Jer. xviii. 17), and, still more, of the effects of
Divine vengeance (Is. xxvii. 8), in which sense,
however, general references to violent wind are also
employed (Ps. ciii. 16; Is. Ixiv. 6; Jer. iv. 11).
Wind is further used as an image of speed (Ps. civ.
4, “Πρ maketh His angels winds ;” Heb. i. 7), and
of transitoriness (Job vii. 7 ; Ps. Ixxviii. 39). Lastly,
the wind is frequently adduced as a witness of the
Creator’s power (Job xxviii, 25; Ps. exxxv. 7; Eccl.
xi. 5; Jer. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4; Am. iv. 13), and as
representing the operations of the Holy Spirit (John
iii. 8 ; Acts ii. 2), whose name (πνεῦμα) represents
a gentle wind. [Wine Bs)
WINE. ‘The manufacture of wine is carried
back in the Bible to the age of Noah (Gen. ix.
20, 21), to whom the discovery of the process
is apparently, though not explicitly, attributed.
The natural history and culture of the vine is
described under a separate head. [V1NE.] The
only other plant whose fruit is noticed as having
been converted into wine was the pomegranate
(Cant. viii. 2). In Palestine the vintage takes
place in September, and is celebrated with great
rejoicings (Robinson, Res. i. 451, ii. 81). The
ripe fruit was gathered in baskets (Jer, vi. 9), as
represented in Egyptian paintings (Wilkinson, i.
41-45), and was carried to the wine-press. It was
then placed in the upper one of the two vats or
receptacles of which the wine-press was formed
[ Winkr-pREss], and was subjected to the process
of “treading,” which has prevailed in all ages
in Oriental and South-Kuropean countries (Neh.
xiii, 15; Job xxiv. 115 Is. xvi. 10; Jer. xxv. 30,
xlviii. 33; Am. ix. 13; Rev. xix. 15). A certain
amount of juice exuded from the ripe fruit from its
own pressure before the treading commenced. ‘This
appears to have been kept separate from the rest
of the juice, and to have formed the gleukos or
“* sweet, wine” noticed in Acts 1,15. The first
drops of juice that reached the lower vat were
termed the dema, or “ tear,” and formed the first-
fruits of the vintage (ἀπαρχὰς ληνοῦ, LXX.)
which were to be presented to Jehovah (Iix. xxii.
WINE
29). The ‘ treading” was effected by one or more
men according to the size of the vat, and, if the
Jews adopted the same arrangements as the Egyp-
tians, the treaders were assisted in the operation by
ropes fixed to the roof of the wine-press, as repre-
sented in Wilkinson’s Anc. Hg. i. 46. They en-
couraged one another by shouts and cries (Is. xvi.
9,10; Jer. xxv. 30, xlviii. 33). Their legs and
garments were dyed red with the juice (Gen. xlix.
11; Is. lxiii. 2, 3). The expressed juice escaped
by an aperture into the lower vat, or was at once
collected in vessels. A hand-press was occasionally
used in Egypt (Wilkinson, i. 45), but we have no
notice of such an instrument in the Bible. As to
the subsequent treatment of the wine, we have but
little information. Sometimes it was preserved in
its unfermented state, and drunk as must, but
more generally it was bottled off after fermentation,
and, if it were designed to be kept for some time,
a certain amount of lees was added to give it body
(Is. xxv. 6). The wine consequently required to be
“vefined ” or strained previously to being brought
to table (Is. xxv. 6).
εἰν
LL LLL
Egyptian Wine-press, from W illiison.
The produce of the wine-press was described in
the Hebrew language by a variety of terms, indi-
cative either of the quality or of the use of the
liquid. These terms have of late years been sub-
jected to a rigorous examination with a view to
show that Scripture disapproves, or, at all events,
does not speak with approval, of the use of fer-
mented liquor. In order to establish this position
it has been found necessary, in all cases where the
substance is coupled with terms of commendation,
to explain them as meaning either unfermented
wine or fruit, and to restrict the notices of fer-
mented wine to passages of a condemnatory char-
acter. We question whether the critics who have
adopted these views have not driven their argu-
ments beyond their fair conclusions. It may at
once be conceded that the Hebrew terms translated
“wine” refer occasionally to an untermented
liquor; but inasmuch as there are frequent allu-
sions to intoxication in the Bible, it is clear that.
fermented liquors were also in common use. It
may also be conceded that the Bible oceasionally
speaks in terms of strong condemnation of the
effects of wine; but it is an open question whether
in these cases the condemnation is not rather
directed against intoxication and excess, than against
the substance which is the occasion of the excess.
The term of chief importance in connexion with
WINE
WINE 1775
this subject is tirésh, which is undoubtedly spoken | (Ps. Ixxv. 8), mezeg ® (Cant. vii. 2), and mimsdc™
of with approval, inasmuch as it is frequently
classed with ddgdn and shemen, in the triplet
“corn, wine, and oil,” as the special gifts of Pro-
vidence. ‘This has been made the subject of a
special discussion in a pamphlet entitled Tirosh
lo Yayin by Dr. Lees, the object being to prove
that it means not wine but fruit. An examination
of the Hebrew terms is therefore unavoidable, but
we desire to carry it out simply as a matter of
Biblical criticism, and without reference to the
topic which has called forth the discussion.
The most general term for wine is yayin,® which
is undoubtedly connected with the Greek οἶνος, the
Latin vinum, and our “ wine.” It has hitherto
been the current opinion that the Indo-Kuropean
languages borrowed the term from the Hebrews.
The reverse, however, appears to be the case (Renan,
Lang. Sém. i, 207): the word belongs to the Indo-
Kuropean languages, and may be referred either to
the root wé, ‘to weave,’ whence come viere,
vimen, vitis, vitta (Pott, Htym. Forsch. i. 120,
230), or to the root wan, “ to love”’ (Kuhn, Zeits, f.
Vergl. Sprachf. i. 191,192). The word being a
borrowed one, no conclusion can be drawn from ety-
mological considerations as to its use in the Hebrew
language. Tirdsh> is referred to the root yarash,
“to get possession of,” and is applied, according to
Gesenius (Thes. p. 633), to wine on account of its
inebriating qualities, whereby it gets possession of
the brain ; but, according to Bythner, as quoted by
Lees ( Tirosh, p. 52), to the vine as being a pos-
session (κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν in the eyes of the Hebrews.
Neither of these explanations is wholly satisfactory,
but the second is less so than the first, inasmuch
as it would be difficult to prove that the Hebrews
attached such pre-eminent value to the vine as to
place it on a par with landed property, which is
designated by the cognate terms yerushshah and
mordshah. Nor do we see that any valuable con-
clusion could be drawn from this latter derivation ;
for, assuming its correctness, the question would
still arise whether it was on account of the natural
or the manufactured product that such store was
set on the vine, ’Asis¢ is derived from a word
signifying “to tread,’ and therefore refers to the
method by which the juice was expressed from the
fruit. It would very properly reter to new wine
as being recently trodden out, but not necessarily to
unfermented wine. It occurs but five times in the
Bible (Cant. viii. 2; Is. xlix. 26; Joel i. 5, iii. 18;
Am. ix. 19). Sébe4 is derived from a root signi-
fying to “soak” or ‘drink to excess.” The cog-
nate verb and participle are constantly used in the
latter sense (Deut. xxi. 20; Prov. xxiii. 20, 21;
Is. lvi. 12; Nah. i. 10). The connexion between
sobe and the Latin sapa, applied to a decoction of
must (Kitto’s Cycl. s. Ὁ. Wine), appears doubtful :
the latter was regarded as a true Latin word by
Pliny (xiv. 11). Sobe occurs but thrice (Is. i. 22;
Hos. iv. 18; Nah. i. 10). Chemer ὁ (Deut. xxxii.
14), in the Chaldee chamar (Ezr. vi. 9, vii. 22) and
chamra (Dan. v. 1 ff.), conveys the notion of foam-
ing or ebullition, and may equally well apply to
the process of fermentation or to the frothing of
liquid freshly poured out, in which latter case it
might be used of an unfermented liquid. Mesec ἢ
(Prov. xxiii. 30; Is. Ixv. 11), are connected etymo-
logically with misceo and “‘ mix,” and imply a mix-
ture of wine with some other substance: no con-
clusion can be drawn from the word itself as to the
quality of the wine, whether fermented or unfer-
mented, or as to the nature of the substance intro-
duced, whether spices or water. We may further
notice shécdr,i a generic term applied to all fer-
mented liquors except wine [DRINK, STRONG];
chémetz,i a weak sour wine, ordinarily termed
vinegar [VINEGAR]; dshishah,* rendered “ flagon
of wine” in the A. V. (2 Sam. xvi. 1; 1 Chr:
xvi. 33 Cant. ii. 5; Hos. iii. 1), but really mean-
ing a cake of pressed raisins; and shémdrim,! pro-
perly meaning the “lees” or dregs of wine, but in
Is. xxv. 6 transferred to wine that had been kept
on the lees for the purpose of increasing its body.
In the New Testament we meet with the following
terms: oimos,™ answering to yayin as the general
designation of wine; glewkos,™ properly sweet wine
(Acts ii. 13); stkera,° a Grecised form of the
Hebrew shécdr; and oxos,P vinegar. In Rev. xiv.
10 we meet with a singular expression,4 literally
meaning mixed unmixed, evidently referring to the
custom of mingling wine: the two terms cannot be
used together in their literal sense, and hence the
former has been explained as meaning ‘ poured
out” (De Wette zn /. c.).
From the terms themselyes we pass on to an
examination of such passages as seem to elucidate
their meaning. Both yayin and tirdésh are occa-
sionally connected with expressions that would
apply properly to a fruit; the former, for instance,
with verbs significant of gathering (Jer, xl. 10, 12),
and growing (Ps. civ. 14, 15); the latter with gather-
ing (Is. lxii. 9, A. V. “ brought it together’’),
treading (Mic. vi. 15), and withering (Is. xxiv. 7;
Joel i. 10). So again the former is used in Num.
vi. 4 to define the particular kind of tree whose
products were forbidden to the Nazarite, viz. the
‘pendulous shoot of the vine;” and the latter in
Judg. ix. 13, to denote the product of the vine.
It should be observed, however, that in most, if not
all, the passages where these and similar expressions
occur, there is something to denote that the fruit is
regarded not simply as fruit, but as the raw ma-
terial out of which wine is manufactured. Thus,
for instance, in Ps. civ. 15 and Judg. ix. 13 the
cheering effects of the product are noticed, and that
these are more suitable to the idea of wine than of
fruit seems self-evident: in one passage indeed the
A. V. connects the expression ‘‘ make cheerful’
with bread (Zech. ix. 17), but this is a mere mis-
translation, the true sense of the expression there
used being to nowrish or make to grow. So, again,
the treading of the grape in Mic. vi. 15 is in itself
conclusive as to the pregnant sense in which the
term tirdsh is used, even if it were not subsequently
implied that the effect of the treading was in the
ordinary course of things to produce the yayin
which was to be drunk. In Is. lxii. 9 the object
of the gathering is clearly conveyed by the notice
of drinking. In Is. xxiv. 7 the tirésh, which
withers, is paralleled with yayin in the two follow-
ing verses. And lastly, in Is. Ixv. 8 the nature of
the tirdsh, which is said to be found in the cluster
= » BATA < DIDY
eae) 4° TON 3DP
a
ipon neg om
™ οἶνος. n γλεῦκος. ο σίκερα.
P ὄξος. α κεκερασμένος ἄκρατος.
1776 WINE
of the grapes, is not obscurely indicated by the sub-
sequent eulogium, “a blessing is in it.” That the
terms “vine’’ and ‘‘ wine” should be thus inter-
changed in poetical language calls for no explana-
tion. We can no more infer from such instances
that the Hebrew terms mean grapes as fruit,
than we could infer the same of the Latin vinwn
because in some two or three passages (Plaut. Trin.
ii. 4,125; Warr. de L. LZ. iv. 17; Cato, R. R.
c. 147) the term is transferred to the grape out of
which wine is made.
The question whether either of the above terms
ordinarily signified a solid substance, would be at
once settled by a reference to the manner in which
they were consumed. With regard to yayin we
are not aware of a single passage which couples it
with the act of eating. With regard to tirdsh
the case is somewhat different, inasmuch as that
term generally follows ‘‘ corn,” in the triplet “ corn,
wine, and oil,’’ and hence the term applied to the
consumption of corn is carried on, in accordance
with the grammatical figure zeugma, to the other
members of the clause, as in Deut. xii. 17. In the
only passage where the act of consuming tirdsh
alone is noticed (Is. lxii. 8, 9), the verb is shathah,s
which constantly indicates the act of drinking (e. g.
Gen. ix. 21, xxiv. 22; Ex. vii. 21; Ruth ii. 9), and
is the general term combined with dcal in the joint
act of “eating and drinking” (e.g. 1 Sam. xxx.
16; Job i. 4; Eccl. ii. 24). We can find no con-
firmation for the sense of sucking assigned to the
term by Dr. Lees (Tirosh, p. 61): the passage
quoted in support of that sense (Ps. lxxv. 8) implies
at all events a kind of sucking allied to drinking
rather than to eating, if indeed the sense of drinking
be not the more correct rendering of the term. An
argument has been drawn against the usual sense
assigned to ttrdsh, from the circumstance that it is
generally connected with ‘corn,’ and therefore
implies an edible rather than a drinkable substance.
The very opposite conclusion may, however, be
drawn from this circumstance; for it may be rea-
sonably urged that in any enumeration of the ma-
terials needed for man’s support, ‘‘ meat and drink”
would be specified, rather than several kinds of the
former and none of the latter.
There are, moreover, passages which seem to
imply the actual manufacture of tirdsh by the same
process by which wine was ordinarily made. For,
not to insist on the probability that the “ bringing
together,” noticed in Is. Ixii. 9, would not appro-
priately apply to the collecting of the fruit in the
wine-vat, we have notice of the “ treading” in con-
nexion with ¢érdsh in Mic. vi, 15, and again of the
“overflowing” and the ‘bursting out” of the
tirésh in the vessels or lower vat (yekeb; ὑπολή-
viov), which received the must from the proper
press (Prov. iii. 10; Joel ii. 24).
Lastly, we have intimations of the effect pro-
duced by an excessive use of yayin and tirdsh. To
the former are attributed the “ darkly flashing eye ἢ
(Gen. xlix. 12; A. V. “red,” but see Gesen. T'hes.
Append. p. 89), the unbridled tongue (Prov. xx. 1;
Is. xxviii. 7), the excitement of the spirit (Prov.
xxxi. 6; Is. v.11; Zech. ix. 15, x. 7), the enchained
affections of its votaries (Hos, iv. 11), the perverted
judgment (Prov. xxxi. 5; Is. xxviii. 7), the indecent
exposure (Hab. ii. 15, 16), and the sickness resulting
τ An apparent instance occurs in Is. lv. 1. where the
“buy and eat” has been supposed to refer to the “ buy
wine and milk” which follows (Tirosh, p. 94). -But the
WINE
from the heat (chemah, A. V. “ bottles”) of wine
(Hos. vii. 5). The allusions to the effects of tirdsh
are confined to a single passage, but this a most de-
cisive one, viz., Hos. iy. 11, “" Whoredom and wine
(yayin), and new wine (tirésh) take away the
heart,” where tirésh appears as the climax of en-
grossing influences, in immediate connexion with
yayin.
The impression produced on the mind by a ge-
neral review of the above notices is, that both yayin
and ¢érésh in their ordinary and popular acceptation
referred to fermented, intoxicating wine. In the
condemnatory passages no exception is made in
favour of any other kind of liquid passing under
the same name, but not invested with the same
dangerous qualities. Nor again in these passages
is there any decisive condemnation of the substance
itself, which would enforce the conclusion that else-
where an unfermented liquid must be understood.
The condemnation must be understood of excessive
use in any case: for even where this is not expressed,
it is implied: and therefore the instances of wine
being drunk without any reproof of the act, may
with as great a probability imply the moderate use
of an intoxicating beverage, as the use of an un-
intoxicating one.
The notices of fermentation are not very decisive.
A certain amount of fermentation is implied in the
distension of the leather bottles when new wine was
placed in them, and which was liable to burst old
bottles. It has been suggested that the object of
placing the wine in bottles was to prevent fer-
mentation, but that in ‘‘the case of old bottles
fermentation might ensue from their being impreg-
nated with the fermenting substance” (Tirosh, p.
65). This is not inconsistent with the statement in
Matt. ix. 17, but it detracts from the spirit of the
comparison which implies the presence οἵ a strong,
expansive, penetrating principle. It is, however,
inconsistent with Job xxxii. 19, where the distension
is described as occurring even in new bottles. It
is very likely that new wine was preserved in the
state of must by placing it in jars or bottles, and
then burying it in the earth. But we should be
inclined to understand the passages above quoted as
referring to wine drawn oft before the fermentation
was complete, either for immediate use, or for the
purpose of forming it into sweet wine after the
manner described by the Geoponic writers (vii. 19)
[ Dict. of Ant.“ Vinum”]. The presence of the gas-
bubble, or as the Hebrews termed it, ‘the eye”
that sparkled in the cup (Proy. xxiii. 31), was one
of the tokens of fermentation having taken place,
and the same effect was very possibly implied in the
name khemer.
The remaining terms call for but few remarks.
There can be no question that asis means wine, and
in this case it is observable that it forms part of a
Divine promise (Joel iii. 18; Am. ix. 13) very much
as tirdsh occurs elsewhere, though other notices
imply that it was the occasion of excess (Is. xlix.
26; Joel i. 5). Two out of the three passages in
which sdbe occurs (Is. i. 22; Nah. i. 10) imply a
liquor that would be spoiled or wounded (the ex-
pression in Is. i. 22, mdhitl, A. V. ‘‘ mixed,” is
supposed to convey the same idea as the Latin
castrare applied to wine in Plin. xix. 19) by the
application of water ; we think the passages quoted
term rendered “ buy” properly means “ to buy grain,”
and hence expresses in itself the substance to be eaten.
“any
WINE
favour the idea of strength rather than. sweetness
being the characteristic of sébe. The term occurs
in Hos, iv. 18, in the sense of a debauch, and the
verb accompanying it has no connexion with the
notion of acidity, but would more properly be ren-
dered “ 15 past.” The mingling implied in the term
mesck may have been designed either to increase, or
to diminish the strength of the wine, according as
spices or water formed the ingredient that was
added. The notices chiefly favour the former view ;
for mingled liquor was prepared for high festivals
(Prov. ix. 2, 5), and occasions of excess (Prov.
xxiii. 50; Is. v. 22). A cup “full mixed,” was
emblematic of severe punishment (Ps. Ixxv. 8).
At the same time strength was not the sole object
sought: the wine ‘“ mingled with mymh” given to
Jesus, was designed to deaden pain (Mark xv. 23),
and the spiced pomegranate wine prepared by the
bride (Cant. viii. 2) may well have been of a mild
character. Both the Greeks and Romans were in
the habit of flavouring their wines with spices, and
such preparations were described by the former as
wine ἐξ ἀρωμάτων κατασκευαζόμενος (Athen. i.
p- 31 e), and by the latter as aromatites (Plin. xiv.
19, §5). The authority of the Mishna may be cited
in favour both of water and of spices, the former
being noticed in Berach. 7, §5 3 Pesach. 7, §13, and
the latter in Schen. 2, §1. In the New Testament
the character of the “sweet wine,” noticed in Acts
li. 13, calls for some little remark. It could not
be new wine in the proper sense of the term, inas-
much as about eight months must have elapsed
between the vintage and the feast of Pentecost. It
might have been applied, just as mustwm was by
the Romans, to wine that had been preserved for
about a vear in an unfermented state (Cato, R. R.
c. 120). But the explanations of the ancient lexi-
cographers rather lead us-to infer that its luscious
qualities were due, not to its being recently made, but
to its being produced from the very purest juice of the
grape; for both in Hesychius and the Etymologicum
Magnum the term γλεῦκος is explained to be the juice
that flowed spontaneously from the grape before the
treading commenced. The name itself, therefore, is
not conclusive as to its being an unfermented liquor,
while the context implies the reverse: for St. Peter
would hardly have offered a serious defence to an
accusation that was not seriously made ; and yet if
the sweet wine in question were not intoxicating,
the accusation could only have been ironical.
As considerable stress is laid upon the quality
of sweetness, as distinguished from strength, sup-
posed to be implied in the Hebrew terms mesch
and sdébe, we may observe that the usual term
for the inspissated juice of the grape, which was
characterized more especially by sweetness, was
débash,t rendered in the A. V. “honey” (Gen.
xliii. 115; Ez. xxvii. 17), This was prepared by
boiling it down either to a third of its original
bulk, in which case it was termed sapa by the
Latins, and ἕψημα or σίραιον by the Greeks, or else
to half its bulk, in which case it was termed de-
frutum (Plin. xiv. 11). Both the substance and
the name, under the form of dibs, ave in common
use in Syria at the present day. We may further
notice a less artificial mode of producing a sweet
liquor from the grape, namely, by pressing the
juice directly into the cup, as described in Gen.
xl. 11. And, lastly, there appears to have been a
‘way "me
VOL, II.
WINE ΤΠ
beverage, also of a sweet character, produced by
macerating grapes, and hence termed the liquor” ἃ
of grapes (Num. vi. 3). These later preparations
are allowed in the Koran (xvi. 69) as substitutes
for wine.
There can be little doubt that the wines of Pa-
lestine varied in quality, and were named alter the
localities in which they were made. We have no
notices, however, to this effect. The only wines of
which we have special notice, belonged to Syria:
these were the wine of Helbon, a valley near Da-
mascus, which in ancient times was prized at Tyre
(Ez. xxvii. 18) and by the Persian monarchs (Strab.
xv. p. 735), as it still is by the residents of Da-
mascus (Porter, Damascus, i. 333); and the wine
of Lebanon, famed for its aroma (Hos. xiv. (Dy
With regard to the uses ot wine in private life
there is little to remark. It was produced on occa-
sions of ordinary hospitality (Gen. xiv. 18), and at
festivals, such as marriages (John ii. 3), The mo-
numents of ancient Egypt furnish abundant evidence
that the people of that country, both male and
female, indulged liberally in the use of wine (Wilkin-.
son, i. 52, 53). It has been inferred from a passage
in Plutarch (de /sid.6) that no wine was drunk in
Egypt before the reign of Psammetichus, and this
passage has been quoted in illustration of Gen.
xl. 11. The meaning of the author seems rather
to be that the kings subsequently to Psammetichus
did not restrict. themselves to the quantity of wine
prescribed to them by reason of their sacerdotal
office (Diod. i. 70). The cultivation of the vine
was incompatible with the conditions of a nomad
life, and it was probably on this account that Jo-
nadab, wishing to perpetuate that kind of life among
his posterity, prohibited the use of wine to them
(Jer. xxxv. 6). The case is exactly parallel to that
of the Nabathaeans, who abstained from wine on
purely political grounds (Diod. xix. 94),
Under the Mosaic law wine formed the usual
drink-offering that accompanied the daily sacrifice
(Ex. xxix. 40), the presentation of the first-fruits
(Lev. xxiii. 13), and other offerings (Num. xv. Ὁ):
It appears from Num. xxviii. 7 that strong drink
might be substituted for it on these oceasions.
‘Tithe was to be paid of wine (tirdsh) as of other
products, and this was to be consumed “ before the
Lord,” meaning within the precincts of the Temple,
or perhaps, as may be inferred from Ley. vii. 16, at
the place where the Temple was situated (Deut. xii.
17, 18). The priest was also to receive first-fruits
of wine (tirdésh), as of other articles (Deut. xviii.
4; comp. Ex. xxii. 29): and a promise of plenty
was attached to the faithful payment of these dues
(Proy, iii. 9, 10). The priests were prohibited from
the use of wine and strong drink before performing
the services of the Temple (Lev. x. 9), and the place
which this prohibition holds in the narrative favours
the presumption that the offence of Nadab and
Abihu was committed under the influence of liquor.
Ezekiel repeats the prohibition as far as wine is
concerned (Ez. xliv. 21). The Nazarite was pro-
hibited from the use of wine, or strong drink, or
even the juice of grapes during the continuance of
his vow (Num. vi. 3); but the adoption of that
vow was a voluntary act. The use of wine at the
paschal feast was not enjoined by the Law ; but had
become an established custom, at all events in the
post-Babylonian period. The cup was handed round
four times according to the ritual prescribed in the
Mishna ( Pesach. 10, §1), the third cup being desig-
nated the ““ cup of blessing” (1 Cor. x. 16), because
5 X
1778 WINE-PRESS
grace was then said (Pesach. 10, §7). [Passover].
The contents of the cup are specifically described by
our Lord as ‘the fruit” (γέννημα) of the vine (Matt.
xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18), and in the
Mishna simply as wine. The wine was mixed with
warm water on these occasions, as implied in the
notice of the warming kettle (Pesach. 7, §13).
Hence in the early Christian Church it was usual
to mix the sacramental wine with water, a custom
as old, at all events, as Justin Martyr’s time (Apol.
1.65). The Pastoral Epistles contain directions as
to the moderate use of wine on the part of all hold-
ing office in the Church; as that they should not
be πάροινοι (1 Tim. iii. 3; A. V. “ given to wine”),
meaning insolent and violent under the influence
of wine; “not given to much wine” (1 Tim. iii.
8); “not enslaved to much wine” (Tit. ii. 3).
The term νηφάλεος in 1 Tim. iii. 2 (A. V.
“sober’’), expresses general vigilance and circum-
spection (Schleusner, Ler. s.v.; Alford, in loc.).
St. Paul advises Timothy himself to be no longer a
habitual water-drinker, but to take a little wine for
his health’s sake (1 Tim. v. 23). No very satis-
factory reason can be assigned for the place which
this injunction holds in the Epistle, unless it were
intended to correct any possible misapprehension as
- to the preceding words, ‘‘ Keep thyself pure.” The
precepts above quoted, as well as others to the same
effect addressed to the disciples generally (Rom. xiii.
13; Gal. v. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 3), show the extent to
which intemperance prevailed in ancient times, and
the extreme danger to which the Church was sub-
jected from this quarter. [W. L. B.]
WINE-PRESS (ΠΣ; 3p’; 7B). From the
scanty notices contained in the Bible we gather that
the wine-presses of the Jews consisted of two re-
ceptacles or vats placed at different elevations, in
the upper one of which the grapes were trodden,
while the lower one received the expressed juice.
The two vats are mentioned together only in Joel
iii, 13:—* The press (gath) is tull: the fats (yeke-
bim) overflow =the upper vat being full of fruit,
the lower one overflowing with the must. Yekeb
is similarly applied in Joel ii. 24, and probably in
Prov. iii. 10, where the verb rendered “ burst out”’
in the A. V. may bear the more general sense of
“‘ abound” (Gesen. Thes. p. 1130). Gath is also
strictly applied to the upper vat in Neh. xiii. 15,
Lam. i. 15, and Is. lxiii. 2, with pirdh in a parallel
sense in the following verse. Elsewhere yekeb is
not strictly applied ; for in Job xxiv. 11, and Jer.
xlviii. 33, it refers to the upper vat, just as in
Matt. xxi. 33, ὑπολήνιον (properly the vat wnder
the press) is substituted for ληνός, as given in
Mark xii. 1. It would, moreover, appear natural
to describe the whole arrangement by the term
gath, as denoting the most important portion of it ;
but, with the exception of proper names in which
the word appears, such as Gath, Gath-rimmon,
Gath-hepher, and Gittaim, the term yekeb is ap-
plied to it (Judg. vii. 25; Zech. xiv. 10), The
same term is also applied to the produce of the
wine-press (Num. xviii. 27, 30; Deut. xv. 14;
2 K. vi. 27; Hos. ix. 2). The term pirdh, as
used in Hage. ii. 16, probably refers to the con-
tents of a wine-vat,* rather than to the press or
vat itself. The two vats were usually dug or
hewn out of the solid rock (Is. v. 2, margin;
« The LXX. renders the term by μετρητής, the Greek
measure equivalent to the Hebrew bath.
WISDOM, THE, OF SOLOMON
Matt. xxi. 33). Ancient wine-presses, so con-
structed, are still to be seen in Palestine, one of:
which is thus described by Robinson :—“ Advantage
had been taken of a ledge of rock; on the upper side
a shallow vat had been dug out, eight feet square,
and fifteen inches deep. Two feet lower down
another smaller vat was excavated, four feet square
by three feet deep. The grapes were trodden in the
shallow upper vat, and the juice drawn off by a hole
at the bottom (still remaining) into the lower vat”
(B. R. iii. 137, 603). The wine-presses were thus
permanent, and were sufficiently well known to
serve as indications of certain localities (Judg. vii.
25; Zech. xiv. 10). The upper receptacle (gath)
was large enough to admit of threshing being
carried on in (not ‘‘by,” as in A. V.) it, as was
done by Gideon for the sake of concealment (Judg.
vi. 11). [Far.] ΓΕ L. B.]
WINNOWING. [Acricuture.]
WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SIRACH.
[ ECCLESIASTICUS. |
WISDOM, THE, OF SOLOMON. Σοφία
Σαλωμών ; Σοφία Σολομῶντος ; later, ἡ Σοφία :
Liver Sapientiae; Sapientia Salomonis ; Sophia Sa-
lomonis. The title Sopia was also applied to the
Book of Proverbs, as by Melito ap. Euseb. H. 2.
iv. 26 (Παροιμίαι ἢ καὶ 7 Σοφία ; see Vales. or
Routh ad loc.), and also to Ecclesiasticus, as Epi-
phanius (adv, haer. Ixxvi. p. 941, ἐν ταῖς Sopias,
Σολομῶντός TE φημι καὶ υἱοῦ Sipdx), from which
considerable confusion has arisen.
1. Text.—The Book of Wisdom is preserved in
Greek and Latin texts, and in subsidiary translations
into Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian. Of these latter,
the Armenian is said to be the most important; the
Syriac and Arabic Versions being paraphrastic and
inaccurate (Grimm, Hin/. 810). The Greek text,
which, as will appear afterwards, is undoubtedly
the original, offers no remarkable features. The
variations in the MSS. are confined within narrow
limits, and are not such as to suggest the idea of
distinct early recensions ; nor is there any appear-
ance of serious corruptions anterior to existing
Greek authorities. The Old Latin Version, which
was left untouched by Jerome (Praef. in Libr.
Sal., In eo libro qui a plerisque Sapientia Salomonis
inscribitur . . . . calamo temperavi; tantummodo
canonicas Scripturas emendare desiderans, et studium
meum certis magis quam dubiis commendare), is in
the main a close and faithful rendering of the
Greek, though it contains some additions to the
original text, such as are characteristic of the old
version generally. Examples of these additions are
found—i, 15, [njustitia autem mortis est acqui-
sitio; ii. 8, Nullum pratum sit quod non pertran-
seat luxuria nostra; ii. 17, et sciemus quae erunt
novissima illius; vi. 1, Melior est sapientia quam
vires, et vir prudens quam fortis. And the con-
struction of the parallelism in the two first cases
suggests the belief that there, at least, the Latin
reading may be correct. But other additions point
to a different conclusion: vi. 23, diligite lumen
sapientiae omnes qui praeestis populis; viii. 11, et
facies principum mirabuntur me ; ix.19, quicunque
placuerunt tibi domine a principio; xi. 5, a defec-
tione potus sui, et in eis cum abundarent fil Israel
laetati sunt.
The chief Greek MSS. in which the book is con-
tained are the Codex Sinaiticus (ys), the Cod.
Alexandrinus (A), the Cod. Vaticanus (B), and the
Cod. Ephraemi rescr. (C). The entire text is pre-
WISDOM, THE, OF SOLOMON
served in the three former; in the latter, only con-
siderable fragments: viii. 5-xi. 10; xiv. 19-xvii.
18; xviii. 24-xix. 22.
Sabatier used four Latin MSS. of the higher class
for his edition: ‘‘Corbeienses duos, unum San-
germanensem, et alium S. Theodorici ad Remos,”
of which he professes to give almost a complete (but
certainly not a literal) collation, The variations
are not generally important; but patristic quota-
tions show that in early times very considerable
differences of text existed. An important MS. of
the book in the Brit. Mus. Hyerton, 1046, Saec.
viii. has not yet been examined.
2. Contents.—The book has been variously di-
vided; but it seems to fall most naturally into two
great divisions : (1) i-ix.; (2) x.-xix. The first
contains the doctrine of Wisdom in its moral and
intellectual aspects; the second, the doctrine of
Wisdom as shown in history. Each of these parts
is again capable of subdivision. The first part con-
tains the praise of Wisdom as the source of immor-
tality in contrast with the teaching of sensualists
(i.-v.); and next the praise of Wisdom as the guide
of practical and intellectual life, the stay of princes,
and the interpreter of the universe (vi.-ix). The
second part, again, follows the action of Wisdom
summarily, as preserving God’s servants from Adam
to Moses (x, 1.-xi. 4), and more particularly in the
punishment of the Egyptians and Canaanites (x1.
5-16; xi. 17-xii.). This punishment is traced to
its origin in idolatry, which, in its rise and progress,
presents the false substitute for Revelation (xiii.,
xiv.). And in the last section (xy.-xix.) the history
of the Exodus is used to illustrate in detail the
contrasted fortunes of the people of God and idola-
ters. The whole argument may be presented in a
tabular form in the following shape.
I.—Ch. i.-ix. The doctrine of Wisdom in its spiri-
tual, intellectual, and moral aspects.
(a). i-v. Wisdom the giver of happiness and
immortality.
The conditions of wisdom (i. 1-11).
Uprightness of thought (1-5).
Uprightness of word (6-11).
The origin of death (i. 12-ii. 24).
Sin (in fact) by man’s free will (i. 12-16).
The reasoning of the sensualist (ii. 1-20).
Sin (in source) by the envy of the devil
(21-24).
The godly and wicked in life (as mortal), (iii.
1-iv.).
In chastisements (iii. 1-10).
In the results of life (iii. 11-iv. 6).
In length of life (7-20).
The godly and wicked after death (v.).
The judgment of conscience (1-14),
The judgment of God—
On the godly (15-16).
On the wicked (17-23).
(B). vi.-ix. Wisdom the guide of life.
Wisdom the guide of princes (vi. 1-21).
The responsibility of power (1-11).
Wisdom soon found (12-16).
Wisdom the source of true sovereignty
(17-21).
The character and realm of wisdom.
Open to all (vi. 22-vii. 7).
Pervading all creation (vii. 8-viii. 1).
Swaying all life (viii. 2-17).
1779
Wisdom the gift of God (viii. 17-ix.).
Prayer for wisdom (ix.).
[I.—Ch. x.-xix. The doctrine of Wisdom in its
historical aspects,
(a). Wisdom a power to save and chastise.
Wisdom seen in the guidance of God’s people
from Adam to Moses (x.-xi. 4).
Wisdom seen in the punishment of God’s ene-
mies (xi. 5-xii.).
The Egyptians (xi. 5-xii. 1).
The Canaanites (xii. 2-18).
The lesson of mercy and judgment (19-
97).
(B). The growth of idolatry the opposite to
wisdom.
The worship of nature (xiii. 1-9).
The worship of images (xiii. 10-xiv. 19):
The worship of deified men (xiv. 14-21).
The moral effects of idolatry (xiv. 22-31),
(vy). The contrast between true worshippers and
idolaters (xv.-xix.).
The general contrast (xv. 1-17).
᾿ The special contrast at the Exodus—
The action of beasts (xv. 18-xvi. 15).
The action of the forces of nature—water,
fire (xvi. 14-29).
The symbolic darkness (xvii.-xviii. 4).
The action of death (xviii. 5-25).
The powers of nature changed in their
working to save and destroy (xix.
1-21).
Conclusion (xix. 21).
The subdivisions are by no means sharply defined,
though it is not difficult to trace the main current
of thought. Each section contains the preparation
for that which follows, just as in the classic trilogy
the close of one play shadowed forth the subject
of the next. Thus in ii. 240, iv. 20, ix. 18, &c.,
the fresh idea is enunciated, which is subsequently
developed at length. In this way the whole book
is intimately bound together, and the clauses which
appear at first sight to be idle repetitions of
thought really spring from the elaborateness of its
structure.
3. Unity and integrity.—It follows from what
has been said that the book forms a complete and
harmonious whole. But the distinct treatment of
the subject, theoretically and historically, in two
parts, has given occasion from time to time for
maintaining that it is the work of two or more
authors. C. Εν Houbigant (Prolegg. ad Sap. et
Eccles. 1777) supposed that the first nine chapters
were the work of Solomon, and that the translator
of the Hebrew original (probably) added the later
chapters. Eichhorn (inl. in d. Apoc. 1795),
rightly feeling that some historical illustrations of
the action of wisdom were required by the close of
ch. ix., fixed the end of the original book at ch. xi. 1.
Nachtigal (Das Buch Weish. 1799) devised a far
more avtificial theory, and imagined that he could
trace in the book the records of (so to speak) an
antiphonic ‘ Praise of Wisdom,” delivered in three
sittings of the sacred schools by two companies of
doctors. Bretschneider (1804-5), following out the
simpler hypothesis, found three diferent writings in
the book, of which he attributed the first part (i.
1-vi. 8) toa Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus
Epiph., the second (vi. 9-x.) to a philosophic
Alexandrine Jew of the time of our Lord, and the
5 X 2
1780 - ἣ WISDOM, THE,
third (xii.-xix.) to a contemporary, but unedu-
cated Jew, who wrote under the influence of the
rudest national prejudices. The eleventh chapter
was, as he supposed, added by the compiler who
brought the three chief parts together, Bertholdt
(Linleitung, 1815) fell back upon a modification
of the earliest division. He included chap. i.-xii.
in the original book, which he regarded as essentially
philosophical, while the later addition (xiii.-xix.) is,
in his judgment, predominantly theological. It is
needless to enter in detail into the arguments by
which these various opinions were maintained, but
when taken together, they furnish an instructive
example of the course of subjective criticism. The
true refutation of the one hypothesis which they
have in common—the divided authorship of the
book—is found in the substantial harmony and
connexion of its parts, in the presence of the same
general tone and manner of thought throughout it,
and yet more in the essential uniformity of style
and language which it presents, though both are
necessarily modified in some degree by the subject
matter of the different sections. (For a detailed
examination of the arguments of the ‘‘ Separatists,”
see Grimm, ἔσο. Handb. §4; and Bauermeister,
Comm. in lib. Sap. 3 ff.)
Some, however, admitting the unity of the book,
have questioned its integrity. Eichhorn imagined
that it was left imperfect by its author (Zin. p.
148); Grotius, apparently, that it was mutilated
by some accident of time (Videtur hie liber esse
kéAoupos); and others have been found, in later
times, to support each opinion. Yet it is obvious
that the scope of the argument is fully satisfied by
the investigation of the provideutial history of the
Jews up to the time of the occupation of Canaan,
and the last verse furnishes a complete epilogue to
the treatise, which Grimm compares, not inaptly,
with the last words of 3 Mace,
The idea that the book has been interpolated by
a Christian hand (Grotius, Gritz) is as little worthy
of consideration as the idea that it is incomplete.
The passages which have been brought forward in
support of this opinion (ii. 12-20, 24, iii, 13, 14,
xiv. 7; comp. Homilies, p. 174, ed. 1850) lose all
their force, if fairly interpreted.
4, Style and Language.—tThe literary character
of the book is most remarkable and interesting. In
the richness and freedom of its vocabulary it most |
closely resembles the fourth Book of Maccabees,
but it is superior to that fine declamation, both in
power and variety of diction. No existing work
represents perhaps more completely the style of
composition which would be produced by the
sophistic schools of rhetoric; and in the artificial
balancing of words, and the frequent niceties of |
arrangement and rhythm, it is impossible not to be
reminded of the exquisite story of Prodicus (Xen.
Memorab. ii. 1, 21), and of the subtle refinements
of Protagoras in the dialogue which bears his name.
It follows as a necessary consequence that the effect |
of different parts of the book is very unequal. The |
florid redundancy and restless straining after effect,
which may be not unsuited to vivid intellectual |
pictures, is wholly alien from the philosophic con- |
templation of history. Thus the forced contrasts
and fantastic exaggerations in the description of the |
Egyptian plagues cannot but displease ; while it is |
equally impossible not to admire the lyrical force |
of the language of the sensualist (ii. 1, ff.), and of the
picture of future judgment (v. 15, ff.). The mag- |
nificent description of Wisdom (vii. 22-viii. 1) must
OF SOLOMON
rank among the noblest passages of human elo-
quence, and it would be perhaps impossible to
point out any piece of equal length in the remains
of classical antiquity more pregnant with noble
thought, or more rich in expressive phraseology.
It may be placed beside the Hymn of Cleanthes or
the visions of Plato, and it will not lose its power
to charm and move. Examples of strange or new
words may be found almost on every page. Such
are ἀναποδισμός, πρωτόπλαστο», εἰδέχθεια, aye-
ρωχία, ἐτάζειν, ἀκηλίδωτος, ῥεμβασμός, ξενι-
tela; others belong characteristically to later Greek,
as διαβούλιον, ἀντανακλᾶσθαι, ἀδιάπτωτος, ἑδρά-
(ew, ἔξαλλος, ἀπερίσπαστος, &c.; others, again,
to the language of philosophy, ὁμοιοπαθής, ζωτι-
Kos. προὐφεστάναι, &c.; and others to the LXX.,
χερσύω, ὁλοκαύτωμα, &e. No class of writings
and no mode of combination appear to be un-
familiar to the writer. Some of the phrases which
he adopts are singularly happy, as Kataxpeos
ἁμαρτίας (i. 4), ἀλαζονεύεσθαι πατέρα θεόν
(ii. 16), ἐλπὶς ἀθανασίας πληρὴς (iii. 4), Ke. ;
and not less so some of the short and weighty sen-
tences in which he gathers up the truth on which
he is dwelling: vi. 19, ἀφθαρσία ἐγγὺς εἶναι
ποιεῖ θεοῦ; xi. 26, φείδῃ δὲ πάντων ὅτι σὰ ἐστι,
δέσποτα φιλόψυχε. The numerous arti-
ficial resources with which the book abounds are a
less pleasing mark of labour bestowed upon its
composition. Thus, in i. 1, we have ἀγαπήσατε
.. . φρονήσατε. . .. ἐν ἀγαθότητι καὶ ἐν
ἁπλότητι, .. . ζητήσατε; ν. 23, ποταμοὶ...
ἀποτόμως ; xiii. 11, περιέξυσεν εὐμαθῶς. .. καὶ
τεχνησάμενος εὐπρεπῶς ; xix. 20, τηκτὸν εὔτη-
κτον. The arrangement of the words is equally
artificial, but generally more effective, and often
very subtle and forcible; vii. 29, ἔστι γὰρ αὕτη
(ἡ σοφία) εὐπρεπεστέρα ἡλίου καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν
ἄστρων θέσιν. φωτὶ συγκρινομένη εὑρίσκεται
προτέρα. τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ διαδέχεται νύξ, σοφίας
δὲ οὐκ ἀντισχύει κακία.
The language of the Old Latin translation is also
itself full of interest. It presents, in great pro-
fusion, the characteristic provincialisms which else-
where mark the earliest African version of the
Scriptures. [Comp. VULGATE, §43.] Such are the
substantives exterminium, refrigerium; praecla-
ritas, medietas, nimietas, nativitas, supervacuitas ;
subitatio; assistrix, doctrix, electriz; immemoratio
(ἀμνησίαλ ; incolatus ; the adjectives contemptibilis,
ineffugibilis, odibilis ; incoinquinatus, inauxiliatus,
indisciplinatus, insensatus, insimulatus (dvumd-
Kpitos) ; fumigabundus; the verbs angustiare,
mansuetare, improperare ; and the phrases impos-
sibilis immittere, partibus (=partim), innumerabilis
honestas, providentiae (pl.).
5. Original Language-—The characteristics of
the language, which have been just noticed, are so
marked that no doubt could ever have been raised
as to the originality of the Greek text, if it had not
been that the book was once supposed to be the
work of Solomon. It was assumed (so far rightly)
that if the traditional title were correct, the book
must have been written in Hebrew ; and the belief
which was thus based upon a false opinion as to
| the authorship, survived, at least partially, for
some time after that opinion was abandoned. Yet
as it must be obvious, even on a superficial ex-
amination, that the style and language of the book
show conclusively that it eéuld not have been the
work of Solomon, so it appears with equal cer-
tainty that the freedom of the Greek diction was
WISDOM, THE,
checked by no Aramaic text. This was well stated
by Jerome, who says, “ Fertur et mavdperos Jesu
filii Sirach liber, et alius Wevdertypupos qui
Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur . . . Secundus apud
Hebraeos nusquam est, quia et ipse stylus Graecam
eloquentiam redolet” (Praef. in Libr. Salom.); and
it seems superfluous to add any further argument
to those which must spring from the reading of any
one chapter. It is, however, interesting on other
grounds to observe that the book contains une-
quivocal traces of the use of the LXX. where it
differs from the Hebrew: ii. 11, ἐνεδρεύσωμεν
τὸν δίκαιον ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν
ἐστί (Is. iii. 10); xv. 10, σποδὸς ἢ καρδία
αὐτῶν (Is. xliv. 20); and this not in direct quota-
tions, where it is conceivable that a Greek trans-
lator might have felt justified in adopting the ren-
dering of the version with which he was familiar,
but where the words of the LXX. are inwrought
into the text itself. But while the original lan-
guage of the book may be regarded as certainly de-
termined by internal evidence, great doubt hangs
over the date and place of its composition; and it
will be necessary to examine some of the doctrinal
peculiarities which it presents before any attempt is
made to determine these points with approximate
accuracy.
6. Doctrinal character.—The theological teach-
ing of the book offers, in many respects, the nearest
approach to the language and doctrines of Greek
philosophy which is found in any Jewish writing
up to the time of Philo. There is much in the
views which it gives of the world, of man, and
of the Divine Nature, which springs rather from
the combination or conflict of Hebrew and Greek
thought than from the independent development of
Hebrew thought alone. Thus, in speaking of the
almighty power of God, the writer describes Him as
“having created the universe out of matter with-
out form” (κτίσασα τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἀμόρφου
ὕλη 5, xi. 17), adopting the very phrase of the
Platonists, which is found also in Philo (De Vict.
Offer. §13), to describe the pre-existing matter out
of which the world was made, and (like Philo, De
Mund, Op. §5) evidently implying that this in-
determinate matter was itself uncreated. What-
ever attempts may be made to bring this statement
into harmony with the doctrine of an absolute
primal creation, it is evident that it derives its form
from Greece. Scarcely less distinctly heathen is the
conception which is presented of the body as a mere
weight and clog to the soul (ix. 15; contrast 2 Cor.
v. 1-4); and we must refer to some extra-Judaic
source for the remarkable doctrine of the pre-
existence of souls, which finds unmistakeable ex-
pression in viii. 20. The form, indeed, in which
this doctrine is enunciated differs alike from that
given by Plato and by Philo, but it is no less
foreign to the pure Hebrew mode of thought. It
is more in accordance with the language of the
O. T. that the writer represents the Spirit of God
as filling (i. 7) and inspiring all things (xii. 1),
OF SOLOMON 1781
but even here the idea of “a soul of the world”
seems to influence his thoughts; and the same re-
mark applies to the doctrine of the Divine Provi-
dence (πρόνοια, xiv. 3, xvii. 2; comp. Grimm, ad
loc.), and of the four cardinal virtues (viii. 7,
σωφροσύνη, φρόνησις, δικαιοσύνη, ἀνδρεία),
which, in form at least, show the effect of Stoic
teaching. ‘There is, on the other hand, no trace of
the characteristic Christian doctrine of a resurrec-
tion of the body; and the future triumph of the
good is entirely unconnected with any revelation of
a personal Messiah® (iii. 7,8, v. 16; comp. Grimm
on i. 12, iii. 7, for a good view of the eschatology
of the book). The identification of the tempter
(Gen. iii.), directly or indirectly, with the devil, as
the bringer ‘‘ of death into the world” (ii. 23, 24),
is the most remarkable development of Biblical
doctrine which the book contains; and this preg-
nant passage, when combined with the earlier de-
claration as to the action of man’s free will in the
taking of evil to himself (i. 12-16), is a noble ex-
ample of the living power of the Divine teaching of
the O. T. in the face of other influences. It is also
in this point that the Pseudo-Solomon differs most
widely from Philo, who recognizes no such evil
power in the world, though the doctrine must have
been well known at Alexandria (comp. ΟΠ ὍΤΟΥ,
Philo, &c. ii. 238).» The -subsequent deliverance
of Adam from his transgression (ἐξείλατο αὐτὸν
ἐκ παραπτώματος ἰδίου) is attributed to Wisdom ;
and it appears that we must understand by this,
not the scheme of Divine Providence, but that
wisdom, given by God to man, which is immor-
tality (viii. 17). Generally, too, it may be ob-
served that, as in the cognate books, Proverbs and
Keclesiastes, there are few traces of the recognition
of the sinfulness even of the wise man in his
wisdom, which forms, in the Psalms and the Pro-
phets, the basis of the Christian doctrine of the
atonement (yet comp. xv. 2). With regard to the
interpretation of the Ὁ. T., it is worthy of notice
that a typical significance is assumed to underlie
the historic details (xvi. 1, xviii. 4, 5, &c.); and
in one most remarkable passage (xviii. 24) the high-
priestly dress is expressly described as presenting an
image of the Divine glory in creation and in the
patriarchal covenant—an explanation which is
found, in the main, both in Philo (De Vita Mos.
§12) and Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, $7), as well as in
later writers (comp. also xvi. 6, §7). In connexion
with the O. T. Scriptures, the book, as a whole,
may be regarded as carrying on one step further
the great problem of life contained in Ecclesiastes
and Job; while it differs from both formally by the
admixture of Greek elements, and doctrinally by
the supreme prominence given to the idea of im-
mortality as the vindication of Divine justice
(comp. below, §9).
7. The doctrine of Wisdom.—It would be im-
possible to. trace here in detail the progressive de-
velopment of the doctrine of Wisdom, as a Divine
Power standing in some sense between the Creator
ἃ The famous passage, ii. 12-20, has been very fre-
quently regarded, both in early and modern times, as a
prophecy of the Passion of Christ, “ the child of God” It
is quoted in this sense by Tertullian (adv. Marc. iii, 22),
Cyprian (Yestim. ii. 14), Hippolytus (Dem. adv. Jud. 9),
Origen (Hom. vi. in Ex. 1.), and many later Fathers,
and Romish interpreters lave generally followed their
opinion. It seems obvious, however, that the passage
contains no individual reference; and the coincidences
which exist between the language and details in the-
Gospels are due partly to the O. T. passages on which
it is based, and partly to the concurrence of each
typical form of reproach and suffering in the Lord’s
Passion.
b There is also considerable difference between the
sketch of the rise of idolatry in Philo, De Monarch. §1-3,
and that given in Wisd. xiii. xiv. Other differences are
pointed out by Eichhorn, Hinl. 172 ff. A trace of the
cabbalistic use of numbers is pointed out by Ewald in the
twenty-one attributes of Wisdom (vii. 22, 23).
1782 WISDOM, THE,
and creation, yet without some idea of this history
no correct opinion can be formed on the position
which the Book of the Pseudo-Solomon occupies in
Jewish literature. The foundation of the doctrine
is to be found in the Book of Proverbs, where
(viii.) Wisdom (/hokmah) is represented as present
with God before (viii. 22) and during the creation
of the world. So far it appears only as a principle
regulating the action of the Creator, though even in
this way it establishes a close connexion between
the world, as the outward expression of Wisdom,
and God. Moreover, by the personification of
Wisdom, and the relation of Wisdom to men (viii.
31), a preparation is made for the extension of the
doctrine. This appears, after a long interval, in
Ecclesiasticus. In the great description of Wisdom
given in that book (xxiv.), Wisdom is represented
as a creation of God (xxiv. 9), penetrating the whole
universe (4-6), and taking up her special abode
with the chosen people (8-12). Her personal ex-
istence and providential function are thus distinctly
brought out. In the Book of Wisdom the con-
ception gains yet further completeness. In this,
Wisdom is identified with the Spirit of God (ix.
17)—an identification half implied in Ecclus. xxiv.
3—which brooded over the elements of the un-
formed world (ix. 9), and inspired the prophets (vii.
7, 27). She is the power which unites (i. 7) and
directs all things (viii. 1). By her, in especial,
men have fellowship with God (xii. 1); and her
action is not confined to any period, for ‘in all
ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them
friends of God and prophets” (vii. 27). So also
her working, in the providential history of God’s
people, is traced at length (x.); and her power is
declared to yeach beyond the world of man into
that of spirits (vii. 23).
The conception of Wisdom, however boldly per-
sonified, yet leaves a wide chasm between the world
and the Creator. Wisdom answers to the idea of
a spirit vivifying and uniting all things in all time,
as distinguished from any special outward revela-
tion of the Divine Person. ‘Thus at the same time
that the doctrine of Wisdom was gradually con-
structed, the correlative doctrine of the Divine Word
was also reduced to a definite shape. The Word
(Memra), the Divine expression, as it was under-
stood in Palestine, furnished the exact complement
to Wisdom, the Divine thought; but the ambi-
guity of the Greek Logos (sermo, ratio) introduced
considerable confusion into the later treatment of
the two ideas. Broadly, however, it may be said
that the Word properly represented the mediative
element in the action of God, Wisdom the mediative
element of His omnipresence. Thus, according to
the later distinction of Philo, Wisdom corresponds
to the immanent Word (Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος), while
the Word, strictly speaking, was defined as enun-
ciative (Λόγος mpopopixds). Both ideas are in-
cluded in the language of the prophets, and both
found a natural development in Palestine and
Egypt. The one prepared men for the revelation
of the Son of God, the other for the revelation of
the Holy Spirit.
The Book of the Pseudo-Solomon, which gives
the most complete view of Divine wisdom, contains
only two passages in which the Word is invested
with the attributes of personal action (xvi. 12,
xviii. 15 ; ix, 1 is of different character). These, how-
ever, are sufficient to indicate that the two powers
were distinguished by the writer; and it has been
commonly argued that the superior prominence
'
OF SOLOMON
given in the book to the conception of Wisdom is
an indication of a date anterior to Philo. Nor is
this conclusion unyeasonable, if it is probably esta-
blished on independent grounds that the book is of
Alexandrine origin, But it is no less important to
observe that the doctrine of Wisdom in itself is no
proof of this. There is nothing in the direct teach-
ing on this subject, which might not have arisen in
Palestine, and it is necessary that we should recur
to the more special traits of Alexandrine thought in
the book which have. been noticed before (§6) for
the primary evidence of its Alexandrine origin ; and
starting from this there appears to be, as far as can
be judged from the imperfect materials at our com-
mand, a greater affinity in the form of the doctrine
on wisdom to the teaching of Alexandria than to
that of Palestine (comp. Ewald, Gesch. iv. 548 ff. ;
Welte, Hin/. 161 ff., has some good criticisms on
many supposed traces of Alexandrine doctrine in
the book, but errs in denying all).
The doctrine of the Divine wisdom passes by a
transition, often imperceptible, to that of human
wisdom, which is derived from it. This embraces
not only the whole range of moral and spiritual
virtues, but also the various branches of physical
knowledge. [Comp. PHiLosopuy.] In this aspect
the enumeration of the great forms of natural
science in vii. 17-20 (viii. 8), offers a most in-
structive subject of comparison with the correspond-
ing passages in 1 Καὶ. iv. 32-34. In addition to the
subjects on which Solomon wrote (Songs, Proverbs :
Plants,. Beasts, Fowls, Creeping Things, Fishes),
Cosmology, Meteorology, Astronomy, Psychology,
and even the elements of the philosophy of history
(viii. 8), are included among the gifts of Wisdom.
So far then the thoughtful Jew had already at the
Christian era penetrated into the domain of specu-
lation and inquiry, into each province, it would
| seem, which was then recognized, without abandon-
ing the simple faith of his nation. The fact itself
is most significant; and the whole book may be
quoted as furnishing an important corrective to the
later Roman descriptions of the Jews, which were
drawn from the people when they had been almost
uncivilized by the excitement of the last desperate
struggle for national existence. (For detailed refer-
ences to the chief authorities on the history of the
Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, see PHILOSOPHY ;
adding Bruch, Die Weisheitslehre der Hebraer,
1851.)
8. Place and date of writing.—Without claim-
ing for the internal indications of the origin of the
book a decisive force, it seems most reasonable to
believe on these grounds that it was composed at
Alexandria some time before the time of Philo (cir.
120-80 B.c.). This opinion in the main, though the
conjectural date varies from 150-50 B.C, or even
beyond these limits, is held by Heydenreich, Gfrorer,
Bauermeister, Ewald, Bruch, and Grimm; and
other features in the book go far to confirm it.
Without entering into the question of the extent of the
Hellenistic element at Jerusalem in the last century
B.C., it may be safely affirmed that there is not the
slightest evidence for the existence there of so wide
an acquaintance with Greek modes of thought, and
so complete a command of the resources of the
Greek language, as is shown in the Book of Wisdom.
Alexandria was the only place where Judaism and
philosophy, both of the east and west, came into
natural and close connexion. It appears further
that the mode in which Egyptian idolatry is spoken
of, must be due in some degree to the influence of —
WISDOM, THE,
present and living antagonism, and not to the con-
templation of past history. This is particularly
evident in the great force laid upon the details of |
the Egyptian animal worship (xv. 18, &c.); and
the description of the condition of the Jewish settlers |
in Egypt (xix. 14-16) applies better to colonists
fixed at Alexandria on the conditions of equality by
the first Ptolemies, than to the immediate descend- |
ants of Jacob. It may, indeed, be said justly, that
the local colouring of the latter part of the book is
conclusive as to the place of its composition. But
all the guesses which have been made as to its
authorship are absolutely valueless. The earliest
was that mentioned by Jerome, which assigned it
to Philo (Praef. in Lib. Sal. Nonnulli scriptorum
veterum hune esse Judaei Philonis affirmant). There |
can be no doubt that the later and famous Philo
was intended by this designation, though Jerome in
his account of him makes no reference to the belief
(De vir, illustr. xi.). Many later writers, includ-
ing Luther and Gerhard, ,adopted this view; but
the variations in teaching, which have been already
noticed, effectually prove that it is unfounded.
Others, therefore, have imagined that the name
was correct, but that the elder Philo was intended
by it (G. Wernsdorff, and in a modified form Huet
and Bellarmin). But of this elder Jewish Philo it
is simply known that he wrote a poem on Jeru-
salem.¢ Lutterbeck suggested Aristobulus. [ARI-
stopuLus.] Eichhorn, Zeller, Jost, and several
others supposed that the author was one of the
Therapeutae, but here the positive evidence against
the conjecture is stronger, for the book contains no
trace of the ascetic discipline which was of the
essence of the Therapeutic teaching. The opinion
of some later critics that the book is of Christian
origin (Kirschbaum, C. H. Weisse), or even de-
finitely the work of Apollos (Noack), is still more
perverse; for not only does if not contain the
slightest trace of the three cardinal truths of Chris-
tianity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resur-
rection of the body, but it even leaves no room for
them by the general tenor of its teaching.4
9, History —The history of the book is extremely
obscure. There is no trace of the use of it before
the Christian era, but this could not be otherwise
if the view which has been given of its date be
correct. It is perhaps more surprising that Philo
does not (as it seems) show any knowledge of it,
and it is not unlikely that if his writings are care-
fully examined with this object, some allusions to it
may be found which have hitherto escaped observa-
tion. On the other hand, it can scarcely be doubted
that St. Paul, if not other of the Apostolic writers,
was familiar with its language, though he makes
no definite quotation from it (the supposed reference
in Luke xi. 49 to Wisd. ii. 12-14, is wholly un-
founded). Thus we have striking parallels in Rom.
ix. 21 to Wisd. xv. 7; in Rom. ix. 22 to Wisd. xii.
20 ; in Eph. vi. 13-17 to Wisd. v. 17-19 (the hea-
venly armour), ἕο, The coincidences in thought
or language which occur in other books of the
N. T., if they stood alone, would be insufficient to
establish a direct connexion between them and the
OF SOLOMON 1783
Book of Wisdom ; and even in the case of St. Paul,
it may be questioned whether his acquaintance with
the book may not have been gained rather orally
than by direct study. The same remark applies to
a coincidence of language in the epistle of Clement
to the Corinthians pointed out by Grimm (Ad Cor.
i. 27; Wisd. xi. 22, xii. 12); so that the first clear
references to the book occur not earlier than the
close of the second century. According to Eusebius
(H. E. v. 26), Ivenaeus made use of it (and of the
Ep. to the Hebrews) in a lost work, and in a
passage of his great work (adv. Hauer. iv. 38, 3)
Irenaeus silently adopts a characteristic clause from
it (Wisd. vi. 19, ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ
θεοῦ). From the time of Clement of Alexandria
the book is constantly quoted as an inspired work
of Solomon, or as “Scripture,” even by those
Fathers who denied its assumed authorship, and it
gained a place in the Canon (together with the
other Apocryphal books) at the Council of Carthage,
cir. 397 A.D. (for detailed references see CANON, vol.
i. pp. 256, 258). From this time its history is the
same as that of the other Apocryphal books up to
the period of the Reformation. In the controversies
which arose then its intrinsic excellence commanded
'the admiration of those who refused it a place
among the canonical books (so Luther ap, Grimm,
82). Pellican directly affirmed its inspiration
(Grimm, /. c.); and it is quoted as Scripture in
both the Books of Homilies (pp. 98-9; 174, ed.
1850). In later times the various estimates which
have been formed of the book have been influenced
by controversial prejudices. In England, like the
rest of the Apocrypha, it has been most strangely
neglected, though it furnishes several lessons for
Church Festivals. It seems, indeed, impossible to
study the book dispassionately, and not feel that it
forms one of the last links in the chain of provi-
dential connexion between the Old and New Cove-
nants. How far it falls short of Christian truth,
or rather how completely silent it is on the essential
doctrines of Christianity, has been already seen;
and yet Christianity offers the only complete solu-
tion to the problems which it raises in its teaching
on the immortality of man, on future judgment, on the
catholicity of the divine Church, ahd the speciality of
Revelation. It would not be easy to find elsewhere
any pre-Christian view of religion equally wide, sus-
tained, and definite. The writer seems to have looked
to the east and west, to the philosophy of Persia and
Greece, and to have gathered from both what they
contained of Divine truth, and yet to have clung
with no less zeal than his fathers to that central
revelation which God made first to Moses, and then
carried on by the O. T. prophets. Thus in some
sense the book becomes a landmark by which we
may partially fix the natural limits of the develop-
ment of Jewish doctrine when brought into contact
with heathen doctrine, and measure the aspirations
which were thus raised before their great fulfilment.
The teaching of the book upon immortality has left
ineffaceable traces upon the language of Christendom.
The noble phrase which speaks of a “ hope full of
immortality ” (Wisd. iii. 4), can never be lost ;
e The conjecture of J. Faber, that the book was written
by Zerubbabel, who rightly assumed the character of a
second Solomon, is only worth mentioning as a specimen |
of misplaced ingenuity (comp. Welte, Hinl. 191 ff.).
Augustine himself corrected the mistake by which he
attributed it to Jesus the son of Sirach,
ἃ Dr. Tregelles has given a new turn to this opinion
by supposing that the book may have been written by ἃς
Christian (otherwise unknown) named Philo. In support
of this he suggests an ingenious conjectural emendation
of a corrupt passage of the Muratorian Canon. Where
the Latin text reads εἰ Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in
honorem ipsius scripta, he imagines the original Greek
| may have read, καὶ ἡ Σοφία Ξολομῶντος ὑπὸ Φίλωνος (for
ὑπὸ φίλων)... «Οὐ again, that Jerome so misread the pas-
sage (Journal of Philog. 1355, 37 1f.).
1784 WITCH
and in mediaeval art few symbols are more striking
than that which represents in outward form that
“the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God”’
(Wisd. iii, 1). Other passages less familiar are
scarcely less beautiful when seen in the light of
Christianity, as xv. 3, “To know Thee (Ὁ God) is
perfect righteousness; yea, to know Thy power is
the root of immortality”? (comp. viii. 15, 17; St.
John xvii. 3), or xi, 26, “ Thou sparest all: for they
are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls” (comp. xii.
16); and many detached expressions anticipate the
language of the Apostles (iii. 9, χάρις καὶ ἔλεος ;
iii. 14, τῆς πίστεως χάρις ἐκλεκτή ; Xi. 24, mapopas
ἁμαρτήματα ἀνθρώπων εἰς μετάνοιαν ; xvi. 7, διὰ
σὲ τὸν πάντων σωτῆρα).
10. Commentaries.— The earliest commentary
which remains is that of Rabanus Maurus (+856),
who undertook the work, as he says in his preface,
because he was not acquainted with any complete
exposition of the book. It is uncertain from his
language whether the homilies of Augustine and
Ambrose existed in his time: at least they have
now been long lost. Of the Roman Catholic com-
mentaries the most important are those of Lorinus
(F1634), Corn, a Lapide (+1637), Maldonatus
(41583), Calmet (+1757), J. A. Schmid (1858).
Of other commentaries, the chief are those by Gro-
tius ($1645), Heydenreich, Bauermeister (1828),
and Grimm (1837). The last mentioned scholar
has also published a new and admirable commentary
in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Hundb. zu d. Apok. 1860,
which contains ample references to earlier writers,
and only errs by excess of tulness. The English com-
mentary of R. Arnald (f1756) is extremely diffuse,
but includes much illustrative matter, and shows a
regard for the variations of MSS. and Versions which
was most unusual at the time. A good English edi-
tion, however, is still to be desired. [B. F. W.]
WITCH, WITCHCRAFTS. [Maeic.]
WITNESS.2 Among people with whom writ-
ing is not common, the evidence of a transaction is
given by some tangible memorial or significant cere-
mony. Abraham gave seven ewe-lambs to Abime-
lech as an evidence of his property in the well of
Beer-sheba. Jacob raised a heap of stones, “ the
heap of witness,” as a boundary-inark between him-
self and Laban (Gen. xxi. 30, xxxi. 47,52). The
tribes of Reuben and Gad raised an “altar,” designed
expressly not for sacrifice, but as a witness to the
covenant between themselves and the rest of the
nation; Joshua set up a stone as an evidence of the
allegiance promised by Israel to God ; ‘* for,” he said,
“jt hath heard all the words of the Lord” (Josh.
xxil. 10, 26, 34, xxiv. 26, 27).
mentioned by Isaiah as “a witness to the Lord of
Hosts in the land of Egypt” (Is. xix. 19, 20).
Thus also the sacred ark and its contents aie called
“the Testimony ” (Ex. xvi. 33, 34, xxv. 16,
xxxvili. 21; Num. i. 50, 53, ix. 15, x. 11, xvii.
7, 8, xviii. 2; Heb. ix. 4).
Thus also symbolical usages, in ratification of
contracts or completed arrangements, as the cere-
mony of shoe-loosing (Deut. xxv. 9, 10; Ruth iv.
7, 8), the ordeal prescribed in the case of a sus-
pected wife, with which may be compared the
ordeal of the Styx (Num. ν. 17-31; Class. Mus.
vi. 386). The Bedouin Arabs practise a fiery ordeal
in certain cases by way of compurgation (Burck-
a TY, ny f.; μάρτυς ; testis; used both of persons
and things. 3
So also a pillar 15.
WITNESS
hardt, Notes, i. 121; Layard, Nim. and Bab. p.
305). The ceremony also appointed at the oblation
of first-fruits may be mentioned as partaking of the
same character (Deut. xxvi. 4). [FiRST-FRUITS. ]
But written evidence was by no means unknown
to the Jews. Divorce was to be proved by a writ-
ten document (Deut. xxiv. 1, 3), whereas among
Bedouins and Mussulmans in general a spoken sen-
tence is sufficient (Burckhardt, Notes, i. 110; Sale,
Koran, ¢. 33, p. 348; Lane, Mod. Ey. i. 136, 236).
In civil contracts, at least in later times, docu-
mentary evidence was required and carefully pre-
served (Is. viii. 16; Jer. xxxii. 10-16).
On the whole the Law was very careful to pro-
vide and enforce evidence for all its infractions and
all transactions bearing on them: e.g. the me-
morial stones of Jordan and of Ebal (Deut. xxvii.
2-4; Josh. iv. 9, viii. 30); the fringes on garments
(Num, xv. 39, 40); the boundary-stones of pro-
perty (Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17; Prov. xxii. 28);
the “ broad plates” made trom the censers of the
Korahites (Num. xvi. 38); above all, the Ark of
Testimony itself :—all these are instances of the care
taken by the Legislator to perpetuate evidence of
the facts on which the legislation was founded, and
by which it was supported (Deut. vi. 20-25).
Appeal to the same principle is also repeatedly
made in the case of prophecies as a test of their
authenticity (Deut. xviii. 22; Jer. xxviii. 9, 16,17;
John iii, 11, v. 36, x. 38, xiv. 11; Luke xxiv. 48;
Acts i. 3, ii. 32, iii. 15, &c.).
Among special provisions of the Law with respect
to evidence are the following :—
1. Two witnesses at least ave required to esta-
blish any charge (Num. xxxy. 30; Deut. xvii. 6,
xix. 15; 1 K. xxi. 13; John viii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii.
1; Heb. x. 28); and a like principle is laid down
by St. Paul as a rule of procedure in certain cases
in the Christian Church (1 Tim. vy. 19).
2. In the case of the suspected wife, evidence
besides the husband’s was desired, though not de-
manded (Num. v. 13).
3. The witness who withheld the truth was cen-
sured (Lev. v. 1).
4, False witness was punished with the punish-
ment due to the offence which it sought to establish.
[OaTHS. ]
5. Slanderous reports and officious witness are
discouraged (Ex. xx. 16, xxiii. 1; Ley. xix. 16, 18;
Deut. xix. 16-21; Prov. xxiv. 28).
6. The witnesses were the first executioners
(Deut. xiii. 9, xvi. 7; Acts vii. 58).
7. In case of an animal left in charge and torn
by wild beasts, the keeper was to bring the carcase
in proof of the fact and disproof of his own crimi-
nality (Ex. xxii. 13).
8. According to Josephus, women and slaves were
not admitted to bear testimony (Ant. iv. 8, §15).
To these exceptions the Mishna adds idiots, deat,
blind, and dumb persons, persons of infamous cha-
racter, and some others, ten in all (Selden, de
Synedr. ii. 13, 11; Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 653). The
high-priest was not bound to give evidence in any
case except one affecting the king (7b.). Various
refinements on the quality of evidence and the
manner of taking it are given in the Mishna
(Sanhedr. iv. 5, v. 2,3; Maccoth, i. 1,9; Sheb.
iii. 10, iv. 1, v. 1). In criminal cases evidence
was required to be oral; in pecuniary, written evi-
dence was allowed (Otho, Lex. Rabb. 653).
In the Ν, T. the original notion of a witness is
exhibited in the special form of one who attests his
WIZARD
belief in the Gospel by personal suffering. So St.
Stephen is styled by St. Paul (Acts xxii. 20), and
the “faithful Antipas” (Rev. ii. 13). St. John
also speaks of himself and of others as witnesses in
this sense (Rev. i. 9, vi. 9, xi. 3, xx. 4). See also
Heb. xi. and xii. 1, in which passage a number of
persons are mentioned, belonging both to O. I’. and
N. T., who bore witness to the truth by personal
endurance; and to this passage may be added, as
bearing on the same view of the term “ὁ witness,”’
Dan, iii. 21, vi. 16; 1 Macc..i. 60, 63; 2 Mace.
vi. 18, 19. Hence it is that the use of the eccle-
siastical term “ Martyr” has arisen, of which
copious illustration may be seen in Suicer, 7168.
vol. ii. p. 310, &e. (Ey Wie, Beil
WIZARD. [Maeic.]
WOLF (IN}, 26): λύκος : lupus). There can
be little doubt that the wolf of Palestine is the
common Canis lupus, and that this is the animal
so frequently mentioned in the Bible, though it is
true that we lack precise information with regard to
the Canidae of Palestine. Hemprich and Ehrenberg
have described a few species, as, for instance, the
Canis Syriacus and the C, (Vulpes) Niloticus (see
figures in art. Fox, App. A); and Col. Hamilton
Smith mentions, under the name of derboun, a
species of black wolf, as occurring in Arabia and
Southern Syria; but nothing definite seems to be
known of this animal. Wolves were doubtless
far more common in Biblical times than they are
now, though they are occasionally seen by modern
travellers (see Kitto’s Physical History of Palestine,
Ρ. 364, and Russell’s Nat. Hist. of Aleppo, ii.
184): “the wolf seldom ventures so near the city as
the fox, but is sometimes seen at a distance by the
sportsmen among the hilly grounds in the neigh-
bourhood ; and the villages, as well as the herds,
often suffer from them. It is called Deeb in Arabic,
and is common all over Syria.”
The following are the Scriptural allusions to the
wolf:—Its ferocity is mentioned in Gen. xlix, 27;
102. xxii. 27; Hab. i. 8; Matt. vii. 15: its noc-
turnal habits, in Jer. v.6; Zeph. iii. 3; Hab. i. 8:
its attacking sheep and lambs, John x. 12; Matt.
x. 16; Luke x. 3. Isaiah (xi. 6, Ixv. 25) foretells
the peaceful reign of the Messiah under the metaphor
of a wolf dwelling with a lamb; cruel persecutors
ave compared with wolves (Matt. x. 16; Acts
ΧΧ 7AS))
Wolves, like many other animals, are subject to
variation in colour; the common colour is grey
with a tinting of fawn and long black hairs; the
variety most trequent in Southern Europe and the
Pyrenees is black; the wolf of Asia Minor is more
tawny than those of the common colour.
The people of Nubia and Egypt apply the term
Dieb to the Canis anthus, Fr. Cuv. (see Riippell’s
Atlas zu der Reise im Nérdlichen Africa, p. 46) ;
this, however, is a jackal, and seems to be the
Lupus Syriacus, which Hemp. and Ehrenb. noticed
in Syria, and identical with the « Egyptian wolt”
figured by Ham. Smith in Kitto’s Cycl. [W. H.]
WOMEN. The position of women in the Hebrew
commonwealth contrasts favourably with that which
in the present day is assigned to them generally in
Eastern countries. The social equality of the two
sexes is most fully implied in the history of the
original creation of the woman, as well as in the
name assigned to her by the man, which differed
from his own only in its feminine termination
WOMEN 1785
(Gen. ii. 18-23). This narrative is hence effectively
appealed to as supplying an argument for enforcing
the duties of the husband tewards the wife (Eph.
v. 28-31). Many usages of early times interfered
with the preservation of this theoretical equality :
we may instance the existence of polygamy, the
autocratic powers vested in the head of the family
under the patriarchal system, and the treatment of
captives, Nevertheless a high tone was maintained
generally on this subject by the Mosaic law, and,
as far as we have the means of judging, by the force
of public opinion.
The most salient point of contrast in the usages
of ancient as compared with modern Oriental society
was the large amount of liberty enjoyed by women.
Instead of being immured in a harem, or appearing
in public with the face covered, the wives and
maidens of ancient times mingled freely and openly
with the other sex in the duties and amenities of
ordinary life. Rebekah travelled on a camel with
her face unveiled, until she came into the presence
of her affianced (Gen. xxiv. 64, 5). Jacob saluted
Rachel with a kiss in the presence of the shepherds
(Gen. xxix, 11). Each of these maidens was en-
gaged in active employment, the former in fetching
water from the well, the latter in tending her flock.
Sarah wore no veil in Egypt, and yet this formed
no ground for supposing her to be married (Gen.
xii. 14-19), An outrage on a maiden in the open
field was visited with the severest punishment
(Deut. xxii, 25-27), proving that it was not deemed
improper for her to go about unprotected. Further
than this, women played no inconsiderable part in
public celebrations; Miriam headed a band of women
who commemorated with song and dance the over-
throw of the Egyptians (Ex. xv. 20, 21); Jeph-
thah’s daughter gave her father a triumphal re-
ception (Judg. xi. 34); the maidens of Shiloh danced
publicly in the vineyards at the yearly feast (Judg.
xxi. 21); and the women féted Saul and David, on
their return from the defeat of the Philistines, with
singing and dancing (1 Sam. xviii. 6, 7). The odes
of Deborah (Judg. v.) and of Hannah (1. Sam.
ii. 1, &c.) exhibit a degree of intellectual cultivation
which is in itself a proof of the position of the sex
in that period. Women also occasionally held public
offices, particularly that. of prophetess or inspired
teacher, as instanced in Miriam (Ex. xv. 20),
Huldah (2 K. xxii. 14), Noadiah (Neh. vi. 14),
Anna (Luke ii. 36), and above all Deborah, who
applied her prophetical gift to the administration of
public affairs, and was so entitled to be styled a
“judge” (Judg. iv. 4). The active part taken by
Jezebel in the government of Israel (1 K. xviii. 13,
xxi. 25), and the usurpation of the throne of Judah
by Athaliah (2 K. xi. 3), further attest the latitude
allowed to women in public life.
The management of household affairs devolved
mainly on the women. ‘They brought the water
from the well (Gen. xxiv. 15; 1 Sam. ix. 11),
attended to the flocks (Gen, xxix. 6, ζο. ; Ex. ii. 16),
prepared the meals (Gen. xviii. 6; 2 Sam. xiii. 8),
and occupied their leisure hours in spinning (Ex.
xxxv. 26; Prov. xxxi. 19) and making clothes,
either for the use of the family (1 Sam. ii. 195
Prov. xxxi. 21), for sale (Prov. xxxi. 14, 24),
or for charity (Acts ix. 39). The value of a vir-
tuous and active housewife forms a frequent topic
in the Book of Proverbs (xi. 16, xii. 4, xiv, he xexr
10, &c.). Her influence was of course proportion-
ably great; and, where there was no second wite,
she controlled the arrangements of the house, to the
1786 WOOD
extent of inviting or receiving guests on her own
motion (Judg. iv. 18; 1 Sam. xxv. 18, &.; 2 K.
iv. 8, &.). The effect of polygamy was to transfer
temale influence from the wives to the mother, as
is incidentally shown in the application of the term
gebirah (literally meaning powerful) to the queen
mother (1 K. ii. 19, xv. 13; 2 K. x. 13, xxiv. 12;
Jer. xiii. 18, xxix. 2). Polygamy also necessitated
a separate establishment for the wives collectively,
or for each individually. Thus in the palace of
the Persian monarch there was a ‘‘ house of the
women” (βίῃ. ii. 9), which was guarded by
eunuchs (ii. 3); in Solomon’s palace the harem
was connected with, but separate from, the rest of
the building (1 K. vii. 8); and on journeys each
wife had her separate tent (Gen. xxxi. 33). In
such cases it is probable that the females took their
meals apart from the males (Esth. i. 9); but we
have no reason to conclude that the separate system
prevailed generally among the Jews. The women
were present at festivals, either as attendants on
the guests (John xii. 2), or as themselves guests
(Job i. 4; John ii. 3); and hence there is good
ground for concluding that on ordinary occasions
also they joined the males at meals, though there is
no positive testimony to that effect.
Further information on the subject of this article
is given under the heads DEAcoNEsS, Dress, Harr,
MARRIAGE, SLAVE, VEIL, and Wipow. [W. L. B.]
WOOD. [Forest.]
WOOL (ΣΝ ; 13). Wool was an article of the
highest value among the Jews, as the staple mate-
vial for the manufacture of clothing (Lev. xiii.
47; Deut. xxii. 11; Job xxxi, 20; Prov. xxxi. 13;
Ez. xxxiv. 3; Hos. ii. 5). Both the Hebrew terms,
tsemer and géz, imply the act of shearing, the dis-
tinction between them being that the latter refers
to the “ fleece”’ (Deut. xviii. 4; Job xxxi. 20), as
proved by the use of the cognate gizzah, in Judg.
vi. 37-40, in conjunction with tsemer, in the
sense of “a fleece of wool.” The importance of
wool is incidentally shown by the notice that
Mesha’s tribute was paid in a certain number of
rams “with the wool” (2 K. iii. 4), as well as by its
being specified among the firstfruits to be offered to
the priests (Deut. xviii. 4). The wool of Damascus
was highly prized in the mart of Tyre (Ez. xxvii.
18); and is compared in the LXX. to the wool of
Miletus (ἔρια ἐκ Μιλήτου), the fame of which was
widely spread in the ancient world (Plin. viii. 73;
Virg. Georg. iii. 806, iv. 334), Wool is occa-
sionally cited as an image of purity and brilliancy
(Is. i. 18; Dan. vii. 9; Rev. i. 14), and the flakes
of snow are appropriately likened to it (Ps. exlvii.
16). The art of dyeing it was understood by the
Jews (Mishna, Shab, 1, § 6). [W. L. B.]
WOOLLEN (LINEN and). Among the laws
against unnatural mixtures is found one to this
effect : “ A garment of mixtures ΓΝ), shaatnéz]
shall not come upon thee” (Lev. xix. 19); or, as
it is expressed in Deut. xxii. 11, “ thou shalt not
wear shaatnéz, wool and flax together.” Our ver-
sion, by the help of the latter passage, has rendered
the strange word shaatnéz in the former, ‘ of linen
and woollen ;” while in Deut. it is translated “a
garment of divers sorts.” In the Vulgate the difli-
culty is avoided; and κίβδηλος, “spurious” or
ἐς counterfeit,” the rendering of the LXX., is want-
ing in precision. In the Targum of Onkelos the
same word remains with a slight modification to
WORM
adapt it to the Chaldee ; but in the Peshito-Syriac
of Lev. it is rendered by an adjective, ‘ motley,”
and in Deut. a ‘* motley garment,” corresponding
in some degree to the Samaritan version, which has
“spotted like a leopard.” Two things only appear
to be certain about shaatnéz—that it is a foreign
word, and that its origin has not at present been
tracefl. Its signification is sufficiently defined in
Deut. xxii. 11, ‘The derivation given in the
Mishna (Ci/aim, ix. 8), which makes it a compound
of three words, signifying ‘carded, spun, and
twisted,” is in keeping with Rabbinical etymologies
generally. Other etymologies are proposed by
Bochart (Hieroz. pt. i. b. 2, c.45), Simonis (Lew.
Heb.), and Pfeiffer (Dub. Vex. cent. 2, loc. xi.).
The last mentioned writer defended the Egyptian
origin of the word, but his knowledge of Coptic,
according to Jablonski, extended not much beyond
the letters, and little value, therefore, is to be
attached to the solution which he proposed for the
difficulty. Jablonski himself favours the suggestion
of Forster, that a garment of linen and woollen was
called by the Egyptians shontnes, and that this
word was borrowed by the Hebrews, and written
by them in the form shaatnéz (Opusc. i. 294).
The reason given by Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, $11)
for the law which prohibited the wearing a garment
woven of linen and woollen is, that such were worn
by the priests alone (see Mishna, Ci/aim, ix. 1).
Of this kind were the girdle (of which Josephus
says the warp was entirely linen, Ant. iii. 7, §2),
ephod, and breastplate (Braunius, de Vest. Suc.
Fiebr. pp. 110, 111) of the High Priest, and the
girdle of the common priests (Maimonides, (δ δ
Hammikdash, eviii.). Spencer conjectured that
the use of woollen and linen inwoven in the same
garment prevailed amongst the ancient Zabii, and
was associated with their idolatrous ceremonies
(De leg. Heb, ii. 33, §3); but that it was per-
mitted to the Hebrew priests, because with them it
could give rise to no suspicion of idolatry. Mai-
monides found in the books of the Zabii that ‘‘ the
priests of the idolaters clothed themselves with robes
of linen and woollen mixed together” (Townley,
Reasons of the Laws of Moses, p. 207). By
“ wool” the Talmudists understood the wool of
sheep (Mishna, Cilaim, ix. 1). It is evident from
Zeph. i. 8, that the adoption of a particular dress
was an indication of idolatrous tendencies, and there
may be therefore some truth in the explanation of
Maimonides. [W. A. W.]
WORM, the representative in the A. V. of the
Hebrew words Sds, Rimmdh, and Tolé’ah, Tola’,
or Tolaath, occurs in numerous passages in the
Bible. The first-named term, Sds (DD, σής, tinea)
occurs only in Isa. li. 8, “ For the ‘ash (wy) shall
T
eat them up like a garment, and the Sas shall eat
them like wool.” The word probably denotes some
particular species of moth, whose larva is injurious
to wool, while perhaps the former name is the
more general one for any of the destructive Zineae
or “Clothes Moths.” For further information on
the subject the reader is referred to Moru.
2. Rimmah (71191; σκώληξ, σῆψις, σαπρία:
al
The manna that the dis-
obedient Israelites kept till the morning of a week-
day “ bred worms” (δὴ), and stank (Ex. xvi.
20); while of that kept over the Sabbath and
gathered the night before, it is said that “it did
vermis, putredo, tinea).
WORMWOOD
not stink, neither was there any worm (i197)
therein.” The Hebrew word is connected with the
root DOD “to be putrid” (see Gesenius, Thes.
s. v.), and points evidently to various kinds of
maggots, and the larvae of insects which feed on
putrefying animal matter rather than to earth-
worms; the words in the original are clearly used
indiscriminately to denote either true annelida, or
the larval condition of various insects. Thus, as
may be seen above, Rimmadh and Toléah ave both
used to express the maggot or caterpillar, whatever
it might have been that consumed the bad manna in
the wilderness of Sin. Job, under his heavy affliction,
exclaims, “ My flesh is clothed with rimmah” (vii. 5;
see also xvii. 14); there is no reason to doubt that
the expression is to be understood literally ; a person
in Job’s condition would very probably suffer from
entozoa of some kind. In Job xxi. 26, xxiv. 20,
there is an allusion to worms (insect larvae) feeding
on the dead bodies of the buried ; our translators in
the well-known passage (xix. 26)—‘ And though
after my skin worms destroy this body ”’—have
rather over-interpreted the words of the original,
“My skin shall have been consumed.’”*
The patriarch uses both Rimmdh and Tolé’ah
(AYIA), in ch. xxv. 6, where he compares the estate
of man to a rimmah, and the son of man to a télé’ah.
This latter word, in one or other of its forms (see
above), is applied in Deut. xxviii. 39 to some kinds of
larvae destructive to the vines: ‘Thou shalt plant
vineyards .... but shalt not gather the grapes, for
the té/aath shall eat them.” Various kinds of insects
attack the vine, amongst which one of the most
destructive. is the Tortrix vitisana, the little
caterpillar of which eats off the inner parts of the
blossoms, the clusters of which it binds together
by spinning a web around them. The “ worm”
which is said to haye destroyed Jonah’s gourd was
a tolaath (Jonah iv.7). Michaelis (Suppl. p. 2189)
quotes Rumphius as asserting that there is a kind
of black caterpillar, which, during sultry rainy
weather, does actually strip the plant of its leaves
in a single night. In Is. lxvi. 24 allusion is
made to maggots feeding on the dead bodies of the
slain in battle. The words of the prophet are
applied by our Lord (Mark ix. 44, 46, 48) meta-
phorically to the stings of a guilty conscience in the
world of departed spirits.
The death of Herod Agrippa I. was caused by
worms (σκωληκόβρωτος, Acts xii. 25) ; according
to Josephus (Ant. xix. 8), his death took place five
days after his departure from the theatre. It is
curious that the Jewish historian makes no mention
of worms in the case of Agrippa, though he ex-
pressly notes it in that of Herod the Great (Ant.
xvii. 6, 85). A similar death was that of Antiochus
Epiphanes (2 Mace. ix. 9; see also Eusebius, Hccl.
Hist. viii. 16 ; and Lucian, Pseudomant. i. p. 904 ;
compare Wetstein on Acts xii. 23). Whetier the
worms were the cause or the result of the disease
is an immaterial question. The “ Angel of the
Lord struck Herod” with some disease, the issue of
which was fatal, and the loathsome spectacle of
which could not fail to have had a marked humiliat-
ing effect on his proud heart. [W. H.]
WORMWOOD (mayb, ladnah: πικρία, χολή,
ὀδύνη. and ἀνάγκη : amaritudo, absynthium). The
® The Hebrew is, ΠΝ ΞΡ my TAN), 7, “And
after that they shall have consumed this my skin,” or, as
WORSHIPPER 1787
correct translation of the Heb. word, occurs fre-
quently in the Bible, and generally in a metaphori-
cal sense, as in Deut. xxix. 18, where of the idola-
trous Israelites it is said, ‘* Lest there be among you
a τοοῦ that beareth wormwood” (see also Prov. v.
εἴπ dere ix 1 ἡ. oxxin. 19... Lam, 111..15. 19.
wormwood is symbolical of bitter calamity and
sorrow ; unrighteous judges are said to “ turn judg-
ment to wormwood” (Am. ν. 7). The orientals
typified sorrows, cruelties, and calamities of any
kind by plants of a poisonous or bitter nature.
[GaLL, App. A.] The name of the star which, at
the sound of the third angel’s trumpet fell upon
the rivers, was called Wormwood (“AwivO0s; Rev.
viii. 11). Kitto (Phys. Hist. of Palestine, p. 215),
enumerates four kinds of wormwood as found in
Palestine— Artemisia nilotica, A. Judaica, A. fru-
ticosa, and A. cinerea. Rauwolf speaks of some kind
of wormwood under the name of Absinthium san-
tonicum Judaicum, and says it is very common in
Palestine ; this is perhaps the Artemisia Judaica.
The Hebrew Ladnah is doubtless generic, and de-
notes several species of Artemisia (Celsius, Hierob. i.
p- 480; Rosenmiiller, Bib. Bot. p.116). [W.H.]
WORSHIPPER. A translation of the Greek
word νεωκόρος, used once only, Acts xix. 35;
in the margin ‘Temple-keeper.” The neocoros
was originally an attendant in a temple, probably
entrusted with its charge (Eurip. Zon, 115, 121,
ed. Dind.; Plato, Leg. vi. 7, Bekk.; Theodoret,
Hist. Eccl. iii. 14, 16; Pollux, i. 14; Philo, De
Prov. Sac. 6, ii. 237; Hesychius explains it by 6
τὸν vaby κοσμῶν, κορεῖν yap τὸ σαίρειν, Suidas,
κοσμῶν καὶ εὐτρεπίζων, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ 6 σαρῶν, ed.
Gaisf. p. 2519). The divine honours paid in later
Greek times to eminent persons even in their life-
time, were imitated and exaggerated by the Romans
under the empire, especially in Asia (Plut. Lys.
23; Appian, Mithr. 76; Dion Cass, xxxi. 6). The
term neocoros became thus applied to cities, or
communities which undertook the worship of par-
ticular emperors even in their lifetime; but there
is no trace of the special title being applied to any
city before the time of Augustus. The first occur-
rence of the term in connexion with Ephesus is
on coins of the age of Nero (A.D, 54-68), a time
which would sufficiently agree with its use in
the account of the riot there, probably in 55 or
56. In later times the title appears with the nu-
merical adjuncts δὲς, τρὶς, and even τετράκις. A
coin of Nero’s time bears on one side ᾿Εφεσίων
νεωκόρων, and on the reverse a figure of the temple
of Artemis (Mionnet, Znscr. iii. 93; Eckhel, Doctr.
Vet. Num. ii. 520). The ancient veneration of
Artemis and her temple on the part of the city of
Ephesus, which procured for it the title of νεωκόρος
τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος, is too well known to need illustra-
tion; but in later times it seems probable that
with the term νεωκόρος the practice of Neocorism
became reserved almost exclusively for the venera-
tion paid to Roman emperors, towards whom many
other cities also of Asia Minor are mentioned as
Neocorists, e. 4. Nicomedia, Perinthus, Sardis,
Smyrna, Magnesia (Herod. i. 26; Strabo, xiv. 640;
Avistid. Or. xlii. 775, ed. Dind.; Mionnet, Znser.
iii. 97, Nos. 281, 285; Eckhel, De Num. ii. 520,
521; Boeckh, Jnser. 2617, 2618, 2622, 2954,
2957, 2990, 2992, 2993; Krause, De Civ. Neo-
coris; Hoffmann, Lex. ‘ Neocoros’). [H. W. P.]
Davidson renders it, “ Yea, after my skin, when this
(body) is destroyed” (In‘v0’. Ὁ. 7. ii. p. 227).
1788 WRESTLING
WRESTLING. [Games.]
WRITING. It is proposed in the present
article to treat, not of writing in general, its origin,
the people by whom and the manner in which it
was discovered, but simply with reference to the
Hebrew race to give such indications of their ac-
quaintance with the art as are to be derived from
their books, to discuss the origin and formation of
their alphabet and the subsequent development of
the present square character, and to combine with
this discussion an account, so far as can be ascer-
tained, of the material appliances which they made
use of in writing, and the extent to which the
practice prevailed among the people.
It is a remarkable fact that although, with respect
to other arts, as for instance those of music and
metal working, the Hebrews have assigned the
honour of their discovery to the heroes of a remote
antiquity, there is no trace or tradition whatever of
the origin of letters, a discovery many times more
remarkable and important than either of these.
Throughout the Book of Genesis there is not a
single allusion, direct or indirect, either to the
practice or to the existence of writing. The word
3N5, cdthab, ‘‘to write,’ does not once occur;
as
none of its derivatives are used; and 4D, sépher,
“a book,” is found only in a single passage (Gen.
v. 1), and there not in a connexion which involves
the supposition that the art of writing was known
at the time to which it refers. The signet of Judah
(Gen. xxxviii. 18, 25) which had probably some
device engraven upon it, and Pharaoh’s ring (Gen.
xli. 42) with which Joseph was invested, have been
appealed to as indicating a knowledge quite con-
sistent with the existence of writing. But as there
is nothing to show that the devices upon these rings,
supposing them to exist, were written characters,
or in fact any thing more than emblematical figures,
they cannot be considered as throwing much light
upon the question. ‘That the Egyptians in the time
of Joseph were acquainted with writing of a certain
kind there is other evidence to prove, but there is
nothing to show that up to this period the know-
ledge extended to the Hebrew family. At the same
time there is no evidence against it. The instance
brought forward by Hengstenberg to prove that
“ sionets commonly bore alphabetic writings,” is by
no means so decisive as he would have it appear.
It is ἔχ. xxxix. 80: ‘And they made the plate of
the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a
writing of the engravings of a signet, ‘ Holiness to
the Lord.’’’ That is, this inscription was engraved
upon the plate as the device is engraved upon a
signet, in intaglio; and the expression has reference
to the manner of engraving, and not to the figures
engraved, and therefore cannot be appealed to as
proving the existence of alphabetic characters upon
Judah’s signet or Pharaoh’s ring. Writing is first
distinctly mentioned in Ex, xvii. 14, and the con-
nexion clearly implies that it was not then employed
for the first time, but was so familiar as to be used
for historic records. Moses is commanded to pre-
serve the memory of Amalek’s onslaught in the
desert by committing it to writing. “* And Jehovah
said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in the
book (not ‘a book,’ as in the A, V.), and rehearse
it in the ears of Joshua.” It is clear that some
special book is here referred to, perhaps, as Aben
Kizra suggests, the book of the wars of Jehovah, or
the book of Jashar, or one of the many documents
WRITING
of the ancient Hebrews which have long since pe-
rished. Or it may have been the book in which
Moses wrote the words of Jehovah (Ex. xxiv. 4),
that is the laws contained in chapters xx.—xxiii. The
tables of the testimony are said to be “written by
the finger of God” (Ex. xxxi. 18) on both sides,
and “the writing was the writing of God, graven
upon the tables” (Ex. xxxii. 15). It is not clear
whether the passage in Ex, xxxiv. 28 implies that
the second tables were written by Moses or by God
himself. The engraving of the gems of the high-
priest’s breastplate with the names of the children
of Israel (Ex. xxviii. 11), and the inscription upon
the mitre (Ex. xxxix. 30) have to do more with the
art of the engraver than of the writer, but both
imply the existence of alphabetic characters. The
next allusion is not so clear. The Israelites were
forbidden, in imitation of the idolatrous nations, to
put any “brand” (lit. ‘* writing of burning”) upon
themselves. The figures thus branded upon the
skin might have been alphabetical characters, but
they were more probably emblematical devices,
symbolizing some object of worship, for the root
3nd, cathab (to write), is applied to picture-draw-
ing (Judg. viii. 14), to mapping out a country
(Josh. xviii. 8), and to plan-drawing (1 Chr. xxviii.
19). The curses against the adulteress were written
by the priest ‘in the book,” as before; and blotted
out with water (Num. y. 23). This proceeding,
though principally distinguished by its symbolical
character, involves the use of some kind of ink, and
of a material on which the curses were written
which would not be destroyed by water. The
writing on door-posts and gates, alluded to in Deut,
vi. 9, xi. 20, though perhaps to be taken figur-
atively rather than literally, implies certainly an
acquaintance with the art and the use of alpha-
betic characters. Hitherto, however, nothing has
been said of the application of writing to the pur-
poses of ordinary life, or of the knowledge of the
art among the common people. Up to this point
such knowledge is only attributed to Moses and
the priests. From Deut. xxiv. 1, 3, however, it
would appear that it was extended to others. A
man who wished to be separated from his wife for
her infidelity, could relieve himself by a summary
process. “ Let him write her a bill (WDD, sépher,
“a book”) of divorcement, and give it in her hand,
and send her out of his house.” It is not abso-
lutely necessary to infer from this that the art of
writing was an accomplishment possessed by every
Hebrew citizen, though there is no mention of a
third party ; and it is more than probable that these
‘¢bills of divorcement,”’ though apparently so in-
formal, were the work of protessional scribes. 1
was enjoined as one of the duties of the king (Deut.
xvii. 18), that he should transcribe the book of the
law for his own private study, and we shall find
hereafter in the history that distinct allusions to
writing occur in the case of several kings. The re-
maining instances in the Pentateuch are the writing
of laws upon stone covered with plaster, upon
which while soft the inscription was cut (Deut.
xxvii. 3, 8), the writing of the song of Moses
(Deut. xxxi. 22), and of the law in a book which
was placed in the side of the ark (Deut. xxxi. 24),
One of the first acts of Joshua on entering the Pro-
mised Land was to inscribe a copy of the Law on
the stones of the Altar on Mount Ebal (Josh. viii.
32). The survey of the country was drawn out in
a book (Josh. xviii. 8). In the time of the Judges
WRITING
we first meet with the professional scribe (7D;
sdphér), in his important capacity as marshal of the
host of warriors (Judg. v. 14), with his staff (A. V.
‘*pen’’) of office. Ewald (Poet. Biich. i, 129) re-
gards sdphér in this passage as equivalent to DAY,
shdphét, ** judge,” and certainly the context implies
the high rank which the art of writing conferred
upon its possessor. Later on in the history we read
of Samuel writing in “ the book” the manner of the
kingdom (1 Sam. x. 25); but it is not till the
reign of David that we hear for the first time of
writing being used for the purposes of ordinary
communication. The letter (lit. “ book”) which
contained Uriah’s death-warrant was written by
David, and must have been intended for the eye of
Joab alone ; who was therefore able to read writing,
and probably to write himself, though his message
to the king, conveying the intelligence of Uriah’s
death, was a verbal one (2 Sam, xi. 14, 15). If we
examine the instances in which writing is mentioned
in connexion with individuals, we shall find that in
all cases the writers were men of superior position.
In the Pentateuch the knowledge of the art is attri-
buted to Moses, Joshua, and the priest alone. " Sa-
muel, who was educated by the high-priest, is men-
tioned as one of the earliest historians (1 Chr. xxix.
29), as well as Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. ix. 29),
Shemaiah the prophet, Iddo the seer (2 Chr. xii.
15, xiii. 22), and Jehu the son of Hanani (2 Chr.
xx. 34). Letters were written by Jezebel in the
name of Ahab and sealed with his seal (1 K. xxi.
8, 9, 11); by Jehu (2 K. xi. 6); by Hezekiah
(2 Chr. xxix. 1); by Rabshakeh the Assyrian ge-
neral (2 Chr. xxxii. 17); by the Persian satraps
(Ezr. iv. 6, 7, 8); by Sanballat (Neh. vi. 5), To-
biah (Neh. vi. 19), Haman (Esth. viii. 5), Mor-
decai and Esther (Esth. ix. 29). The prophet Elijah
wrote to Ahab (2 Chr’ xxi. 2); Isaiah wrote some
of the history of his time (2 Chr. xxvi. 22); Jere-
miah committed his prophecies to writing (Jer.~li.
60), sometimes by the help of Baruch the scribe
(Jer. xxxvi. 4, 32); and the false prophet, Shemaiah
the Nehelamite, endeavoured to undermine Jere-
miah’s influence by the letters which he wrote to
the high- -priest (Jers: xxix.)2)..) Ini 150 xxix. 11.
12, there is clearly a distinction drawn Sennen
the man who was able to read, and the man who
was not, and it seemsa natural inference from what
has been said that the accomplishments of reading
and writing were not widely spread among the
people, when we find that they are universally attri-
buted to those of high rank or education, kings,
priests, prophets, and professional scribes.
In addition to these instances in which writing
is directly mentioned, an indirect allusion to its
early existence is supposed to be found in the name
of certain officers of the Hebvews in Egypt, ony,
shotérim, LXX. γραμματεῖς (Ex. v. 6, A. V.
“‘ officers”). The root of this word has been sought
in the Arabic , satara, “to write,” and its
original meaning is believed to be “ὁ writers,” or
‘scribes ;” an explanation adopted by Gesenius in
his Lexicon Hebraicum and Thesaurus, though he
rejected it in his Geschichte der Hebrdischen
Sprache und Schrift. Tn the name Kirjath-Sepher
(Booktown, Josh. xv. 15) the indication of a know-
ledge of writing among the Phoenicians is more dis-
tinct. Hitzig conjectures that the town may have
derived its name from the discovery of the art, for
the Hittites, a Canaanitish race, inhabited that
WRITING 1789
region, and the term Hittite may possibly have its
root in the Arabic b=, chatta, “ to write.”
The Hebrews, then, a branch of the great Shemitic
family, being in possession of the art of writing,
according to their own historical records, at a very
early period, the further questions arise, what cha-
racter they made use of, and whence they obtained
it. It is scarcely possible in the present day to
believe that, two centuries since, learned men of
sober judgment seriously maintained, almost as an
article of faith, that the square character, as it is
known to us, with the vowel points and accents,
was a direct revelation from heaven, and that the
commandments were written by the finger of God
upon the tables of stone in that character. Such,
however, was really the case. But recent investi-
gations have shown that, so far from the square
character having any claim to such a remote an-
tiquity and such an august parentage, it is of com-
paratively modern date, and has been formed from a
more ancient type by a gradual process of develop-
ment, the steps of which will be indicated hereafter,
so far as they can be safely ascertained. What then
was this ancient type? Most probably the Phoe-
nician. To the Phoenicians, the daring seamen,
and adventurous colonizers of the ancient world,
tradition assigned the honour of the invention of
letters (Plin. v. 12). This tradition may be of no
value as direct evidence, but as it probably origin-
ated with the Greeks, it shows that, to them at
least, the Phoenicians were the inventors of letters,
and that these were introduced into Europe by
means of that intercourse with Phoenicia which is
implied in the legend of Cadmus, the man of the
Kast. The Phoenician companions of this hero,
according to Herodotus (v. 58), taught the Greeks
many accomplishments, and among others the use
of letters which hitherto they had not possessed.
So Lucan, Phars. iii. 220:
“ Phoenices primi, famae si credimus, ausi
Mansuram rudibus vocem signare figuris.”
Pliny (vii. 56) was of opinion that letters were
of Assyrian origin, but he mentions as a belief held
by others that they were discovered among the
Egyptians by Mercury, or that the Syrians had the
honour of the invention, The last-mentioned theory
is that given by Diodorus Siculus (v. 74), who says
that the Syrians invented letters, and from them the
Phoenicians having learnt them, transferred them
to the Greeks. On the other hand, according to
Tacitus (Ann, xi. 14), Egypt was believed to be the
source whence the Phoenicians derived their know-
ledge. Be this as it may, the voice of tradition re-
presents the Phoenicians as the disseminators, if not
the inventors, of the alphabet. Whether it came to
them from an Aramaean or Egyptian source can at
best be but the subject of conjecture. It may,
however, be reasonably inferred that the ancient
Hebrews derived from, or shared with, the Phoeni-
cians the knowledge of writing and the use of letters.
The two nations spoke languages of the same Shem-
itic family ; they were brought into close contact by
geographical position ; all circumstances combine to
render it probable that the ancient Hebrew alphabet
was the common possession both of Hebrews and
Phoenicians, and this probability is strengthened by
the results of modern investigation into the Phoe-
nician inscriptions which have of late years been
brought to light. The names of tne Hebrew letters
indicate that they must have been the invention of
1790 WRITING
a Shemitic people, and that they were moreover |
a pastoral people may be inferred from the same
evidence. Such names as Aleph (an ox), Gimel |
(a camel), Lamed (an ox-goad), are most naturally |
explained by this hypothesis, which necessarily ex-
cludes the seafaring Phoenicians from any claim to |
their invention. If, as has been conjectured, they
took the first idea of writing from the Egyptians, |
they would at least have given to the signs which
they invented the names of objects with which they
themselves were familiar. So far from this being
the case the letters of the Hebrew alphabet contain
no trace whatever of ships or seafaring matters: on
the contrary, they point distinctly to an inland and
pastoral people. The Shemitic and Egyptian alpha-
bets have this principle in common, that the object
whose name is given to a letter was taken originally
to indicate the letter which begins the name; but
this fact alone is insufficient to show that the
Shemitic races borrowed their alphabet from Egypt,
or that the principle thus held in common may not
have been the possession of other nations of a still
earlier date than the Egyptians. “The phonetic
use of hieroglyphics,” says Mr. Kenrick, ‘* would
naturally suggest to a practical people, such as the
Phoenicians were, a simplification of the cumbrous
system of the Egyptians, by dispensing altogether
with the pictorial and symbolical use, and assigning
one character to each sound, instead of the mul-
titude of homophones which made the reading of |
the hieroglyphics so difficult; the residence of the
“ Phoenician shepherds,’ the Hyksos, in Egypt might
afford an opportunity for this adaptation, or it might
be brought about by commercial intercourse. We
cannot, however, trace such a resemblance between
the earliest Phoenician alphabet known to us, and
the phonetic characters of Egypt, as to give any
certainty to this conclusion” (Phoenicia, pp. 164,
165).
Perhaps all that can be inferred from the tradi-
tion that letters came to the Greeks from the Phoe-
nicians, but that they were the invention of the
Egyptians, is that the Egyptians possessed an alpha-
bet before the Phoenicians. Wahl, De Wette, and
Kopp are inclined to a Babylonian origin, under-
standing the Σύροι of Diodorus and the Syri of
Pliny of the Babylonians. But Gesenius has shown |
this to be untenable, because (1) Pliny distinctly
mentions both Syri and Assyri?, and by no means
confounds them ; and (2) because the inscription on |
the seal-stone, on which Kopp based his theory, is
nothing more than Phoenician, and that not of the
oldest form, but inclining to the somewhat later
WRITING
Aramaic character. This seal-stone or brick con-
‘tained, besides a cuneiform inscription, some
Shemitic characters which were deciphered by
Kopp, and were placed by him at the head of his
most ancient alphabets (Bilder und Schriften, ii.
p. 154). Gesenius, however, read them with a
very different result. He himself argues for a
Phoenician origin of the alphabet, in opposition
to a Babylonian or Aramaean, on the following
grounds :—1. That the names of the letters are
Phoenician, and not Syrian. Several of the names
are found alike in the Hebrew and Aramaic dia-
lects: as for instance, beth, gimel, zain, nun, ain,
resh, shin, but others are not found in Syriac at all,
at least not in the same sense. Aleph in Syriac
signifies “a thousand,” not ‘‘an ox;” daleth is
not “adoor,” and for this, as well as for vau, yod,
mem, pe, koph, and tau, different words are used.
The Greek forms of the names of the letters are
somewhat in favour of an Aramaic origin, but
there is no proof that they came in this shape from
the East, and that they were not so modified by the
Greeks themselves. 2. It is not probable that the
Aramaic dialect was the language of the inventors ;
for the letters ὃ ἡ ἢ) N, which to them were cer-
tainly consonants, had become so weak in the Ara-
maic that they could scarcely any longer appear as
such, and could not have been expressed by signs
by an inventor who spoke a dialect of this kind.
3. If the Phoenician letters are pictorial, as there
seems reason to believe, there is no model, among
the old Babylonian discoverers of writing, after
which they could have been formed ; while, on the
other hand, it is extremely probable that the Phoeni-
cians, from their extended commerce, especially with
Egypt, adopted an imitation of the Egyptian pho-
netic hieroglyphics, though they took neither the
figures nor the names from this source. The names
of some of the letters lead us to a nomade pastoral
people, rich in herds: aleph (an ox), gimel (a camel),
lamed (an ox-goad), beth (a tent), daleth (a tent-
door), vau (a tent-peg), cheth (a hurdle or pen). It
is a little remarkable that Gesenius did not see that
this very fact militates strongly against the Phoe-
nician origin of the letters, and points, as has been
observed above, rather to a pastoral than a sea-
faring people as their inventors. But whether or
not the Phoenicians were the inventors of the
Shemitic alphabet, there can be no doubt of their
just claim to being its chief disseminators; and with
this understanding we may accept the genealogy of
alphabets as given by Gesenius, and exhibited in
the accompanying table.
Phoenician.
| | | | |
Anc. Greek. Anc. Persian, Numidian. Anc. Hebrew. Anc. Aramaean.
Σ | | |
| |
Etruscan. Roman. Later Greek. Samaritan. Palmyrene. Heb. square
Umbrian, | character.
Oscan, Runic?
Samnite. erga tn se
| fia ie Math ae ᾿ marc
Celti- Coptic. Gothic. Slavonian. Sassanid—writing. Estrangelo Sabian,
berian. and Nestorian.
I
Zend. | |
| Pehivi. Cufic. Peshito. Uiguric, or
| Old Turkish.
Armenian ? Nischi.
Whatever minor differences may exist between
the ancient and more modern Shemitic alphabets,
they have two chief characteristics in common :—
1. That they contain only consonants and the three
principal long vowels, δὲν 1, ὃ; the other vowels
being represented by signs above, below, or in the
WRITING
middle of letters, or being omitted altogether. 2.
That they are written from right to left. The Ethio-
pic, being perhaps a non-Shemitic alphabet, is an
exception to this rule, as is the cuneiform character
in which sore Shemitic inscriptions are found. The
same peculiarity of Egyptian writing was remarked
by Herodotus. No instance of what is called
boustrophedon writing—that is in a direction from
right to left, and from left to right, in alternate
lines—is found in Shemitic monuments.
The old Shemitic alphabets may be divided into
two principal classes: 1. The Phoenician, as it ex-
ists (a) in the inscriptions in Cyprus, Malta, Car-
pentras, and the coins of Phoenicia and her colonies. |
It is distinguished by an absence of vowels, and by
sometimes having the words divided and sometimes
not. (6). In the inscriptions on Jewish coins.
' (0). In the Phoenicio-Egyptian writing, with three
vowel signs, deciphered by Caylus on the mummy
bandages. From (a) are derived (d), the Sama-
ritan character, and (6), the Greek. 2. The Hebrew-
Chaldee character ; to which belong (a), the Hebrew |
square character; (6), the Palmyrene, which has
some traces of a cursive hand ; (6), the Estrangelo, |
or ancient Syriac; and (d), the ancient Arabic |
or Cutic. The oldest Arabic writing (the Him-
yaritic) was perhaps the same as the ancient He-
brew or Phoenician.
It remains now to consider which of all these was |
the alphabet originally used by the ancient Hebrews.
In considering this question it will on many ac-
counts be more convenient to begin with the com-
mon square character, which is more familiar, and
which from this familiarity 7s more constantly asso-
ciated with the Hebrew language and writing, In
the Talmud (Sanh, fol. 21, 2) this character is called
Ya) ANS, “ square writing,” or nN 3n3,
“ Assyrian writing ;” the latter appellation being |
given because, according to the tradition, it came
up with the Israelites from Assyria. Under the
term Assyria are included Chaldea and Babylonia
in the wider sense; for it is clear that in ancient
writers the names Assyrian and Chaldean are ap-
plied indifferently to the same characters. The letters
of the inscription on the tomb of Sardanapailus are
called Chaldean (Athen. xii. p. 529) and Assyrian
(Athen, xii. p. 469; Arrian, Eup. Alex. ii. 5, 84).
Again, the Assyrian writing on the pillars erected
by Darius at the Bosporos (Her. iv. 87), is called
by Strabo Persian (xv. p, 502). Another deriva-
tion for the epithet NNW, ashshirith, as applied
to this writing, has been suggested by Rabbi Judah
the Holy, who derives it from NWN, méush-
shereth, blessed ;” the term being applied to it
because it was employed in writing the sacred
books, Another etymology (from “WW, dshar,
to be straight), given by the Hebrew grammarian
Abraham de Balmis, describes it as the straight,
perpendicular writing, so making the epithet equi-
valent to that which we apply to it in calling
it the square character. Hupfeld, starting from
the same root, explains the Talmudic designation
as merely a technical term used to denote the more
modern writing, and as opposed to PY", raats,
ἐς broken,” by which the ancient character is de-
scribed, According to him it signifies that which
is firm, strong, protected and supported as with
forts and walls, referring perhaps to the horizontal
strokes on which the letters rest as on a foundation.
In this view he compares it with the Ethiopic cha-
WRITING 1791
racter, which is called in Arabic Minne, “ sup-
ported.” It must be confessed that none of these
explanations are so satisfactory as to be unhesi-
tatingly accepted. The only fact to be derived
from the word NWN is that it is the source of
the whole Talmudic tradition of the Babylonian
origin of the square character. This tradition is
embodied in the following passages from the Jeru-
salem and Babylonian Talmuds :—* It is a tradi-
tion: R. Jose says Ezra was fit to have the law
given by his hand, but that the age of Moses pre-
vented it; yet though it was not given by his
hand, the writing and the language were; the
writing was written in the Syriac tongue, and in-
terpreted in the Syriac tongue (Ezr. iv. 7), and
they could not read the writing (Dan. v. 8); from
hence it is learnt that it was given on the same
day. ΚΒ, Nathan says the law was given in broken
characters (YY, raats), and agrees with R. Jose ;
but Rab (@. ὁ. k. Judah the Holy) says that the
law was given in the Assyrian (7. 6. the square)
character, and when they sinned it was turned into
the broken character, and when they were worthy,
in the days of Ezra, it was turned to them again in
the Assyrian character, according to Zech. ix. 12.
It is a tradition: R. Simeon ben Eleazar says, on
the account of R. Eleazar ben Parta, who also says,
on the account of Eliezer Hammodai, the law was
written in the Assyrian character” (Talm. Jerus.
Megillah, fol. 71, 2,3). But the story, as best
known, is told in the Babylonian Talmud :—*‘ Mar
Zutra, or as others Mar Ukba, says, at first the law
was given to Israel in the Hebrew (9729, 7. 6. the
Samaritan) writing and the holy tongue ; and again
it was given to them, in the days of Ezra, in the
Assyrian writing and the Syrian tongue. They
chose for the Israelites the Assyrian writing and
the holy tongue, and left to the /diotae the Hebrew
writing and the Syrian tongue. Who are the
Idiotae? KR. Chasda says, the Cutheans (or Sama-
ritans). What is the Hebrew writing? R. Chasda
says, the Libonaah writing” (Sanhed. fol. 21, 2;
22, 1). The Libonaah writing is explained by
R. Solomon to mean the large characters in which
the Jews wrote their amulets and mezuzoth. The
| broken character mentioned above can only apply to
the Samaritan alphabet, or one very similar to it.
In this character are written, not only manuscripts
of the Samaritan Pentateuch, varying in age from
the 13th to the 16th century, but also other works
in Samaritan and Arabic. The Samaritans them-
selves call it Hebrew writing, in contradistinction
to the square character, which they call the writing
of Ezra. It has no vowel points, but a diacritical
mark called Marhetono is employed, and words and
sentences are divided. A form of character more
ancient than the Samaritan, though closely resem-
bling it, is found on the coins struck under Simon
Maccabaeus, cire. B.c. 142. Of this writing Ge-
senius remarks (art. Palaeographie in Ersch and
Gruber’s Eneyclopddie) that it was most probably
employed, even in manuscripts, during the whole
lifetime of the Hebrew language, and was gradually
displaced by the square character about the birth of
Christ. An examination of the characters on the
Maccabaean coins shows that they bear an extremely
close resemblance to those of the Phoenician inscrip-
tions, and in many cases are all but identical with
them. The figures of three characters (ἢ, 4, 2) do
not occur, and that of 3 is doubtful.
In order to explain the Talmudic story above
1792 WRITING
given, and the relation between the square cha-
racter and that of the coins, different theories have
been constructed. Some held that the square cha-
racter was sacred, and used by the priests, while
the character on the coins was for the purposes of
ordinary life. The younger Buxtorf (De Lit, Hebr.
Gen. Ant.) maintained that the square alphabet was
the oldest and the original alphabet of the Hebrews,
and that before the Captivity the Samaritan cha-
racter had existed side by side with it ; that during
the Captivity the priests and more learned part of
the people cultivated the square or sacred character,
while those who were left in Palestine adhered to
the common writing. Ezra brought the former
back with him, and it was hence called Assyrian or
Chaldean. The other was used principally by the
Samaritans, though occasionally by the Jews them-
selves, as is shown by the characters on the Macca-
baean coins. This opinion found many supporters,
and a singular turn was given to it by Morinus
(De Lingua Primaeva, p. 271) and Loescher (De
Causis Ling. Ποὺ». pp. 207, 208), who maintained
that the characters on the coins were a kind of
tachygraphic writing formed from the square cha-
racter. Hartmann (Ling. Hinl. p. 28, &c.) also
upheld the existence of a twofold character, the
sacred and profane. The favourers of this hypo-
thesis of a double alphabet had some analogies to
which they could appeal for support. The Egyp-
tians had a twofold, or éven a threefold character.
The cuneiform writing of the ancient Persians and
Medes was perhaps a sacred character for monu-
ments, the Zend being used for ordinary life. The
Arabs, Persians, and Turks employ different cha-
racters according as they require them for letters,
poems, or historical writings. But analogy is not
proof, and therefore the passage in Is. viii. 1 has
been appealed to as containing a direct allusion to
the ordinary writing as opposed to the sacred cha-
yacter. But it is evident, upon examination, that
the writing there referred to is that of a perfectly
legible character, such as an ordinary unskilled man
might read. Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres, ii. 24), indeed,
speaks of sacerdotal letters, but his information is
not to be relied on. In fact the sole ground for the
hypothesis lies in the fact that the only specimens
of the Hebrew writing of common lite are not in
the usual character of the manuscripts. If this
supposition of the coexistence of a twofold alphabet
be abandoned as untenable, we must either substi-
tute for it a second hypothesis, that the square cha-
racter was the exclusive possession of the kingdom
of Judah, and that the Samaritan was used in the
northern kingdom, or that the two alphabets were
successive and not contemporary. Against the
former hypothesis stands the fact that the coins on
which the so-called Samaritan character occurs were
struck at Jerusalem, and the names Hebrew and
Assyrian, as applied to the two alphabets, would
still be unaccounted for, There remains then the
hypothesis that the square character and the writing
of the coins succeeded each other in point of time,
and that the one gradually took the place of the
other, just as in Arabic the Nischi writing has dis-
placed the older Cufic character, and in Syriac the
Estrangelo has given place to that at present in use.
But did the square character precede the character
on the coins, or was the reverse the case? Accord-
ing to some of the doctors of the Talmud (Sanh.
fol. 21, 2; 22, 1), in the passage above quoted, the
Law was given to the Israelites in the Hebrew cha-
racter and the holy tongue. It was given again
WRITING
in the days of Ezra in the Assyrian character and
the Aramaean tongue. By the ‘‘ Hebrew” cha-
racter is to be understood what is elsewhere called
the ““ broken”’ writing, which is what is commonly
called Samaritan; and by the Assyrian writing is
to be understood the square character, But Rabbi
Judah the Holy, who adopted a different etymology
for the word NNW, (Assyrian), says that the
Law was first given in this square character, but
that afterwards, when the people sinned, it was
changed into the broken writing, which again, upon
their repentance in the days of Ezra, was converted
into the square character. In both these cases it is
evident that the tradition is entirely built upon the
etymology of the word ashshirith, and varies ac-
cording to the different conceptions formed of its
meaning: consequently it is of but slight value as
direct testimony. The varying character of the
tradition shows moreover that it was framed after
the true meaning of the name had become lost.
Origen (on Ez. ix. 4) says that in the ancient alpha-
bet the Zaw had the form of a cross, and (Hexapla,
i. 86, Montfaucon) that in some MSS. of the LXX.
the word [ΠῚ was written in ancient Hebrew cha-
racters, not with those in use in his day, “ for they
say that Kzra used other [letters] after the Cap-
tivity.” Jerome, following Origen, gives out as
certain what his predecessor only mentioned as a
report, and the tradition in his hands assumes a
different aspect. ‘It is certain,” he says, ‘ that
Ezra the scribe and doctor of the law, after the
taking of Jerusalem and the restoration of the
Temple under Zerubbabel, discovered other letters
which we now use: whereas up to that time the
characters of the Samaritans and Hebrews were the
same,... And the tetragrammaton name of the
Lord we find in the present day written in ancient
letters in certain Greek rolls” (Prol. Gal. in Libr.
Reg.). The testimony of Origen with regard to
the form of Zaw undergoes a similar modification.
“< In the ancient Hebrew letters, which the Samari-
tans use to this day, the last letter, tau, has the
form of a cross.” Again, in another passage (Zp.
136 ad Marcell. ii. 704, Ep. 14, ed. Martianay)
Jerome remarks that the ineffable name [ΠῚ 7", being
misunderstood by the Greeks when they met with
it in their books, was read by them pipi, i. 6.
TIMI. It has been interred from this that the
ancient characters, to which both Jerome and Origen
refer in the first-quoted passages, were the square
characters, because in them alone, and not in the
Samaritan, does any resemblance between /1}/7) and
ΠΙΠῚ exist. There is nothing, however, to show
that Jerome contemplated the same case in the two
passages. In the one he expressly mentions the
‘ancient characters,’ and evidently as an exceptional
instance, for they were only found in “ certain rolls ;”
in the other he appears to speak of an occurrence
by no means uncommon. Again, it is Jerome, and
not Origen, who is responsible for the assertion that
in the Samaritan alphabet the Tau has the form of
across. Origen merely says this is the case in the
ancient or original (ἀρχαίοις) Hebrew characters,
and his assertion is true of the writing on the
Maccabaean coins, and of the ancient and even the
more modern Phoenician, but not of the alphabet
known to us as the Samaritan. It seems clear,
therefore, that Jerome’s language on this point
cannot be regarded as strictly accurate,
There are many arguments which go to show
that the Samaritan character is older than the
square Hebrew. One of these is derived from the
WRITING
existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which, ac-
cording to some writers, must date at least from
the time of the separation of the two kingdoms,
the northern kingdom retaining the ancient writing
which was once common to both. But there is no
evidence for the existence of the Samaritan Penta-
teuch before the Captivity, and the opinion which
now most commonly prevails is that the Samaritans
received it first in the Maccabaean period, and with
it the Jewish writing (Havernick, Z%n/. i. 290).
The question is still far from being decided, and
while it remains in this condition the arguments
derived from the Samaritan Pentateuch cannot be
allowed to have much weight. Hupfeld (Stud. und
Krit. 1830, ii. 279, &c.) contends that the common
theory, that the Samaritris received their writing
from the ancient Israelitish times, but maintained
it more faithfully than the Jews, is improbable,
because the Samaritans were a mixed race, entirely
different from the ancient Israelites, and had, like
their language, a preponderating Aramaic element:
consequently, if they had had a character peculiar
to themselves, independently of their sacred book,
it would rather have been Aramaic. He argues
that the Samaritans received their present writing
with their Pentateuch from the Jews, because the
Samaritan character differs in several important
particulars from that on the Phoenician monu-
ments, but coincides in all characteristic deviations
with the ancient Hebrew on the Maccabaean coins.
These deviations are—(1) the horizontal strokes in
Beth, Mem, and Nun, which have no parallel on
the Phoenician monuments: (2) the angular heads
of Beth, Daleth, and especially Ain, which last
never occurs in an angular form in Phoenician :
(3) the entirely different forms of Tsade and Vau,
as well as of Zain and Samech, which are not
found on the Maccabaean coins. In the Samaritan
letters Aleph, Cheth, Lamed, Shin, there is a closer
relationship with the forms of the old Hebrew: the
only marked deviation is in the form of Tau. To
these considerations Hupfeld adds the traditions of
Origen and Jerome and the Talmud already given,
and the fact that the Samaritans have preserved
their letters unchanged, a circumstance which is
intelligible on the supposition that these letters
were regarded by them with superstitious reverence
as a sacred character which had come to them from
without, and which, in the absence of any earlier
indigenous tradition of writing, necessarily became
a lifeless permanent type.
The names of the letters, and the correspondence
of their forms to their names in the Phoenician and
Phoenicio-Samaritan alphabets, supply another ar-
gument for the superior antiquity of this to the
Hebrew square character: e.g. Ain (an eye), which
on the coins and Phoenician monuments has the
form 0; fesh (a head), q. On the other hand,
the names Vaw (a nail or pez), Zain (a weapon),
Caph (the hollow hand), correspond to their forms
better in the square character: this, however, at
most, would only prove that both are derived from
the same original alphabet in which the correspond-
ence between the shape and name of each letter
Was more complete. Again, we trace the Phoe-
nician alphabet much further back than the square
character. The famous inscription on the sarco-
phagus of Eshmunazar, found at Sidon in 1855, is
referred by the Duc de Luynes to the sixth century
B.c. The date of the inscription at Marseilles is
more uncertain. Some would place it before the
foundation of the Greek colony there, B.c. 600.
VOL. Il.
WRITING 1793
There is reason to believe, however, that it is much
more recent. Besides these we have the inscrip-
tions at Sigaeum and Amyclae in the ancient Greek
character, which is akin to the Phoenician. On the
other hand, the Hebraeo-Chaldee character is not
found on historic monuments before the birth of
Christ. A consideration of the various readings
which have arisen from the interchange of similar
characters in the present text leads, as might natu-
rally be expected, to results which are rather fayour-
able to the square character, for in this alone are
the manuscripts written which have come down to
us. The following examples are given, with one
exception, by Gesenius :-—
(a) In the square alphabet are confounded—
Sand. DW, Neh. xii. 144=F NSW, Neh. xii.3;
Dy, 1 Chr. ix.15=93}, Neh. xi. 17.
{Py Gen. xivi. 27=1py, 1 Chr. i. 42.
ΤῊ 5, 1K. vii. 40=949p, 2 Chr. iv. 11.
NDwn. Ps. xviii. 12=HqwWM, 2 Sam.
xxii. 12.
TY, Ps. xxxi. 3=f\PId, Ps, 1xxi. 3.
(Ὁ) In both alphabets are confounded—
sand, ΠΕ, 1 Chr. i: ΟΞΞΒΥ Gen x. 35
ἘΣΣΙ: Bart. 1 — papel) Gens ΣΧ 7
INI, Lev. xi. 14 = ΠΝ Ἢ, Deut. xiv. 13 ;
N'79), Ps. xviii. 11=9)), 2 Sam. xxii. 11.
ἡ and %.
5 and p.
5 and 4.
Tt and 1.
(c) In the Phoenician alone—
sand 5. 5p, 2 Sam. xxiii, 29--- 71, 1 Chr. xi. 30.
» and ἴδ), whence probably Py; Josh. xxi, 16= =]by,
1 Chr. vi. 44.
dand 5. "},},1 Chr, xi. 37=4Y5, 2 Sam. xxiii, 35;
(d) In neither—
Sand ἡ. Of), Neh. vii. 7=6 31, Ezr. ii. 2
3 and ἢ. inn, Num. xxvi. 35=PF,FN, 1 Chr. vii. 20.
yon, 1 Chr. vi. 76 [61]= FON, Josh.
xxi. 32.
The third class of these readings seems to point
to a period when the Hebrews used the Phoenician
character, and a comparison of the Phoenician alpha-
bet and the Hebrew coin-writing shows that the
examples of which Gesenius makes a fourth class,
might really be included under the third: for in
these some forms of ἢ and Ἵ, as well as of 3 and ἢ,
are by no means unlike. This circumstance takes
away some of the importance which the above
results otherwise give to the square character.
Indeed, after writing his Hebrdische Sprache und
Schrift, Gesenius himself appears to have modified
| some of the conclusions at which he arrived in that
work, and instead of maintaining that the square
character, or one essentially similar to it, was in
use in the time of the LXX., and that the Mac-
cabees retained the old character for their coins, as
the Arabs retained the Cufic some centuries after
the introduction of the Nischi, he concludes as most
| probable, in his article Paldographie (in Ersch and
Gruber’s Encyel.), that the ancient Hebrew was
first changed for the square character about the
birth of Christ. A comparison of the Phoenician
with the square alphabet shows that the latter
could not be the immediate development of the
former, and that it could not have been formed
gradually from it at some period subsequent to the
time of the Maccabees. ‘The essential difference of
some characters, and the similarity of others, render
it probable that the two alphabets are both de-
scended from one more ancient than either, of which
each has retained some peculiarities. This more
a Y
1794 WRITING
ancient form, Hupfeld (Hebrdische Grammatik,
§7) maintains, is the original alphabet invented by
the Babylonians, and extended by the Phoenicians.
From this the square character was developed by
three stages.
1. In its oldest form it appears on Phoenician
monuments, stones, and coins, The number of
the inscriptions containing Phoenician writing was
77, greater and smaller, in the time of Gesenius,
but it has since been increased by the discovery
of the famous saycophagus of Eshmunazar king
of Sidon, and the excavations which have still
more recently been made in the neighbourhood of
Carthage have brought to light many others which
are now in the British Museum. Those described
by Gesenius were found at Athens (three bilingual),
at Malta (four, one of which is bilingual), in
Cyprus among the ruins of Kitium (thirty-three),
in Sicily, in the ruins of Carthage (twelve), and in
the regions of Carthage and Numidia. They belong
for the most part to the period between Alexander
and the age of Augustus. A Punic inscription on
the arch of Septimius Severus brings down the
Phoenician character as late as the beginning of the
third century after Christ. Besides these inscrip-
tions on stone, there are a number of coins bearing
Phoenician characters, of which those found in Cilicia
are the mast ancient, and belong to the times of the
Persian domination, The character on all these is
essentially the same. In its best form it is found
on the Sicilian, Maltese, Cyprian, and Carthaginian
inscriptions. On the Cilician coins it is perhaps most
original, degenerating on the later coins of Phoe-
nicia, Spain, and the neighbouring islands, and be-
coming almost a cursive character in the monuments
of Numidia and the African provinces. There are
no final letters and no divisions of words. The
characteristics of the Phoenician alphabet as it is
thus discovered are, that it is purely consonantal ;
that it consists of twenty-two letters written from
right to left, and is distinguished by strong perpen-
dicular strokes and the closed heads of the letters ;
that the names and order of the letters were the
same as in the Hebrew alphabet, as may be inferred
from the names of the Greek letters which came
immediately from Phoenicia; and that originally
the alphabet was pictorial, the letters representing
figures. This last position has been strongly opposed
by Wuttke (Zeitsch. d. D. M. G. xi. 75, &c.),
who maintains that the ancient Phoenician al-
phabet contains no traces of a pictorial character,
and that the letters are simply combinations of
strokes. It is impossible here to give his argu-
ments, and the reader is referred for further infor-
mation to his article. This ancient Phoenician
character in its earliest form was probably, says
Hupfeld, adopted by the Hebrews from the Ca-
naanites, and used by them during the whole period
of the living language till shortly before the birth of
Christ. Closely allied with it are the characters on
the Maccabaean coins, and the Samaritan alphabet.
2. While the old writing remained so almost
uchanged among the Phoenicians and Samaritans,
it was undergoing a gradual transformation among
its original inventors, the Aramaeans, especially
those of the West. This transformation was effected
by opening the heads of the letters, and by bending
the perpendicular stroke into a horizontal one, which
in the cursive character served for a connecting
stroke, and in the inscriptions on stone for a basis
or foundation for the letters. The character in this
form is found in the earliest stage on the stone of
WRITING
Carpentras, where the letters 3), 3, Ἴ, 4, have open
heads; aud later in the inscriptions on the ruins of
Palmyra, where the characters are distinguished by
the open heads degenerating sometimes to a point,
and by horizontal connecting strokes. Besides the
stone of Carpentras, the older form of the modified
Aramaean character is found on some fragments of
papyrus found in Egypt, and preserved in the Library
at Turin, and in the Museum of the Duke of Blacas.
Plates of these are given in Gesenius’ Monwmenta
Phoenicia (tab. 28-33). They belong to the time
of the later Ptolemies, and are written in an Ara-
maic dialect. The inscription on the Carpentras
stone was the work of heathen scribes, probably,
as Dr. Levy suggests (Zeitsch. d. D, M. G. xi. 67),
the Babylonian colonists of Egypt; the writing of
the papyri he attributes to Jews. The inscription
on the vase of the Serapeum at Memphis is placed
by the Duc de Luynes and Μ. Mariette in the 4th
century B.c. In the Blacas fragments the heads of,
the letters 3, 4.9, have fallen away altogether.
In the forms of 7, FM; 3 we see the origin of the
figures of the square character. The final forms of
Caph and Nun occur for the first time. The Pal-
myrene writing represents a later stage, and belongs
principally to the second and third centuries after
Christ, the time of the greatest prosperity of Pal-
myra. The oldest inscription belongs to the year
396 of the Greeks (A.D. 84), and the latest to the
year 569 (A.D. 257). The writing was not con-
fined to Palmyra, for an inscription in the same
character was found at Abilene. The Palmyrene
inscriptions are fifteen in number: ten bilingual, in
Syriac and Greek, and Syriac and Latin. Two are
preserved at Rome, four at Oxford. Those at Rome
differ from the rest, in having lost the heads of the
letters 3, Ἵ, 7, δ), while the forms of the ", Ὁ, ἢ
are like the Phoenician. Of the cursive Assyrian
writing, which appears to be allied to the Aramaean,
Mr. Layard remarks, “ΚΝ On monuments and remains
purely Syrian, or such as cannot be traced to a foreign
people, only one form of character has been discovered,
and it so closely resembles the cursive of Assyria,
that there can be little doubt as to the identity of
the origin of the two. If, therefore, the inhabitants
of Syria, whether Phoenicians or others, were the in-
ventors of letters, and those letters were such as
exist upon the eailiest monuments of that country,
the cursive character of the Assyrians may have been
as ancient as the cuneiform. However that may be,
this hieratic character has not yet been found in
Assyria on remains of a very early epoch, and it
would seem probable that simple perpendicular and
horizontal lines preceded rounded forms, being better
suited to letters carved on stone tablets or rocks.
At Nimroud the cursive writing was found on part
of an alabaster vase, and on fragments of pottery,
taken out of the rubbish covering the ruins. On
the alabaster vase it accompanied an inscription in
the cuneiform character, containing the name of the
Khorsabad king, to whose reign it is evident, from
several circumstances, the vase must be attributed.
It has also been found on Babylonian bricks of the
time of Nebuchadnezzar”’ (Nin. ii. pp. 165, 166).
M. Fresnel discovered at Kasr some fifty fragments
of pottery covered with this cursive character in
ink. These, too, are said to be of the age of
Nebuchadnezzar (Jown, Asiat. July 1853, p. 77).
Dr. Levy (Zeitsch. d. D. M. G. ix. 465) maintains,
in accordance with the Talmudic tradition, that
the Jews acquired this cursive writing in Babylon,
and brought it back with them after the Captivity
πὶ" αδυδιι,,.......
WRITING
together with the Chaldee language, and that it
gradually displaced the older alphabet, of which
fragments remain in the forms of the final letters.
3. While this modification was taking place
in the Aramaic letters, a similar process of change
was going on in the old character among the Jews.
We already find indications of this in the Macca-
baean coins, where the straight strokes of some
letters are broken. The Aramaic character, too,
had apparently an influence upon the Hebrew, pro-
portioned to the influence exercised by the Aramaic
dialect upon the Hebrew language. The heads of
the letters still left in the Palmyrene character are
removed, the position and length of several oblique
strokes are altered (asin ἢ, Π, ἃ» ἢ). It lost the
character of a cursive hand by the separation of
the several letters, and the stiff ornaments which
they received at the hands of calligraphers, and thus
became an angular, uniform, broken character, from
which it receives its name square (YAN) 23).
In the letters & 12,3, 5, 0,30, ἡ, 5, ἢ, the
Aegypto-Aramaic appears the older, and the Pal-
myrene most resembles the square character. In
others, on the contrary, as MA, OQ, Pp, 4, the square
character is closely allied to the forms in the Blacas
fragments; and in some, as 7; 7} ἢ.» WY, both
the older alphabets agree with the square character.
So far as regards the development of the square
character from the Aramaean, as it appears on the
stone of Carpentras and the ruins of Palmyra, Hup-
feld and Gesenius are substantially agreed, but they
differ widely on another and very important point.
Gesenius is disposed to allow some weight to the
tradition as preserved in the Talmud, Origen, and
Jerome, that the Hebrews at some period adopted a
character different from their own. The Chaldee
square alphabet he considers as originally of Ara-
maic origin, but transferred to the Hebrew language.
To this conclusion -he appears to be drawn by the
name Assyrian applied in the Talmud to the square
character, which he infers was probably the ancient
character of Assyria. If this were the case, it is
remarkable that no trace of it should be found on
the Assyrian monuments; and, in the absence of
other evidence, it is unsafe to build a theory upon a
name, the interpretation of which is uncertain.
The change of alphabet from the Phoenician to the
Aramaean, and the development of the Syriac from
the Aramaean, Gesenius regards as two distinct
circumstances, which took place at different times,
and were separated by a considerable interval. The
formation of the square character he maintains can-
not be put earlier than the second century after
Christ. Hupfeld, on the other hand, with more
show of reason, rejects altogether the theory of an
abrupt change of character, because he doubts
whether any instance can be shown of a simple
exchange of alphabets in the case of a people who
have already a tradition of writing. he ancient
letters were in use in the time of the Maccahees,
and from that period writing did not cease, but was
rather more practised in the transcription of the
sacred books, Besides, on comparing the Palmyrene
with the square character, it is clear that the
former has been altered and developed, a result
which would have been impossible in the case of a
communication from without which overwhelmed
all tradition and spontaneity. The case of the Sa-
maritans, on the other hand, is that of a people
who received an alphabet entire, which they re-
garded as sacred in consequence of its association
WRITING © 1795
with their sacred book, and which they therefore
retained unaltered with superstitious fidelity. More-
over, in the old Hebrew writing on the coins we
see already a tendency to several important altera-
tions, as, for example, in the open heads of 3 and \,
and the base lines of 3, 3, 19, 3; and many letters,
as #1, are derived rather from the coin-character
than from the Palmyrene, while and P are en-
tirely Phoenician. Finally, Hupfeld adds, “ It is
in the highest degree improbable—nay, almost in-
conceivable—that the Jews, in the fervour of their
then enthusiasm for their sacred books, should, con-
sciously and without apparent reason, have adopted
a foreign character and abandoned the ancient writ-
ing of their fathers.”
Assuming, then, as approximately true, that the
square character of the Hebrews was the natural
result of a gradual process of development, and
that it was not adopted in its present shape from
without, but became what it is by an internal
organic change, we have further to consider at what
time it acquired its present form. Kopp (Bilder
und Schriften, ii. p. 177) places it as late as the
4th century after Christ; but he appears to be
guided to his conclusion chiefly by the fact that
the Palmyrene character, to which it is most nearly
allied, extended into the 3rd century. It is evi-
dent, however, from several considerations, that
in the 4th century the square character was sub-
stantially the same as it is to this day, and had
for some time been so. The descriptions of the
forms of the letters in the Talmud and Jerome
coincide most exactly with the present; for both
are acquainted with final letters, and describe as
similar those letters which resemble each other in
the modern alphabet, as, for instance, 2 and 5, Ἵ
and, 7] and M, } and ", ἢ and}, QDand Ὁ. The
calligraphic ornaments which were employed in the
writing of the synagogue rolls, as the Zaggin on
the letters PATIOYW, the point in the broken
headline of M (17), and many other prescriptions for
the orthography of the Torah are found in the
Talmud, and show that Hebrew calligraphy, under
the powerful protection of minute laws observed
with superstitious reverence, had long received its
full development, and was become a fixed unalter-
able type, as it has remained ever since. The
change of character, moreover, not only in the time
of Jerome and the Talmud, but even as early as
Origen, was an event already long past, and so old
and involved in the darkness of fable as to be attri-
buted in the common legend to Ezra, or by most of
the Talmudists to God Himself. The very obscurity
which surrounds the meaning of the terms Ὁ)
and FW as applied to the old and new writing
respectively, is another proof that in the time of
the Talmudists the square character had become
permanent, and that the history of the changes
through which it had passed had been lost. In
the Mishna (Shabb. xii. 5) the case is mentioned of
two Zains (17) being written for Cheth (ΤΠ), which
could only be true of the square character. The
often-quoted passage, Matt. vy. 18, which is gene-
rally brought forward as a proof that the square
character must have been in existence in the time
of Christ, who mentions ἰῶτα, or yod, as the small-
est letter of the alphabet, proves at least that the
old Hebrew or Phoenician character was no lenger
in use, but that the Palmyrene character, or one
very much like it, had been introduced. From these
circumstances we may infer, with Hupfeld (Stud. und
Krit. 1830, ii. 288), that Whiston’s conjecture is
Gee
1796 WRITING
approximately true; namely, that about the first or
second century after Christ the square character
assumed its present form; though in a question in-
volved in so much uncertainty, it is impossible to
pronounce with great positiveness.*
Next to the scattered hints as to the shape of the
Hebrew letters which we find in the writings of
Jerome, the most direct evidence on this point 15.
supplied by the so-called Alphabetum Jesuitarum,
which is found in a MS. (Codex Marchalianus, now
lost) of the LXX. of Lam. ii. It is the work of a
Greek scribe, imperfectly acquainted with, or more
probably entirely ignorant of Hebrew, who copied
slavishly the letters which were before him. In this
alphabet 1 is written TT; and } are of nearly equal
length, the latter being distinguished by two dots ;
Ῥ is made like p, and M like H. The letters on the
two Abraxas gems in his possession were thought
by Montfaucon (Praelim. ad Hex. Orig. i. 22, 23)
to have been Hebrew; but as they have not been
fairly deciphered, nothing can be inferred from
them. Other instances of the occurrence of the
Hebrew alphabet written by ignorant scribes are
found in a Codex of the New Testament, of which
an account is given by Treschow (Tent. descr. Cod.
Vet. aliquot Gr. N. T.), and three have been
edited from Greek and Latin MSS. in the Vowvean
Traité Diplomatique published by the Benedictines.
To these, as to the Alphabetum Jesuitarum, Ken-
nicott justly attributes no value (Dissert. Gen. p.
69 note). The same may be said of the Hebrew
writing of a monk, taken from the work of Rabanus
Maurus, De inventione linguarum. The Jews them-
selves recognize a double character in the writing
of their synagogue rolls. The earlier of these is
called the Zam writing (IM ON), as some sup-
pose, from Tam, the grandson of Rashi, who flou-
rished in the 12th century, and is thought to be
the inventor; or, according to others, from the
perfect torm of the letters, the epithet Zum being
then taken as a significant epithet of the square
character, in which sense the expression nans
MN, céthibah thammah occurs in the Talmud
(Shabbath, fol. 103 δ). Phylacteries written in
this character were hence called Zam tephillin. The
letters have fine pointed corners and perpendicular
taggin (393M), or little strokes attached to the seven
letters PATIOYLY. The Zam writing is chiefly
found in German synagogue rolls, and probably
also in those of the Polish Jews. The Welsh writ-
ing (22 ws), to which the Jews assign a later
date than to the other, usually occurs in the syna-
gogue rolls and other manuscripts of the Spanish
and Eastern Jews. The figures of the letters are
rounder than in the Zam writing, and the taggin,
or crown-like ornaments, terminate in a thick point.
But besides these two forms of writing, which are
not essentially distinct, there are minor differences
observable in the manuscripts of different countries.
The Spanish character is the most regular and
simple, and is for the most part large and bold,
forming a true square character. The German is
more sloping and compressed, with pointed corners ;
but finer than the Spanish. Between these the
French and Italian character is intermediate, and is
hence called by Kennicott (Diss. Gen. p. 71) cha-
* Another link between the Palmyrene and the square
character is supplied by the writing on some of the
Babylonian bowls, described by Mr, Layard (Nin. and
WRITING
racter intermedius, It is for the most part rather
smaller than the others, and the forms of the letters
are rounder (Hichhorn, Lind. ii. 37-41; Tychsen,
Tentamen de var. cod. Hebr. V. T. MSS. generi-
bus, p. 264; Bellermann, De usu paleog. Hebr.
p- 43).
The Alphabet.—The oldest evidence on the subject
of the Hebrew alphabet is derived from the alpha-
betical Psalms and poems; Pss. xxv., xxxiv., Xxxvii.,
cxi., cxii., cxix., cxlv.; Prov. xxxi. 10-31; Lam.
i.-iv. From these we ascertain that the number of
the letters was twenty-two, as at present. The
Arabic alphabet originally consisted of the same
number. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. ii. 24) says that
the ancient sacred letters were ten in number., It
has been argued by many that the alphabet of the
Phoenicians at first consisted only of sixteen letters,
or according to Hug of fifteen, ἵ, 0, 3, Ὁ, 5. ¥
being omitted. The legend as told by Pliny (vii.
56) is as follows. Cadmus brought with him into
Greece sixteen letters; at the time of the Trojan
war Palamedes added four others, @, =, @, X, and
Simonides of Melos four more, Z,H, ¥, 2. Ari-
stotle recognized eighteen letters of the original
alphabet, ABTAEZIKAMN OTIPSTT@®, to
which © and X were added by Epicharmus (comp.
Tac. Ann. xi. 14). By Isidore of Seville (Orig.
i. 3) it is said there were seventeen. But in the
oldest story of Cadmus, as told by Herodotus (v.
58) and Diodorus (ν. 24), nothing is said of the
number of the letters. Recent investigations, how-
ever, have rendered it probable that at first the
Shemitic alphabet consisted of but sixteen: letters.
It is true that no extant monuments illustrate the
period when the alphabet was thus curtailed, but
as the theory is based upon an organic arrangement
first proposed by Lepsius, it may be briefly noticed.
Dr. Donaldson (New Cratylus, p. 171, 3rd ed.)
says, ‘‘ Besides the mutes and breathings, the He-
brew alphabet, as it now stands, has four sibilants,
Ὁ, Ὁ, δ, &. Now it is quite clear that all these
four sibilants could not have existed in the oldest
state of the alphabet. Indeed we have positive evi-
dence that the Ephraimites could not pronounce ἴδ,
but substituted for it the simpler articulation D
(Judges xii. 6). We consider it quite certain, that
at the first there was only one sibilant, namely this
D, or samech. Finally, to reduce the Semitic alpha-
bet to its oldest form, we must omit caph, which is
only a softened form of koph, the liquid resh, and the
semivowel jod, which are of more recent introduc-
tion. . . The remaining 16 letters appear in the fol-
lowing order: δὲ, 2, 3.7.73, 1» 7 0: Cee Ὁ,
». 5p, ἢ. If we examine this order more mi-
nutely, we shali see that it is not arbitrary or acci-
dental, but strictly organic according to the Semitic
articulation. We have four classes, each consisting
of 4 letters: the first and second classes consist each
of 3 mutes preceded by a breathing, the third of the
3 liquids and the sibilant, which perhaps closed the
oldest alphabet of all, and the fourth contains the
three supernumerary mutes preceded by a breath-
ing.” The original 16 letters of the Greek alphabet,
corresponding to those of the Shemitic, are thus
given by Dr. Donaldson (ἰδία. p. 175).
NJ 235 π | inp) 2p2/ Dv |
PA BaD Aae FHO}]AMN
Bab. 509), which Dr. Levy (Zeitsch. d. Ὁ). M. G.) assigns
to the 7th century A.D.
apn
ΠΟΤ
WRITING
“ In the Greek alphabet, as it is now given in the
grammars, F and Q are omitted, and 10 other cha-
racters added to these.” The Shemitic tsade (¥)
became zeta (¢), caph (3) became kappa (i), and
yod(*) became iota (1). Lesh (1) was adopted and
called rho (p), and Sdv, which was used by the
Dorians for S?yua (Her. i, 139), is only another
form of zain (1). Shin (W) or Sin (W), is the ori-
ginal of &?, which from some cause or other has
changed places with ofypa, the Shemitic samech,
just as ζῆτά has been transferred from its position.
In like manner mem became pid, and nun became
vd. With the remaining Greek letters we have
nothing to do, as they do not appear to have been
Shemitic in origin, and will therefore proceed to
consider the Hebrew alphabet as known to us.
With regard to the arrangement of the letters,
our chief sources of information are as before the
alphabetical acrostics in the Psalms and Lamenta-
tions. In these poems some irregularities in the
arrangement of the alphabet are observable. For
instance, in Lam. ii., iii., ἵν.» stands before δ) : in
Ps. xxxvii. ¥Y stands before 5, and Y is wanting: in
Pss. xxv., xxxiv. Ἷ is omitted, and in both there is a
final verse after ΤΣ beginning with Ὁ. Hence 5 has
been compared with the Greek @, and the transpo-
sition of } and ¥ has been explained from the inter-
change of these letters in Aramaic. But as there
are other irregularities in the alphabetical Psalms,
no stress can be laid upon these points. We find
for example, in Ps. xxv. two verses beginning with
δὲ, while 3 is omitted; in Ps. xxxiv. two begin
with 4, and so on.
The names of the letters are given in the LXX.
of the Lamentations as found in the Vatican MS.
as printed by Mai, and in the Codex Friderico-Au-
gustanus, published by Tischendorf. Both these
ancient witnesses prove, if proof were wanting, that
in the 4th century after Christ the Hebrew letters
were known by the same names as at the present
day. These names all denote sensible objects which
had a resemblance to the original form of the letters,
preserved partly in the square alphabet, partly in
the Phoenician, and partly perhaps in the Alphabet
from which both were derived.
The following are the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet in their present shape, with their names
aud the meanings of these names, so far as they can
be ascertained with any degree of probability.
&, Aleph. 5ON = sbN, an ox (comp. Plut. Symp.
Quaest. ix. 2, §3). In the old Phoenician
forms of this letter can still be traced some re-
semblance to an ox-head, AN. Gr. ἄλφα.
1, Beth. ΤᾺ ΞΞ- ΠΣ, a house. The figure in the
square character corresponds more to its
name, while the Ethiopic f) has greater re-
semblance to a tent. Gr. βῆτα (B).
ἃ, Gimel. 503: 9), a camel. The ancient
form is supposed to represent the head and
neck of this animal. In Phoenician it is cy
and in Ethiopic ἢ , Which when turned round
became the Greek γάμμα (= γάμλα), I.
Gesenius holds that the earliest form “7
represented the camel’s hump.
4, Daleth. ΤΡ τε ΠῚ, adoor. The significance
of the name is seen in the older form 4 "
whence the Greek δέλτα, A, a tent-door.
n, He. δὰ, without any probable derivation ;
WRITING 1797
perhaps corrupted, or merely a technical
term. Ewald says it is the same as the
Arabic Sed, a hole, fissure. Hupfeld con-
nects it with the interjection NM, ‘lo!’
The corresponding Greek letter is E, which is
the Phoenician > turned from left to right.
ἡ» ας ἡ), a hook or tent-peg ; the same as the
old Greek Bat ( F), the form of which re-
sembles the Phoenician A.
2 y
t, Zain. This probably = LUA, zaino, a Weapon,
sword (Ps. xliv. 7): omitting the final letter,
it was called also ‘t, zat (Mish. Shabb. xii. 5).
It appears to be the same as the ancient
Greek Sav.
Mm, Cheth. nm, a fence, enclosure ( = Arab.
bil~- from bly, Syr. Zor, to sur-
round). Compare the Phoen. EJ. Cheth
is the Greek 77a (H).
6, Tet. tO%D, a snake, or TD, a basket. The
Greek θῆτα. i
9, Yod. ai? aay, a hand. The form of the
letter was perhaps originally longer, as in
the Greek I (ἰῶτα). The Phoenician (TIT)
and Samaritan (fff) figures have a kind of
distant resemblance to three fingers. In
Ethiopic the name of the letter is yaman,
the right hand.
2. Caph. 53, the hollow of the hand. The
Greek κάππα (ΚῚ is the old Phoenician form
(a1) reversed,
bs Lamed. 12, a cudgel or ox-goad (comp.
Judg. iii. 31). The Greek Adupda (A) ;
Phoenician, / , Z.
9, Mem. Ὁ" ΞΞ "2, water, as it is commonly
explained, with reference to the Samaritan
“4. In the old alphabets it is ¥7 , in which
Gesenius sees the figure of a trident, and so
possibly the symbol of the sea. The Greek
μῦ corresponds to the old word WD, “water,”
Job ix. 30,
3, Nun. 7), a fish, in Chaldee, Arabic, and Syriac.
In almost. all Phoenician alphabets the figure
is 7. On the Maltese inscriptions it is
nearly straight, and corresponds to its name.
The Greek νῦ is derived from it.
Ὁ, Samech. 72D, a prop, from 2D, to support ;
perhaps, says Gesenius, the same as the
Syriac Laxm, s’moco, a triclinium. But
this interpretation is solely founded on the
rounded torm of the letter in the square
alphabet ; and he has in another place (Jon.
Phoen. p.83) shewn how this has come from
the old Phoenician, which has no likeness’ to
a triclinium, or to anything else save a flash
of lightning striking a church spire. The
Greek σῦγμα is undoubtedly derived from
Samech, as its form is from the Phoenician
character, although its place in the Greek
alphabet is occupied by &.
y,’ Ain. }'Y,aneye; in the Phoenician and Greek
WRITING
alphabets O. Originally it had two powers,
as in Arabic, and was represented in the LXX.
by T, or a simple breathing.
N5=75, a mouth. The Greek πὶ is
from 13, the construct form of 1B.
8, Tsade. ἽΝ or ‘TY, a fish-hook or prong, for
spearing ‘the larger fish. Others explain it
as a nose, or an “owl. One of the Phoenician
forms is ¥¥. From ftsade is derived the
Greek ζῆτα.
P, Koph. mip, perhaps the same as the Arabic
«29, the back of the head.
ome explained it as equivalent to the
Chaldee 51), the eye of a needle, or the
hole for the handle of an axe. Hitzig ren-
dered it “ ear,” and others ‘‘a pole.” The
old Hebrew form (P), inverted 9 , became
the Greek κόππα (J ); and the form ( 9 ),
which occurs on the ancient Syracusan coins,
suggests the origin of the Roman Q.
7, Resh. wn, a head (comp. Aram. WNI=UN).
The Phoenician Q when turned round be-
came the Greek P, the name of which, ῥῶ,
is corrupted from Lesh.
w Shin pe Compare ΠΩ a tooth, sometimes
δ ἃ used for a jagged promontory.
wv Sin. ry The letters Y and & were probably
at first one letter, and afterwards became
distinguished by the diacritic point, which
was known to ‘Jerome, and called by him
accentus (Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. ii. 23; Am.
viii. 12). In Ps. exix. 161-168, and Lam.
iii. 61-63, they. are used promiscuously, and
in Lam. iy. 21 ὧδ is put for δ, The narra-
tive in Judg. xii. 6 points to a difference of
dialect, marked by the difference in sound
of these two letters. The Greek é is de-
rived from Shin, as vv from Nun.
n, Tau. vA, a mark or sign (Ez. ix. 4) ; probably
a sign in the shape of a cross, such as cattle
were marked with. This signification cor-
responds to the shapes of the old Hebrew
letter on coins +, x, from the former of
which comes the Greek ταῦ (Τ᾽.
In the mystical interpretation of the alphabet
given by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. x. 5) it is evident
that Tsade was called Tsedek, and Koph was called
Kol. The Polish Jews still call the former 7sadek.
Divisions of words.—Hebrew was originally
written, like most ancient languages, without any
divisions between the words. In most Greek in-
scriptions there are no such divisions, though in
several of the oldest, as the Eugubine Tables and
the Sigaean inscription, there are one or two, while
others have as many as three points which serve
this purpose. The same is the case with the Phoe-
nician inscriptions. Most have no divisions of words
at all, but others have a point, except where the
words are closely connected. The cuneiform cha-
racter has the same point, as well as the Samaritan,
and in Cufic the words are separated by spaces, as
in the Aramaeo-Egyptian writing. The various
readings in the LXX. show that, at the time this
version was made, in the Hebrew MSS. which the
translators used the words were written in a con-
tinuous series. The modern synagogue rolis and
1798
5, Pe.
Gesenius ori-
WRITING
the MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch have no
vowel-points, but the words are divided, and the
Samaritan in this respect diflers but little from the
Hebrew.
Final letters, §c.—In addition to the letters
above described, we find in all Hebrew MSS. and
printed books the forms J, B, 1» ἢ» }, which are the
shapes assumed by the letters 3, 19, 3, 5, ¥, when
they occur at the end of words. Their invention
was clearly due to an endeavour to render reading
more easy by distinguishing one word from another,
but they are of comparatively modern date. The
various readings of the LXX. show, as has been
already said, that that version was made at a time
when the divisions of words were not marked, and
consequently at this time there could be no final
letters. Gesenius at first maintained that on the
Palmyrene inscriptions there were neither final let-
ters nor divisions of words, but he afterwards ad-
mitted, though with a little exhibition of temper,
that the final nwn was found there, after his error
had been pointed out by Kopp (Bild. κι, Schr. ii.
132; Ges. Mon. Phoen. p. 82). In the Aramaeo-
Egyptian writing both final caph and final nun
occur, as may be seen in the Blacas fragments given
by Gesenius, The five final letters “are mentioned
in Bereshith Rabba (parash, i. fol. 1, 4), and in
both Talmuds; in the one (T. Bab. Sabbat. fol.
104, 1) they are said to be used by the seers or
prophets, and in the other (T. Hieros. Megillah,
fol. 71, 4) to be an Halacah or tradition of Moses
from Sinai; yea, by an ancient writer (Pirke Eli-
ezer, c. 48) they are said to be known by Abra-
ham” (Gill, Dissertation concerning the Antiquity
of the Heb. Language, &c., p. 69). The final mem
in the middle of the word 1270? (ls. ix. 6) is
mentioned in both Talmuds (Talm. Bab. Sanhedrin,
fol. 94, 1; Talm. Jer. Sanh. fol. 27,4), and by
Jerome (in loc.). In another passage Jerome (Prol.
ad Libr. Rey.) speaks of the final letters as if of
equal antiquity with the rest of the alphabet. The
similarity of shape between final mem (D) and
samech (D) is indicated by the dictum of Rab
Chasda, as given in the Babylonian Talmud (776-
gillah, c.1; Shabbath, fol. 104, 1), that ‘mem
and samech, which were on the Tables (of the Law)
stood by a miracle.” It was a tradition among the
Jews that the letters on the tables of stone given
to Moses were cut through the stone, so as to be
lerible on both sides ; hence the miracle by which
mem and samech kept their place. The final letters
were also known to Epiphanius (De Mens. et Pon-
deribus, 84). In our present copies of the Hebrew
Bible there are instances in which final letters occur
in the middle of words (see Is. ix. 6, as above),
and, on the contrary, at the end of words the ordi-
nary forms of the letters are employed (Neh. ii. 13;
Job xxxviii. 1); but these are only to be regarded
as clerical errors, which in some MSS. are corrected. ,
On the ancient Phoenician inscriptions, just as in
the Greek uncial MSS., the letters of a word were
divided at the end of a line without any indication
being given of such division, but in Hebrew MSS.
a twofold course has been adopted in this case. If
at the end of a line the scribe found that he had
not space for the complete word, he either wrote
as many letters as he could of this word, but left
them unpointed, and put the complete word in the
next line, or he made use of what are called ex-
tended letters, literae dilatabiles (as $8, 7, and
the like), in order to fill up the superabundant
WRITING
space. In the former case, in order to indicate that
the word at the end of the line was incomplete, the
last of the unpointed letters was left unfinished, or
a sign was placed after them, resembling sometimes
an inverted 3, and sometimes like MN, Y, or Ὁ. If
the space left at the end of the line is inconsiderable
it is either filled up by the first letter of the next
word, or by any letter whatever, or by an arbitrary
mark. In some cases, where the space is too small
for one or two consonants, the scribe wrote the
excluded letters in a smaller form on the margin
above the line (Eichhorn, Hinl. ii. 57-59). That
abbreviations were employed in the ancient Hebrew
writing is shown by the inscriptions on the Macca-
baean coins. In MSS. the frequently recurring
words are represented by writing some of their
letters only, as “IW or ‘NW for Sy, and a
frequently recurring phrase by the first letters of
its words with the mark of abbreviation ; as 'M ΡΞ
for }7DN add BE). iM or δ for ΠῚ", which is
also written Pf or ae The greater and smaller
letters which occur in the middle of words (comp.
Ps. Ixxx. 16; Gen. ii. 4), the suspended letters
(Judg. xviii. 30; Ps. Ixxx. 14), and the inverted
letters (Num. x. 35), are transferred from the MSS.
of the Masoretes, and have all received at the hands
of the Jews an allegorical explanation. In Judg.
xviii. 30 the suspended num in the word “ Ma-
nasseh,’ without which the name is “ Moses,” is
said to be inserted in order to conceal the disgrace
which the idolatry of his grandson conferred upon
the great lawgiver. Similarly the small 5 in the
word And, “to weep for her” (Gen. xxiii. 2),
is explained by Baal Hatturim as indicating that
Abraham wept little, because Sarah was an old
woman.
Numbers were indicated either by letters or
figures. The latter are found on Phoenician coins,
on the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, on the Pal-
myrene inscriptions, and probably also in the Ara-
maeo-Egyptian writing. On the other hand, letters
are found used as numerals on the Maccabaean
coins, and among the Arabs, and their early adop-
tion for the same purpose among the Greeks may
have been due to the Phoenicians. It is not too
much to conjecture from these analogies that figures
and letters representing numbers may have been
employed by the ancient Hebrews. It is even pos-
sible that many discrepancies in numbers may be
explained in this way. For instance, in 1 Sam. vi.
19, for 50,070 the Syriac has 5070; in 1 K. iv. 26
[ν- 6] Solomon had 40,000 horses, while in the
parallel passage of 2 Chr. ix. 25 he has only 4000 ;
according to 2 Sam. x. 18 David destroyed 700
chariots of the Syrians, while in 1 Chr. xix. 18
the number is increased to 7000. If figures were
in use such discrepancies are easily intelligible. On
the other hand, the seven years of famine in 2 Sam.
xxiv. 13 may be reconciled with the three of 1 Chr.
xxi, 12 and the LXX. by supposing that a scribe,
writing the square character, mistook ἃ (= 3) for
1 (= 7). Again, in 2 Chr. xxi. 20, Jehoram dies
at the age of 40, leaving a son, Ahaziah, who was
42 (2 Chr. xxii. 2). In the parallel passage of
2 K. viii, 26 Ahaziah is only 22, so that the scribe
probably read 22 instead of 35. On the whole,
Gesenius concludes, the preponderance would be in
favour of the letters, but he deprecates any attempt
to explain by this means the enormous numbers we
*
WRITING 1799
meet with in the descriptions of armies and wealth,
and the variations of the Samaritan and LXX. from
the Hebrew text in Gen. vy,
Vowel-points and diacritical marks.—It is im-
possible here to discuss fully the origin and antiquity
of the vowel-points and other marks which are
found in the writing of Hebrew MSS. The most
that can be done will be to give a summary of
results, and to refer the reader to the sources of
fuller information, Almost all the learned Jews
of the middle ages maintained the equal antiquity
of the vowels and consonants, or at least the intro-
duction of the former by Ezra and the men of the
Great Synagogue. The only exceptions to this uni-
formity of opinion are some few hints of Aben Ezra,
and a doubtful passage of the book Cozri. The
same view was adopted by the Christian writers
Raymund Martini (cir. 1278), Perez de Valentin
(cir. 1450), and Nicholas de Lyra, and these are
followed by Luther, Calvin, and Pellicanus, The .
modern date of the vowel-points was first argued
by Elias Levita, followed on the same side by
Cappellus, who was opposed by the younger, Bux-
tort. Later defenders of their antiquity have been
Gill, James Robertson, and Tychsen. Others, like
Hottinger, Prideaux, Schultens, J. D. Michaelis, and
Eichhorn, have adopted an intermediate view, that
the Hebrews had some few ancient vowel-points
which they attached to ambiguous words. ‘‘ The
dispute about the antiquity and origin of the He-
brew vowels commenced at a very early date; for
while Mar-Natronai II., Gaon in Sura (859-859),
prohibited to provide the copies of the Law with
vowels, because these signs had not been communi-
cated on Mount Sinai, but had only been introduced
by the sages to assist the reader; the Karaites
allowed no scroll of the Pentateuch to be used in
the synagocue, unless it was furnished with vowels
and accents, because they considered them as a
divine revelation, which, like the language and the
letter, was already given to Adam, or certainly to
Moses” (Dr. Kalisch, Heb. Gr. ii. 65). No vowel-
points are to be found on any of the Jewish coins,
or in the Palmyrene inscriptions, and they are want-
ing in all the relics of Phoenician writing. Some
of the Maltese inscriptions were once thought by
Gesenius to have marks of this kind (Gesch. der
Hebr. Spr. p. 184), but subsequent examination
led him to the conclusion that the Phoenician mo-
numents have not a vestige of vowel-points. The
same was the case originally in the Estrangelo
and Cufic alphabets. A single example of a dia-
critical mark occurs for the first time on one of the
Carthaginian inscriptions (Gesen. Mon. Phoen. pp.
ὅθ, 179). It appears to correspond to the diacri-
tical mark which we meet with in Syriac writing,
and which is no doubt first alluded to by Ephraem
Syrus (on Gen, xxxvi. 24, Opp. i. 184). The age
of this mark in Syriac is uncertain, but it is most
nearly connected with the marhetono οἵ the Sama-
ritans, which is used to distinguish words which
have the same consonants, but a different pronun-
ciation and meaning. ‘The first certain indication
of vowel-points in a Shemitic language is in the
Arabic. Three were introduced by Ali, son of Abu-
Thalleb, who died a.H. 40. The Sabian writing
also has three vowel-points, but its age is uncertain,
Five vowel-points and several reading marks were
introduced into the Syriac writing by Theophilus
and Jacob of Edessa. The present Arabic system
of punctuation originated with the introduction of
the Nischi character by Ebn Mokla, who died a.p.
1800 WRITING
939. On the whole, taking into consideration the
nature and analogies of the kindred Shemitic lan-
guages, and the Jewish tradition that the vowels
were only transmitted orally by Moses, and were
afterwards reduced to signs and fixed by Ezra and
the Great Synagogue, the } preponderance of evidence
goes to show that Hebrew was written without
vowels or diacritical marks all the time that if was
a living language. The fact that the synagogue
rolls are written without points, and that a strong
traditional prescription against their being pointed
exists, is in favour of the later origin of the vowel
marks. The following passages from the Old Tes-
tament, quoted by Gesenius, tend to the same con-
clusion. In Gen. xix. 57, the name Moab (anid),
is explained as if it were Ant, “ς from a father,”
in which ease all trace not only of vocalization, but
of the quiescent letter has disappeared. In Gen.
xxxi. 47, aya, Gilead is made to take its name
from syda, “heap of witness,” and Gen. 1]. 11,
ony Say=onyn day.
xxii. 9, ἼΞΘΠ jaw Nan, appears in the parallel
narrative of 2 Chr. xxxiv. 16 as TN jay 82°)
TABI, which could not have happened if | the chro-
nicler had had a pointed text before him. Upon
examining the version of the LXX. it is equally
clear that the translators must have written from
an unpointed text. It is objected to this that
the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα are correctly explained, and
that they also distinguish between words which
have the same consonants but different vowel-points,
and even between those which are written and pro-
nounced alike. On the other hand they frequently
confuse words which have the same consonants
but different vowels. The passages which Gesenius
quotes (Gesch.d. Heb. Spr. §50) would necessarily
be explained from the context, and we must besides
this take into consideration that in the ambiguous
cases there were in all probability traditional in-
terpretations. The proper names afford a more
accurate test. On examining these, we find that
they sometimes have entirely different vowels, and
sometimes are pointed according to an entirely
different system, analogous to the Arabic and Syriac,
but varying from the Masoretic. Examples of an
entirely different vocalization are, AN Αμαθι,
jo)? Ιεκταν, ee lopdavns, wn Mooox,
2770 Mapdoxatos, men) Ρομελιας, ἘΣΡΕῚ
Σοφονιας, ‘24D ρθουν &e. That the pune-
tuation followed by the LXX. was essentially dis-
tinct from that of the Masoretes is evident from the
following examples. Moving sheva at the begin-
ning of words is generally represented by a; as in
Σαμουηλ, Σαβαωθ, Ζαβουλων: seldom by e, as
in Βελιαλ, XepovBiw; before } or ἡ by o or v, as
Σόδομα, Σολομων, Touoppa, Ζοροβαβελ, φυλι-
στιειμ, ἄς. Pathach 15 represented by €; as Μελ-
χισεδεχ, Νεφθαλειμ, Ἑλισαβεθ. Pathach fur-
ἐϊυιηιτεε; e.g. Qone, Γελβουε, Θεκωε, Ζανωε.
Other examples might be multiplied. We find
instances to the same effect in the fragments of
the other Greek versions, and in Josephus. The
agreement of the Targums with the present punc-
tuation might be supposed to supply an argument
So also in 2 K.
in favour of the antiquity of the latter, but it |
might equally be appealed to to show that the
translation of the Targums embodied the tradi-
WRITING
tional pronunciation which was fixed in writing by
the punctuators. The Talmud has likewise been
appealed to in support of the antiquity of the mo-
dern points; but its utterances on this subject are
extremely dark and difficult to understand. They
have respect on the one hand to those passages in
which the sense of a text is disputed, in so far as it
depends upon a different δον, οὐ for in-
stance, whether in Cant. i. 2, we should read τ yw
or NT 5 5 ny Exe exc Os 723 or 1923 ; in Lev.
5 ΌΣ mya or Dyay ; in Is. liv. 13, mda or
m2. A Rabbinic legend makes Joab kill his
teacher, because in Ex. xvii. 14 he had taught him
to read Tat for TEM The last passage shows at
least, that ane Talmudists thought the text in David’s
time was unpointed, and the “others prove that the
punctuation could not haye been fixed as it must have
been if the vowel-points had been written. But in
addition to these instances, which are supposed to in-
volve the existence of vowel-points, there are certain
terms mentioned in the Talmud, which are interpreted
as referring directly to the vowel sigus and accents
themselves. Thus in the treatise Berachoth (fol.
62, 3) we find the phrase FIN YY, ta’dmé
thorah, which is thought to denote not only the
distinctive accents and those which mark the tone,
but also the vowel-points. Hupfeld, however, has
shown that in all probability the term DYt), ta’am,
denotes nothing more than a logical sentence, and
that consequently Doyy ΡῬῚ 5, pistk t?amim
(Wedariin, tol. 37,1), is simply a division of a
sentence, and has nothing whatever to do either
with the tone or the vowels (Stud, u. Krit. 1830,
ii. p. 567). The word 12), siman (Gr. σημεῖον)
which occurs in the Talmud (Nedarin, fol. 53),
and which is explained by Rashi to signify the same
as TP}, nikkid, “a point,” has been also appealed
to as an evidence of the existence of the vowel-points
at the time the Talmud was composed, but its true
meaning is rather that of a mnemonic sign made
use of to retain the memory of what was handed
down by oral tradition. The oldest Biblical critics,
the collectors of the Keri and Cethib, have left no
trace of vowel-points: all their notes have reference
to the consonants. It is now admitted that Jerome
knew nothing of the present vowel-points and their
names. He expressly says that the Hebrews very
rarely had vowels, by which he means the letters
y, » ἡ, 7 8, in the middle of words ; and that the
consonants were pronounced differently according
to the pleasure of the reader and the province in
which he lived (Apist. ad Evagr. 125). The term
accentus, which he there uses, appears to denote as
well the pronunciation of the vowels as the nice
distinctions of certain consonantal sounds, and has
no connexion whatever with accents in the modern
sense of the word. The remarks which Jerome
makes as to the possibility of reading the same
Hebrew consonants differently, according to the
different vowels which were aflixed to them, is an
additional proof that in his day the vowel-points
were not written (see his Comm. in Hos. xiii. 3 ;
Hab. iii. 5), Hupfeld concludes that the present
system of pronunciation had not commenced in the
6th century, that it belonged to a new epoch in
Jewish literature, the Masoretic in opposition to the
Talmudic, and that, taking into consideration that
the Syrians and Arabs, among whom the Jews
lived, had already made a beginning in punctuation,
| there is the highest probability that the Hebrew
WRITING
system of points is not indigenous, but trans-
mitted or suggested from without (Stud. εν, Krit.
1830, ii. p. 589). On such a question it is im-
possible to pronounce with absolute certainty, but
the above conclusion ‘has been arrived at by one of
the first Hebrew scholars of Europe, who has de-
voted especial attention to the subject, and to whose
opinion all deference is due.
“ According to a statement on a scroll of the
Law, which may have been in Susa from the eighth
century, Moses the Punctator (Hannakdan) was the
first who, in order to facilitate the reading of the
Scriptures for his pupils, added vowels to the con-
sonants, a practice in which he was followed by his
son Judah, the Corrector or Keviser (Hammagiah).
These were the beginnings of a full system of He-
brew points, the completion of which has, by tra-
dition, been associated with the name of the Karaite
Acha of Irak, living in the first half of the sixth
century, and which comprised the vowels and
accents, dagesh and rapheh, keri and kethiv. It
was, from its local origin, called the Babylonian or
Assyrian system. Almost simultaneously with these
endeavours, the scholars of Palestine, especially of
Tiberias, worked in the same direction, and here
Rabbi Mocha, a disciple of Anan the Karaite, and
his son Moses, fixed another system of vocalisation
(about 570), distinguished as that of Tiberias, which
marks still more minutely and accurately the
various shades and niceties of tone and pronuncia-
tion, and which was ultimately adopted by all the
Jews. For though the Karaites, with their charac-
teristic tenacity, and their antagonism to the Rab-
banites, clung for some time to the older signs,
because they had used them before their secession
from the Talmudical sects, they were, at last, in
957, induced to abandon them in favour of those
adopted in Palestine. Now the Babylonian signs,
besides differing from those of Tiberias in shape,
are chiefly remarkable by being almost uniformly
placed above the letters. There still exist some
manuscripts which exhibit them, and many more
would probably have been preserved had not, in
later times, the habit prevailed of substituting in
old codices the signs of Tiberias for those of Baby-
lonia” (Dr. Kalisch, Hebr. Gram. ii. 63, 64).»
From the sixth century downwards the traces of
punctuation become more and more distinct. The
Masorah mentions by name two vowels, kamets
and pathach (Kalisch, p. 66). The collation of the
Palestinian and Babylonian readings (8th cent.)
refers at least in two passages to the mappik in He
(Eichhorn, Einl. i. 274); but the collation set on
foot by Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali (cir. A.D.
1034) has to do exclusively with vowels and reading-
marks, and their existence is presupposed in the
Arabic of Saadias and the Veneto-Greek version,
and by all the Jewish grammarians from the 11th
century onwards.
It now remains to say a few words on the
accents. Their especial properties and the laws by
which they are regulated properly belong to the
department of Hebrew grammar, and full informa-
tion on these points will be found in the works of
Gesenius, Hupteld, Ewald, and Kalisch. The object
of the accents is twofold. 1. They serve to mark
the tone syllable, and at the same time to show the
WRITING 1801
relation of each word to the sentence: hence they
are called DDyo, as marking the sense. 2. They
indicate the modulation of the tone according to
which the Old Testament was recited in the syna-
gogues, and were hence called nin). “ The man-
ner of recitation was different for the Pentateuch,
the prophets, and the metrical books (Job, the Pro-
verbs, and the Psalms): old modes of cantillation
of the Pentateuch and the prophets (in the Haph-
taroth) have been preserved in the German and
Portuguese synagogues ; both differ, indeed, consider-
ably, yet manifestly show a common character, and
are almost like the same composition sung in two
different keys; while the chanting of the metrical
books, not being employed in the public worship, has
long been lost” (Kalisch, p. 84). Several modern
investigators have decided that the use of the accents
for guiding the public recitations is anterior to
their use as marking the tone of words and syn-
tactical construction of sentences, The great num-
ber of the accents is in favour of this hypothesis,
since one sign alone would have been sutlicient to
mark the tone, and the logical relation of the
different parts of a sentence could have been indi-
cated by a much smaller number. Gesenius, on the
other hand, is inclined to think that the accents at
first served to mark the tone and the sense (Gesch.
p- 221). The whole question is one of mere con-
jecture. The advocates for the antiquity of the
accents would carry them back as far as the time
of the ancient Temple service. The Gemara (We-
darim, fol. 37, 2; Megillah, ο. i. fol. 3) makes the
Levites recite according to the accents even in the
days of Nehemiah.
Writing materials, §c.—The oldest documents
which contain the writing of a Shemitic race are .
probably the bricks of Nineveh and Babylon on
which are impressed the cuneiform Assyrian in-
scriptions. Inscribed bricks are mentioned by Pliny
(vii. 56) as used for astronomical observations by
the Babylonians. There is, however, no’ evidence
that they were ever employed by the Hebrews,* who
certainly at a very early period practised the more
difficult but not more durable method of writing
on stone (Ex. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15, xxxiv. 1,
28; Deut. x. 1, xxvii. 1; Josh. viii. 32), on which
inscriptions were cut with an iron graver (Job xix.
24; Jer. xvii. 1). They were moreover acquainted
with the art of engraving upon metal (Ex. xxviii.
36) and gems (Ex. xxviii. 9). Wood was used upon
some occasions (Num. xvii. 3; comp. Hom. 7|. vii.
175), and writing tablets of box-wood are men-
tioned in 2 Esd. xiv. 24. The “lead,” to which
allusion is made in Job xix. 24, is supposed to have
been poured when melted into the cavities of the
stone made by the letters of an inscription, in order
to render it durable, and does not appear ever to
have been used by the Hebrews as a writing mate-
rial, like the χάρται μολύβδινοι at Thebes, on
which were written Hesiod’s Works and Days
(Paus. ix. 31, 84 ; comp. Plin. xiii. 21). Inscrip-
tions and documents which were intended to be
permanent were written on tablets of brass (1 Mace.
viii. 22, xiv. 27), but from the manner in which
they are mentioned it is clear that their use was
exceptional. It is most probable that the most
b For further information on the Babylonian system of
punctuation, see Pinsker’s Hinleitung in die Babylonisch-
Hebriiische Punktationssystem, just published at Vienna
(1863).
ς The case of Ezekiel (iv. 1) is evidently an exception.
4 Copper was used for the same purpose. M. Botta
found traces of it in letters on the pavement slabs of
Khorsabad (Layard, Nin. iii. 188).
\
1802 WRITING
ancient as well as the most common material which
the Hebrews used for writing was dressed skin in
some form or other. We know that the dressing
of skins was practised by the Hebrews (Ex. xxv. 5;
Lev. xiii. 48), and they may have acquired the
knowledge of the art from the Egyptians, among
whom it had attained great perfection, the leather-
cutters constituting one of the principal subdivisions
of the third caste. The fineness of the leather,
says Sir G, Wilkinson, ‘employed for making the
straps placed across the bodies of mummies, dis-
covered at Thebes, and the beauty of the figures
stamped upon them, satisfactorily prove the skill
of ‘the leather-cutters,’ and the antiquity of em-
bossing : some of these bearing the names of kings |.
who ruled Egypt about the period of the Exodus,
or 3300 years ago” (Anc. Lg. iii. 155). Perhaps
the Hebrews may have borrowed, among their
other acquirements, the use of papyrus from the
Egyptians, but of this we have no positive evi-
dence. Papyri are found of the most remote Pha-
raonic age (Wilkinson, Anc. 10. iii. 148), so that
Pliny is undoubtedly in error when he says that
the papyrus was not used as a writing material
before the time of Alexander the Great (xiii. 21).
He probably intended to indicate that this was the
date of its introduction to Europe. In the Bible-the
only allusions to the use of papyrus are in 2 John
12, where χάρτης occurs, which refers especially
to papyrus paper, and 3 Mace. iv. 20, where xap-
τήρια is found in the same sense. In Josephus
(Aud. iii. 11, 86) the trial of adultery is made by
writing the name of God on a skin, and the 70
men who were sent to Ptolemy from Jerusalem by
the high-priest Eleazar, to translate the Law into
Greek, took with them the skins on which the Law
was written in golden characters (Ant. xii. 2, 810).
The oldest Persian annals were written on skins
(Diod. Sic. ii. 32), and these appear to have been
most frequently used by the Shemitic races if not
peculiar to them.¢ Of the byssus which was used
in India before the time of Alexander (Strabo xy.
p- 717), and the palm-leaves mentioned by Pliny
(vii. 23) there is no trace among the Hebrews,
although we know that the Arabs wrote their
earliest copies of the Koran upon the roughest ma-
terials, as stones, the shoulder-bones of sheep, and
palm-leaves (De Sacy, Mém. de ? Acad. des In-
script. 1. p. 307). Herodotus, after telling us that
the Jonians learnt the art of writing from the
Phoenicians, adds that they called their books skins
(τὰς βίβλους διφθέρας), because they made use of
sheep-skins and goat-skins when short of paper
(βίβλος). Among the Cyprians, a writing-master
was called διφθεράλοιφος. Parchment was used
for the MSS. of the Pentateuch in the time of Jo-
sephus, and the μεμβράναι of 2 Tim. iv. 13, were
skins of parchment. It was one of the provisions
in the Talmud that the Law should be written on
the skins of clean animals, tame or wild, or even of
clean birds. There are three kinds of skins distin-
guished, on which the roll of the Pentateuch may
be written: 1. nbp, heleph (Meg. ii. 23 Shab.
viii. 3); 2. DODIDIIT=Sixaords or δίξεστος ;
and 3. 55}, gévil. The last is made of the undi-
vided skin, after the hair is removed and it has
e The word for “book, VDD) sépher, is from a root,
“ED, saphar, “ to scrape, shave,” and indirectly points
to the use of skin as a writing-material.
‘ WRITING
been properly dressed. For the other two the skin
was split. The part with the hairy side was called
heleph, and was used for the tephillin or phylac-
teries ; and upon the other ("D337) the mezuzoth
were written (Maimonides, Hilc. Tephil.). The
skins when written upon were formed into rolls
cnidan, meégilloth; Ps. xl, 8; comp. Is. xxxiv. 4;
Jer. xxxvi. 145 Ez. ii. 9; Zech. v. 1). They were
rolled upon one or two sticks and fastened with a
thread, the ends of which were sealed (Is, xxix. 11 ;
Dan. xii. 4; Rev. v. 1, &c.). Hence the words
bb, galal (εἱλίσσειν), to roll up (Is. xxxiv. 4;
Rev. vi. 14), and wos, paras (ἀναπτύσσειν), to
unroll (2 K. xix. 14; Luke iv. 17), are used of the
closing and opening of a book. ‘The rolls were ge-
nerally written on one side only, except in Kz, ii.
9; Rev. v. 1. They were divided into columns
(MINDA, délathéth, lit. “doors,” A.V. “leaves,”
Jer. xxxvi, 23); the upper margin was to be not
less than three fingers broad, the lower not less
than four; and a space of two fingers’ breadth was
to be left between every two columns (Waehner,
Ant. Ebraeor. vol. i. sect. 1, cap. xlv. 8997). In
the Herculaneum rolls the columns are two fingers
broad, and in the MSS. in the library at Stuttgart
there are three columns on each side, each three
inches broad, with an inch space between the co-
lumns, and margins of three inches wide (Leyrer in
Herzog’s Encycl. “ Schriftzeichen”’?), The case in
which the rolls were kept was called τεῦχος or
θήκη, Talmudic 3, cerec, or 875, carcd. But
besides skins, which were used for the more per-
manent kinds of writing, tablets of wood covered with
wax (Luke i. 63, πινακίδια) served for the ordinary
purposes of life. Several of these were fastened
together and formed volumes (ΠῚ 212 =tomos).
They were written upon with a pointed style .
(OY, δέ, Job xix. 24), sometimes of iron (Ps. xlv.
2; Jer. viii. 8, xvii. 1). For harder materials a
graver (197M, cheret, Ex. xxxii. 4; Is. viii. 1) was
employed: the hard point was called may, tsip-
péren (Jer. xvii, 1). For parchment or skins a
reed was used (3 John 13; 3 Mace. iv. 20), and
according to some the Law was to be written with
nothing else (Waehner, 8994). The ink, 7,
déyé (Jer. xxxvi. 18), literally ‘‘black,” like the
Greek μέλαν (2 Cor. iii. 3; 2 John 12; 3 John
13), was to he of lamp-black dissolved in gall juice, .
though sometimes a mixture of gall juice and vitriol
was allowable (Waehner, §335). It was carried
in an inkstand (THB NDP, heseth hasséphér),
which was suspended at the girdle (Ez. ix. 2, 3),
as is done at the present day in the East. The
modern scribes “have an apparatus consisting of a
metal or ebony tube for their reed pens, with a cup
or bulb of the same material, attached to the upper
end, for the ink. This they thrust through the
girdle, and carry with them at all times” (‘Thom-
son, The Land and the Book, p.131). Sucha
case for holding pens, ink, and other materials for
writing is called in the Mishna pw, halmarin, or
tadp, kalmaryén (calamarium ; Mishn, Celim,
ii. 7; Mikv. x. 1), while PRIN, terdnték (Mish.
Celim, xvi. 8), is a case for carrying pens, pen-
knife, style, and other implements of the writer’s
a
SS. τῷ να
YARN
art. To professional scribes there are allusions in
Ps. xlv. 1 [2]; Ezr. vii. 6; 2 Esdr. xiv. 24. In the
language of the Talmud these are called 22°,
lablarin, which is a modification of the Lat. libel-
larii (Talm, Shabb, fol. 16, 1).
For the literature of this subject, see especially
Gesenius, Geschichte der hebriischen Sprache und
Schrift, 1815; Lehrgebdude der Ποῦ». Sprache,
1817; Monumenta Phoenicia, 1837; Art. Pa-
liiographie in Exsch and Gruber’s Ally. Encyel. :
Hupfeld, Ausfithrliche Hebriiische Grammatik,
1841, and his articles in the Studien und Kritiken,
1830, Band 2: A. T. Hoffmann, Grammatica
Syriaca, 1827: A. G. Hoffmann, Art. Hebrdische
Schrift in Evsch and Gruber: Fiirst, Lehrgebiiude
der Aramiiischen Idiome, 1835: Ewald, Ausfithr-
liches Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache : Saalschiitz,
Forschungen im Gebiete der Hebréisch-Aegypt-
ischen Architologie, 1838 ; besides other works,
which have been referred to in the course of this
article. ΑΞ: ire
x
XAN'THICUS. [Mont, p. 417.]
Y
YARN (M1); pid). The notice of yarn is
contained in an extremely obscure passage in 1 Κα,
x. 28 (2 Chr. i. 16): “Solomon had horses brought
out of Egypt, and linen yarn; the king’s merchants
received the linen yarn at a price.’ The LXX,
gives ἐκ @exové, implying an original reading ot
ΜΡ; the Vulg. has de Coa, which is merely a
Latinized form of the original. The Hebrew Received
Text is questionable, from the circumstance that
the second mikvéh has its final vowel lengthened as
though it were in the status constructus. The pro-
bability is that the term does refer to some entrepot
of Egyptian commerce, but whether Tekoah, as in
the LXX., or Coa, as in the Vulg., is doubtful.
Gesenius (7168. p. 1202) gives the sense of “ num-
ber” as applying equally to the merchants and the
horses :—‘ A band of the king’s merchants bought
a drove (of horses) at a price ”; but the verbal
arrangement in 2 Chr. is opposed to this rendering.
Thenius (Zxeg. Hdb, on 1 Κα. x. 28) combines this
sense with the former, giving to the first mikveh
the sense *‘ from Tekoah,”’ to the second the sense
of “drove.” Bertheau (Hxeg. Hdb. on 2 Chr. i.
16) and Fiirst (Lex. s.v.) side with the Vulgate,
and suppose the place called Coa to have been on
the Egyptian frontier:—‘ The king’s merchants
from Coa (i.e. stationed at Coa) took the horses from
The sense adopted in the A.V. is
Coa at a price.”
derived from Jewish interpreters. [W. L. B.]
YEAR (πον: ἔτος : annus), the highest or-
dinary division of time. The Hebrew name is
identical with the root nm, “he or it repeated,
did the second time ;” with which are cognate the
ordinal numeral Ww, “second,” and the cardinal,
Do, “two.” The meaning is therefore thought
to be “an iteration,” by Gesenius, who compares
the Latin annus, properly a circle. Gesenius also
YEAR
o-
1803
compares the Arabic δ.» which he says signifies
“a circle, year.” It signifies ‘a year,’ but not
“a circle,” though sometimes meaning “ around :”
ae
its root is δι, “it became altered or changed,
it shifted, passed, revolved and passed, or became
complete” (on Mr. Lane’s authority). The ancient
Egyptian RENP, “a year,’ seems to resemble
annus; for in Coptic one of the forms of its equi-
valent, PpORArlu, the Bashmuric P2RRIU,
ASLKTU, identical with the Sahidic
PARRIU, “a handle, ring,” DARRTTES,
“yings.”” The sense of the Hebrew might either be
a recurring period, or a circle of seasons, or else a
period circling through the seasons, The first sense
is agreeable with any period of time; the second,
with the Egyptian ‘‘ primitive year,” which, by the
use of tropical seasons as divisions of the ‘* Vague
year,” is shown to have been tropical in reality or
intention; the third agrees with all “ἢ wandering
years.”
I. Years, properly so called.
Two years were known to, and apparently used
by, the Hebrews.
1. A year of 360 days, containing twelve months
of thirty days each, is indicated by certain passages
in the prophetical Scriptures. The time, times, and
a half, of Daniel (vii. 25, xii. 7), where “ time”’ (Ch.
yay, Heb. Wid) means “year,” evidently repre-
sent the same period as the 42 months (Rev. xi. 2)
and 1260 days of the Revelation (xi. 3, xii. 6), for
360 X3°5=1260, and 30X42=1260. This year
perfectly corresponds to the Egyptian Vague year,
without the five intercalary days. It appears to
have been in use in Noah’s time, or at least in the
time of the writer of the narrative of the Flood,
for in that narrative the interval from the 17th day
of the 2nd month to the 17th day of the 7th of the
same year appears to be stated to be a period of
150 days (Gen. vii. 11, 24, viii. 3, 4, comp. 13),
and, as the Ist, 2nd, 7th, and 10th months of one
year are mentioned (viii. 13, 14, vii. 11, viii. 4, 5),
the 1st day of the 10th month of this year being
separated from the 150 day of the Ist month of the
next year by an interval of at least 54 days (viii.
5, 6, 10, 12, 13), we can only infer a year of 12
months. Ideler disputes the former inference,
arguing that as the water first began to sink after
150 days (and then had been 15 cubits above all
high mountains), it must have sunk for some days
ere the Ark could have rested on Ararat, so that
the second date must have been more than 150
days later than the first (Handbuch, i. 69, 70, 478,
479). This argument depends upon the meaning
of the expression “ high mountains,” and upon the
height of ‘the mountains of Ararat,” upon which the
Ark rested (Gen. viii. 4), and we are certainly justi-
fied by Shemitic usage, if we do not consider the usual
inference of the great height attained by the Flood
to be a necessary one (Genesis of the Earth and of
Man, 2nd ed. pp. 97, 98). The exact correspondence
of the interval mentioned to 5 months of 30 days
each, and the use of a year of 360 days, or 12 such
months, by the prophets, the latter fact overlooked
by Ideler, favour the idea that such a year is here
meant, unless indeed one identical with the Egyptian
Vague Year, of 12 months of 30 days and 5 inter-
calary days. The settlemerit of this question de-
is
1804 YEAR
pends upon the nature and history of these years,
and our information on the latter subject is not
sufficiently certain to enable us to do more than
hazard a conjecture.
A year of 360 days is the rudest known. It is
formed of 12 spurious lunar months, and was pro-
bably the parent of the lunar year of 354 days,
and the Vague Year of 365. That it should have
continued any time in use would be surprising
were it not for the convenient length of the months.
The Hebrew year, from the time of the Exodus, as
we shall see, was evidently lunar, though in some
manner rendered virtually solar, and we may there-
tore infer that the lunar year is as old as the date
of the Exodus. As the Hebrew year was not an
Egyptian year, and as nothing is said of its being
new, save in its time of commencement, it was
perhaps earlier in use among the Israelites, and
either brought into Egypt by them or borrowed
from Shemite settlers.
The Vague Year was certainly in use in Egypt
in as remote an age as the earlier part of the xiith
dynasty (B.C. cir. 2000), and there can be no rea-
sonable doubt that it was there used at the time
of the building of the Great Pyramid (B.¢. cir.
2350). The intercalary days seem to be of Egyp-
tian institution, for each of them was dedicated to
one of the great gods, as though the innovation had
been thus made permanent by the priests, and per-
haps rendered popular as a series of days of feasting
and rejoicing. The addition would, however, date
from a very early period, that of the final settle-
ment of the Egyptian religion.
As the lunar year and the Vague Year run up
parallel to so early a period as that of the Exodus,
and the former seems to have been then Shemite,
the latter then, and for several centuries earlier,
Egyptian, and probably of Egyptian origin, we may
reasonably conjecture that the former originated
from a year of 360 days in Asia, the latter from
the same year in Africa, this primitive year having
been used by the Noachians before their dispersion.
2. The year used by the Hebrews from the time
of the Exodus may be said to have been then insti-
_ tuted, since a current month, Abib, on the 14th
day of which the first Passover was kept, was then
made the first month of the year. The essential
characteristics of this year can be clearly deter-
mined, though we cannot fix those of any single
year. It was essentially solar, for the offerings of
productions of the earth, first-fruits, harvest-pro-
duce, and ingathered fruits, were fixed to certain
days of the year, two of which were in the periods
of great feasts, the third itself a feast reckoned from
one of the former days. It seems evident that the
year was made to depend upon these times, and it
may be observed that such a calendar would tend
to cause thankfulness for God’s good gifts, and
would put in the background the great luminaries
which the heathen worshipped in Egypt and in
Canaan. Though the year was thus essentially
solar, it is certain that the months were lunar, each
commencing with a new moon. ‘There must there-
fore have been some method of adjustment. The
first point to be decided is how the commencement
of each year was fixed. On the 16th day of Abib
ripe ears of corn were to be offered as first-fruits
of the harvest (Lev. ii. 14, xxiii. 10, 11): this
was the day on which the sickle was begun to be
put to the corn (Deut, xvi. 9), and no doubt Jose-
phus is right in stating that until the offering of
first-fruits had been made no harvest-work was
YEAR
to be begun (Ant. iii. 10, §5). He also states
that ears of barley were offered (ibid.). That this
was the case, and that the ears were the earliest
ripe, is evident from the following circumstances.
The reaping of barley commenced the harvest (2
Sam. xxi. 9), that of wheat following, apparently
without any considerable interval (Ruth ii. 23).
On the day of Pentecost thanksgiving was offered
for the harvest, and it was therefore called the
“Feast of Harvest.” It was reckoned from the
commencement of the harvest, on the 16th day of
the 1st month. The 50 days must include the
whole time of the harvest of both wheat and barley
throughout Palestine. According to the observa-
tions of modern travellers, barley is ripe, in the
warmest parts of Palestine, in the first days of
April. The barley-harvest therefore begins about
half a month or less after the vernal equinox.
Each year, if solar, would thus begin at about that
equinox, when the earliest ears of barley must be
ripe. As, however, the months were lunar, the
commencement of the year must have been fixed by
a new moon near this point of time. The new
moon must have been that which fell about or next
after the equinox, not more than a few days before,
on account of the offering of first-fruits. Ideler,
whose observations on this matter we have thus far
followed, supposes that the new moon was chosen
by observation of the forwardness of the barley-
crops in the warmer parts of the country ( Hand-
buch, i. 490). But such a method would have
caused confusion on account of the different times
of the harvest in different parts of Palestine; and
in the period of the Judges there would often
have been two separate commencements of the
year in regions divided by hostile tribes, and in
each of which the Israelite population led an
existence almost independent of any other branch.
It is more likely that the Hebrews would have
determined their new year’s day by the observation
of heliacal or other star-risings or settings known
to mark the right time of the solar year. By such
a method the beginning of any year could have
been fixed a year before, either to one day, or,
supposing the month-commencements were fixed by
actual observation, within a day or two. And we
need not doubt that the Israelites were well ac-
quainted with such means of marking the periods
of a solar year. In the ancient Song of Deborah
we read how ‘‘ They fought from heaven ; the stars
in their courses fought against Sisera. The river
of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the
river Kishon” (Judg. v. 20, 21). The stars that
marked the times of rain are thus connected with
the swelling of the river in which the fugitive
Canaanites perished. So too we read how the LorD
demanded ot Job, ‘* Canst thou bind the sweet in-
fluences of Cimah, or loose the bands of Cesil ?”
(Job xxxviii. 31). “The best and most fertilizing
of the rains,” in Palestine and the neighbouring
lands, save Egypt, “ fall when the Pleiades set at
dawn (not exactly heliacally), at the end of autumn ;
rain scarcely ever falling at the opposite season,
when Scorpio sets at dawn.” That Cimah signifies
the Pleiades does not admit of reasonable doubt,
and Cesil, as opposite to it, would be Scorpio,
being identified with Cor Scorpionis by Aben Ezra.
These explanations we take from the article
FAMINE [vol. i. p. 610 6, and note]. Therefore
it cannot be questioned that the Israelites, even
during the troubled time of the Judges, were well
acquainted with the method of determining the
YEAR
seasons of the solar year by observing the stars.
Not alone was this the practice of the civilized
Egyptians, but, at all times of which we know their
history, of the Arabs, and also of the Greeks in the
time of Hesiod, while yet their material civilization
and science were rudimentary. It has always been
the custem of pastoral and scattered peoples, rather
than of the dwellers in cities; and if the Egyptians
be thought to form an exception, it must be recol-
lected that they used it at a period not remote from
that at which their civilization came from the plain
of Shinar.
It follows, from the determination of the proper
new moon of the first month, whether by observa-
tion of a stellar phenomenon, or of the forwardness
of the crops, that the method of intercalation can
only have been that in use after the Captivity, the
addition of a thirteenth month whenever the twelfth
ended too long before the equinox for the offering
of the first-fruits to be made at the time fixed.
This method is in accordance with the permission
granted to postpone the celebration of the Passover
for one month in the case of any one who was
legally unclean, or journeying at a distance (Num.
ix. 9-13); and there is a historical instance in the
case of Hezekiah of such a postponement for both
reasons, of the national celebration (2 Chr. xxx.
1-3, 15). Such a practice as that of an inter-
calation varying in occurrence is contrary to western
usage; but the like prevails in all Muslim countries
in a far more inconvenient form in the case of the
commencement of every month. The day is deter-
mined by actual observation of the new moon, and
thus a day is frequently unexpectedly added to or
deducted from a month at one place, and months
commence on different days at different towns in
the same country. The Hebrew intercalation, if de-
termined by stellar phenomena, would not be liable
to a like uncertainty, though such may have been
the case with the actual day of the new moon,
The later Jews had two commencements of the
year, whence it is commonly but inaccurately said
that they had two years, the sacred year and the civil.
We preter to speak of the sacred and civil reckon-
ings. Ideler admits that these reckonings obtained
at the time of the Second Temple. The sacred
reckoning was that instituted at the Exodus, accord-
ing to which the first month was Abib: by the
civil reckoning the first month was the seventh.
The interval between the two commencements was
thus exactly half a year. It has been supposed
that the institution at the time of the Exodus was a
change of commencement, not the introduction of a
new year, and that thenceforward the year had two
beginnings, respectively at about the vernal and the
autumnal equinoxes. The former supposition is a
hypothesis, the latter may almost be proved. The
strongest point of evidence as to two beginnings of
the year from the time of the Exodus, strangely
unnoticed in this relation by Ideler, is the cir-
cumstance that the sabbatical and jubilee years
commenced in the 7th month, and no doubt on
the 10th day of the 7th month, the Day of Atone-
ment (Lev. xxv. 9,10), and as this year imme-
diately followed a sabbatical year, the latter must
have begun in the same manner. Both were full
years, and therefore must have commenced on the
first day. The jubilee-year was proclaimed on
the first day of the month, the Day of Atonement
YEAR 1805
standing in the same felation to its beginning,
and perhaps to the civil beginning of the year, as
did the Passover to the sacred beginning. This
would be the most convenient, if not the necessary
commencement of a year of total cessation from the
labours of agriculture, as a year so commencing
would comprise the whole round of such occupa-
tions in regular sequence from seed-time to harvest,
and from harvest to vintage and gathering of fruit.
The command as to both years, apart from the
mention of the Day of Atonement, clearly shows
this, unless we suppose, but this is surely unwar-
rantable, that the injunction in the two places in
which it occurs follows the regular order of the sea-
sons of agriculture (Ex. xxiii. 10, 11; Ley. xxv. 3,
4,11), but that this was not intended to apply in the
case of the observance. ‘Two expressions, used with
reference to the time of the Feast of Ingathering on
the 15th day of the 7th month, must be here
noticed. This feast is spoken of as novi NN¥2,
“in the going out” or “end of the year” (Ex.
xxiii. 16), and as IW NPN, * [at] the change
of the year”’ (xxxiv. 22), the latter a vague expres-
sion, as far as we can understand it, but quite
consistent with the other, whether indicating the
turning-point of a natural year, or the half of the
year by the sacred reckoning. The Rabbins use
the term ΠῚ ΙΓ] to designate the commencement
of each of the four seasons into which they divide
the year (Handbuch, i. pp. 550, 551). Our view
is confirmed by the similarity of the Ist and 7th
months as to their observances, the one containing
the Feast of Unleavened Bread from the 15th to the
21st inclusive; the other, that of Tabernacles, from
the 15th to the 22nd. Evidence in the same direc-
tion is found in the special sanctification of the 1st
day of the 7th month, which in the blowing of
trumpets resembles the proclamation of the Jubilee
year on the Day of Atonement. We therefore hold
that from the time of the Exodus there were two
beginnings of the year, with the Ist of the Ist and
the 1st of the 7th month, the former being the
sacred reckoning, the latter, used for the operations
of agriculture, the civil reckoning. In Egypt, in
the present day, the Muslims use the lunar year for
their religious observances, and for ordinary affairs,
except those of agriculture, which they regulate by
the Coptic Julian year.
We must here notice the theories of the deriva-
tion of the Hebrew year from the Egyptian Vague
year, as they are connected with the tropical point
or points, and agricultural phenomena, by which
the former was regulated. The Vague year was
commonly used by the Egyptians ; and from it only,
if from an Egyptian year, is the Hebrew likely to
have been derived. Two theories have been formed
connecting the two years at the Exodus. (1.) Some
hold that Abib, the first month of the Hebrew year
by the sacred reckoning, was the Egyptian Epiphi,
called in Coptic ETHTLU, and in Arabic, by the
io
modern Egyptians, ws); Abeeb, or Ebeeb, the 11th
month of the Vague year. The similarity of sound
is remarkable, but it must be remembered that the
Egyptian name is derived from that of the goddess
of the month, PEP-T or APAP-T (?)* whereas the
* The names of the Egyptian months, derived from
their divinities, are alone known to us in Greek and
Coptic fomrs. These forms are shown by the names of
the divinities given in the sculptures of the ceiling of the
1806 YEAR
Hebrew name has the sense of ‘an ear of corn, a green
ear,” and is derived from the unused root JN,
oe oy
traceable in IN, “verdure,” IN, Chaldee, “ fruit,”
ΤΕ
Ξ
SI, “green fodder.” Moreover, the Egyptian P is
rarely, if ever, represented by the Hebrew 3, and
the converse is not common. Still stronger evidence
is afforded by the fact that we find in Egyptian the
root AB, “a nosegay,” which is evidently related to
Abib and its cognates. Supposing, however, that the
Hebrew calendar was formed by fixing the Egyptian
Epiphi as the first month, what would be the chro-
nological result? he latest date to which the
Exodus is assigned is:about B.c. 1320. In the
Julian year B.c. 1320, the month Epiphi of the
Egyptian Vague year commenced May 16, 44 days
after the day of the vernal equinox, April 2, very
near which the Hebrew year must have begun.
Thus at the latest date of the Exodus, there is an
interval of a month and a half between the begin-
ning of the Hebrew year and Epiphi 1. This in-
terval represents about 180 years, through which
the Vague year would retrograde in the Julian until
the commencement of Epiphi corresponded to the
vernal equinox, and no method can reduce it below
100, It is possible to effect thus much by conjec-
turing that the month Abib began somewhat after
this tropical point, though the precise details of the
state of the crops at the time of the plagues, as
compared with the phenomena of agriculture in
Lower Egypt at the present day, make half a
month an extreme extension, At the time of the
plague of hail, the barley was in the ear and was
smitten with the flax, but the wheat was not suffi-
ciently forward to be destroyed (Ex. ix. 31; 32),
In Lower Egypt, at the present day, this would be
the case about the end of February and beginning
of March. The Exodus cannot have taken place
many days after the plague of hail, so that it must
have occurred about or a little after the time of the
vernal equinox, and thus Abib cannot possibly have
begun much after that tropical point: half a month
is therefore excessive. We have thus carefully
examined the evidence as to the supposed derivation
of Abib from Epiphi, because it has been carelessly
taken for granted, and more carelessly alleged in
support of the latest date of the Exodus.
(2.) We have founded an argument for the date
of the Exodus upon another comparison of the
Hebrew year and the Vague year, We have
seen that the sacred commencement of the Hebrew
year was at the new moon about or next after,
but not much before, the vernal equinox: the
civil commencement must usually have been at the
new moon nearest the autumnal equinox. At the
earliest date of the Exodus computed by modern
chronologers, about the middle of the 17th century
B.C., the Egyptian Vague year commenced at or
about the latter time. The Hebrew year, reckoned
from the civil commencement, and the Vague year,
Rameseum of El-Kurneh to be corrupt; but in several
cases they are traceable. The following are certain :—
1. 066, GUWOTT , divinity TEET (Thoth), as well
asa goddess. 2. Παωφί, ILA.UOTL, PLEH, 7c. PA-
PTEH, belonging to Ptah. 3. ’A@up, 2&OUDP, HAT-
HAR. 9. παχών, WA ΚΠ, KHUNS, ἡ ε. ΡΑ-
KHUNS. 11. Επιφί, ΕΠΗΠῚ, PEP-T, or APAP-T.
The names of months are therefore, in their corrupt
YEAR
therefore, then nearly or exactly coincided. We have
already seen that the Hebrews in Egypt, if they
used a foreign year, must be supposed to have used
the Vague year. It is worth while to inquire
whether a Vague year of this time would further
suit the characteristics of the first Hebrew year.
It would be necessary that the 14th day of Abib, on
which fell the full moon of the Passover of the
Exodus, should correspond to the 14th of Pha-
menoth, in a Vague year commencing about the
autumnal equinox. <A full moon fell on the 14th of
Phamenoth, or Thursday, April 21, B.c. 1652, ofa
Vague year commencing on the day of the autumnal
equinox, Oct. 10, B.c. 1653. <A full moon would
not fall on the same day of the Vague year within
a shorter interval than twenty-five years, and the
triple near coincidence of new moon, Vague year, and
autumnal equinox, would not recur in less than 1500
Vague years (Enc. Brit. 8th ed. Egypt, p. 458).
This date of the Exodus, B.c. 1652, is only four .
years earlier than Hales’s, B.c. 1648. In confirma-
tion of this early date, it must be added that in a
list of confederates defeated by Thothmes III. at
Megiddo in the 23rd year of his reign, are certain
names that we believe can only refer to Israelite
tribes. The date of this king’s accession cannot be
later than about B.c. 1460, and his 23rd year
cannot therefore be later than about B.c. 1440.»
Were the Israelites then settled in Palestine, no
date of the Exodus but the longest would be tenable.
[ CHRONOLOGY. ]
II. Divisions of the Year.—1. Seasons. Two sea-
sons are mentioned in the Bible, }*9, “summer,”
and ΠΠΠ, “winter.” The former properly means
the time of cutting fruits, the latter, that of gather-
ing fruits; they are therefore originally rather
summer and autumn than summer and winter.
But that they signify ordinarily the two grand divi-
sions of the year, the warm and cold seasons, is
evident from their use for the whole year in the ex-
pression AM) γὴν, “summer and winter” (Ps,
Ixxiv. 17; Zech, xiv. 8, perhaps Gen. viii. 22),
and from the mention of ‘the winter house”
(Jer. xxxvi. 22) and “the summer house” (Am.
ili. 15, where both are mentioned together),
Probably yn, when used without reference to the
year (as in Job xxix. 4), retains its original signifi-
cation. In the promise to Noah, after the Flood,
the following remarkable passage occurs: “ While
the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and
cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and
night shall not cease” (Gen. viii. 22). Here “ seed-
time,” Yt, and “ harvest,” VSP, are evidently the
agricultural seasons. It seems unreasonable to
suppose that they mean winter and summer, as the
beginnings of the periods of sowing and of harvest
are not separated by six months, and they do not
last for six months each, or nearly so long a time.
The phrase “ cold and heat,” OM} 7p, probably
forms, either derived from the names of divinities, or the
same as those names, The name of the goddess of Epiphi
is written PT TEE, or PT, “twice.” As T is the feminine
termination, the root appears to be P, “twice,” thus PEP-T*
or APAP-T, the latter being Lepsius’s reading. (See Lep-
sius, Denkmdler, abth. iii. bl. 170, 171, Chron. d. Aeg. i.
p. 141, and Poole, Horae Aegyptiacae, p. 7-9, 14, 15, 18.)
Ὁ The writer’s paper on this subject not having yet been
published, he must refer to the abstract in the Atheneum,
No. 1847, Mar, 21, 1863 j
YEAR
indicates the great alternations of temperature. The
whole passage indeed speaks of the alternations of
nature, whether of productions, temperature, the
seasons, or light and darkness. As we have seen,
the year was probably then a wandering one, and
therefore the passage is not likely to refer to
it, but to natural phenomena alone. [SeAsoNns;
CHRONOLOGY. |
2. Months.—The Hebrew months, from the time
of the Exodus, were lunar. The year appears ordi-
narily to have contained twelve, but, when inter-
calation was necessary, a thirteenth. The older
year contained twelve months of thirty days each.
[Montu; Curonooey. |
3. Weeks.—The Hebrews, from the time of the
institution of the Sabbath, whether at or before the
Exodus, reckoned by weeks, but, as no lunar year
could have contained a number of weeks without
a fractional excess, this reckoning was virtually
independent of the year as with the Muslims.
[Week; ΒΑΒΒΆΤΗ ; CuRonoLoey.]
4. Festivals, holy days, and fasts.—The Feast
of the Passover was held on the 14th day of the
Ist month. The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted
7 days; from the 15th to the 21st, inclusive,
of the same month. Its first and last days were
kept as sabbaths. The Feast of Weeks, or Pen-
tecost, was celebrated on the day which ended seven
weeks counted from the 16th of the 1st month,
that day being excluded. ΤῈ was called the * Feast
of Harvest,” and “ Day of First-fruits.” The Feast
of Trumpets (lit. “of the sound of the trumpet ἢ)
was kept as a sabbath on the 1st day of the 7th
month. The Day of Atonement (lit. “of Atone-
ments”) was a fast, held the 10th day of the 7th
month. The “ Feast of Tabernacles,” or “ Feast of
Gathering,” was celebrated from the 15th to the
22nd day, inclusive, of the 7th month. Additions
made long after the giving of the Law, and not
known to be of higher than priestly authority, are
the Feast of Purim, commemorating the defeat of
Haman’s plot; the Feast of the Dedication, recording
the cleansing and re-dedication of the Temple by
Judas Maccabaeus; and four fasts.
III. Sacred Years.—1, The Sabbatical year,
MOOwWiI NI’, “the fallow year,” or, possibly,
δ or MOOV alone, kept every
seventh year, was commanded to be observed as a
year of rest from the labours of agriculture and of
remission of debts. Two Sabbatical years are
recorded, commencing and current, B.c. 164-3 and
136-5, [SABBATICAL YEAR; CHRONOLOGY. ]
2. The Jubilee year, 227 nw, “the year of
the trumpet,” or Sap alone, a like year, which im-
mediately followed every seventh Sabbatical year.
It has been disputed whether the Jubilee year. was
every 49th or 50th: the former is more probable,
[JUBILEE ; CHRONOLOGY. ] [R. S. P.]
YOKE. 1. A well-known implement of hus-
bandry, described in the Hebrew language by the
terms mét,* motah,” and ’6l,¢ the two former speci-
fically applying to the bows of wood out of which
it was pape and the last to the application
(binding) of the article to the neck of the ox. The
expressions are combined in Ley. xxvi. 13 and Ez.
xxxiv. 27, with the meaning, ‘< bands of the yoke,”
The term “ yoke”’ is frequently used metaphorically
¢ by
** year of remission,’
pin => ANID 4 is
ZAANAIM 1807
for subjection (e.g. 1K. xii. 4, 9-11; Is. ix. 4;
Jer. v. 5): hence an “iron yoke’’ represents an
unusually galling bondage (Deut. xxviii. 48; Jer.
xxviii. 13). 2. A pair of oxen, so termed as being
yoked together (1 Sam. xi. 7; 1K. xix. 19, 21).
The Hebrew term, tzemed, is also applied to asses
(Judg. xix. 10) and mules (2 K. v. 17), and even
to a couple of riders (Is. xxi. 7). 3. The term
tzemed is also applied to a certain amount of land,
equivalent to that which a couple of oxen could
ploagh in a day (Is. v. 10; A.V. “ acre”), cor-
responding to the Latin jugum (Varro, R. R. 1.
10). The term stands in this sense in 1 Sam.
xiv. 14 (A.V. “ yoke”); but the text is doubtful,
and the rendering of the LXX. suggests that the
true reading would refer to the instruments (ἐν
κόχλαξι) wherewith the slaughter was effected.
LW. L. B.]
Z
ZAAN'AIM, THE PLAIN OF (bx
D°3SYS2: δρῦς πλεονεκτούντων ; Alex. δ. ava-
παυομενων: Vallis quae vocabatur Sennim) 3 or,
more accurately ‘‘the oak by Zaannaim,’”’ such
being probably the meaning of the word é/dn.
[ PLAIN, 8900,] A tree—probably a sacred tree—
mentioned as marking the spot near which Heber
the Kenite was encamped when Sisera took refuge
in his tent (Judg. iv. 11). Its situation is defined
as ‘‘near Kedesh,” 7. 6. Kedesh- Naphtali, the name
of which still lingers on the high ground, north of
Safed, and west of the Lake of el Huleh, usually
identified with the Waters of Merom. The Targum
gives as the equivalent of the name, mishor agga-~
niya, “the plain of the swamp,” and in the well-
known passage of the Talmud (Megillah Jerush, i.)
which contains a list of several of the towns of
Galilee with their then identifications, the equivalent
for “Elon (or Aijalon) be-Zaannaim” is Agniya
hak-kodesh. Agne appears to signify a swamp, and
can hardly refer to anything but the marsh which
borders the lake of Auleh on the north side, and
which was probably more extensive in the time
of Deborah than it now is [MeRom]. On the
other hand, Professor Stanley has pointed out
(Jewish Church, 324; Localities, 197) how appro-
priate a situation for this memorable tree is afforded
by “a green plain . . . studded with massive tere-
binths,” which adjoins on the south the plain con-
taining the remains of Kedesh. The whole of this
upland country is more or less rich in terebinths.
One such, larger than usual, and bearing the name
of Sejar em-Messiah, is marked on the map of Van
de Velde as 6 miles N.W. of Kedes. These two
suggestions—of the ancient Jewish and the modern
Christian student—may be left side by side to
await the result of future investigation. In favour
of the former is the slight argument to be drawn
from the early date of the interpretation, and the
fact that the basin of the Hu/eh is still the favourite
camping ground of Bedouins. In favour of the latter
is the instinct of the observer and the abundance of
trees in the neighbourhood.
No name answering to either Zaannaim or Agne
has yet been encountered.
The Keri, or correction, of Judg. iv. 11, substi-
tutes Zaanannim for Zaanaim, and the same form is
found in Josh. xix. 33. This correction the lexico-
graphers adopt as the more accurate form of the
name. It appears to be derived (if a Hebrew word)
1808 ZAANAN
from a root signifying to load beasts as nomads do
when they change their places of residence (Gesen.
Thes. 1177). Such a meaning agrees well with
the habits of the Kenites. But nothing can be
more uncertain than such explanations of topo-
graphical names—most to be distrusted when most
plausible. [G.]
ZAAN'AN (ΝΥ: Sevvadp: inexitu). A place
named by Micah (i. 11) in his address to the towns
of the Shefélah. This sentence, like others of the
same passage, contains a play of words founded on
the meaning (or on a possible meaning) of the
name Zaanan, as derived from yatsah, to go forth :—
“The inhabitress of Tsaanan came not forth.”
The division of the passage shown in the LXX.
and A, V., by which Zaanan is connected with Beth-
ezel—is now generally recognized as inaccurate. It
is thus given “by Dr. Pusey, in his Commentary—
εὐ Π πὸ fahabitant of Zaanan came not forth. The
mourning of Beth-ezel shall take from you its stand-
ing.” So also Ewald, De Wette, and Zunz.
Zaanan is doubtless identical with ZENaN. [G.]
ZA'AVAN ( (Δ: Zovedu; Alex. ἸΙωυακάμ,
*Iwakay: Zavan). A ees chief, son of Ezer the
son of Seir (Gen. xxxvi. IW πὸ 4 4%), ΠΡ
LXX. appear to have es ‘pM. In 1 Chr. the
A. V. has ZAVAN.
ZA'BAD (Tat: Ζαβέδ, SaBér; Alex. ZaBar
in Chrys Zabad : short for mat: see Zebadiah,
Zabdi, Zabdiel, Zebedee, “ God hath given him’).
1. Son of Nathan, son of Attai, son of Ahlai,
Sheshan’s daughter (1 Chr. ii. 31-37), and hence
called son of Ahlai (1 Chr. xi. 41). He was one of
David’s mighty men, but none of his deeds have
been recorded. The chief interest connected with
him is his genealogy, which is of considerable im-
portance in a chronological point of view, and as
throwing incidental light upon the structure of the
Book of Chronicles, and the historical value of the
genealogies in it. Thus in 1 Chr, ii. 26-41, we
have the following pedigree, the generations pre-
ceding Jerahmeel being prefixed :—
(1) Judah, (3) Nathan.
(2) Pharez. (14) ZaBap.
(3) Hezron. (15) Ephlal.
(4) Jerabmeel. (16) Obed.
(5) Onam. (17) Jehu.
(6) Shammai. (18) AZARIAH.
(7) Nadab. (19) Helez.
(8) Appaim. (20) Eleasah.
(9) Ishi. (21) Sisamai.
(10) Sheshan.
(11) Ablai, his’ —Jarha the
daughter Egyptian.
(12) Attai.
(22) Shallum.
(23) Jekamiah.
(24) Elishama.
Here, then, is a genealory of twenty-four gene-
rations, commencing with the patriarch, and termi-
nating we know not, at first sight, where; but as
we happen to know, Grom the history, τῆνος Zabad
the son of Ahlai lived, we are at least sure of this
fact, that the four teenth generation brings us to
the time of David; and that this is about the cor-
rect number we are also sure, because out of seven
other perfect genealogies, covering the same interval
of time, four have the same number ( fourteen),
two have fifteen, and Dayid’s own has eleven.
[GENEAL. OF Jesus CHRIST, p. 667. ]
But it also happens that another person in the
line is an historical personage, whom we know
to have lived during the usurpation of Athaliah,
| be found in Gen, xxv. 4, xxxvi.
ZABAD
viz. Azariah the son (?.¢. grandson) of Obed (2
Chr. xxiii. 1). [Azarian, 13.] He was fourth
atter Zabad, while Jehoram, Athaliah’s husband,
was sixth after David—a perfectly satisfactory cor-
respondence when we take into account that Zabad4
may probably have been considerably younger than
David, and that the early marriages of the kings
have a constant tendency to increase the number of
generations in the royal line. Again, the last name
in the line is the sixth after Azariah; but Hezekiah
was the sixth king after Athaliah, and we know
that many of the genealogies were written out by
“the men of Hezekiah,’ and therefore of course
came down to his time [BECHER, p. 176] (see
1 Chr. iv. 41; Prov. xxv. 1). So that we may
conclude, with great probability, both that this
genealogy ends in the time of Hezekiah, and that
all its links are perfect.
One other point of importance remains to be
noticed, viz. that Zabad is called, after his great-
grandmother, the founder of his house, son of Ahlat.
For that Ahlai was the name of Sheshan’s daughter
is certain from 1 Chr. ii. 31; and it is also certain,
from vers. 35, 36, that from her marriage with
Jarha descended, in the third generation, Zabad. It
is therefore as certain as such matters can be, that
Zabad the son of Ahlai, David’s mighty man, was
so called from Ahlai his female ancestor. The case
is analogous to that of Joab, and Abishai, and
Asahel, who are always called sons of Zeruiah,
Zeruiah, like Ahlai, having married a foreigner.
Or if any one thinks there is a difference between a
man being called the son of his mother, and the son
of his great-grandmother, a more exact parallel may
12, 13, ΠΡ Lge
where the descendants of Keturah, and of the wives
of Esau, in the third and fourth generation, are
called ‘‘ the sons of Keturah,” ‘ the sons of Adah ”
and ‘ of Bashemath”’ respectively.
2. (ZaBa5; Alex. ZaBéd). An Ephraimite, if
the text of 1 Chr. vii. 21 is correct. [See
SHUTHELAH. |
3. (ZaBéd; Alex. Ζαβέθ). Son of Shimeath, an
Ammonitess, an assassin who, with Jehozabad, slew
king Joash, according to 2 Chr. xxiv. 26; but in 2 K.
xii. 21, his name is written, probably more correctly,
Jozachar [JOZACHAR]. He was one of the domestic
servants of the palace, and apparently the agent of
a powerful conspiracy (2 Chr, xxv. 3; 2 Κα. xiv. 5).
Joash had become unpopular from his idolatries
(2 Chr. xxiv. 18), his oppression (ib, 22), and,
above all, his calamities (ib. 23-25). The explana-
tion given in the article JoZACHAR is doubtless the
true one, that the chronicler represents this violent
death of the king, as well as the previous invasion
of the Syrians, as a Divine judement against him
for the innocent blood of Zechariah shed by him:
not that the assassins themselves were actuated by
the desire to avenge the death of Zechariah. They
were both put to death by Amaziah, but their chil-
dren were spared in obedience to the law of Moses
(Deut. xxiv. 16). The coincidence between the names
Zechariah and Jozachar is remarkable. [A.C. H. ]
4. (Ζαβάδ.) A layman of Israel, of the sons of
Zattu, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s
command (Ezr. x. 27). He is called SABATUS in
1 Esd. ix. 28.
5. (Ζαδάβ; ZaBad.) One of the descendants of
a He does not appear in the list in 2 Sam. xxiv., and
may therefore be presumed to have been added in the
latter part of David's reign.
ZABADAIAS
Hashum, who had married a foreign wife after the
Captivity (Ezr. x. 33): called BANNAIA in 1 Esd.
ie 55.
6. (ZaBdd; Alex. om.) One of the sons of Nebo,
whose name is mentioned under the same circum-
stances as the two preceding (Ezr. x. 43). It is repre-
sented by ZABADAIAS in 1 Esd. ix. 35. [W. A. W.]
ZABADAT'AS (Ζαβαδαίας : Sabatus), Za-
BAD 6 (1 Esd. ix. 35; comp. Ezr. x. 43).
ZABADE'ANS (Ζαβεδαῖοι ; Alex. ZaBad€or :
Zabadaci). An Arab tribe who were attacked and
spoiled by Jonathan, on his way back to Damascus
from his fruitless pursuit of the army of Demetrius
(1 Mace. xii. 31). Josephus calls them Nabataeans
(Ant. xiii. 5, 810), but he is evidently in error.
Nothing certain is known of them. Ewald (Gesch.
iv. 382) finds a trace of their name in that of the
place Zabda given by Robinson in his lists ; but this
is too far south, between the Yarmuh and the Zurka.
Michaelis suggests the Arab tribe Zobeideh; but
they do not appear in the necessary locality.
Jonathan had pursued the enemy’s army as far as
the river Eleutherus (Nahr el Kebir), and was on
his march back to Damascus when he attacked and
plundered the Zabadeans. We must look for them,
therefore, somewhere to the north-west of Damascus.
Accordingly, on the road from Damascus to Baalbek,
at a distance of about 82 hours (26 miles) from the
former place, is the villasze Zebdany, standing at
the upper end of a plain of the same name, which
is the very centre of Antilibanus. The name Zeb-
dany is possibly a relic of the ancient tribe of the
Zabadeans. According to Burckhardt (Syria, p. 3),
the plain “is about three quarters of an hour in
breadth, and three hours in length; it is called
Ard Zebdeni, or the district of Zebdeni; it is
watered by the Barrada, one of whose sources is in
the midst of it; and by the rivulet called Moiet
Zebdeni, whose source is in the mountain behind
the village of the same name.” The plain is
“6 limited on one side by the eastern part of the
Antilibanus, called here Djebel Zebdeni.”” The vil-
lage is of considerable size, containing nearly 3000
inhabitants, who breed cattle, and the silkworm,
and have some dyeing-houses (ibid.). Not far from
Zebddny, on the western slopes of Antilibanus, is
another village called Kefr Zebad, which again
seems to point to this as the district formerly
occupied by the Zabadeans. [W. A. W.]
ZABBA'T (2): Ζαβού : Zabbai). 1. One of
the descendants of Bebai, who had married a foreign
wife in the days of, Ezra (Ezr. x. 28). He is called
JOSABAD in 1 Esd. ix. 29.
2. (ZaBod; FA. ZaBpov: Zachai.) Father of
Baruch, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the
city wall (Neh. iii. 20).
ZAB'BUD (Aat, Keri Wt; ZaBovs : Zachur).
One of the sons of Bigvai, who returned in the
second caravan with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 14). In 1 Esd.
viii. 40 his name is corrupted into ISTALCURUS.
ZABDE'US (Ζαβδαῖος : Vulg. om.). ΖΕ-
BADIAH of the sons of Immer (1,Esd. ix. 21; comp.
Ezr. x. 20).
ZAB'DI (“I3t: Ζαμβρί; Alex. ZaBpi in Josh.
vii. 1: Zabdi). 1. Son of Zerah, the son of Judah,
and ancestor of Achan (Josh. vii. 1, 17, 18).
2. (Ζαβδί.) A Benjamite, of the sons of Shimhi
(1 Chr. viii. 19). i
3. (Zabdias.) David's officer over the produce
of the vineyards for the wine-cellars (1 Chr. xxvii.
VOL. II.
ZACCHAEUS 1809
27). He'is called *‘ the Shiphmite,” that is, in all
probability, native of Shepham ; but his native place
has not been traced.
4. (Vat. and Alex. om.; FA, third hand Ζεχρι:
Zebedetis.) Son of Asaph the minstrel (Neh. xi.
17); called elsewhere ZAccuR (Neh. xii. 35) and
ZicuRt (1 Chr. ix. 15).
ZABDIEL (ONYTA: Ζαβδιήλ : Zabdiel).
1. Father of Jashobeam, the chief of David’s guard
(1 Chr. xxvii. 2).
2. (Badind; Alex. Ζοχριήλ.) A priest, son of
the great men, or, as the margin gives it, “ Hagge-
dolim’” (Neh. xi. 14). He had the oversight of
128 of his brethren after the return from Babylon.
3. (Ζαβδιήλ ; Joseph. Ζάβηλος : Zabdiel.) An
Arabian chieftain who put Alexander Balas to death
(1 Mace. xi. 17; Joseph. Ant. xiii.4, 88). According
to Diodorus, Alex. Balas was murdered by two of
the officers who accompanied him (Miller, Fragm.
Hist. ii. 16).
ZA'BUD (Wat: ZaBovd ; Alex. ZaBBove :
Zabud). The son of Nathan (1 K. iv. 5). He is
described as a priest (A. V. “ principal officer ;”
Prixst, p. 915), and as holding at the court of Solo-
mon the confidential post of ‘“ king’s friend,’ which
had been oceupied by Hushai the Archite during the
reign of David (2 Sam. xv. 37, xvi. 16; 1 Chr. xxvii.
33). This position, if it were an official one, was
evidently distinct from that of counsellor, occupied
by Ahithophel under David, and had more of the
character of private friendship about it, for Absalom
conversely calls David the “ friend” of Hushai
(2 Sam. xvi. 17). In the Vat. MS. of the LXX.
the word “ priest” is omitted, and in the Arabic
of the London Polyglot it is referred to Nathan.
The Peshito-Syriac and several Hebrew MSS. for
ὡς Zabud” read ‘* Zaccur.”’ The same occurs in the
case of ZABBUD.
ZABUL'ON (Ζαβουλών: Zabulon). The Greek
form of the name ZEBULUN (Matt. iv. 13, 15;
Rev. vii. 8).
ZACCA'T (51: Zakxod; Alex. Ζακχαί in
Ezra: Zachai). The sons of Zaccai, to the number
of 760, returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 9; Neh.
vii. 14). The name is the same which appears in
the N. T. in the familiar form of ZACCHAEUS,
ZACCHAEUS (Ζακχαῖος : Zacchaeus). The
name of a tax-collecfor near Jericho, who being
short in stature climbed up into a sycamore-
tree, in order to obtain a sight of Jesus as He
passed through that place. Luke only has re-
lated the incident (xix. 1-10). Zacchaeus was a
Jew, as may be inferred from his name and from
the fact that the Saviour speaks of him expressly
as ‘a son of Abraham” (vids *ABpadu). So the
latter expression should be understood, and not in a
spiritual sense ; for it was evidently meant to assert
that he was one of the chosen race, notwithstanding
the prejudice of some of his countrymen that his
office under the Roman government made him an
alien and outcast from the privileges of the Israelite.
The term which designates this office (ἀρχιτελώνης)
is unusual, but describes him no doubt as the super-
intendent of customs or tribute in the district of
Jericho, where he lived, as one having a commission
from his Roman principal (manceps, publicanus) to
collect the imposts levied on the Jews by the Ro-
mans, and who in the execution of that trust em-
ployed subalterns (the ordinary τελῶναι), who were
5 Z
1810 ZACCHEUS
accountable to him, as he in turn was accountable
to his superior, whether he resided at Rome, as was
more commonly the case, or in the province itself
(see Winer, Realw. ii. 711, and Dict. of Ant. p.
806). The office must have been a lucrative one
in such a region, and it is not strange that Zac-
chaeus is mentioned by the Evangelist as a rich
man (οὗτος ἦν πλούσιος). Joseyfhus states (Ant.
xv. 4, §2) that the palm-groves of Jericho and its
gardens of balsam were given as a source of revenue
by Antony to Cleopatra, and, on account of their
value, were afterwards redeemed by Herod the Great
for his own benefit. The sycamore-tree is no longer
found in that neighbourhood (Robinson, ib. Res.
i. 559); but no one should be surprised at this,
since ‘even the solitary relic of the palm-forest,
seen as late as 1838”’—which existed near Jericho,
has now disappeared (Stanley, S. δ᾽ P. p. 307).
The eagerness of Zacchaeus to behold Jesus indi-
cates a deeper interest than that of mere curiosity.
He must have had some knowledge, by report at
least, of the teachings of Christ, as well as of His
wonder-working power, and could thus have been
awakened to some just religious feeling, which
would make him the more anxious to see the
announcer of the good tidings, so important to men
as sinners, ‘The readiness of Christ to take up His
abode with him, and His declaration that ‘‘ salva-
tion” had that day come to the house of his enter-
tainer, prove sufficiently that ‘* He who knows
what is in man” perceived in him a religious sus-
ceptibility which fitted him to be the recipient of
spiritual blessings. Reflection upon his conduct on
the part of Zacchaeus himself appears to have re-
vealed to him deficiencies which disturbed his con-
science, and he was ready, on being instructed more
fully in regard to the way of life, to engage to
“ yestore fourfold ” for the illegal exactions of which
he would not venture to deny (εἴ τινός τι ἐσυκο-
φάντησα) that he might have been guilty. At
all events he had not lived in such a manner as to
overcome the prejudice which the Jews entertained
against individuals of his class, and their censure
fell on him as well as on Christ when they declared
that the latter had not scorned to avail Himself of
the hospitality of ‘‘a man that was a sinner.” The
Saviour spent the night probably (μεῖναι, ver. 5,
and καταλῦσαι, ver.,7, are the terms used) in the
house of Zacchaeus, and the next day pursued his
journey to Jerusalem. He was in the caravan from
Galilee, which was going up thither to keep the
Passover. The entire scene is well illustrated by
Oosterzee (Lange’s Bibelwerk, iii. 285).
We read in the Rabbinic writings also of a Zac-
chaeus who lived at Jericho at this same period,
well known on his own account, and especially as
the father of the celebrated Rabbi Jochanan ben
Zachai (see Sepp’s Leben Jesu, iii. 166). This per-
son may have been related to the Zacchaeus named
in the sacred narrative. The family of the Zacchaei
was an ancient one, as well as very numerous.
They are mentioned in the Books of Hzra (ii. 9)
and Nehemiah (vii. 14) as among those who re-
turned from the Babylonian Captivity under Zerub-
babel, when their number amounted to seven hun-
dred and sixty. It should be noticed that the name
is given as ZACCAT in the Authorised Version of the
Old Testament. {H. B. H.]
ZACCHE'US (Ζακχαῖος : -Zacchaeus). An
officer of Judas Maccabaeus (2 Mace. x. 19). Grotius,
from a mistaken reference to 1 Mace. ν. 56, wishes to
read καὶ τὸν τοῦ Ζαχαοίου. [Ber WwW.)
ZACHARIAH
ZAC'CHUR (Wt: Ζακχούρ: Zachur). A
Simeonite, of the family of Mishma (1 Chr. iv. 26).
His descendants, through his son Shimei, became
one of the most numerous branches of the tribe.
ZAC'CUR (Bt: Zaxodp; Alex. Ζαχρού :
Zechur). 1. A Reubenite, father of Shammua, the
spy selected from his tribe (Num. xiii. 4).
2. (Σακχούρ; Alex. Ζακχούρ: Zachur.) A
Merarite Levite, son of Jaaziah (1 Chr. xxiv. 27).
3. (Σακχούρ, Ζακχούρ; Alex. Ζακχούρ: Zac-
chur, Zachur.) Son of Asaph, the singer, and chief
of the third division of the Temple choir as arranged
by David (1 Chr. xxv. 2, 10; Neh. xii. 35).
4. (Ζακχούρ; FA. Zaxxotp: Zachur.) The
son of Imri, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding
the city wall (Neh. iii. 2).
5. (Ζακχώρ.) A Levite, or family of Levites, who
signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 12).
6. (Ζακχούρ... A Levite, whose son or descendant
Hanan was one of the treasurers over the treasuries
appointed by Nehemiah (Neh. xiii. 13).
ZACHARI'AH, or properly ZECHARIAH
(ΠΥ), “remembered by Jehovah:” Ζαχαρίας :
Zacharias), was son of Jeroboam II., 14th king of
Israel, and the last of the house of Jehu. There is
a difficulty about the date of his reign. We are
told that Amaziah ascended the throne of Judah in
the second year of Joash king of Israel, and reigned
29 years (2 K. xiv. 1, 2). He was succeeded by
Uzziah or Azariah, in the 27th year of Jero-
boam II., the successor of Joash (2 K. xv. 1), and
Uzziah reigned 52 years. On the other hand,
Joash king of Israel reigned 16 years (2 K. xiii.
10), was succeeded by Jeroboam, who reigned 41
(2 K. xiv. 23), and he by Zachariah, who came to
the throne in the 38th year of Uzziah king of Judah
(2 K. xv. 8). Thus we have (1) from the acces-
sion of Amaziah to the 38th of Uzziah, 29+38=
67 years: but (2) from the second year of Joash to
the accession of Zachariah (or at least to the death
of Jeroboam) we have 15-+-41=56 years. Further,
the accession of Uzziah, placed in the 27th year of
Jeroboam, according to the above reckoning oc-
curred in the 15th. And this latter synchronism
is confirmed, and that with the 27th year of Jero-
boam contradicted, by 2 K. xiv. 17 which tells us
that Amaziah king of Judah survived Joash king
of Israel by 15 years. Most chronologers assume
an interregnum of 11 years between Jeroboam’s
death and Zachariah’s accession, during which the
kingdom was suffering from the anarchy of a dis-
puted succession, but this seems unlikely after the
reign of a resolute ruler like Jeroboam, and does not
solve the difference between 2 K. xiv. 17 and xv. 1.
We are reduced to suppose that our present MSS.
have here incorrect numbers, to substitute 15 for
27 in 2 K. xv. 1, and to believe that Jeroboam II.
reigned 52 or 53 years. Josephus (ix. 10, §3)
places Uzziah’s accession in the 14th year of Jero-
boam, a variation of a year in these synchronisms
being unavoidable, since the Hebrew annalists in
giving their dates do not reckon fractions of years.
fIsRAEL, ΚΊΝΑΡΟΝ OF, vol. i. p. 900.] But whe-
ther we assume an interregnum, or an error in the
Mss., we must place Zachariah’s accession B.C.
771-2. His reign lasted only six months. He was
killed in a conspiracy, of which Shallum was the
head, and by which the prophecy ime? Kk. x. 30
was accomplished. We are told that during his
brief term of power he did evil, and kept up the
calfworship inherited from the first Jeroboam,
ZACHARIAS
which his father had maintained in regal
at Bethel (Am. vii.13). [SHactum.| [G. E. WwEKC
Ὁ. (Alex. Zayxaios.) The father of Abi, or
Abijah, Hezekiah’s mother (2 K. xviii. Ὅν. tin
2, Chr. xxix. 1 he is called ZECHARIAH.
ZACHARIAS (Zaxaplas: Vulg. om.). 1.
Zechariah the priest in the reign of Josiah (1 Esd.i. 8).
Q. In 1 Esd. i. 15 Zacharias occupies the place
of Heman in 2 Chr. xxxv. 15.
3. (Zapatas; Alex. Zapéas: Areores.) =SE-
RArAH 6, and AZARTAH (1 Esd. v. 8; comp. Ezr.
ii. 2; Neh. vii. 7). It is not clear from whence this
rendering of the name is derived.
follow the Geneva Version.
4. (Ζαχαρίας : Zacharias.) The prophet ZE-
CHARIAH (1 Esd. vi. 1, vii. 3).
5. ZECHARIAH of the sons of Pharosh (1 Esd.
viii. 30; comp. Ezr. viii. 3).
6. Zecuarrad of the sons of Bebai (1 Esd. viii.
ΡΥ: ΕΖῈν ὙΠ 1ὴ-
7. ZECHARIAH, one of ‘ the principal men and
learned,” with whom Ezra consulted (1 Esd. viii.
44: comp. Ezr. viii. 16).
8. ZECHARIAH of the sons of Elam (1 Esd. ix.
27; comp. Ezr. x. 26).
9. Father of Joseph, a leader in the first campaign
of the Maccabaean war (1 Mace. v. 18, 56-62).
10. Father of John the Baptist (Luke, i. 5,
&e.) [JoHN THE Baprist.]
11. Son of Barachias, who, our Lord says,
was slain by the Jews between the altar and the
temple (Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke, xs) ΘΙ Where
has been much dispute who this Zacharias was.
From the time of Origen, who relates that the
father of John the Baptist was killed in the
temple, many of the Greek Fathers have main-
tained that this is the person to whom our Lord
alludes; but there can be little or no doubt that
the allusion is to Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada
(2 Chr. xxiv. 20, 21). As the Book of Chronicles—
in which the murder of Zacharias, tlie son of
Jehoiada, occurs—closes the Hebrew canon, this
assassination was the last of the murders of
righteous men recorded in the Bible, just as that
of Abel was the first. (Comp. Renan, Vie de
Jésus, p. 353.) The name of the father of Za-
charias is not mentioned by St. Luke; and we
may suppose that the name of Barachias crept into
the text of St. Matthew from a marginal gloss, a
confusion haying been made between Zacharias, the
son of Jehoiada, and Zacharias, the son of Bara-
chias (Berechiah), the prophet. [Comp. ZECHA-
RIAH, 6, p. 1832. ]
ZACH'ARY (Zacharias).
chariah (2 Esd. i. 40).
ZA'CHER (1533, in pause TT: Ζακχούρ:
Zacher). One οἵ the sons of Jehiel, the father or
founder of Gibeon, by his wife Maachah (1 Chr.
viii. 31). In 1 Chr. ix. 37 he is called ZECHARIAH.
ZA'DOK (pis: Σαδώκ : Sadok: “‘righteous”).
1. Son of Ahitub, and one of the two chief priests
in the time of David, Abiathar being the other.
[ABIATHAR.] Zadok was of the house of Eleazar,
the son of Aaron (1 Chr. xxiv. 3), and eleventh in
descent from Aaron. ‘The first mention of him is
in 1 Chr. xii. 28, where we are told that he
joined David at Hebron after Saul’s death with 22
captains of his father’s house, and, apparently, with
~ 900 men (4600-3700, vers. 26, 27). Up to this
time, it may be concluded, he had adhered to the
The prophet Ze-
Our translators |
splendour | house of Saul.
ZADOK 1811
But henceforth his fidelity to David
was inviolable. When Absalom revolted, and
David fled from Jerusalem, Zadok and all the
Levites bearing the Ark accompanied him, and it
was only at the king’s express command that they
returned to Jerusalem, and became the medium of
communication between the king and Hushai the
Archite (2 Sam. xv., xvii.). When Absalom was
dead, Zadok and Abiathar were the persons who
persuaded the elders of Judah to invite David to
return (2 Sam. xix. 11). When Adonijah, in
David’s old age, set up for king, and had persuaded
Joab, and Abiathar the priest, to join his party,
Zadok was unmoved, and was employed by David
to anoint Solomon to be king in his room (1 Κα. 1.).
And for this fidelity he was rewarded by Solomon,
who “thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto
the Lordy’ and “ put in Zadok the priest” in his
room (1 K. ii. 27, 35). From this time, however,
we hear little of him. It is said in general terms
in the enumeration of Solomon’s officers of state
that Zadok was the priest (1 K. iv. 4: 1 Chr.
xxix. 22), but no single act of his is mentioned.
Even in the detailed account of the building and
dedication of Solomon’s Temple, his name does not
occur, so that though Josephus says that ‘‘Sadoc
the high-priest was the first high-priest of the
Temple which Solomon built” (Ant. x. 8, 86),
it is very doubtful whether he lived till the dedi-
cation of Solomon’s Temple, and it seems far more
likely that Azariah, his son or grandson, was high-
priest at the dedication (comp. 1 K. iv. 2, and
1 Chr. vi. 10, and see AZARIAH 2). Had Zadok
been present, it is scarcely possible that he should
not have been named in so detailed an account as
that in 1 K. viii. [H1cH-Priesr, p. 810.]
Several interesting questions arise in connexion
with Zadok in'regard to the high-priesthood. And
first, as to the causes which led to the descendants
of Ithamar occupying the high-priesthood to the
prejudice of the house of Eleazar. There is, how-
ever, nothing to guide us to any certain conclusion,
We only know that Phinehas the son of Eleazar
was high-priest after his father, and that at a sub-
sequent period Eli of the house of Ithamar was
high-priest, and that the office continued in his
house till the time of Zadok, who was first Abia-
thar’s colleague, and afterwards superseded him.
Zadok’s descendants continued to be hereditary
high-priests till the time of Antiochus Eupator,
and perhaps till the extinction of the office. [Hicn-
Priest, p. 812.] But possibly some light may
be thrown on this question by the next which
arises, viz., what is the meaning of the double
priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar (2 Sam. xv. 29;
1 Chr. xxiv. 6, 31). In later times we usually
find two priests, the high-priest, and the second
priest (2 K. xxv. 18), and there does not seem to
have been any great difference in their dignity. So
too Luke iii. 2. The expression “ the chief priest of
the house of Zadok” (2 Chr. xxxi. 10), seems also to
indicate that there were two priests of nearly equal
dignity. Zadok and Abiathar were of nearly equal
dignity (2 Sam. xv. 35, 36, xix. 11). Hophni
and Phinehas again, and Eleazar and Ithamar are
coupled together, and seem to have been holders of
the office as it were in commission. The duties
of the office too were in the case of Zadok and
Abiathar divided. Zadok ministered before the
Tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chr. xvi. 39), Abiathar
had the care of the Ark at Jerusalem. Not, how-
ever, exclusively, as appears from 1 Chr. Ἐν Ld
Slay Aae
1512 ZADOK
2 Sam. xv. 24, 25,29. Hence, perhaps, it may be
concluded that from the first there was a tendency
to consider the office of the priesthood as somewhat
of the nature of a corporate office, although some of
its functions were necessarily confined to the chief
member of that corporation ; and if so, it is very
easy to perceive how superior abilities on the one
hand, and infancy or incapacity on the other, might
operate to raise or depress the members of this cor-
poration respectively. Just as in the Saxon royal
families, considerable latitude was allowed as to the
particular member who succeeded to the throne.
When hereditary monarchy was established in
Judaea, then the succession to the high-priesthood
may have become more regular. Another circum-
stance which strengthens the conclusion that the
origin of the double priesthood was anterior to
Zadok, is that in 1 Chr. ix. 11; Neh. xi. 11,
Ahitub the father of Zadok, seems to be described
as “ruler of the House of God,” an office usually
held by the chief priest, though sometimes by the
second priest. [HiIGH-PRIEST, p. 808.] And if
this is so, it implies that the house of Eleazar had
maintained its footing side by side with the house
of Ithamar, although for a time the chief dignity
had fallen to the lot of Eli. What was Zadok’s
exact position when he first joined David, is im-
possible to determine. He there appears inferior to
Jehoiada “ the leader of the Aaronites.”
Ὁ. According to the genealogy of the high-priests |
in 1 Chr. vi. 12, there was a second Zadok, son of
a second Ahitub, son of Amariah; about the time
of King Ahaziah. But it is highly improbabie that
the same sequence, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, should
oceur twice over; and no trace whatever remains
in history of this second Ahitub, and second Zadok.
It is probable, therefore, that no such person as this
second Zadok ever existed; but that ‘the insertion of
the two names is a copyist’s error. Moreover, these
two names are quite insufficient to fill up the gap be-
tween Amariah in Jehoshaphat’s reign, and Shallum
in Amon’s, an interval of much above 200 years.
3. Father of Jerushah, the wife of King Uzziah,
and mother of King Jotham. He was probably of
a priestly family.
4. Son of Baana, who repaired a portion of the
wall in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 4). He is
probably the same as is in the list of those that
sealed the covenant in Neh. x. 21, as in both cases
his name follows that of Meshezabeel. But if so,
we know that he was not a priest, as his name
would at first sight lead one to suppose, but one of
“the chief of the people,’ or laity. With this
agrees his patronymic Baana, which indicates that
he was of the tribe of Judah; for Baanah, one of
David’s mighty men, was a Netophathite (2 Sam.
xxiii, 29), @. €. of Netophah, a city of Judah.
The men of Tekoah, ancther city of Judah,
worked next to Zadok. Meshullam of the house of
Meshezabeel, who preceded him in both lists (Neh.
iii. 4, and x. 20, 21), was also of the tribe of Judah
(Neh. xi. 24). Intermarriages of the priestly
house with the tribe of Judah were more frequent
a Compare the following pedigrees :—
1 Chr. vi.6-14. Ib. 52, 53. Ezr. vii. 1-3. Neh. xi. 11, ἃ 1 Chr. ix. 11.
Meraioth. Meraioth. Meraioth. Ahitub.
Azariah.
Amariah. Amariah. Amariah. Meraioth.
Abitub Alhiitub. Abitub, ‘
Zadok. Zadok. Zadok. Zadok.
Shallum. Shallum, Meshullam.
Hilkiah. Hilkiah Hilkiah.
Azariah. Azariah
Seraiah. Seraiah, Seraiah. Azariah.
|
ZAIR
than with any other tribe.
name of Sadoc (Matt. i. 14).
5. Son of Immer, a priest who repaired a portion
of the wall over against his own house (Neh. iii.
29). He belonged to the 16th course (1 Chr,
xxiv. 14), which was one of those which returned
from Babylon (Kzr. ii, 37).
6. In Neh, xi. 11, and 1 Chr. ix. 11, mention
is made in a genealogy of Zadok, the son of Me-
raioth,; the son of Ahitub. But as such a sequence
occurs nowhere else, Meraioth being always the
grandfather of Ahitub (or great-grandfather, as in
Ezy. vii. 2, 3), it can hardly be doubtful that Me-
raioth is inserted by the error of a copyist, and that
Zadok the son of Ahitub is meant.
{t is worth noticing that the N. Τὶ name Justus
(Acts i. 23, xviii. 7; Col. iv. 11) is the literal
translation of Zadok. Zedekiah, Jehozadak, may be
compared.
The name appears occasionally in the post-biblical
history. The associate of Judah the Gaulonite, the
well-known leader of the agitation against the census
of Quirinus, was a certain Pharisee named Zadok
(Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, §1), and the sect of the
Sadducees is reputed to have derived both its name
and origin from a person of the same name, a dis-
ciple of Antigonus of Socho. (See the citations of
Lightfoot, Hebr. and Talm. Exerc. on Matt. iii. 8.)
The personality of the last mentioned Sadok has
been strongly impugned in the article SADDUCEES
(p- 1084); but see, on the other hand, the remark
of M. Renan ( Vie de Jésus, 216). [A. Ὁ. H.]
ZA'HAM (Oi: Zadu; Alex. ZaAdu: Zoom).
Son of Rehoboam by Abihail, the daughter of Eliab
(2 Chr. xi. 19). As Eliab was the eldest of David’s
brothers, it is more probable that Abihail was his
granddaughter.
ZA'IR (WS: Σειώρ; Alex. omits: Seira).
A place named, in 2 Καὶ. viii. 21 only, in the account
of Joram’s expedition against the Edomites. He
went over to Zair with all his chariots; there he
and his force appear to have been surrounded,» and
only to have escaped by cutting their way through
in the night. The parallel account in Chronicles
(2 Chr. xxi. 9) agrees with this, except that the
words * to Zair”’ are omitted, and the words ‘‘ with
his princes” inserted. This is followed by Josephus
(Ant. ix. 5, 81). The omitted and inserted words
have a certain similarity both in sound and in their
component letters, ΠΝ and PITOY ; and on
this it has been conjectured that the latter were
substituted for the former, either by the error of a
copyist, or intentionally, because the name Zair was
not elsewhere known (see Keil, Comm. on 2 K.
viii. 21). Others again, as Movers (Chronik, 218)
and Ewald (Gesch. iii. 524), suggest that Zair is
identical with Zoar (YY or Wi). Certainly in
the middle ages the road by which an army passed
from Judaea to the country formerly occupied by
Edom lay through the place which was then be-
lieved to be Zoar, below Kerak, at the S.E. quarter
of the Dead Sea (Fulcher, Gesta Dei, 405), and so
far this is in favour of the identification ; but there
is no other support to it in the MS. readings either
of the original or the Versions.
b This is not, however, the interpretation of the Jewish
commentators, who take the word 1°2D/1 to refer to
the neighbouring parts of the country of Edom. See Rashi
on 2 Chr. xxi. 9.
Hence probably the
ZALAPH
The Zoar of Genesis (as wil] be seen under that
head) was probably near the N.E. end of the lake,
and the chief interest that exists in the identifica-
tion of Zair and Zoar, resides in the fact that if
it could be established it would show that by the
time 2 K. viii. 21 was written, Zoar had been shifted
from its original place, and had come to be located
where it was in the days of Joseph, Jerome, and
the Crusades. Possibly the previous existence there
of a place called Zair, assisted the transfer.
A third conjecture grounded on the readings of
the Vulgate (Seira) and the Arabic version (Swi,
paca) is, that Zair is an alteration for Seir
(9), the country itself of the Edomites (The-
nius, Kurzg. Ex. Handb.). The objection to this
is, that the name of Seir appears not to have been
known to the author of the Book of Kings. [G.]
ZA'LAPH (528: Berd; Alex. Ἐλέφ: Se-
leph). Father of Hanun, who assisted in rebuild-
ing the city wall (Neh. iii. 30).
ZAL'MON (i028: Ἑλλών ; Alex. SeAAdu:
Selmon). An Ahohite, one of David’s guard (2
Sam. xxiii. 28). In 1 Chr. xi. 29 he is called Inat,
which Kennicott (Diss. p. 187) decides to be the
true reading.
ZAL'MON, ΜΟΤΌΝΤ' (ον ἼΠ: ὅρος ‘Ep-
μών : mons Selmon). A wooded eminence in the |
immediate neighbourhood of Shechem, from which |
Abimelech and his people cut down the boughs with |
which he suffocated and burnt the Shechemites |
who had taken refuge in the citadel (Judg. ix. 48).
It is evident from the narrative that it was close to
the city. But beyond this there does not appear to
be the smallest indication either in or out of the Bible
of its position. The Rabbis mention a place of the
same name, but evidently far from the necessary
position (Schwarz, 157). The name Suleimijjeh is
attached to the S.E. portion of Mount Ebal (see
the map of Dr. Rosen, Zeitsch. der D. M. G. xiv.
634); but without further evidence, it is hazardous
even to conjecture that there is any connexion between
this name and Tsalmon.
The reading of the LXX. is remarkable both in
itself, and in the fact that the two great MSS. agree
in a reading so much removed from the Hebrew;
but it is impossible to suppose that Hermon (at
any rate the well-known mountain of that name),
is referred to in the narrative of Abimelech.
The possibility of a connexion between this mount
and the place of the same name in Ps. Ixviii, 14
(A. V. Salmon), is discussed under the head of
SALMON, pp. 1094, 5.
The name of Dalmanutha has been supposed to |
be a corruption of that of Tsalmon (Otho, Lez, |
Rabb. ““ Dalmanutha”). [G.]
ZALMO'NAH (T3199¥: Σελμωνᾶ : Salmond),
The name of a desert-station of the Israelites, which
they reached between leaving Mount Hor and camp-
ing at Punon, although they must have turned the
southern point of Edomitish territory by the way
(Num. xxxiii. 41). It lies on the east side of
ZAMZUMMIMS 1813
Edom ; but whether or not identical with Maan,
a few miles E. of Petra, as Raumer thinks, is
doubtful. More probably Zalmonah may be in the
Wady Ithm, which runs into the Arabah close to
where Elath anciently stood. [Η. H.]
ZAL'MUNNA (Y3190¥: Σελμανᾶ ; Alex, Σαλ-
μανα, and so also Josephus: Salmana). One of
the two “kings” of Midian whose capture and
death by the hands of Gideon himself formed the
last act of his great conflict with Midian (Judg.
vill. 5-21; Ps. Ixxxiii. 11). No satisfactory expla-
nation of the name of Zalmunna has been given.
That of Gesenius and Fiirst (‘shelter is denied
him”) > can hardly be entertained.
The distinction between the “ kings” oadi)
and the “princes” (&) of the Midianites on this
occasion is carefully maintained throughout the
narrative ¢ (viii. 5, 12,26). ‘‘ Kings’’ of Midian are
also mentioned in Num. xxxi. 8. But when the
same transaction is referred to in Josh. xiii. 21
they are designated by the title Wésté (NWI), A. V-
“princes.” Elsewhere (Num. xxii. 4, 7) the term
zekénim is used, answering in signification, if not
in etymology, to the Arabic sheikh. It is difficult,
perhaps impossible, to tell how far these distinctions
are accurate, and how far they represent the imper-
fect acquaintance which the Hebrews must have had
with the organization of a people with whom,
except during the orgies of Shittim, they appear
to have been always more or less at strife and war-
fare (1 Chr. v. 10, 19-22).
The vast horde which Gideon repelled must have
included many tribes under the general designation
of * Midianites, Amalekites, children of the East ;”
and nothing would be easier or more natural than
for the Hebrew scribes who chronicled the events
to confuse one tribe with another in so minute a
point as the title of a chief.
In the great Bedouin tribes of the present day,
who occupy the place of Midian and Amalek, there
is no distinctive appellation answering to the melec
and sar of the Hebrew narrative. Diflerences in
rank and power there are, as between the great
chief, the acknowledged head of the parent tribe,
and the lesser chiefs who lead the sub-tribes into
which it is divided, and who are to a great extent
independent of him. But the one word sheikh is
employed for all. The great chief is the Sheikh
el-kebir, the others are min el-masheikh, “ of the
sheikhs,” 7. 6. of sheikh rank, The writer begs to
express his acknowledgments to Mr. Layard and Mr.
Cyril Graham for information on this point. [G.]
ZAM'BIS (ZoauBi; Alex. Ζαμβρις: Zambris).
The same as AMARIAH (1 Esd. ix. 343; comp. Hzr.
x. 42),
ZAM'BRI (Ζαμβρί: Zamri). Zuri the Si-
meonite slain by Phinehas (1 Mace. ii. 26).
ZA'MOTH (Ζαμώθ; Alex. Ζαμόθ: Zathoim) =
ZATTU (1 Esd. ix. 28; comp. Ezr. x. 27).
ZAM'ZUMMIMS (OD ft: Ζοχομμείν ; Alex.
ouutery: Zomzommim). The Ammonite name for
a The variations of the MSS. of the LXX. (Holmes and
Parsons) are very singular—ex Σιων, εκ Sywv, εἰς Op.
But they do not point to any difference in the Hebrew
text from that now existing. |
Ὁ The unintelligibility of the names is in favour of their |
being correctly retained rather than the reverse, And it |
|
i]
shouid not be overlooked that they are not, like Oreb and
Zeeb, attached also to localities, which always throws a
doubt on the name when attributed to a person as well.
¢ Josephus inverts the distinction. He styles Oreb and
Zeeb βασιλεῖς, and Zebah and Zalmunna ἡγεμόνες (Ant.
Vv. 7, §5)s
1814 ZANOAH
the people, who by others (though who they were
does not appear) were called REPHAIM (Deut. ii. |
20 only). They are described as having originally |
been a powerful and numerous nation of giants :—
‘great, many, and tall,’—inhabiting the district
which at the time of the Hebrew conquest was in
the possession of the Ammonites, by whom the
Zamzummim had a long time previously been de-
stroyed. Where this district was, it is not perhaps
possible exactly to define; but it probably lay in
the neighbourhood of Rabbath-Ammon (Amman),
the only city of the Ammonites of which the
name or situation is preserved to us, and therefore
eastward of that rich undulating country from
which Moab had been forced by the Amorites (the
modern Belka), and of the numerous towns of
that country, whose ruins and names are still
encountered.
From a slight similarity between the two names,
and from the mention of the Emim in connexion with
each, it is usually assumed that the Zamzummim
are identical with the Zuzim (Gesenius, 7168.
410 a; Ewald, Gesch. i. 308 note ; Knobel on Gen.
xiv. 5). Ewald further supports this by identify-
ing Ham, the capital city of the Zuzim (Gen. xiv.
5) with Ammon. But at best the identification is
very conjectural,
Various attempts have been made to explain the
name :—as by comparison with the Arabic 05
>
* Jong-necked ;”” or , “strong and big’
(Simonis, Onom. 130); or as “ obstinate,” from
Dd? (Luther), or as “noisy,” from Dot (Gese- |
nius, 7168. 419), or as Onomatopoetic,* intended
to imitate the unintelligible jabber of foreigners.
Michaelis (Suppl. No. 629) playfully recalls the
likeness of the name to that of the well Zem-zem
at Mecca, and suggests thereupon that the tribe
may have originally come from Southern Arabia.
Notwithstanding this banter, however, he ends his
article with the following discreet words, ‘‘ Nihil
historiae, nihil originis populi novimus: fas sit ety-
mologiam aeque ignorare.” [G.]
ZANO’AH (mist : Ζαμών in both MSS.: Zano).
In the genealogical lists of the tribe of Judah in
1 Chron., Jekuthiel is said to have been the father of
Zanoah (iv. 18); and, as far as the passage can be
made out, some connexion appears to be intended
with “ Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh.” Zanoah
is the name οἵ ἃ town of Judah [ZaANoAn 2], and
this mention of Bithiah probably points to some
colonization of the place by Egyptians or by Israelites
directly from Egypt. In Seetzen’s account of Samite
(or more accurately Za’nitah), which is possibly
identical with Zanoah, there is a curious token of
the influence which events in Egypt still exercised
on the place (Reisen, iii. 29).
The Jewish interpreters considered the whole of
this passage of 1 Chr. iv. to refer to Moses, and in-
terpretseach of the names which it contains as titles
of him. ‘He was chief of Zanoach,” says the
Targum, ‘‘ because for his sake God put away
(At) the sins of Israel.” [G.]
8 In this sense the name was applied by controver-
sialists of the 17th century as a nickname for fanatics
who pretended to speak with tongues.
|
ZAPHNATH-PAANHAH
ZANO'AH (m)31). The name of two towns in
the territory of Judah.
1. (Tavw, Zava; Alex. Ζανω: Zanoe) in the
Shefelah (Josh, xv. 34), named in the same group
with Zoreah and Jarmuth. It is possibly identical
with Zanii’a,» a site which was pointed out to Dr.
Robinson from Beit Nettif (B. R. ii. 16), and which
in the maps of Van de Velde and of Tobler (3tte
Wanderung) is located on the N. side of the Wady
Ismail, 2 miles E. of Zareah, and 4 miles N. of
Yarmuk. This position is sufficiently in accordance
with the statement of Jerome (Onomast. ‘* Zan-
nohua’’), that it was in the district of Eleutheropolis,
on the road to Jerusalem, and called Zanua.
The name recurs in its old connexion in the lists
of Nehemiah, both of the towns which were re-
inhabited by the people of Judah after the Captivity
(xi. 30¢), and of those which assisted in repairing
the wall of Jerusalem (iii. 13). It is an entirely
distinct place from
2. (Zakavaely; Alex. Ζανωακειμ: Zanoe.) A
town in the highland district, the mountain proper
(Josh. xv. 56). It is named in the same group
with Maon, Carmel, Ziph, and other places known
to lie south of Hebron. It is (as Van de Velde
suggests, Memoir, 354) not improbably identical
with Sante, which is mentioned by Seetzen (Lezsen,
iii. 29) as below Senuia, and appears to be about
10 miles S. of Hebron. At the time of his visit it
was the last inhabited place to the south. Robinson
(8. R. ii. 204 note) gives the name differently,
dbeis = Zanitah; and it will be observed
that like Zanwah just mentioned, it contains the
Ain, which the Hebrew name does not, and which
rather shakes the identification.
According to the statement of the genealogical
lists of 1 Chr. Zanoah was founded or colonized by
a person named Jekuthiel (iv. 18). Here it is,
also mentioned with Socho and Eshtemoa, both ot
which places are recognizable in the neighbourhood
of Za’nitah. [G.]
ZAPH'NATH-PAA'NEAH (F395 niby :
Ψονθομφανήχ : Salvator mundi), a name given
by Pharach to Joseph (Gen. xli. 45). Various
forms of this name, all traceable to the Heb. or
LXX. original, occur in the works of the early
Jewish and Christian writers, chiefly Josephus,
from different MSS. and editions of whose Ant.
(ii. 6, §1) no less than eleven forms have been
collected, following both originals, some variations
being very corrupt; but from the translation given
by Josephus it is probable that he transcribed
the Hebrew. Philo (De Nominum Mut. p. 819 ὁ,
ed. Col. 1613) and Theodoret (i. p. 106, ed.
Schulz) follow the LXX., and. Jerome, the Hebrew.
The Coptic version nearly transcribes the LXX.,
Wonewaeda nik:
In the Hebrew text the name is divided into two
parts. Every such division of Egyptian words being
in accordance with the Egyptian orthography ; as
No-Ammon, Pi-beseth, Poti-pherah ; we cannot, if
the name be Egyptian, reasonably propose any
change in this case; if the name be Hebrew, the
is not present in the Hebrew name.
¢ Here the name is contracted to MJT.
ἃ These curious words are produced by joining Zanoah
b Thisname, however (5 i93)5> oan ’ain, which | to the name following it, Cain, or hac-Cain.
ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH
same is certain. There is no prima fucie reason
for any change in the consonants.
The LXX. form seems to indicate the same divi-
sion, as the latter part, φανήχ,, is identical with
the second part of the Hebrew, while what precedes
is different. There is again no prima facie reason
for any change from the ordinary reading of the
name. The cause of the difference from the Hebrew
in the earlier part of the name must be discussed
when we come to examine its meaning.
This name has been explained as Hebrew or
Egyptian, aud always asa proper name. It has
not been supposed to be an official title, but this
possibility has to be considered.
1. The Rabbins interpreted Zaphnath-paaneah as
Hebrew, in the sense “ revealer of a secret.” This
explanation is as old as Josephus (κρυπτῶν εὕρε-
τήν, Ant. ii. 6, 81); and Theodoret also follows
it (τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων ἑρμηνευτὴν; i. p. 106, Schulz).
Philo offers an explanation, which, though seemingly
different, may be the same (ἐν ἀποκρίσει στόμα
κρίνον ; but Mangey conjéctures the true reading
to be ἐν ἀποκρύψει στόμα ἀποκρινόμενον, ἰ. Cc.)
It must be remembered that Josephus perhaps, and
Theodoret and Philo certainly, follow the LXX.
form of the name.
2, Isidore, though mentioning the Hebrew inter-
pretation, remarks that the name should be Egyp-
tian, and offers an Egyptian etymology :—“ Joseph
...hune Pharao Zaphanath Phaaneca appellavit,
quod Hebraice absconditorum repertorem sonat .. .
tamen quia hoc nomen ab Aegyptio ponitur, ipsius
linguae debet habere rationem. Interpretatur ergo
Zaphanath Phaaneca Aegyptio sermone salvator
mundi” (Orig. vii. c. 7, ὃ. iii. p. 327, Arev.).
Jerome adopts the same rendering.
3. Modern scholars have looked to Coptic for
an explanation of this name, Jablonski and others
proposing as the Coptic of the Egyptian original
cw 22 φεπερ, or ποῦ ΄, &.,
ἐς the preservation” or “ preserver of the age.”
This is evidently the etymology intended by Isidore
and Jerome.
We dismiss the Hebrew interpretation, as unsound
in itself, and demanding the improbable concession
that Pharaoh gave Joseph a Hebrew name. :
It is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory result
without first inquiring when this name was given,
and what are the characteristics of Egyptian titles
and names. These points having been discussed,
we can show what ancient Egyptian sounds corre-
spond to the Hebrew and LXX. forms of this name,
and a comparison with ancient Egyptian will then
be possible. }
After the account of Joseph’s appointment to be
governor, of his receiving the insignia of authority,
and Pharaoh’s telling him that he held the second
place in the kingdom, follow these words:—** And
Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah ;
and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of
Poti-pherah priest of On.” It is next stated, “ And
Joseph went out over fall] the land of Egypt”
(Gen. xli. 45). As Joseph’s two sons were born
“before the years of famine came” (ver. 50), it
seems evident that the order is here strictly chrono-
logical, at at least that the events spoken of are of
the time before the famine. It is scarcely to be
supposed that Pharaoh would have named Joseph
‘the preserver of the age,’ or the like, when the
calamity, from the worst effects of which his admi-
nistration preserved Egypt, had not come. The
ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH 1815
name, at first sight, seems to be a proper name,
but, as occurring after the account of Joseph’s ap-
pointment and honours, may be a title.
Ancient Egyptian titles of dignity are generally
connected with the king or the gods, as SUTEN-
SA, king’s son, applied not only to royal princes,
but to the governors of KEESH, or Cush. Titles
of place are generally simply descriptive, as MER-
KETU, “ superintendent of buildings” (‘ public
works” ?). Some few are tropical. Ancient
Egyptian names are either simple or compound.
Simple names are descriptive of occupation, as MA,
“the shepherd,” an early king’s name, or are the
names of natural objects, as PE-MAY (Ὁ), “ the
cat,” &c.; more rarely they indicate qualities of
character, as S-NUFRE, ‘‘doer of good.” Com-
pound names usually express devotion to the gods,
as PET-AMEN-APT, “ Belonging to Amen of
Thebes ;” some are composed with the name of the
reigning king, as SHAFRA-SHA, “ Shafra rules ;”
SESERTESEN-ANKH, ‘‘Sesertesen lives.”’ Others
occur which are more difficult of explanation, as
AMEN-EM-HA, “ Amen in the front,’ a war-
cry? Double names, not merely of kings, but
of private persons, are found, but are very rare, as
SNUFRE ANKHEE, “ Doer of good, living one.”
These double names are usually of the period before
the xviiith dynasty.
Before comparing Zaphnath-paaneah and Pson-
thomphanech with Egyptian names, we must
ascertain the probable Egyptian equivalents of the
letters of these forms. The Egyptian words occur-
ring in Hebrew are few, and the forms of some of
them evidently Shemiticized, or at least changed by
their use by foreigners: a complete and systematic
alphabet of Hebrew equivalents of Egyptian letters
therefore cannot be drawn up. There are, on the
other hand, numerous Shemitie werds, either Hebrew
or of a dialect very near it, the geographical names
of places and tribes of Palestine, given, according to
a system, in the Egyptian inscriptions and papyri,
from which we can draw up, as M. de Reugeé has
done (Revue Archéologique, N.S. iii. 351-354), a
complete alphabet, certain in nearly all its details,
and approximatively true in the few that are not
determined, of the Egyptian equivalents of the
Hebrew alphabet. The two comparative alphabets
do not greatly differ, but we cannot be sure that in
the endeavour to ascertain what Egyptian sounds
are intended by Hebrew letters, or their Greek equi-
valents, we are quite accurate in employing the
latter. For instance, different Egyptian signs are
used to represent the Hebrew Ἵ and 2, but it is
by no means certain that these signs in Egyptian
represented any sound but R, except in the vulgar
dialect.
It is important to observe that the Egyptians had a
hard “‘t,” the parent of the Coptic % and G, which
we represent by an italic 7; that they had an
“<a” corresponding to the Hebrew Y, which we re-
present by an italic A; and that the Hebrew 5 may
be represented by the Egyptian P, also pronounced
P'h, and by the F. The probable originals of the
Egyptian name of Joseph may be thus stated :—
Seale ele a ay Mee) In!
ΡΝ Ἃ Βα Ages ἘΠΕ
Ε
Ψονθ ομ Oa VN
SEN eel 12 N KH
; F
1816 ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH
The second part of the name in the Hebrew is
the same as in the LXX., although in the latter it
is not separate: we therefore examine it first. It
is identical with the ancient Egyptian proper name
P-ANKHEE, “the living,” borne by a king who
was an Ethiopian ruling after Tirhakah, and pro-
bably contemporary with the earlier part of the
reign of Psammetichus I. The only doubtful point
in the identification is that it is not certain that
the “4 in P-ANKHEE is that which represents
the Hebrew Y. It is a symbolic sign of the kind
which serves as an initial, and at the same time
determines the signification of the word it partly
expresses and sometimes singly represents, and it is
only used in the single sense ““ life,” ‘to live.’ It
may, however, be conjectured from its Coptic equiva-
lents to have begun with either a long or a guttural
“a” (ANAS, Β, 5, AND, B, ONL,
ONY, 8, OND, wit M, wig, B,
WITS, 5).
The second part of the name, thus explained,
affords no clue to the meaning of the first part, being
a separate name, as in the case of a double name
already cited SNUFRE ANKHEE. The LXX. form
of the first part is at once recognized in the ancient
Egyptian words P-SENT-N, ‘the defender” or
“ preserver of,’ the Coptic TT cus QM, ‘the
preserver of.’ It is to be remarked that the ancient
Egyptian form of the principal word is that found in
the LXX., but that the preposition N in hieroglyphics,
however pronounced, is always written N, whereas in
Coptic ΓΓ becomes RK before TI. The word SENT
does not appear to be used except as a divine, and,
under the Ptolemies, regai title, in the latter case
for Soter. The Hebrew form seems to represent a
compound name commencing with ZETEF, or
THF, “he says,” a not infrequent element in com-
pound names (the root being found in the Coptic
XO, XOT :S XOO, XOT), or TEF, “ in-
cense, delight” (?) the name of the sacred incense,
also known to us in the Greek form κῦφι (Plutarch,
de Isid. et Osir. c. 80, p. 383; Diosc. M. m. I. 24,
Spr.) But, if the name commence with either of
these words, the rest seems inexplicable. It is
remarkable that the last two consonants are the
same as in Asenath, the name of Joseph’s wife. It
has been supposed that in both cases this element is
the name of the goddess Neith, Asenath having been
conjectured to be AS-NEET; and Zaphnath, by
Mr. Osburn, webelieve, 7 EF-NEET, “the delight (?)
of Neith.” Neith, the goddess of Sais, is not likely
to have been reverenced at Heliopolis, the city of
Asenath. It is also improbable that Pharaoh would
have given Joseph a name connected with idolatry ;
for Joseph’s position, unlike Daniel’s, when he was
first called Belteshazzar, would have enabled him
effectually to protest against receiving such a name.
The latter part of the name might suggest the pos-
sibility of the letters “aneah” corresponding to
ANKH, and the whole preceding portion, Zaphnath
and the initial of this part, forming the name of
Joseph’s Pharaoh ; the form being that of SESER-
TESEN-ANKH, “ Sesertesen lives,” already men-
tioned ; but the occurrence of the letter P shows
that the form is P-ANKHEE, and were this not
sufficient proof, no name of a Pharaoh, or other
proper name is known that can be compared with
the supposed first portion. We have little doubt
ZAREPHATH
that the monuments will unexpectedly supply us
with the information we need, giving us the original
Egyptian name, though probably not applied to
Joseph, of whose period there are, we believe, but
few Egyptian records. ΞΈΡΩ
ZA'PHON (ps : Bapdy; Alex. Σαφων :
Saphon). The name of a place mentioned in the
enumeration of the allotment of the tribe of Gad
(Josh. xiii. 27). It is one of the places in ‘“ the
valley ” which appear to have constituted the ‘ re-
mainder (1M*) of the kingdom of Sihon ’’—appa-
rently referring to the portion of the same kingdom
previously allotted to Reuben (vers. 17-21). The
enumeration appears to proceed trom south to north,
and from the mention of the Sea of Chinneroth it is
natural to infer that Zaphon was near that lake.
No name resembling it has yet been encountered.
In Judg. xii. 1, the word rendered “ northward ”
(tsdphonah) may with equal accuracy be rendered
“to Zaphon.” This rendering is supported by the
Alex. LXX. (kedewa) and a host of other MSS.,
and it has consistency on its side. [G.]
ZA'RA (Ζαρά: Zara). ZARAH the son of
Judah (Matt. i. 3).
ZAR'ACES (Zapains : Zaraceles). Brother
of Joacim, or Jehoiakim, king of Judah (1 Esd. i.
38). His name is apparently a corruption of
Zedekiah.
ZA'RAH (Mt: Zapa: Zara). Properly ZERAH,
the son of Judah by Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 30,
xlvi. 12).
ZARAT'AS (Vat. omits; Alex. Ζαραιάς : Vule.
omits). 1. ZERAHIAH, one of the ancestors of Ezra
(1 Esd. viii. 2); called ARNA in 2 Esd. i. 2.
2. (Zapatas: Zaraeus.) ZERAHIAH, the father
of Elihoenai (1 Esd. viii. 31).
8. (Zapaias: Zarias.) ZEBADIAH, the son of
Michael (1 Esd. viii. 34).
ZA’REAH (AYN: Vat. omits; Alex. Σαραα *
Saraa). The form in which our translators have
once (Neh. xi. 29) represented the name, which
they elsewhere present (less accurately) as ZORAH
and ZOREAH. [G.]
ZA'REATHITES, THE ONY TSH : οἱ Σα-
ραθαῖοι: Saraitae). The inhabitants of ZaAREAH
or ZoRAH. The word occurs in this form only in
1 Chr. ii. 53. Elsewhere the same Hebrew word
appears in the A, V. as THE ZoRATHITES. [G.]
ZA'RED, THE VALLEY OF (771 ὉΠ):
φάραγξ Zapér; Alex. φ. Ζαρε: torrens Zared).
The name is accurately ZERED; the change in
the first syllable being due to its occurring at a
pause. It is found in the A. V. in this form only
in Num. xxi. 12; though in the Hebr. it occurs
also Deut. ii. 13. [G.]
ZAR’EPHATH (ABTS, ἢ, ὁ. Tsarfah: 5Σα-
ρεπτά; inObad. plural: Sarephtha). A town which
derives its claim to notice from haying been the
residence of the prophet Elijah during the latter
put of the drought (1 K. xvii. 9, 10). Beyond
stating that it was near to, or dependent on, Zidon
(I7"¥), the Bible gives no clue to its position.
* In 1 K. xvii. 9, the Alex. MS. bas 2ef@a, but in the
other two passages agrees with the Vat.
ZARETAN .
It is mentioned by Obadiah (ver. 20), but merely
as a Canaanite (that is Phoenician) city. Josephus
(Ant. viii. 13, §2), however, states that it was
“not far from Sidon and Tyre, for it lies be-
tween them.” And to this Jerome adds (Onom.
“ Sarefta”) that it ‘‘ lay on the public road,” that
is the coast-road. Both these conditions are implied
in the mention of it in the Itinerary of Paula by
Jerome (Epit. Paulae, §8), and both are fulfilled
in the situation of the modern village of Sura-
fend» (O43 vo), aname which, except in its termi--
nation, is almost identical with the ancient Phoenician.
Stirafend has been visited and described by Dr.
Robinson (BL. R. ii. 475) and Dr. Thomson (Land
and Book, ch. xii.). It appears to have changed its
place, at least since the 11th century, for it is
now more than a mile from the coast, high up on
the slope of a hill (Rob, 474), whereas, at the time
of the Crusades, it was on the shore. Of the old
town, considerable indications remain. One group
of foundations is on a headland called Ain el-
Kentarah; but the chief remains are south of this,
and extend for a mile or more, with many frag-
ments of columns, slabs, and other architectural
features. The Roman road is said to be unusually
perfect there (Beamont, Diary, &c., ii. 186). The
site of the chapel erected by the Crusaders on the
spot then reputed to be the site of the widow’s
house, is probably still preserved.¢ (See the cita-
tions of Robinson.) It is near the water’s edge,
and is now marked by a wely and small khan dedi-
cated to el Khudr, the well-known personage who
unites, in the popular Moslem faith, Elijah and 8.
George.
In the N. T. Zarephath appears under the Greek
form of SAREPTA, [G.]
ZAR'ETAN ΟΠ, ἡ ὁ. Tsarthan: LXX. omits
in both MSS.: Sarthan). An inaccurate repre-
sentation of the name elsewhere more correctly
given as ZARTHAN. In occurs only in Josh, iii.
16, in defining the position of Adam, the city by
which the upper waters of the Jordan remained
during the passage of the Israelites :—‘“ The waters
rushing down from above stood and rose up upon
one heap very far off—by Adam, the city that is
by the side of Zarthan.’ No trace of these names
has been found, nor is anything known of the situ-
ation of Zarthan.
It is remarkable that the LXX. should exhibit
no4 trace of the name, [G.]
ZA'RETH-SHA'HAR one NWS, 7. ὁ. Ze-
reth has-shachar: Zepada καὶ Ste ‘Alex. Σαρθ
καὶ Siwy: Sereth Assahar). A place mentioned
only in Josh. xiii, 19, in the catalogue of the towns
allotted to Reuben. It is named between SIBMAH
and BertPEror, and is particularly specified as “in
Mount ha-Emek” (A. V. “in the Mount of the
Valley’’). From this, however, no clue can be
gained to its position. Seetzen (Reisen, ii. 369)
proposes, though with hesitation (see his note), to
identify it with a spot called Sara at the mouth of
the Wady Zerka Main, about a mile from the
edge of the Dead Sea. A place Shaktr is marked
on Van de Velde’s map, about six miles south of
es Salt, at the head of the valley of the Wady
Ὁ The name is given as Sarphand by Ibn Edris;
Sarphen by Maundeville; and Sarphan by Maundrell.
e A grotto (as usual) at the foot of the bill on which
the modern village stands is now shewn as the residence
ZATTHU 1817
Seir, But nothing can be said of either of these in
the present state of our knowledge. [G.]
ZAR'HITES, THE (747: 6 Ζαραΐ; Alex.
ὋὉ Zapael, Ζαριεί in Josh.: Zareitae, Zare, stirps
Zarai and Zarai). A branch of the tribe of
Judah: descended from Zerah the son of Judah
Num. xxvi. 13, 20; Josh. vii. 17; 1 Chr. xxvii.
11,13). Achan was of this family, and it was
represented in David’s time by two distinguished
warriors, Sibbechai the Hushathite and Maharai
the Netophathite.
ZART'ANAH (INT : Alex.
Ἑσλιανθαν : Sarthana). A place named in 1 K.
iv. 12, to define the position of BETHSHEAN. It
is possibly identical with ZARTHAN, but nothing
positive can be said on the point, and the name has
not been discovered in postbiblical times. [G.]
ZAR'THAN (ἸΠῚΝ : Sepa; Alex. Σιαραμ:
Sarthan). ;
1. A place in the ciccar or circle of Jordan, men-
tioned in connexion with Succoth (1 Καὶ, vii. 46).
2. It is also named, in the account of the passage
of the Jordan by the Israelites (Josh. iii. 16), as
defining the position of the city Adam, which
was beside (71D) it. The difference which the
translators of the A. V. have introduced into the
name in this passage (ZARETAN) has no existence
in the original.
3. A place with the similar name of ZARTANAH
(which in the Hebrew differs from the two forms
already named only in its termination) is mentioned
in the list of Solomon’s commissariat districts. It
is there specified as ‘“ close to” ὦν) Bethshean,
that is, in the upper part of the Jordan valley.
4. Further, in Chronicles, Zeredathah is sub-
stituted for Zarthan, and this again is not impos-
sibly identical with the Zererah, Zererath, or Zere-
rathah, of the story of Gideon. All these spots
agree in proximity to the Jordan, but beyond
this we are absolutely at fault as to their posi-
tion. ADAM is unknown; SUCCOTH is, to say the
least, uncertain; and no name approaching Zar-
than has yet been encountered, except it be Swr-
tabeh ( ΔΑ > yA
hill which projects from the main highlands into
the Jordan valley, about 17 miles north of Jericho
(Van de Velde, Memoir, 354). But Surtabeh, it
connected with any ancient name, would seem
rather to represent some compound of the ancient
Hebrew or Phoenician Zsor, which in Avabic is re-
Σεσαθάν ;
), the name of a lofty and isolated
presented by Sur
modern Tyre.
C2)» as in the name of the
[G.]
ZATH'OE (Ζαθόη : Zachues). This name occurs
in 1 Esd. viii. 32, for ZatTru, which appears to
have been omitted in the Hebrew text of Ezr. viii.
5, which should read, ‘‘ Of the sons of Zattu, She-
chaniah the son of Jahaziel.”
ZATHU'T ΠΡ τ ΩΝ
v. 12; comp. Ezr. ii. 8).
ZAT'THU rea! :
Zethu). Klsewhere ZATTU (Hehe
ZATTU (1 Esdr.
Zabovia; Alex. Ζαθθουία :
wildy
of Elijah (Van de Velde, S. & P.i. 102).
ἃ This is not only the case in the two principal MSS. ;
the edition of Holmes and Parsons sbews it in one only,
and that a cursive MS, of the 13th cent.
1818 - ZLATTU
ZAT'TU (SIM: Ζατθουά, Ζαθούα, Zabovia ;
Alex. Ζατθουά, Ζαθθούα ; FA. Ζαθουια, ZaGovera:
᾿ Ζοίμιια). The sons of Zattu were a family of lay-
men of Israel who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr.
ii. 8; Neh. vii. 13). A second division accom-
panied Ezra, though in the Hebrew text of Ezr.
viii. 5 the name has been omitted. [ZATHOE. |
Several membeis of this family had married foreign
wives (Ezr. x. 27).
ZA'VAN =ZaAavaN (1 Chr. i. 42).
ΖΔ ΖΑ (RI: ‘O(a; Alex. Ὁζ(αζά: Ziza). |’
One of the sons of Jonathan, a descendant of Jerah-
meel (1 Chr. ii. 33).
ZEBADI'AH (MTT : Ζαβαδία : Zabadia).
1. A Benjamite of the sons of Beriah (1 Chr. viii.
15). ;
2. A Benjamite of the sons of Elpaal (1 Chr.
viii. 17). Ξ
8. One of the sons of Jeroham of Gedor, a Ben-
jamite who joined the fortunes of David in his
retreat at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 7).
4. (ZaBodlus; Alex. Ζαβδίας : Zabadias.) Son
of Asahel the brother of Joab (1 Chr. xxvii. 7).
5. (Zebedia.) Son of Michael of the sons of
Shephatiah (Ezr. viii. 8). He returned with 80
of his clan in the second caravan with Ezra. In
1 Esdr. viii. 34 he is called ZARAIAS.
6. (ZoBdla; FA. ZaBdeta.) A priest of the sons
of Immer who had married a foreign wife atter the
retwmn from Babylon (Ezr. x. 20), Called ZAB-
DEUS in 1 Esdr, ix. 21.
We GANTT: Ζαβαδία; Alex. ZaBadias: Za-
badias.) Third son of Meshelemiah the Korhite
(1 Chr. xxvi. 2).
8. (ZaBdias.) A Levite in the reign of Jehosh-
aphat who was sent to teach the Law in the cities
of Judah (2 Chr, xvii. 8).
9. The son of Ishmael and prince of the house
of Judah in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xix.
11). In conjunction with Amariah the chief priest,
he was appointed to the superintendence of the
Levites, priests and chief men who had to decide all
causes, civil and ecclesiastical, which were brought
before them. They possibly may have formed a
kind of court of appeal, Zebadiah acting for the in-
terests of the king, and Amariah being the supreme
authority in ecclesiastical matters.
ZEH'BAH (Mat: ZeBeé: Zebec). One of the
two “kings” of Midian who appear to have com-
manded the great invasion of Palestine, and who
{inally fell by the hand of Gideon himself. He is
always coupled with Zalmunna, and is mentioned
in Judg. viii. 5-21; Ps. lxxxiii. 11.
It is a remarkable instance of the unconscious
artlessness of the narrative contained in Judg. vi.
33-viii. 28, that no mention is made of any of the
chiefs of the Midianites during the early part of the
story, or indeed until Gideon actually comes into
contact with them. We then discover (vii. 18)
that while the Bedouins were ravaging the crops in
the valley of Jezreel, before Gideon’s attack, three#
or more of his brothers had been captured by the
Arabs and put to death, by the hands of Zebah and
Zalmunna themselves. But this material fact is
only incidentally mentioned, and is of a piece with
the later references by prophets and psalmists to
a It is perhaps allowable to infer this from the use of
the plural (not the dual) to the word brethren (ver. 19).
ZEBAIM
other events in the same struggle, the interest and
value of which have been alluded to under OREB.
Ps. Ixxxiii, 12, purports to have preserved the
very words of the ery with which Zebah and Zal-
munna rushed up at the head of their hordes from
the Jordan into the luxuriant growth of the great
plain, “‘ Seize these goodly > pastures”’ !
While Oreb and Zeeb, two of the inferior leaders
of the incursion, had been slain, with a vast number
of their people, by the Ephraimites, at the central
fords of the Jordan (not improbably those near Jisr
Damieh), the two kings had succeeded in making
their escape by a passage further to the north (pro-
bably the ford near Bethshean), and thence by
the Wady Yabis, through Gilead, to Karkor, a
place which is not fixed, but which lay doubtless
high up on the Hauran. Here they were reposing
with 15,000 men, a mere remnant of their huge
horde, when Gideon overtook them. Had they re-
sisted there is little doubt that they might have
easily overcome the little band of “ fainting”
heroes who had toiled after them up the tre-
mendous passes of the mountains; but the name
of Gideon was still full of terror, and the Bedouins
were entirely unprepared for his attack—they fled
in dismay, and the two kings were taken.
Such was the Third Act of the great Tragedy.
Two more remain. First the return down the
long defiles leading to the Jordan. We see the
cavalcade of camels, jingling the golden chains and
the crescent-shaped collars or trappings hung round
their necks. High aloft rode the captive chiefs clad
in their brilliant £cfiyehs and embroidered abbayehs,
and with their “ collars” or ‘‘ jewels”’ in nose and
ear, on neck and arm. Gideon probably strode on
foot by the side of his captives. They passed Penuel,
where Jacob had seen the vision of the face of God;
they passed Succoth; they crossed the rapid stream
of the Jordan; they ascended the highlands west
of the river, and at length reached Ophrah, the
native village of their captor (Joseph. Ant. iv. 7, $5).
Then at last the question which must have been on
Gideon’s tongue during the whole of the retuin
found a vent. There is no appearance of its having
been alluded to before, but it gives, as nothing else
could, the key to the whole pursuit. [Ὁ was the
death of his brothers, “ the children of his mother,”
that had supplied the personal motive for that
steady perseverance, and had led Gideon on to his
goal against hunger, faintness, and obstacles of all
kinds. ‘‘ What manner of men were they which
ye slew at Tabor?’’ Up to this time the sheikhs
may have believed that they were reserved for
ransom; but these words once spoken there can
have been no doubt what their fate was to be.
They met it like noble children of the Desert, with-
out fear or weakness, One request alone they make
—that they may die by the sure blow of the hero
himself—* and Gideon arose and slew them ;” and
not till he had revenged his brothers did any
thought of plunder enter his heart—then, and not
till then, did he lay hands on the treasures which
ornamented their camels. [G.]
ZE'BAIM (D337, in Neh. DMA : υἱοὶ
᾿Ασεβωεὶν ; Alex. Ασεβωειμ; in Neh. vi. Σαβαείμ:
Asebaim, Sabaim). The sons of Pochereth of hat-
Tsebaim are mentioned in the catalogue of the
families of “ Solomon’s slaves,” who returned from
b Such is the meaning of “pastures of God” in the early
idiom.
ZEBEDEE
the Captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 57; Neh.
vii. 59). The name is in the original all but
identical with that of ZmBorm,¢ the fellow-city of
Sodom; and as many of “ Solomon’s slaves ” appear
to have been of Canaanite stock, it is possible that
the family of Pochereth were descended from one of
the people who escaped from Zeboim in the day of
the great catastrophe in the Valley of the Jordan.
This, however, can only be accepted as conjecture,
and on the other hand the two names Pochereth
hat-Tsebaim are considered by some to have no
reference to place, but to signify the “ snarer or
hunter of roes” (Gesenius, Ties. 1102 ὁ; Bertheau,
Leg. Handb. Ezy. ii. 57). [G.]
ZEBEDER (*3} or HVAT: ZeBedaios). A
fisherman of Galilee, the father of the Apostles
James the Great and John (Matt. iv. 21), and the
husband of Salome (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40).
He probably lived either at Bethsaida or in its
immediate neighbourhood. It has been inferred
from the mention of his ‘hired servants” (Mark
i. 20), and from the acquaintance between the
Apostle John and Annas the high-priest (John xviii.
15) that the family of Zebedee were in easy circum-
stances (comp. John xix. 27), although not above
manual labour (Matt. iv. 21). Although the name
of Zebedee frequently occurs as a patronymic, for
the sake of distinguishing his two sons from others
who bore the same names, he appears only once in
the Gospel narrative, namely in Matt. iv. 21, 22,
Mark i. 19, 20, where he is seen in his boat with
his two sons mending their nets. On this occasion
he allows his sons to leave him at the bidding of
the Saviour, without raising any objection; although
it does not appear that he was himself ever of the
number of Christ’s disciples. His wife, indeed,
appears in the catalogue of the pious women who
were in constant attendance on the Saviour towards
the close of His ministry, who watched Him on the
cross, and ministered to Him even in the grave
(Matt. xxvii. 55, 66; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1; comp.
Matt. xx. 20, and Luke viii. 3). It is reasonable
to infer that Zebedee was dead before this time. It
is worthy of notice, and may perhaps be regarded
as a minute confirmation of the evangelical narra-
tive, that the name of Zebedee is almost identical
in signification with that of John, since it is likely
that a father would desire that his own name
should be, as it were, continued, although in an
altered form. [JOHN THE AposTLE.] [W. Β. J.]
ZEB'INA (NPAT: ZeBevvds; Alex. omits:
Zabina), One of the sons of N ebo, who had taken
foreign wives after the return from Babylon (Ezr,
x. 48).
ZE'BOIM. This word represents in the A. V.
two names which in the original are quite distinct.
1- Gr ee ὌΝΩΝ, and,-in the Keri,
DNA: *ZeBwelu; Alex. Σεβωιμ, Σεβωειμ:
Seboim). One of the five cities of the « plain” or
circle of Jordan. It is mentioned in Gen. x. ig)
xiv. 2,8; Deut. xxix. 235 and Hos. xi. 8, in each
of which passages it is either coupled with Admah,
or placed next it in the lists. The name of its king,
Shemeber, is preserved (Gen. xiv. 2); and it perhaps
ZEBUL 1819
appears again, as ZEBAIM, in the lists of the menials
of the Temple.
No attempt appears to have been made to dis-
cover the site of Zeboim, till M. de Sauley sug-
gested the Zalada Sebaan, a name which he, and he
alone, reports as attached to extensive ruins on
the high ground between the Dead Sea-and Kerak
( Voyage, Jan. 22; Map, sht. 7). Before however
this can be accepted, M. de Sauley must explain
how a place which stood’ in the plain or circle of
the Jordan, can have been situated on the highlands
at least 50 miles from that river. [See Sopom and
ZOAR. |
In Gen. xiv. 2, 8, the name is given in the A. V.
ZEBOMM, a-more accurate representative of the
form in which it appears in the original both there
and in Deut. xxix. 23. ;
2. THE VALLEY OF ZEBOIM (DIPANT 13: Tat
τὴν Σαμείν ; the passage is lost in Alex.: Vallis
Seboim). The name differs from the preceding, not
only in having the definite article attached to it,
but also in containing the characteristic and stub-
born letter Ain, which imparts a definite character
to the word in pronunciation. It was a ravine or
gorge, apparently east of Michmash, mentioned only
in 1 Sam. xiii. 18. It is there described with a
curious minuteness, which is unfortunately no longer’
intelligible. The road running from Michmash to
the east, is specified as ‘‘the road of the border
that looketh to the ravine of Zeboim towards the
wilderness.” The wilderness (midbar) is no doubt
the district of uncultivated mountain tops and sides
which lies between the central district of Benjamin
and the Jordan Valley ; and here apparently the
ravine of Zeboim should be sought. In that very
district there is a wild gorge, bearing the name of
~
Shuk ed-Dubba’ ( Ewa LRA), “ravine of the
hyena,” the exact equivalent of Ge hat-tsebo’im.
Up this gorge runs the path by which the writer
was conducted from Jericho to M/ukhmas, in 1858.
It does not appear that the name has been noticed by
other travellers, but it is worth investigation. [G.]
ZEB'UDAH ΟἼΞ ΣΙ, Keri WUT: ᾿Ἰελδάφ ;
Alex. EieAdap: Zebida). Daughter of Pedaiah of
Rumah, wife of Josiah and mother of king Jehoi-
akim (2 Καὶ. xxiii. 36). The Peshito-Syriac and
Arabic of the London Polyglot read ΠῚ 27 : the
Targum has M73}.
‘ZE'BUL bay : ZeBovrA: Zebul). Chief man
wy, A.V. “ ruler”) of the city of Shechem at the
time of the contest between Abimelech and the
native Canaanites. His name occurs Judge. ix. 28,
30, 36, 58, 41. He governed the town as the
“officer ” (49): ἐπίσκοπος) of Abimelech while
the latter was absent, and he took part against the
Canaanites by shutting them out of the city when
Abimelech was encamped outside it. His conversa-
tion with Gaal the Canaanite leader, as they stood
in the gate of Shechem watching the approach of
the armed bands, gives Zebul a certain indivi-
duality amongst the many characters of that time
of confusion. [G.]
¢ Even to the double yod. This name, on the other
hand, is distinct from the Zezorm of Benjamin.
ἃ See this noticed more at length under Mrxnunm,
SISERA, Xe.
* InGen. x. 19 only, this appears in Vat. (Mai) Ζεβωνιείμ.
b The writer was accompanied by Mr. Consul E. T.
Rogers, well known as one of the best living scholars in
the common Arabic, who wrote down the name for him
at the moment.
1820 ZEBULONITE
ZE'BULONITE (353237, with the def.
article: 5 ZaBovAwveirns , Alex. in both verses,
ὁ Ζαβουνιτης : Zabulonites), i. e. member of the
tribe of Zebulun. Applied only to ELON, the one
judge produced by the tribe (Judg. xii. 11, 12).
The article being found in the original, the sentence
should read, ‘* Elon the Zebulonite.” [G.]
ZE'BULUN (557, yaar, and epdaar: Ζα-
βουλών : Zabulon). The tenth of the sons of
Jacob, according to the order in which their births
are enumerated ; the sixth and last of Leah (Gen.
xxx. 20, xxxv. 23, xlvi. 14; 1 Chr. ii. 1). His
birth is recorded in Gen, xxx. 19, 20, where the
origin of the name is as usual ascribed to an ex-
clamation of his mother’s—* ¢ Now will my hus-
band ἃ dwell-with-me (izbeléni), for I have borne
him six sons!’ and she called his name Zebulun.”
Of the individual Zebulun nothing is recorded.
The list of Gen. xlvi. ascribes to him three sons,
founders of the chief families of the tribe (comp.
Num. xxvi. 26) at the time of the migration to
Egypt. In the Jewish traditions he is named as
the first of the five who were presented by Joseph
to Pharaoh—Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher being
the others (Targ. Pseudojon. on Gen. xlvii. 2).
During the journey from Egypt to Palestine the
tribe of Zebulun formed one of the first camp, with
Judah and Issachar (also sons of Leah), marching
under the standard of Judah. Its numbers, at the
census of Sinai, were 57,000, surpassed only by
Simeon, Dan, and Judah. At that of Shittim they
were 60,500, not having diminished, but not having
increased nearly so much as might naturally be ex-
pected. The head of the tribe at Sinai was Eliab
son of Helon (Num. vii. 24); at Shiloh, Elizaphan
son of Parnach (Ib. xxxiv. 25). Its representa-
tive amongst the spies was Gaddiel son of Sodi
(xiii. 10), Besides what may be implied in its ap-
pearances in these lists, the tribe is not recorded to
have taken part, for evil or good, in any of the
events of the wandering or the conquest. Its
allotment was the third of the second distribution
(Josh. xix. 10). Judah, Joseph, Benjamin, had
acquired the south and the centre of the country.
To Zebulun fell one of the fairest of the remaining
portions. It is perhaps impossible, in the present
state of our knowledge, exactly to define its limits ; ¢
but the statement of Josephus (Ant. v. 1, §22) is
probably in the main correct, that it reached on the
one side to the lake of Genesareth, and on the
other to Carmel and the Mediterranean, On the
south it was bounded by Issachar, who lay in the
great plain or valley of the Kishon; on the north
it had Naphtali and Asher. In this district the
tribe possessed the outlet (the ‘‘ going-out,” Deut.
xxxili. 18) of the plain of Akka; the fisheries of
the lake of Galilee; the splendid agricultural capa-
bilities of the great plain of the Buttauf (equal in
|the whole country.‘
| Tazor, Zebulun appears to have shared with Issa-
ZEBULUN
fertility, and almost equal in extent, to that of
Jezreel, and with the immense advantage of not
being, as that was, the high road of the Bedouins) ;
and, last not least, it included sites so strongly for-
tified by nature, that in the later struggles of the
nation they proved more impregnable than any in
The sacred mountain of
char (Deut. xxxiii. 19), and it and Rimmon were
allotted to the Merarite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 77).
But these ancient sanctuaries of the tribe were
eclipsed by those which arose within it afterwards,
when the name of Zebulun was superseded by that
of Galilee. Nazareth, Cana, Tiberias, and probably
the land of Genesareth itself, were all situated
within its limits.
The fact recognized by Josephus that Zebulun
extended to the Mediterranean, though not men-
tioned or implied, as far as we can discern, in the
lists of Joshua and Judges, is alluded to in the
Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 13) :—
“ Zebulun dwells at the shore of the seas,
Even he at the shore of ships:
And his thighs are upon Zidon ”
—a passage which seems to show that at the date
at which it was written, the tribe was taking a part
in Phoenician commerce. The “ way of the sea”
(Is. ix. 1), the great road from Damascus to the
Mediterranean, traversed a good portion of the ter-
ritory of Zebulun, and must have brought its people
into contact with the merchants and the commodities
of Syria, Phoenicia, and Egypt.
Situated so far from the centre of government,
Zebulun remains throughout the history, with one
exception, in the obscurity which envelopes the
whole of the northern tribes. That exception, how-
ever, is a remarkable one. The conduct of the
tribe during the struggle with Sisera, when they
fought with desperate valour side by side with
their brethren of Naphtali, was such as to draw
down the especial praise of Deborah, who singles
them out from all the other tribes (Judg. v. 18) :—
« Zebulun is a people that threw away its life even unto
death:
And Naphtali, on the high places of the field.”
The same poem contains an expression which seems
to imply that, apart from the distinction gained
by their conduct in this contest, Zebulun was al-
yeady in a prominent position among the tribes :—
“ Out of Machir came down governors ;
And out of Zebulun those that handle the pen (or the
wand) of the scribe ;”
referring probably to the officers, who registered
and marshalled the warriors of the host (comp.
Josh, i. 10). One of these ‘‘ scribes’? may have
been Exon, the single judge produced by the tribe,
who is recorded as having held office for ten years
(Judg. xii. 11, 12).
© Of these three forms the first is employed in Genesis,
Isaiah, Psalms, and Chronicles, except Gen. xlix. 13, and
1 Chr. xxvii. 19; also occasionally in Judges: the second is
found in the rest of the Pentateuch, in Joshua, Judges,
Ezekiel, and the above place in Chronicles. The third and
more extended form is found in Judg. i. 30 only. The
first and second are used indiscriminately: e. gr. Judg.
iv. 6 and ν. 18 exhibit the first; Judg. iv. 10 and v. 14 the
second form.
4 This play is not preserved in the original of the
“Blessing of Jacob,” though the language of the A. V.
“implies it. The word rendered ‘ dwell” in Gen. xlix. 13 is
ἸΞ3 vw, with no relation to the name Zebulun. The LXX.
put a different point on the exclamation of Leah: “ My
husband will choose me” (αἱρετιεῖ pe). ‘This, however,
hardly implies any difference in the original text. Jo-
sephus (Ant. i. 19, §8) gives only a general explanation :
“a pledge of goodwill towards her.”
e Few of the towns in the catalogue of Josh. xix. 10-16
have been identified. The tribe is omitted in the lists of
1 Chronicles,
f Sepphoris, Jotapata, &c.
& In the “Testament of Zabulon’”’ (Fabricius, Pseud-
epigr. V. T. i. 630-45) great stress is laid on his skill in
fishing, and he is commemorated as the first to navigate
a skiff on the sea,
ZEBULUNITES
A similar reputation is alluded to in the mention
of the tribe among those who attended the inaugu-
ration of David’s reign-at Hebron. The expressions
are again peculiar :—‘‘ Of Zebulun such as went
forth to war, rangers of battle, with all tools of
war, 50,000; who could set the battle in array ;
they were not of double heart” (1 Chr. xii. 33).
| the name of Zechariah the son of Iddo, and the other
The same passage, however, shows that while pro-
ficient in the arts of war they did not neglect those
of peace, but that on the wooded hills and fertile
plains of their district they produced bread, meal,
figs, grapes, wine, oil, oxen, and sheep in abundance
(ver. 40). The head of the tribe at this time was
Ishmaiah ben-Obadiah (1 Chr. xxvii. 19).
We are nowhere directly told that the people of
Zebulun were carried off to Assyria.
ZECHARIAH 1821
text of Zechariah from Isaiah viii. 2, where men-
tion is made of a Zechariah “the son of Jebere-
chiah,” which is virtually the same name (LXX.
Βαραχίου) as Berechiah.* His theory is that
chapters ix.-xi. of our present Book of Zechariah are
really the work of the older Zechariah (Is. viii. 2) ;
that a later scribe finding the two books, one bearing
that of Zechariah the son of Berechiah, united them
into one, and at the same time combined the titles
of the two, and that hence arose the confusion
which at present exists. This, however, is hardly
a probable hypothesis. It is surely more natural to
| suppose, as the Prophet himself mentions his
Tiglath- |
pileser swept away the whole of Naphtali (2 K. xv.
29; Tob. i. 2), and Shalmaaeser in the same way
took ‘*Samaria”’ (xvii. 6); but though the de-
portation of Zebulun and Issachar is not in so many
words asserted, there is the statement (xvii. 18) |
that the whole of the northern tribes were removed ;
and there is also the well-known allusion of Isaiah |
to the affliction of Zebulun and Naphtali (ix. 1),
which can hardly point to anything but the in-
vasion of Tiglath-pileser. It is satisfactory to re-
flect that the very latest mention of the Zebulunites
is the account of the visit of a large number of |
them to Jerusalem to the passover of Hezekiah, |
when, by the enlightened liberality of the king,
they were enabled to eat the feast, even though,
through long neglect of the provisions of the Law,
they were not cleansed in the manner prescribed
by the ceremonial law.—In the visions of Ezekiel
(xlviii. 26-33) and of St. John (Rev. vii. 8) this
tribe finds its due mention. [G.]
ZE'BULUNITES, THE (*353237, i.e. “ the
Zebulonite :” Ζαβουλών : Zabulon). The members
of the tribe of Zebulun (Num. xxvi. 27 only). It
would be more literally, accurate if spelt ZeBu-
LONITES. [G.]
ZECHARIAH (1931: Ζαχαρίας : Zacha-
rias). 1. The eleventh in order of the twelve minor
prophets. Of his personal history we know but little.
He is called in his prophecy the son of Berechiah,
and the grandson of Iddo, whereas in the Book of
Ezra (v. 1, vi. 14) he is said to have been the son
of Iddo. Various attempts have been made to re-
concile this discrepaney. Cyril of Alexandria (Pref.
Comment. ad Zech.) supposes that Berechiah was the
father of Zechariah, according to the flesh, and that
Iddo was his instructor, and might be regarded as
his spiritual father. Jerome too, according to some
MSS., has in Zech, i. 1, “ filium Barachiae, filium
Addo,” as if he supposed that Berechiah and Iddo
were different names of the same person; and the
same mistake occurs in the LXX.: τὸν τοῦ Bapo-
xlov, υἱὸν ᾿Αδδώ. Gesenius (Ler. 5. v. {2) and
Rosenmiiller (On Zech, i. 1) take "3 in the pas-
sages in Ezra to mean “ grandson,” as in Gen. xxix.
5, Laban is termed “ the son,” 7. ὁ. “ grandson,” of
Nahor. Others, again, have suggested that in the
text of Ezra no mention is made of Berechiah, be-
cause he was already dead, or because Iddo was the
more distinguished person, and the generally re-
cognized head of the family. Knobel thinks that
the name of Berechiah has crept into the present
@ As Hezekiah (Is, i. 1, Hos. i. 1) and Jehezekiah (2 K.
|
father’s name, whereas the historical Books of Ezra
and Nehemiah mention only Iddo, that Berechiah
had died early, and that there was now no inter-
vening link between the grandfather and the grand-
son. ‘The son, in giving his pedigree, does not omit
his father’s name: the historian passes it over, as
of one who was but little known, or already for-
gotten. ‘This view is confirmed if we suppose the
Iddo here mentioned to have been the Iddo the
priest who, in Neh. xii. 4, is said to have re-
turned from Babylon in company with Zerubbabel
and Joshua. He is there said to have had a son
Zechariah (ver. 16), who was contemporary with
Joiakim the son of Joshua; and this falls in with
the hypothesis that, owing to some unexplained
cause—perhaps the death of his father—Zechariah
became the next representative of the family after
his grandfather Iddo, Zechariah, according to this
view, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel before him, was
priest as well as prophet. He seems to have entered
_ upon his office while yet young (TY3, Zech. ii. 4;
comp. Jer. i. 6), and must have been born in Ba-
bylon, whence he returned with the first caravan
| of exiles under Zerubbabel and Joshua.
It was in the eighth month, in the second year
of Darius, that he first publicly discharged his
office. In this he acted in concert with Haggai,
who must have been considerably his senior, if, as
seems not improbable, Haggai had been carried
into captivity, and hence had himself been one of
those who had seen “ the house” of Jehovah “ in
her first glory” (Hagg. ii. 3). Both prophets had
the same great object before them; both directed
all their energies to the building of the Second
Temple. Haggai seems to have led the way in this
work, and then to have left it chiefly in the hands
of his younger contemporary. The foundations of
the new building had already been laid in the time
of Cyrus ; but during the reigns of Cambyses and
the pseudo-Smerdis the work had been broken off
through the jealousies of the Samaritans. When,
however, Darius Hystaspis ascended the throne
(521), things took a more favourable turn. He
seems to have been a large-hearted and gracious
prince, and to have been well-disposed towards the
Jews. Encouraged by the hopes which his acces-
sion held out, the Prophets exerted themselves to
the utmost to secure the completion of the Temple.
It is impossible not to see of how great moment,
under such circumstances, and for the discharge of
the special duty with which he was’ entrusted,
would be the priestly origin of Zechariah.
Toe often the Prophet had had to stand forth in
direct antagonism to the Priest. In an age when
the service of God had stiffened into formalism,
coniab (Jer. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20), Aziel (1 Chr, xy. 20) and
xviii. 1, 9, 10), Coniah (Jer. xxii. 24, xxxvii. 1) and Je- | Jaaziel (1 Chr. xv. 18).
|
1822 ZECHARIAH
and the Priests’ lips no longer kept knowledge, the
Prophet was the witness for the truth which lay
beneath the outward ceremonial, and without which
the outward ceremonial was worthless. But the
thing to be dreaded now was not superstitious
formalism, but cold neglect. There was no fear
now lest in a gorgeous temple, amidst the splen-
dours of an imposing ritual and the smoke of
sacrifices ever ascending to heaven, the heart and
life of religion should be lost. The fear was all the
other way, lest even the body, the outward form
and service, should be suffered to decay.
The foundations of the Temple had indeed been
laid, but that was all (Ezr. v.16). Discouraged
by the opposition which they had encountered at
first, the Jewish colony had begun to build, and
were not able to finish ; and even when the letter
came from Darius sanctioning the work, and pro-
mising his protection, they showed no hearty dis-
position to engage in it. At such a time, no more
fitting instrument could be found to rouse the
people, whose heart had grown cold, than one who
united to the authority of the Prophet the zeal and
the traditions of a sacerdotal family.
Accordingly, to Zechariah’s influence we find
the rebuilding of the Temple in a great measure
ascribed. ‘* And the elders of the Jews builded,”
it is said, “and they prospered through the pro-
phesying of Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the
son of Iddo”’ (Ezy. vi. 14). It is remarkable that
in this juxtaposition of the two names both are not
styled prophets: not “‘ Hageai and Zechariah the
prophets,” but ‘‘ Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah
the son of Iddo.” 15 it an improbable conjecture
that Zechariah is designated by his father’s (or
grandfather’s) name, rather than by his office, in
order to remind us of his priestly character? Be
this as it may, we find other indications of the close
union which now subsisted between the priests and
the prophets. Various events connected with the
taking of Jerusalem and the Captivity in Babylon
had led to the institution of solemn fast-days; and
we find that when a question arose as to the pro-
priety of observing these fast-days, now that the
city and the Temple were rebuilt, the question was
referred to ‘‘ the priests which were in the house of
Jehovah, and to the prophets,”—a recognition not
only of the joint authority, but of the harmony
subsisting between the two bodies, without parallel
in Jewish history. The manner, too, in which
Joshua: the High-Priest is spoken of in this pro-
phecy shows how lively a sympathy Zechariah felt
towards him.
Later traditions assume, what is indeed very pro-
bable, that Zechariah took personally an active part
in providing for the Liturgical service of the Temple.
He and Haggai are both said to have composed
Psalms with this view. According to the LXX.,
Pss. exxxvil. exlv.—cxlviii. ; according to the Peshito,
Pss. cxxv. exxvi.; according to the Vulg., Ps. cxi. ;
ZECHARIAH
are Psalms of Haggai and Zechariah.» The tri-
umphant “ Hallelujah,” with which many of them
open, was supposed to be characteristic of those
Psalms which were first chanted in the Second
Temple, and came with an emphasis of meaning
from the lips of those who had been restored to
their native land. The allusions, moreover, with
which these Psalms abound, as well as their place
in the Psalter, leave us in no doubt as to the time
when they were composed, and lend confirmation to
the tradition respecting their authorship.
If the later Jewish accounts* may be trusted,
Zechariah, as well as Haggai, was a member of
the Great Synagogue. The patristic notices of the
Prophet are worth nothing. According to these,
he exercised his prophetic office in Chaldaea, and
wrought many miracles there; returned to Jeru-
salem at an advanced age, where he discharged the
duties of the priesthood, and where he died and was
buried by the side of Haggai.4
The genuine writings of Zechariah help us but
little in our estimation of his character. Some faint
traces, however, we may observe in them of his
education in Babylon. Less free and independent
than he would have been, had his feet trod from
childhood the soil,
“ Where each old poetic mountain
Tuspiration breathed around,”
he leans avowedly on the authority of the older
prophets, and copies their expressions. Jeremiah
especially seems to have been his favourite; and
hence the Jewish saying, that “ the spirit of Jere-
miah dwelt in Zechariah.” But in what may be
called the peculiarities of his prophecy, he ap-
proaches more nearly to Ezekiel and Daniel. Like
them he delights in visions; like them he uses
symbols and allegories, rather than the bold figures
and metaphors which lend so much force and
beauty to the writings of the earlier prophets ; like
them he beholds angels ministering before Jehovah,
and fulfilling his behests on the earth. He is the
only one of the prophets who speaks of Satan.
That some of these peculiarities are owing to his
Chaldaean education can hardly be doubted. It is
at least remarkable that both Ezekiel and Daniel,
who must have been influenced by the same asso-
ciations, should in some of these respects so closely
resemble Zechariah, widely as they differ from him
in others.
Even in the form of the visions a careful criticism
might perhaps discover some traces of the Prophet’s
early training. Possibly the “ valley of myrtles” in
the first vision may have been suggested by Chaldaea
vather than by Palestine. At any rate it is a
curious fact that myrtles are never mentioned in
the history of the Jews before the exile. They are
found, besides this passage of Zechariah, in the
Deutero-Isaiah xli. 19, lv. 13, and in Neh. viii. 15.¢
The forms of trial in the third vision, where Joshua
b Hence Pseudepiphanius, speaking of Haggai, says
καὶ αὐτὸς ἔψαλλεν ἐκεῖ πρῶτος ἀλληλούϊα (in allusion
to the Hallelujah with which some of these Psalms begin)
διὸ λέγομεν: ἀλληλούϊα 6 ἐστιν ὕμνος ᾿Αγγαίου καὶ
Ζαχαρίου. ἡ
e Tr. Megilla, fol. 17, 2. 18,1; Rashi ad Baba Bathra,
fol. 15, 1.
4 Pseudepiph. de Proph. cap. 21, οὗτος ἦλθεν ἀπὸ γῆς
Χαλδαίων ἤδη προβεβηκὼς καὶ ἐκεῖ ὧν πολλὰ τῷ λαῷ προ-
εφήτευσεν, κτλ. Ποτοίποιι5, p. 144: Hic Zacharias 6
Chaldaea venit cum aetate jam esset provecta atque ibi
populo multa vaticinatus est prodigiaque probandi gratia
edidit, et sacerdotio Hierosolymis functus est, ete. Isi-
dorus, cap. 51. Zacharias de regione Chaldaeorum valde
senex in terram suam reversus est, in qua et mortuus est
ac sepultus juxta Aggaeum quiescit in pace.
© In the last passage the people are told to “ fetch olive-
branches and cypress-branches, and myrtle-branches and
palm-branches .. . to make booths” for the celebration
of the feast of tabernacles. It is interesting to compare
this with the original direction, as given in the wilderness,
when the only trees mentioned are “palms and willows
of the brook.” Palestine was rich in the olive and
cypress. 1s it very improbable that the myrtle may have
ZECHARIAH
the High-Priest is arraigned, seem borrowed from
the practice of Persian rather than Jewish courts of
law. The filthy garments in which Joshua appears
are those which the accused must assume when
brought to trial; the white robe put upon him
is the caftan or robe of honour which to this day
in the East is put upon the minister of state who
has been acquitted of the charges laid against him.
The vision of the woman in the Ephah is also
Oriental in its character. Ewald refers to a vey
similar vision in Tod’s Rajasthan, t. ii. p. 688.
Finally, the chariots issuing from between two
mountains of brass must have been suggested, there
can scarcely be any doubt, by some Persian sym-
bolism.
Other peculiarities of style must be noticed,
when we come to discuss the question of the
Integrity of the Book. Generally speaking, Zecha-
viah’s style is pure, and remarkably free from
Chaldaisms. As is common with writers in the
decline of a language, he seems to have striven to
imitate the purity of the earlier models; but in
orthography, and in the use of some words and
phrases, he betrays the influence of a later age.
He writes MN, and up and employs NAN
(v. 7) in its later use as the indefinite article, and
nanos with the fem. termination (iv. 12). A
full collection of these peculiarities will be found in
Koster, Weletemata in Zech., &c.
Contents of the Prophecy.—The Book of Zecha-
riah, in its existing form, consists of three principal
parts, chaps. i—viii., chaps. ix—xi., chaps. xli.—xiv.
I. The first of these divisions is allowed by all
critics to be the genuine work of Zechariah the son
of Iddo. It consists, first, of a short introduction
or preface, in which the prophet announces his com-
mission; then of a series of visions, descriptive of
all those hopes and anticipations of which the build-
ing of the Temple was the pledge and sure founda-
tion; and finally of a discourse, delivered two years
later, in reply to questions respecting the observance
of certain established fasts.
1. The short introductory oracle (chap. i. 1-6)
is a warning voice from the past. The prophet
solemnly reminds the people, by an appeal to the
experience of their fathers, that no word of God had
ever fallen to the ground, and that therefore, if with
sluggish indifference they refused to co-operate in
the building of the Temple, they must expect the
judgments of God. This warning manifestly rests
upon the former warnings of Haggai.
2. In a dream of the night there passed before
the eyes of the prophet a series of visions (chap.
i. 7-vi. 15) descriptive in their different aspects of
events, some of them shortly to come to pass, and
others losing themselves in the mist of the future.
These visions are obscure, and accordingly the pro-
phet asks their meaning. The interpretation is
given, not as to Amos by Jehovah Himself, but by
an angel who knows the mind and will of Jehovah,
who intercedes with Him for others, and by whom
Jehovah speaks and issues his commands: at one
time he is called “‘ the angel who spake with me”
been an importation from Babylon? Esther was also
called Hadassah (the myrtle), perhaps her Persian desig-
nation (Hsth. ii. 7) ; and the myrtle is said to be a native
of Persia.
f Bwald understands by mips not ‘a valley” or
“bottom,” as the A. V. renders, but the heavenly tent or
tabernacle (the expression being chosen with reference to
ZECHARIAH 1823
[or “by me”] (i. 9); at another, “the angel of
Jehovah”’ (i. 11, 12, iii. 1-6).
(1.) In the first vision (chap. i. 7-15) the prophet
sees, in a valley of myrtles,fa rider upon a roan
horse, accompanied by others who, having been sent
forth to the four quarters of the earth, had returned
with the tidings that the whole earth was at rest
(with reference to Hagg. ii. 20). Hereupon the angel
asks how long this state of things shall last, and
is assured that the indifference of the heathen shall
cease, and that the Temple shall be built in Jeru-
salem. ‘This vision seems to have been partly bor-
rowed from Job i. 7, &c.
(2.) The second vision (chap. ii. 1-17, A. V. i.
18-ii. 13) explains how the promise of the first is
to be fulfilled. The four horns are the symbols of
the different heathen kingdoms in the four quarters
of the world, which have hitherto combined against
Jerusalem. The four carpenters or smiths symbolize
their destruction. What follows, ii. 5-9 (A. V-~ ii.
1-5), betokens the vastly extended area of Jeru-
salem, owing to the rapid increase of the new popu-
lation. The old prophets, in foretelling the happi-
ness and glory of the times which should succeed
the Captivity in Babylon, had madea great part of
that happiness and glory to consist in the gathering
together again of the whole dispersed nation in the
land given to their fathers. This vision was. de-
signed to teach that the expectation thus raised—
the return of the dispersed of Israel—should be ful-
filled; that Jerusalem should be too large to be
compassed about by a wall, but that Jehovah Him-
self would be to her a wall of fire—a light and
defence to the holy city, and destruction to her ad-
versaries. A song of joy, in prospect of so bright
a future, closes the scene.
(3.) The next two visions (iii. iv.) are occupied
with the Temple, and with the two principal persons
on whom the hopes of the returned exiles rested. The
permission granted for the rebuilding of the Temple
had no doubt stirred afresh the malice and the
animosity of the enemies of the Jews. Joshua the
High-Priest had been singled out, it would seem, as
the especial object. of attack, and perhaps formal
accusations had already been laid against him before
the Persian court. The prophet, in vision, sees him
summoned before a higher tribunal, and solemnly
acquitted, despite the charges of the Satan or Ad-
versary. This is done with the forms still usual in
an Eastern court. The filthy garments in which
the accused is expected to stand are taken away, and
the caftan or robe of honour is put upon him in
token that his innocence has beep established. Ac-
quitted at that bar, he need not fear, it is implied,
any earthly accuser. He shall be protected, he shall
carry on the building of the Temple, he shall so
prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah,
and upon the foundation-stone laid before him shall
the seven eyes of God, the token of His ever-watch-
ful Providence, rest.
(4.) The last vision (iv.) supposes that all opposi-
tion to the building of the Temple shall be removed.
This sees the completion of the work. It has evi-
dently a peculiarly impressive character; for the
the Mosaic tabernacle), which is the dwelling-place of
Jehovah. Instead of ‘“ myrtles” he understands by
ὉΠ (with the LXX. ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὀρέων τῶν
κατασκίων) “mountains,” and supposes these to be the
“two mountains” mentioned vi. 1, and which are there
called “ mountains of brass.”
& So Ewald, Die Propheten, ii. 528.
1824 ZECHARIAH
prophet, though his dream still continues, seems to
himself to be awakened out of it by the angel who
speaks to him. The candlestick (or more properly
chandelier) with seven lights (borrowed from the
candlestick of the Mosaic Tabernacle, Ex. xxv. 31 ff.)
supposes that the Temple is already finished. The
seven pipes which supply each lamp answer to the
seven eyes of Jehovah in the preceding vision (iii.
9), and this sevenfold supply of oil denotes the
presence and operation of the Divine Spirit, through
whose aid Zerubbabel will overcome all obstacles,
so that us his hands had laid the foundation of the
house, his hands should also finish it (iv. 9). The
two olive-branches of the vision, belonging to the
olive-tree standing by the candlestick, are Zerub-
babel himself and Joshua.
The two next visions (v. 1-11) signify that the
land, in which the sanctuary has just been erected,
shall be purged of all its pollutions.
(5.) First, the curse is recorded against wicked-
ness in the whole land (not in the whole earth, as
A. V.), v. 3; that due solemnity may be given to
it, it is inscribed upon a roll, and the roll is repre-
sented as flying, in order to denote the speed with
which the curse will execute itself.
(6.) Next, the unclean thing, whether in the form
of idolatry or any other abomination, shall be utterly
removed. Caught and shut up as it were in a cage,
like some savage beast, and pressed down with a
weight as of lead upon it so that it cannot escape,
it shall be carried into that land where all evil
things have long made their dwelling (Is. xxxiv.
13), the land of Babylon (Shinar, v. 11), from
which Israel had been redeemed,
(7.) And now the night is waning fast, and the
morning is about to dawn, Chariots and horses
appear, issuing from between two brazen mountains,
the horses like those in the first vision; and these
receive their several commands and are sent forth
to execute the will of Jehovah in the four quarters
of the earth. The four chariots are images of the
four winds, which, according to Ps. civ. 4, as
servants of God, fulfil His behests; and of the one
that goes to the north it is particularly said that it
shall let the Spirit of Jehovah rest there—is it a
spirit of anger against the nations, Assyria, Baby-
lon, Persia, or is it a spirit of hope and desire of
return in the hearts of those of the exiles who still
lingered in the land of their captivity? Stiéhelin,
Maurer, and others adopt the former view, which
seems to be in accordance with the preceding vision :
Ewald gives the latter interpretation, and thinks it
is supported by what follows.
Thus, then, the cycle of visions is completed.
Scene after scene is unrolled till the whole glowing
picture is presented to the eye. All enemies
crushed; the land re-peopled and Jerusalem git as
with a wall of fire; the Temple rebuilt, more truly
splendid than of old, because more abundantly filled
with a Divine Presence; the leaders of the people
assured in the most signal manner of the Divine
protection ; all wickedness solemnly sentenced, and
the land for ever purged of it;—such is the magni-
ficent panorama of hope which the prophet displays
to his countrymen.
And very consolatory must such a prospect have
seemed to the weak and disheartened colony in Je-
rusalem. For the times were dark and troublous.
According to recent interpretations of newly-dis-
covered inscriptions, it would appear that Darius I.
found it no easy task to hold his vast dominions.
Province after province had revolted both in the
ZECHARIAH
east and in the north, whither, according to the
prophet (vi. 8), the winds had carried the wrath
of God; and if the reading Mudraja, 7. 6. Egypt, is
correct (Lassen gives Kurdistan), Egypt must have
revolted before the outbreak mentioned in Herod.
vii. 1, and have again been reduced to subjection.
To such revolt there may possibly be an allusion in
the reference to ‘the land of the south” (vi. 6).
It would seem that Zechariah anticipated as a
consequence of these perpetual insurrections, the
weakening and overthrow of the Persian monarchy
and the setting up of the kingdom of Ged, for
which Judah in faith and obedience was to wait.»
Immediately on these visions there follows a
symbolical act.. Three Israelites had just returned
from Babylon, bringing with them rich gifts to
Jerusalem, apparently as contributions to the
Temple, and had been received in the house of
Josiah the son of Zephaniah. Thither the Prophet
is commanded to go,—whether still in a dream or
not, is not very clear,—and to employ the silver
and the gold of their offerings for the service of
Jehovah. He is to make of them two crowns, and
to place these on the head of Joshua the High-
Priest,—a sign that in the Messiah who should
build the Temple, the kingly and priestly offices
should be united. This, however, is expressed
somewhat enigmatically, as if king and priest should
be perfectly at-one, rather than that the same
person should be both king and priest. These
crowns moreover, were to be a memorial in honour
of those by whose liberality they had been made,
and should serve at the same time to excite other
rich Jews still living in Babylon to the like libe-
rality. Hence their symbolical purpose having
been accomplished, they were to be laid up in the
Temple.
3. From this time, for a space of nearly two
years, the Prophet’s voice was silent, or his words
have not been recorded. But in the fourth year
of King Darius, in the fourth day of the ninth
month, there came a deputation of Jews to the
Temple, anxious to know whether the fast-days
which had been instituted during the seventy years’
Captivity were still to be observed. On the one
hand, now that the Captivity was at an end, and
Jerusalem was rising from her ashes, such set. times
of mourning seemed quite out of place. On the
other hand, there was still much ground for serious
uneasiness; for some time after their return they
had suffered severely from drought and famine
(Hagg. i. 6-11), and who could tell that they would
not so suffer again? the hostility of their neigh-
bours had not ceased ; they were still regarded with
no common jealousy; and large numbers of their
brethren had not yet returned from Babylon. It
was a question therefore, that seemed to admit of
much debate.
It is remarkable, as has been already noticed,
that this question should have been addressed to
priests and prophets conjointly in the Temple.
This close alliance between two classes hitherto so
separate, and often so antagonistic, was one of the
most hopeful circumstances of the times. Still
Zechariah, as chief of the prophets, has the decision
of this question. Some of the priests, it is evident
(vii. 7), were inclined to the more gloomy view ;
but not so the Prophet. In language worthy of
his position and his office, language which reminds
us of one of the most striking passages of his great
h Stihelin, Hinleit. in die Kam. Biich. p. 318.
ZECHARIAH
predecessor (Is. lviii. 5-7), he lays down the same
principle that God loves mercy rather than fasting,
and truth and righteousness rather than sackcloth
and a sad countenance. If they had perished, he
reminds them it was because their hearts were hard
while they fasted ; if they would dwell safely, they
must abstain from fraud and violence and not from
food (vii. 4-14).
Again he foretells, but not now in vision, the
glorious times that are near at hand when Je-
hovah shall dwell in the midst of them, and Jeru-
salem be called a city of truth. He sees her
streets thronged by old and young, her exiles re-
turning, her Temple standing in all ak beauty, her
land rich in fruitfulness, her people a praise and a
blessing in the earth (viii, 1-15). Again, he de-
clares that “truth and peace’ (vers. 16, 19) are
the bulwarks of national prosperity. And once
more reverting to the question which had been
raised concerning the observance of the fasts, he
announces, in obedience to the command of Jehovah,
not only that the fasts are abolished, but. that
the days of mourning shall henceforth be days of
joy, the fasts be counted for festivals. His pro-
phecy concludes with a prediction that Jerusalem
shall be the centre of religious worship to all nations
of the earth (viii. 16-23).
The remainder of the Book consists of two
sections of about equal leneth, ix.—xi. and xii.—xiv.,
each of which has an inscription. They have the
general prophetic tone and character, and in subject
they so far harmonize with i.-viii., that the Pro-
phet seeks to comfort Judah in a season of depres-
sion with the hope of a brighter future.
1. In the first section he threatens Damascus and
the sea-coast of Palestine with misfortune; but de-
claves that Jerusalem shall be protected, for Jehovah
himself shall encamp about her (where ix. 8 re-
minds us of ii. 5); her king shall come to her, he
shall speak peace to the heathen, so that all weapons
of war shall perish, and his dominion shall be to the
ends of the earth. The Jews who are still in ‘cap-
tivity shall return to their land; they shall be
mightier than Javan (or Greece); and Ephraim and
Judah once more united shall vanquish all enemies.
The land too shall be fruitful as of old (comp. viii.
12). The Teraphim and the false prophets may
indeed have spoken lies, but upon these will the
Lord execute judgment, and then He will look
with favour upon His people and bring back both
Judah and Ephraim from their captivity. The
possession of Gilead and Lebanon is again promised,
as the special portion of Ephraim ; and both Kgypt
and Assyria shall be broken and humbled.
The prophecy now takes a sudden turn. An
enemy is seen approaching from the north, who hay-
ing forced the narrow passes of Lebanon, the great
bulwark of the nor thern frontier, carries desolation
into the country beyond. Hereupon the prophet
receives a commission from God to feed his flock,
which God Himself will no more feed because of
their divisions. «he prophet undertakes the office,
and makes to himself two staves (naming the one
Beauty, and the other Union), in order to tend the
flock, and cuts off several evil shepherds whom his
soul abhors; but observes at the same time that
the flock will not be obedient. Hence he throws
up his office; he breaks asunder the one crook in
token that the covenant of God with Israel was
dissolved. A few, the poor of the flock, acknow-
ledge God’s hand herein; and the prophet demand-
ing the wages of his service, receives thirty pieces
VOL. II.
ZECHARIAH 1825
of silver, and casts it into the house of Jehovah:
At the same time he sees that there is no hope ot
union between Judah and Israel whom he had
trusted to feed as one flock, and therefore cuts in
pieces the other crook, in token that the brotherhood
between them is dissolved.
2. The Second Section, xii.-xiv., is entitled,
‘©The burden of the word of Jehovah for Israel.’?
But /srael is here used of the nation at large, not
of Israel as distinct from Judah. Indeed, the pro-
pheey which follows, concerns Judah and Jerusalem.
In this the prophet beholds the near approach of
troublous times, when Jerusalem should be hard
pressed by enemies. But in that day Jehovah shall
come to save them: “the house of David be as
God, as the angel of Jehovah” (xii. 8), and all the
nations which gather themselves against Jerusalem
shall be destroyed.. At the same ‘time the deliver-
ance shall not be from outward enemies alone.
God will pour out upon them a spirit of grace and
supplications, so that they shail bewail their sin-
fulness with a mourning greater than that with
which they bewailed the beloved Josiah in the
valley of Megiddon. So deep and so true shall be
this repentance, so lively the aversion to all evil,
that neither idol nor false prophet shall again be
seen in the land. If a man shall pretend to pro-
phesy, “his father and his mother that begat him
shall thrust him through when he prophesieth,”
fired by the same righteous indignation as Phinehas
was when he slew those who wrought folly in
Israel (xii. 1—xiii. 6).
Then follows a short apostrophe to the sword
of the enemy to turn against the shepherds of the
people; and a further announcement of search-
ing and purifying judgments ; which, however, it
must be acknowledged, is somewhat abr upt. Ewald’s
suggestion that the passage xiii. 7-9, is here out of
place, and should be transposed to the end of chap.
xi. is certainly ingenious, and does not seem im-
probable.
The prophecy closes with a grand and stirring
picture. All nations are gathered together against
Jerusalem ; and seem already sure of their prey.
Half of their cruel work has been accomplished,
when Jehovah Himself appears on behalf of His
people. At his coming all nature is moved: the
Mount of Olives on which His feet rest cleaves
asunder; a mighty earthquake heaves the ground,
and even the natural succession of day and night is
broken. He goes forth to war against the adver-
saries of His people. He establishes His kingdom
over all the earth. Jerusalem is safely inhabited,
and rich with the spoils of the nations. All nations
that are still left, shall come up to Jerusalem, as
the great centre of religious worship, there to
worship “the King, Jehovah of hosts,’ and the
city from that day forward shall be a holy city.
Such is, briefly, an outline of the second portion
of that book which is commonly known as the Pro-
phecy of Zechariah. It is impossible, even on a
cursory view of the two portions of the prophecy,
not to-feel how different the section xi.—xiv, is from
the section i.-viii. The next point, then, for our
consideration is this,—Is the book in its present
form the work of one and the same prophet, Zecha-
riah the son of Iddo, who lived after the Babylonish
exile ὃ
Integrity.—Mede was the first to call this in
question. The probability that the later chapters
from the 9th to the 14th were by some other pro-
phet, seems first to have been suggested ἣν him by
6
1826 ZECHARIAH
the citation in St. Matthew. He says (Epist. xxxi.),
“Ὁ ΤῸ may seem the Evangelist would inform us that
those latter chapters ascribed to Zachary (namely,
9th, 10th, 11th, &c.), are indeed the prophecies of
Jeremy; and that the Jews had not rightly attri-
buted them.” Starting from this point, he goes on
to give reasons for supposing a different author.
‘Certainly, if a man weighs the contents of some
of them, they should in likelihood be of an elder
date than the time of Zachary; namely, before the
Captivity: for the subjects of some of them were
scarce in being after that time. And the chapter
out of which St. Matthew quotes may seem to
have somewhat much unsuitable with Zachary’s
time; as, a prophecy of the destruction of the
Temple, then when he was to encourage them to
build it. And how doth the sixth verse of that
chapter suit with his time? There is no scripture
saith they are Zachary’s; but there is scripture
saith they are Jeremy’s, as this of the Evangelist.’
He then observes that the mere fact of these being
found in the same book as the prophecies of Zecha-
riah does not prove that they were his; difference
of authorship being allowable in the same way as
in the collection of Agur’s Proverbs under one title
with those of Solomon, and of Psalms by other
authors with those of David. Even the absence of
a fresh title is, he argues, no evidence against a
change of author. “The Jews wrote in rolls or
volumes, and the title was but once. If aught
were added to the roll, ob similitudinem argumenti,
or for some other reason, it had a new title, as
that of Agur; or perhaps none, but was ἄνώνυ-
pov.’ The utter disregard of anything like chro-
nological order in the prophecies of Jeremiah, where
“sometimes all is ended with Zedekiah; then we
are brought back to Jehoiakim, then to Zedekiah
again ’’—makes it probable, he thinks, that they
were only hastily and loosely put together in those
distracted times. Consequently some of them might
not have been discovered till after the return from
the Captivity, when they were approved by Zecha-
riah, and so came to be incorporated with his pro-
phecies. Mede evidently rests his opinion, partly
on the authority of St. Matthew, and partly on the
contents of the later chapters, which he considers
require a date earlier than the exile. He says
again (Epist. lxi.): ‘* That which moveth me more
than the rest is in chap. xii., which contains a pro-
phecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and a de-
scription of the wickedness of the inhabitants, for
which God would give them to the sword, and
have no more pity on them. It is expounded of
the destruction by Titus; but methinks such a pro-
phecy was nothing seasonable for Zachary’s time
(when the city yet, for a great part, lay in her
ruins, and the Temple had not yet recovered her’s),
nor agreeable to the scope of Zachary’s commission,
who, together with his colleague Haggai, was sent
to encourage the people lately returned from cap-
tivity to build their temple, and to instaurate their
commonwealth. Was this a fit time to foretel the
destruction of both, while they were but yet a
building ? and by Zachary, too, who was to encou-
rage them? would not this better befit the desola-
tion by Nebuchadnezzar ?””
Archbishop Newcome went further. He insisted
on the great dissimilarity of style as well as subject
between the earlier and later chapters. And he
was the first who advocated the theory which
3unsen calls one of the triumphs of modern cri-
ticism, that the last six chapters of Zechariah are
ZECHARIAH
the work of two distinct prophets. His words are :
“The eight first chapters appear by the intro-
duetory parts to be the prophecies of Zechariah,
stand in connexion with each other, are pertinent to
the time when they were delivered, are uniform in
style and manner, and constitute a regular whole.
But the six last chapters are not expressly assigned
to Zechariah; are unconnected with those which
precede; the three first of them are unsuitable in
many parts to the time when Zechariah lived ; all
of them have a more adorned and poetical turn
of composition than the eight first chapters; and
they manifestly break the unity of the prophetical
book.”
“ T conclude,” he continues, “¢ from internal marks
in chaps. ix., x., xi., that these three chapters weve
written much earlier than the time of Jeremiah
and before the captivity of the tribes. Israel is
mentioned chaps. ix. 1, xi. 14. (But that this argu-
ment is inconclusive, see Mal. ii. 11.) Ephraim,
chaps. ix. 10, 13, x. 7; and Assyria, chap. x. 10,
11. . . . They seem to suit Hosea’s age and manner.
.. . The xiith, xiiith, and xivth chapters form a
distinct prophecy, and were written after the death
of Josiah ; but whether before or after the Captivity,
and by what prophets, is uncertain. Though [
incline to think that the author lived before the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.” [ἢ
proof of this he refers to xiii. 2, on which he ob-
serves that the “prediction that idols and false
prophets should cease at the final restoration of the
Jews seems to have been uttered when idolatry
and groundless pretensions to the spirit of prophecy
were common among the Jews, and therefore before.
the Babylonish Captivity.”’
A Jarge number of critics have followed Mede and
Archbishop Newcome in denying the later date of
the last six chapters of the Book. In England,
Bishop Widder, Whiston, Hammond, and more
recently Pye Smith, and Davidson; in Germany,
Fliigge, Eichhorn, Bauer, Bertholdt, Augusti,
Forberg, Rosenmiiller, Gramberg, Credner, Ewald,
Maurer, Knobel, Hitzio, and Bleek, ave agreed in
maintaining that these later chapters are not the
work of Zechariah the son of Iddo,
On the other hand, the later date of these
chapters has been maintained among ourselves by
Blayney and Henderson, and on the continent by
Carpzov, Beckhaus, Jahn, Koster, Hengstenberg,
Havernick, Keil, De Wette (in later editions of his
Hinlettung ; in the first three he adopted a different
view), and Stéhelin.
Those who impugn the later date of these chap-
ters of Zechariah rest their arguments on the change
in style and subject after the 8th chapter, but
differ much in the application of their criticism.
Rosenmiiller, for instance (Schol. in Proph. Min.
vol. iv. 257), argues that chaps. ix.—xiv. are so
alike in style, that they must have been written by
one author. He alleges in proof his fondness for
images taken from pastoral lite (ix. 16, x. 2, 3, xi.
3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 11, 15, 17, xiii. #} 8). From the
allusion to the earthquake (xiv. 5, comp. Am. i.
1), he thinks the author must have lived in the
reion of Uzziah.
Davidson (in Horne’s Zntrod. ii. 982) in like
manner declares for one author, but supposes him
to have been the Zechariah mentioned Is. viii. 2,
who lived in the reign of Ahaz.
Hichhorn, on the other hand, whilst also assign-
ing (in his Hinleitung, iv. 444) the whole of chaps.
ix.-xiv. to one writer, is of opinion that they are
ZECHARIAH
the work of a later prophet who flourished in the
time of Alexander.
Others again, as Bertholdt, Gesenius, Knobel,
Maurer, Bunsen, and Ewald, think that chaps.
ix.-xi. (to which Ewald adds xiii. 7-9) ave a distinct
prophecy from chaps. xii.-xiv., and separated from
them by a considerable interval of time. ‘These
eritics conclude from internal evidence, that the
former portion was written by a prophet who lived
in the reign of Ahaz (Knobel gives ix., x. to the
reign of Jotham, and xi. to that of Ahaz), and most
of them conjecture that he was the Zechariah
the son of Jeberechiah (or Berechiah), mentioned
Ts:/viit. 2:
Ewald, without attempting to identify the prophet
with any particular person, contents himself with
remarking that he was a subject of the Southern
kingdom (as may be interred from expressions such
as that in ix. 7, and from the Messianic hopes
which he utters, and in which he resembles his
countryman and contemporary Isaiah); and that
like Amos and Hosea betore him. though a native
of Judah, he directs his prophecies against Ephraim.
There is the same general agreement among the
last-named critics as to the date of the section
Xii.—xlv,
They all assign it to a period immediately pre-
vious to the Babylonisk Captivity, and hence the
author must have been contemporary with the
prophet Jeremiah. Bunsen identifies him with
Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim (Jer.
xxvi. 20-23), who prophesied ‘ in the name of
Jehovah ” against Judah and Jerusalem,
According to this hypothesis we have the works
of three different prophets collected into one book,
and passing under one name :—
1. Chapters ix.xi., the book of Zechariah I., a
contemporary of Isaiah, under Ahaz, about 736,
2. Chapters xii—xiv., author unknown (or per-
haps Urijah, a contemporary of Jeremiah), about
607 or 606.
3. Chapters i.—viii., the work of the son (or
grandson) of Iddo, Haggai’s contemporary, about
520-518.
We have then two distinct theories before us.
The one merely: affirms that the six last chapters of
our present book are not from the same author as
the first eight. The other carries the dismember-
ment of the book still further, and maintains that
the six last chapters are the work of two distinct
authors who lived at two distinct periods of Jewish
history. The arguments advanced by the sup-
porters of each theory rest on the same grounds.
They are drawn partly from the difference in style,
and partly trom the difference in the nature of the
contents, the historical references, &c., in the dif-
ferent sections of the book; but the one sees this
difference only in ix.—xiv., as compared with i.—viii. ;
the other sees it also in xii.—xiv., as compared with
ix.xi. We must accordingly consider,—
1. The difference generally in the style and con-
tents of chapters ix.-xiv., as compared with chapters
1.—Viil.
2. The differences between xii.—xiv., as compared
with ix.-xi.
1. The difference in point of style between the
latter and former portions of the prophecy is admitted
by all critics. Rosenmiiller characterizes that of the
first eight chapters as “ prosaic, feeble, poor,” and
that of the remaining six as ‘‘ poetic, weighty,
concise, glowing.” But without admitting so
sweeping a criticism, and one which the verdict of
ZECHARIAH 1827
abler critics on the former portion has contradicted,
there can be no doubt that the general tone and cha-
racter of the one section is in decided contrast with
that of the other. ‘As he passes from the first
half of the Prophet to the second,” says Eichhorn,
“no reader can fail to perceive how strikingly dif-
ferent are the impressions which are made upon
him by the two. The manner of writing in the
second portion is far loftier and more mysterious ;
the images employed grander and more magnifi-
cent; the point of view and the horizon are
changed. Once the Temple and the ordinances of
religion formed the central point from which the
Prophet’s words radiated, and to which they ever
returned ; now these have vanished. The favourite
modes of expression, hitherto so “often repeated, are
now as it were forgotten. The chronological notices
which before marked the day on which each several
prophecy was uttered, now fail us altogether,
Could a writer all at once have forgotten so entirely
his habits of thought? Could he so completely
disguise his innermost feelings ? Could the world
about him, the mode of expression, the images em-
ployed, be so totally different in the case of one and
the same writer?” (inl. iv. 443, §605).
I. Chapters i.-viii. are marked by certain pecu-
liarities of idiom and phraseology which do not
occur afterwards. Favourite expressions are—
“The word of Jehovah came unto,” &c. (i. 7, iv.
8, vi. 95 vii. 154; 8, vitie 1, 18) ὼ “9 Thus) saith
Jehovah (God) of hosts” (i. 4, 16, 17, ii. 11, viii.
2, 4, 6, 7,9, 14, 18, 20, 23) ; “* And I lifted up
mine eyes and saw’ (i. 18, ii. 1, v. 1, vi. 1): none
of these modes of expression are to be met with in
chapters ix.-xiv. On the other hand, the phrase
“In that day” is entirely confined to the later
chapters, in which it occurs frequently. The form
of the inscriptions is different. Introductions to
the separate oracles, such as those in ix. 1, xii. 1,
do not present themselves in the earlier portion.
Zechariah, in several instances, states the time at
which a particular prophecy was uttered by him
(i. 1, 7, vii. 1). He mentions his own name in
these passages, and also in vii, 8, and the names of
contemporaries in iii. 1, iv. 6, vi. 10, vii. 2: the
writer (or writers) of the second portion of the book
never does this. It has also been observed that
after the first eight chapters we hear nothing of
“ Satan,” or of “ the seven eyes of Jehovah ;” that
there are no more visions; that chap. xi. contains
an allegory, not a symbolic action; that here are
no riddles which need to be solved, no angelus in-
terpres to solve them.
II. Chapters ix.—xi. These chapters, it is alleged,
have also their characteristic peculiarities :—
(1.) In point of style, the author resembles Hosea
more than any other prophet: such is the verdict
both of Knobel and Ewald. He delights to pic-
ture Jehovah as the Great Captain of His people.
Jehovah comes to Zion, and pitches His camp there
to protect her (ix. 8, 9). . He blows the trumpet,
marches against His enemies, makes His people His
bow, and shoots His arrows (ix. 13, 14); or He
rides on Judah as His war-horse, and goes forth
thereon to victory (x. 3,5). Again, he speaks of
the people as a flock, and the leaders of the people
as their shepherds (ix. 16, x. 2, 3, xi. 4, ff.). He
describes himself also, in his character of prophet,
as a shepherd in the last passages, and assumes to
himself, in a symbolic action, which however may
have been one only of the imagination, all the guise
and the gear of a shepherd. In Bene he delights
Di vAS 2,
1828 ZECHARIAH
in images (ix. 3, 4, 13-17, x. 3, 5, 7, &.), some of
which are striking and forcible. _
(2.) The notes of time are also peculiar :—
1. It was a time when the pride of Assyria was
yet at its height (x. xi.), and when the Jews had
already suffered from it.
the time of Menahem (B.C. 772-761).
2. The Trans-jordanic territory had already been
swept by the armies of the invader (x. 10), but a
still further desolation threatened it (xi. 1-3). The
first may have been the invasion of Pul (1 Chr. v.
ἊΝ the second that of Tiglath-Pileser.i
. The kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim are both
jenline (ix. 10, 13, x. 6), but many Israelites are
nevertheless exiles in Egy pt and Assyri ia (ix. 11,
ΧΩ Hi 8, 10, &c.).
. The struggle between Judah and Israel is sup-
ae to be already begun (xi. 14). At the same
time Damascus is threatened (ix. 1). If so, the re-
ference must be to the alliance formed between
Pekah king of Israel and Rezin of Damascus, the
consequence of which was the loss of Elath (739).
"Ἶ Egypt and Assyria are both formidable powers
(a9, 105) 10),
i “two. nations appear as formidable, at the same
time, are Hosea (vii. 11, xii. 1, xiv. 3) and his con-
temporary Isaiah (vii. 17, ἄς.) ; and that in pyo-
pnecies which must have been uttered between 743
and 740. The expectation seems to have been that
the Assyrians, in order to attack Egypt, would
march by way of Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia,
along the coast (Zech. ix. 1-9), as they did atter- |
wards (Is. xx. 1), and that the kingdom of Israel
would suffer chiefly in consequence (Zech. ix. 9-12),
and Judah in a smaller degree (ix. 8, 9).
6. The kingdom of Israel is described as “ a flock |
3)
for the slaughter” in chap. xi., over which three
shepherds have been set in one month. This cor-
responds with the season of anarchy and confusion
which followed immediately on the murder of |
Zechariah the son of Jeroboam II. (760). This son
reigned only six months, his murderer Shallum but
one (2 K. xv. 8-15), being put to death in his
turn by Menahem.
may have arisen, Bunsen thinks, in some other part
of the country, who may have fallen as the mw-
derer did, before Menahem.
The symbolical action of the breaking of the two |
16); SIN nia, ‘in, that, day, {πιῖ: 5. 1: ὃ.
The breaking of the first showed that |
shepherds’ staves—Favour and Union—points the
same way.
God’s favour had departed from Israel, that of the
second that all hope of union between Judah and
Ephraim was at an end.
tion, and make it probable that the author of chaps.
ix.-x1.
phesied during the reign of Ahaz.*
Chaps. xii.—xiv.—By the majority of those critics
who assign these chapters to a third author, that
author is supposed to have lived shortly before the
Babylonish Captivity. The grounds tor separating
these three Fees eliaptels from chapters ix.-xi. are as
follows :-
This first took place in |
Meanwhile another rival king |
was a contemporary of nak and pro- |
|
|a hostile nation:
The only other prophets to whom |
ZECHARIAH
This section opens with its own introductory
formula, as the preceding one (ix. 1) does, This,
however, only shows that the sections are distinct,
not that they were written at different times.
. The object of the two sections is altogether
different. The author of the former (ix.—xi.) has
both Israel and Judah before him; he often speaks
of them together (ix. 13, x. 6, xi. 14, δῦχηρι ΣΤ Μὴ:
he directs his prophecy to the Tyans-jordanic terri-
tory, and announces the discharge of his office in
Israel (xi. 4, ff). The author of the second sec-
tion, on the other hand, has only to do with Judah
and Jerusalem: he nowhere mentions Israel.
. The political horizon of the two prophets is
different. By the former, mention is made of the
Syrians, Phoenicians, Philistines (ix. 1-7), and
Greeks, (ix. 13), as well as of the Assyrians and
Egyptians, the two last being described as at that
time the most powerful. It therefore belongs to
the earlier time when these two nations were be-
ginning to struggle for supremacy in Western Asia.
By the latter, the Egyptians only are mentioned as
not a word is said of the Assy-
rians. The author consequently must have lived
at a time when Egypt was the chief enemy of
Judah,
4. The anticipations of the two Prophets are dif-
ferent. The first trembles only for Ephraim. He
predicts the desolation of the Tyans-jordanic terri-
tory, the carrying away captive of the Israelites,
but also the return from Assyria and Egypt (x. 7,
10). But for Judah he has no cause of fear.
Jehovah will protect her (ix. 8), and bring back
those of her sons who in earlier times had gone into
captivity (ix. 11). The second Prophet, on the
other hand, making no mention whatever of the
northern kingdom, is full of alarm for Judah. He
sees hostile nations gathering together against her,
and two-thirds of her inhabitants destroyed (xiii.
6); he sees the enemy laying siege to Jerusalem,
| taking and plundering it, and carrying half of her
| ferent.
| the pr ae formulae:
min DN),
| 8).
All these notes of time point in the same direc- |
people captive (xii. 3, xiv. 2, 5).
the captives nothing is here said.
5. The style of the two Prophets is dif-
The author of this last section is fond of
mn, «ς And it shall. come
δ {χη 9) 9, ὙΠῸ OSH 4, 85) χὶν ὃ. 5. 12.
Of any return of
to pass”
Seng ΤΎΧΗΙ. 152, 7A αν On 9. magne Osu) is
(sii. 1, 4, xiii. 2, 7,
In the section ix.-xi the first does not occur at
all, the second but once (ix. 16), the third only
twice (x. 12, xi. 6). We have moreover in this
section certain favourite expressions: ‘all peoples,”
‘all people of the earth,” “all nations round
about,” ‘all nations that come up against Jeru-
salem,” ‘the inhabitants of Jerusalem,’ ‘‘ the
house of David,” ‘‘ family” for nation, “ the
families of the earth,” ‘‘ the family of Egypt,” &c.
6. There are apparently few notes of time in this
section. One is the allusion to the death of Josiah
“saith Jehovah”
i So Knobel supposes. Ewald also refers, xi. 1-3, to the
deportation of Tiglath-Pileser, and thinks that x. 10 refers
to some earlier deportation, the Assyrians having invaded
this portion of the kingdom of Israel in the former half of
Pekah’s reign of twenty years. To this Bunsen (Gott in
der Gesch. i. 450) objects that we have no record of any
earlier removal of the inhabitants from the land than that
of ‘Liglath-Pileser, which occurred at the close of Pekah’s
reign, and which in x. 10 is supposed to have taken place
already.
k According to Knobel, ix. and x. were probably de-
livered in Jotham’s reign, and xi. in that of Ahaz, who
summoned ‘Tiglath-Pileser to his aid. Maurer thinks
that ix.and x. were written between the first (2 K. xv.
29) and second (2 K. xvii. 4-6) Assyrian invasions, chap.
x. during the seven years’ interregnum which followed
the death of Pekah, and xi. in the reign of Hoshea.
ZECHARIAH
in “ the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of
Megiddon ;” another to the earthquake in the days
of Uzziah king of Judah. ‘This addition to the
name of the king shows, Knobel suggests, that he
had been long dead; but the argument, if it is
worth anything, would make even more for those
who hold a post-exile date. It is certainly remark-
able occurring thus in the body of the prophecy,
and not in the inscription as in Isaiah i. 1.
In reply to all these arguments, it has been urged
by Keil, Stihelin, and others, that the difference of
style between the two principal divisions of the
prophecy is not greater than may reasonably be
accounted for by the change of subject. The lan-
guage in which visions are narrated would, from
the nature of the case, be quieter and less ani-
mated than that in which prophetic anticipations
of future glory are described. They differ as the
style of the narrator differs from that of the orator.
Thus, for instance, how different is the style of
Hosea, chaps. i—iii., from the style of the same
Prophet in chaps. iv.—xiv. ; or again, that of Ezekiel
vi. vii. from Ezekiel iv.
But besides this, even in what may be termed
the more oratorical portions of the first eight
chapters, the Prophet is to a great extent occupied
with warnings and exhortations of a practical kind
(see 1. 4-6, vii. 4-14, viii. 9-23); whereas in the
subsequent chapters he is rapt into a far distant
and glorious future. In the one case, therefore, the
language would naturally sink down to the level of
prose; in the other, it would rise to an elevation
worthy of its exalted subject.
In like manner the notes of time in the former
part (i. 1, 7, vii. 1), and the constant reference to
the Temple, may be explained on the ground that
the Prophet here busies himself with the events of
his own time, whereas afterwards his eye is fixed
on a far distant future.
On the other hand, where predictions do occur
in the first section, there is a general similarity
between them and the predictions of the second.
The scene, so to speak, is the same; the same visions
float before the eyes of the seer. The times of the
Messiah are the theme of the predictions in chaps.
1.—iv., in ix., x., and in xii—xiii. 6, whilst the events
which are to prepare the way for that time, and
especially the sifting of the nation, are dwelt upon
in chap. v., in xi., and in xiii. 7—xiv. 2.
(3.) The same peculiar forms of expression occur
in the two divisions of the prophecy. Thus, for
instance, we find 32) ΔΊ not only in vii. 14,
but also in ix™ 8; WIM, in the sense. of “ to
remove,’ in iii. 4, and in xiii. 2—elsewhere it occurs
in this unusual sense only in later writings (2 K.
xvi. 3; 2 Chr. xv. 8)—“the eye of God,” as be-
tokening the Divine Providence, in iii. 9, iy. 10,
and in ix. 1, 8.
In both sections the return of the whole nation
after the exile is the prevailing image of happiness,
and in both it is similarly portrayed. As in ii. 10,
the exiles are summoned to return to their native
land, because now, according to the principles of
righteous recompense, they shall rule over their
enemies, so also a similar strain occurs in ix. 12, ἄς,
Both in ii. 10 and in ix. 9 the renewed protection
m Maurer’s reply to this, viz., that the like phrase,
Iw, VIIY occurs in Exod. xxxii, 27, and a0") Vay
in Ezek. xxxv. 7, it must be confessed is of little force,
because those who argue for one author build not only on
ZECHARIAH 1829
wherewith God will favour Zion is represented as
an entrance into His holy dwelling; in both His
people are called on to rejoice, and in both there is
a remarkable agreement in the words. In ii. 14,
Nl 9930 Ξ {VPN NA ΠΡ 935, and in ix. 9,
mn obey na ὉΠ is ΤῺ ἽΝ. Ὁ»)
36 mia» qabn.
Again, similar forms of expression occur in ii. 9,
11, and xi. 11; the description of the increase jn
Jerusalem, xiv. 10, may be compared with ii. 4;
and the prediction in viii. 20-23 with that in xiy.
16. The resemblance which has been found in
some other passages is too slight to strengthen the
argument ; and the occurrence of Chaldaisms, such
as NIN (ix. 8), MOND (xiv. 10), 272 (which
occurs besides only in Proy. xx. 21), and the phrase
ΠΕΡ Nd (ix. 13), instead of NYP TIF, really
prove nothing as to the age of the later chapters
of Zechariah. Indeed, generally, as regards these
minute comparisons of different passages to prove
an identity of authorship, Maurer’s remark holds
true: ‘¢ Sed quae potest vis esse disjectorum quo-
rundam locorum, ubi res judicanda est ex toto?”
Of far more weight, however, than the ar-
guments already advanced is the fact that. the
writer of these last chapters (ix.—xiv.) shows an
acquaintance with the later prophets of .the time
of the exile. That there are numerous allusions in
it to earlier prophets, such as Joel, Amos, Micah,
has been shown by Hitzig (Comment. p. 354, 2nd
ed.), but there are also, it is alleged, allusions to
Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the later Isaiah
(chaps. xl.—Ixvi.). if this can be established, it is
evidence that this portion of the book, if not writ-
ten by Zechariah himself, was at least written after
the exile. We find, then, in Zech. ix. 2 an allusion
to Ez. xxviii. 35 in ix, 3 to 1 K. x. 27; in ix. 5 to
Zeph. ii. 43 in ix. 11 to Is. li. 145 in ix. 12 to Is.
adibe 8) Chal AGE ba 7B Gia) τὶ 9. [0. ΕΖ ᾽ ἘΣΣΙ IT
Zech, xi. is derived from Ez. xxxiv. (comp. esp.
xi. 4 with xxxiv. 4), and Zech. xi. 3 from Jer. xii.
5. Zech. xii. 1 alludes to Is. li. 15; xiii. 8, 9, to
Hz. v. 12; xiv. 8 to Hz, xlvii. 1-12; xiv. 10, 11,
to Jer. xxxi. 358-40; xiv. 16-19 to Is. Ixvi. 23 and
Ix. 125 xiv. 20, 21, to Ez. xliii.. 12 and xliv. 9.
This manifest acquaintance on the part of the
writer of Zech. ix.—xiv. with so many of the later
prophets seemed so convincing to De Wette that,
after having in the first three editions of his Zntro-
duction declared for two authors, he found himself
compelled to change his mind, and to admit that
the later chapters must belong to the age of Zecha-
riah, and might have been written by Zechariah
himself.
Bleek, on the other hand, has done his best to
weaken the force of this argument, first by main-
taining that in most instances the alleged agreement
is only apparent, and next, that where there is a
rea] agreement (as in Zech, ix. 12, xi. 3, xii. 1, xiv.
16), with the passages above cited, Zechariah may
be the original from whom Isaiah and Jeremiah
borrowed. It must be confessed, however, that it
is more probable that one writer should have allu-
sions to many others, than that many others should
the fact that the same forms of expression are to be found
in both sections of the Prophecy, but that the second sec-
tion, like the first, evinces a familiarity with other
writings, and especially with later prophets like Ezekiel.
See below.
1830 ZECHARIAH
borrow from one; and this probability approaches
certainty in proportion as we multiply the number |
of quotations or allusions. If there are passages in |
Zechariah which are manifestly similar to other |
passages in Zephaniah, in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and |
the Deutero-Isaiah, which is the more probable, that
they all borrowed from him, or he from them? In
ix. 12 especially, as Stihelin argues, the expression
is decidedly one to be looked for after the exile
rather than before it, and the passage rests “upon
Jer. xvi. 18, and has an almost verbal accordance
with Is. lxi. 7.
Again, the same critics argue that the historical
references in the later chapters are perfectly con-
sistent with a post-exile date. This had been already |
maintained by Eichhorn, although he supposes these
chapters to have been written by a later prophet |
than Zechariah. Stihelin puts the case as follows: |
Even under the Persian rule the political relations
of the Jews continued very nearly the same as they
were in earlier times. They still were placed be-
‘tween a huge Eastern power on the one side and |
Egypt on the other, the only difference now being
that Egypt as well as Judaea was subject to the
Persians. But Egypt was an unwilling vassal, and
as in earlier times when threatened by Assyria she
had sought for alliances among her neighbours or
had endeavoured to turn them to account as a kind
of outwork in her own defences, so now she would
adopt the same policy in her attempts to cast off
the Persian yoke. It would follow as a matter of
course that Persia would be on the watch to check
such efforts, and would wreak her vengeance on
those among her own tributary or dependent pro-
vinces which should venture to form an alliance
with Egypt. Such of these provinces as lay on the
sea-coast must indeed sutfer in any case, even if
they remained true in their allegiance to the Per-
sians. ‘The armies which were destined for the,
invasion of Egypt would collect in Syria and Phoe-
nicia, and would march by way of the coast ; and,
whether they came as friends or as foes, they would
probably cause sufficient devastation to justify the
prophecy in Zech, ix. 1, &c., delivered against Da-
mascus, Phoenicia, and Philistia. | Méanwhile the |
prophet seeks to calm the minds of his own people
by assuring them of God’s protection, and of the
coming of the Messiah, who at the appointed time |
shall again unite the two kingdoms of Judah and |
Ephraim. It is observable moreover that the pro- |
phet, throughout his discourses, is anxious not only |
to tranquillise the minds of his countrymen, but |
to prevent their engaging in any insurrection against |
their Persian masters, or forming any alliance with |
their enemies. In this respect he follows the ex- |
ample of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and, like these two
prophets, he foretells the return of Ephraim, the |
union of Ephraim and Judah, and the final over- |
throw both οἵ Assyria (Ge 11), that is, Persia," and
of Egypt, the two countries which had, more than |
all others, vexed and devastated Israel. That ἃ
large portion of the nation was still supposed to be |
in exile is clear from ix. 11, 12, and hence verse 10
can only be regarded as a reminiscence of Mic. v. |
10; and even if x. 9 must be explained of the past |
(with De Wette, Hin’. §250, 6, note a), still it |
appears from Josephus (Ant. xii. 2, §5) that the |
Persians carried away Jews into Egypt, and from |
nes |
n Although the Persians had succeeded to the As- |
syvians, the land might still be called by its ancient name |
of Assyria, See Ezr. vi. 22, and Ewald, Gesch. iv. 120. |
| Ideen, i. 254, 2nd ed.).
| are mentioned in connexion with “ the diviners
ZECHARIAH
Syucellus (p. 486, Niebuhv’s ed.) that Ochus trans-
planted large numbers of Jews from Palestine to
the east and north; the earlier custom of thus
forcibly removing to a distance those conquered
nations who from disaffection or a turbulent spirit
were likely to give occasion for alarm, having not
only continued among the Persians, but having
become even more common than ever (Heeren,
This well-known policy
on the part of their conquerors would be a sufficient
ground for the assurance which the prophet gives
in x. 9, Even the threats uttered against the false
prophets and the shepherds of the people are not
inconsistent with the times after the exile. In Neh.
v. and vi. we find the nobles and rulers of the
people oppressing their brethren, and false prophets
active in their opposition to Nehemiah. In like
mauner “ the idols” (D°D8Y) in xiii. 1-5 may be
the same as the “ Teraphim” of x. 2, where they
(ΟῚ). Malachi (iii. 5) speaks of « sorcerers ”
(DAW), and that such superstition long held
its ground among the Jews is evident from Joseph.
Ant. viii. 2, §5. Nor does xiv. 21 of necessity
imply either idol-worship or heathen pollution in
the Temple. Chapter xi. was spoken by the pro-
phet later than ix. and x. In verse 14 he declares
the impossibility of any reunion between Judah and
Ephraim, either because the northern territory had
already been laid waste, or because the inhabitants
of it had shown a disposition to leazue with Phoe-
nicia in a vain effort to throw off the Persian yoke,
which would only involve them in certain destruc-
tion. This difficult passage Stihelin admits he
cannot solve to his satisfaction, but contends that
it may have been designed to teach the new colony
that it was not a part of God’s purpose to reunite
the severed tribes; and in this he sees an argument
for the post-exile date of the prophecy, inasmuch as
the union of the ten tribes with the two was ever
one of the brightest hopes of the prophets who lived
before the Captivity.
Having thus shown that there is no reason why
the section ix.—xi. should not belong to a time sub-
sequent to the return from Babylon, Stéhelin pro-
ceeds to argue that the prophecy directed against
the nations (ix. 1-7) is really more applicable to
the Persian era than to any other. It is only the
coast-line which is here threatened; whereas the
earlier prophets, whenever they threaten the mari-
time tribes, unite with them Moab and Ammon, or
Edom. Moreover the nations here mentioned are
not spoken of as enemies of Judah; for being Per-
sian subjects they would not venture to attack the
Jewish colony when under the special protection of
that power. Of Ashdod it is said that a foreigner
(a1D1d, A. V. “ bastard ”’) shall dwell in it. This,
too, might naturally have happened in the time of
Zechariah. During the exile, Arabs had established
themselves in Southern Palestine, and the prophet
foresees that they would occupy Ashdod; and ac-
cordingly we learn from Neh. xiii. 24, that the
dialect of Ashdod was unintelligible to the Jews,
and in Neh, iv. 7, the people of Ashdod appear as a
distinct tribe united with other Arabians against
Judah. The king of Gaza (mentioned Zech. ix. 5)
may have been a Persian vassal, as the kings of
Tyre and Sidon were, according to Herodot. viii. 67.
A king in Gaza would only be in conformity with the
ZECHARIAH
Persian custom (see Herod. iii. 15), although this
was no longer the case in the time of Alexander.
The mention of the ‘‘ sons of Javan” (ix. 13; A.V.
“ Greece”) is suitable to the Persian period ( which
is also the view of Kichhorn), as it was then that the
Jews were first brought into any close contact with
the Greeks. It was in fact the fierce struggle between
Greece and Persia which gave a peculiar meaning
to his words when the prophet promised his own
people victory over the Greeks, and so reversed the
earlier prediction of Joel iv. 6, 7 (A. VY. ili. 6, 7).
If, however, we are to understand by Javan Arabia,
as some maintain, this again equally suits the
period supposed, and the prophecy will refer to the
Arabians, of whom we have already spoken.
We come now to the section xii—xiv. The main
proposition here is, that however hard Judah and
Jerusalem may be pressed by enemies (of Israel
there is no further mention), still with God’s help
they shall be victorious; and the result shall be
that Jehovah shall be more truly worshipped both
by Jews and Gentiles. That this anticipation of
the gathering of hostile armies against Jerusalem
was not unnatural in the Persian times may be in-
ferred trom what has been said above. Persian
hosts were often seen in Judaea. We find an in-
stance of this in Josephus (Ané. xi. 7, §1), and
Sidon was laid in ashes in consequence of an insur-
rection against Persia (Diod. xvi. 45). On the
other hand, how could a prophet in the time imme-
diately preceding the exile—the time to which, on
account of xii. 12, most critics refer this section—
have uttered predictions such as these? Since the
time of Zephaniah all the prophets looked upon the
fate of Jerusalem as sealed, whereas here, in direct
contradiction to such views, the preservation of the
city is announced even in the extremest calamities.
Any analogy to the general strain of thought in
this section is only to be found in Is. xxix.—xxxiil.
Besides, no king is here mentioned, but only “ the
house of David,’’ which, according to Jewish tra-
dition (Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, p. 378,
ff.), held a high position atter the exile, and accord-
ingly is mentioned (xii. 12, 13) in its different
branches (comp. Movers, Das Phéniz. Alterth. i.
531), together with the tribe of Levi; the prophet,
like the writer of Ps. Ixxxix., looking to it with a kind
of yearning, which before the exile, whilst there was
still a king, would have been inconceivable. Again,
the manner in which Egypt is alluded to (xiv. 19)
almost of necessity leads us to the Persian times ;
for then Egypt, in consequence of her perpetual
efforts to throw off the Persian yoke, was naturally
brought into hostility with the Jews, who were
under the protection of Persia. Before the exile
this was only the case during the interval between
the death of Josiah and the battle of Carchemish.
It would seem then that there is nothing to
compel us to place this section xii.-xiv. in the
times before the exile; much, on the contrary,
ZECHARIAH 1831
which ean only be satisfactorily accounted for on
the supposition that it was written during the
period of the Persian dominion. Nor must it be
forgotten that we have here that fuller development
of the Messianic idea which at such a time might be
expected, and one which in fact rests upon all the
prophets who flourished before the exile.
Such are the grounds, critical and historical, on
which Stahelin rests his defence of the later date of
the second portion of the prophet Zechariah. We
have given his arguments at iength as the ablest
and most complete, as well as the most recent, .on
his side of the controversy. Some of them, it must
be admitted, are full of weight. And when critics
like Eichhorn maintain that of the whole section
ix. 1-x. 17, no explanation is possible, unless we
derive it from the history of Alexander the Great ;
and when De Wette, after having adopted the theory
of different authors, felt himself obliged to abandon
it for reasons already mentioned, and to vindicate
the integrity of the book, the grounds for a post-
exile date must be very strong. Indeed, it is not
easy to say which way the weight of evidence
preponderates.
With regard to the quotation in St. Matthew,
there seems no good reason for setting aside the re-
ceived reading. Jerome observes, ‘* This passage is
not found in Jeremiah. But in Zechariah, who
is nearly the last of the twelve prophets, something
like it occurs: and though there is no great difference
in the meaning, yet both the order and the words
are different. I vead a short time since, in a He-
brew volume, which a Hebrew of the sect of the
Nazarenes presented to me, an apocryphal book of
Jeremiah, in which I found the passage word for
word. But still I am rather inclined to think
that the quotation is made from Zechariah, in the
usual manner of the Evangelists and Apostles, who
neglecting the order of the words, only give the
general sense of what they cite from the Old Testa-
ment.’’° :
Eusebius (Lvangel. Demonstr. lib. x.) is of opi-
nion that the passage thus quoted stood originally
in the prophecy of Jeremiah, ‘but was either erased
subsequently by the malice of the Jews [a very
improbable supposition it need hardly be said]; or
that the name of Zechariah was substituted for that
of Jeremiah through the carelessness of copyists.
Augustine (de Cons. Evangel. iii. 30) testifies that
the most ancient Greek copies had Jeremiah, and
thinks that the mistake was originally St. Matthew’s,
but that this was divinely ordered, and that the
Evangelist would not correct the error even when
pointed out, in order that we might thus infer that
all the Prophets spake by one Spirit, and that what
was the work of one was the work of all (et singula
esse omnium, et omnia singulorum.)P? Some later
writers accounted for the non-appearance of the
passage in Jeremiah, by the confusion in the Greek
MSS. of his prophecies—a confusion, however, it
° Comment. in Evang. Matth. cap. xxvii. 9, 10.
P ‘This extraordinary method of solving the difficulty
has been adopted by Dr. Wordsworth in his note on the
passage in S. Matthew. He says: “On the whole there
is reason to believe. . . that the prophecy which we read
in Zech. (xi. 12, 13) had, in the jirst instance, been deli-
vered by Jeremiah; and that by referring here not to
Zech. where we read it, but to Jer. where we do not read
it, the Holy Spirit teaches us not to regard the Prophets
as the Authors of their Prophecies,” &c. And again:
“δ intends to teach, that all prophecies proceed from
One Spirit, and that those by whom they were uttered
are not sources, but only channels of the same Divine
truth.” But if so, why, it may be asked, do the writers
of the Sacred Books ever give their names at all? Why
trouble ourselves with the question whether S. Luke
wrote the Acts, or whether 5. Panl wrote the Ep. to the
Hebrews or the Pastoral Epistles? What becomes of the
argument, usually deemed so strong, derived from the
testimony of the Fowr Evangelists, if, after all, the four
are but one ?
It would not be too much to say that such a theory is
as pernicious as that against which it is directed.
1832 ZECHARIAH
may be remarked, which is not confined to the
Greek, but which is found no less in our present
Hebrew text. Others again suggest that in the
Greek autograph of Matthew, ZPIOY may have
been written, and that copyists may have taken
this for IPIOY. But there is no evidence that
abbreviations of this kind were in use so early.
Epiphanius and some of the Greek Fathers seem
to have read ἐν τοῖς προφῆταις. And the most
ancient copy of the Latin Version of the Gospels
omits the name of Jeremiah, and has merely
dictum est per Prophetam. \t has been con-
jectured that this represents the original Greek
yeading τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ Προφήτου, and that some
early annotator wrote Ἱερεμίου on the margin,
whence it crept into the text. The choice lies
between this, and a slip of memory on the part of
the Evangelist if we admit the integrity of our
present Book of Zechariah, unless, indeed, we sup-
pose, with Eichhorn, who follows Jerome, that an
Apocryphal Book of Jeremiah is quoted. Theo-
phylact proposes to insert a καὶ, and would read διὰ
Ἱερεμίου καὶ τοῦ Προφήτου-- ἤγουν Ζαχαρίου.
He argues that the quotation is really a fusion of
two passages; that concerning the price paid oc-
‘curring in Zechariah, chap. xi. ; and that concerning
the field in Jeremiah, chap. xix. But what N. T.
writer would have used such a form of expression
“by Jeremy and the Prophet”? Such a mode of
quotation is without parallel. At the same time
it must be borne in mind that the passage as given
in 5. Matthew does not represent exactly either the
Hebrew text of Zechariah, or the version of the
LXX. The other passages of the Prophet quoted
in the N. T. are ix. 9 (in Matt, xxi. 5; Joh. xii.
15); xii. 10 (in Joh. xix. 387; Rev. i. 7); xiii. 7
(in Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27); but in no
instance is the Prophet quoted by name.
Literature.
1, Patristic Commentaries,
Jerome, Comment. in xii Minores Prophetas.
Opp. Ed. Villars (Veron. 1734), Tom. vi.
Theodoret, Interpretatio in xii Proph. Min.
Opp. Ed. Schulae (Hal. 1769-74), Vol. ii.
Pars 2.
2. Later Exegetical Works.
Der Prophet Zacharias ausgelegt durch D.
Mart. Luthern. Vitemberg, 1528. (Also in
the collected works of Luther in German
and Latin.) -
Phil. Melancthonis Comm. in Proph. Zach.,
1553. (Opp. P. ii. p. 531.)
J.J. Grynaei Comm. in Zach., Genev. 1581.
Caspar Sanctii Conum. in Zach., Lugil. 1616.
C, Vitringa, Comment. ad lib. Proph, Zach.,
1754.
F. Venema, Sermones Acad. in lib, Proph.
Zach., 1789.
3. Writers who have discussed the question of
the Integrity of Zechariah.
Mede, Works, Lond. 1664, p. 786, 884.
Bishop Kidder, Demonstration of the Messias,
Lond. 1700, Vol. ii. p. 199.
Archbp. Newcome, Minor Prophets, Lond.
1785.
Blayney, New Translation of Zech., Oxf.
Wie
Carpzov, Vindic. Crit., Lips. 1724.
Fliigge, Die Weissagungen, welche bey den
Schriften des Proph. Zach. beygebogen sind,
ι..5.10.. Hamb. 1784.
ZECHARIAH
Bertholdt, Histor. Arit. Lint. in die Biicher des
A.u. N, Test., P.iv., p. 1762 ff., 1712/4.
Eichhorn, Hebr. Propheten, iii. pp. 327-360,
380-92, 415-28, 515-18; Hinl., iv. p.”
427 ff. (4th. edit. 1824.)
Bauer, Linl., p. 510 ff.
Beckhans, die Integritét der Proph. Schrift.
des A. B., p. 337 ff.
Jahn, Hinl., ii. p. 675 ff.
Koéster, Meletemeta Crit. et Exeget. in Zach,
Proph. part. post. Gotting. 1818.
Forberg, Comm. Crit. et Exeget. in Zach.
Vatice. part. post. Cob. 1824.
Gramberg, Αγ. Gesch. der Religionsideen, ii.
520 ff.
Rosenmiiller, Scholia, vii. 4, p. 254 ff.
Credner, der Prophet Joel, p. 67 ff.
Hengstenberg, Leitrdge, i. 361 ff., and Chris-
tologie, iii.
De Wette, Hind. (Edit. 1-3, against the In-
tegrity, later editions in favour of it.)
Keil, Δ ηί,
Havernick, Lindl.
Maurer, Comment.
621. ff.
Ewald, die Propheten, and Gesch. iv.
Bleek, Hind.
Stahelin, Lint. in die kanon. Biicher des A. T.
1862, p. 315 ff.
Hitzig, in Stud. und Krit., 1830, p. 25 ff.,
and in Prophet.
Henderson on the Minor Prophets, 1830.
Davidson, in Second Vol. of Horne’s Introd.,
10th edit. 1856, and more recently in his
Introduction to the O.T.
Bunsen, Bibelwerk, 2ter Band, 1te Abtheil.
2ter Theil; Gott im der Geschichte, i.
449, [J. J.-S. Po]
2. (Ζαχαρίας : Zacharias.) Son of Meshelemiah,
or Shelemiah, a Korhite, and keeper of the north gate
of the tabernacle of the congregation (1 Chr. ix. 21)
in the arrangement of the porters in the reign of
David. Ind Chr. xxvi. 2, 14, his name appears in
the lengthened form ΠῚ 37, and in the last quoted
verse he is described as ‘ one counselling with
understanding.’
3. (Ζακχούρ; Alex. Zaxxovp.) One of the sons
of Jehiel, the father or founder of Gibeon (1 Chr.
ix. 37). In 1 Chr. viii. 31 he is called ZACHER.
4. (Zaxapias.) A Levite in the Temple band as
arranged by David, appointed to play ‘ with psal-
teries on Alamoth” (1 Chr. xy. 20). He was ot
the second order of Levites (ver. 18), a porter or
gatekeeper, and may possibly be the same as Zecha-
riah the son of Meshelemiah. In 1 Chr. xy. 18
his name is written in the longer form, NST.
an) Veto hestss ΝΟ) ἼΣ
5. One of the princes of Judah in the reign of Je-
hoshaphat who were sent with priests and Levites to
teach the people the law of Jehovah (2 Chr, xvii. 7),
6. (A¢apias.) Son of*the high-priest Jehoiada,
in the reign of Joash king of Judah (2 Chr. xxiv.
20), and therefore the king’s cousin. After the
death of Jehoiada Zechariah probably succeeded to
his office, and in attempting to check the reaction
in favour of idolatry which immediately followed,
he fell a victim to a conspiracy formed against him
by the king, and was stoned with stones in the
court of the Temple. The memory of this un-
righteous deed lasted long in Jewish tradition. In
the Jerusalem Talmud ( Zaanith, fol. 69, quoted by
Lightfoot, Temple Service, c. xxxvi.) there is a
ZECHARIAH
legend told of eighty thousand young priests who |
were slain by Nebuzaradan for the blood of Zecha-
riah, and the evident hold which the story had
taken upon the minds of the people renders it pro-
bable that “ Zacharias son of Barachias,” who was
slain between the Temple and the altar (Matt. xxiil.
35), is the same with Zechariah the son of Jehoiada,
and that the name of Barachias as his father crept
into the text from a marginal gloss, the writer con-
fusing this Zechariah either with Zechariah the pro-
phet, who was the son of Berechiah, or with another
Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah (Is. viii. 2).
7. (Zaxapias.) A Kohathite Levite in the reign
of Josiah, who was one of the overseers of the work-
men engaged in the restoration of the Temple (2
Chr. xxxiv. 12). ;
8. The leader of the sons of Pharosh who re-
turned with Ezra (Ezy. viii. 3).
9. Son of Bebai, who came up trom Babylon
with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 11).
10. (Zacharia in Neh.) One of the chiefs of the
people whom Ezra summoned in council at the
river Ahava, before the second caravan returned
from Babylon (Ezr. viii. 16). He stood at Ezra’s
left hand when he expounded the Law to the people
(Neh. viii. 4).
11. (Ζαχαρία : Zacharias.) One of the family
of Elam, who had married a toreign wife after the
Captivity (Ezr. x. 26).
12. Ancestor of Athaiah, or Uthai (Neh. xi. 4).
13. (Zaxapias.) A Shilonite, descendant of
Perez (Neh. xi. 5).
14. (Zaxapia.) A priest, son of Pashur (Neh.
xi. 12).
ile (Zacharia.) The representative of the priestly
family of Iddo in the days of Joiakim the son of
Jeshua (Neh. xii. 16). Possibly the same as Zecha-
riah the prophet the son of Idido.
16. (Zacharias, Zucharia.) One of the priests,
son of Jonathan, who blew with the trumpets at
the dedication of the city wall by Ezra and, Nehe-
miah (Neh. xii. 35, 41).
17. (NDT: Ζαχαρία). A chief of the Reu-
benites at the time of the captivity by Tiglath-
Pileser (1 Chr. v. 7).
18. One of the priests who blew with the trum-
pets in the procession which accompanied the ark |
trom the house of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xy. 24).
19. Son of Isshiah, or Jesiah, a Kohathite Levite
descended from Uzziel (1 Chr. xxiv. 25),
20. (Zaxapias.) Fourth son of Hosah of the
children of Merari (1 Chr. xxvi. 11).
91. (Zadaias; Alex. ZaBdias.) A Manassite,
whose son Iddo was chief of his tribe in Gilead in
the reign of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 21).
22. (Zaxapias.) The father of Jahaziel, a Ger-
shonite Levite in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr.
ΧΧ LA).
uae One of the sons of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr.
xxi. 2).
ae A prophet in the reign of Uzziah, who
appears to have acted as the king’s counsellor, but
ot whom nothing is known (2 Chr. xxvi. 5). The
chronicler in describing him makes use of a most
remarkable and unique expression, “ Zechariah, who
understood the seeing of God,” or, as our A. V. has
ZEDEKTIAH 1833
(comp. Dan. i. 17). As no such term is ever em-
ployed elsewhere in the description of any prophet,
it has been questioned whether the reading of the
received text is the true one. The LXX., Targum,
Syriac, Arabic, Rashi, and Kimchi, with many of
Kennicott’s MSS., read AND, “in the fear of,”
for NIN, and their reading is most probably the
correct one.
25. The father of Abijah, or Abi, Hezekiah’s
mother (2 Chr. xxix. 1); called also ZACHARIAH
in the A. V.
26. One of the family of Asaph the minstrel,
who in the reign of Hezekiah took part with other
Levites in the purification of the Temple (2 Chr.
xxix. 13).
2.7. One of the rulers of the Temple in the
reign of Josiah (2 Chr. xxxv. 8). He was probably,
as Bertheau conjectures, “ the second priest’’ (comp.
2 K. xxv. 18).
28. The son of Jeberechiah, who was taken by
the prophet Isaiah as one of the ‘ faithful witnesses
to record,” when he wrote concerning Maher-shalal-
hash-baz (Is. viii. 2). He was not the same as
Zechariah the prophet, who lived in the time of
Uzziah and died before that king, but he may have
been the Levite of that name, who in the reign of
Hezekiah assisted in the purification of the Temple
(2 Chr. xxix. 13). As Zechariah the prophet is
called the son of Berechiah, with which Jeberechiah
is all but identical, Bertholdt (Hinl. iv. 1722,
1727) conjectured that some of the prophecies at-
tributed to him, at any rate chaps. ix.—xi., were
really the production ot Zechariah, the contempo-
rary of Isaiah, and were appended to the volume of
the later prophet of the same name (Gesen. Der
Proph. Jesaia, i. 327). Another conjecture is that
Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah is the same as
Zechariah the father of Abijah, the queen of Ahaz
(Poli Synopsis, in loc.): the witnesses summoned
by Isaiah being thus men of the highest ecclesiastical
and civil rank. δ AWW]
ZEDAD' (718: Σαραδάκ, HuaceAdau; Alex.
Sadadanr, Ἑλδαμ: Sedada, Sadada). One of the
landmarks on the north border of the land of Israel,
as promised by Moses (Num. xxxiv. 8) and as
restored by Ezekiel (xlvii. 15), who probably passed
through it on his road to Assyria as a captive. In
the former case it occurs between “ the entrance of
Hamath” and Ziphron, and in the latter between the
ἐς χρᾷ to Hethlon” and Hamath. <A place named
Stidid exists to the east of the northern extremity
of the chain of Antilibanus, about 50 miles E.N.E.
of Baalbec, and 35 S.S.E. of Hums. It is possible
that this may ultimately turn out to be identical
with Zedad; but at present the passages in which
the latter is mentioned are so imperfectly under-
stood, and this part of the country has been so little
explored with the view of arriving at topographical
conclusions, that nothing can be done beyond direct-
ing attention to the coincidence in the names (see
Porter, Five Years, &c., ii. 354-6). [G.]
ZEDECHI'AS (Σεδεκίας : Sedecias). ZE-
DEKIAH king of Judah (1 Esd, i. 46).
ZEDEKI'AH. 1. ΠῚ, Tsidkiyyahu, and
thrice? MPT, Tsidkiyyah: "Σεδεκία, Σεδεκίας :
it, ‘“‘ who had understanding in the visions of God”
a Jer. xxvii. 12, xxviii. 1, xxix. 3. In this form it is
identical with the name which appears in the A. V. (in
connexion with a different person) as ZrpK1JAH. A si-
milar inconsistency of our translators is shewn in the | Vatican LX X. (Mai), may be noted :—
cases of Hezekiah, Hizkijah, and Hizkiah; Ezekiel and
Jehezekel.
» The peculiarities of the name, as it appears in the
(a) It
1834 ZEDEKIAH
Sedecias). The last king of Judah and Jerusalem. |
He was the son of Josiah by his wife Hamutal, and
therefore own brother to Jehoahaz (2 Καὶ, xxiv. 18;
comp. xxiii. 31). His original name had been |
MATTANIAH, which was changed to Zedekiah by |
Nebuchadnezzar, when he carried off his nephew
Jehoiachim to Babylon, and left him on the throne
of Jerusalem. Zedekiah was but twenty-one years
old when he was thus placed in charge of an im- |
poverished kingdom, and a city which, though still |
strong in its natural and artificial impregnability,
was bereft of well-nigh all its defenders. But Jeru-
salem might have remained the head of the Baby-
lonian province of Judah, and the Temple of |
Jehovah continued standing, had Zedekiah possessed |
wisdom and firmness enough to remain true to his
allegiance to Babylon. ‘This, however, he could |
not do (Jer. xxxviii. 5). His history is contained
in the short sketch of the events of his reign given
in 2 K, xxiv. 17-xxv. 7, and, with some trifling |
variations, in Jer. xxxix. 1-7, lii. 1-11, together |
with the still shorter summary in 2 Chr. xxxvi.
10, &c.; and also in Jer. xxi. xxiv. xxvii. xxviil.
XXIX. XXXiil. Xxxiii, xxxiv. XxXvii. xxxviii. (being the
chapters containing the prophecies delivered by
this prophet during this reign, and his relation |
of various events more or less affecting Zedekiah),
and Ez. xvi. 11-21. To these it is indispensable to |
add the narrative of Josephus (Art. x. 7, 1-8, §2),
which is partly constructed by comparison of the |
documents enumerated above, but also contains in-
formation derived from other and _ independent |
sources. From these it is evident that Zedekiah |
was a man not so much bad at heart as weak in |
will. He was one of those unfortunate characters, |
frequent in history, like our own Charles I. and |
Louis XVI. of France, who find themselves at the |
head of atfairs during a great crisis, without having
the strength of character to enable them to do what |
they know to be right, and whose infirmity be- |
comes moral guilt. The princes of his court, as |
he himself pathetically admits in his interview with |
Jeremiah, described in chap. xxxviii., had him com-
pletely under their influence. ‘‘ Against them,” he |
complains, ‘* it is not the king that can do any-
thing.” He was thus driven to disregard the counsels
of the prophet, which, as the event proved, were |
perfectly sound; and he who might have kept the
fragments of the kingdom of Judah together, and
maintained for some generations longer the worship
of Jehovah, brought its final ruin on his country,
destruction ou the Temple, death to his family, and |
a cruel torment and miserable captivity on himself. |
10 is evident from Jer. xxvii.¢ and xxviii. (ap-
parently the earliest prophecies delivered during
this reign), that the earlier portion of Zedekiah’s
reign was marked by an agitation throughout
the whole of Syria against the Babylonian yoke.
Jerusalem seems to have taken the lead, since in
the fourth year of Zedekiah’s reign we find am- |
bassadors from all the neighbouring kingdoms—
Tyre, Sidon, Edom, and Moab—at his court, to |
consult as to the steps to be taken. This happened
(a) It is Σεδεκία in 2 K. xxiv. 17; 1 Chr. iii. 15; Jer.
Xxxiv. 4 only.
(b) The genitive is Ξεδεκίου in 2 K. xxv. 2, Jer. li. 59, |
lii. 1,10, 11; but Σεδεκία in Jer. i. 3, xxviii. 1, xxxix. 1;
and Σεδεκεία in ¥xxix. 2 only.
(c) The name is occasionally omitted where it is present |
in the Hebrew text, e.g. Jer. xxxviii., lii. 5, 8; but on the
other hand is inserted in xlvi. 1, where also Elam is put
for “ gentiles.”
| with Babylon.
| we should read Zedekiab.
ZEDEKIAH
either during the king’s absence or immediately
after his return from Babylon, whither he went on
some errand, the nature of which is not named, but
which may have been an attempt to blind the eyes
of Nebuchadnezzar to his contemplated revolt (Jer.
li. 59). The project was attacked by Jeremiah
with the strongest statement of the folly of such a
-course—a statement corroborated by the very ma-
terial fact that a man of Jerusalem named Hana-
niak, who had opposed him with a declaration in
the name of Jehovah, that the spoils of the Temple
should be restored within two years, had died, in
accordance with Jeremiah’s prediction, within two
months of its delivery. This, and perhaps also
the impossibility of any real alliance between Judah
and the surrounding nations, seems to have put a
stop, for the time, to the anti-Babylonian move-
ment. On a man of Zedekiah’s temperament the
sudden death of Hananiah must have produced a
strong impression; and we may without improba-
bility accept this as the time at which he procured
| to be made in silver a set of the vessels of the
Temple, to replace the golden plate carried off with
his predecessor by Nebuchadnezzar (Bar. i. 8).
The first act of overt rebellion of which any re-
cord survives was the formation of an alliance with
Egypt, of itself equivalent to a declaration of enmity
In fact, according to the statement
_of Chronicles and Ezekiel (xvii. 13), with the ex-
pansion of Josephus, it was in direct contravention
of the oath of allegiance in the name of Elohim, by
which Zedekiah was bound by Nebuchadnezzar,
namely, that he would keep the kingdom for Ne-
buchadnezzar, make no innovation, and enter into
no league with Egypt (Ez, xvii. 13; 2 Chr. xxxvi.
13; Jos. Ant. x.7,§1). Asa natural consequence it
brought on Jerusalem an immediate invasion of the
Chaldeans. The mention of this event in the Bible,
though sure, is extremely slight, and occurs only in
Jer. xxxvii. 5-11, xxxiv. 21, and Ez. xvii. 15-20 ;
but Josephus (x. 7, §3) relates it more fully,
and gives the date of its occurrence, namely the
eighth year of Zedekiah. Probably also the de-
nunciations of an Egyptian alliance, contained in
Jer. ii. 18, 36, have reference to the same time.
It appears that Nebuchadnezzar, being made aware
of Zedekiah’s defection, either by the non-payment
of the tribute or by other means, at once sent an
army to ravage Judaea. This was done, and the
whole country reduced, except Jerusalem and two
strong places in the western plain, Lachish and
Azekah, which still held out (Jer. xxxiv. 7). In
the panic which followed the appearance of the
Chaldeans, Zedekiah succeeded in inducing the
princes and other inhabitants of Jerusalem to
abolish the odious custom which prevailed of en-
slaving their countrymen, A solemn rite (ver. 18),
/recalling in its form that in which the original
| covenant of the nation had been made with Abram
(Gen. xv. 9, &c.), was performed in the Temple
(ver. 15), and a crowd of Israelites of both sexes
found themselves released from slavery.
In the mean time Pharaoh had moved to the
N.B. The references above given to Jeremiah are accord-
ing to the Hebrew capitulation.
c There can be no doubt that ver. 1 of xxvii., as it at
present stands, contains an error, and that for Jehoiakim
The mention of Zedekiah in
vers. 3 and 12, and in xxviii. 1, as well as of the captivity
_ of Jeconiah in ver. 20, no less than the whole argument of
the latter part of the chapter, renders this evident.
ZEDEKIAH
assistance of his ally. On hearing of his approach
the Chaldees at once raised the siege and advanced to
meet him. The nobles seized the moment of respite
to reassert. their power over the king, and their
defiance of Jehovah, by re-enslaving those whom
they had so recently manumitted ; and the prophet
thereupon utters a doom on these miscreants which,
in the fierceness of its tone and in some of its ex-
pressions, recalls those of Elijah on Ahab (ver. 20).
This encounter was quickly followed by Jeremiah’s
capture and imprisonment, which but. for the inter-
ference of the king (xxxvii. 17, 21) would have
rapidly put an end to his life (ver. 20). How long
the Babylonians were absent from Jerusalem we
are not told. It must have required at least several
months to move a large army and baggage through
the difficult and tortuous country which separates
Jerusalem from the Philistine Plain, and to effect
the complete repulse of the Egyptian army from
Syria, which Josephus affirms was effected. ΑἸ]
we certainly know is that on the tenth day of
the tenth month of Zedekiah’s ninth year the
Chaldeans were again before the walls (Jer. lii. 4).
From this time forward the siege progressed slowly
but surely to its consummation, with the accompani-
ment of both famine and pestilence (Joseph.). Zede-
kiah again interfered to preserve the life of Jeremiah
from the vengeance of the princes (xxxviii. 7-13),
and then occurred the interview between the king
and the prophet of which mention has already
been made, and which affords so good a clue to
the condition of abject dependence into which a
long course of opposition had brought the weak-
minded monarch. It would seem fiom this con-
versation that a considerable desertion had already
taken place to the besiegers, proving that the pro-
phet’s view of the condition of things was shared’
’ by many of his countrymen. But the unhappy
Zedekiah throws away the chance of preservation
for himself and the city which the prophet set before
him, in his fear that he would be mocked by those
very Jews who had already taken the step Jeremiah
was urging him to take (xxxviii. 19). At the same
time his fear of the princes who remained in the
city is not diminished, and he even condescends to
impose on the prophet a subterfuge, with the view
of concealing the real purport of his conversation
from these tyrants of his spirit (vers. 24-27).
But while the king was hesitating the end was
rapidly coming nearer. The city was indeed reduced
to the last extremity. The fire of the besiegers had
throughout been very destructive (Joseph.), but it
was now aided by a severe famine. The bread had
for long been consumed (Jer. xxxviii. 9), and all
the terrible expedients had been tried to which the
wretched inhabitants of a besieged town are forced
to resort in such cases. Mothers had boiled and
eaten the flesh of their own infants (Bar. ii. 3;
Lam. iv. 10). Persons of the greatest wealth and
station were to be seen searching the dungheaps for
a morsel of food. The efieminate nobles, whose fair
complexions had been their pride, wandered in the
open streets like blackened but living skeletons
(Lam. iv. 5, 8). Still the king was seen in public,
sitting in the gate where justice was administered,
that his people might approach him, though indeed
he had no help to give them (xxxviii. 7).
At last, after sixteen dreadful months had dragged
on, the catastrophe arrived. It was on the ninth day
of the fourth month, about the middle of July, at
midnight, as Josephus with careful minuteness in-
forms us, that the breach in those stout and vener-
ZEDEKTAH 1835
able walls was effected. The moon, nine days old,
had gone down below the hills which form the
western edge of the basin of Jerusalem, or was, at
any rate, too low to illuminate the utter darkness
which reigns in the narrow lanes of an eastern
town, where the inhabitants retire early to rest, and
where there are but few windows to emit light
from within the houses. The wretched remnants of
the army, starved and exhausted, had left the walls,
and there was nothing to oppose the entrance of
the Chaldeans, Passing in through the breach,
they made their way, as their custom was, to the
| centre of the city, and for the first time the Temple
was entered by a hostile force, and all the princes
of the court of the great king took their seats in
state in the middle gate of the hitherto virgin
house of Jehovah. The alarm quickly spread
through the sleeping city, and Zedekiah, collecting
his wives and children (Joseph.) and surrounding
himself with the few soldiers who had survived the
accidents of the siege, made his way out of the
city at the opposite end to that at which the Assy-
rians had entered, by a street which, like the Bein
es-Surein at Damascus, ran between two walls
(probably those on the east and west sides of the
so-called Tyropoeon valley), and issued at a gate
above the royal gardens and the Fountain of
Siloam. Thence he took the road towards the
Jordan, perhaps hoping to find refuge, as David
had, at some fortified place in the mountains on its
eastern side. On the road they were met and
recognized by some of the Jews who had formerly
deserted to the Chaldeans. By them the intelligence
was communicated, with the eager treachery of de-
serters, to the generals in the city (Joseph.), and,
as soon as the dawn of day permitted it, swift
pursuit was made. The king’s party must have
had some hours’ start, and ought to have had no
difficulty in reaching the Jordan; but, either from
their being on foot, weak and infirm, while the
pursuers were mounted, or perhaps owing to the
incumbrance of the women and baggage, they were
overtaken near Jericho, when just within sight
of the river. A few of the people only remained
round the person of the king. The rest Hed in all
directions, so that he was easily taken.
Nebuchadnezzar was then at Riblan, at the upper
end of the valley of Lebanon, some 35 miles beyond
Baalbec, and therefore about ten days’ journey from
Jerusalem. Thither Zedekiah and his sons were
despatched ; his daughters were kept at Jerusalem,
and shortly after fell into the hands of the notorious
Ishmael at Mizpah. When he was brought before
Nebuchadnezzar, the great king reproached him in
the severest terms, first for breaking his oath of alle-
giance, and next for ingratitude (Joseph.). He then,
with a refinement of cruelty characteristic of those
cruel times, ordered his sons to be killed before him,
and lastly his own eyes to be thrust out. He was
then loaded with brazen fetters, and at a later period
taken to Babylon, where he died. We are not told
whether he was allowed to communicate with his
brother Jehoiachin, who at that time was also in
captivity there; nor do we know the time of his
death; but from the omission of his name in the
statement of Jehoiakim’s release by Evil-Merodach,
26 years after the fall of Jerusalem, it is natural
to inter that by that time Zedekiah’s sufferings had
ended.
The fact of his interview with Nebuchadnezzar at
Riblah, and his being carried blind to Babylon, recon-
ciles two predictions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which
1836 ZEDEKIAH
at the time of their delivery must have/appeared
conflicting, and which Josephus indeed particularly
states Zedekiah alleged as his reason for not giving
more heed to Jeremiah. The former of these (Jer.
xxxii. 4) states that Zedekiah shall ‘‘speak with
the king of Babylon mouth to mouth, and his eyes
shall behold his eyes;” the latter (Ez. xii. 13),
that ‘‘he shall be brought to Babylon, yet shall
he not see it, though he die there.” The whole of
this prediction of Ezekiel, whose prophecies appear
to have been delivered at Babylon (Ez. i. 1-3;
xl. 1), is truly remarkable as describing almost
exactly the circumstances of Zedekiah’s flight.
2. UYPTS and *MPTS: Σεδεκίας: Sedecias.)
Son of Chenaanah, a prophet at the court of Ahab,
head, or, if not head, virtual leader of the college.
He appears but once, viz., as spokesman when the
prophets are consulted by Ahab on the result of
his proposed expedition to Ramoth-Gilead (1 K.
xxii.; 2 Chr. xviii.),
Zedekiah had prepared himself for the interview
with a pair of iron horns after the symbolic |
custom of the prophets (comp. Jer. xiii. xix.),
the horns of the reem, or buffalo, which was the
recognised emblem of the tribe of Ephraim (Deut.
xxxiii. 17). With these, in the interval of Micaiah’s
arrival, he illustrated the manner in which Ahab
should drive the Syrians before him. When Micaiah
appeared and had delivered his prophecy, Zedekiah
sprang forward and struck him a blow on the face,
accompanying it by a taunting sneer. For this he
is threatened by Micaiah in terms which are hardly
intelligible to us, but which evidently allude to |
some personal danger to Zedekiah.
The narrative of the Bible does not imply that the
blow struck by Zedekiah was prompted by more
than sudden anger, or a wish to insult and humi-
liate the prophet of Jehovah. But Josephus takes
a very different view, which he developes at some
length (Ant. viii. 15, 89). He relates that after
Micaiah had spoken, Zedekiah again came forward,
and denounced him as false on the ground that his
prophecy contradicted the prediction of Elijah, that
Ahab’s blood should be licked up by dogs in the
field of Naboth of Jezreel ; and asa further proof that
he was an impostor, he struck him, daring him to do
what Iddo, in somewhat similar circumstances, had
done to Jeroboam—viz., wither his hand.
This addition is remarkable, but it is related
by Josephus with great circumstantiality, and was |
doubtless drawn by him from that source, unhappily
now lost, from which he has added so many admirable
touches to the outlines of the sacred narrative.
As to the question of what Zedekiah and his
followers were, whether prophets of Jehovah or of
some false deity, it seems hardly possible to enter-
tain any doubt. True, they use the name of
Jehovah, but that was a habit of false prophets
(Jer. xxviii. 2, comp. xxix. 21, 31), and there is a
vast difference between the casual manner in which
they mention the awful Name, and the full, and as
it were, formal style in which Micaiah proclaims and
reiterates it. Seeing also that Ahab and his queen
were professedly worshippers of Baal and Ashtaroth,
and that a few years only before this event they
had an establishment consisting of two bodies—one
of 450, the other of 400—prophets of this false
worship, it is difficult to suppose that there could
ZELAH
have been also 400 prophets of Jehovah at his court.
But the inquiry of the king of Judah seems to decide
the point. After hearing the prediction of Zede-
kiah and his fellows, he asks at once for a prophet
of Jehovah: “Is there not here besides (Ti) a
prophet of Jehovah that we may enquire of him?”
The natural inference seems to be that the others
were not prophets of Jehovah, but were the 400
prophets of Ashtaroth (A. V. ‘ the groves’’) who
escaped the sword of Elijah (comp. 1 K. xviii. 19
with 22,40). They had spoken in His name, but
there was something about them—some trait of
manner, costume, or gesture—which aroused the
suspicions of Jehoshaphat, and, to the practised eye
of one who lived at the centre of Jehovah-worship
and was well versed in the marks of the genuine
prophet, proclaimed them counterfeits. With these
few words Zedekiah may be left to the oblivion in
which, except on this one occasion, he remains. [G. ]
3. (MP TS.) The son of Maaseiah, a false pro-
phet. in Babylon among the captives who were
taken with Jeconiah (Jer. xxix. 21, 22). He was
| denounced in the letter of Jeremiah for having,
with Ahab the son of Kolaiah, buoyed up the people
with false hopes, and for profane and flagitious con-
duct. Their names were to become a byword, and
their terrible fate a warning. Of this fate we have
no direct intimation, or of the manner in which
they incurred it: the prophet simply pronounces
that they should fall into the hands of Nebuchad-
nezzar and be burnt to death. In the Targum of
R. Joseph on 2 Chr. xxviii. 3 the story is told that
Joshua the son of Jozadak the high-priest was cast
into the furnace of fire with Ahab and Zedekiah,
but that, while they were consumed, he was saved
for his righteousness’ sake.
4. The son of Hananiah, one of the princes of
Judah who were assembled in the scribes’ chamber
of the king’s palace, when Micaiah announced that
Baruch had read the words of Jeremiah in the ears
of the people from the chamber of Gemariah the
scribe (Jer. xxxvi. 12). {We Acai
ZEEB (ANT: ὁ ZnB: Zeb). One of the two
“ princes” On) of Midian in the great invasion
of Israel—inferior to the ‘‘ kings” Zebah and Zal-
munna. He is always named with OrEB (Judg.
vii. 25, viii. 3; Ps. Ixxxiii. 11). The name signifies
in Hebrew “ wolf,” just as Oreb does “ crow,” and
the two are appropriate enough to the customs of
predatory warriors, who delight in conferring sucn
names on their chiefs.
Zeeb and Oreb were not slain at the first rout
of the Arabs below the spring of Harod, but at a
later stage of the struggle, probably in crossing
the Jordan at a ford further down the river, near
the passes which descend from Mount Ephraim,
An enormous mass of their followers perished with
them. [OreB.] Zeeb, the wolf, was brought to
bay in a winepress which in later times bore his
name—the ‘ winepress of Zeeb” (ANT AP:
laxep (hp; Alex. laxep(nB: Torcular Zeb). [G.]
ZE'LAH ΟὟΥ and yy, ἡ, 6. Tsela: in Josh.
Vat. omits; Alex. SnAa[Aep; in Sam. ἐν τῇ
πλευρᾷ in both: Sela; in latere). One of the
cities in the allotment of Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 28).
a Once only, viz. 1 K. xxii. 11.
Ὁ The meaning is slightly altered by the change in the
yowel-points. In the former case it signifies an “ addition ”
(abhang), in the latter a ‘‘rib” (Fiirst, Hwb. ii. 275 a).
Compare the equivalents of the LXX. and Vulg. in Samuel,
as given above.
ZELEK
Its place in the list is between Taralah and ha-
Eleph. None of these places have, however, been
yet discovered. The interest of Zelah resides in the
fact that it contained the family tomb of Kish the
father of Saul (2 Sam. xxi. 14), in which the bones
of Saul and Jonathan, and also apparently of the
two sons and five grandsons of Saul, sacrificed to
Jehovah on the hill of Gibeah, at last found their
resting-place (comp. ver. 13). As containing their
sepulchre, Zelah was in all probability the native
place of the family of Kish, and therefore his
home, and the home of Saul before his selection as
king had brought him into prominence. This ap-
pears to have been generally overlooked, but it is
important, because it gives a different starting-point
to that usually assumed for the journey of Saul in
quest of his father’s asses, as well as a different
goal for his return after the anointing ; and although
the position of Zelah is not and may never be known,
still it is one step nearer the solution of the com-
plicated difficulties of that route to know that
Gibeah—Saul’s royal residence after he became king
—was not necessarily the point either of his de-
parture or his return.
The absence of any connexion between the names
of Zelah and Zelzah (too frequently assumed) is
noticed under the latter head. [G.]
_* ZELEK (poy: Ἐλιέ, Seah; Alex. Σβλεγί,
Σελλήκ : Zelec).
guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 57; 1 Chr. xi. 89).
ZELOPH'EHAD (ἼΠΞΟΝ : Σαλπαάδ: Sal-
phaad). Son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir,
son of Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 3). He was appa-
rently the second son of his father Hepher (1 Chr.
vii. 15), though Simonis and others, following the
interpretation of the Rabbis, and under the impres-
sion that the etymology of his name indicates a
first-born, explains the term wn as meaning that
his lot came up second. Zelophehad came out of
Egypt with Moses; and all that we know of him
is that he took no part in Korah’s rebellion, but
that he died in the wilderness, as did the whole of
that generation (Num. xiv. 35, xxvii. 3). On his
death without male heirs, his five daughters, just
after the second numbering in the wilderness, came
before Moses and Eleazar to claim the inheritance of
their father in the tribe of Manasseh. The claim
was admitted by Divine direction, and a law was
promulgated, to be of general application, that if a
man died without sons his inheritance should pass
to his daughters (Num. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1-11),
which led to a further enactment (Num. xxxvi.),
that such heiresses should not marry out of their
own tribe—a regulation which the five daughters
of Zelophehad complied with, being all married to
sons of Manasseh, so that Zelophehad’s inheritance
continued in the tribe of Manasseh. The law of
succession, as exemplified in the case of Zelophehad,
is treated at length by Selden (De Success, capp.
Xxii. xxili.).
The interest of the case, in a legal point of view,
has led to the careful preservation of Zelophehad’s
ZEMARAIM 1837
genealogy. Beginning with Joseph, it will be seen
that the daughters of Zelophehad are the seventh
generation. So are Salmon, Bezaleel, and Zophai
(apparently the first settler of his family), from
their patriarchal ancestors; while Caleb, Achan, and
Phinehas are the sixth; Joshua seems to have been
the eighth. [SHUTHELAH.| The average, theretore,
seems to be between 6 and 7 generations, which, at
40 years to a generation (as suited to the length of lite
at that time) gives between 240 and 280 years, which
agrees very well with the reckoning of 215 years for
the sojourning of the Israelites in Keypt + 40 years
in the wilderness = 255 (Joseph. Ant. iv. 7, §5;
Selden, De Success. xxii. xxiii.). ΕΑ: ΟΣ ἘΠῚ]
ZELO'TES (Ζηλωτής : Zelotes). The epithet
given to the Apostle Simon to distinguish him from
Simon Peter (Luke vi. 15). In Matt. x. 4, he is
called ‘Simon the Canaanite,” the last word being
a corruption of the Aramaic term, of which “ Ze-
| lotes” is the Greek equivalent. [CANAANITE;
SIMON 5.]
ZEL'ZAH cnydy, i.e. Tseltsach: ἁλλομένους ἃ
μεγάλα, in both MSS.: in meridie). A place named
once only (1 Sam. x. 2), as on the boundary of
Benjamin, close to (DY) Rachel’s sepulchre. It was
the first point in the homeward journey of Saul
after his anointing by Samuel. Rachel’s sepulchre
PP νοητῆς, bEMDavid’s | is still shown a short distance to the north of Beth-
lehem, but no acceptable identification of Zelzach
has been proposed. It is usually considered as iden-
tical with Zelah, the home of Kish and Saul, and
that again with Beit-jala. But this is not tenable;
at any rate there is nothing to support it. The
names Zelah and Zelzach are not only not identical,
but they have hardly anything in common, still
less have nyby and YE; nor is Bett-jala close
enough to the Aubbet Rahil to answer to the ex-
pression of Samuel. [G.]
ZEMARA'TM (ΟΣ: Σάρα; Alex. Σιμριμ:
Semarain). One of the towns of the allotment of
Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 22). It is named between
Beth ha-Arabah and Bethel, and therefore on the
assumption that Arabah in the former name denotes
as usual the Jordan Valley, we should expect to
find Zemaraim either in the valley or in some posi-
tion on its western edge, between it and Bethel. In
the former case a trace of the name may remain in
Chiirbet el-Szomra, which is marked in Seetzen’s
map (Reisen, vol. iv. map 2) as about 4 miles
north of Jericho, and appears as es-Stimrah® in
those of Robinson and Van de Velde.f (See also
Rob. B. &.i. 569.) In the latter case Zemaraim
may be connected, or identical, with Mount Zr-
MARAIM, which must have been in the highland
district.
In either event Zemaraim may have derived its
name from the ancient tribe of the Zemarim or
Zemarites, who were related to the Hittites and
Amorites ; who, like them, are represented in the
Biblical account as descendants of Canaan, but,
from some cause or other unexplained, have lett
¢ In like manner the sepulchre of the family of Jesse
was at Bethlehem (2 Sam. ii. 32).
ἃ Apparently reading oyby. The Talmud has nu-
merous explanations, the favourite one being that Zelzah
was Jerusalem—* the shadow by) of God.” Something
of this kind is at the root of the meridie of the Vulg.
ὁ The name Swmrah occurs more than once elsewhere
}
in the Jordan valley. It is found close to the “ Round
fountain”? in the Plain of Gennesareth ; also at the S.E.
end of the Lake of Tiberias.
f In the 2nd ed. of Robinson (i. 569) the name is given
as es Simra; but this is probably a misprint. See the
Arabic Index to ed. i., the text, ii. 305, and the maps to
both editions.
1838 ZEMARAIM, MOUNT
but very scanty traces of their existence. The
lists of the towns of Benjamin are remarkable for
the number of tribes which they commemorate.
The Avites, the Ammonites, the Ophnites, the Je-
busites, are all mentioned in the catalogue of Josh.
xviii. 22-28, and it is at least possible that the
Zemarites may add another to the list. [G.]
ZEMARA'IM, MOUNT (DIDS Whi, πὸ
ὄρος Σομόρων : mons Someron). An eminence men-
tioned in 2 Chr. xiii. 4 only. It was ‘¢in Mount
Ephraim,” that is to say within the general district
of the highlands of that great tribe. It appears to
have been close to the scene of the engagement men-
tioned in the narrative, which again may be in-
ferred to have been south of Bethel and Ephraim
(ver. 19). It may be said in passing, that a position
so far south is no contradiction to its being in
Mount Ephraim. It has been already shown under
RamaAu [9986] that the name of Mount Ephraim
probably extended as far as er-Ram, 4 miles south
of Bertin, and 8 of Tuiyibeh, the possible represen-
tative of Ephraim. Whether Mount Zemaraim is
identical with, or related to, the place of the same
name mentioned in the preceding article, cannot be
ascertained. If they prove to be distinct places
they will furnish a double testimony to the presence
of the ancient tribe of Zemarites in this part of the
country. No name answering to Zemaraim has
been yet discovered in the maps or information of
travellers on the highland.
It will be observed that in the LXX. and Vul-
gate, this name is rendered by the same word which
in the former represents Samaria. But this, though
repeated (with a difference) in the case of Zemarite,
can hardly be more than an accidental error, since
the names have little or no resemblance in Hebrew.
In the present case Samaria is besides inadmissible
on topographical grounds. [G.]
ZEM'ARITE, THE CWDST: ὁ Sauapaios :
Samaraeus). One of the Hamite tribes who in the
genealogical table of Gen. x. (ver. 18), and 1 Chr.
i. (ver. 16), are represented as “ sons of Canaan.”
It is named between the Arvadite, or people of
Ruad, and the Hamathite, or people of Hamah.
Nothing is certainly known of this ancient tribe.
The old interpreters (Jerusalem Targum, Arabic
Version, &c.) place them at Emessa, the modern
Hums. Michaelis (Spicilegium, ii. 51), revolting
at the want of similarity between the two names
(which is perhaps the strongest argument in favour
of the old identification), proposes to locate them at
Sumra (the Simyra of the classical geographers),
which name is mentioned by Shaw as attached to
a site of ruins near Arka, on the west coast of
Syria, 10 or 11 miles above Tripoli.
On the new French map of the Lebanon (Carte
du Liban, &c., 1862) it appears as Kobbet oum
Shoumra, and lies between Arka and the Mediter-
ranean, 2 kilométres from the latter, and 52 from
the former. Beyond, however, the resemblance in
the names, and the proximity of Ruud and Arka,
the probable seats of the Arvadites and Arkites, and
the consequent inference that the original seat of
the Zemarites must have been somewhere in this
direction, there is nothing to prove that Sumra or
Shoumra have any connexion with the Tsemarites
of the ancient records.
Traces of their having wandered to the south are
possibly afforded by the name Zemaraim, formerly
attached to two places in the topographical lists of
ZEPHANIAH
Central Palestine—a district which appears to have
been very attractive to the aboriginal wandering
tribes from every quarter. [ZEMARAIM; see also
Avi, OPHNI, &c. |
The LXX. and Vulgate would connect the Ze-
marites with Samaria. In this they have been
followed by some commentators. But the idea is
a delusion, grounded on the inability of the Greek
alphabet to express the Hebrew letters of both
names. [G.]
ZEM'TRA (ΩΝ : Zeuipd; Alex. Ζαμιρίας :
Zamira). One of the sons of Becher the son of
Benjamin (1 Chr. vii. 8).
ZENAN' (ΩΝ : Sevvd; Alex. Sevvau: Sanan).
One of the towns in the allotment of Judah, situ-
ated in the district of the Shetélah (Josh. xv. 37).
It occurs in the second group of the enumeration,
which contains amongst others Migdal-gad and
Lachish. It is probably identical with ZAANAN,
a place mentioned by the prophet Micah in the
same connexion.
Schwarz (103) proposes to identify it with “ the
village Zan-abra, situated 23 English miles south-
east of Mareshah.” By this he doubtless intends
the place which in the lists of Robinson (B. R.
1st ed. vol. iii, App. 117) is called es-Senabirah,
8 lind), and in Tobler’s Dritte Wanderung
(149), es-Sennabereh. The latter traveller in his
map places it about 2% miles due east of Murash
(Maresha). But this identification is more than
doubtful. [G.]
ZE'NAS (Ζηνᾶς, a contraction from Ζηνόδωρος,
as “Apteuas from ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος. Νυμφᾶς from
Nuppddwpos, and, probably, Ἑρμᾶς from ‘Epud-
dwpos), a believer, and, as may be inferred from
the context, a preacher of the Gospel, who is men-
tioned in Tit. iii. 13 in connexion with Apollos, and,
together with him, is there commended by St. Paul
to the care and hospitality of Titus and the Cretan
brethren. He is further described as “ the lawyer”
(τὸν νομικόν). It is impossible to determine with
certainty whether we are to infer from this designa-
tion that Zenas was a Roman jurisconsult or a
Jewish doctor. Grotius accepts the former alter-
native, and thinks that he was a Greek who had
studied Roman law. The N. T. usage of νομικός
leads rather to the other inference. ‘Tyadition has
been somewhat busy with the name of Zenas. The
Synopsis de Vita et Morte Prophetarum Apostolo-
rum et Discipulorum Domini, ascribed to Dorotheus
of Tyre, makes him to have been one of the
“* seventy-two ” disciples, and subsequently bishop
of Diospolis in Palestine (Bibl. Patr. iii. 150).
The ‘‘ seventy-two” disciples of Dorotheus are, how-
ever, a mere string of names picked out of saluta-
tions and other incidental notices in the N. T. The
Greek Menologies on the festival of SS. Bartholo-
mew and Titus (Aug. 25) refer to a certain Life of
Titus, ascribed to Zenas, which is also quoted for
the supposed conversion of the younger Pliny (com-
pare Fabricius, Codex Apocr. N. Tf. ii. 831, 2).
The association of Zenas with Titus, in St. Paul’s
Epistle to the latter, sufficiently accounts for the
forgery. Ἢ
ZEPHANT'AH (IDS: Σοφονίας : δορλοπία.
These forms refer to another punctuation, MIBY,
a participial form). Jerome derives the name from
ZEPHANIAH
mMD¥, and supposes it to mean speculator Domini,
κε watcher of the Lord,” an appropriate appellation
for a prophet. The pedigree of Zephaniah, ch. i. 1,
is traced to his fourth ancestor, Hezekiah: supposed
by Aben Ezra to be the celebrated king of that name.
This is not in itself improbable, and the tact that
the pedigree terminates with that name, points to a
personage of rank and importance. Late critics and
commentators generally acquiesce in this hypothesis,
viz. Eichhorn, Hitzig, F. Ad. Strauss ( Vaticinia
Zephuniae, Berlin, 1843), Havernick, Keil, and
Bleek (Linleitung in das Alte Testament).
Analysis. Chap. i. The utter desolation of Judaea
1s predicted as a judoment for idolatry, and neglect
of the Lord, the luxury of the princes, and the
violence and deceit of their dependents (3-9). The
prosperity, security, and insolence of the people is
contrasted with the horrors of the day of wrath;
the assaults upon the fenced cities and high towers,
and the slaughter of the people (10-18). Ch. ii., a
call to repentance (1-3), with prediction of the ruin
of the cities of the Philistines, and the restoration
of the house of Judah after the visitation (4-7).
Other enemies of Judah, Moab, Ammon, are threat-
ened with perpetual destruction, Ethiopia with
a great slaughter, and Nineveh, the capital of
Assyria, with desolation (8-15). Ch. iii. ‘The pro-
phet addresses Jerusalem, which he reproves sharply
for vice and disobedience, the cruelty of the princes
and the treachery of the priests, and for their ge-
neral disregard of warnings and visitations (1-7).
He then concludes with a series of promises, the
destruction of the enemies of God’s people, the
restoration of exiles, the extirpation of the proud
and violent, and the permanent peace and _blessed-
ness of the poor and afflicted remnant who shall
trust in the name of the Lord. These exhortations
to rejoicing and exertion are mingled with inti-
mations of a complete manifestation of God’s
righteousness and love in the restoration of His
people (8-20).
The chief characteristics of this book are the
unity and harmony of the composition, the grace,
energy, and dignity of its style, and the rapid and
effective alternations of threats and promises. Its
prophetical import is chiefly shown in the accurate
predictions of the desolation which has fallen upon
each of the nations denounced for their crimes;
Ethiopia, which is menaced with a terrible invasion,
being alone exempted from the doom of perpetual
ruin. ‘The general tone of the last portion is Mes-
sianic, but without any specific reference to the
Person of our Lord.
The date of the book is given in the inscription ;
viz. the reign of Josiah, from 642 to 611 B.c.
This date accords fully with internal indications.
Nineveh is represented as in a state of peace
and prosperity, while the notices of Jerusalem
touch upon the same tendencies to idolatry and
crime which are condemned by the contemporary
Jeremiah.
It is most probable, moreover, that the pr ophecy
was delivered before the 18th year of Josiah, when |
the reformation, for which it prepares the way, was
carried into effect, and about the time when the
Scythians overran the empires of Western Asia,
extending their devastations to Palestine. The no-
tices which are supposed by some critics to indicate
a somewhat later date ave satisfactorily explained.
The king’s children, who are spoken of, in ch. i. 8,
as addicted to foreign habits, could not have been
sons of Josiah, who was but eight years old at his
ZEPHATH 1839
accession, but were probably his brothers or near
relatives. The remnant of Baal (ch. i. 4) implies
that some partial reformation had previously taken
place, while the notices of open idolatry are incom-
patible with the state of Judah after the discovery
of the Book of the Law. [F. Ὁ. C.]
2. (Sapavia; Alex. Sapavias: Sophonias). A
Kohathite Levite, ancestor of Samuel and Heman
(1 Chr. vi. 36 (21).
3. (Zodovias.) The son of Maaseiah (Jer. xxi.
1), and sagan or second priest in the reign of Zede-
kiah. He succeeded Jehoiada (Jer. xxix. 25, 26),
and was probably a ruler of the Temple, whose
office it was among others to punish pretenders to
the gift of prophecy. In this capacity he was ap-
pealed to by Shemaiah the Nehelamite, in a letter
from Babylon, to punish Jeremiah (Jer. xxix. 29).
Twice was he sent from Zedekiah to inquire of
Jeremiah the issue of the siege of the city by the
Chaldeans (Jer. xxi. 1), and to implore him to
intercede for the people (Jer. xxxvii. 3). On the
capture of Jerusalem by Nebuzaradan he was taken
with Seraiah the high-priest and others, and slain
at Riblah (Jer. lii. 24, 27; 2 K. xxv. 18, 21). In
2 K. xxv. 18, Jer. xxxvii. 3, his name is written in
the longer form IMIDY.
4. Father of spay (Zech. vi. 10), and of Hen,
according to the reading of the received text of Zech.
vi. 14, as given in the A. V. ᾿ [W. A. W.]
ZEPHATH! (NDY: Σεφέκ ; Alex. Seep:
Sephath). The earlier name (according to the single
notice of Judg. i. 17) of a Canaanite town, which
after its capture and destruction was called by the
Israelites HORMAH. ‘Two identifications have been
proposed for Zephath:—that of Dr. Robinson with
the well-known Pass es-Sufé (&xlsual$), by which
the ascent is made from the borders of the Argbah
to the higher level of the ‘South country ” (B. Ti.
ii. 181), ‘and that of Mr. Rowlands ( Williams’s Holy
City, i. 464) with Sebdta, 24 hours beyond Khalasa,
on the road to Suez, and + of an hour north of
Rohebeh or Ruheibeh.
The former of these, Mr. Wilton (The Negeb
&e., 199, 200) has challenged, on account of the
impracticability of the pass for the approach of
the Israelites, and the inappropriateness of so rugged
and desolate a spot for the position of a city of
any importance. The question really forms part
of a much larger one, which this is not the place to
discuss—viz. the route by which the Israelites
approached the Holy Land. But in the mean time
it should not be overlooked that the attempt in
question was an unsuccessful one, which is se far
in favour of the steepness of the pass. The argu-
| ment from the nature of the site is one which might
be brought with equal force against the existence of
many others of the towns in this region. On the
identification of Mr. Rowlands some doubt is thrown
by the want of certainty as to the name, as well as
by the fact that no later traveller has succeeded in
finding the name Sebdta, or the spot. Dr. Stewart
(Tent and Khan, 205) heard of the name, but
east of Khalasa instead of south, and this was in
answer to a leading question—always a dangerous
experiment with Arabs.
It is earnestly to be hoped that some means may
shortly be found, to attempt at least the examina-
tion and reconcilement of these and the like contra-
dictory statements and inferences. [G.]
1840 ZEPHATHAH
ZERAH
ZK’PHATHAH, THE VALLEY OF (N'A | Gershonite Levite, son of Iddo or Adaiah (1 Chr.
nnay: h φάραγξ κατὰ *Boppay, in both MSS. ;
Joseph. φ. Sap0d: Vallis Sephata). The spot in
which Asa joined battle with Zerah the Ethiopian
(2 Chr. xiv. 10 only). It was “at” or rather
“belonging to ” Mareshah {πῦον : Joseph. ovr
ἄπωθεν). This would seem to exclude the possi-
bility of its being, as suggested by Dr. Robinson
(ii. 31), at Tell es-Safich, which is not less than ὃ
miles from Marash, the modern representative of
Mareshah. It is not improbable that an examination
of the neighbourhood might reveal both spot and
name. Considering the enormous number of the
combatants, the valley must be an extensive
one. [G.]
ZE'PHI (HY: Σωφάρ : Sephi), 1 Chr. 1, 96.
[ZEPuHo. | ‘
ZE'PHO (DY: Σωφάρ: Sephu). A son of
Eliphaz son of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 11), and one of
the ‘* dukes,” or phylarchs, of the Edomites (ver.
15). In 1 Chr, i. 36 he is called Zepur. [E.S. P.]
ZEPH'ON (JBN: Sapav; Alex. omits: Se-
phon). ZIPHION the son of Gad (Num. xxvi. 15),
and ancestor of the family of the ZEPHONITES.
ZEPHON'ITES, THE ONIDST : 6 Σαφωνί;
Alex, omits: Sephonitae). A branch of the tribe
of Gad, descended from Zephon or Zipnion (Num.
Xxvi. 15):
ZER ΟΝ : Τύρος ; Alex. omits: Ser). One of
the fortified towns of the allotment of Naphtali
(Josh. xix. 85 only). From the names which suc-
ceed it in the list it may be inferred that it was
in the neighbourhood of the S.W. side of the Lake
of Gennesareth. The versions of the LXX. and of
the Peshito, both of this name and that which pre-
cedes it, are grounded on an obvious mistake.
Neither of them has anything to do with Tyre or
Zidon,
Ziddim may possibly be identified with Hattin ;
but no name resembling Tsér appears to have been yet
discovered in the neighbourhood of Tiberias. [G.]
ZE'RAH (AW: Ζαρέ: Zara). A son of Reuel
son of Hsau (Gen. xxxvi. 13; 1 Chr. i. 37), and
one of the “dukes,” or phylarchs, of the Edomites
(Gen. xxxvi. 17). Jobab of Bozrah, one of the
early kings of Edom, perhaps belonged to his family
(xxxvi. 33; 1 Chr. 1. 44), Εἰ Sb ΒΗ]
ZE'RAH, less properly, ZARAH (Mt, with the
pause accent, ΠῚ: Ζαρά: Zarda). Twin son with
his elder brother Pharez of Judah and Tamar (Gen,
xxxvill. 30; 1 Chr. ii. 6; Matt. i. 3). His de-
scendants were called Zarhites, LEzrahites, and
Izrahites (Num. xxvi. 20; 1K. iv. 31; 1Chr.
xxvii. 8, 11), and continued at least down to the
time of Zerubbabel (1 Chr. ix. 6; Neh. xi. 24),
Nothing is related of Zerah individually, beyond the
peculiar circumstances of his birth (Gen. xxxviii.
27-30), concerning which see Heidege. Hist. Pa-
triarch. xviii. 28. pA. C. H.]
2. (Zapés; Alex. Zapaé: Zara.) Son of Simeon
(1 Chr. iv. 24), called ZoHAR in Gen. xlvi. 10.
3. (Zapd, Zaapat; Alex. Ζαρά, “ACapias.) A
4 Probably reading mY. It will be observed that
Josephus here forsakes the LX X, for the Hebrew text.
vi. 21, 41 [Heb. vi. 26]).
4. (MN: Ζαρέ: Zerah.) The Ethiopian or
Cushite, 3341, an invader of Judah, defeated by
Asa.
1. In its form the name is identical with the He-
brew proper name above. It has been supposed to
represent the Egyptian USARKEN, possibly pro-
nounced USARCHEN, a name almost certainly of
Semitic origin [SHISHAK, ii. 1289]. The difference is
creat, but may be partly accounted for, if we suppose
that the Egyptian deviates from the original Semitic
form, and that the Hebyew represents that form,
or that a further deviation than would have been
made was the result of the similarity of the Hebrew
proper name Zerah. So, NID, even if pronounced
SEWA, or SEVA, is more remote from SHEBEK
or SHEBETEK than Zerah from USARKEN. It
may be conjectured that these forms resemble those
of Memphis, Moph, Noph, which evidently repre-
sent current pronunciation, probably of Shemites.
2. The war between Asa and Zerah appears to
have taken place soon after the 10th, and shortly
before the 15th, year of Asa, probably late in the
14th, as we shall see in examining the narrative. It
therefore occurred in about the same year of Usar-
‘\ken II., fourth king of the xxiind dynasty, who
began to reign about the same time as the king of
Judah. Asa’s reign, as far as the 14th year inclu-
sive, was B.C. cir. 953-940, or, if Manasseh’s reign
be reckoned of 35 years, 933-920. [SHISHAK, il.
pp- 1287-1289. ]
3. The first ten years of Asa’s reign were undis~
turbed by war. Then Asa took counsel with his sub-
jects, and walled and fortified the cities of Judah. He
also maintained an army of 580,000 men, 300,000
spearmen of Judah, and 280,000 archers of Benja-
min. This great force was probably the whole
number of men able to bear arms (2 Chr. xiv. 1-8).
At length, probably in the 14th year of Asa, the
anticipated danger came. Zerah, the Ethiopian,
with a mighty army of a million, Cushim and
Lubim, with three hundred chariots, invaded the
kinedom, and advanced unopposed in the field as far
as Mareshah.. As the invaders afterwards retreated
by way of Gerar, and Mareshah lay on the west of
the hill-country of Judah, where it rises out of the
Philistine plain, in the line of march from Egypt
to Jerusalem, it cannot be doubted that they
came out of Egypt. Between the border on the
side of Gerar and Mareshah, lay no important city
but Gath. Gath and Mareshah were both fortified
by Rehoboam before the invasion of Shishak (xi.
8), and were no doubt captured and probably dis-
mantled by that king (comp. xii. 4), whose list of
conquered towns, &c., shows that he not only took
some strong towns, but that he subdued the country
in detail. A delay in the capture of Gath, where
the warlike Philistines may have opposed a stubborn
resistance, would have removed the only obstacle
on the way to Mareshah, thus securing the retreat
that was afterwards made by this route. From
Mareshah, or its immediate neighbourhood, was a
route to Jerusalem, presenting no difficulties but
those of a hilly country; for not one important
town is known to have lain between the capital and
this outpost of the tribe of Judah. The invading
army had swarmed across the border and devoured
the Philistine fields before Asa could march to meet
it. The distance from Gerar, or the south-western
border of Palestine, to Mareshah, was not much ~
ZERAH
greater than from Mareshah to Jerusalem, and,
considering the nature of the tracts, would have
taken about the same time to traverse; and only
such delay as would have been caused by the sieges
of Gath and Mareshah could have enabled Asa
hastily to collect a levy and march to relieve the
beleaguered town, or hold the passes. ‘In the
Valley of Zephathah at Mareshah,” the two armies
met. We cannot perfectly determine the site of the
battle. Mareshah, according to the Onomasticon,
lay within two miles of Eleutheropolis, and Dr. Ro-
binson has reasonably conjectured its position to be
marked by a remarkable ‘ tell,” or artificial mound,
a mile and a half south of the site of the latter
town. Its signification, “that which is at the
head,” would scarcely suit a position at the open-
ing of a valley. But it seems that a narrow
valley terminates, and a broad one commences, at
the supposed site. The Valley of Zephathah, “ the
watch-tower,” is supposed by Dr. Robinson to be
the latter, a broad wadee, descending from Eleu-
theropolis in a north-westerly direction towards
Tell-es-Safieh, in which last name he is disposed
to trace the old appellation (Bib. Res. ii. 31). The
two have no connexion whatever, and Robinson’s
conjecture is extremely hazardous. If this identi-
fication be correct, we must suppose that Zerah
retired from before Mareshah towards the plain,
that he might use his “ chariots and horsemen”
with effect, instead of entangling them in the
narrow valleys leading towards Jerusalem. From
the prayer of Asa we may judge that, when
he came upon the invading army, he saw its
hugeness, and so that, as he descended through
a valley, it lay spread out beneath him. The
Egyptian monuments enable us to picture the
general disposition of Zerah’s army, ‘The chariots
tormed the first corps in a single or double line ;
behind them, massed in phalanxes, were heavy-
armed troops ; probably on the flanks stood archers
and horsemen in lighter formations. Asa, march-
ing down a valley, must have attacked in a heavy
column ; for none but the most highly-disciplined
troops can form line from column in the face of an
enemy. His spearmen of Judah would have com-
posed this column: each bank of the valley would
have been occupied by the Benjamite archers, like
those who came to David, ‘helpers of the war,
armed with bows, and [who] could use both
the right hand and the left in [hurling] stones
and [shooting] arrows out of a bow” (1 Chr.
xii. 1, 2). No doubt the Ethiopian, confident in
his numbers, disdained to attack the Hebrews or
clear the heights, but waited in the broad valley,
or the plain. Asa’s prayer before the battle is
full of the noble faith of the age of the Judges:
“Lor [it is] alike to Thee to help, whether the
strong or the weak: help us, O Lorp our God;
for we rest on Thee, and in Thy name we go
against this multitude. O Lorp, Thou [art] our
God ; let not man prevail against Thee.’ From the
account of Abijah’s defeat of Jeroboam, we may
suppose that the priests sounded their trumpets,
and the men of Judah descended with a shout
(2 Chr. xiii. 14, 15). The hills and mountains
were the favourite camping-places of the Hebrews,
who usually rushed down upon their more numerous
or better-disciplined enemies in the plains and val-
leys. If the battle were deliberately set in array,
it would have begun early in the morning, accord-
ing to the usual practice of these times, when
there was not a night-surprise, as when Goliath
VOL. 11.
ZERAH 1841
challenged the Israelites (1 Sam. xvii. 20-23), and
when Thothmes III. fought the Canaanites at Me-
giddo, and as we may judge fiom the long pur-
suits at this period, the sun would have been in the
eyes of the army of Zerah, and its archers would
have been thus useless. The chariots, broken by the
charge and with horses made unmanageable by flights
of arrows, must have been forced back upon the
cumbrous host behind. ‘‘So the Lorp smote the
Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the
Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that
[were] with him pursued them unto Gerar: and
[or “tor” ] the Ethiopians were overthrown, that
they could not recover themselves.” ‘This last
clause seems to relate to an irremediable over-
throw at the first ; and, indeed, had it not been so,
the pursuit would not have been carried, and, as it
seems at once, beyond the frontier. So complete
was the overthrow, that the Hebrews could capture
and spoil the cities around Gerar, which must have
been in alliance with Zerah. From these cities
they took very much spoil, and they also smote
“the tents of cattle, and carried away sheep and
camels in abundance” (2 Chr. xiv. 9-15). More
seems to have been captured from the Arabs than
from the army of Zerah: probably the army con-
sisted of a nucleus of regular troops, and a great
body of tributaries, who would have scattered in all
directions, leaving their country open to reprisals.
On his return to Jerusalem, Asa was met by Aza-
riah, who exhorted him and the people to be faithful
to God. Accordingly Asa made a second reforma-
tion, and collected his subjects at Jerusalem in the
3rd month of the 15th year, and made a covenant,
and offered of the spoil ‘* seven hundred oxen and
seven thousand sheep”’ (xv. 1-15). From this it
would appear that the battle was fought in the
preceding winter. The success of Asa, and the
manifest blessing that attended him, drew to him
Ephraimites, Manassites, and Simeonites. His
father had already captured cities in the Isvaelite
territory (xiii. 19), and he held cities in Mount
Ephraim (xv. 8), and then was at peace with
Israel. Simeon, always at the mercy of a powerful
king of Judah, would have naturally turned to
him. Never was the house of David stronger after
the defection of the ten tribes; but soon the king
fell into the wicked error, so constantly to be re-
peated, of calling the heathen to aid him against
the kindred Israelites, and hired Benhadad, king of
Syria-Damascus, to lay their cities waste, when Ha-
nani the prophet recalled to him the great victory
he had achieved when he trusted in God (xvi. 1-9).
The after years of Asa were troubled with wars
(ver. 9); but they were with Baasha (1 K. xv. 16,
32). Zerah and his people had been too signally
crushed to attack him again,
4. The identification of Zerah has occasioned some
difference of opinion. He has been thought to have
been a Cushite of Arabia, or a Cushite of Ethiopia
above Egypt. But lately it has been supposed that
Zerah is the Hebrew name of Usarken I., second king
of the Egyptian xxiind dynasty; or perhaps more pro-
bably Usarken II., his second successor. This ques-
tion is a wider one than seems at first sight. We
have to inquire whether the army ot Zerah was that
of an Egyptian king, and, if the reply be affirmative,
whether it was led by either Usarken I. or 1].
The war of Shishak had reduced the angle of
Arabia that divided Egypt from Palestine. Pyo-
bably Shishak was unable to attack the Assyrians,
and endeavoured, by securing this tract, to guard
6B
1842 ZERAH
the approach to Egypt. If the army of Zerah were
Egyptian, this would account for its connexion with
the people of Gerar and the pastoral tribes of the
neighbourhood, The sudden decline of the power
of Egypt after the reign of Shishak would be ex-
plained by the overthrow of the Egyptian army
about thirty years later.
The composition of the army of Zerah, of Cushim
and Lubim (2 Chr. xvi. 8), closely resembles that
of Shishak, of Lubim, Sukkiim, and Cushim (xii.
3): both armies also had chariots and horsemen
(xvi. 8, xii. 3). The Cushim might have been of
an Asiatic Cush, but the Lubim can only have been
Africans. The army, therefore, must have been of
a king of Egypt, or Ethiopia above Egypt. The
uncertainty is removed by our finding that the
kings of the xxiind dynasty employed mercenaries
of the MASHUWASHA, a Libyan tribe, which
apparently supplied the most important part of
their hired force. The army, moreover, as consist-
ing partly, if not wholly, of a mercenary force, and
with chariots and horsemen, is, save in the horse-
men, exactly what the Egyptian army of the empire
would have been, with the one change of the in-
creased importance given to the mercenaries, that we
know to have marked it under the xxiind dynasty.
[SHISHAK, ii. p. 1289 α.1] That the army was of
an Egyptian king therefore cannot be doubted.
As to the identification of Zerah with an
Usarken, we speak diffidently. That he is called
a Cushite must be compared with the oceurrence of
the name NAMURET, Nimrod, in the line of the
Usarkens, but that line seems rather to have been
of eastern than of western Ethiopians (see, how-
ever, SHISHAK, ii. p. 1289). The name Usarken
has been thought to be Sargon [Surswak, /. c.],
in which case it is unlikely, but not impossible,
that another Hebrew or Shemitic name should have
been adopted to represent the Evyptian form, On
the other hand, the kings of the xxiind dynasty
were of a warlike family, and their sons constantly
held military commands. It is unlikely that an
important army would have been intrusted to any
but a king or prince. Usarken is less remote from
Zerah than seems at first sight, and, according to our
computation, Zerah might have been Usarken II.,
but according to Dr. Hincks’s, Usarken I.
5. The defeat of the Egyptian army by Asa
is without parallel in the history of the Jews.
On no other occasion did an Israelite army meet
an army of one of the great powers on either
side and defeat it. Shishak was unopposed, Sen-
nacherib was not met in the field, Necho was so
met and overthrew Josiah’s army, Nebuchadnezzar
like Shishak was only delayed by fortifications.
The defeat of Zerah thus is a solitary instance, more
of the power of faith than of the bravery of the
Hebrews, a single witness that the God of Israel
was still the same who had led His people through
the Red Sea, and would give them the same aid if
they trusted in Him. We have, indeed, no distinct
statement that the defeat of Zerah was a miracle,
but we have proof enough that God pvrovidentially
enabled the Hebrews to vanquish a force greater in
number, stronger in the appliances of war, with
horsemen and chariots, more accurate in discipline,
no raw levies hastily equipped from the king’s
armoury, but a seasoned standing militia, strength-
ened and more terrible by the addition of swarms of
hungry Arabs, bred to war, and whose whole life
was a time of pillage. This great deliverance is one
of the many proofs that God is to His people ever the
ZEREDA
same, whether He bids them stand still and behold
His salvation, or nerves them with that courage
that has wrought great things in His name in our
later age; thus it bridges over a chasm between two
periods outwardly unlike, and bids us see in history
the immutability of the Divine actions. [R.S. P.]
ZERAHI'AH CN : Zapata, Sapatas, Za-
pala; Alex. Zapalas, Zapids, Ζαραΐας : Zaraias,
Zarahiv). A priest, son of Uzzi, and ancestor of
Ezra the Scribe (1 Chr. vi. 6, 51 [Heb. v. 32, vi.
36]; Ezr. vii. 4).
Ὁ. (Σαραΐα; Alex. Zapata: Zarehe.) Father of
Elihoenai of the sons of Pahath Moab (Ezr. viii. 4) :
called ZARAIAS in 1 ἔβαν. viii. 31.
ZER'ED (ΤῊ: Ζαρέδ, Zapér: Zared). The
name of a brook or valley running into the Dead Sea
near its S.E. corner, which Dr, Robinson (Bib. Res.
ii. 157) with some probability suggests as identical
with the Wady el Ahsy. It lay between Moab and
Edom, and is the limit of the proper term of the
Israelites’ wandering (Deut. ii. 14). Laborde,
arguing from the distance, thinks that the source
of the Wady Ghirtindel in the Arabah is the site ;
as from Mount Hor to οἷ Ahsy is by way of Ezion-
geber 65 leagues, in which only four stages occur :
arate of progress quite: beyond their power. This
argument, however, is feeble, since it is clear that
the march-stations mentioned indicate not daily
stages, but more permanent encampments. He also
thinks the palm-trees of Wady G. would have at-
tracted notice, and that Wady Jethum (el [thin)
could not have been the way consistently with the
precept of Deut. ii. 3. The camping station in the
catalogue of Num. xxiii., which corresponds to the
“ pitching in the valley of Zared” of xxi. 12, is
probably Dibon-Gad, as it stands next to Ije-Abarim ;
compare Num. xxxiii, 44-45 with xxi. 12. The
Wady el-Ahsy forms the boundary between the
districts of Jebal and Kerek. The stream runsina
very deep ravine and contains a hot spring which
the Arabs call the ““ Bath of Solomon son of David ”
(Irby, May 29).
The Jewish interpreters translate the name in the
first case “‘ osiers,” and in the second ‘‘ baskets”
(Targum Pseudojonathan), which recals the “ brook
of the willows” of Isaiah (xv. 7). The name
Sufsaf (willow) is attached to the valley which
runs down from Kerak to the Dead Sea; but this
appears to be too far north for the Zered. [WIL-
LOWS, BROOK OF THE. | she cea
ZER'EDA (17780, ἡ. 6. the Tserédah, with
the def. article: ἡ Sapeipa; Alex. ἣ Σαριδα :
Sareda). The native place, according to the present
Hebrew text, οἵ Jeroboam, the leader of the revolt
of the northern tribes, and the first king of the
‘¢ Kingdom of Israel.” It occurs in 1 K, xi. 26
only. The LXX. (in the Vatican Codex) for Zereda
substitute Sareira, as will be seen above. This is
not in itself remarkable, since it is but an instance
of the exchange of r and d, which is so often
observed both in the LXX. and Syriac Versions,
and which has not impossibly taken place in the
Hebrew text itself of Judg. vii. 22, where the name
Zeverah appears attached to a place which is per-
haps elsewhere called Zeredathah. But it is more
remarkable that in the long addition to the history
of Jeroboam which these translators insert between
1 K. xii. 24 and 25 of the Hebrew text, Sareira is
frequently mentioned. In strong contrast to the
merely casual mention of it in the Hebrew narrative
ZEREDATHAH
as Jeroboain’s native place, it is elevated in the
narrative of the LXX. into great prominence, and
becomes in fact the most important and, it may
naturally be presumed, the most impregnable for-
tress of Ephraim. It there appears as the town
which Jeroboam fortified for Solomon in Mount
Ephraim ; thither he repairs on his return from
Egypt; there he assembles the tribe of Ephraim,
and there he builds a fortress. Of its position
nothing is said except that it was ‘ in Mount
Ephraim,” but from the nature of the case it must
have been central. The LXX. further make it
the residence of Jeroboam at the time of the death
of his child, and they substitute it for Tirzah (not
only on the single occasion on. which the latter
name occurs in the Hebrew of this narrative, but)
three times over. No explanation has been given
of this change of ws into ΠΝ. It is hardly
one which would naturally occur from the cor-
ruptions either of copyists or of pronunciation.
The question of the source and value of these sin-
gular additions of the LXX. has never yet been
fully examined ; but in the words of Dean Milman
(Hist. of the Jews, 3rd ed. i. 332), “ there is a
circumstantialness about the incidents which gives
them an air of authenticity, or rather antiquity,”
and which it is to be hoped will prompt some
scholar to a thorough investigation.
Zeredah has been supposed to be identical with
ZEREDATHAH (2 Chr. iv. 17) and ZARTHAN or
ZARTANAH. But even if the two last of these
names were more similar to it than they are, there
would remain the serious topographical difficulty
to such an identification, that they were in the
valley of the Jordan, while Zeredah was, according
to the repeated statement of the LXX., on Mount
Ephraim. If, however, the restricted statement
of the Hebrew Bible be accepted, which names
Zeredah merely as the native place of Jeroboam,
and as not concerned in the events of his mature
life, then there is no obstacle to its situation in
that part of the tribe of Ephraim which lay in the
Jordan Valley. [G.]
ZERE/DATHAH (ANTS: Σιρδαθαί ; Alex.
Σαδαθα: Saredatha). Named (in 2 Chr. ἵν. 17 only)
in specifying the situation of the foundries for the
brass-work of Solomon’s Temple. In the parallel
passage in 1 K. vii. 46 ZARTHAN occupies the place
of Zeredathah, the rest of the sentence being lite-
rally the same; but whether the one name is merely
an accidental variation of the other, or whether,
there is some ground for believing, there is a con-
nexion between Zeredah, Zeredathah, Zererah, and
Zarthan, we have now no means of determining.
It should be observed that Zeredah has in the
original the definite article prefixed to it, which is
not the case with either Zeredathah or Zerera. [G.]
ZER'ERATH? ans, i, 6. Tsererah: >Ta-
γαραγαθά ; Alex. Kat συνηγμενή : Vulg. omits).
A place named only in Judg. vii, 22, in describing
the flight of the Midianite host before Gideon. The
A. V. has somewhat unnecessarily added to the
a ‘I'he th terminating the name in the A. V. is the He-
brew mode of connecting it with the particle of motion :—
Zererathah, 7. 6. to Zererah.
b The Ta at the commencement of this barbarous word
no doubt belongs to the preceding name, Beth-shittah ; and
they should be divided as follows, Βηθσεεῦτα Ταραγαθα.
The Vatican Codex appears to be the only MS. which re-
tains any trace of the name. The others quoted by Holmes
ZERUBBABEL 1843
original obscurity of the passage, which runs as
follows :—‘* And the host fled unto Beth has-shittah
to © Zererah, unto the brink of Abel Meholah upon
Tabbath ”—apparently describing the two lines of
flight taken by the two portions of the horde.
It is natural to presume that Zererah is the same
name as Zeredathah.¢ They both appear to have been
in the Jordan valley, and as to the difference in the
names, the termination is insignificant, and the ex-
change of Ἵ and Ἢ is of constant occurrence. Zere-
dathah, again, appears to be equivalent to Zarthan.
It is also difficult not to suppose that Zererah is
the same place with the Sarira which the LXX.
present as the equivalent of Zereda and of Tirzah.
But in the way of this there is the difficulty which
has been pointed out under Zereda, that the two
last-named places appear to have been in the high-
lands of Ephraim, while Zererah and Zeredathah
were in the Jordan Valley. [G.]
ZER'ESH (Wt: Zwodpa; Swodpa; Joseph.
Zdpa¢a: Zares). The wife of Haman the Agagite
(Esth. ν. 10, 14, vi. 13), who counselled him to
prepare the gallows for Mordecai, but predicted her
husband’s ruin as soon as she knew that Mordecai
was a Jew. [A.C ΡῚ
ZER'ETH (ΠΝ: Σερέθ; Alex. Σαρέθ: Se-
reth). Son of Ashur the founder of Tekoa, by his
wife Helah (1 Chr. iv. 7).
ZE'RI (WN: Sovpt: Sori).
of Jeduthun in the reign of David (1 Chr. xxv. 3).
In ver. 11 he is called [ΖΕ].
ZER’OR (WY: Ἰαρέδ ; Alex. ᾿Αρέδ : Seror).
A Benjamite, ancestor of Kish the father of Saul
(1 Sam. ix. 1).
ZER'UAH (APY: Vat. omits; Alex. Σαρούα:
Sarva). The mother of Jeroboam the son of Nebat
(1 K. xi. 26). In the additional narrative of
the LXX. inserted after 1 K. xii. 24, she is called
Sarira (a corruption of Zereda), and is said to have
been a harlot.
ZERUB'BABEL (237 « dispersed ? or
“begotten, in Babylon: > Ζοροβάβελ: Serubabel),
The head of the tribe of Judah at the time of the
return from the Babylonish Captivity in the first
year of Cyrus. His exact parentage is a little
obscure, from his being BIN aye called the son of
Shealtiel (Ezr. iii. 2, 8, v. 2, ὅτου; Hagg. i. 1, 12,
14, &e. ) and appearing as aac in the genealogies
(Matt. i, 12; Luke iii. 27), whereas in 5 Chr. iii.
19, he is represented as the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel
or Salathiel’s brother, and consequently as Salathiel’s
nephew. Probably the genealogy in 1 Chr. exhibits
his true parentage, and he succeeded his uncle as
head of the house of Judah—a supposition which
tallies with the facts that Salathiel appears as the
first-born, and that no children are assigned to him.
There are two histories of Zerubbabel: the one,
that contained in the canonical Scriptures; the
other, that in the Apocryphal Books and Josephus.
The history of Zerubbabel in the Scriptures is as
One of the sons
and Parsons either substitute ews xevAous for it, or exhibit
some variation of the words quoted above from the Alex.
MS. The Vulgate entirely omits the name.
¢ Or possibly the two first of these four names should
be joined, Beth-has-shittah-Zererathah.
4 Zererah appears in Judg. vii. 22, AIS, with the
particle of motion attached, which is all but identical with
ANTS, Zeredathah.
6 B 2
1844 ZERUBBABEL
follows :—In the first year of Cyrus he was living
at Babylon, and was the recognized prince (NYY/3)
of Judah in the Captivity, what in later times was
called AMIDIA WI, or MIT (Khesa), “ the
Prince of the Captivity,” or ‘the Prince.” On
the issuing of Cyrus’s decree he immediately availed
himself of it, and placed himself at the head of
those of his countrymen ‘ whose spirit God had
raised to go up to build the House of the Lord
which is in Jerusalem.” It is probable that he
was in the king of Babylon’s service, both from his |
having, like Dawei and the three children, received
a Chaldee name [SHESHBAZZAR ], and from his re-
ceiving from Cyrus the office of governor (NB) of
Judaea. The restoration of the sacred vessels, which
Nebuchadnezzar had brought from the Temple,
having been effected, and copious presents of silver
and gold, and goods, and beasts, having been
bestowed upon the captives, Zerubbabel went forth
at the head of the returning colony, accompanied |
by Jeshua the high-priest, and perhaps by the
prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and a considerable
number of priests, Levites, and heads of houses
of Judah and Benjamin, with their followers. On
arriving at Jerusalem, Zerubbabel’s first care was
to build the altar on its old site, and to restore
the daily sacrifice.
kept the Feast of Tabernacles, as it is said they did
in Ezr. iii. 4; but there is some reason to suspect
that vers. 4, 5, and the first half of ver. 6, are in-
terpolated, and are merely an epitome of Neh. viii.,
which belongs to very different times. [EZRA, Book
or; NEHEMIAH, Book oF.| But his great work,
which he set about immediately, was the rebuilding
of the Temple. Being armed with a grant from
Cyrus of timber and stone for the building, and of
money for the expenses of the builders (Ezr. vi. 4),
he had collected the materials, including cedar-trees
brought from Lebanon to Joppa, according to the
precedent in the time of Solomon (2 Chr. ii. 16),
and got together masons and carpenters to do the
work, by the opening of the second year of their
return to Jerusalem. And accordingly, in the second
month of the second year of their return, the
foundation of the Temple was laid with all the
pomp which they could command: the priests in
their vestments with trumpets, and the sons of
Asaph with cymbals, singing the very same Psalm
of praise for God’s unfailing mercy to Israel, which
was sung when Solomon dedicated his Temple (2
Chr. v. 11-14); while the people responded with
a great shout of joy, “ because the foundation of
the house of the Lord was laid.” How strange
must have been the emotions of Zerubbabel at
this moment! As he stood upon Mount Zion,
and beheld from its summit the desolations of
Jerusalem, the site of the Temple blank, David’s
palace a heap of ashes, his fathers’ sepulchres de-
filed and overlaid with rubbish, and the silence of
desertion and emptiness hanging oppressively over
the streets and waste places of what was once the
joyous city; and then remembered how his great
ancestor David had brought up the ark in triumph
to the very spot where he was then standing, how
Solomon had reigned there in all his magnificence
and power, and how the petty kings and potentates
of the neighbouring nations had been his vassals
and tributaries, how must his heart alternately
have swelled with pride, and throbbed with an-
guish, and sunk in humiliation! In the midst of
{JesHuA.] Perhaps also they |
ZERUBBABEL
these mighty memories he was but the officer of a
foreign heathen despot, the head of a feeble remnant
of half-emancipated slaves, the captain of a band
hardly able to hold up their heads in the presence
of their hostile and jealous neighbours; and yet
there he was, the son of David, the heir of great
and mysterious promises, returned by a wonderful
Providence to the home of his ancestors. At his
bidding the daily sacrifice had been restored after a
cessation of half a century, and now the foundations
of the Temple were actually laid, amidst the songs
of the Levites singing according to David’s ordi-
nance, and the shouts of the tribe of Judah. It
was a heartstirring situation; and, despite all the
discouragements attending it, we cannot doubt that
Zerubbabel’s faith and hope were kindled by it into
fresh life.
But there were many hindrances and delays to be
encountered before the work was finished. The
Samaritans or Cutheans put in a claim to join with
the Jews in rebuilding the Temple; and when
Zerubbabel and his companions refused to admit
them into partnership they tried to hinder them
from building, and hired counsellors to frustrate
their purpose. They probably contrived, in the
first instance, to intercept the supplies of timber
and stone, and the wages of the workmen, which
were paid out of the king’s revenue, and then by
misrepresentation to calumniate them at the court
of Persia. Thus they were successful in putting a
stop to the work during the seven remaining years
of the reign of Cyrus, and through the eight years
of Cambyses and Smerdis. Nor does Zerubbabel
appear quite blameless for this long delay. The
difficulties in the way of building the Temple were
not such as need have stopped the work; and
during this long suspension of sixteen years Zerub-
babel and the rest of the people had been busy in
building costly houses for themselves, and one
might even suspect that the cedar-wood which had
been brought for the Temple had been used to
decorate eis dwellings (comp. the use of jED
in Hagg. i. 4, and 1 K. vii. 3, 7). They had, in
fact, ceased to care for the desolation of the Temple
(Hagg. i. 2-4), and had not noticed that God was
rebuking their lukewarmness by withholding His
blessing from their labours (Hagg.i. 5-11). But in
the second year of Darius light dawned upon the
darkness of the colony from Babylon. In that
year—it was the most memorable event in Zerub-
babel's life—the spirit of prophecy suddenly blazed
up with a most brilliant light amongst the returned
captives; and the long silence which was to ensue
till the ministry of John the Baptist was preceded
by the stirring utterances of Haggai and Zechariah.
Their words fell like sparks upon tinder. In a mo-
ment Zerubbabel, roused from his apathy, threw
his whole strength into the work, zealously seconded
by Jeshua and all the people. [JEsHua.] Unde-
terred by a fresh attempt of their enemies to hinder
the progress of the building, they went on with
the work even while a reference was being made’ to
Darius; and when, after the original decree of
Cyrus had been found at Ecbatana, a most gracious
and favourable decree was issued by Darius, en-
joining Tatnai and Shetharboznai to assist the Jews
with whatsoever they had need of at the king’s ex-
pense, the work advanced so rapidly that on the
third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of
Darius, the Temple was finished, and was forth-
with dedicated with much pomp and rejoicing. It
ZERUBBABEL
is difficult to calculate how great was the effect
of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah in sus-
taining the courage and energy of Zerubbabel in
carrying his work to completion. Addressed, as
many of them were, directly to Zerubbabel by
name, speaking, as they did, most glorious things
of the Temple which he was building, conveying
to Zerubbabel himself extraordinary assurances ot
Divine favour, and coupling with them magnificent
and consolatory predictions of the future glory of
Jerusalem, and Judah, and of the conversion of the
Gentiles, they necessarily exercised an immense in-
fluence upon his mind (Hagg. i. 13, 14, 11. 4-9,
21-23; Zech. iv. 6-10, viii. 3-8, 9, 18-23). It is
not too much to say that these prophecies upon
Zerubbabel were the immediate instrument by
which the church and commonwealth of Judah
were preserved from destruction, and received a
life which endured till the coming of Christ.
The only other works of Zerubbabel which we
Jearn from the Scripture history are the restoration
of the courses of priests and Levites, and of the
provision for their maintenance, according to the
institution of David (Ezr. vi. 18; Neh. xii. 47);
the registering the returned captives according to
their genealogies (Neh. vii. 5); and the keeping of
a Passover in the seventh year of Darius, with
which last event ends all that we know of the life
of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel: a man inferior
to few of the great characters of Scripture, whether
we consider the perilous undertaking to which he
devoted himself, the importance, in the economy of
the Divine government, of his work, his courageous
faith, or the singular distinction of being the object of
so many and such remarkable prophetic utterances.
The Apocryphal history of Zerubbabel, which,
as usual, Josephus follows, may be summed up in a
few words. ‘The story told in 1 Esdr, iii.—vii. is,
that on the occasion of a great feast made by Darius
on his accession, three young men of his body-guard
had a contest who should write the wisest sentence.
That one of the three (Zerubbabel) writing “‘ Women
are strongest, but above all things Truth beareth
away the victory ;” and afterwards defending his
sentence with much eloquence, was declared by
acclamation® to be the wisest, and claimed for his
reward, at the king’s hand, that the king should
perform his vow which he had vowed to rebuild
Jerusalem and the Temple. Upon which the king
gave him letters to all his treasurers and governors
on the other side the river, with grants of money
and exemption from taxes, and sent him to rebuild
Jerusalem and the Temple, accompanied by the
families of which the list is given in Ezr. ii., Neh.
vii.; and then follows, in utter confusion, the his-
tory of Zerubbabel as given in Scripture. Appa-
rently, too, the compiler did not perceive that
Sanabasar? (Sheshbazzar) was the same person as
Zerubbabel. Josephus, indeed, seems to identify
Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, and tries to reconcile
the story in 1 Esdr. by saying, “ Now it so fell
out that about this time Zorobabel, who had been
made governor of the Jews that had been in cap-
tivity, came to Darius from Jerusalem, for there
had been an old friendship between him and the
king,’ ἄς. (Ant. xi. 3.). But it is obvious on
the face of it that this is simply Josephus’s inven-
tion to reconcile 1 Esdr. with the canonical Ezra.
[Espras, First Book or.] Josephus has also
a With the shout, “ Magna est veritas, et praevalebit !”
Ὁ Σαναβασαάρ is merely a corruption of Σασαβασάρ.
ZERUIAH 1845
another story (Ant. xi. 4, §9) which is not found
in 1 Esdr., of Zorobabel going on an embassy to
Darius to accuse the Samaritan governors and
hipparchs of withholding from the Jews the grants
made by Darius out of the royal treasury, for the
offering of sacrifices and other Temple expenses ;
and of his obtaining a decree from the king com-
manding his officers in Samaria to supply the
high-priest with all that he required. But that
this is not authentic history seems pretty certain
from the names of the governors, Sambabas being
an imitation or corruption of Sanballat, Tanganes
of Tutnai (or Thauthanai, as in LXX.), Sadraces of
Sathrabouzanes, confused with Shadrach, Bobelo of
Zoro-babel ; and the names of the ambassadors,
which are manifestly copied from the list in 1 Esdr,
v. 8, where Zorobabel, Enenius, and Mardochaeus,
correspond to Zorobabel, Ananias, and Mardochaeus
of Josephus. Moreover the letter or decree of
Darius, as given by Josephus, is as manifestly
copied from the decree of Darius in Ezr, vi. 6-10.
In all probability, therefore, the document used by
Josephus was one of those numerous Apocryphal
religious romances which the Hellenistic Jews were
so fond of about the 4th and 3rd century before
Christ, and was written partly to explain “Zoro-
babel’s presence at the court of Darius, as spoken
of in 1 Esdr., partly to explain that of Mordecai at
the court of Ahasuerus, though he was in the list
of those who were Zorobabel’s companions (as it
seemed), and partly to give an opportunity for re-
viling and humiliating the Samaritans. It also
gratified the favourite taste for embellishing, and
corroborating, and giving, as was thought, addi-
tional probability to the Scripture narrative, and
dwelling upon bygone times of Jewish triumphs.
[EsTHER, BooK OF. |
It only remains to notice Zerubbabel’s place in
the genealogy of Christ. It has already been ob-
served that in the genealogies Matt. i. 12, and Luke
iii. 27, he is represented as son of Salathiel, though
the Book of Chronicles tells us he was the son of
Pedaiah, and nephew of Salathiel. It is of more
moment to remark that, while St. Matthew deduces
his line from Jechonias and Solomon, St. Luke
deduces it through Neri and Nathan. Here then
we have the head of the nation, the Prince of
Judah, the foremost man of his country, with a
double genealogy, one representing him as descend-
ing from all the kings of Judah, the other as the
descendant indeed of David, but through a long
line of private and unknown persons. We tind him,
too, filling the position of Prince of Judah at a
time when, as far as the history informs us, the
royal family was utterly extinct. And though, if
descended from the last king, he would have been
his grandson, neither the history, nor the contem-
porary prophets, nor Josephus, nor the apocryphal
books, give the least hint of his being a near rela-
tive of Jeconiah, while at the same time the natural
interpretation of Jer. xxii..30 shows Jeconiah to
have been childless. The inference from all this is
obvious. Zerubbabel was the legal successor and
heir of Jeconiah’s royal estate, the grandson of Neri,
and the lineal descendant of Nathan the son of
David. [SALATHIEL; GENEALOGY OF CHRIST,
For Zerubbabel’s descendants see HANANIAH 8. ]
In the N. T. the name appears in the Greek form
of ZOROBABEL. [ἃς C. H.]
ZE'RUIAH (1.978, and once “ ΠΡῚΝ : Σαρουΐα:
5.1 Sam. xiv. 1.
1846 ZETHAM
Sarvia). A woman who, as long as the Jewish
records are read, will be known as the mother of
the three leading heroes of David’s army—Abishai,
Joab, and Asahel—the “sons of Zeruiah.’ She
and Abigail are specified in. the genealogy of
David’s family in 1 Chr. ii. 13-17 as “ sisters
of the sons of Jesse” (ver. 16; comp. Joseph. Ant.
vii. 10, 81). The expression is in itself enough to
raise a suspicion that she was not a daughter of
Jesse, a suspicion which is corroborated by the
statement of 2 Sam. xvii. 25, that Abigail was the
daughter of Nahash. Abigail being apparently the
younger of the two women, it is a probable inference
that they were both the daughters of Nahash, but
whether this Nahash be—as Professor Stanley has
ingeniously conjectured—the king of the Ammon-
ites, and the former husband of Jesse’s wife, or
some other person unknown, must for ever remain
a mere conjecture. [DAVID, vol.i. p.401.] Other
explanations are given under NAHASH, vol. ii. p. 457.
Her relation to Jesse (in the original Ishai) is ex-
pressed in the name of her son Ab-ishai.
Of Zeruiah’s husband there is no mention in the
Bible. Josephus ( Ant. vii. 1, §3) explicitly states
his name to have been Souri (Zovpt), but no corro-
boration of the statement appears to have been dis-
covered in the Jewish traditions, nor does Josephus
himself refer to it again. The mother of’ such
remarkable sons must herself have been a remark-
able woman, and this may account for the fact,
unusual if not unique, that the family is always
called after her, and that her husband’s name has
not been considered worthy of preservation in the
sacred records. [G.]
ZE'THAM (DMT: Ζηθάν, ZeOdu; Alex. Ζαι-
θόμ, Ζοθόμ : Zethan, Zathan.) The son of Laadan,
a Gershonite Levite (1 Chr. xxiii. 8), In 1 Chr.
yxvi. 22 he appears as the son of Jehiel, or Jehieli,
and so the grandson of Laadan.
ZE'THAN (ΠῚ: Ζαιθάν ; Alex. Ἦθάν: Ze-
than). A Benjamite of the sons of Bilhan (1 Chr,
vii. 10),
ZE'THAR (WNT: ᾿Αβαταζάς : Zethar). One
of the seven eunuchs of Ahasuerus who attended
upon the king, and were commanded to bring Vashti
into his presence (Esth. i. 10).
ZVA (Yt: Zové: Zie). One of the Gadites
who dwelt in Bashan (1 Chr. v. 13),
ZUBA (N28, once “NIN: Σειβᾶ; Alex. Σιβα,
and in ch. xvi. 2, 3:88a; Joseph. Σιβάς : Siba). A
person who plays a prominent part, though with
no credit to himself, in one of the episodes of
David's history (2 Sam. ix. 2-12, xvi. 1-4, xix.
17, 29). He had been a slave (TY) of the house
of Saul before the overthrow of his kingdom, and
(probably at the time of the great Philistine in-
cursion which proved so fatal to his master’s
family) had been set free (Joseph. Ant. vii. 5, §5).
The opportunities thus afforded him he had so
far improved, that when first encountered in the
history he is head of an establishment of fifteen
sons and twenty slaves. David’s reception of Me-
phibosheth had the effect of throwing Ziba with
his whole establishment back into the state of bond-
age from which he had for so long been free. It
reduced him from being an independent landholder
* 2 Sam. xvi. 4.
ZICHRI
to the position of a mere dependant. The know-
ledge of this fact gives the key to the whole of his
conduct towards David and towards Mephibosheth.
Beyond this the writer has nothing to add to his
remarks on Ziba under the head of ΜΈΡΗΙΒΟ-
SHETH. [G.]
ZIB'TA (SAN: eBid: Sebia). A Benjamite,
apparently, as the text now stands, the son of Sha-
haraim by his wife Hodesh (1 Chr. viii. 9).
ZIB'TAH (MAY: SaBid, ᾿Ιωαδαέν ; Alex.
᾿Αβιά, Ιωαδά: Sebia). A native of Beersheba, and
mother of king Joash (2 K. xii. 1; 2 Chr. xiv. 1).
ZIB'EON qivas: Σεβεγών : Sebeon). Father
of Anah, whose daughter Aholibamah was Esau’s
wife (Gen. xxxvi. 2). Although called a Hivite, he
is probably the same as Zibeon the son of Seir the
Horite (vers, 20, 24, 29; 1 Chr. i. 38, 40), the
latter signifying ‘ cave-dweller,” and the former
being the name of his tribe, for we know nothing
of the race of the Troglodytes; or more probably
‘17 (the Hivite), is a mistranscription for NT
(the Horite).
Another difficulty connected with this Zibeon
is, that Anah in ver. 2 is called his daughter, and
in ver, 24 his son ; but this difficulty appears to be
easily explained by supposing that MA refers to
Aholibamah, and not to the name next preceding
it: the Samaritan, it should be observed, has 3.
An allusion is made to some unrecorded fact in the
history of the Horites in the passage, “this [was
that} Anah that found the mules in the wilderness,
as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father”? (Gen. xxxvi.
24). The word rendered ‘“‘mules” in the A. V.
is the Heb. D139, perhaps the Emims or giants, as
in the reading of the Sam. D'%D°N7, and so also
Onkelos and Pseudojonathan, Gesenius prefers ‘‘ hot-
springs,” following the Vulg. rendering. Zibeon
was also one of the dukes, or phylarchs, of the
Horites (ver. 29). For the identification with
Beeri, father of Judith the Hittite (Gen. xxvi. 34),
see BEERT, and see also ANAH. [E. 5. P-]
ZICH'RI (33: Zexpet: Zechri). 1. Son of
Izhar the son of Kohath (Ex. vi. 21). His name
is incorrectly given in modern editions of the A. V.
“ Zithri,’ though it is printed ZicuRI in the ed.
of 1611.
2. (Zaxpt; Alex. Zexpi.) A Benjamite of the
sons of Shimhi (1 Chr. viii. 19).
3. (Zexpi; Alex. Zoxpi.) A Benjamite of the
sons of Shashak (1 Chr. viii. 23).
4. (Zexpt.) A Benjamite of the sons of Jeroham
(1 Chr. viii, 27). :
5. Son of Asaph, elsewhere called ZABp1 and
ZAccuR (1 Chr. ix. 15).
6. A descendant of Eliezer the son of Moses
(1 Chr, xxvi. 25).
7. The father of Eliezer, the chief of the Reu-
benites in the reign of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 16).
8. (Zapi; Alex. Zaxpi.) Of the tribe of Judah.
His son Amasiah commanded 200,000 men in Je-
hoshaphat’s army (2 Chr. xvii. 16).
9. (Zaxaptas.) Father of Elishaphat, one of the
conspirators with Jehoiada (2 Chr, xxiii. 1).
10. (Zexpi; Alex. "E¢expi.) An Ephraimite
hero in the invading army of Pekah the son of Re-
maliah (2 Chr. xxviii. 7). In the battle which
was so disastrous to the kingdom of Judah, Maa-
seiah the king’s son, Azrikam, the prefect of the
ZIDDIM
palace, and Elkanah, who was next to the king, fell
‘by the hand of Zichri.
11. (Zexpt.) Father or ancestor of JoEL 14
(Neh. xi. 9). He was probably a Benjamite.
12. A priest of the family of Abijah, in the days of
Joiakim the son of Jeshua (Neh. xii. 17). [W. A.W.]
ZID'DIM (O87, with the def. article: τῶν
Τυρίων ; Alex. omits: Aseddim). One of the for-
tified towns of the allotment of Naphtali, aocording
to the present condition of the Hebrew text (Josh.
xix. 35). The translators of the Vat. LXX. appear
to have read the word in the original, ons i, ** the
Tyrians,”’ while those of the Peshito-Syriac, on the
other hand, read it as ἥν, Zidon, These readings
were probably both influenced by the belief that the
name next following that in question, viz. ZER,
was that of Tyre. But this is more than doubtful,
and indeed Tyre and Zidon were included in the
allotment, not of Naphtali, but of Asher (xix. 28,
29).
ἢ nearer the mark in identifying hat-Tsiddim
with Kefr Chittai, which Schwarz (182) with much
probability takes to be the present Hattin, at the
northern foot of the well known Awrn Hattin, or
“Horns of Hattin,’ a few miles west of Tiberias.
This identification falls in with the fact that the
three next names in the list are all known to have
been connected with the lake. [G.]
ZIDET'JAH (PTS: Σεδεκίας : Sedecias).
A priest, or family of priests, who signed the cove-
nant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 1). The name is
identical with that elsewhere in the A. V. rendered
ZEDEKIAH.
ZI'DON or SI'DON ΟἿΟΝ and JOY: Σιδών:
Sidon). Gen. x. 19,15; Josh. xi. 8, xix. 28; Judg.
i. 31, xviii. 28; Joel iii. 4 (iv. 4); Is, xxiii. 2, 4,
TPO [eres αν: δῶ, ΧΙ Puts ial Uy yee 0.98) bi Πῶς
Zech. ix. 2; Matt. xi. 21, 22, xv. 21; Luke vi.
17, x. 13, 14; Mark iii. 8, vii. 24, 31.—An
ancient and wealthy city of Phoenicia, on the
eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in latitude
33° 34' 05" N., less than twenty English miles to
the north of Tyre. Its Hebrew name, Tsid6n,
signifies ‘‘ Fishing,” or ‘“ Fishery ” (see Gesenius,
s.v.). Its modern name is Saida. It is situated in
the narrow plain between the Lebanon and the sea,
to which it once gave its own name (Joseph. Ant.
v. 3, 81, τὸ μέγα πεδίον Σιδῶνος πόλεως) at a
point where the mountains recede to ἃ distance of
two miles (Kenrick’s Phoenicia, p. 19). -Adjoin-
ing the city there are luxuriant gardens and
orchards, in which there is a profusion of the finest
fruit trees suited to the climate. “The plain is
flat and low,’ says Mr. Porter, author of the
Handbook for Syria and Palestine, ‘* but near the
coast line rises a little hill, a spur from which
south-western direction. On the northern slope of
the promontory thus formed stands the old city of
Zidon. The hill behind on the south is covered by
the citadel” (Enc. Britannica, 8th edition, 8.0.).
From a Biblical point of view, this city is infe-
rior in interest to its neighbour Tyre, with which
its name is so often associated. Indeed, in all the
passages above referred to in which the two cities
are mentioned together, Tyre is named first—a cir-
~cumstance which might at once be deemed acci-
dental, or the mere result of Tyre’s being the
nearest of the two cities to Palestine, were it not
The Jerusalem Talmud ( Wegillah, i.) is pro- |
| xxvili. 21-23).
ZIDON 1847
that some doubt on this point is raised by the
order being reversed in two works which were
written at a period, after Zidon had enjoyed a long
temporary superiority (Ezr. iii. 7; 1 Chr. xxii. 4).
However this may be, it is certain that, of the two,
Tyre is of the greater importance in reference to
the writings of the most celebrated Hebrew pro-
phets; and the splendid prophecies directed against
Tyre, as a single colossal power (Ez. xxvi., xxvii.,
xxviii, 1-19; Is. xxiii.), have no parallel in the
shorter and vaguer utterances against Zidon (Ez.
And the predominant Biblical
interest of Tyre arises from the prophecies relating
to its destiny.
If we could believe Justin (xviii. 3), there would
be no doubt that Zidon was of greater antiquity
than Tyre, as he says that the inhabitants of Sidon,
when their city had been reduced by the king of
| Ascalon, founded Tyre the year before the capture
of Troy. Justin, however, is such a weak autho-
rity for any disputed historical fact, and his
account of the early history of the Jews, wherein
we have some means of testing his accuracy, seems
to be so much in the nature of a romance (xxxvi. 2)
that, without laying stress on the unreasonable-
ness of any one’s assuming to know the precise
time when Troy was taken, he cannot be accepted
as an authority for the early history of the Phoeni-
cians. In contradiction of this statement, it has
| been further insisted on, that the relation between
a colony and the mother-city among the Phoeni-
| cians was sacred, and that as the Tyrians never
acknowledged this relation towards Zidon, the sup-
posed connexion between Tyre and Zidon is morally
impossible. This is a very strong point; but,
perhaps, not absolutely conclusive, as no one can
prove that this was the custom of the Phoenicians
at the very distant period when alone the Zidonians
would have built Tyre, if they founded it at all;
or that it would have applied not only to the con-
| scious and deliberate founding of a colony, but
| likewise to such an almost accidental founding of a
city, as is implied in the account of Justin. Cer-
tainly, there is otherwise nothing improbable in
Zidouians having founded Tyre, as the Tyrians are
called Zidonians, but the Zidonians are never called
Tyrians, And at any rate this circumstance tends
to show that in early times Zidon was the most
influential of the two cities. This is shadowed
forth in the Book of Genesis by the statement that
Zidon was the first-born of Canaan (Gen, x. 15), and
is implied in the name of “ Great Zidon,” or “ the
Metropolis Zidon,’ which is twice given to it in
Joshua (xi. 8, xix. 28). It is confirmed, likewise,
by Sidonians being used as the generic name of the
Phoenicians, or Canaanites (Josh. xiii. 6; Judg.
xviii. 7); and by the reason assigned for there being
no deliverer to Laish when its peaceable inhabitants
| were massacred, that “it was far from Zidon ;”
shoots out afew hundred yards into the sea in a |
whereas, if Tyre had been then of equal importance,
it would have been more natural to mention Tyre,
which professed substantially the same religion,
and was almost twenty miles nearer (Judg. xviii.
28). It is in accordance with the inference to be
drawn from these circumstances that in the Homeric
poems Tyre is not named, while there is mention
both of Sidon and the Sidonians (Od. xv. 425,
Zl. xxiii. 743); and the land of the Sidonians is
called “ Sidonia” (Od. xiii. 285). One point,
however, in the Homeric poems deserves to be
specially noted concerning the Sidonians, that they
are never here mentioned as traders, or praised for
1848 ZIDON
their nautical skill, for which they were afterwards
so celebrated (Herod. vii. 44, 96). The traders
are invariably known by the general name of Phoe-
nicians, which would, indeed, include the Sidonians ;
but still the special praise of Sidonians was as
skilled workmen. When Achilles distributed
prizes at the games in honour of Patroclus, he gave
as the prize of the swiftest runner, a large silver
bowl for mixing wine with water, which had been
cunningly made by the skilful Sidonians, but
which Phoenicians had brought over the sea (Z/.
xxiii, 743, 744). And when Menelaus wished to give
to Telemachus what was most beautiful and most
valuable, he presented him with a similar mixing-
bowl of silver, with golden rim, a divine work, the
work of Hephaestus, which had been a gift to
Menelaus himself from Phaedimus, king of the
Sidonians (Od. iv. 614-618, and Od. xy. l.c.).
And again, all the beautifully embroidered robes
of Andromache, from which she selected one as an
offering to Athene, were the productions of Sidonian
women, which Paris, when coming to Troy with
Helen, had brought from Sidonia (//. vi. 289-295).
But in no case is anything mentioned as having
been brought from Sidon in Sidonian vessels or by
Sidonian sailors. Perhaps at this time the Phoenician
vessels were principally fitted out at seaports of
Phoenicia to the north of Sidon.
From the time of Solomon to the invasion of
Nebuchadnezzar Zidon is not often directly men-
tioned in the Bible, and it appears to have been
subordinate to Tyre. When the people called
“« Zidonians ” is mentioned, it sometimes seems that
the Phoenicians of the plain of Zidon are meant, as,
for example, when Solomon said to Hiram that
there was none among the Jews that could skill to
hew timber like the Zidonians (1 K. v. 6); and
possibly, when Ethbaal, the father of Jezebel, is
called their king (1 K. xvi. 31), who, according to
Menander in Josephus (Ané. viii. 13, §2), was king
of the Tyrians. This may likewise be the meaning
when Ashtoreth is called the Goddess, or Abomina-
tion, of the Zidonians (1 K. xi. 5, 33; 2 K. xxiii.
15), or when women of the Zidonians are mentioned
in reference to Solomon (1 K. xi. 1). And this
seems to be equaily true of the phrases, ‘¢ daughter
of Zidon,’ and “ merchants of Zidon,’’ and even once
of ““ Zidon ”’ itself (Is. xxiii. 12, 2, 4) in the prophecy
of Isaiah against Tyre. There is no doubt, however,
that Zidon itself, the city properly so called, was
threatened by Joel (iii. 4) and Jeremiah (xxvii. 3),
Still, all that is known respecting it during this
epoch is very scanty, amounting to scarcely more
than that one of its sources of gain was trade in
slaves, in which the inhabitants did not shrink from
selling inhabitants ot Palestine [PHOENICIANS,
p- 1001}; that the city was governed by kings
(Jer. xxvii. 5 and xxv. 22); that, previous to the
invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, it had furnished ma-
riners to Tyre (liz. xxvii. 8); that, at one period,
it was subject, in some sense or other, to Tyre;
and that, when Shalmaneser king of Assyria invaded
Phoenicia, Zidon seized the opportunity to revolt.
It seems strange to hear of the subjection of one
great city to another great city only twenty miles
off, inhabited by men of the same race, language,
and religion; but the fact is rendered conceivable
a In an excellent account of this. revolt, Bp. Thirlwail
seems to have regarded Diodorus as meaning Sidon itself
by the words ἐν τῇ Σιδωνίων, xvi. 41 (History of Greece,
vi. 179); and Miot, in his French translation of Diodorus
(Bidliotheque Historique de Diodore de Sicile, Paris, 1837,
ZIDON
by the relation of Athens to its allies after the Per-
sian war, and by the history of the Italian republics
in the middle ages. It is not improbable that its
rivalry with Tyre may have been influential in
inducing Zidon, more than a century later, to submit
to Nebuchadnezzar, apparently without offering any
serious resistance.
During the Persian domination, Zidon seems to
have attained its highest point of prosperity; and
it is recorded that, towards the close of that period,
it far excelled all other Phoenician cities in wealth
and importance (Diod. xvi. 44; Mela, i. 12).
It is very probable that the long siege of Tyre by:
Nebuchadnezzar had tended not only to weaken and
impoverish Tyre, but likewise to enrich Zidon at
the expense of Tyre ; as it was an obvious expedient
for any T'yrian merchants, artisans, and sailors, who
deemed resistance useless or unwise, to transfer their
residence to Zidon. However this may be, in the ex-
pedition of Xerxes against Greece, the Sidonians were
highly favoured, and were a pre-eminently important
element of his naval power. When, from a hill near
Abydos, Xerxes witnessed a boat-race in his fleet, the
prize was gained by the Sidonians (Herod.. vii. 44).
When he reviewed his fleet, he sat beneath a golden
canopy in a Sidonian galley (vii. 100); when he
wished to examine the mouths of the river Peneus,
he entrusted himself to a Sidonian galley, as was
his wont on similar occasions (vii. 128); and
when the Tyrants and general officers of his great
expedition sat in order of honour, the king of the
Sidonians sat first (viii. 67). Again, Herodotus
states that the Phoenicians supplied the best vessels
of the whole fleet; and of the Phoenicians, the
Sidonians (vii. 96). And lastly, as Homer gives a
vivid idea of the beauty of Achilles by saying that
Nireus (thrice-named) was the most beautiful of all
the Greeks who went to Troy, after the son of Peleus,
so Herodotus completes the triumph of the Sidoni-
ans, when he praises the vessels of Artemisia
(probably for the daring of their crews), by saying
that they were the most renowned of the whole
fleet, ““ after the Sidonians” (vii. 9).
The prosperity of Sidon was suddenly cut short
by an unsuccessful revolt against Persia, which led
to one of the most disastrous catastrophes recorded
in history. Unlike the siege and capture of Tyre
by Alexander the Great, which is narrated by se-
veral writers, and which is of commanding interest
through its relation to such a renowned conqueror,
the fate of Sidon is only known through the history
of Diodorus (xvi. 42-45), and is mainly connected
with Artaxerxes Ochus (B.C. 359-338), a monarch
who is justly regarded with mingled aversion and
contempt. Hence the calamitous overthrow of Sidon
has not, perhaps, attracted so much attention as it
deserves. The principal circumstances were these.
While the Persians were making preparations in
Phoenicia to put down the revolt in Egypt, some
Persian satraps and generals behaved oppressively
and insolently to Sidonians in the Sidonian* divi-
sion of the city of Tripolis. On this, the Sidonian
people projected a revolt ; and having first concerted
arrangements with other Phoenician cities, and made
a treaty with Nectanebus, they put their designs
into execution. They commenced by committing
outrages in a residence and park (παράδεισος) of
tom. v. 73), actually translates the words by “ Sidon.”
The real meaning, however, seems to be as stated in the
text. Indeed, otherwise there was no sufficient reason for
mentioning Tripolis as specially connected with the causes
of the war.
ZIDON
the Persian king ; they burnt a large store of fodder
which had been collected for the Persian cavalry ;
and they seized and put to death the Persians who
had been guilty of insults towards the Sidonians.
Afterwards, under their King Tennes, with the
assistance from Egypt of 4000 Greek mercenaries
under Mentor, they expelled the Persian satraps
from Phoenicia; they strengthened the defences of
their city, they equipped a fleet of 100 triremes, and
prepared for a desperate resistance. But their King
Tennes proved a traitor to their cause—and in per-
formance of a compact with Ochus, he betrayed
into the king’s power one hundred of the most dis-
tinguished citizens of Sidon, who were all shot to
death with javelins. Five hundred other citizens,
who went out to the king with ensigns of supplica-
tion, shared the same fate; and by concert between
Tennes and Mentor, the Persian troops were ad-
mitted within the gates, and occupied the city
walls. The Sidonians, before the arrival of Ochus,
had burnt their vessels to prevent any one’s leaving
the town; and when they saw themselves sur-
rounded by the Persian troops, they adopted the
desperate resolution of shutting themselves up with
their families, and setting fire each man to his own
house (B.C. 351). Forty thousand persons are said
to have perished in the flames. Tennes himself did
not save his own life, as Ochus, notwithstanding his
promise to the contrary, put him to death. The
privilege of searching the ruins was sold for money.
After this dismal tragedy, Sidon gradually reco-
vered from the blow; fresh immigrants from other
cities must have settled in it; and probably many
Sidonian sailors survived, who had been plying their
trade elsewhere in merchant vessels at the time of
the capture of the city. The battle of Issus was
fought about eighteen years afterwards (B.C. 333),
and then the inhabitants of the restored city
opened their gates to Alexander of their own accord,
from hatred, as is expressly stated of Darius and
the Persians (Arrian, Anab. Al. ii. 15). The
impolicy, as well as the cruelty of Ochus in his
mode of dealing with the revolt of Sidon now be-
came apparent; for the Sidonian fleet in joining
Alexander was an essential element of his success
against Tyre. After aiding to bring upon Tyre as
great a calamity as had afflicted their own city,
they were so far merciful that they saved the lives of
many Tyrians by concealing them in their ships,
and then transporting them to Sidon (Q. Curtius,
iv.4,15). From this time Sidon, being dependent
on the fortunes of war in the contests between the
successors of Alexander, ceases to play any important
political part in history, It became, however, again
a flourishing town—and Polybius (v. 70) inci-
dentally mentions that Antiochus in his war with
Ptolemy Philopator encamped over against Sidon
(B.c. 218), but did not venture to attack it from
the abundance of its resources, and the great number
of its inhabitants, either natives or refugees. Sub-
sequently, according to Josephus (Ant. xiv. 10, §2),
Julius Caesar wrote a letter respecting Hyrcanus,
which he addressed to the “ Magistrates, Council and
Demos of Sidon.’ This shows that up to that time
the Sidonians enjoyed the forms of liberty, though
Dion Cassius says (lxiv. 7) that Augustus, on his
arrival in the East, deprived them of it for seditious
ZIDON 1849
conduct. Not long after, Strabo in his account of
Phoenicia, says of Tyre and Sidon, “‘ Both were
illustrious and splendid formerly, and now; but
which should be called the capital of Phoenicia, is a
matter of dispute between the inhabitants” (xvi. p.
756). He adds that it is situated on the mainland,
on a fine naturally-formed harbour. He speaks of
the inhabitants as cultivating the sciences of arith-
metic and astronomy ; and:says that the best oppor-
tunities were afforded in Sidon for acquiring a know-
ledge of these and of all other branches of philosophy.
He adds, that in his time, there were distinguished
philosophers, natives of Sidon, as Boethus, with whom
he studied the philosophy of Aristotle, and his bro-
ther Diodotus. It is to be observed that both these
names were Greek; and it is to be presumed that
in Strabo’s time, Greek was the language of the
educated classes at least, both in Tyre and Sidon.
This is nearly all that is known of the state of
Sidon when it was visited by Christ. It is about
fifty miles distant fiom Nazareth, and is the most
northern city which is mentioned in connexion with
his journeys. Pliny notes the manufacture of glass
at Sidon (Nat. Hist. v. 17 (19) ;® and during the
Roman period we may conceive Tyre and Sidon as
two thriving cities, each having an extensive trade,
and each haying its staple manufacture; the latter
of glass, and Tyre of purple dyes from shell-fish.
There is no Biblical reason for following minutely
the rest of the history of Sidon. It shared gene-
rally the fortunes of Tyre, with the exception that
it was several times taken and retaken during the
wars of the Crusades, and suffered accordingly
more than Tyre previous to the fatal year 1291 B.c.
Since that time it never seems to have fallen quite
solowas Tyre. Through Fakhr ed-Din, emir of the
Druses between 1594 and 1634, and the settlement
at Sayda of French commercial houses, it had a re-
vival of trade in the 17th and part of the 18th
century, and became the principal city on the
Syrian coast for commerce between the east and
the west (see Mémoires du Chevalier αἱ Arvieux,
Paris, 1735, tom. i. p. 294-379). This was put
an end to at the close of last. century by violence
and oppression (Ritter’s Lrdkunde, Siebzehnter
theil, erste abtheilung, drittes buch, pp. 405-6),
closing a period of prosperity in which the popula-
tion of the city was at one time estimated at 20,000
inhabitants. The population, if it ever approached
such a high point, has since materially decreased,
and apparently does not now exceed 5000; but the
town still shows signs of former wealth, and the
houses are better constructed and more solid than
those at Tyre, being many of them built of stone.
Its chief exports are silk, cotton, and nutgalls
(Robinson’s Biblical Researches, iii. p. 418-419).
As a protection against the Turks, its ancient har-
bour was filled up with stones and earth by the
orders of Fakhr ed-Din, so that only small boats
can now enter it; and larger vessels anchor to the
northward, where they are only protected from the
south and east winds (Porter’s Handbook for Syria
and Palestine, 1858, p. 398). The trade between
Syria and Europe now mainly passes through
Beyrout, as its most important commercial centre ;
and the natural advantages of Beyrout in this re-
spect, for the purposes of modern navigation, are so
Ὁ Pliny elsewhere (Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 65 [26]) gives an
account of the supposed accidental invention of glass in
Phoenicia. The story is that some merchants on the sea-
shore made use of some lumps of natron to support their
cauldrons; and that, when the natron was subjected to the
action of fire in conjunction with the sea sand, a trans-
lucent vitreous stream was seen to flow along the ground.
This story, however, is now discredited; as it requires
intense furnace heat to produce the fusion. See article
“Glass” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th edition.
1850 ZIDONIANS
decided that it is certain to maintain its present
superiority over Sidon and Tyre.
In conclusion it may be observed, that while in
our own times no important remains of antiquity
have been discovered at or near Tyre, the case is
different with Sidon. At the base of the mountains
to the east of the town there are numerous sepul-
chres in the rock, and there are likewise sepulchtal
caves in the adjoining plain (see Porter, Hncyclop.
Britann. \.c.). ‘In January, 1855,” says Mr.
Porter, “one of the sepulchral caves was acci-
dentally opened at a spot about a mile S.E. of the
city, and in it was discovered one of the most
beautiful and interesting Phoenician monuments in
existence. It is a sarcophagus...... the lid
of which is hewn in the form of a mummy with
the face bare. Upon the upper part of the lid is a
perfect Phoenician inscription in twenty-two lines,
and on the head of the sarcophagus itself is another
almost as long.” This sarcophagus is now in the
Nineveh division of the Sculptures in the Louvre.
At first sight, the material of which it is composed
may be easily mistaken; and it has been supposed
to be black marble. On the authority, however,
of M. Suchard of Paris, who has examined it very
closely, it may be stated, that the sarcophagus is of
black syenite, which, as far as is known, is more
abundant in Egypt than elsewhere. It may be
added that the features of the countenance on the lid
are decidedly of the Egyptian type,and the head-dress
is Egyptian, with the head of a bird sculptured on
what might seem the place of the right and left
shoulder, There can therefore be little reason to
doubt that this sarcophagus was either made in
Egypt and sent thence to Sidon, or that it was made
in Phoenicia in imitation of similar works of art in
Egypt. The inscriptions themselves are the longest
Phoenician inscriptions which have come down to
our times. A translation of them was published
by Professor Dietrich at Marburg in 1855, and
by Professor Ewald at Gottingen in 1856. The
predominant idea of them seems to be to warn all
men, under penalty of the monarch’s curse, against
opening his sarcophagus or disturbing his repose for
any purpose whatever, especially in order to search
for treasures, of which he solemnly declares there are
none in his tomb. The king’s title is “ King of the
Sidonians ;” and, as is the case with Ethbaal, men-
tioned in the Book of Kings (1 K. xvi. 31), there must
remain a certain doubt whether this was a title ordi-
narily assumed by kings of Sidon, or whether it had
a wider signification. We learn from the inscription
that the king’s mother was a priestess of Ashtoreth.
With regard to the precise date of the king’s reign,
there does not seem to be any conclusive indication.
Ewald conjectures that he reigned not long before
the 11th century B.c. [E. T.]
Coin of Zidon.
a The only instance in the Auth. Vers. of the use of F
in a proper name.
b 1 Chr. xii. 1 and 20,
ZIKLAG
ZIDON'IANS (*358, Ez. xxxii. 30, OY,
D°NTWY, ΣΝ, and once (1 K. xi. 33) PITY:
Σιδώνιοι, exc. Ez. xxxii. 30, στρατηγοὶ ᾿Ασσούρ:
Sidonti, exc. Ez, xxxii. 30, venatores). The inha-
bitants of Zidon. They were among the nations
of Canaan left to practise the Israelites in the art
of war (Judg. iii. 3), and colonies of them appear
to have spread up into the hill country from Le-
banon to Misrephoth-maim (Josh. xiii. 4, 6), whence
in later times they hewed cedar-trees for David and
Solomon (1 Chr, xxii. 4). They oppressed the Is-
raelites on their first entrance into the country (Judg.
x. 12), and appear to have lived a luxurious, reckless
life (Judg. xviii. 7) ; they were skilful in hewing
timber (1 K.v. 6), and were employed for this purpose
by Solomon. They were idolaters, and wershipped
Ashtoreth as their tutelary goddess (1 K. xi. 5, 33;
2 K. xxiii. 13), as well as the sun-god Baal, from
whom their king was named (1 K. xvi. 31). The
term Zidonians among the Hebrews appears to have
been extended in meaning as that of Phoenicians
among the Greeks. In Ez. xxxii. 30, the Vulgate
read D'S, the LXX. probably ἽΝ mY, for
IWS ον. Zidonian women (nya : Sipae
Sidoniae) were in Solomon's harem (1 K. xi. ΠῚ
ZIF*. (i: νεισῷ ; Alex. ζειου: Zio), 1 Κ΄. vi.
37. [Montu. ]
ZUHA (NIDS: Σουθία, Syd; Alex. Sovad,
Σιαΐα: Siha, Soha). 1. The children of Ziha were
a family of Nethinim who returned with Zerub-
babel (Ezr. ii. 43; Neh. vii. 46). 2. (Vat. omits;
Alex. Siad: Soaha.) Chief of the Nethinim in
Ophel (Neh, xi. 21). The name is probably that
ot a family, and so identical with the preceding.
ZIK'LAG (bpy, and twice b sbpry: Σεκελάκ,
once Σικελάκ ; in Chron.”QnAa, Σωκλᾶ, Σωγλάμ;
Alex. Σικελαγ;, but also Σικελεγ, Sexeda; Joseph.
ZexeAa: Siceleg). A piace which possesses a
special interest from its having been the residence
and the private property of David. It is first men-
tioned in the catalogue of the towns of Judah in
Josh. xv., where it is enumerated (ver. 31) amongst
those of the extreme south, between Hormah (or
Zephath) and Madmannah. (possibly Beth marea-
both). It next occurs, in the same connexion,
amongst the places which were allotted out of the
territory of Judah to Simeon (xix, 5). We next
encounter it in the possession of the Philistines
(1 Sam. xxvii. 6), when it was, at David’s request,
bestowed upon him by Achish king of Gath. He
resided there for a year © and four months (ibid. 7;
1 Sam. xxxi. 14, 26; 1 Chr. xii. 1,20). . It was
there he received the news of Saul’s death (2 Sam.
i. 1, iv. 10). He then relinquished it for Hebron
Gi. 1). Ziklag is finally mentioned, in company
with Beersheba, Hazarshual, and other towns ot the
south, as being reinhabited by the people of Judah
after their return trom the Captivity (Neh. xi. 28).
The situation of the town is difficult to determine,
notwithstanding so many notices, On the one hand,
that it was in “ the south” (negeb) seems certain,
both from the towns named with it, and also from
its mention with “ the south of the Cherethites ” and
“the south of Caleb,’ some of whose descendants
we know were at Ziph and Maon, perhaps even at
© Josephus (Ant. vi. 13, $10) gives this as one month
and twenty days.
ZILLAH
Paran (1 Sam. xxv. 1). On the other hand, this
is difficult to reconcile with its connexion with the
Philistines, and with the fact—which follows from
the narrative of 1 Sam. xxx. (see 9, 10, 21)—that
it was north of the Brook Besor. The word em-
ployed in 1 Sam. xxvii. 5, 7, 11, to denote the
region in which it stood, is peculiar. It is not
has-Shefelah, as it must have been had Ziklag stood
in the ordinary lowland of Philistia, but has-Sddeh,
which Prof. Stanley (8. and P. App. §15) renders
“the field”? On the whole, though the temptation
is strong to suppose (as some have suggested) that
there were two places of the same name, the only
conclusion seems to be that Ziklag was in the south
or Negeb country, with a portion of which the
Philistines had a connexion which may have lasted
from the time of their residence there in the days
of Abraham and Isaac. It is remarkable that the
word sadeh is used in Gen. xiv. 7, for the country
occupied by the Amalekites, which seems to have
been situated far south of the Dead Sea, at or near
Kadesh. The name of Paran also occurs in the
same passage. But further investigation is neces-
sary before we can remove the residence of Nabal
so far south. His Maon would in that case be-
come, not the Main which lies near Zif aud
Kiirmil, but that which was the head-quarters of
the Maonites, or Mehunim.
Ziklag does not appear to have been known to
Eusebius and Jerome, or to any of the older tra-
vellers. Mr. Rowlands, however, in his journey
from Gaza to Suez in 1842 (in Williams’s Holy
City, i. 463-8), was told of ‘an ancient site called
Asloodg, or Kasloodg, with some ancient walls,’
three honrs east of Sebata, which again was ‘two
hours and a half south of Khalasa. This he con-
siders as identical with Zilklag. Dr. Robinson had
previously (in 1838) heard of ’ As/#j as lying south-
west of Milh, on the way to Abdeh (B. R. ii.
201), a position not discordant with that of Mr.
Rowlands. The identification is supported by Mr.
Wilton (Negeb, 209) ; but it is impossible at pre-
sent, and until further investigation into the dis-
trict in question has been made, to do more than
name it. If Dr. Robinson’s form of the name is
correct—and since it is repeated in the Lists of Dr.
Eli Smith (cows, App. to vol. iii. of Ist ed.
p- 115) there is no reason to doubt this—the
similarity which prompted Mr, Rowlands’s con-
jecture almost entirely disappears. This will be
evident if the two names are written in Hebrew,
spy, sbwy. [G.]
ZIL'LAH (AY: Sead: Sella). One of the
two wives of Lamech the Cainite, to whom he
addressed his song (Gen. iv. 19, 22, 23). She was
the mother of Tubal-Cain and Naamah. Dr. Kalisch
(Comm. on Gen.) regards the names of Lamech’s
wives and of his daughter as significant of the
transition into the period of art which took place
in his time, and the corresponding change in the
position of the woman. ‘ Naamah signifies the
lovely, beautiful woman; whilst the wife of the
first. man was simply Eve, the lifesiving. . .. The
Women were, in the age of Lamech, no more re-
garded merely as the propagators of the human
family ; beauty and gracefulness began to command
homage. ... Even the wives of Lamech manifest
the transition into this epoch of beauty; for whilst
one wife, Zillah, reminds still of assistance and pro-
tection (ὅν, “ shadow’’), the other, Adah, bears
ZIMRI 1851
a name almost synonymous with Naamah, and like-
wise signifying ornament and loveliness.”
In the apocryphal book of Jashar, Adah and
Zillah are both daughters of Cainan. Adah bare
children, but Zillah was barren till her old age, in
consequence of some noxious draught which her
husband gave her to preserve her beauty and to
prevent her from bearing. [W. A. W.]
ZIL'PAH (mB: Ζελφά: Zelpha). A Syrian
given by Laban to his daughter Leah as an attend-
ant (Gen. xxix. 24), and by Leah to Jacob as a
concubine. She was the mother of Gad and Asher
(Gen. xxx. 9-13, xxxv. 26, xxxvii. 2, xlvi. 18).
ZILTHA'T onby : Σαλαθί ; Alex. Σαλεί:
Selethat). 1. A Benjamite, of the sons of Shimhi
(1 Chr. viii. 20).
2. (Samadi; FA. Seuadel: Salathi.) One of
the captains of thousands of Manasseh who deserted
to David at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 20).
ZIM MAH (MDT : Zappad; Alex. Zaupd,
Ζεμμάθ: Zamma, Zemma.) 1. A Gershonite Le-
vite, son of Jahath (1 Chr. vi. 20).
2. (Ζαμμάμ.) Another Gershonite, son of Shi-
mei (1 Chr, vi. 42); possibly the same as the pre-
ceding.
3. (Zeupad: Zemma.) Father or ancestor of
Joah, a Gershonite in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr.
xxix. 12). At a much earlier period we find the
same collocation of names, Zimmah and Joah as
father and son (1 Chr, vi. 20). Compare “ Ma-
hath the son of Amasai” in 2 Chr. xxix. 12 with
the same in 1 Chr. vi. 35; “Joel the son of Aza-
riah” in 2 Chr. xxix. 12 and 1 Chr. vi. 36; and
“ Kish the son of Abdi” 2 Chr. xxix. 12 with
“ Kishi the son of Abdi” in 1 Chr. vi. 44. Unless
these names are the names of families and not of
individuals, their recurrence is a little remarkable.
ZIM'RAN (TWIT: ZouBpav, ZeuBpdu; Alex.
ZeBpay, ZeuBpav, Zeupay: Zamran). The eldest
son of Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2; 1 Chr. i. 32). His
descendants are not mentioned, nor is any hint given
that he was the founder of a tribe: the contrary
would rather appear to be the case. Some would
identify Zimran with the Zimri of Jer. xxv. 25,
but these lay too far to the north. The Greek fovm
of the name, as found in the LXX., has suggested
a comparison with ZaBpau, the chief city of the
Cinaedocolpitae, who dwelt on the Red Sea, west of
Mecca. But this is extremely doubtful, for this
tribe, probably the same with the ancient Kenda,
was a branch of the Joktanite Arabs, who in the
most ancient times occupied Yemen, and may only
have come into possession of Zabram at a later period
(Knobel, Genesis). Hitzig and Lengerke propose
to connect the name Zimran with Zimiris, a district
of Ethiopia mentioned by Pliny (xxxvi. 25); but
Grotius, with more plausibility, finds a trace of it
in the Zamereni, a tribe of the interior of Arabia,
The identification of Zimran with the modern Beni
Omran, and the Bani Zomaneis of Diodorus, proposed
by Mr. Forster (Geogr. of Arabia, i. 431), cannot
be seriously maintained. [W. A. W.]
ZIM'RI(°}: Ζαμβρί: Zambri). 1. The son
of Salu, a Simeonite chieftain, slain by Phinehas
with the Midianitish princess Cozbi (Num. xxv.
14). When the Israelites at Shittim were smitten
with plagues for their impure worship of Baal Peor,
and were weeping before the tabernacle, Zimri with
1852 ZIMRI
a shameless disregard to his own high position and
the sufferings of his tribe, brought into their pre-
sence the Midianitess in the sight of Moses and in
the sight of the whole congregation. ‘The fierce
anger of Phinehas was aroused, and in the swift
vengeance with which he pursued the offenders, he
gave the first indication of that uncompromising
spirit which characterized him in later life. The
whole circumstance is much softened in the nar-
rative of Josephus (Ant. iv. 6, §10-12), and in
the hands ‘of the apologist is divested of all its’
vigour and point. In the Targum of Jonathan ben
Uzziel several traditional details are added, Zimyi
retorts upon Moses that he himself had taken to
wife a Midianitess, and twelve miraculous signs
attend the vengeance of Phinehas.
In describing the scene of this tragedy an unusual
word is employed, the force of which is lost in the ren-
dering “tent” of the A. V. of Num. xxv. 8. It was
not the ohel, or ordinary tent of the encampment, but
the Mp, kubbah (whence Span. alcova, and our
alcove), ‘or dome-shaped tent, to which Phinehas
pursued his victims. Whether this was the tent
which Zimri occupied as chief of his tribe, and
which was in consequence more elaborate and highly
ornamented than the rest, or whether it was, as |
Gesenius suggests, one of the tents which the Midi- |
anites used for the worship of Peor is not to be
determined, though the latter is favoured by the
rendering of the Vulg. lwpanar. The word does
not occur elsewhere in Hebrew. In the Syriac
it is rendered a cell, or inner apartment of the
tent. [W. A. W.]
2. (WD: ZauBpi; Joseph. Ant. viii. 12, §5, |
Ζαμάρης : Zambri.) Fifth sovereign of the separate |
kingdom of Israel, of which he occupied the throne |
for the brief period of seven days in the year B.C. 930 |
or 929. Originally in command of half the chariots
in the royal army, he gained the crown by the
murder of king Elah son of Baasha, who, after
reigning for something more than a year (compare
1 K. xvi. 8 and 10), was indulging in a drunken
revel in the house of his steward Arza at Tirzah,
then the capital. In the midst of this festivity
Zimii killed him, and immediately afterwards all
the rest of Baasha’s family. But the army which
at that time was besieging the Philistine town of
Gibbethon, when they heard of Elah’s murder,
proclaimed their general Omri king, He imme-
diately marched against Tirzah, and took the city.
Zimri retreated into the innermost part of the late |
king’s palace, set it on fire and perished in the ruins
(1 K. xvi. 9-20). Ewald’s inference from Jezebel’s
speech to Jehu (2 K. ix. 31), that on Elah’s death
the queen-mother welcomed his murderer with
smiles and blandishments, seems rather arbitrary
and far-fetched. [J EZEBEL. | [G. E. L. C.]
3. (Zamri.) One of the five sons of Zerah the
son of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 6).
4. Son of Jehoadah and descendant of Saul (1 |
Chr. viii. 36, ix. 42).
5. (Om. in LXX.: Zambri.) An obscure name,
mentioned (Jer. xxv. 25) in probable connexion
with Dedan, Tema, Buz, Arabia (37), the mingled
people “’ereb” (ITYM), all of which immediately |
ZIOR
precede it, besides other peoples; and followed by
Elam, the Medes, and others. The passage is of
wide comprehension, but the reference, as indicated
above, seems to be to a tribe of the sons of the East,
the Beni-Kedem. Nothing further is known respect- -
ing Zimri, but it may possibly be the same as, or
derived from, ZIMRAN, which see, [E. S. P.]
ZIN (j*¥: Sly). The name given to a portion
of the desert tract between the Dead Sea, Ghér, and
Arabah (possibly including the two latter, or por-
tions of them) on the E., and the general plateau
of the 7% which stretches westward. The country
in question consists of two or three successive ter-
races of mountain converging to an acute angle
(like stairs where there is a turn in the flight) at
| the Dead Sea’s southern verge, towards which also
they slope. Here the drainage finds its chief vent
by the Wady el-Fikreh into the Ghér, the remain-
'ing waters running by smaller channels into the
| Arabah, and ultimately by the Wady el-Jeib also
| to the Ghér. Judging from natural features, in
the vagueness of authority, it is likely that the
portion between, and drained by these wadys, is the
| region in question; but where it ended westward,
whether at any of the abovenamed terraces, or
blending imperceptibly with that of Paran, is quite
uncertain. Kadesh lay in it, or on this unknown
boundary, and here also Idumea was conterminous
with Judah; since Kadesh was a city in the border
| of Edom (see KADESH; Num. xiii. 21, xx. 1, xxvii.
| 14, xxxiii. 36, xxxiv.3; Josh. xv. 1). The researches
_ of Williams and Rowlands on this subject, although
not conclusive in favour of the site e/-Atideis tor
the city, yet may indicate that the “ wilderness of
Kades,” which is indistinguishable from that of Zin,
follows the course of the Wady Murreh westward.
The whole region requires further research ; but its
difficulties are of a very formidable character.
Josephus (Ant. iv. 4, §6) speaks of a “ hill called
Sin” (Σίν), where Miriam, who died in Kadesh,
when the people had ‘‘ come to the desert of Zin,”
was buried. This “Sin” of Josephus may recall
the name Zin, and, being applied to a hill, may
perhaps indicate the most singular and wholly
isolated conical acelivity named Moderah (Madura,
or Madara), standing a little S. of the Wady Fikreh,
near its outlet into the Ghor. This would precisely
agree with the tract of country above indicated
(Num. xx. 1; Seetzen, Reisen, iii, Hebron to Ma-
dara; Wilton, Negeb, 127, 134). [H. H.]
ZINA (NI: Ζιζά : Ziza). ΖΙΖΑῊ the second
son of Shimei (1 Chr. xxiii. 10, comp. 11) the
Gershonite. One of Kennicott’s MSS. reads δ},
Ziza, like the LXX. and Vulg. , :
ΖΙΟΝ. (JERUSALEM. |
ZUOR (YS : Swpaid; Alex. Siwp: ior).
A town in the mountain district of Judah (Josh.
xy. 54, only). It belongs to the same group with
Hebron, next to which it occurs in the list. By
Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. Sidp) it is spoken of
as a village between Aelia (Jerusalem) and Eleu-
theropolis (Beit jibrin), in the tribe of Judah. A
small village named Sa’ir (pam) lies on the road
a The word is ON which Ewald (after J. D. Mi- |
chaelis), both here and in 2K. xv. 25, insists on translating
“harem,” with which word he thinks that it is etymo-
logically connected, and hence seeks confirmation of his _
But |
view that Zimri was a voluptuous slave of women,
its root seems to be DN, “ to be high’’ (Gesenius) ; and
πόλιν
in other passages, especially Proy. xviii. 19, the meaning
is “ a lofty fortress,” rather than “a harem.” Ewald, in
his sketch of Zimri, is perhaps somewhat led astray by the
desire of finding a historical parallel with Sardanapalus,
ZIPH
between Tehkia and Hebron, about six miles north-
east of the latter (Rob. B. 10. i. 488), which may
probably be that alluded to in the Onomasticon ;
and but for its distance from Hebron, might ie
adopted as identical with Zior. So little, however,
is known of the principle on which the groups of
towns are collected in these lists, that it is impos-
sible to speak positively on the point, either one
way or the other. [G.]
ZIPH (5"t).
the territory of Judah.
1. (Μαινάμ ; Alex. Ιθνα]ζιφ: Ziph). In the
south (negeb); named between Ithnan and Telem
(Josh. xv. 24). It does not appear again in the
history—for the Ziph of David’s adventures is an
entirely distinct spot—nor has any trace of it been
met with. From this, from the apparent omission
of the name in the Vatican LXX., and from the |
Wilton has |
absence of the ‘‘and” before it, Mr.
been led to suggest that it is an interpolation
The name borne by two towns in |
(Negeb, 85); but his grounds for this are hardly |
conclusive.
Many names in this list have not yet |
been encountered on the ground; before several |
others the “and” is omitted; and though not now
recognizable in the Vat. LXX., the name is found |
in the Alex. and in the Peshito (Zi). In our pre- |
ZIPHION
waste pasture ground) and a wood, The latter has
disappeared, but the former remains. The name
of Zif is found about three miles S. of Hebron,
attached to a rounded hill of some 100 feet in
height, which is called Tell Zif. About the same
distance still further S. is ὥρην! (Carmel), and
between them a short distance to the W. of the
road is Yutta (Juttah). About halfa mile E, of
the Tell are some considerable ruins, standing at the
head of two small Wadys, which commencing here,
run off towards the Dead Sea. These ruins are
pronounced by Dr. Robinson (Bb. 10. i. 492) to be
those of the ancient Ziph, but hardly on sufficient
grounds. They are too far from the ¢e// for it to
have been the citadel to them. It seems more
1853
| probable that the te// itself is the remnant of the
ancient place which was fortified by Rehoboam
(2 Chr. xi. 8).
ἐν: Ζ10 is mentioned in the Onomasticon as ὃ miles
east of Hebron; “ the village,’ adds Jerome, “in
which David hid is still shown.” This can hardly
be the spot above referred to, unless the distance
and direction have been stated at random, or the
passage is corrupt both in Eusebius and Jerome.
At 7 Roman miles east of Hebron a ruin is marked
on Van de Velde’s map, but it does not appear to
| have been inv estigated, Elsewhere (under “ Zeib”
sent ignorance of the region of the Negeb it is safer | and “ Ziph’’) they place it near Carmel, and con-
| nect it with Ziph the descendant of Caleb.
to postpone any positive judgment on ‘the point.
2. COCEiB, Ζείφ, ZeiB; Alex. Zid, Zep: |
Ziph.) In the highland district; named between
Carmel and Juttah (Josh. xv. 55). The place is
immortalized by its connexion with David, some
of whose greatest perils and happiest escapes took
place in its neighbourhood (1 Sam, xxiii. 14, 15,
24, xxvi. 2).
᾿ἴο have mentioned ΖΓ.
From Eusebius to Dr. Robinson no one appears
Yet many travellers must
have passed the Tell, and the name is often in the
|mouths of the Arab guides (Stanley, 5, δ᾽ P.
1014).
There are some curious differences between the
These passages show, that at that | text of the LXX. and the Hebrew of these passages,
time it had near it a wilderness (midbar, i.e. a| which may be recorded here.
HEBREW.
1 Sam. xxiii. 14. . . . remainedin
the mountain in the wilderness of
Ziph.
15... . in the wilderness of Ziph
in the wood. καινῇ Zeid,
19, And Ziphites came to Saul.
24. And they arose and went to
Ziph before Saul.
xxvi. 1. And the Ziphites came
unto Saul.
Vatican LXX. (Man).
ἐκάθητο ἐν TH ἐρήμῳ ἐν τῷ ὄρει
Ζεὶφ, ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ αὐχμώδει:
ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ αὐχμώδει ἐν τῇ
yn καινῇ [καινὴ =
wan read for WN}. |
καὶ ἀνέβησαν οἱ Ζειφαῖοι ἐκ τῆς
αὐχμώδους πρὸς Σ.
καὶ ἀνέστησαν οἱ
ἐπορεύθησαν ἔμπροσθεν Σ.
" ‘ See aes ει
kK. ἔρχονται ot Ζειφαῖοι ἐκ τῆς
αὐχμώδους πρὺς τὸν
ALEX, LXX.
εν τω OpEL εν TH ερεμὼω
Zep εἰς opos τὸ αὐχμωδες εν yy
αυχμωδέι.
ὩΣ ον οϑι 2, Set 62 τ δλν τὰ γα αν 06, 16.
Ζειφαῖοι καὶ
ΤΟ ἀσοΥ οὐ cures, ‘ow φλν οὐ γτῶ σὺ, ο᾽ κι σὴ ἕο.
=.
αν el drei) elt ce) Hel ΟΣ οἶνο
The recurrence of the word αὐχμός, “dried up,” “ parched,” would almost suggest that the LX X. understood the
Ziph of the negeb to be intended.
ZIPH (5: Zip; Alex. Ζιφλί:
Jchaleleel (1 Chr. iv. 16).
ZIPH'AH (MD: Zepa; Alex. Ζαιφά : Zipha).
One of the sons of Jehaleleel, whose family is enu-
merated in an obscure genealocy of the tribe of
Judah (1 Chr. iv. 16).
ZI'PHIMS, THE (DD: τοὺς Ζειφαίους :
Ziphaei).
|
Ϊ
| Ziphaci), 1 Sam. xxiii.© 19 ; xxvi. 1.
[6.]
Siph). Son of | The inhabitants of ZrpH (see the foregoing article,
No. 2). In this form the name is found in the
A.V. only in the title of Ps. liv. In the narrative
it occurs in the more usual » form of
ZI'PHITES, THE (C53: Ζειφαῖοι:
[G.]
Sephion). Son of
ε
οι
ΖΙΡΗΊΟΝ (ΟΝ : Σαφών:
Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16) ; elsewhere called ZEPHON.
Ὁ See a remark curiously parallel to this by Mar-
mont in his Voyage between Naplouse and Jeru-
salem.
found in Avim, Avires; Horm, Horrres; Patristrm,
PHILISTINES.
e In this passage there is no article to the name in the
b Examples of the same inconsistency in the A. V. are| Hebrew.
1854 ZIPHRON
ZOAN
ZIPH'RON (fpr: Achpwvd*; Alex. Zeppwva: | Ewald (Geschichte, ii. 229, note), namely that the
Zephrona). A point in the north boundary of the
Promised Land as specified by Moses (Num. xxxiv.
9). It occurs between Zedad and Hatsar-Enan.
Zedad is Stidiid, and Hatsar-Enan Kurietein, as is
not impossible, then Ziphron must be looked for
somewhere between the two. At present no name
at all suitable has been discovered in this direction. |
But the whole of this topography is in a most un-
satisfactory state as regards both comprehension of
the original record and knowledge of the ground;
and in the absence of more information we must be
content to abstain from conjectures.
In the parallel passage of Ezekiel (xlvii. 16, 17)
the words “ Hazar-hatticon, which is by the border
The Hauran here named may be the modern village
Hauwarin, which lies between Stidiid and Kurie-
tein, and not the district of the same name many
miles further south. [G.]
ZIP'POR (TIDY, and twice "BY: Sempdp: |
Father of Balak king of Moab. His |
hame occurs only in the expression “sone of f : ι
ξ Ρ | &c.) by which the horde of Moabites, Ammonites,
Sepphor).
Zippor”’ (Num. xxii. 2, 4, 10, 16, xxiii. 18 ; Josh.
xxiv. 9; Judg. xi. 25). Whether he was the
“former king of Moab” alluded to in Num. xxi.
26 re not told, nor do we know that he himself! .
ἘΣ Ἐν ro | be very little doubt that it was the pass of Ain
ever reigned. The Jewish tradition already noticed
[Moas, p. 393 a] is, that Moab and Midian were
united into one kingdom, and ruled bya king chosen
alternately from each. In this connexion the simi-
larity between the names Zippor and Zipporah, the
latter of which we know to have been the name of
a Midianitess, pur sang, is worthy of notice, as it
suggests that Balak may have been of Midianite |
parentage.
[G.]
ZIP'PORAH (M7BY: Σεπφώρα ; Joseph.
Σαπφώρα: Sephora). Daughter of Reuel or Jethro,
the priest of Midian, wife of Moses, and mother of
his two sons Gershom and Eliezer (Ex. ii. 21, iv.
25, xvili. 2, comp. 6).
in her life is that of the circumcision of Gershom
(iv. 24-26), the account of which has been examined
under the head of Mosrs (p. 4270. See also
Stanley’s Jewish Church, 114).
It has been suggested that Zipporah was the
Cushite (A. V. “ Ethiopian”) wife who furnished
Miriam and Aaron with the pretext for their attack
on Moses (Num. xii. 1, &e.), The chief ground
for this appears to be that in a passage of Habakkuk
(iii. 7) the names of Cushan and Midian are men-
tioned together. But in .the immense interval
which had elapsed between the Exodus and the
period of Habakkuk (at least seven centuries), the
relations of Cush and Midian may well have altered
too materially to admit of any argument being
founded on the later passage, even if it were certain
that their being mentioned in juxtaposition implied |
any connexion between them, further than that
both were dwellers in tents and enemies of Israel ;
and unless the events of Num. xii. should be proved
to be quite out of their proper place in the narra-
tive, it is difficult to believe that a charge could
have been made against Moses on the ground of his
marriage, after so long a period, and when the chil-
dren of his wife must have been several years old.
The most feasible suggestion appears to be that of |
If |
The only incident recorded |
| be uncertain.
| ([Zrppor. }
of Hauran,” appear to be substituted for Ziphron. | Sethri).
| Cushite was a second wife, or a concubine, taken
by Moses during the march through the wilderness
—whether after the death of Zipporah (which is
not mentioned) or from other circumstances must
This—with the utmost respect to
the eminent scholar who has supported the other
alternative—the writer ventures to offer as that
which commends itself to him.
The similarity between the names of Zippor and
Zipporah, and the possible inference from that simi-
larity, have been mentioned under the former head.
[G.]
ZITH'RI (ND: Seyel; Alex. Σεθρεί :
Properly “Sithri;”’ one of the sons of
Uzziel, the son of Kohath (Ex. vi. 22). In Ex,
vi. 21, “ Zithri’? should be “ Zichri,” as in A. V.
of 1611,
Ζ1Ζ, THE CLIFF OF (xn nbyn:
ἡ ἀνάβασις ᾿Ασαέ, in both MSS.: clivus nomine
Sis). The pass (such is more accurately the mean-
ing of the word madléh; comp. ADUMMIM; GuR,
and Mehunim, made their way up from the shores
of the Dead Sea to the wilderness of Judah near
Tekoa (2 Chr. xx. 16 only ; comp. 20). There can
Jidy—* the very same route,” as Dr. Robinson re-
marks, “which is taken by the Arabs in their ma-
rauding expeditions at the present day ; along the
shore as far as to’ Ain Jidy, and then up the pass,
and so northwards below Tehkia” (Bib. Res. i.
508, 590). The very name (which since it has the
article prefixed is more accurately haz-Ziz than
Ziz) may perhaps be still traceable in el-Hiisdsah,
which is attached to a large tract of table-land lying
immediately above the pass of Ain Jidy, between it
| and Tekia, and bounded on the north by a Wady of
the same name (B. R. i. 527). May not both haz-
Ziz and Husdsah be descended from Hazezon-tamar,
the early name of Engedi ? [G.]
ZU'ZA (NPY: Ζουζά: Ziza). 1. Son of Shiphi
a chief of the Simeonites, who in the reign of Heze-
kiah made a raid upon the peaceable Hamite shep-
herds of Gedor, and smote them, “because there
was pasture there for their flocks ” (1 Chr. iv. 37).
2. (Zm¢d.) Son of Rehoboam by Maachah the
granddaughter of Absalom (2 Chr. xi. 20).
ZVZAH (AMT: Zita: Ziza). A Gershonite
Levite, second son of Shimei (1 Chr. xxiii. 11);
called ZINA in ver. 10.
ZO'AN (YS: Tavis: Tanis), an ancient. city
of Lower Egypt. It is mentioned by a Shemitie and
by an Egyptian name, both of the same signification.
Zoan, preserved in the Coptic XA NH, X ANI
S. KAANE, KAA, the Arabic slo
(a village on the site), and the classical Τάνις, Tanis,
whence the Coptic transcription TT &MEUC,
comes from the root }¥¥, “he moved tents” (Is.
| xxxili. 20), cognate with YO, <‘he loaded a beast
>
of burden ;” and thus signifies “a place of de-
® The final a in LXX. and Vulgate is due to the Hebrew | Ὁ Num. xxii. 10, xxiii. 18.
particle of motion—* to Ziphron.”
© In LXX. υἱος &., except in Josh. xxiv. 9, ὁ τοῦ 3.
ZOAN
parture,” like D'3IY¥, Zaanannim (Josh. xix. 33),
or ὭΣ, Zaanaim* (Judg. iv. 11), ‘ removings ”
(Gesen.), a place in northernmost Palestine, on the
border of Naphtali near Kedesh. The place just
mentioned is close to the natural and constant
northern border of Palestine, whether under the
spurs of Lebanon or of Hermon. Zoan lay near
the eastern border of Lower Kgypt. The sense of
departure or removing, therefore, would seem not
to indicate a mere resting-place of caravans, but a
place of departure from a country, The Egyptian
name HA-AWAR, or PA-AWAR, Avaris, Aovapis,
means ‘the abode” or “house” of ‘ going out”
or ““ departure.””? Its more precise sense fixes that
of the Shemitic equivalent,»
Tanis is situate in N. Jat. 31°, E. long. 31° 55',
on the east bank of the canal which was formerly
the Tanitic branch. Anciently a rich plain extended
due east as far as Pelusium, about thirty miles
distant, gradually narrowing towards the east, so
that ina south-easterly direction from Tanis it was
not more than half this breadth. The whole of
this plain, about as far south and west as Tanis,
was anciently known as “ the Fields” or “ Plains,”
Π|99 εὐ, “ the Marshes,” τὰ ‘Ean,
*EAeapxia, or < the pasture-lands,’ Βουκολία.
Through the subsidence of the Mediterranean-coast,
it is now almost covered by the great Lake Menzeleh.
Of old it was a rich marsh-land, watered by four
of the seven branches of the Nile, the Pathmitic,
Mendesian, Tanitic, and Pelusiac, and swept by the |
cool breezes of the Mediterranean. Tanis, while
Egypt was ruled by native kings, was the chief
town of this territory, and an important post
towards the eastern frontier.
At a remote period, between the age when the
pyramids were built and that of the empire, seem-
ingly about B.c. 2080, Egypt was invaded, over-
run, and subdued, by the strangers known as the
Shepherds, who, or at least their first race, appear
to have been Arabs cognate with the Phoenicians.
How they entered Egypt does not appear. After a
time they made one of themselves king, a certain
Salatis, who reigned at Memphis, exacting tribute |
of Upper and Lower Egypt, and garrisoning the
fittest places, with especial regard to the safety of
the eastern provinces, which he foresaw the Assy-
rians would desire to invade. With this view
finding in the Saite (better elsewhere Sethrcite)
nome, on the east of the Bubastite branch, a very
fit city called Avaris, he rebuilt, and very strongly
walled it, garrisoning it with 240,000 men. He
came hither in harvest-time (about the vernal
equinox), to give corn and pay to the troops, and
exercise them so as to terrify foreigners. This is
Manetho’s account of the foundation of Avaris, the
great stronghold of the Shepherds. Several points
ave raised by it. We see at a glance that Manetho
did not know that Avaris was Tanis. By his time
the city had fallen into obscurity, and he could not
connect the HA-AWAR of his native records with
the Tanis of the Greeks. His account of its early
history must therefore be received with caution.
Throughout, we trace the influence of the pride
that made the Egyptians hate, and affect to despise,
the Shepherds above all their conquerors, except the
Persians. The motive of Salatis is not to overawe
ἃ Keri, as in Joshua.
b The identification of Zoan with Avaris is due to
M. de Rougé.
ZOAN 1855
Egypt but to keep out the Assyrians ; not to terrify
the natives but these foreigners, who, if other his-
| tory be correct, did not then form an important state,
The position of Tanis explains the case. Like the
other principal cities of this tract, Pelusium, Bu-
bastis, and Heliopolis, it lay on the east bank of the
river, towards Syria, It was thus outside a great
line of defence, and afforded a protection to the cul-
tivated lands to the east, and an obstacle to an in-
vader, while to retreat from it was always possible,
so long as the Egyptians held the river. But Tanis,
though doubtless fortified partly with the object of
repelling an invader, was too far inland to be the
frontier-fortress. It was near enough to be the
place of departure for caravans, perhaps was the
last town in the Shepherd-period, but not near
enough to command the entrance of Egypt. Pelu-
sium lay upon the great road to Palestine—it has
been until lately placed too far north [Sry }—and
the plain was here narrow, from north to south,
so that no invader could safely pass the fortress ;
but it soon became broader, and, by turning in a
south-westerly direction, an advancing enemy would
leave Tanis far to the northward, and a bold general
would detach a force to keep its garrison in check
and march upon Heliopolis and Memphis, An
enormous standing militia, settled in the Bucolia,
as the Egyptian militia afterwards was in neigh-
bouring tracts of the Delta, and with its head-
quarters at Tanis, would have overawed Egypt, and
secured a retreat in case of disaster, besides main-
taining hold of some of the most productive land in
| the country, and mainly for the former two objects
we believe Avaris to have been fortified.
Manetho explicitly states Avaris to have been
older than the time of the Shepherds ; but there are
reasons for questioning his accuracy in this matter.
The name is more likely to be of foreign than of
Egyptian origin, for Zoan distinctly indicates the
place of departure of a migratory people, whereas
Avaris has the simple signification “abode of de-
parture.”
A remarkable passage in the Book of N umbers,
not hitherto explained, ‘Now Hebron was built
seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (xiii. 22), seems
to determine the question. Hebron was anciently
the City of Arba, Kirjath-Arba, and was under the
rule of the Anakim. These Anakim were of the old
warlike Palestinian race that long dominated over
the southern Canaanites, Here, therefore, the
Anakim and Zoan are connected. The Shepherds
who built Avaris were apparently of the Phoenician
stock which would be referred to this race as, like
them, without a pedigree in the Noachian geo-
graphical list. Hebron was already built in Abra-
ham’s time, and the Shepherd-invasion may be
dated about the same period. Whether some older
Village or city were succeeded by Avaris matters
little: its history begins in the reign of Salatis.
What the Egyptian records tell us of this city
may be briefly stated. Apepee, probably Apophis,
of the xvth dynasty, a Shepherd-king who reigned
shortly before the xviiith dynasty, built a temple
here to Set, the Egyptian Baal, and worshipped no
other god. According to Manetho, the Shepherds,
after 511 years of rule, were expelled from all Egypt
and shut up in Avaris, whence they were allowed
to depart by capitulation, by either Amosis or
Thummosis ( Aahmes or Thothmes IV.), the first and
seventh kings of the. xviiith dynasty. The monu-
ments show that the honour of ridding Egypt of
re Shepherds belongs to Aahmes, and that this
1856 ZOAN
event occurred about B.c. 1500. Rameses II. em-
bellished the great temple of Tanis, and was followed
by his son Menptah.
It is within the period from the Shepherd-inva-
sion to the reign of Menptah, that the sojourn and
Exodus of the Israelites are placed. We believe that
the Pharaoh of Joseph as well as the oppressors
were Shepherds, the former ruling at Memphis and
Zoan, the latter probably at Zoan only; though in
the case of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the time
would suit the annual visit Manetho states to have
been paid by Salatis. Zoan is mentioned in con-
nexion with the Plagues in such a manner as to
leave no doubt that it is the city spoken of in the
farrative in Exodus as that where Pharaoh dwelt.
The wonders were wrought “in the field of Zoan”’
(Ps. Ixxviii. 12, 43), yy-nsy, which may either
denote the territory immediately around the city,
or its nome, or even a kingdom (Gesen. Lex. s. v.
m1’). This would accord best with the Shepherd-
period; but it cannot be doubted that Rameses II.
paid great attention to Zoan, and may have made it
a royal residence.
After the fall of the empire, the first dynasty is
the xxist, called by Manetho that of Tanites. Its his-
tory is obscure, and it fell before the stronger line of
Bubastites, the xxiind dynasty, founded by Shishak.
The expulsion of Set from the pantheon, under the
xxiind dynasty, must have been a blow to Tanis;
- and perhaps a religious war occasioned the rise of
the xxiiird. The xxiiird dynasty is called Tanite,
and its last king is probably Sethos, the contem-
porary of Tirhakah, mentioned by Herodotus. At
this time Tanis once more appears in sacred history,
as a place to which came ambassadors, either of
Hoshea, or Ahaz, or else, possibly, Hezekiah :—*‘ For
his princes were at Zoan, and his messengers came
to Hanes” (Is. xxx. 4). As mentioned with the
frontier-town Tahpanhes, Tanis is not necessarily
the capital. But the same prophet perhaps more
distinctly points to a Tanite line where saying, in
“the burden of Egypt,” “ the princes of Zoan are
become fools; the princes of Noph are deceived”
(xix. 13). The doom of Zoan is foretold by Ezekiel:
“1 Μ1Π set fire in Zoan” (xxx. 14), where it occurs
amoung the cities to be taken by Nebuchadnezzar.
“The plain of San is very extensive, but thinly
inhabited : no village exists in the immediate vicinity
of the ancient Tanis ; and, when looking from the
mounds of this once splendid city towards the
distant palms of indistinct villages, we perceive the
desolation spread around it. The <field’ of Zoan,
is now a barren waste: a canal passes through it
without being able to fertilize the soil; ‘fire’ has
been set in ¢ Zoan τ᾿ and one of the principal capitals
or royal abodes of the Pharaohs is now the habita-
tion of fishermen, the resort of wild beasts, and in-
fested with reptiles and malignant fevers.” It is
“‘ yemarkable for the height and extent of its
- mounds, which are upwards of a mile from N. to
S., and nearly ? of a mile from E. to W. T
area in which the sacred enclosure of the temple
stood is about 1500 ft. by 1250, surrounded. by
mounds of fallen houses.
by Rameses II. with numerous obelisks and most
of its sculptures. It is very ruinous, but its
remains prove its former grandeur. The number
of its obelisks, ten or twelve, all now fallen, is un-
a Gen. xix. 22, 30.
b In the Targum Pseudojonathan, to vers. 22, 23, the
he |
The temple was adorned |
ZOAR
equalled, and the labour of transporting them from
Syene shows the lavish magnificence of the Egyptian
kings. The oldest name found here is that of Se-
sertesen III. of the xiith dynasty, the latest that
of Tirhakah (Sir Gardner Wilkinson’s Handhook,
pp. 221, 222). Recently, M. Mariette has made
excavations on this site and discovered remains of the
Shepherd-period, showing a markedly-characteristic
style, especially in the representation of face and
figure, but of Egyptian art, and therefore afterwards
appropriated by the Egyptian kings, [R.S. P.]
ZO'AR Cy’, and twice? apis ; Samar.
throughout WS: Ζόγορα, Σηγώρ, Zoyédp ; Joseph.
Zoop, τὰ Zoapa, or Zéapa: Segor). One of the
most ancient cities of the land of Canaan. Its
original name was BELA, and it was still so called
at the time of Abram’s first residence in Canaan
(Gen. xiv. 2,8). It was then in intimate connexion
with the cities of the ““ plain of Jordan ”’—Sodom,
Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim (see also xiii. 10;
but not x. 19)—and its king took part with the kings
of those towns in the battle with the Assyrian host
which ended in their defeat and the capture of Lot.
In the general destruction of the cities of the plain,
Zoar was spared to afford shelter to Lot, and it was
on that occasion, according to the quaint statement
of the ancient narrative, that the change in its
name took place (xix. 22, 23, 30). It is mentioned
in the account of the death of Moses as one of the
landmarks which bounded his view from Pisgah
(Deut. xxxiv. 3), and it appears to have been
known in the time both of Isaiah (xv. 5) and
Jeremiah (xlviii. 54). These are all the notices of
Zoar contained in the Bible.
1. It was situated in the same district with the
four cities already mentioned, viz. in the ciccar,
the ‘ plain” or “circle” “ of the Jordan,” and the
narrative of Gen. xix. evidently implies that it was
very near to Sodom—sufficiently near for Lot and
his family to traverse the distance in the time
between the first appearance of the morning and
the actual rising of the sun (ver. 15, 23, 27). The
definite position of Sodom is, and probably will
always be, a mystery, but there can be little doubt
that the plain of the Jordan was at the north of the
Dead Sea, and that the cities of the plain must
therefore have been situated there instead of at the
southern end of the lake, as it is generally taken
for granted they were. The grounds for this con-
clusion have been already indicated under Sopom
(p. 1339), but it will be well to state them here
more at length. They are as follows :—
(a.) The northern and larger portion of the lake
has undoubtedly existed in, or very nearly in, its
present form since a date long anterior to the age
of Abraham. (The conviction of the writer is that
this is true of the whole lake, but everyone will
agree as to the northern portion, and that is all
| that is necessary to the present argument.) The
Jordan therefore at that date discharged itself into
the lake pretty nearly where it does now, and thus
the “ plain of the Jordan,’’ unless unconnected with
the river, must have lain on the north of the Dead
Sea.
(b.) The plain was within view of the spot from
which Abram and Lot took their survey of the
country (Gen. xiii. 1-13), and which, if there is any
connexion in the narrative, was ‘‘the mountain
| name of Zoar is given “Wit, and the play on the “ small-
ness’’ of the town is suppressed.
ZOAR
east of Bethel,” ‘between Bethel and Ai,” with
«ὁ Bethel on the west and Ai on the east” (xiii. 3,
xii. 8). Now the lower part of the course of the
Jordan is plainly visible from the hills east of
Beitin—the whole of that rich and singular valley
spread out before the spectator. On the other
hand, the southern half of the Dead Sea is not only
too far off to be discerned, but is actually shut out
from view by intervening heights.
(c.) In the account of the view of Moses from
Pisgah the ciccar is more strictly defined as “ the
ciccar of the plain of Jericho” (A. V. “ plain of
the valley of Jericho’’), and Zoar is mentioned in
immediate connexion with it. Now no person who
knows the spot from actual acquaintance or from
study of the topography can believe that the “ plain
of Jericho” can have been extended to the southern
end of the Dead Sea. The Jerusalem Targum (not
a very ancient authority in itself, but still valuable
as a storehouse of many ancient traditions and ex-
planations), in paraphrasing this passage, actually
identifies Zoar with Jericho—“ the plain of the
valley of Jericho, the city which produces the
palms, that is Zeér” (WP'¥).° -
These considerations appear to the writer to
render it highly probable that the Zoar of the Pen-
tateuch was to the north of the Dead Sea, not far
from its northern end, in the general parallel of
Jericho. That it was on the east side of the valley
seems to be implied in the fact that the descendants
of Lot, the Moabites and Ammonites, are in pos-
session of that country as their original seat when
they first appear in the sacred history. It seems
to follow that the “ mountain” in which Lot and
his daughters dwelt when Moab and Ben-Ammi
were born was the “ mountain” to which he was
advised to flee by the angel, and between which
and Sodom stood Zoar (xix. 30, compare 17, 19).
It is also in favour of its position north of the Dead
Sea, that the earliest information as to the Moabites
makes their original seat in the plains of Heshbon,
N.E. of the Lake, not, as afterwards, in the moun-
tains on the S.E., to which they were driven by the
Amorites (Num. xxi. 26).
2. The passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah in whic
Zoar is mentioned give no clue to its situation. True
they abound with the names of places, apparently in
connexion with it, but they are places (with only an
exception or two) not identified, Still it is remark-
able that one of these is Elealeh, which, if the modern
el- Aal, is in the parallel of the north end of the Dead
Sea, and that another is the Waters of Nimrim, which
may turn out to be identical with Wady Nimrin,
opposite Jericho. Wady Seir,a short distance south
of Nimrin, is suggestive of Zoar, but we are too ill-
informed of the situations and the orthography of the
places east of Jordan to be able to judge of this.
3. So much for the Zoar of the Bible. When
however we examine the notices of the place in the
post-biblical sources we find a considerable difference.
In these its position is indicated with more or less
precision, as at the S.E. end of the Dead Sea. Thus
Josephus says that it retained its name (Zodp) to
his day (Ant. i. 11, §4), that it was at the further
end of the Asphaltic Lake, in Arabia—by which he
e The Samaritan Text and Version afford no light on
this passage, as they, for reasons not difficult to divine,
have thrown the whole into confusion.
ἃ None of these places, however, can be seen from
Beni Naim (Rob. i. 491).
VOL. Il.
ZOAR 1857
means the country lying S.E. of the lake, whose
capital was Petra (B. J. iv. 8, 84; Ant. xiv.
1, 84). The notices of Eusebius are to the same
tenor: —the Dead Sea extended from Jericho to
Zoar (Zoop@v; Onom. Θαλασσα ἡ αλυκη). Phaeno
lay between Petra and Zoar (10. Φινών). It still
retained its name (Zwapa), lay close to (mapa-
κειμένη) the Dead Sea, was crowded with inha-
bitants, and contained a garrison of Roman soldiers ;
the palm and the balsam still flourished, and tes-
tified to its ancient fertility (7b. Baad).
To these notices of Eusebius St. Jerome adds
little or nothing, Paula in her journey beholds
Segor (which Jerome gives on several occasions as
the Hebrew form of the name in opposition to Zoora
or Zoara, the Syrian form) from Caphar Barucha
(possibly Bent Naim, near Hebron), at the same
time with Engaddi, and the Jand where once stood
the four cities; 4 but the terms of the statement are
too vague to allow of any inference as to its posi-
tion (Zpist. eviii. $11). In his commentary on
Is. xv. 5, he says that it was ‘“ in the boundary of
the Moabites, dividing them from the land of the
Philistines,” and thus justifies his use of the word
vectis to translate AMA (A. V. “ his fugitives,”
marg. ‘“ borders ;”’ Gesen. fliichtlinge), The terra
Philisthiim, unless the words are corrupt, can only
mean the land of ὁ Palestine—i. e. (according to the
inaccurate usage of later times) of Israel—as opposed
to Moab. In his Quaestiones Hebraicae on Gen. xix.
30 (comp. xiv. 3) Jerome goes so far as to affirm
the accuracy of the Jewish conjecture, that the later
name of Zoar was Shalisha:—‘ Bale primum et
postea Salisa appellata’’ (comp. also his comment
on 15. xv. 5). But this is probably grounded merely
on an interpretation of shalishiyeh in Is. xv. 5, as
connected with bela, and as denoting the “ third”
destruction of the town by “ earthquakes,” ἢ
In more modern times Zoar is mentioned by the
Crusading historians. Fulcher (Gesta Dei, 405,
quoted by von Raumer, 239) states that ‘‘ having en-
circled (girato) the southern part of the lake on the
road from Hebron to Petra, we found there a large
village which was said to be Segor, in a charming
situation, and abounding with dates. Here we began
to enter the mountains of Arabia.” The palms are
mentioned also by William of Tyre (xxii. 30) as
being so abundant as to cause the place to be called
Villa Palmarum, and Palmer (i. ὁ. probably Pau-
mier). Abulfeda (cir. A.D. 1320) does not specify
its position more nearly than that it was adjacent to
the lake and the ghor, but he testifies to its then
importance by calling the lake after it—Bahret-
zechor (see too Ibn Idris, in Reland, 272). The
natural inference from the description of Fulcher is,
that Segor lay in the Wady Kerak, the ordinary road,
then and now, from the south of the Dead Sea to
the eastern highlands. The conjecture of Irby and
Mangles (June 1, and see May 9), that the extensive
ruins which they found in the lower part of this Wady
were those of Zoar, is therefore probably accurate.
The name Dra’a or Dera’ah (&& =), which they,
Poole (Geogr. Journ. xxvi. 63), and Burckhardt
(July 15), give to the valley, may even without
violence be accepted as a corruption of Zoar.
e Similarly, Stephanus of Byzantium places Zoar ἐν
Παλαιστίνῃ (quoted by Reland, 1065).
f See Rahmer, Die Hebr. Tradit. in Hieronymus (Bres-
lau, 1861), p. 29.
6 C
1858 ZOAR
Zoar was included in the province of Palestina
Tertia, which contained also Kerak and Areopolis.
It was an episcopal see, in the patriarchate of Jeru-
salem and archbishopric of Petra; at the Council of
Chalcedon (A.D. 451) it was represented by its
bishop Musonius, and at the Synod of Constantinople
(A.D. 536) by John (Le Quien, Oviens Christ. iii.
743-6).
4. To the statements of the mediaeval travellers
just quoted there are at least two remarkable excep-
tions. (1.) Brocardus (cir. A.D. 1290), the author
of the Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, the standard
‘* Handbook to Palestine” of the middle ages, the
work of an able and intelligent resident in the
country, states (cap. vii.) that “ five leaguess
(leucae) to the south of Jericho is the city Segor,
situated beneath the mountain of Engaddi, between
which mountain and the Dead Sea is the statue of
salt.” True he confesses that all his efforts to visit
the spot had been frustrated by the Saracens; but
the passage bears marks of the greatest desire to
obtain correct information, and he must have nearly
approached the place, because he saw with his own
eyes the ‘¢ pyramids” which covered the “ wells of
bitumen,” which he supposes to have been those of
the vale of Siddim. This is in curious agreement
with the connexion between Engedi and Zoar
implied in Jerome’s Itinerary of Paula. (2.) The
statement of Thietmar (A.D. 1217) is even more
singular. It is contained in the 11th and 12th
chapters of his Peregrinatio (ed. Laurent, Ham-
burgi, 1857). After visiting Jericho and Gilgal he
arrives at the “fords of Jordan” (xi. 20), where
Israel crossed and where Christ was baptised, and
where then, as now, the pilgrims bathed (22).
Crossing this ford (33) he arrives at “the field
and the spot where the Lord overthrew Sodom and
Gomorra.’ After a description of the lake come
the following words :—* On the shore of this lake,
about a mile (ad miliare) from the spot at which
the Lord was baptised is the statue of salt into
which Lot's wife was turned” (47). ‘* Hence 1 came
from the lake of Sodom and Gomorra, and arrived
at Segor, where Lot took refuge after the over-
throw of Sodom ; which is now called in the Syrian
tongue Zora, but in Latin the city of palms. In
the mountain hard by this Lot sinned with his
daughters (xii. 1-3), After this I passed the vine-
yard of Benjamin (?) and of Engaddi.... Next I
came into the land of Moab and to the mountain in
which was the cave where Dayid hid .. . leaving
on my left hand Sethim (Shittim), where the chil-
dren of Israel tarricd.... At last I came to the
plains of Moab, which abound in cattle and grain.
..- A plain country, delightfully covered with
herbage, but without either woods or ‘single trees;
hardly even a twig or shrub (4-15)... . After this
I came to the torrent Jabbok” (xiv. 1).
Making allowance for the confusion into which
this traveller seems to have- fallen as to Engaddi
ZOBA
and the cavern of David, it seems almost certain
from his description that, having once crossed the
Jordan, he did not recross it,i and that the site of
Sodom and Gomorrah, the pillar of salt, and Zoar,
were all seen by him on the east of the Dead Sea—
the two first at its north-east end. Taken by itself
this would not perhaps be of much weight, but when
combined with the evidence which the writer has
attempted to bring forward that the “ cities of the
plain” lay to the north of the lake, it seems to him
to assume a certain significance.
5. But putting aside the accounts of Brocardus
and Thietmar, as exceptions to the ordinary mediaeval
belief which placed Zoar at the Wady ed Dra‘a,
how can that belief be reconciled with the inference
drawn above from the statements of the Pentateuch ?
It agrees with those statements in one particular
only, the position of the place on the eastern side of
the lake. In everything else it disagrees not only
with the Pentateuch, but with the locality ordi-
narily * assigned to Sodom. For if Usdum be Sodom,
at the S.W. corner of the lake, its distance from the
Wady ed Drva (at least 15 miles) is too great to
agree with the requirements of Gen, xix.
This has led M. de Sauley to place Zoar in the
Wady Zuweirah, the pass leading from Hebron to
the Dead Sea. But the names Zuweirah and Zoar
are not nearly so similar in the originals as they are
in their western forms, and there is the fatal ob-
stacle to the proposal that it places Zoar on the
west of the lake, away from what appears to have
been the original cradle of Moab and Ammon.” If
we are to look for Zoar in this neighbourhood, it
would surely be better to place it at the Yell wm-
Zoghal,® the latter part of which name (5,5) is
almost literally the same as the Hebrew Zoar. The
proximity of this name and that of Usdum, so like
Sodom, and the presence of the salt mountain—to
this day splitting off in pillars which show a rude
resemblance to the human form—are certainly re-
markable facts; but they only add to the general
mystery in which the whole of the question of the
position and destruction of the cities is involved,
and to which the writer sees at present no hope of
a solution.
In the A. V. of 1611 the name Zoar is found in
1 Chr. iv. 7, following (though inaccurately) the
Kert ($81). The present Received Text of the
A. V. follows (with the insertion of “ and”) the
Cethib (18°). In either case the name has no
connexion with Zoar proper, and is more accurately
represented in English as Zohar (Tsochar) or
Jezohar. [G.]
ZO'BA, or ZO'BAH (S218, TTY: Σουβά:
Soba, Suba) is the name of a portion of Syria,
which formed a separate kingdom in the time of
the Jewish monarchs,’ Saul, David, and Solomon.
It is difficult to fix its exact position and limits;
g The distance from Jericho to Engedi is understated
here. It is really about 24 English miles.
h In the map to the Theatrum Terrae Sanctae of Adri-
chomius, Scdom is placed within the Lake, at its N.W.
end; Segor near it on the shore; and the Statua Salis
close to the mouth of the Torrent (apparently Kidron).
i Thietmar did not return to the west of the Jordan,
From the torrent Jabbok he ascended the mountains of
Abarim. He then recrossed the plain of Heshbon to the
river Arnon; and passing the ruins of Robda (Rabba),
and Crach (Kerak), and again crossing the Arnon (pro-
bably the Wady el Ahsy), reached the top of a very
high mountain, where he was half killed by the cold.
Thence he journeyed to Petra and Mount Hor, and at
length reached the Red Sea, His itinerary is full of
interest and intelligence.
k Though incorrectly, if the writer’s argument for the
position of the plain of Jordan is tenable.
τὰ Dr, Robinson’s arguments against this proposal of
De Saulcy (B. R. ii. 107; 517), though they might be more
pleasant in tone, are unanswerable in substance.
" The Redjom el-Mezorrhel of De Sauley. The gh and
7rh each strive to represent the Arabic ghain, which is
pronounced like a guttural rolling r.
ZOBA
but there seem to be grounds for regarding it as
lying chiefly eastward of Coele-Syria, and extending
thence north-east and east, towards, if not even
to, the Euphrates. [Syrra.] It would thus have
included the eastern flank of the mountain-chain
which shuts in Coele-Syria on that side, the high
land about Aleppo, and the more northern portion
of the Syrian desert.
Among the cities of Zobah were a Hamath (2 Chr.
viii. 3), which must not be confounded with “ Ha-
math the Great” (HAMATH-ZOBAH) ; a place called
Tibhath or Betah (2 Sam. viii. 8; 1 Chr. xviii. 8),
which is perhaps Zuibeh, between Palmyra and
Aleppo; and another called Berothai, which has
been supposed to be Beyrfit. (See Winer, Real-
wérterbuch, vol. i. p. 155.) This last supposition
is highly improbable, for the kingdom of Hamath
must have intervened between Zobah and the coast.
[BEROTHAH. ]
We first hear of Zobah in the time of Saul, when
we find it mentioned as a separate country, governed
apparently by a number of kings who own no com-
mon head or chief (1 Sam. xiv. 47). Saul engaged
in war with these kings, and ‘‘ vexed them,” as he
did his other neighbours. Some forty years later
than this, we find Zobah under a single ruler, Ha-
dadezer, son of Rehob, who seems to have been a
powerful sovereign. He had wars with Toi, king
of Hamath (2 Sam. viii. 10), while he lived in
close relations of amity with the kings of Damascus,
Beth-Rehob, Ish-tob, &c., and held various petty
Syrian princes as vassals “und®r his yoke (2 Sam.
x. 19). He had even a considerable influence in
Mesopotamia, beyond the Euphrates, and was able on
one occasion to obtain an important auxiliary force
from that quarter (ibid. 16; compare title to Ps.
Ix.). David, having resolved to take full possession
of the tract of territory originally promised to the
posterity of Abraham (2 Sam. viii. 3; compare
Gen. xv. 18), attacked Hadadezer in the early part
of his reign, defeated his army, and took from
him a thousand chariots, seven hundred (seven
thousand, 1 Chr. xviii. 4) horsemen, and 20,000
footmen. Hadadezer’s allies, the Syrians of Da-
mascus, having marched to his assistance, David
defeated them in a great battle, in which they lost
22,000 men. The wealth of Zobah is very ap-
parent in the narrative of this campaign. Several
of the officers of Hadadezer’s army carried ‘‘ shields
of gold” (2 Sam. viii. 7), by which we are pro-
bably to understand iron or wooden frames overlaid
with plates of the precious metal. The cities,
moreover, which David took, Betah (or Tibhath)
and Berothai, yielded him ‘“ exceeding much brass ”
(ver. 8). It is not clear whether the Syrians of
Zobah submitted and became tributary on this occa-
sion, or whether, although defeated, they were able
to maintain their independence. At any rate a few
years later, they were again in arms against David.
This time the Jewish king acted on the defensive.
The war was provoked by the Ammonites, who
hired the services of the Syrians of Zobah, among
others, to help them against the people of Israel,
and obtained in this way auxiliaries to the amount
of 33,000 men. The allies were defeated in a great
battle by Joab, who engaged the Syrians in person
with the flower of his troops (2 Sam. x. 9). Ha-
dadezer, upon this, made a last effort. He sent
across the Euphrates into Mesopotamia, and “ drew
torth the Syrians that were beyond the river”
(1 Chr. xix. 16), who had hitherto taken no part in
the war.
With these allies and his own troops he |
ZOHELETH, THE STONE 1859
once more renewed the struggle with the Israelites,
who were now commanded by David himself, the
crisis being such as seemed to demand the presence
of the king. A battle was fought near Helam—a
place, the situation of which is uncertain (HELAM)—
where the Syrians of Zobah and their new allies
were defeated with great slaughter, losing between
40,000 and 50,000 men. After this we hear of no
more hostilities. The petty princes hitherto tri-
butary to Hadadezer transferred their allegiance to
the king of Israel, and it is probable that he himself
became a vassal to David.
Zobah, however, though subdued, continued to
cause trouble to the Jewish kings. A man of Zobah,
one of the subjects of Hadadezer—Rezon, son of
Eliadah—having escaped from the battle of Helam,
and ‘gathered a band” (1.6. a body of irregular
marauders), marched southward, and contrived
to make himself master of Damascus, where he
reigned (apparently) for some fifty years, proving
a fierce adversary to Israel all through the reign
of Solomon (1 Κα. xi, 23-25). Solomon also was
(it would seem) engaged in a war with Zobah itself.
The Hamath-Zobah, against which he “went up”
(2 Chr. viii. 3), was probably a town in that
country which resisted his authority, and which he
accordingly attacked and subdued. ‘This is the last
that we hear of Zobah in Scripture. The name,
however, is found at a later date in the Inscriptions
of Assyria, where the kingdom of Zobah seems to
intervene between Hamath and Damascus, falling
thus into the regular line of march of the Assyrian
armies. Several Assyrian monarchs relate that
they took tribute from Zobah, while others speak
of having traversed it on their way to or trom
Palestine. [G. R.]
ZO'BEBAH (22%: SaBaba; Alex. SwBnBa:
Soboba). Son of Coz, in an obscure genealogy of the
tribe of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 8).
ZO'HAR (ΠΥ : Sadp: Secor). 1. Father of
Ephron the Hittite (Gen. xxiii. 8, xxv. 9).
2. (Sohar, Soar.) One of the sons of Simeon
(Gen. xlvi. 10 ; Ex. vi. 15); called ZeERAW in 1 Chr.
iv. 24.
ZOHEL'ETH, THE STONE (ΠΌΤ jan:
Αἰθῆ τοῦ Ζωελεθεί; Alex. Tov λιθον του Ζωελεθ:
lapis Zoheleth). This was “ by En Rogel” (1 Καὶ.
i. 9); and therefore, if En Rogel be the modern
Um-ed-Deraj, this stone, ‘ where Adonijah slew
sheep and oxen,” was in all likelihood not far
from the well of the Virgin. [EN RocEL.] The
Targumists translate it ‘the rolling stone;” and
Jarchi affirms that it was a large stone on which
the young men tried their strenoth in attempting
to roll it. Others make it “ the serpent stone”
(Gesen.), as if from the root Shr, “to creep.”
Jerome simply says, “ Zoelet tractum sive pro-
tractum.”’ Others connect it with running water ;
but there is nothing strained in making it “ the
stone of the conduit” (πϑ πὴ, Mazchelah), from
its proximity to the great rock-conduit or con-
duits that poured into Siloam. Bochart’s idea is
that the Hebrew word zohel denotes ‘a slow mo-
tion” (Hieroz. parti. b. 1, c. 9): “the fullers
here pressing out the water which dropped from
the clothes that they had washed in the well called
Rogel.” If this be the case, then we have some
relics of this ancient custom at the massive breast-
6 C 2
1860 ZOHELETH, THE STONE
work below the present Birket el-Hamra, where
the donkeys wait for their load of skins from the
well, and where the Arab washerwomen may be
seen to this day beating their clothes.*
The practice of placing stones, and naming them
from a person or an event, is very common. Jacob
did so at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 22, xxxv. 14; see
Bochart’s Canaan, pp. 785, 786); and he did it
again when parting from Laban (Gen. xxxi. 49).
Joshua set up stones in Jordan and Gilgal, at the
command of God (Josh. iv. 9-20); and again in
Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 26). Near Bethshemesh
there was the Hben-gedolah (* great stone,’ 1 Sam.
vi. 14), called also Abel-gedolah (“the great weep-
ing,’ 1 Sam. vi. 18). There was the Lben-Bohan,
south of Jericho, in the plains of Jordan (Josh.
xv. 6, xviii. 17), “the stone of Bohan the son
of Reuben,” the Ehrenbreitstein of the Ciccar, or
“plain” of Jordan, a memorial of the son or grand-
son of Jacob’s eldest born, for which the writer
once looked in vain, but which Felix Fabri in the
15th century (Lvagat. ii. 82), professes to have
seen. The Rabbis preserve the memory of this stone
in a book called Hben-Bohan, or the touchstone
(Chron. of Rabbi Joseph, transl. by Bialloblotzky, i.
192). There was the stone set up by Samuel be-
tween Mizpeh and Shen, Lben-Lzer, “ the stone of
help” (1 Sam. vii. 11, 12). There was the Great
Stone on which Samuel slew the sacrifices, after
the great battle of Saul with the Philistines (1 Sam.
xiv. 33). There was the Lben-Hzel (“lapis dis-
cessus vel abitus, a discessu Jonathanis et Davidis,”’
Simonis, Onom. p. 156), where David hid himself,
and which some Talmudists identify with Zoheleth.
Large stones haye always obtained for themselves
peculiar names, from their shape, their position,
their connexion with a person or an event. In the
Sinaitic Desert the writer found the Hajar-el-Rekab
(“stone of the rider’’), Hajar-el-Ful (ς΄ stone of
the bean’’), Hajar Musa (‘stone of Moses”).
The subject of stones is by no means uninteresting,
and has not in any respect been exhausted. (See the
Notes of De Sola and Lindenthal in their edition of
Genesis, pp. 175, 226; Bochart’s Canaan, p. 785;
Vossius de Idolatr. vi. 38; Scaliger on Husebius,
p. 198; Heraldus on Arnobius, Ὁ. vii., and Elmen-
horstius on Arnobius ; also a long note of Ouzelius in
his edition of Minucius Felix, p. 15; Calmet’s Frag-
ments, Nos. 166, 735,736; Kitto’s Palestine. See,
besides, the works of antiquaries on stones and stone
circles ; and an interesting account of the curious
Phoenician Hajar Chem in Malta, in Tallack’s recent
volume on that island, pp. 115-127.) [H. B.]
ZORAH
ZO'HETH (nnit: Zwdv: Alex. Ζωχάθ
Zoheth). Son of Ishi of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr.
iv. 20).
ZO'PHAH (MDI: Σωφά; Alex. Σωφάρ:
Supha). Son of Helem, or Hotham, the son of
Heber, an Asherite (1 Chr. vii. 35, 36).
ZO'PHAL (DIY: Σουφί: Sophai). A Ko-
hathite Levite, son of Elkanah and ancestor of Sa-
muel (1 Chr. vi. 26 [11]). In ver. 35 he is called
ZUPH.
ZO'PHAR ("DIS: Swpdp: Sophar). One of
the three friends of Job (Job ii. 11, xi. 1, xx. 1, xlii.
9). He is called in the Hebrew, “ the Naamathite,”
and in the LXX. ‘the Minaean,” and “ the king of
the Minaeans.” :
ZO'PHIM, THE FIELD OF (Ἐν TY:
ἄγρος σκοπιάν : locus sublimis). A spot on or
near the top of Pisgah, from which Balaam had
his second view of the encampment of Israel (Num.
xxiii. 14). If the word sadeh (rendered “ field”)
may be taken in its usual sense, then the “ field
of Zophim” was a cultivated» spot high up on
the top of the range of Pisgah. But that word
is the almost invariable term for a portion of the
upper district of Moab, and therefore may have
had some loca] sense which has hitherto escaped
notice, and in which it is employed in reference
to the spot in question. The position of the field
of Zophim is not defined, it is only said that
it commanded merely a portion of the encamp-
ment of Israel. Neither do the ancient versions
afford any clue. The Targum of Onkelos, the
LXX., and the Peshito-Syriac take Zophim in the
sense of “ watchers” or ““ lookers-out,” and trans-
late it accordingly. But it is probably a Hebrew
version of an aboriginal name, related to that
which in other places of the present records appears
as Mizpeh or Mizpah.¢ May it not be the same
place which later in the history is mentioned (once
only) as MizpaAH-MOAB ?
Mr. Porter, who identifies Attarés with Pisgah,
mentions (Handbook, 300 a) that the ruins of Wain,
at the foot of that mountain, are surrounded by a
fertile and cultivated plain, which he regards as
the field of Zophim. [G. ]
ZO'RAH (ΠΡῚΝ : Σαράθ, Σαράα, Σαραᾶ ; Alex.
Σαραα, Sapa, Apaa; Joseph, Saplaca: ϑαγαα).
One of the towns in the allotment of the tribe of
Dan (Josh. xix. 41). It is previously mentioned
(xv. 33) in the catalogue of Judah, among the places
8. We give the following Rabbinical note on Zoheleth,
from the Arabic Commentary of Tanchum of Jerusalem,
translated by Haarbrucker :— ᾿
“Ver. 9: nbnin Verbum bn significationem trepi-
dationis habet et reptationis et cunctationis in incessu.
Inde Saturnum dj appellaverunt propter multos ejus
regressus incessusque retrogrados. Eaque sententia est
in verbis NN) snbny (Hi. 32, 6) i. 6. cunctabar vobis
respondere consiliumque meum yobiscum communicare,
propterea quia vos verebar et gravitatem aetatis vestrae
admirabar. Serpentes SY ὉΠ) appellantur, quia in
terra serpunt, et ob incessum suum quasi trepidantem
cunctantemque, Inde porro dicunt: (Sabb. fol. 65, b.)
pomin Sy parrn ya xdyy (vid. Mischn. Mik-
vaoth, cap. 5), PSB P27 DDN} i.e. aqua leniter
fluens in terra, Fortasse igitur ΤΣ 27} JAN similiter
explicandum est, nimirum lapis volutatus et hic illic
tractus, quem saepe quasi ludentes volvebant ; aut sensus
est eum per se fuisse teretem (volubilem) acclivitatis
instar, cujus latus alterum elatius, alterum depressius
esset in modum pontis exstructi, in quo ad locum al-
tiorem sine gradibus ascendatur; quem {%5)5 vocaverunt
qualemque ad altare struxerunt, ut eo ascenderent, quum
ad altare per gradus ascendere non liceret (Ex. xx. 23).
Nec absurdum mihi videtur eundem fuisse hune lapidem
atque eum, qui in Davidis Jonathanique historia jas
TNM vocatus est, quem interpretantur lapidem via-
torum, ad quem videlicet viatores devertebant. Targum
h. 1. ΜΞ JAN transtulit i. e. altus; fortasse enim
lapis altus fuit et elatus, quem viatores e longinquo
conspicerent.”
b See Stanley, S. ὦ P., Appendix, §15.
© The Targum treats the names Mizpeh and Zophim as
identical, translating them both by NDAID.
ZORATHITES, THE
in the district of the Shefelah (A. V. ZOREAH). In
both lists it is in immediate proximity to EsaHraot,
and the two are elsewhere named together almost
without an exception (Judg. xiii, 25, xvi. 31, xviii.
2, 8,11; and see 1 Chr. ii. 53). Zorah was the
residence of Manoah and the native place of Samson.
The place both of his birth and his burial is spe-
cified with a curious minuteness as “‘ between Zorah
and Eshtaol;” ‘in Mahaneh-Dan” (Judg. xiii. 25,
xvi. 31). In the genealogical records of 1 Chr. (ii.
53, iv. 2), the “ Zareathites and Eshtaulites” are
given as descended from (7. 6. colonized by) Kirjath-
jearim.
Zorah is mentioned amongst the places fortified
by Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 10), and it was re-inha-
bited by the men of Judah after the return from
the Captivity (Neh. xi. 29, A. V. ZAREAH).
In the Onomasticon (Sap5a and ‘ Saara”’) it is
mentioned as lying some 10 miles north of Eleu-
theropolis on the road to Nicopolis. By the Jewish
traveller hap-Parchi (Zunz’s Benjamin of Tud. ii.
441), it is specified as three hours S.E. of Lydd.
These notices agree in direction—though in neither
is the distance nearly sufficient—with the modern
village of Stir’ah (xe = yA)» which has been visited
by Dr. Robinson (B. R. iii. 153) and Tobler (3tte
Wand. 181-3). It lies just below the brow of a
sharp pointed conical hill, at the shoulder of the
ranges which there meet and form the north side
of the Wady Ghurdb, the northernmost of the
two branches which unite just below Siir’ah, and
form the great Wady Surar. Near it are to be
seen the remains of Zanoah, Bethshemesh, Timnath,
and other places more or less frequently mentioned
with it in the narrative. Eshtaol, however, has not
yet been identified. The position of Sir’ah at the
entrance of the valley, which forms one of the inlets
from the great lowland, explains its fortification by
Rehoboam. The spring is a short distance below the
village, ‘*a noble fountain ””—this was at the end of
April—* walled up square with large hewn stones,
and gushing over with fine water. As we passed
ou,” continues Dr, Robinson, with a more poetical
tone than is his wont, ‘‘ we overtook no less than
twelve women toiling upwards to the village, eacli
with her jar of water on her head, The village,
the fountain, the fields, the mountain, the females
bearing water, all transported us back to ancient
times, when in all probability the mother of Samson
often in like manner visited the fountain and toiled
homeward with her jar of water.”
In the A. V. the name appears also as ZA-
REAH and ZOREAH. The first of these is perhaps
most nearly accurate. The Hebrew is the same
in all. [G.]
ZO'RATHITES, THE ONY: τοῦ ᾽Αρα-
θεί ; Alex. τ. Σαραθι: Sarathi), ἑ. 9. the people of
ZORAH, are mentioned in 1 Chr. iv. 2 as descended
from Shobal, one of the sons of Judah, who in
1 Chr. ii. 52, is stated to have founded Kirjath-
jearim, from which again “ the Zareathites and the
Eshtaulites ””’ were colonized. [G.]
ZO'REAH (YTS: ‘Pda; Alex. Σαραα: Saraa).
Another (and slightly More accurate) form of the
name usually given in the A. V. as ZoRAH, but
ZUPH, THE LAND OF
once as ZAREAH. ‘The Hebrew is the same in all
eases. Zoreah occurs only in Josh. xv. 33, among
the towns of Judah, The place appears, however,
to have come later into the possession of Dan.
[ZorAH. | [G.]
ZO'RITES, THE ΟΠ: Ἢσαρείΐ ; Alex.
Ησαραει : Sarai), are named in the genealogies of
Judah (1 Chr. ii. 54), apparently (though the passage
is probably in great confusion) amongst the descend-
ants of Salma and near connexions of Joab. The
Targum regards the word as being a contraction for
“the Zorathites;” but this does not seem likely,
since the Zareathites are mentioned in ver. 52 of
the same genealogy in another connection.
ZOROB'ABEL. (Ζοροβάβελ: Zorobabel), 1
Hsd. iv. 13; v. 5-70; vi. 2-29; Ecclus. xlix. 11;
Matt. i. 12, 13; Luke iii. 27. [ZERUBBABEL. |
ZU'AR (WIS: Swydp: Suar). Father of
Nethaneel the chief of the tribe of Issachar at the
time of the Exodus (Num. i. 8, ii. 5, vii. 18, 23,
Χο σὴ;
ZUPH, THE LAND OF (AY PON: εἰς
τὴν "Σείφ ; Alex. evs γὴν Sep: Syr. Peshito,
οι, Tsur: Vulg. terra Suph). A district at which
Saul and his servant arrived after passing through
those of Shalisha, of Shalim, and of the Benjamites
(1 Sam. ix. 5 only). It evidently contained the city
in which they encountered Samuel (ver. 6), and
that again, if the conditions of the narrative are to
be accepted, was certainly not far from the “ tomb
of Rachel,” probably the spot to which that name
is still attached, a short distance north of Beth-
lehem, The name Zuph is connected in a singular
manner with Samuel. One of his ancestors was
named Zuph (1 Sam. i. 13 1 Chr. vi. 35) or
Zophai (ib. 27); and his native place was called
Ramathaim-zophim (1 Sam. i. 1).
But it would be unsafe to conclude that the
“land of Zuph” had any connexion with either
of these. If Ramathaim-zophim was the present
Neby Samwil—and there is, to say the least, a
strong probability that it was—then it is difficult
to imagine that Ramathaim-zophim can have been
in the land of Zuph, when the latter was near
Rachel’s sepulchre, at least seven miles distant from
the former. Neby Samwil too, if anywhere, is in
the very heart of the territory of Benjamin, whereas
we have seen that the land of Zuph was outside
of it.
The name, too, in its various forms of Zophim,
Mizpeh, Mizpah, Zephathah, was too common in
the Holy Land, on both sides of the Jordan, to
permit of much stress being laid on its occurrence
here,
The only possible trace of the name of Zuph in
modern Palestine, in any suitable locality, is to be
found in Soba, a well-known place about seven miles
due west of Jerusalem, and five miles south-west of
Neby Samwil. This Dr. Robinson (B. R. ii. 8, 9)
once proposed as the representative of Ramathaim
Zophim; and although on topographical grounds he
virtually renounces the idea (see the footnote to the
same pages), yet those grounds need not similarly
affect its identity with Zuph, provided other con-
1861
® As if reading ἢ Ν᾽ (Tsiph), which the original text
(Cethib) of 1 Chr. vi. 35 still exhibits for Zuph (see
margin of A. V.). This is a totally distinct name from
Ziph (5)9)-
Ὁ If indeed the “land of Yemini” be the territory of
Benjamin.
6C3
1862 ZUPH
siderations do not interfere. If Shalim and Shalisha
were to the N.E. of Jerusalem, near Zaiyibeh, then
Saul’s route to the land of Benjamin would be 8. or
5.W., and pursuing the same direction he would |
arrive at the neighbourhood of Soba. But this is
at the best no more than conjecture, and unless
the land of Zuph extended a good distance east of
Soba, the city in which the meeting with Samuel
took place could hardly be sudiciently near to
Rachel’s sepulchre.
The signification of the name Zuph is quite
doubtful. Gesenius explains it to mean ‘ honey” ;
while Fiirst understands it as “abgunding with
water.” It will not be overlooked that when the
LXX. version was made, the name probably stood
in the Hebrew Bible as Ziph (Tsiph). Zophim is
usually considered to signify watchmen or lookers-
out; hence, prophets; in which sense the author
of the Targum has actually rendered 1 Sam, ix. 5—
“they came into the land in which was a prophet
of Jehovah.” [G.]
ZUPH (FN: Σούφ in 1 Chr.: Suph). A Ko-
hathite Levite, ancestor of Elkanah and Samuel
(1 Sam. i. 1; 1 Chr. vi. 35 [20]). In 1 Chr. vi.
26 he is called ZOPHAI.
ZUR (WN: Σούρ: Sur). 1. One of the five
princes of Midian who were slain by the Israelites
when Balaam fell (Num. xxxi. 8). His daughter
Cozbi was killed by Phinehas, together with her
paramour Zimri the Simeonite chieftain (Num.
xxv. 15). He appears to have been in some way
subject to Sihon -king of the Amorites (Josh.
xiii, 21).
2. Son of Jehiel the founder of Gibeon by his
wife Maachah (1 Chr, viii. 30, ix. 36).
ZU'RIEL (yyy: Σουριήλ τ Suriel). Son
of Abihail, and chief of the Merarite Levites at the
time of the Exodus (Num. iii. 35).
ZURISHADDA'T (ILAWS: Σουρισαδαί : |
Surisaddai). Father of Shelumiel, the chief of the
a “Sensum magis quam verbum ex yerbo transferentes ”
(Jerome, Quaest. Hebr. in Gen.). Schumann (Genesis,
237) suggests that for Ὡ ΠΤ they read DNY. The
change in the initial letter is the same which Ewald
proposes in identifying Ham (Gen. xiv. 5) with Ammon.
Ὁ Comparing the Arabic x y is 2 Sh By adopting this
ZUZIMS, THE
tribe of Simeon at the time of the Exodus (Num. i.
6, ii. 12, vii. 36, 41, x. 19). It is remarkable
that this and Ammishaddai, the only names in the
Bible of which Shaddai forms a part, should occur
in the same list. In Judith (viii. 1) Zurishaddai
appears as SALASADAI.
ZU'ZIMS, THE (O77: ἔθνη ἰσχυρά in
both MSS.: Zuzim; but Jerome in Quaest. Hebr.
gentes fortes). The name of an ancient people
who lying in the path of Chedorlaomer and his
allies were attacked and overthrown by them (Gen.
xiv. 5 only). Of the etymology or signification of
the name nothing is known. ‘The LXX., Targum
of Onkelos, and Sam. Version (with an eye to some
root not now *recognizable), render it ‘strong
people.” The Arab. Version of Saadiah (in Walton’s
Polyglott) gives ed-Dahakin, by which it is uncer-
tain whether a proper name or an appellative is
intended. Others understand by it ‘the wan-
derers’’ (Le Clere, from 737}, or “dwarfs” (Mi-
chaelis, Suppl. No. 606).» Hardly more ascertainable
is the situation which the Zuzim occupied. The
progress of the invaders was from north to south.
They first encountered the Rephaim in Ashteroth
Karnaim (near the Leja in the north of the Hauran) ;
next the Zuzim in Ham; and next the Emim in
Shaveh Kiriathaim. The last named place has not
been identified, but was probably not far north of
the Arnon. There is therefore some plausibility
in the suggestion of Ewald (Gesch. i. 308 note),
provided it is etymologically correct, that Ham,
On, is OY, Am, ἢ, 6. Ammon; and thus that the
Zuzim inhabited the country of the Ammonites,
and were identical with the Zamzummim, who are
known to have been exterminated and succeeded in
their land by the Ammonites. This suggestion has
been already mentioned under ZAMZUMMIM, but at
the best it can only be regarded as a conjecture, in
respect to which the writer desires to say with
Reland—and it would be difficult to find a fitter
sentence with which to conclude a Dictionary of the
Bible—* conjecturae, quibus non delectamur.” [G.]
(which however Gesenius, 7hes. 510, resists), and alter-
ing the points of ona to ona, as it is plain the LXX.
and Vulg. read them, Michaelis ingeniously obtains the
following reading: “They smote the giants in Ashteroth
Karnaim, and the people of smaller (7. 6. ordinary) stature,
who were with them.’’
END OF THE THIRD VOLUME.
LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AND CHARING CROSS,
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
COMPRISING ITS
ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.
EDITED
τ πεῖν SMITH. dd: D.,
EDITOR OF THE DICTIONARIES OF “GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES,” “BIOGRAPHY AND MYTHOLOGY,”
AND “ GEOGRAPHY.”
Jerusalem
ARP EN Do XxX.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET;
WALTON AND MABERLY, UPPER GOWER STREET.
1865.
The right of Translation is reserved.
LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, | Lol Ae ;
᾿ AND CHARING CROSS. Pes PS
’
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE.
APPENDIX A TO VOL. IL
ARTICLES UPON NATURAL HISTORY. _
[Most of the articles relating to Natural History in
the First Volume have been re-written by the Rev.
William Houghton, M.A., F.L.S., as it has been thought advisable to treat this subject more fully than
was originally contemplated. |
ADAMANT
ADAMANT (WY, shdmir: ἀδαμάντινος : |
adamas*). The word Shamir oceurs as a common
noun eleyen times in the Ὁ. T. In eight of these
passages it evidently stands for some prickly plant,
and accordingly it is rendered“ briers” » by the
A.V. In the three remaining passages (Jer. xvii.
1; Ez. iii. 9; Zech. vii. 12) it is the representa-
tive of some stone of excessive hardness, and is
used in each of these last instances metaphorically.
In Jer. xvii. 1, Shamir =“ diamond” in the text of
the A. V. “The sin of Judah is written with a
pen of iron and with the point of a diamond,’
ἧ. 6. the people’s idolatry is indelibly fixed in their
affections, enyraved as it were on the tablets of
their hearts. In Ez. iii. 9, Shamir =“ adamant.”
‘“ As an adamant harder than flint have I made
thy forehead, fear them not.’ Here the word is
intended to signify that firmness of purpose with
which the prophet should resist the sin of the
rebellious house of Israel. In Zech. vii. 12, the
Hebrew word = “ adamant-stone’’—“ Yea, they
made their hearts as an adamant-stone, lest they
should hear the law,” and is used to express the
hardness of the hearts of the Jews in resisting
truth.
The LXX. afford us but little clue whereby to
identify the mineral here spoken of, for in Ez. iii. 9
and in Zech. vii. 12 they have not rendered the
Hebrew word at all, while the whole passage in
Jer. xvii. 1-5 is altogether omitted in the Vatican
MS.; the Alexandrine MS., however, has the
passage, and reads, with the versions of Aquila,
ADAMANT
Theodotion, and Symmachus, “ with a nail of
}adamant.’”¢ ‘ Adamant” occurs in the Apocrypha,
in Ecclus. xvi. 16.
Our English “ Adamant”’ is derived from the
Greek,? and signifies “‘ the unconquerable,” in
allusion perhaps to the hard nature of the sub-
stance, or, according to Pliny (xxxvii. 15), be-
cause it was supposed to be indestructible by fire.¢
The Greek writers‘ generally apply the word to
some very hard metal, perhaps stec/, though they
do also use it for « mineral. Pliny, in the chapter
referred to above, enumerates six varieties of
Adamas. Dana (Syst. Mineral. art. Diamond)
says that the word “ Adamas was applied by the
ancients to several minerals differing much in their
physical properties. A few of these are quartz,
specular iron ore, emery, and other substances of
rather high degrees of hardness, which cannot now
be identified.’ Nor does the English language
attach any one definite meaning to Adamant ;
sometimes indeed we understand the diamond 8 by
it, but it is often used vaguely to express any sub-
stance of impenetrable hardness. Chaucer, Bacon,
Shakspeare, use it in some instances for the /ode-
stone." In modern mineralogy the simple term Ada-
mant has no technical signification, but Adamantine
Spar is a mineral well known, and is closely allied
to that which we have good reason for identifying
with the Shamir or Adamant of the Bible.
That some hard cutting stone is intended can
be shown from the passage in Jeremiah quoted
above. Moreover the Hebrew root! (Shdmar, ““ to
Se 1S) (Sei
wo
=
σ.-- οξ
8. Arab. οἵ te Qe 5
<Low ews i. ἡ unl, adamas
The Chaldee NV.
5 The word is then frequently associated with
nw, “‘thorns.”’
© ἐν ὄνυχι ἀδαμαντίνῳ, LXX. Alex.; “in ungue
adamantino,” Vulg.
4 ἀ,μδαμάω.
€ It is incorrect to suppose that even the diamond,
which is only pure carbon crystallized, is ‘‘ invincible”
by fire. It will burn; and at a temperature of 140
Wedgewood will be wholly consumed, producing car-
bonie acid gas.
(APPENDIX. |
£ Comp. also Senec. Hereul. Fur. 807: ““ Adamante
texto vincire.”
8 Our English diamond is merely a corruption of
adamant. Comp. the French diamante.
h Chaucer, Romaunt of the Rose, 1182 ; Shakspeare,
Mid. Night Dr. Act ii. 56. 2, and Troil. and Cress.
Act iii. se. 2; Bacon’s Essay on Travel.
i Fiirst’s Concordantia, We, incidere, impingere.
But Gesenius, Zhes. sub voc. τον", i. ᾳ. WOD, WOW
Gi J.
horruit, riguit. Whence Arab. 7 Samur, “an
¥gyptian thorn” (see Forskal, F/. 47g. Ar. exxiil. 176),
5
| and ygvolw adamas. See Freytag, te 8.0.
S
-
ii ADDER
cut,” ‘to pierce”), from which the word is derived,
reveals the nature of the stone, the sharpness of
which, moreover, is proved by the identity of the
original word with a brier or thorn. ᾿ Now since,
in the opinion of those who have given much at-
tention to the subject, the Hebrews appear to have
been unacquainted with the true diamond,* it is
very probable, from the expression in Ez. iii. 9, of
“ adamant harder than flint,” ™ that by Shamir is
intended some variety of Corundum, a mineral
inferior only to the diamond in hardness. Of this
mineral there are two principal groups, one is
crystalline, the other granular; to the crystalline
varieties belong the indigo-blue sapphire, the red
oriental ruby, the yellow oriental topaz, the green
oriental emerald, the violet oriental amethyst, the
brown adamantine spar. But it is to the granular
or massive variety that the Shdémir may with most
probability be assigned. This is the modern Emery,
extensively used in the arts for polishing and cutting
gems and other hard substances ; it is found in
Saxony, Italy, Asia Minor, the East Indies, &c., and
“occurs in boulders or nodules in mica slate, in
talcose rock, or in granular limestone, associated
with oxide of iron; the colour is smoke-grey or
bluish grey; fracture imperfect. The best kinds
are those which have a blue tint; but many sub-
stances now sold under the name of emery contain
no corundum.” ® The Greek name for the emery is
Smyris or Smiris,° and the Hebrew lexicographers
derive this word from the Hebrew Shamir. There
seems to be no doubt whatever that the two words
are identical, and that by Adamant we are to un-
derstand the emery-stone,P or the un-crystalline
variety of the Corundum.
The word SHAMIR occurs in the O. T. three
times as a proper name—once as the name of a
man” (1 Chr. xxiv. 24), and twice as the name of
a town, The name of the town may have reférence
to the rocky nature of the situation, or to briers
and thorns abundant in the neighbourhood.
ADDER. This word in the text of the A. V.
is the representative of four distinct Hebrew names,
mentioned below. It occurs in Gen, xlix. 17
(margin, arrow-snake); Ps. lviii. 4 (margin, asp),
xci, 13 (margin, asp); Prov. xxiii. 32 (margin,
cockatrice) ; and in Is. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5, the
margin has adder, where the text has cockatrice.
Our English word adder is used for any poisonous
snake, and is applied in this general sense by the
ADDER
translators of the A. V.2. They use in a similar way
the synonymous term asp.
1. Acshith (AAWDY: ἀσπίς - aspis) is found only
in Ps. exl. 3, “They have sharpened their tongues like
a serpent, adder’s poison is under their lips.” The
latter half of this verse is quoted by St. Paul from-
the LXX. in Rom. iii.13. The poison of venomous
serpents is often employed by the sacred writers in
a figurative sense to express the evil tempers of un-
godly men; that malignity which, as Bishop Horne
says, is “the venom and poison of the intellectuat
world” (comp. Deut. xxxii. 53; Job xx. 14, 16).
It is not possible to say with any degree of cer-
tainty what particular species of serpent is intended
by the Hebrew word; the ancient versions do not
help us at all, although nearly all agree in some
kind of serpent, with the exception of the Chaldee
paraphrase, which understands a spider by Acshib,
interpreting this Hebrew word by one of somewhat
similar form.’ The etymology of the term is not
ascertained with sufficient precision to enable us to
refer the animal to any determinate species. Gese-
nius derives it from two Hebrew roots, the com-
bined meaning of which is “ rolled in a spire and
lying in ambush ;” a description which would apply
to almost any kind of serpent.
wae
Toxicoa of Egypt.
The number of poisonous serpents with which
the Jews were acquainted was in all probability
k Pana says that the method of polishing diamonds
was first discovered in 1456 by Louis Bergnen, a citi-
zen of Bruges, previous to which time the diamond
was only known in its native uncut state. It is quite
clear that Shdmir cannot mean diamond, for if it did
the word would be mentioned with precious stones ;
but this is not the case.
m ἜΝΘ ΡῚΠ. That VY, though it may sometimes
πὶ ἘΝ.
be applied to ‘‘rock” generally, yet sometimes = flint,
or some other variety of guartz, scems clear from Ex.
iv. 25: ‘Then Zipporah took a sharp stone” (JX),
Tsér. That flint knives were in common use amongst
Eastern nations is weli known. Compare that very
interesting verse of the LXX., Josh. xxiv. 91.
n Ansted’s Mineralogy, §394.
ο σμύρις, or σμίρις, σμίρις est ἄμμου εἶδος
(Hesychius) ; σμίρις λίθος ἐστὶ (Dioscor. v. 165).
Poth statements are correct; the one refers to the
powder, the other to the stone. The German Smirgel,
or Schmirgel, is evidently allied to the Tlebrew and
Greek words. Bohlen considers the Hebrew word to
be of Indian origin, comparing asmara, a stone which
eats away iron. Doubtless all these words ‘have a
common origin.
® This is probably the same stone which Herodotus
(vii. 69) says the Aethiopians in the army of Xerxes
used instead of iron to point their arrows with, and
by means of which they engraved seals.
4 In the Keri. The Chethib has "DW, Shamur.
r It will be enough merely to allude to the Rabbi-
nical fable about Solomon, the Hoopoe, and the worm
Shamir. See Bochart’s Hierozoicon, vol. iii. p. 842,
ed. Rosenmiiller, and Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. col.
2455.
« Adder, in systematic zoology, is generally applied
to those genera which form the family Viperidae
—Asp, to the Vipera Aspis of the Alps.
b WAQDY, Accibish.
=e :
© Thes. sub voe.:—W5DY, retrorsum se flexit, and
Ξ ;
APY, insidiatus est. Alii, Arab. Kathaba (impetum
nN
facere), vel etiam gashab (venenum) conferunt.
(Fiirst).
ADDER
limited to some five or six species [SERPENT],
and as there are reasonable grounds for identifying
Pethen and Shephiphén with two well known
species, viz. the Egyptian Cobra and the Horned
Viper, it is not improbable that the Acshib may
be represented by the Zoxricoa of Egypt and North
Africa, At any rate it is unlikely that the Jews
were unacquainted with this kind, which is com-
mon in Egypt and probably in Syria: the Echis
arenicola, therefore, for such is this adder’s scientific
name, may be identical in name and reality with
the animal signified by the Hebrew Acshib.
Colonel Hamilton Smith suggests that the Acshib
may be the puff or spooch-adder of the Dutch
colonists at the Cape of Good Hope, or that of
Western Africa; but it has never been shown
that the Cape species (Clotho arietans) or the
W. African species (Clotho lateristriga), the only
two hitherto known, are either of them inhabitants
of a district so far north and east as Egypt.
2. Pethen (1713). [Ἀ5Ρ.]
3. Tsepha, or Tsiphéni (YDS; ΘΝ: ἔκγονα
ἀσπίδων, κεράστης ; regulus) occurs five times in
the Hebrew Bible. In Prov. xxiii. $2 it is trans-
lated adder, and in the three passages of Isaiah
quoted above, as well as in Jer. viii. 17, it is ren-
dered cockatrice. The derivation of the word from
a root which means ‘‘to hiss” does not help us at
all to identify the animal. From Jeremiah we
learn that it was of a hostile nature, and from the
parallelism of Is. xi. 8 it appears that the tsiphéni
was considered even more dreadful than the pethen.
Bochart, in his Hierozoicon (iii. 182, ed. Rosen-
miiller), has endeavoured to prove that the tsiphéni
is the Basilisk of the Greeks (whence Jerome in
Vulg. reads Regulus), which was then supposed to
destroy lifé, burn up grass, and break stones by the
pernicious influence of its breath (comp. Plin. H. Ν.
Vili. c. 33), but this is explaining an ‘ ignotum
per ignotius.”’
The whole story of the Basilisk is involved in
fable, and it is in vain to attempt to discover the
animal to which the ancients attributed such
terrible power. It is curious to observe, however,
that Forskal (Deser. Animal. p. 15) speaks of a
kind of serpent (Coluber Holleik is the name he
gives it) which he says produces irritation on the
spot touched by its breath: he is quoting no doubt
the opinion of the Arabs. Is this a relic of the
Basiliskan fable? This creature was so called from
a mark on its head, supposed to resemble a kingly
crown. Several serpents, however, have peculiar
markings on the head—the varieties of the Spec-
tacle-Cobras of India, for example—so that identifi-
cation is impossible. As the LXX. make use of
the word Basilisk (Ps. xc. 13; xci. 13, A. V.)
it was thought desirable to say this much on the
subject.4
It is possible that the Tsiphént may be repre-
sented by the Algerine adder (Clotho mauritanica),
ADDER
but it must be confessed that this is mere con-
jecture. Dr. Harris, in his Natural History of the
Bible, erroneously supposes it to be identical with
the Rajah zephen of Forsk&l, which, however, is a
fish (Trigon zephen, Cuv.), and not a serpent.
iil
Algerme Adder.
(British Museum.)
4. Shephiphén ((D'DY : ἐγκαθήμενος: cerastes)
occurs only in Gen. xlix. 17, where it is used to
characterise the tribe of Dan: ““ Dan shall be a
serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that
biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall
backward.’ Various are the readings of the old
versions in this passage: the Samaritan interprets
Shephiphén by “lying in wait;” the Targums of
Jonathan, of Onkelos, and of Jerusalem, with the
Syriac, “a basilisk.”¢ The Arabic interpreters
Erpenius and Saadias have ‘‘ the horned snake ;” §
and so the Vulg. Cerastes. The LXX., like the
Samaritan, must have connected -the Hebrew term
with a word which expresses the idea of “ sitting
in'ambush.” The original word comes from a root
which signifies “to prick,’’ “ pierce,” or “ bite.’’ ὅ
The habit of the Shephiphén, alluded to in
Jacob’s prophecy, namely, that of lurking in the
sand and biting at the horse’s heels," suits the
character of a well known species of venomous
snake, the celebrated horned viper, the asp of Cleo-
patra (Cerastes Hasselquistii), which is found
abundantly in the sandy deserts of Egypt, Syria,
and Arabia. The Hebrew word Shephiphén is no
doubt identical with the Arabic Siffon. If the
translation of this Arabic word by Golius be com-
pared with the description of the Cerastes in the
British Museum, there will’ appear good reason for
identifying the Shephiphén of Genesis with the
Cerastes of naturalists. ‘“* Sijfon, serpentis genus
leve, punctis maculisque distinctum ”—‘“a small
kind of serpent marked with dots and spots” (Golius,
Arab. Lex. s.v.). “ The Cerastes ( Cerastes Has-
selquistit), brownish white with pale brown irre-
4 The Basilisk of naturalists is a most forbidding-
looking yet harmless lizard of the family Iguanidae,
order Sauria. In using the term, therefore, care must
be taken not to confound the mythical serpent with
the veritable Saurian.
€ youn (Mirman), perniciosus, from DF, “to
destroy.” ‘‘Ita R. Salom. Chaldaeum explicat,
Onkelos autem reddit, Sieut serpens Hurman, quod
est nomen serpentis cujusdam, cujus morsus est insa-
nabilis ; is autesr est basiliscus DN ” (Orit. Sacri,
j. 1114).
fy Os ve
tease
ΒΕ δαϑϑ.:
&€ From FEY, pungere, mordere, according to Fiirst
=e . . - .
and A. Schultens; but Gesenius denies this meaning,
Ὗ
and compares the Syr. «2, “to glide,” ‘ to
creep.”
h ἐν δ᾽ ἀμάθοισιν
ἬἪ καὶ ἁματροχιῆσι κατὰ στίβον, ἐνδυκὲς aver.
Nicander, Theriac. 262
Be 2
iv ADDER P
gnlar unequal spots’? (Cat. of Snakes in Brit. M.
pt. i. 29). It is not pretended that the mere fact
of these two animals being spotted aflords sufticient
ground, when taken alone, for asserting that they
are identical, for many serpents have this character
in common; but, when taken in connexion with
what has been adduced above, coupled with the
fact that this spotted character belongs only to a
very few kinds common in the localities in question,
it does at least form strong presumptive evidence in
favour of the identity of the Shephiphon with the
Cerastes. The name of Cerastes is derived from
a curious hornlike process above each eye in the
male,i which gives it a formidable appearance.
Bruce, in his Zravels in Abyssinia, has given a
very accurate and detailed account of these animals.
The Horned Cerastes. (From
specimen in British Museum.)
He observes that he found them in greatest numbers
in those parts which were frequented by the jerboa,
and that in the stomach of a Cerastes he discovered
the remains of a jerboa. He kept two of these snakes
in a glass vessel for two years without any food.
Another circumstance mentioned by Bruce throws
some light on the assertions of ancient authors as
to the movement of this snake. Aelian,* Isidorus,
Aétius, have all recorded of the Cerastes that,
whereas other serpents creep along in a straight
direction, this one and the MHaemorrhous™ (no
doubt the same animal under another name) move
sideways, stumbling as it were on either side (and
comp. Bochart). Let this be compared with what
Bruce says: ‘‘ The Cerastes moves with great ra-
pidity and in all directions, forwards, backwards,
sideways ; when he inclines to surprise any one who
is too far from him, he creeps with his side towards
the person,’ &e. ἕο. The words of Ibn Sina, or
Avicenna, are to the same effect. [10 is right, how-
ever, to state that nothing unusual has been observed
in the mode of progression of the Cerastes now in
AGATE
the gardens of the Zoological Society ; but of course
negative evidence in the instance of a specimen not
in a state of nature does not invalidate the state-
ment of so accurate an observer as Bruce.
The Cerastes is extremely venomous; Bruce
compelled one to scratch eighteen pigeons upon the
thigh as quickly as possible, and they all died nearly
in the same interval of time. It averages 12 to 15
inches in length, but is occasionally found larger.
It belongs to the family Viperidae, order Ophidia.°
[ SERPENT. |
From the root Shaphaph are possibly derived
the proper names of SHUPHAM, whence the
family of the SHUPHAMITES, SHEPHUPHAN, and
SHUPPIM,.
AGATE ΟΞ), shebé; DD, cadcéd:
ἀχάτης : achates) jis mentioned four times in the
text of the’ A. V.; viz. im Wx: xxvii, 19>) xxxix.
12; Is. liv. 125 Ez. xxvii. 16. In the two former
passages where it is represented by the Hebrew
word shebé, it is spoken of as forming the second
stone in the third row of the high-priest’s breast-
plate; in each of the two latter places the original
word is eadcéd, by which no doubt is intended a
different stone. [RuBy.] In Ez. xxvii. 16, where
the text has agate, the margin has chrysoprase,
whereas in the very next chapter, Ez. xxviii. 13,
chrysoprase occurs in the margin instead of emerald,
which isin the text, as the translation of an entirely
different Hebrew word, néphec ;* this will show how
much our translators were perplexed as to the mean-
ings of the minerals and precious stones mentioned
in the sacred volume; and this uncertainty which
belongs to the mineralogy of the Bible, and indeed
in numerous instances to its botany and zoology, is
by no means a matter of surprise when we consider
how often there is no collateral evidence of any
kind that might possibly help us, and that the de-
rivations of the Hebrew words have generally and
necessarily a very extensive signification ; identifiea-
tion therefore in many cases becomes a difficult and
uncertain matter.
Various definitions of the Hebrew word shebé
have been given by the learned, but nothing defi-
nite can be deduced from any one of them. Gese-
nius places the word under the root shabah,° ‘* to
take prisoner,” but allows that nothing at all can
be learned from such an etymology. Fiirst¢ with
more probability assigns to the name an Arabie
origin, shdba, “ to glitter.”
Again, we find curiously enough an interpretation
which derives it from another Arabic root, which has
precisely the opposite meaning, viz. ‘‘ to be dull and
1 The female, however, is supposed sometimes to
possess these horns. Hasselquist (Jdiner. pp. 241,
365) has thus described them :—‘‘Tentacula duo,
utrinque unum ad latera verticis, in margine superiori
orbitae oculi, erecta, parte aversa parum arcuata,
eademque parte parum canaliculata, sub-dura, mem-
brana tenaci vestita, basi squamis minimis, una serie
erectis, cincta, brevia, orbitae oculorum dimidia longi-
tudine.”
With this description that of Geoffroy St. Hilaire may
e compared :—‘*‘ Au dessus des yeux nait de chaque
cété une petite éminence, ou comme on a coutume de
la dire une petite corne, longue de deux ou trois lignes,
presentant dans le sens de sa longueur des sillons et
dirigée en haut et un peu en arriére, d’ou le nom de
Céraste. La nature des cornes du Céraste est trés
peu connue, et leurs usages, si toutefois elles peuvent
étre de quelque utilité pour animal, sont entiérement
ignorés.””
k Λοξὸν δὲ οἶμον πρόεισιν (Aelian, De Anim. xv. 13.)
™ Aoxpa δ᾽ ἐπισκάζων ὀλίγον δέμας, oa κεράστης
(Nicander, Theriac. 294).
" Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 209, Rosenm.) says that
the Rabbins derive ἜΞΩ from aU, claudicare,
wherefore SY is elaudus.
° The celebrated John Ellis seems to have been the
first Englishman who gave an accurate description of
the Cerastes (see Philosoph. Transact. 1760).
* ἯΒ5.
> See “ Translators’ Preface to the Reader,” which
it is to be regretted is never now printed in editions
of the Bible.
© AAW, captivum fecit, Gesen. Thesaur. s. v.
ει»
4 Comp. Golius, Arab. Lex. ς κα Fy exarsit.
ry
ALABASTER
obscure.Ӣ Another derivation traces the word to
the proper name Sheba, whence precious stones were
exported for the Tyrian merchants. Of these deri-
vations it is difficult to see any meaning at all in
the first,£ while a contrary one to what we should
expect is given to the third, for a dull-looking stone
is surely out of place amongst the glittering gems
which adorned the sacerdotal breastplate. The
derivation adopted by Fiirst is perhaps the most
probable, yet there is nothing even in it which will
indicate the stone intended. That shebé, however,
does stand for some variety of agate seems generally
agreed upon by commentators, for, as Rosenmiiller §
has observed (Schol. in Exod. xxviii. 19), there is
a wonderful agreement amongst interpreters, who
all understand an agate by the term.
Our English agate, or achat, derives its name
from the Achates, the modern Dirillo, in the Val di
Noto, in Sicily, on the banks of which, according to
Theophrastus and Pliny, it was first found ;> but as
agates are met with in almost every country, this
stone was doubtless from the earliest times known
to the Orientals. It is a silicious stone of the
quartz family, and is met with generally in rounded
nodules, or in veins in trap-rocks; specimens are
often found on the sea-shore, and in the beds of
streams, the rocks in which they had been, im-
bedded having been decomposed by the elements,
when the agates have dropped out. Some of the
principal varieties are called chalcedony, from Chal-
cedon in Asia Minor, where it is found, carnelian,
chrysoprase, an apple-green variety coloured by
oxide of nickel ; Wocha-stones, or moss agate, which
owe their dendritic or tree-like markings to the im-
perfect crystallization of the colouring salts of man-
ganese or iron, onysa-stones, blood-stones, &c. ἕο.
Beautiful specimens of the art of engraving on
chalcedony are still found among the tombs of
Egypt, Assyria, Etruria, &c.i
ALABASTER (ἀλάβαστρος : alabastrum)
occurs in the N. T. only, in the notice of the
alabaster-box of ointment which a woman brought
to owr Lord when He sat at meat in the house
of Simon the leper at Bethany, the contents of
which she poured on the head of the Saviour. (See
Matt. xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3; Luke vii. 37.) By the
English word alabaster is to be understood both
that kind which is also known by the name of
gypsum, and the oriental alabaster which is so
much yalued on account of its translucency, and
for its variety of coloured streakings, red, yellow,
gray, &e., which it owes for the most part to the
admixture of oxides of iron. The latter is a fibrous
carbonate of lime, of which there are many varieties,
---v
e 9M; cf. Freytag, Arab. Lex. χαχχωλ (viii.
΄-
--=-
conj. of xasu), obscura, ambigua fuit res alicui.
f «Sed hee nihil faciunt ad detegendam ejus
naturam.’—Braun. V. S. 11. xv. i.
g ἡ, “esse achatem, satis probabile est, quum
mirus in hoc lapide interpretum sit consensus.’’ Vid.
Braun. de Vest. Sacerd. Hebraeor. 11. c. xv. iii.
h Καλὺς δὲ λίθος καὶ ὁ ᾿Αχάτης ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αχάτου
ποταμοῦ τοῦ ἐν Σικελίᾳ καὶ πωλεῖται TYLLos‘—-Theoph.
Fr. ii. 31, ed. Schneider, and Plin. xxxvii. 54;
Lithographie Sicilienne, Naples, 1777, p. 16.
i Compare with this Ex. xxxviii. 23: ‘‘ And with
him was Aholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of
Dan, an engraver and a cunning workman ;”? and
ALABASTER v
satin spar being one of the most common. The
former is a hydrous sulphate of lime, and forms
when calcined and ground the well-known sub-
stance called plaster of Paris. Both these kinds
of alabaster. but especially the latter, are and have
been long used for various ornamental purposes,
such as the fabrication of vases, boxes, &c. ἕο The
ancients considered alabaster (carbonate of lime) to
be the best material in which to preserve their oint-
ments (Pliny, H. N. xiii. 3). Herodotus (iii. 20)
mentions an alabaster vessel of ointment which
Cambyses sent, amongst other things, as a present
to the Aethiopians. Hammond ( Annotat. ad Matt.
xxvi. 7) quotes Plutarch, Julius Pollux, and
Athenaeus, to shew that alabaster was the material
in which ointments were wont to be kept.
In 2 K. xxi. 13, “1 will wipe Jerusalem as a
man wipeth a dish” (Heb. tsallachath), the Vat.
and Alex. versions of the LXX. use alabastron in the
rendering of the Hebrew words.* The reading of
the LXX. in this passage is thus literally translated
by Harmer (Observations, iv. 473): “1 will un-
anoint Jerusalem as an alabaster unanointed box is
unahointed, and is turned down on its face.” Pliny»
tells us that the usual form of these alabaster vessels
was long and slender at the top, and round and full
at the bottom. He likens them to the long pearls,
called elenchi, which the Roman ladies suspended
from their fingers or dangled from their ears. He
compares also the green pointed cone of a rose-bud
to the form of an alabaster ointment-vessel (V. H.
xxi. 4). The cenyx—(cf. Hor. Od. iv. 12, 17,
“¢ Nardi parvus onyx ”’—which Pliny says is another
name for alabastrites, must not be confounded with
the precious stone of that name, which is a sub-
species of the quartz family of minerals, being a
variety of agate. Perhaps the name of onyx was
given to the pink-coloured variety of the calcareous
alabaster, in allusion to its resembling the finger-
nail (onyx) in colour, or else because the calcareous
alabaster bears some resemblance to the agate-onyx
in the characteristic lunar-shaped mark of the last-
named stone, which mark reminded the ancients of
the whitish semicircular spot at the base of the
finger-nail.
The term alabastra, however, was by no means ex-
clusively applied to vessels made from this material.
Theocritus ὁ speaks of golden alabasters. That the
passage in Theocritus implies that the alabasters were
made of gold, and not simply gilt, as some have
understood it, seems clear from the words of Plutarch
(in Alexandro, p. 676), cited by Kypke on Mark xiv.
3, where he speaks of alabasters “all skilfully wrought
of gold.”4 Alabasters, then, may have been made
ch, xxxix. 8, “" And he made the breastplate of cun-
ning work.”
a ἀπαλείψω τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, καθὼς ἀπαλείφεται ὁ
ἀλάβαστρος ἀπαλειφόμενος, καὶ καταστρέφεται ἐπὶ πρό-
σωπον ἀυτοῦ, LXX. The Complutensian version and
the Vulgate understand the passage in a very different
way.
b ἐἐ Et procerioribus sua gratia est : elenchos appel-
lant fastigata longitudine, alabastrorwm figura in
pleniorem orbem desinentes”’ (H. V. ix. 56).
© Supiw δὲ μύρω xpvcev ἀλάβαστρα (Id. xy. 114).
“ μύρου χρύσεια ἀλάβαστρα non sunt vasa unguentaria
ex alabastrite lapide eaque auro ornata, sed simpli-
citer vasa unguentaria ex auro facta. Cf. Schleusn,
Lex. N. T. s. v. ἀλάβαστρον" (Kiessling, ad Theoer.
ie. 6
ἃ χρυσοῦ ἠσκημένα περιττῶς.
vi ' ALGUM
ct any material suitable for keeping ointment in,
glass, silver, gold, &c. Precisely similar is the use
f the English word box; and perhaps the Greek
πύξος and the Latin buzus are additional illustrations.
Box is doubtless derived from the name of the shrub,
the wood of which is so well adapted for turning
boxes and such like objects. The term, which ori-
ginally was limited to boxes made of the box-wood,
eventually extended to boxes generally ; as we say,
an tron-box, a gold-box, &c. &e.
In Mark xiv, 3. the woman who brought < the
alabaster-box of ointment of spikenard”’ is said to
break the box before pouring out the ointment.
This passage has been variously understood ; but
Harmer’s interpretation is probably correct, that
breaking the box implies merely breaking the seal
which kept the essence of the perfume from eva-
porating.
The town of Alabastron in Middle Egypt received
its name from the alabaster quarries of the adjacent
hill, the modern Mount St. Anthony. In this town
was a manufactory of vases and vessels for holding
perfumes, &c.
ALGUM or ALMUG TREES (ODN,
algummim ; pbx, almuggim: ξύλα ἀπελέ-
ἴηι, Alex, ae πελεκητά, ἌΡ ἀ e bo lol
2; & πεύκινα : ligna thyina, ligna pinea). There
can be no question that these words are identical,
although, according to Celsius (/icrob. i. 173), some
doubted it. The same author enumerates no fewer
than fifteen different trees, each one of which has
been supposed to have a claim to represent the
algum or almug-tree ‘of Seniptute Mention of the
almug is made in 1 K. x. 11, 12,,2 Chr. ix. 10, 11,
as having been brought in gr reat plenty from Ophir,
together “with gold and precious stones, by the fleet
of Hiram, for Solomon’s Temple and house, and for
the construction of musical instruments. ‘* The
king made of the almug-trees pillars for the house
of the Lord, and for the king’s house, harps also
and psalteries for singers ; there came no such
almug-trees, nor were seen unto this day.” In
2 Chr. in. 8, Solomon is represented as desiring
Hiram to send him ‘* cedar-trees, fir-trees, and
algum-trees (marg. almuggim) out of Lebanon.’
From the passage in Kings, it seems clear almug-
trees came from Ophir; and as it is improbable that
Lebanon should also have been a locality for them,
the passage which appears to ascribe the growth of
. the almug-tree to the mountains of Lebanon must
be considered to be either an interpolation of some
transcriber, or else it must bear a different inter-
pretation. The former view is the one taken by
Rosenmiiller (δ δὶ. Bot. 245, Novren’s translation),
who suggests that the wood had been brought from
Ophir to Tyre, and that Solomon’s instructions to
Hiram were to send on to Jerusalem (via Joppa,
perhaps) the timber imported from Ophir that was
lying at the port of ‘lyre, with the cedars which
had been cut in Mount Lebanon (see Lee’s Heb.
Lex. s. vy. “ Almuggim’’). No information can
be deduced from the readings of the LXX., who
ALGUM
explain the Hebrew word by “‘ hewn wood” (1 K.
ils Vat.), “ unhewn wood” (bid. Alex.), and
a pine-wood” (2 Chr. ἢ. 8, and ix. 10,11). The
Vulg. in the passages of Kings and 2 Chr. ix. read
ligna thyina; but in 2 Chr. ii. 8 follows the LXX.,
and has ligna pinea. Inter preters are greatly per-
plexed as to what kind of tree is denoted by the
words algummim and almuggim. The Arabic and
the Chaldee interpretations, with Munster, A. Mon-
tanus, Deodatus, Noldius, Tigurinus, retain the
original word, as does the A. V. in all the three
passages. ‘The attempts at identification made by
modern writers have not been happy. (1.) Some
maintain that the thyina* wood (Thuya articulata)
is signified by algum. This wood, as is well known,
was highly prized by the Romans, who used it for
doors of temples, tables, and a variety of pur-
poses; for the citron-wood of the ancients appears
to be identical with the thuya. (The word occurs
in Rey. xviii. 12.) Its value to the Romans ac-
counts for the reading of the Vulgate in the passages
quoted above. But the Thuya articulata is indi-
genous to the north of Africa, and is not found in
Asia ; and few geographers will be found to identify
the ancient Ophir with any port on the N. African
coast. [Oputr.] (2.) Not more happy is the
opinion: of Dr. Kitto, that the deodar is the tree
probably designated by the term almug (Pict. Bibl.,
note on 2 Chr.). On this subject Dr. Hooker, in a
letter to the writer, says, “" The deodar is out of the
question. It is no better than cedar, and never
could have been exported from Himalaya.” (3.)
The late Dr. Royle, with more reason, is inclined to
decide on the white sandal-wood (Santalum album ;
see Cycl. Bib. Lit. art.“ Algum.”) This tree is a
native of India and the mountainous parts of the
coast of Malabar, and deliciously fragrant in the parts
near to the root. [ᾧ is much used in the manu-
facture of work-boxes, cabinets, and other orna-
ments. (4.) The rabbins» understand a wood
commonly called brasil, in Arabic albaccam, of a
deep red colour, used in dyeing.¢ This appears to
be the bukkum (Caesalpinia sappan), a tree allied
to the Brazil-wood of modern commerce, and found
in India; and many of the Jewish doctors understand
coral (4.e. coral-wood) by the word almug, the
name no doubt having reference to the colour of the
wood. (5.) If any reliance is to be placed on these
rabbinical interpretations, the most probable of all
the attempts to identify the almug is that first pro-
posed by Celsius (ierob. i. 172), viz. that the red
sandal-wood (Pterocarpus santalinus) may be the
kind denoted by the Hebrew word. But this, after
all, is mere conjecture. ‘I have often,” says Dr.
Hooker, ““ heard the subject of the almug-tree dis-
cussed, but never to any purpose. The Pterocarpus
santalinus has occurred to me; but it is not found
in large pieces, nor is it, I believe, now used for
musical purposes.”
This tree, which belongs to the natural order
Leguminosae, and sub-order Papilionaceac, is a na-
tive of India and Ceylon. The wood is very heavy,
hard, and fine-grained, and of a beautiful garnet
2 Thuja appears to be a corruption of Thya, from
θύω, “41 sacrifice,” the wood having been used in
sacrifices. Zuwja occidentalis is the well-known ever-
green, *‘ arbor vitae.”
Ὁ R. Salomon Ben Melek, 1 K. x. 11, and R. Day.
Kimchi, 2 Chr. ii. 8. ‘* Algwmmim est quod almyggim,
arbor rubris coloris dicta Arabum lingua albaccam,
vulgo brasilia.” See Celsius, who wonders: that the
term “ Brazil-wood” (Lignum brasiliense) should be
named by one who lived 300 years before the discovery
of America; but the word brasil also = red colour.
Cf. Rosenm. Bot. of Bibl. p. 243, Morren’s note.
σῶ-
© ὅν, lignum arboris magnae, foliis amygdalinis,
cujus decocto tingitur color rubicundus seu psevdc-
purpureus—lignum bresillum—etiam, color ejus tine-
turam referens (Golius, Arab. Lex. s. v. bakkam).
ALMOND
colour, as any one may see who has observed the
medicinal preparation, the compound tincture of
lavender, which is coloured by the wood of the
red sandal-tree. Dr. Lee (Lew. Heb. 5. v. “ Al-
eummim”), identifying Ophir with some seaport of
Ceylon, following Bochart (Chanaan, i. 46) herein,
thinks that there can be no doubt that the wood in
question must be either the A’alanji ad of Ceylon
or the sandal-wood (Ptervcarpus sant.?) of India.
The Kalanji ad, which apparently is some species of
Pterocarpus, was particularly esteemed and sought
after for the manufacture of lyres and musical in-
struments, as Dr. Lee has proved by quotations from
Avabic and Persian works. In fact he says that
the Eastern lyre is termed the ad, perhaps because
made of this sort of wood. As to the derivation
of the word nothing certain can be learnt. Hiller
(Hier ophyt. p. i. 106) derives it from two words
meaning ‘drops of gum,’ ἃ as if some resinous wood
was intended. There is no objection to this deriva-
tion. The various kinds of ‘pines are for the most
part trees of a resinous nature; but the value of the
timber for building is great. "Nor would this deri-
vation be unsuitable to the Pterocar pidae generally,
several species of which emit resins, when the stem
is wounded. Josephus (Ant. viii. 7, §1) makes
special mention of a tree not unlike pine, but which
he is careful to warn us not to confuse with the
pine-trees: known to the merchants of his time.
«¢Those we are speaking of,” he says, “ were in
appearance like the wood of the fig-tree, but were
whiter and more shining.” This description is too
vazue to allow us even to conjecture what he
means, And it is quite impossible to arrive at any
certain conclusion in the attempt to identify the
algum or almug-tree. The arguments, however,
are more in favour of the red sandal-wood than of
any other tree.
ALMOND (pW, shdkéd (119): ἀμύγδαλον,
κάρυον, Kapvwos, bse amygdalus, amygdala,
in nucis modum, instar nucis, renee vigilans).
This word is found in Gen. xliii. ὐπ σαν. 990.
84, xxxvil. 19, 20; Numb. ase 8; Kecles. xii.
5; Jer.i. 11, in the text of the A. V. [ is in-
variably represented by the same Hebrew word
(shakéd), which sometimes stands for the whole
tree, sometimes for the fruit or nut; for instance,
in Gen, xliii. 11, Jacob commands his sons to take
as a present to Joseph “a little honey, spices and
myrrh, nuts and almonds;”’ here the fruit is clearly
meant. In the passages out of the book of Exodus
the “ bowls made like unto almonds,’* which were
to adorn the golden candlestick, seem to allude to
the nut also.P Aaron’s rod, that so miraculously
ALMOND
budded, yielded almond nuts. In the two passages
from Keclesiastes and Jeremiah, siakéd is translated
almond tree, which from the context it certainly
represents. It is clearly then a mistake to suppose,
with some writers, that shaéd stands exclusively
for “‘almond-nuts,” and that luz signifies the
‘‘tree.”€ Rosenmiiller conjectures that the latter
word designates the wild, the former the cultivated,
tree. This may be so, but it appears more probable
that this tree, conspicuous as it was for its early
flowering and useful fruit, was known by these two
different names. The etymology of the Hebrew léz
is uncertain; and although the word occurs only
in Gen. xxx. 37, where it is translated Aazel in the
text of the A. V., yet there can be little or no
doubt that it is another word for the almond, for
in the Arabic this identical word, /%z, denotes the
almond, [Hazru.] The early appearance of the
blossoms on the almond-tree (Amyydalus commu-
nis) was no doubt regarded by the Jews of old as a
welcome harbinger of spring, reminding them that
the winter was passing away—that “the flowers
would soon appear on the earth—and that the time
of the singing of birds and the voice of the turtle
would soon be heard in the land (Song of Sol. ii.
11, 12). The word shdked, therefore, or the tree
which hastened to put forth its blossoms, was a
very beautiful and fitting synonym for the luz, or
almond-tree, in the language of a people so fond
of imagery and poetry as were the Jews. We
have in our own language instances of plants being
named from the:season of the year when they are
flowering—May for Hawthorn; Pasque Flower
for Anemone; Lent Lily for Daffodil; Winter
Cress for Hedge Mustard. But perhaps the best
and most exact illustration of the Hebrew shakéd is
to be found in the English word Apricot, or Apri-
cock, as it was formerly and more correctly called,
which is derived from the Latin praccoqua, prae-
cocia ; this tree was so called by the Romans, who
considered it a kind of peach which ripened earlier
than the common one; hence its name, the pre-
cocious tree (comp. Plin. xv. 11; Martial, xiii. 46).
Shakéd, therefore, was in all probability only another
name with the Jews for liz.
Shakéd is derived from a root which signifies
“to be wakeful,” “to hasten,” 4 for the almond-
tree blossoms very early in the season, the flowers
appearing before the leaves. Two species of Amyg-
dalus—A. persica, the peach-tree, and A. com-
munis, the shakéd—appear to be common in Pales-
tine. They are both, according to Dr. Kitto (Phys.
Hist. Palest. p. 211), in blossom in every part of
Palestine in January. The almond-tree has been no-
vii
4 For the various etymologies that have been given
to the Hebrew word see Celsius, Hierob. i. 172, sq. ;
Salmasius, Hyl. Tat. Ὁ. 120, B.; Castell. Lex. Hept.
8. V. orbs. Lee says ‘‘ the word is apparently fo-
reign.” Gesenius gives no derivation.
the words to 3572, fluere, manare. It is, he says, the
ved sandal-wood. He compares the Sanscrit mocha,
mochéta. .
᾿ ὉΣῚΡΕ, Pual part. pl., from denom. verb
“py, ΠΣ ays used in Heb. text in reference to the
Fiirst refers
golden candlestick : LXX. ἐκτετυπωμένοι καρυΐσκους,
al. καρυΐσκοις 5 Aquila, ἐξημυγδαλωμένην.
ὃ pu, “est amygdalus et amygdalum, arbor et |
fructus ; hic Fs fructus potius quam arboris forma
designari videtur ”’ (Rosenmiill. Schol. in Exod. xxv.
33). That shkaked = tree and fruit, see also Fiirst,
Concord. Tp, “ amygdala et amygdalum, de arbore
et fructu ;” and Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., TW, «ὁ sieni-~
ficat arborem et fructum.”“ Michaelis (Suppl. Save
y 33) understands the almond-shaped bowls to refer
to si blossom, i. e. the calyx and the corolla.
© Harris, Dict. Nat. H. Bibl., avt. ‘Almond,’ and
Dr. Royle in Kitto, art. ‘ Shiked.’
[5
qd spy (1) decubuit, (2) vigilavit = Arab. δὰ AS. os :
Oe
RL: insomnis. The Chaldee is pw, PIPL ;
“ν᾽; NT ἃ and p beg interchanged. The
Syriac Wi ial is similar.
ALMOND
ticed in flower as early as the 9th of that month ; the
i9th, 25rd, and 25th are also recorded dates. The
knowledge of this interesting fact will explain that
otherwise unintelligible passage in Jeremiah (i. 11,
12), “The word of the Lord came unto me, say-
ing, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I
see the rod of an almond-tree (shakéd). Then said
the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen, for I will
hasten (shéked) my word to perform it.”
In that well-known poetical representation of old
age in Eccles. xii. it is said, ‘‘ the almond-tree
shall flourish.” This expression is generally under-
stood as emblematic of the hoary locks of old age
viii
thinly scattered on the bald head, just as the white
blossoms appear on the yet leafless boughs of this
tree. Gesenius, however, does not allow such an
interpretation, for he says with some truth€ that the
almond flowers are pink or rose-coloured, not white.
This passage, therefore, is rendered by him—* the
almond is rejected.” Though a delicious fruit,
yet the old man, having no teeth, would be obliged
to refuse it. If, however, the reading of the A. V.
is retained, then the allusion to the almond-tree is
intended to refer to the hastening of old age in the
case of him who remembereth not ‘‘ his Creator in
the days of his youth.” As the almond-tree ushers
in spring, so do the signs mentioned in the context
foreteli the approach of old age and death. It has
always been regarded by the Jews with reverence,
and even to this day the English Jews on their great
feast-days carry a bough of flowering almond to the
synagogue, just as in old time they used to present
palm-branches in the Temple, to remind them
perhaps, as ‘Lady Callcott has observed (Script.
Herb. p. 10), that in the great famine in the time
of Joseph the almond did not fail them, and that,
as it ‘‘ failed not to their patriarchs in the days of
dearth, it cometh to their hand in this day of worse
and more bitter privation, as a tokea, that God for-
getteth not his people in their distress, nor the
children of Israel, though scattered in a foreign
land, though their home is the prey of the spoiler,
and their temple is become an high place for the
heathen.”
A modern traveller in Palestine records that, at
the passover, the Jews prepare a compound of
almonds and apples in the form of a brick, and
having the appearance of lime or mortar to remind
the people of their hard service in the land of
Egypt and house of bondage (Anderson 5 Wander-
ings in the Land of Israel, p. 250).
The almond-tree, whose scientific name is Amyg-
dalus communis, belongs to the natural order Rosa-
ceue, and sub-order Amygdaleae. This order is a
large and important one, for it contains more than
1000 species, many of which produce excellent
fruit. Apricots, peaches, nectarines, plums, cher-
ries, apples, pears, strawberries, &c. &c., are all in-
cluded under this order. It should be remembered,
however, that the seeds, flowers, bark, and leaves,
of many plants in the order Rosaceae contain a
deadly poison, namely, prussic or hydrocyanic acid.
The almond-tree is a native of Asia and North
ALOES
Africa, but it is cultivated in the milder parts of
Europe. In England it is grown simply on ac-
count of its beautiful vernal flowers, for the fruit
scarcely ever comes to maturity. The height of
the tree is about 12 or 14 feet; the flowers are
pink, and arranged for the most part in pairs; the
leaves are long, ovate, with a serrated margin, and
an acute point. ‘The covering of the fruit is downy
Almond-tree and blossom
and succulent, enclosing the hard shell which con-
tains the kernel. The bitter almond is only a
variety of this species. The English Almond,
Spanish Almendra, the Provengal Amandola, the
French Amande, are all apparently derived from
the Greek ἀμυγδάλη ; Latin Amygdala. It is
curious to observe, in connexion with the almond-
bowls of the golden candlestick, that pieces of rock-
crystal used in adorning branch-candlesticks are still
denominated by the lapidaries ‘¢ Almonds.”
ALOES, LIGN ALOES (D°>nx, Andlin,
mimes, Ahaléth: oxnyds (in Num, xxiv. 6),
στακτή (in Ps. xlv. 8); ἀλώθ, Aquila and Ald.
ἀλωή ; C. ἀλόθ; Sym. θυμίαμα (in Cant. iv. 14):
tabernacula, gutta, aloe:” in N. T. ἀλόη, aloe),
the name of some costly and sweet-smelling wood
mentioned in Num. xxiv. 6, where Balaam com-
pares the condition of the Israelites to ‘trees of
lign-aloes which the Lord hath planted,” in Ps.
sly. 8, ‘All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes,
and cassia ;” in Proy, vii. 17, “1 have perfumed my
bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon,” Jn Cant.
iv. 14, Solomon speaks of “ myrrh and aloes, with
all the chief spices.”” The word occurs once in the
N. T. (John xix. 39), where mention is made of
Nicodemus bringing “a mixture of myrth and aloes,
about an hundred pound weight,” for the purpose
of anointing the body of our Lord. Writers gene-
rally, following Celsius (Hierob. i. 135), who devotes
thirty-five pages to this subject, suppose that the
Aquilaria Agallochum is the tree in question. The
trees which belong to the natural order Aquilaria-
ceae, apetalous dicotyledonous flowering plants, are
© The general colour of the almond blossom is
pink, but the flowers do vary from deep pink to
nearly white. ἱ
: py Yl). Gesenius makes the verb yxy’
es \ tr ie
to be Hiphil future, from YN, to deride, to despise ;
ΔΝ would then be.after the Syriac form, instead of|
PR.
But all the old versions agree with the |
translation of the A. V., the verb being formed regu-
larly from the root, 75), florere.
8 ** When the grinders cease because they are few”
(Eccles. xii. 8). For some other curious interpreta-
tions of this passage, see that of R. Salomon, quoted
by Santes Pagninus in his Thesaurus, sub voce y3,
and Vatablus, Annotata ad Ecclesiasten, xii. 5 (Crit.
Sac. iil. 236).
ALOES
for the most part natives of tropical Asia. The
species Ag. agallochum, which supplies the aloes-
wood of commerce, is much valued in India on
account ot its aromatic qualities for fumigations
and incense. It was well known to the Arabic
physicians. Ibn Sina* (Avicenna), in the Latin
translation, speaks of this wood under the names of
Agallochum, Xylaloe, or Lignum-Aloes. In the
Ayabic original a description is given of it under
the names of Aghlagoon, Aghalookhi, Ood» (Dr.
Royle, in Cyc. Bib. s. v. “ Ahalim”). Dr. Royle
(Illust. of Himmalayan Botany, p. 171) mentions
three varieties of this wood as being obtained in the
bazaars of Northern India.
The Aquilaria seoundaria of China has the cha-
_ racter of being the most highly scented. But it is a
singular fact that this fragrancy does not exist in
any of this family of trees when in a healthy and
growing condition ; it is only when the tree is dis-
eased that it has this aromatic property. On this
account the timber is often buried for a short time
in the ground, which accelerates the decay, when the
utter, or fragrant oil, is secreted. The best aloe-
wood is called calambac, and is the produce of
Aquilaria agallochum, a native of Silhet, in Northern
India. This is a magnificent tree, and grows to the
height of 120 feet, being 12 feet in girth: ‘The
bark of the trunk is smooth and ash-coloured ; that
of the branches grey and lightly striped with brown.
iy
+
Aquilaria Agallochum.
The wood is white, and very light and soft, It is
totally without smell; and the leaves, bark, and
flowers are equally inodorous ” (Script. Herb. 238).
a Abdallah ibn Sina, a celebrated Arabian phy-
sician and natural philosopher, born a.p. 980. The
Jews abbreviated the name into Abensina, whence |
the Christians called it Avicenna.
Se
9 το" ἀγάλλοχον, Aquilaria ovata, Spren- |
gel, Hist. Ret Herb, i. p. 261, sq.; Avicenna, lii. p. 132.
ALOES
The Lecaecaria agallochum, with which some
writers have confused the Aq. agall., is an entirely
different plant, being a small crooked tree, containing
an acrid milky poison, in common with the rest of
the Huphorbiaceae. Persons have lost their sight
from this juice getting into their eyes, whence the
plant’s generic name, Lxcaecaria. It is difficult
to account for the specific name of this plant, for the
agallochum is certainly not the produce of it.
It must be confessed, however, that, notwith-
standing all that has been written to prove the
identity of the Afalim-trees with the aloes-wood of
commerce, and notwithstanding the apparent con-
nexion of the Hebrew word with the Arabic Ag/la-
goon and the Greek Agallochon, the opinion is not
clear of difficulties. In the first place, the passage
in Num. xxiv. 6, “as the Ahalim which Jehovah
hath planted,” is an argument against the identifi-
cation with the Aquilaria agallochum. The LXX.
read σκηναί (tents); and they are followed by the
Vulg., the Syriac, the Arabic, and some other ver-
sions. If O/dlim (tents) is not the true reading—
and the context is against it—then if Ahd/im= Aq.
agallochum, we must suppose that Balaam is speak-
ing of trees concerning which in their growing state
he could have known nothing at all. Rosenmiiller
(Schol. in V. T. ad Num. xxiv, 6) allows that this
tree is not found in Arabia, but thinks that Balaam
might have become acquainted with it from the
merchants. Perhaps the prophet might have seen
the wood. But the passage in Numbers manifestly
implies that he had seen the Ahdlim growing, and
that in all probability they were some kind of trees
sufficiently known to the Israelites to enable them
to understand the allusion in its full force. But if
the Ahdlim=the Agaliochum, then much of the
illustration would have been lost to the people who
were the subject of the prophecy; for the Aq.
agallochum is found neither on the banks of the
Euphrates, where Balaam lived, nor in Moab, where
the blessing was enunciated.
Michaelis (Supp. pp. 34, 35) believes the LXX.
reading to be the correct one, though he sees no
difficulty, but rather a beauty, in supposing that
Balaam was drawing a similitude from a tree of
foreign growth. He confesses that the parallelism of
the verse is more m favour of the tree than the tent;
but he objects that the lign-aloes should be men-
tioned before the cedars, the parallelism requiring,
he thinks, the inverse order. But this is hardly a
valid objection; for what tree was held in greater
estimation than the cedar? And even if Ahdlim
= Aqu.agall., yet the latter clause of the verse does
no violence to the law of parallelism, for of the two
trees the cedar “major est et augustior.”” Again,
the passage in Ps. xlv. 8 would perhaps be more
correctly tza.siated thus: ‘ The myrrh, aloes, and
cassia, perfuming all thy garments, brought from
the ivory palaces of the Minni, shall make thee
glad.”* The Minni, or Minaei, were inhabitants of
spicy Arabia, and carried on a great trade in the
exportation of spices and perfumes (Plin. xii. 14, 16 ;
Bochart, Phaleg. ii. 22, 135. As the myrrh and
cecssia are mentioned as coming from the Minni, and
ix
a3
ΚῚ ps » Lignum
Se
els, id. (Freytag, Lez. s. v.).
Aloés, Kam. Dj. Avic. Can., lii. p. 231; conf. Sprengel,
; Hist. Rei Herb. t. i. p. 271 (Freytag, Lez. s. v.).
© See Rosenmiiller’s note on this passage (Schol. in
V. T. ad Ps. xiv. 9), and Lee’s Heb. Lez. (8. ν. 9319).
x AMBER
were doubtless natural productions of their country,
the inference is that aloes, being named with them,
was also a production of the same country.
The Scriptural use of the Hebrew word applies
both to the tree and to its produce; and although
some weight must be allowed to the opinion which
identifies the Ahkdlim with the Agallochum, sup-
ported as it is by the authority of so eminent a
botanist as the late Dr. Royle, yet it must be con-
ceded that the matter is byno means proved, Hiller
(Hierophyt. i. 394) derives the word from a root
which signifies “to shine,” “ to be splendid,” and
believes the tree to be some species of cedar; pro-
bably, he says, the Cedrus magna, or Cedrelate.
What the C. magna may be, modern botanical science
would be at a loss to conjecture, but it is quite
possible that some kind of odoriferous cedar may be
the tree denoted by the term Ahdlim or Ahdléth.
AMBER byvin, chashnal ; nbowin, chash-
malah: ἤλεικτρον : electrum) occurs only in Ez, i,
4,27, viii. 2. In the first passage the prophet com-
pares it with the brightness in which he beheld
the heavenly apparition who gave him the divine
commands, In the second, “ the glory of the God
of Israel” is represented as having, *‘ from the ap-
pearance of his loins even downward, fire ; and from
his loins even upward as the appearance of bright-
ness, as the colour of amber,” It is by no means
a matter of certainty, notwithstanding Bochart’s
dissertation and the conclusion he comes to (/ieroz.
iii, 876, ed. Rosenmiill.), that the Hebrew word
chashmal denotes a metal, and not the fossil resin
called amber, although perhaps the probabilities are
more ia favour of the metal. Dr. Harris (Vat. Hist,
Bib, art. “ Amber’) asserts that the translators of
the A. V. could not mean amber, “ for that, being
a bituminous substance, becomes dim as soon as it
feels the fire, and soon dissolves and consumes,”
But this is founded on a misconstruction of the
words of the prophet, who does not say that what
he saw was amber, but of the colour of amber
(Pict. Bib. note on Ez. viii. 2). The context of
the passages referred to above is clearly as much in
favour of amber as of metal. Neither do the LXX.
and Vulg. afford any certain clue to identification,
for the word electron was used by the Greeks to
express both amber and a certain metal, composed
of gold and silver, and held in very high estimation
by the ancients (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. 4). It is a
curious fact, that in the context of all the passages
where mention of electron is made in the works
of Greek authors (Hom. see below; Hes. Sc. Herc.
142; Soph. Antig. 1038; Aristoph. Hy. 532 ;
&e.), no evidence is afforded to help us to de-
termine what the electron was. In the Odyssey
(iv. 73) it is mentioned as enriching Menelaus’s
palace, together with copper, gold, silver, and ivory.
In Od. xv. 460, xviii. 296, a necklace of gold is
said to be fitted with electron. Pliny, in the chapter
quoted above, understands the electron in Menelaus’s
palace to be the metal, But with respect to the
golden necklace, it is worthy of note that amber
necklaces have been long used, as they were deemed
an amulet against throat diseases. Beads of amber
are frequently found in British barrows with entire
necklaces (Fosbr. Antig. i. 289). Theophrastus
(ix. 18, §2; and Fr. ii. 29, ed. Schneider), it is cer-
tain, uses the term electron to denote amber, for he
speaks of its attracting properties. On the other
hand, that e/ectron was understood by the Greeks
fo denote a metal composed of one part of silver to
AMETHYST
every four of gold, we have the testimony of Pliny
to shew; but whether the early Greeks intended
the metal or the amber, or sometimes one and some-
times the other, it. is impossible to determine with
certainty. Passow believes that the metal was
always denoted by electron in the writings of Homer
and Hesiod, and that amber was not known till its
introduction by the Phoenicians: to which circum-
stance, as he thinks, Herodotus (iii. 115, who seems
to speak of the resin, and not the metal) refers.
Others again, with Buttman (JZythol. ii. p. 337),
maintain that the electron denoted amber, and they
very reasonably refer to the ancient myth of the
origin of amber. Pliny (H. WN. xxxvii. cap. 2
ridicules the Greek writers for their credulity in the
fabulous origin of this substance; and especially
finds fault with Sophocles, who, in some lost play,
appears to have believed in it.
From these considerations it will be seen that it
is not possible to identify the chashmal by the
help of the LXX., or to say whether we are to
understand the metal or the fossil resin by the
word. There is, however, one reason to be ad-
duced in.favour of the chashmal denoting the
metal rather than the resin, and this is to be
sought in the etymology of the Hebrew name,
which, according to Gesenius, seems to be com-
pounded of two words which together = polished
copper. Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 885) conjectures that
chashmal is compounded of two Chaldee words mean-
ing copper—gold-ore, to which he refers the awri-
chalcum. But aurichaleum is in all probability
only the Latin form of the Greek orichalcon
(mountain copper). (See Smith’s Lat.-Engl. Dict.
s.v. “Orichaleum.’’) Isidorus, however ( Orig. xvi.
19), sanctions the etymology which Bochart adopts.
But the electron, according to Pliny, Pausanias (y.
12, §6), and the numerous authorities quoted by
Bochart, was composed of gold and silver, not of
gold and copper. The Hebrew word may denote
either the metal electron or amber; but it must
still be left as a question which of the two sub-
stances is really intended.
AMETHYST (M9nN, achlamah: ἀμέ-
θυστος : amethystus), Mention is made of this
precious stone, which formed the third in the third
row of the high-priest’s breastplate, in Ex, xxviii.
19, xxxix, 12, “ And the third row a ligure, an agate,
and an amethyst.” It occurs also in the N. T.
(Rev. xxi. 20) as the twelfth stone which garnished
the foundations of the wall of the heavenly Jeru-
salem, Commentators generally are agreed that the
amethyst is the stone indicated by the Hebrew word,
an. opinion which is abundantly supported by the
ancient versions, The Targum of Jerusalem indeed
reads smaragdin (smaragdus) ; those of Jonathan
and Onkelos have two words which signify
‘calf’s-eye” (oculus vituli), which Braunius (de
Vestit. Sacerd. Heb. ii. 711) conjectures may be
identical with the Beli oculus of the Assyrians
(Plin. H. N. xxxvii. 10), the Cat’s-eye Chalcedony,
according to Ajasson and Desfontaines; but, as
Braunius has observed, the word achlamah accord-
ing to the best and most ancient authorities signifies
amethyst.
Modern mineralogists by the term amethyst
usually «understand the amethystine variety of
quartz, which is erystalline and highly transparent :
it is sometimes called Rose quartz, and contains
alumina and oxide of manganese. There is, however,
another mineral to which the name of Oriental
ANISE
amethyst is usually applied, and which is far more
valuable than the quartz kind. This is a ecrystal-
line variety of Corundum, being found more espe-
cially in the EK. and W. Indies. It is extremely
hard and bright, and generally of a purple colour,
which, however, it may readily be made to lose by
subjecting it to fire. In all probability the common
Amethystine quartz is the mineral denoted by
achlamah ; for Pliny speaks of the amethyst being
easily cut (scalpturis facilis, H. N. xxxvii. 9),
whereas the Oriental amethyst is inferior only to
the diamond in hardness, and is moreover a com-
paratively rare gem.
The Greek word amethustos, the origin of the
English amethyst, is usually derived from a, “ not,”
and μεθύω, ‘to be intoxicated,” this stone having
been believed to have the power of dispelling
drunkenness in those who wore it. (Dionys.
Peries. 1122; Anthol. Palat. 9, 752; Martini,
FExcurs. 158.) Pliny, however (H. N. xxxvii. 9),
says, “ The name which these stones have is to
be traced to their peculiar tint, which, after ap-
proximating to the colour of wine, shades off into
a violet.” Theophrastus also alludes to its wine-
like colour.®
ANISE (ἄνηθον ; anethum). This word occurs
only in Matt. xxiii. 23, ** Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and
aniseandcummin.”” It is by no means a matter of cer-
tainty whether the anise (Pimpinella anisum, Lin.),
or the dill (Anethum qraveolens) is here intended,
Pimpinella Anisum.
ANISE
|though the probability is certainly more in favour
of the lattes plant. Both the dill and the anise be-
long to the natural order Uimbelliferae, and are much
alike in external character; the seeds of both, more-
over, are, and have been long employed in medicine
and cookery, as condiments and carminatives. Cel-
xi
| sius (Hierob. i. 494, sq.) quotes several passages
from ancient writers to show that the dill was com-
monly so used. Pliny uses the term aniswm, to
express the Pimpinella anisum, and anethum to re-
present the common di//; he enumerates as many
as sixty-one remedies that the anisum is able to
cure, and says that on this account it is sometimes
called anicetum.» The best anise, he adds, comes
from Crete; and next to it that of Egypt is pre-
ferred (Plin. H. N., xx. 17). Forsk&l (Descript.
Plant. 154) includes the anise (Janéstinm, Arabic)
in the Materia Medica of Egypt. Dr. Royle is de-
cidedly in favour of the dill4 being the proper
translation, and says that the anethum® is more
especially a genus of Eastern cultivation than the
other plant. The strongest argument in favour of
the dill, is the fact that the Talmuds (Tract, JZass-
roth. c. iv. §5) use the word shabath to express
the dill, “The seeds, the leaves, and the stem of
dill are, according to Rabbi Eliezer, subject to tithe ;”
and in connexion with this it should be stated, that
Forskal several times alludes to the Anethum grave-
olens as growing both in a cultivated and a wild
state in Egypt, and he uses the Arabic name for
this plant, which is identical with the Hebrew word,
viz. Sjoebet, or Schibt (Deser. Plant. 65, 109).
Common Dill. (Anethum graveolens,)
ἃ To δ᾽ ἀμέθυσον ὀινωπὸν τῇ χρόᾳ. (Fr. ii. 31, ed.
Schneid.)
b From a, not, and νικάω, to conquer.
ἃ Dill, so called from the old Norse word, the nurse’s
lullaby, to dill—to soothe. Hence the name of the car-
It should be | minative plant, the dilling or soothing herb (see Wedgw.
noted that Dioscorides uses ἀνίκητον for dill, and not anise. | Dict. Engl. Etymol.)
τ Τὶ -
ο
Θ ply anisum, Vv. Gol. Arab. Lex. 5. ν.
-
© ἄνηθον : παρὰ TO ἄνω θεῖν, διὰ THY ἐν τάχει ἄνξησιν
(Εἰχι. Mag, ed. Gaisford),
xii ANT
Celsius remarks upon the difference of opinion
amongst the old authors who have noticed this
plant, some maintaining that it has an agreeable
taste and odour, others quite the opposite; the so-
lution of the difficulty is clearly that the matter is
simply one of opinion.
There is another plant very dissimilar in external
character to the two named above, the leaves and
capsules of which are powerfully carminative. This
is the aniseed-tree (Illicium anisatum), which be-
longs to the natural order Magnoliaceae. In China
this is frequently used for seasoning dishes, &c. ;
but the species of this genus are not natives of the
Bible lands, and must not be confused with the
Umbelliferous plants noticed in this article,
ANT (nor, nemalah; μύρμηξ ; formica).
This insect is mentioned twice in the O. T.; in Prov.
vi. 6, ““ Go to the ant thou sluggard, consider her
ways and be wise ;” in Proy. xxx. 25, “ The ants
are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat
in the summer.” In the former of these passages
the diligence of this insect is instanced by the wise
man as an example worthy of imitation; in the
second passage the ant’s wisdom is especially alluded
to, for these insects, ‘‘ though they be little on the
earth, are exceeding wise.” It is well known
that the ancient Greeks and Romans, believed that
the ant stored up food, which it collected in the
summer, ready for the winter’s consumption.
Bochart (Mieroz. iii. 478) has cited numerous
passages from Greek and Latin writers as well as
from Arabian naturalists and Jewish rabbis in sup-
port of this opinion. Such wisdom was this little
insect believed to possess, that, in order to prevent
the corn which it had stored from germinating, it
took care to bite off the head of each grain ; accord-
ingly some have sought for the derivation of the
Hebrew word for ant, nemd/ah,* in this supposed
fact. Nor is the belief in the ant’s biting off the
head of the grains unsupported by some modern
writers. Addison, in the Guardian (No. 156, 157),
inserts the following letter ‘of undoubted credit
and authority,’ which was first published by the
French Academy :—‘‘ The corn which is laid up by
ants would shoot under ground if these insects did
not take care to prevent it. They therefore bite off
all the germs before they lay it up, and therefore
the corn that has lain in their cells will produce
nothing. Any one may make the experiment, and
τὰ see that there is no germ in their corn.”
Pluche, too (Nature Displ. i. 128), says of
τς insects, ‘‘ Their next passion is to amass ἃ
store of corn or other grain that will keep, and, lest
the humidity of the “cells should make the corn
shoot up, we are told for a certainty that they gnaw
off the buds which grow at the point of the grain.”
a From bs, abscissus (Simon. Lex. Heb. ed. Winer),
The derivation of the word is uncertain.
<---
inclined to derive it from the Arabic Avs) 9“ conscendit, pec.
proreptando arborem.” Vid. Gol. Arab. Lex. 5. v. V.conj.
“moti inter sese permistique sicut formicarwm reptantium
more.” Fiirst says, “ Forsitan potius diminutivum est n.
Ὦ)» unde 213, f. nen, sicut F193, ad bestiolam
pusillam significandam factum esse potest. ” Cf Michaelis,
Sup. Lex. Heb. ii. 1644, and Rosenmiill. not. ad Bochart, iii.
480. Is it not probable that the name nemdlah (from
Gesenius is
bi, “to cut”) was given to the ant from its extreme
tenuity at the junction of the thorax and abdomen? If
ANT
It is difficult to see how this opinion originated,
for it is entirely without foundation. Equally er-
roneous appears to be the notion that ascribes to
the ant provident foresight in laying up a store
of corn for the winter’s use; though it is an easy
matter to trace it to its source. No recorded species
of ant is known to store up food of any kind for
provision in the cold seasons, and certainly not
grains of corn, which ants do not use for food. The
European species of ants are all dormant in the
winter, and consequently require no food; and
although it is well still to bear in mind the careful
language of the authors of Introduction to Entomo-
logy (ii. 46), who say, “till the manner of exotic
ants are more accurately explored, it would be rash
to affirm that no ants have magazines for provi-
sions; for although, during the cold of our winters
in this country, they remain in a state of torpidity,
and have no need of food, yet in warmer regions
during the rainy seasons, when they ave probably
confined to their nests, a store of provisions may be
necessary for them,”—yet the observations of mo-
dern naturalists who have paid considerable atten-
tion to this disputed point, seem almost conclusive
that ants do not lay up food for future consump-
tion. It is true that Col. Sykes has a paper, vol.
ii. of Transactions of Entomol. Soc. p. 103, ona
species of Indian ant which he calls Atta providens,
so called from the fact of his having found a large
store of grass-seeds in its nest; but the amount of
that gentleman’s observations merely go to show
that this ant carries seeds underground, and brings
them again to the surface after they have got wet
during the monsoons, apparently to dry.¢ ‘“ There
is not,’ writes Mr. F. Smith, the author of the
Catalogue of the Formicidae in the British Museum,
in a letter to the author of this article, ‘‘any evi-
dence of the seeds having been stored for food : he
observes, Catalogue of Formicidae (1858), p. 180,
that the processionary ant of Brazil (Oecodoma
cephalotes) carries immense quantities of portions
of leaves into its underground nests, and that it was
supposed that these leaves were for food ;~but that
Mr. Bates quite satisfied himself that the leaves were
for the purpose of lining the channels of the nest, and
not for food. Ants are carnivorous in their habits
of living, and although they are fond of saccharine
matter, there is no evidence at all to prove that any
portion of plants ever forms an article of their diet.
The fact is, that ants seem “to delight in running
away with almost any thing they find: small por-
tions of sticks, leaves, little stones,—as any one
can testify who has cared to watch the habits of
this insect. This will explain the erroneous opinion
which the ancients held with respect to that part of
the economy of the ant now under consideration ;
nor is it, we think, necessary to conclude that the
the term insect is applicable to any one living creature
more than to another, it certainly is to the ant. Nemdalah
is the exact equivalent to insect. [Since the above was
written it has been found that Parkhurst—s. v. by (iv.)
—gives a similar derivation. ]
Ὁ “ Parvula (nam exemplo est) magni formica laboris
Ore trahit quodcunque potest, atque addit acervo
Quem struit, haud ignara ac non ineauta futuri.”
Hor. Sat. i. 1, 33.
Cf. also Ovid, Met. vii. 624; Virg. Geor. i. 186, Aen. iv.
402; Plin. xi. 30; Aelian, H. A. ii. 25, vi. 43, &c.
© This fact corroborates what the ancients have written
on this particular point, who have recorded that the ant
brings up to dry in the sun the corn, &c., which had become
wet. See instances in Bochart, iii. 490.
ANT
error originated in observers mistaking the cocoons '
for grains of corn, to which they bear much resem-
blance. It is scarcely credible that Aristotle,
Virgil, Horace, &c., who all speak of this insect
storing up grains of corn, should have been so far
misled, or have been such bad observers, as to have
taken the cocoons for grains. Ants do carry off
grains of corn, just as they carry off other things—
not, however, as was stated, for food ; but for their
nests. “They are great robbers,” says Dr. Thom-
son (The Land and the Book, p. 337), “and plunder
by night as well as by day, and the farmer must
keep a sharp eye to his floor, or they will abstract
a large quantity of grain in a single night.”
It is right to state that a well-known entomo-
logist, the Rev. F. W. Hope, in a paper “ On some
doubts respecting the oeconomy of Ants” (Zrans.
Entom. Soc. ii. p. 211), is of opinion that Col.
Sykes’ observations do tend to show that there are
species of exotic ants which store up food for winter
consumption ; but it must be remembered that Mr.
Bates’ investigations are subsequent to the pablica-
tion of that paper.
A further point in the examination of this subject
remains to be considered, which is this: Does
Scripture assert that any species of ant stores up
food for future use? It cannot, we think, be main-
tained that the words of Solomon, in the only two
passages where mention of this insect is made, ne-
cessarily teach this doctrine; but at the same time,
it must be allowed, that the language used, and |
more especially the context of the passage in Proy.
xxx. 25, do seem to imply that such an opinion was
held with respect to the oeconomy of this insect.
“There are four things which are little upon the
earth, but they are exceeding wise; the ants are a
people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in
the summer.” In what particular, it may be
asked, are these insects so especially noted tor their
wisdom, unless some allusion is made to their sup-
posed provident foresight in “ preparing their meat |
in the summer.” If the expression here used merely
has reference to the fact that ants are able to pro- |
vide themselves with food, how is their wisdom
herein more excellent than the countless host of
other minute insects whose natural instinct prompts
them to do the same? If this question is fairly
weighed in connexion with the acknowledged fact,
that from very early times the ancients attributed
storing habits to the ant, it will appear at least
probable that the language of Solomon implies a
similar belief; and if such was the general opinion,
is it a matter of surprise that the wise man should
select the ant as an instance whereon he might |
| Wi. 76).
ground a lesson of prudence and forethought ?
The teaching of the Bible is accommodated to the
knowledge and opinions of those to whom its lan-
guage is addressed, and the observations of natu-
ralists, which, as far as they go, do certainly tend to
disprove the assertion that ants store up food for
future use, are no more an argument against the
truth of the Word of God than are the ascertained
laws of astronomical science, or the facts in the
mysteries of life which the anatomist or physiologist
has revealed.
The Arabians held the wisdom of the ant in such
estimation, that they used to place one of these
insects in the hands of a newly-born infant, repeat-
ing these words, “‘ May the boy turn out clever and
skilful’ Hence in Arabic, with the noun nemlch,
“an ant,” is connected the adjective nemil, “ quick,”
‘clever’? (Bochart, Hieroz. lii. 494). The Tal-
|
APES
mudists too attributed great wisdom to this insect.
It was, say they, from beholding the wonderful
ways of the ant that the following expression ori-
ginated: “Thy justice, O God, reaches to the
heavens ” (Chulin, 63).4 Ants live together in
societies, having ‘“‘no guide, overseer, or ruler.”
See Latreille’s Histoire Naturelle des Fourmis,
Paris, 1802; Huber’s Traité des Moeurs des F.
Indig. ; Encycl. Brit., 8th ed. art. “ Ant ;” Kirby
and Spence, /ntrod. to Entom. Aunts belong to the
family Formicidae, and order Hymenoptera. There
is not in the British Museum a single specimen of
an ant from Palestine.
xiii
APES (DYDID, Kophim; πίθηκοι; simiae) occur
in 1 K. x. 22, “once in three years came the navy
of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and
apes, and peacocks,” and in the parallel passage of
2 Chr. ix. 21. The Vat. version of the LXX. in
the first mentioned passage, omits the words ‘ivory,
and apes, and peacocks,” while the Alexand. version
has them; but both these versions have the words
in the passage of the book of Chronicles.
For some attempts to identify the various kinds
of Quadrumana which were known to the ancients,
see A. A. H. Lichtenstein’s work, entitled Commen-
tatio philologica de Simiarum quotquot veteribus
innotuerunt formis (Hamb. 1791) ; and Ed. Tyson’s
Homo sylvestris, or the Anatomy of a Pigmie
(Lond. 1699), to which he has added a Philoso-
phical Essay concerning the Cynocephali, the Satyrs,
and Sphinges of the ancients. Aristotle (De Anim.
Hist. ii. 5, ed. Schneider) appears to divide the
Quadrumana order of Mammalia into three tribes,
which. he characterises by the names, πίθηκοι,
KH Bo, and κυνοκέφαλοι. The last named family
are no doubt identical with the animals that form
the African genus Cynocephalus of modern zoolo-
gists. The κῆβοι Aristotle distinguishes from the
πίθηκοι, by the fact of the former possessing a tail.
This name, perhaps, may stand for the whole tribe
of tailed monkeys, excluding the Cynocephali, and
the Lemuridae, which latter, since they belong to
the island of Madagascar, were probably wholly
unknown to the ancients.
The πίθηκοι, therefore, would stand as the repre-
sentative of the tailless apes, such as the Chim-
panzee, &c. Although, however, Aristotle perhaps
used these terms respectively in a definite sense, it
by no means follows that they are so employed by
other writers. The name πίθηκοι, for instance,
seems to have been sometimes used to denote some
species of Cynocephalus (see a Fragment of Simo-
nides in Schneider’s Annot. ad Arist. Hist. Anim.
The LXX. use of the word was in all
probability used in an extended sense as the repre-
Sentative of the Hebrew word Aoph, to denote any
species of Quadrumanous Mammalia ; Lichtenstein
conjectures that the Hebrew word represents some
kind of Diana monkeys, perhaps, Cercopithecus
Diana; but as this species is an inhabitant of
Guinea, and unknown in Eastern Africa, it is not
at all probable that this is the animal denoted.
In the engraving which represents the Litho-
strotum Praenestinum (that curious mosaic pave-
ment found at Praeneste), in Shaw’s travels (ii.
294, 8vo. ed.), is to be seen the figure of some
animal in a tree, with the word KHITIEN over it.
Of this animal Dr. Shaw says (312), “It is a
ἃ Our English word ant appears to be an abbreviation
of the form emmet (Sax. aemmet).
- APES
beautiful little creature, with a shaggy neck like the
Callithriz, and shaped exactly like those monkeys
that are commonly called Marmosets. The KHITIEN
therefore may be the Ethiopian monkey, called by
the Hebrews Kouph, and by the Greeks ΚΗΠΟΣ,
ΚΗΦΟΣ, or KEITIOS, from whence the Latin
xiv
KHINEN
Monkey from the Praenestine Mosaic.
name Cepius.’’ This description will be found to
apply better to the figure in the 4to ed. of Dr.
Shaw’s Jravels than to that in the 8vo. ed. Per-
haps, as Col. Hamilton Smith has suggested, the
Keipen of the Praenestine mosaic may be the Cerco-
pithecus griseo-viridis, Desmar., which is a native
of Nubia, the country represented in that part of
the mosaic where the figure of the keipen occurs. It
cannot represent any species of marmoset, since the
members of that group of Quadrumana are peculiar
to America. In all probability, as has been stated
above, the koph οἵ the Bible is not intended to refer |
to any one particular species of ape.©
Solomon was a naturalist, and collected every-
thing that was curious and beautiful; and if, as |
Sir ὦ, Tennent has very plausibly argued, the
ancient Tarshish is identical with Pt. de Galle, or
some seaport of Ceylon, it is not improbable that |
the képhim which the fleet brought to Solomon
were some of the monkeys from that country, which,
according to Sir E. Tennent, are comprised, with
the exception of. the graceful rilawa (Macacus pi-
leatus), under the Wanderer group of Quadrumana.
There can be little doubt but that the képhim were |
brought from the same country which supplied |
ivory and peacocks ; both of which are common in
Ceylon; and Sir E. Tennent has drawn attention to
the fact that the Tamil names for apes, ivory, and
peacocks, are identical with the Heorew.‘
Dr. Krapf (Trav. in Εἰ. Africa, p. 518), believing
Ophir to be on the E. African coast, thinks Solomon
wished to obtain specimens of the Guresa (Colobus).
It is very probable that some species of baboons
are signified by the term Satyrs, which occurs in
the A. V. in the prophet Isaiah. [Saryr.] The
English versions of 1550 and 1574 read (ls. xiii.
21), where the A. V. has, ‘‘satyrs shall dance
there” —* apes shall daunce there.” The ancients
were no doubt acquainted with many kinds of
Quadrumana, both of the tailed and tailless kinds
(see Plin. viii. c. 19, xi. 44 Aelian. Nat. An. xvii.
25, 395; Strab. xvii. 827; Bochart, Hieroz. ii.
398 ; cf. Mart. Lpig. iv. 12.
“Si mihi cauda foret cercopithecus ero.”
‘| of the locust, palmer-worm, &c.
APPLE-TREE
APPLE-TREE, APPLE (MiBHM.* tapptiach ;
μῆλον; μηλέα, Sym. in Cant. viii. 5: malum,
malus). Mention of the apple-tree occurs in the
A. Y., in the following passages. Cant. ii. 5: “ As
the apple-tree among the tree# of the wood, so is
my beloved among the sons. I sat dowri under his
shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet
to my taste.” Cant. viii. 5: “1 raised thee up
under the apple-tree: there thy mother brought thee
forth.” Joel i. 12, where the apple-tree is named
with the vine, the fig, the pomegranate, and the
palm-trees, as withering under the desolating effects
The fruit of this
tree is alluded to in Proy. xxv. 11: ‘ A word fitly
spoken is like apples of gold in, pictures of silver.”
In Cant. ii. 5: ‘* Comfort me with apples, for I am
sick of love ;” vii. 8, “ The smell of thy nose [shall
be] like apples.”
It is a difficult matter to say with any degree
| of certainty what is the specific tree denoted by the
Hebrew word tappuach. The LXX. and Vulg. afford
no clue, as the terms μῆλον, malum, have a wide
signification, being used by the Greeks and Romans
to represent almost any kind of tree-fruit; at any
rate, the use of the word is certainly generic ;—but
Celsius (Hierob. i. 255) asserts that the quince-tree
(Pyrus cydonia) was very often called by the Greek
and Roman writers malus, as being, from the esteem
in which it was held (“ primaria malorum species’’)
the malus, or μῆλον κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν. Some therefore,
with Celsius. have endeavoured to shew that the
tappuach denotes the quince; and certainly this
opinion has some plausible arguments in its favour.
The fragrance of the quince was held in high esteem
by the ancients; and the fruit ‘* was placed on the
heads of those images in the sleeping apartments
which were reckoned among the household gods”
(Rosenmiiller, Botany of Bible, Bib. Cab. p. 314;
Voss, On Virgil. Eclog. ii. 51). The Avabians
make especial allusion to the restorative properties
of this fruit; and Celsius (p. 261) quotes Abu’l
Fadli in illustration of Cant. ii. 5, ““ Comfort me
with apples, for I am sick of love.” “Its scent,”
says the Arabic author, “ cheers my soul, renews
my strength, and restores my breath.” Phylarchus
(Histor. lib. vi.), Rabbi Salomon (in Cant. ii. 3),
Pliny (H. WN. xv. 11), who uses the words odorts
_praestantissimi, bear similar testimony to the deli-
cious fragrance of the quince. It is well known
that among the ancients the quince was sacred to
the goddess of love; whence statues of Venus some-
times represent her with the fruit of this tree in
her hand, the quince being the ill-fated “ apple of
discord” which Paris appropriately enough pre-
sented to that deity.»
Other writers, amongst whom may be mentioned
Dr. Royle, demur to the opinion that the quince is
the fruit here intended, and believe that the citron
(Citrus medica) has a far better claim to be the
The citron belongs to the
© The use of the word ape is generally now understood
in a restricted sense to apply to the failless Quadruniana.
ς \p appears to be a word of foreign origin, allied to
the Sanscrit and Malabar kapi, which perhaps = swift,
nimble, whence the German affe and the English ape, the
initial aspirate being dropped. Gesenius illustrates this
derivation by comparing the Latin amare from Sanse. earn. |
fume of the fruit.
b Hence the act expressed by the term μηλοβολέιν
(Schol. ad Aristoph. Nub. p. 180; Theocr, Jd. iii. 10, v. 58,
Xc.3 Virg. Ecl. iii. 64) was a token of love. For numerous
| testimonies sce Celsius, Hierob. i. 265.
APPLE-TREE
apex. The citron, as its name imports, is a native
of Media (Theophras. Plant. Hist. iv. 4,§2); and
according to Josephus (Ant. xiii. 15, §5), branches
of the citron-tree were ordered by law to be carried
by those persons who attended the Feast of Taber-
nacles, and to this day the Jews offer citrons at this
feast ; they must be “ without blemish, and the stalk
must still adhere to them” (Seript. Herb. p. 109).
«The boughs of goodly trees” (Lev. xxiii. 40) are
by several of the Jewish rabbis understood to be
those of this tree (Celsius, Hierob. i. 251) ; and the
citron-tree is occasionally represented on old Sama-
ritan coins. ‘* The rich colour, fragrant odour, and
handsome appearance of the tree, whether in flower
or in fruit, are,’ Dr. Royle asserts, ‘ particularly
suited to the passages of Scripture mentioned above.”
Dr. Thomson (Tie Land and the Book, p. 545),
on the other hand, is in favour of the translation
of the A. V., and has little doubt that apples is
* the correct rendering of the Hebrew word. He
says, ‘¢ The whole area (about Askelon) is especially
celebrated for its apples, which are the largest and
best I have ever seen in this country. When I was
here in June, quite a caravan started for Jerusalem
loaded with them, and they would not have dis-
graced even an American orchard. . . . The Arabic
word for apple is almost the same as ae Hebrew,
and it is as perfectly definite, to say the least, as our
English word—as much as the word for grape, and
just as well understood ; and so is that for citron:
but this is a comparatively rare fruit. Citrons are
also very large, weighing several pounds each, and
are so hard and indigestible that they cannot be used
except when made into preserves. The tree is small,
slender, and must be propped up, or the fruit will
bend it down to the ground. Nobody ever thinks
of sitting under its shadow, for it is too small and
straggling to make a shade. I cannot believe, there-
fore, that it is spoken of in the Canticles. It can
scarcely be called a ¢ree at all, much less would it
be singled out as among the choice trees of the wood.
As to the smell and colour, all the demands of the
Biblical allusions are fully met by these apples of
Askelon; and no doubt, in ancient times and in
royal gardens, their cultivation was far superior to
what it is now, and the fruit larger and more
fragrant. Let tappuach therefore stand for apple,
as our translation has it.”
Neither the quince nor the citron nor the apple,
however, appears fully to answer to all the Scrip-
tural allusions. The tappuach must denote some
tree which is sweet to the taste, and which pos-
sesses some fragrant and restorative properties, in
order to meet all the demands of the Biblical allu-
sions. Both the quince and the citron may satisfy
the last-named requirement ; but it can hardly be
said that either of these fruits are sweet to the taste.
Dr. Thomson, in the passage quoted above, says that
the citron is ‘‘ too straggling to make a shade;” but
in Cant. ii. 3 the tappuach appears to be associated
with other trees of the wood, and it would do no
violence to the passage to suppose that this tree
was selected from amongst the rest under which to
e Since the above was written Dr. Hooker has returned
from a tour in Palestine, and remarks in a letier to the
author of this article—* I procured a great many plants,
but very little information of service to you, though I
made every inquiry about the subject of your notes. You
would hardly believe the difficulty in getting reliable in-
formation about the simplest subjects; e.g. three, to all
appearance unexceptionable English resident authorities,
including a consul and a medical gentleman, assured me
ASH
recline, not on account of any extensive shade it
afforded, but for the fragrance of its fruit. The
expression “ under the shade’? by no means neces-
savily implies anything more than “ under its
branches.” But Dr. Thomson's trees were no doubt
small specimens. The citron-tree is very variable as
regards its size. Dr. Kitto (Pict. Bib. on Cant. ii.
3) says that it “ grows to a fine large size, and
affords a pleasant shade ;” and Risso, in his Histoire
Naturelle des Oranges, speaks of the citron-tree as
having a magnificent aspect.
The passage in Cant. ii. 3 seems to demand that
the fruit of the tappuach in its unprepared state
was sweet to the taste, whereas the rind only of
the citron is used as a sweetmeat, and the pulp,
though it is less acid than the lemon, is certainly
far from sweet. The same objection would apply
to the fruit of the quince, which is also far from
being sweet to the taste in its uncooked state. The
orange would answer all the demands of the Scrip-
tural passages, and orange-trees are found in Pales-
tine; but there does not appear sufficient evidence
to show that this tree was known in the earlier
times to the inhabitants of Palestine, the tree having
been in all probability introduced at a later period.
As to the apple-tree being the tappuwach, most tra-
vellers assert that this fruit is generally of a very
interior quality, and Dr. Thomson does not say that
he tasted the apples of Askelon.¢ Moreover the
apple would hardly merit the character for excellent
fragrance which the tappuach is said to have pos-
sessed. The question of identification, theretore,
must still be left an open one. ‘The citron appears
to have the best claim to represent the tappuach,
but there is no conclusive evidence to establish the
opinion. As to the APPLES OF SODOM, see VINE
OF SODOM.
The expression “ apple of the eye ic coos in
Deut. xxxii. 10; Ps. xvii. 8; Prov. vii. 2; Lam. ii.
18; Zech. ii. 8. The word is the seh ere |
of an entirely different name from that considered
XV
”
above: the Hebrew word being ishén,4 “ little
man’’—the exact equivalent to the English pupil,
the Latin pupilla, the Greek κόρη. It is curious
to observe how common the image (‘“ pupil of the
eye”) is in the languages of different nations.
Gesenius (Thes. p. 86) quotes from the Arabic, the
Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Coptic, the Persian, in
all of which tongues an expression similar to the
English “ pupil of the eye” is found. It is a pity
that the same ficure is not preserved in the A. V.,
which invariably uses the expression ‘‘ apple of the
eye” (in allusion to its shape), instead of giving
the literal translation from the Hebrew.
ASH (JS, oven; πίτυς ; pinus) occurs only in
Is. xliv. 14; as one of the trees out of the wood of
which idols were carved: “ He heweth him down
cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which
he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the
forest ; he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish
ite It i is impossible to determine what is the tree
denoted by the Hebrew word oren ; the LXX. and
that the finest apples in Syria grew at ἘΠ oppa and Askalon.
The fact appeared so improbable that, though one autho-
rity had eaten them, I could not resist prosecuting the
inquiry, and at last found a gentleman who had property
there, and knew a little of horticulture, who assured me
they were all QuIncEs, the apples being abominable.”
d NWN, homunculus, py PWN, homunculus
oculi, 7. e. pupilla, in qua tanquam in speculo hominis
imagunculam conspicimus (Ges. Thes. 8, v.).
Xvi ASP
the Vulg. understand some species of pine-tree, and
this rendering is supported by many learned com-
mentators, amongst whom may be named Munster,
Calvin, and Bochart ; and some of the Jewish Rabbis,
according to Celsius (Hierob. i. 191), believe that
the oren is identical with the Arabie sanouber, a
kind of pine,* and assert that the aran is often
coupled with the arez and berosch,» as though all
the three trees belonged to the same nature. Luther
understands the cedar by oren.¢ Rosenmiiller thinks
that the stone-pine (Pins pinia, Linn.) is the tree
denoted. Celsius is inclined to think that the oren
is identical with a tree of Arabia Petraea, of which
Abul Fadli makes mention, called aran. Of the
same opinion are Michaelis (Supp. ad Lea. Heb.
129), Dr. Royle (Zncyc. Bib. Lit. art. Oren), and
Dr. Lee (Lex. Heb. 5. ν.). This tree is described
as growing chiefly in valleys and low districts ; it
is a thorny tree, bearing grape-like clusters of
berries, which are noxious and bitter when green,
but become rather sweet when they ripen, and turn
black. Gesenius (7168. 5. v.) is in favour of some
species of pine being the tree intended.
Nothing is known of the tree of which Abul Fadli
speaks. Sprengel (Hist. Rei. Herb. i. 14) thinks
the aran is the caper-tree ( Capparis spinosa, Linn.).
Dr. Royle says the tree appears to agree in some
respects with Salvadora persica. Other attempts
at identification have been made by Faber in his
posthumous MS. notes on Biblical Botany, and Link
(Schroeder’s Botan. Journ. iv. 152), but they are
mere conjectures. ‘The A. V. adopted the transla-
tion of ash in all probability from the similarity
of the Hebrew oren with the Latin ornus; and
Dr. Royle states that the Ornus Zuropacus is found
in Syria, but thinks it is not a true native.
Until future investigation acquaints us with the
nature of the tree denoted by the aran of Abul
Fadli, it will be far better to adopt the interpreta-
_ tion of the LXX., and understand some kind of
pine to be the oren of Scripture. Pinus halipen-
sis or P. Maritima may be intended. Celsius
(Hierob. i. 193) objects to any pine representing
the oren, because he says pines are difficult to
transplant, and therefore that the pine would ill suit
the words of the prophet, “he planteth an oren.”
This, however, is not a valid objection: the larch,
for instance, is readily transplanted, and grows with
great rapidity, but it is not a native of Syria. The
Hebrew oren is probably derived from the Arabic
verb aran, ‘‘to be agile,” “to be slender’’ or
“ oraceful,”
ASP (jNB, pethen; aomis, δράκων, βασι-
Alokos; aspis, basiliscus). The Hebrew word occurs
in the six following passages :—Deut. xxxii. 33;
Ess lyillnos xcly 15: Job xx. 145.16; 15: χιὶ, 8... Ὁ
is expressed in the passages from the Psalms by
adder in the text of the A. V., and by asp in the
margin: elsewhere the text of the A. V. has ἀξ ἃ as
the representative of the original word pethen.
That some kind of poisonous serpent is denoted
S-UO-—-
tag» pinus, aliis ejus nuces (Gol. L. Avab.).
Dr. Wilson (Lands of the Bible, ii. 392) identifies the
common “fir” (Pinus sylvestris) with the berosh of
Scripture, and states that it is “ frequently seen in Le-
banon, where it is known by the name of snobar,” but
Dr. Hooker says he never heard of P. sylvestits in Syria,
and thinks P. halipensis is meant.
Ὁ ΛΝ and wy. cedar and cypress.
© Reading }7N instead of PIN: “quia rmsd num finali
ASP
by the Hebrew word is clear from the passages
quoted above. We further learn from Ps. Iviii. 5,
that the pethen was a snake upon which the ser-
pent-charmers practised their art. In this passage
the wicked are compared to ‘the deaf adder that
stoppeth her ear, which will not hearken to the
voice of charmers, charming never so wisely ;’ and
from Is. xi. 8, “the sucking child shall play on
the hole of the asp,’ it would appear that the
pethen was a dweller in holes of walls, &. The
question of identity is one which is by no means
easy to determine. Bochart contributes nothing in
aid to a solution when he attempts to prove that
the pethen is the asp (Hieroz. iii. 156), for this
species of serpent, if a species be signified by the
term, has been so vaguely described by authors,
that it is not possible to say what known kind is
represented by it. The term asp in modern zoology
is generally restricted to the Vipera aspis of La-
treille, but it is most probable that the name, ἡ
amongst the ancients, stood for different kinds of
venomous serpents, Solinus (c. xxvii.) says, “ plures
diversaeque sunt aspidum species ;” and Aelian (VY.
Anim. x. 31) asserts that the Egyptians enumerate
sixteen kinds of asp. Bruce thought that the asp
of the ancients should be referred to the cerastes,
while Cuvier considered it to be the Eeyptian cobra
(Naia haje). Be this, however, as it may, there
can be little doubt that the Hebrew name pethen
is specific, as it is mentioned as distinct from acshib,
shephiphon, tsiphoni, &c., names of other members
ot the Ophidia.
Oedman ( Vermisch. Sammi. c. x.81) identities the
pethen with the Coluber lebetinus, Linn., a species
described by Forskal (Desc. Anim. p. 15). Rosen-
miiller (Wot. ad Hieroz. iii. 156), Dr. Lee (Heb.
Lex. s. v. J11B), Dr. Harris (Wat. Hist. of Bible,
art, Asp), Col. H. Smith (Zncyc. Bib. Lit. art.
Serpent), believe that the pethen of Scripture is to
be identified with the Coluber baetan of Forskal.
Oedman has no hesitation in establishing an identity
between the C. lebetinus and the C. baetan; but
from Forsk&l’s descriptions it is most probable that
the two species are distinct. The whole argument
that seeks to establish the identity of the Coluber
baectan with the pethen of Scripture is based en-
tirely upon a similarity of sound. Rosenmiiller
thinks that the Arabic word baetan ought to be
written pactan, and thinks there can be no doubt
that this species represents the pethen of Scripture.
Oedman’s argument also is based on a similarity of
sound in the words, though he adduces an additional
proof in the fact that, according to the Swedish
naturalist quoted above, the common people of
Cyprus bestow the epithet of houwphé (Kovgn),
“ deaf,” upon the C. /ebetinus. He does not, how-
ever, believe that this-species is absolutely deaf, for
he says it can hear well. This epithet of deafness
attributed to the C. /ebetimus Oedman thinks may
throw light on the passage in Ps. lviii. 5, about
“‘the deaf adder.”
As regards the opinion of Rosenmiiller and others
minusculo, in multis codicis Ebraei editionibus scribatur,
quod τῷ Sain simillimum est” (Hierob. i. 191).
d Asp (the Greek ἀσπὶς, the Latin aspis) has by some
been derived from the Heb. DN, “to gather up,” in
| Bae
allusion to the coiling habits of the snake when at rest ;
but this etymology is very improbable. We think that
the words are onomatopoetic, alluding to the hissing
sounds sepents make: cf. Lat. asp-trare. ‘The shield
(ἀσπίς) is no doubt derived from the form of the animal
at rest.
— ΌΝ
ASP
who recognise the pethen under the baetan of
Forskal, it may be stated that, even if the identity
is allowed, we are as much in the dark as ever on
the subject, tor the Coluber baetan of Forsk&l has
never been determined. If C. baetan = C. lebetinus
the species denoted may be the Eechis arenicola
(toxicoa) of Egypt (Catalogue of Snakes in Brit. M.
i, 29). Probably all that naturalists have ever
heard of the C. baetan is derived from two or three
lines of description given by Forskal. The whole
body is spotted with black and white; it is a foot
in length, and of the thickness of two thumbs;
oviparous ; its bite kills in an instant, and the
wounded body swells.” The evidence afforded by
the deaf snake of Cyprus, and adduced in support
of his argument by Oedman, is of no value what-
ever; for it must be remembered that the audition
in all the ophidia is very imperfect, as all the
members of this order ave destitute of a tympanic
cavity. The epithet “ deaf,’ therefore, as far as
relates to the power all serpents possess of hearing
ordinary sounds, may reasonably be applied to any
snake. Vulgar opinion in this country attributes
ἐς deafness” to the adder; but it would be very
unreasonable to infer from thence that the adder
of this country (Pelias Berus) is identical with the
“deaf adder” of the 58th Psalm! Vulgar opinion
in Cyprus is of no more value in the matter of
identification of species than vulgar opinion in Eng-
land. A preliminary proof moreover is necessary
for the argument. The snake of Cyprus must be
demonstrated to occur in Egypt or the Holy Land:
a fact which has never yet been proved, though, as
was stated above, the snake of Cyprus (C. lebetinus)
may be the same as the Echis arenicola of North
Africa.
Very absurd are some of the explanations which
commentators have given of the passage concerning
the “deaf adder that stoppeth her ears;” the
Rabbi Solomon (according to Bochart, iii. 1602)
asserts that “ this snake becomes deaf when old in
one ear; that she stops the other with dust, lest
she should hear the charmer’s voice.’ Others main-
tain that “ she applies one ear to the ground and
stops the other with her tail.’ That such errors
should have prevailed in former days, when little
else but foolish marvels filled the pages of natural
history, is not to be wondered at, and no allusion
to them would have been made here, if this absurd
error of ‘‘ the adder stopping her ears with her tail ”
had not been perpetuated in our own day. In
Bythner’s Lyre of David, p. 165 (Dee’s translation,
1847 !), the following explanation of the word
pethen, without note or comment, occurs :—‘* Asp,
whose deafness marks the venom of his malice, as
though impenetrable even to charms: it is deaf of
one ear, and stops the other with dust or its tail,
that it may not hear incantations.” Dr. Thomson
also (The Land and the Book, 155, London, 1859 !)
seems to give credence to the fable when he writes:
«There is also current an opinion that the adder
will actually stop up his ear with his tail to fortify
himself against the influence of music and other
charms.” It is not then needless to observe, in
confutation of the above error, that no serpent pos-
sesses external openings to the ear.
The true explanation of Ps, lviii. 5 is simply as
follows:—There are some serpents, individuals of
the same species, perhaps, which defy all the at-
tempts of the charmer—in the language of Scripture
such individuals may be termed deaf. The point
of the rebuke consists in the fact that the pethen
APPENDIX.
| Was capable of hearing the
ASPALATHUS xvii
charmer’s song, but
refused to do so. The individual case in question
was an exception to the rule, If, as some have sup-
posed, the expression “deaf adder” denoted some
species that was incapable of hearing, whence it had
its specific name, how could there be any force in
the comparison which the psalmist makes with
wicked men?
Serpents, though comparatively speaking deaf to
ordinary sounds, are no doubt capable of hearing
the sharp, shrillsounds which the charmer produces
either by his voice or by an instrument; and this
comparative deafness is, it appears to us, the very
reason why such sounds as the charmer makes pro-
duce the desired effect in the subject under treat-
ment. [SERPENT-CHARMING.|] As the Egyptian
cobra is more frequently than any other species the
(Naia haje.)
Egyptian Cobra.
subject upon which the serpent-charmers of the
Bible lands practise their science, as it is fond of
concealing itself in walls and in holes (Is. xi. 8),
and as it is not improbable that the derivation of
the Hebrew word pethen® has reference to the ex-
panding powers of this serpent’s neck when ini-
tated, it appears to us to have a decidedly better
claim to represent the pethen than the very doubt-
ful species of Coluber baetan, which on such slender
grounds has been so positively identified with it.
ASPAL'ATHUS (ἀσπάλαθος ἀρωμάτων ;
Compl. πάλαθος ; balsamum), the name of some
sweet perfume mentioned in Ecclus. xxiv. 15, to
which Wisdom compares herself :—‘“ I gave a sweet
smell like cinnamon and aspalathus.” The question
as to what kind of plant represents the aspalathus
of the ancients has Jong been a puzzling one. From
Theocritus (Jd. ἵν 57) we learn that the aspalathus
was of a thorny nature, and (from 76. xxiv. 87) -
that the dry wood was used for burning. Pliny
(H. N. xii. 24) says that aspalathus grows in
Cyprus; that it is a white thorny shrub, the size
of a moderate tree; that another name for this
plant was erysceptrum or sceptrum, * sceptre,” or
“‘yed sceptre,’ a name perhaps which it owed to
the fact of the flowers clustering along the length
of the branches: but in another place (xxiv. 13)
a ® v. comp. inus. distendere, whence
ind a jN5> Ρ ᾽
ἸΏΒ. limen, utpote ad conculcandum expansum. The
i, 2% Ε :
Greek mi@wv seems to be connected with this word. See
Fiirst, Concord. s.v. ‘The Arab. baetan ( 3: ΧΟ planum,
may have reference to expansion.
C
ASS
he speaks of aspalathus as distinct from the ery-
sceptrum, as growing in Spain, and commonly
employed there as an ingredient in perfumes and
ointments. He states that it was employed also in
the washing of wool. Theophrastus (Hist. Plant.
ix. 7, §3, ed. Schneider) enumerates aspalathus with
cinnamon, cassia, and many other articles which
were used for ointments, and appears to speak of it
as an Eastern production. In Fr. iv. 33 he says
it is sweet-scented and an astringent. Dioscorides
(i. 19) says that the aspalathus was used for the
purpose of thickening ointment.
It appears that there were at least two kinds or
varieties of plants known by the name of aspalathus ;
for all the authorities cited above clearly make
mention of two: one was white, inodorous, and
inferior; the other had red wood under the bark,
and was highly aromatic. The plant was of so
thorny a nature that Plato (Repub. 616 A. ed.
Bekker) says cruel tyrants were punished with it
in the lower world.
Gerarde (Herbal. p. 1625) mentions two kinds
of aspalathus: aspal. albicans torulo citreo, and
aspal. rubens: “ the latter,’ he says, “is the better
of the two ; its smell is like that of the rose, whence
the name Lignum Rhodium, rather than from
Rhodes, the place where it is said to grow.” The
Lignum Rhodianum is by some supposed to be the
substance indicated by the aspalathus; the plant
which yields it is the Convolvulus scoparius of
Linnaeus.© Dr. Royle (Zneyel. Bib. Lit. s. v.) is
inclined to believe that the bark of a tree of the
Himalayan mountains, the Wyrica sapida of Dr.
Wallich, is the article indicated, because in India
the term Darshishan, which by Avicenna and
Serapion are used as the Arabic synonyms of
aspalathus, is applied to the bark of this tree. If
the aspalathus of the Apocrypha be identical with
the aspalathus of the Greeks, it is clear that the
locality for the plant must be sought nearer home,
for Theocritus evidently mentions the aspalathus
as if it were familiar to the Greek colonists of Sicily
or the south of Italy in its growing state. For
other attempts to identify the aspalathus see Sal-
masius, Hy/. Jat. cap. lxxxiv; Dr. Royle, in passage
referred to above; Sprengel, Hist. Herb. i. p. 45,
183 ; but in all probability the term has been applied
to various plants.
ASS. The five following Hebrew names of the
genus Asinus occur in the O. T.:—Chamér, ’ Athén,
’ Air, Pere, and ’ Aréd.
1. Chamér (ΓΙ: ὄνος, ὑποζύγιον, γομάρ
in 1 Sam. xvi. 20: asinus, “ass,” “ Πο- 55} denotes
the male domestic ass, though the word was no
doubt used in a general sense to express any ass
whether male or female. The ass is frequently
mentioned in the Bible; it was used (i.) for carry-
ing burdens (1 Sam, xxv. 18; Gen. xlii. 26, xlv.
Xviii
e.On this subject Sir W. Hooker in a letter writes,
“We must not go to Convol. scoparius, albeit that may
possess the two needful qualifications : it is peculiar to the
Canary Islands. Many plants with fragrant roots are
called Rose-roots. Such is the Lignum aloes, the lign
aloes of Scripture; and there is the ῥοδιαρίζα of Dios-
corides, which came from Macedonia. A late learned
friend of mine writes, ‘This was certainly Linnaeus’s
Rhodiola rosea, figured as such by Parkinson in his
Theatrum Botanicum, after Lobel, Soon after the dis-
covery of the Canary Islands this name was transferred
to Convol. scoparius, and afterwards to several American
plants. It is called in the Canary Islands Leia Noél, a
ASS
23; 2 Sam. xvi. 1; 1 Chr. xii. 40; Neh. xiii. 15;
1 Sam. xvi. 20)—(ii.) for riding (Gen. xxii. 3;
Εἰχ. ἰνε 710) SM Nivtins este Ale UAC Sebi. 213)
Josh. xv. 18; Jud. i. 14, v. 10, x. 4, xii. 14;
1 Sam. xxv. 20; 2 Sam. xvii. 23, xix. 26;
Zech. ix. 9; Matt. xxi. 7)—(iii.) for ploughing
(Is. xxx. 24, xxxii. 20; Deut. xxii. 10), and
perhaps for treading out corn, though there is no
clear scriptural allusion to the fact. In Egypt
asses were so employed (Wilkinson’s Anc. Egypt.
iii. 34), and by the Jews, according to Josephus
(Contr. Apion. ii. §7)—(iv.) for grinding at the
mill (Matt. xviii. 6; Luke xvii. 2): this does not
appear in the A. V., but the Greek has μύλος
ὀνικός for “ millstone”—(v.) for (carrying bag-
gage in) wars (2 K. vii. 7, 10), and perhaps from
the time of David—(vi.) for the procreation of
mules (Gen. xxxvi. 24; 1 K. iv. 28; Esth. viii.
10, &e.).
It is almost needless to observe that the ass
in eastern countries is a very different animal
from what he is in western Europe; there the
greatest care is taken of the animal, and much
attention is paid to cultivate the breed by crossing
the finest specimens; the riding on the ass therefore
conveys a very different notion from the one which
attaches to such a mode of conveyance in our own
country; the most noble and honourable amongst
the Jews were wont to be mounted on asses; and
in this manner our Lord himself made his trium-
phant entry into Jerusalem. He came indeed
“meek and lowly,’ but it is a mistake to suppose,
as many do, that the fact of his riding on the ass
had, according to our English ideas, ought to do
with his meekness; although thereby, doubtless,
he meant to show the peaceable nature of his king-
dom, as horses were used only for war purposes.
In illustration of the passage in «πᾶσ, v. 10,
“Speak ye that ride on white asses,” it may be
mentioned that Buckingham (Zrav. 389) tells us
that one of the peculiarities of Bagdad is its race
of white asses, which are saddled and bridled for
the conveyance of passengers .... that they are
large and spirited, and have an easy and steady
pace. Bokhara is also celebrated for its breed
of white asses, which are sometimes more than thir-
teen hands high; they are imported into Peshawar,
and fetch from 80 to 100 rupees each.
In Deut. xxii. 10 ‘ plowing with an ox and an
ass together’ was forbidden by the law of Moses.
Michaelis (Comment. on the Laws of Moses, transl.
vol. ii. 392) believes that this prohibition is to be
traced to the economic importance of the ox in the
estimation of the Jews ; that the coupling together
therefore so valued an animal as the ox with the
inferior ass was a dishonour to the former animal ;
others, Le Clere for instance, think that this law
had merely a symbolical meaning, and that by
it we are to understand improper alliances in civil
corruption of Lignum aloes, and, though now in little
request, large quantities of it were formerly exported, and
the plant nearly extirpated. The apothecaries sold it
both as Lignum Rhodium and as the aspalathus of Dios-
corides ; it soon, however, took the latter name, which was
handed over to a wood brought from India, though the
original plant was a thorny shrub growing on the shores
of the Mediterranean, probably Spartium villosum, ac-
cording to Sibthorpe (Flor. Graec. vol. vii. p. 69).’” -
* 95)9N, from root 4jOP). “ to be red,” from the red-
dish colour of the animal in southern countries. Gesenius
compares the Spanish burro, burrico. In 2 Sam. xix. 27,
the word is used as a feminine.
᾿
ASS
and religious life to be forbidden; he compares
2 Cor. vi. 14, **Be ye not unequally yoked with
unbelievers.” It is not at all improbable that
such a lesson was intended to be conveyed ; but we
think that the main reason in the prohibition is a
physical one, viz. that the ox and the ass could not
pull pleasantly together on account of the difference
in size and strength; perhaps also this prohibition
may have some reference to the law given in Lev.
babe! [9
The expression used in Is. xxx. 24, ‘The young
asses that ear the ground,” would be more intel-
ligible to modern understandings were it translated
the asses that ti// the ground ; the word ear from
aro “I till,’ “I plough,’ being now obsolete
(comp. also 1 Sam. viii. 12).
Although the flesh of the wild ass was deemed a
luxury amongst the Persians and Tartars, yet
it does not appear that any of the nations of
Canaan used the ass for food. The Mosaic ,law
considered it unclean, as “ not dividing the hoof and
chewing the cud.” In extreme cases, however, as
in the great famine of Samaria, when “ an ass’s
head was sold for eighty pieces of silver” (2 K.
vi. 25), the flesh of the ass was eaten. Many com-
mentators on this passage, following the LXX., have
understood a measure (a chomer of bread) by the
Hebrew word. Dr. Harris says,—* no kind of: ex-
tremity could compel the Jews to eat any part of
this animal for food,’’—but it must be remembered |
that in cases of extreme need parents ate their
own offspring (2 K. vi. 29; Ezek. v. 10). . This
argument therefore falls to the ground ; nor is there
sufficient reason for abandoning the common accepta-
tion of these passages (1 Sam. xvi. 20, xxv. 18),
and for understanding a measure and not the
animal. For an example to illustrate 2 K. 7. ὁ.
comp. Plutarch, Artaxr. i. 1023,.‘ An ass’s head
could hardly be bought for sixty drachms.” >
The Jews were accused of worshipping the head
of anass. Josephus (Contr. Apion. ii. §7) very
indignantly blames Apion for having the impudence
to pretend that the Jews placed an ass’s head of
gold in their holy place, which the grammarian
asserted Antiochus Epiphanes discovered when
he spoiled the temple. Plutarch (Sympos. iv.
ch. 5) and Tacitus (Hist. v. §3 and 4) seem to have
believed in this slander, It would be out of place
here to enter further into this question, as it has no
Scriptural bearing, but the reader may find much
curious matter relating to this subject in Bochart
(Mieroz. iii. 199, seq.).
2. > Athon (MNN*: ἡ ὄνος, ὄνος, bvos θηλεία,
ἡμίονος, ὄνος θηλεία νομάς asina, asinus, “ ass,”
“ς she-ass”). There can be no doubt that this name
represents the common domestic she-ass, nor do we
think there are any grounds for believing that the
*Athon indicates some particular valuable breed
which judges and great men only possessed, as
Dr. Kitto (Phys. Hist. Pal. p. 383), and Dr.
Harris (Nat. Hist. of Bible, art. Ass) have sup-
posed, ’Athén in Gen. xii. 16, xlv. 23 is clearly
contrasted with Chamor. Balaam rode on a she-
ass (’Athén). The asses of Kish which Saul
sought were she-asses. The Shunammite (2 Καὶ. iv.
22, 24) rode on one when she went to seek Elisha,
ASS
They were she-asses which formed the especial care
of one of David's officers (1. Chr. xxvii. 30). While
on the other hand Abraham (Gen, xxii. 3, &c.),
Achsah (Josh. xv, 18), Abigail (1 Sam. xxv. 20),
the disobedient prophet (1 K. xiii. 23) rode on a
Chamor.
3. Air (WY: πῶλος, πῶλος νέος, ὄνος, βοῦς
xix
Oo.
mentum, pullus asini, ‘ foal,” ‘ ass colt,’ ‘ young
ass,” “ colt”), the name of a young ass, which
occurs Gen. xlix. 11, xxxii. 16; Jud.x. 4, xii. 14;
Job xi. 12; Is. xxx. 6, 24; Zech. ix. 9. In the
passages of the books of. Judges and Zechariah the
‘Air is spoken of as being old enough for riding
upon; in Is. xxx. 6, for carrying burdens, and
in ver. 24 for tilling the ground: perhaps the word
’Air is intended to denote an ass rather older than
the age we now understand by the term foal or
colt; the derivation “to be spirited” or ‘* impe-
tuous”’ would then be peculiarly appropriate.4
4. Pere (NIB: ὄνος ἄγριος, ὄνος ἐν ἀγρῷ,
ὄναγρος, ὥνος ἐρημίτης, ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος:
ferus homo, Vulg.; “ΚΜ 16 man,” A, V., in Gen. xvi.
12; onager, ‘‘ wild ass”). The name of a species
of wild ass mentioned Gen. xvi. 12; Ps. civ.
US ρον -, οὶ χῖ;, LO Sexxxixe Soy exive: Sim Ose
vill. 9; Jer. 11. 245) Is. xxxi. 14. In Gen. xvi.
12, Pere Adam, a ““ wild-ass man,” is applied to
Ishmael and his descendants, a character that
is well suited to the Arabs at this day. Hosea
(viii. 9) compares Israel to a wild ass of the desert,
and Job (xxxix. 5) gives an animated description of
this animal, and one which is amply confiimed by
both ancient and modern writers.
5. ’Arod CTY," omitted by the LXX. and Vulg.,
which versions probably supposed ’Aréd and Pere
to .be synonymous; “wild ass”). The Hebrew
word occurs only in Job xxxix. 5, “" Who hath sent
out the Pere free, or who hath loosed the bands
of the ’Aréd?” The Chaldee plural ’Arddagah
(NTIY) occurs in Dan. v. 21: Nebuchadnezzar’s
“dwelling was with the wild asses.” Bochart
(Hieroz. ii. 218) and Rosenmiiller (Sch. in V. T.
1. c.), Lee (Comment. on Job, 1. c.), Gesenius
(Thes. s.v.) suppose ’aréd and pere to be identical
in meaning; the last-named writer says that
pere is the Hebrew, and ’aréd the Aramaean; but
it is not improbable that the two names stand for
different animals,
The subject which relates to the different
animals known as wild asses has recently received
very valuable elucidation from Mr. Blythe in
a paper contributed to the Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal (1859), a reprint of which appears
in the October No. of The Annals and Magazine
of Natural History (1860). This writer enu-
merates seven species of the division Asinus ;—
in all probability the species known to the ancient
Jews are Asinus hemippus, which inhabits the
deserts of Syria, Mesopotamia, and the northern
parts of Arabia; and Asinus vulgaris of N. E.
Africa, the true onager or aboriginal wild ass,
whence the domesticated breed is sprung; probably
also the Asinus onager, the Koulan or Ghorkhur,
which is found in Western Asia from 48° N. lati-
b The Talmudists say the flesh of the ass causes avarice
in those who eat it; but it cures the avaricious of the
complaint (Zoot. des Talm. §165).
© A word of uncertain derivation, usually derived from
an unused root, “ to be slow, ‘‘to walk with short steps 3’,
but Fiirst (Heb. Concord. s. v.) demurs strongly to this
etymology.
4 From “SY, fervere.
© S75}, from root TY, “ to flee,” “to be untamed.”
Bochart thinks the word Is onomatopoetic.
9
ASS
tude southward to Persia, Beluchistan, and Western
India, was not unknown to the ancient Hebrews,
though in all probability they confounded these
species. The Asinus hemionus, or Dshiggetai,
XX
which was separated from Asinus hemippus (with
Syrian Wild Ass (Asinus Hemippus.)
Specimen in Zoological Gardens.
which it had long been confounded) by Is. St. Hilaire,
could hardly have been known to the Jews, as this
Ghor-Khur or Koulan. (Astnus onager.)
Specimen in British Museum.
animal, which is perhaps only a variety of Asinus
onager,
inhabits Tibet, Mongolia, and Southern
Ls
Wyat ΜΠ AA ws
Ops 1g ed
Dziggetai or Kyang. (Asinus Hemionus.)
Specimen in Zoological Gardens,
Siberia, countiies with which the Jews were not
familiar. We may therefore safely conclude that
the ’Athén and Pere of the sacred writings stand
for the different species now discriminated under the
BADGER-SKINS
names of Aste hemippus, the Assyrian wild ass,
Asimus vulgaris, the true onager—and perhaps
Asinus onager, the Koulan or Ghorkhur of Persia
and Western India.
The following quotation from Mr. Blythe’s
valuable paper is given as illustrative of the Serip-
tural allusions to wild asses:—‘“‘ To the west of the
range of the Ghor-khur lies that of Asinus hemippus,
or true Hemionus of ancient writers—the par-
ticular species apostrophised in the book of Job,
and again that noticed by Xenophon. There is a
recent account of it by Mr. Lay: ud in Nineveh and
its Remains (p. 324), Returning from the Sinher,
he was riding through the desert to Tel Afer, and
there he mistook a troop of them for a body of
horse with the Bedouin riders concealed!’ ‘* The
reader will remember,’ he adds, ‘‘ that Xenophon
mentions these beautiful animals, which he must
have seen during his march over these very plains
oko ΠΡ country. says he, ‘ was a plain through-
out, as even as the sea, and full of wormwood ; if
any other kind of shrubs or reeds grew there they
had all an aromatic smell, but no trees appeared. . .
The asses, when they were pursued, having gained
ground on the horses, stood still (for they exceeded
them much in speed); and when these came up
with them they did the same thing again .. .
The flesh of those that were taken was like that of
a red deer, but more tender’ (Anab. i. §5). ‘In
fleetness,’ continues Mr. Layard, ‘they equal the
gazelle, and to overtake them is a feat which only
one or two of the most celebrated mares have been
known to accomplish Ὁ (Annals and Mag. of Nat.
Hist. vol. vi. No. 34, p. 248).
The subjoined woodcut represents some kind of
wild ass depicted on monuments at Persepolis.
wil) = ie
ΒΟΟΣ
πῶ]!
Wild Ass. On monuments of Persepolis.
(Rawlinson’s Herodotus.)
BADGER-SKINS (DAA MOY, drdth téch-
ashim ; vinn, tachash (Kz. xvi. 10):
ὑακίνθινα ; Ald. ed. idv@iva; Compl. ὑάνθινα, al.
πεπυρωμένα in Ex. xxv. 5; Alex. δέρματα ἅγια in
Ex. xxxv. 7; ὑάκινθος ; Aq. and Sym. ἰάνθινα in
Ez. xvi. 10: pelles ianthinae, ianthinus). The
Hebrew tachash, which the A. V. renders badger,
occurs in connexion with ὁ», éréth (“ skin,”
δέρματα
ἐ ΕἸΣΙΝ 1)». nl Dp eam PH oeanl, I, seoaK τ, Ὁ.
xxxvi, 9: Num. iv. 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 25. In
izek. xvi. 10 tachash occurs πὴ τ ὁγοίλ, and is
mentioned as the substance out of which women’s
shoes were made; in the former passages the
tachash skins are named in relation to the tabernacle,
ark, &c., and appear to have formed the exterior
covering of these sacred articles. There is much
obscurity as to the meaning of the word tachash ;
the ancient versions seem nearly all agreed that it
|
BADGER-SKINS
denotes not an animal, but a colour, either black or
sky-blue; amongst the names of those who adopt
this interpretation are Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 387),
Rosenmiiller (Schol. ad V. T., Ex. xxv. 5; Ezek.
xvi. 10), Bynaeus (de Calceis Hebraeorum, lib. i.
ch. 3), Scheuchzer (Phys. Sacr. in Ex. xxv. 5).
Parkhurst (Heb. Lex. 5. v.), who observes that an
outermost covering for the tabernacle of azure or
sky-blue was very proper to represent the sky or
azure boundary of the system.” Some versions, as
the German of Luther and the A. V., led apparently
by the Chaldee,* and perhaps by a certain simi-
larity of sound between the words tachash, taxus,
dachs, have supposed that the badger (meles taxus)
is denoted, but this is clearly an error, for the
badger is not found in the Bible lands—others, as
Gesner and Harenberg (in Musaeo Brem. ii. 312),
have thought that some kind of wolf, known
by the Greek name θὼς, and the Arabic Shaghul
is intended.» Hasaeus (in Dissert. Philolog. Sylloge.
diss. ix. §17) and Biisching, in his preface to the
Epitome of Scheuchzer’s Physica Sacra, are of
opinion that tachash denotes a cetacean animal,
the Zrichechus manatus of Linnaeus, which, how-
ever, is only found in America and the West Indies.
Others with Sebald Rau (Comment. de tis quae
ex Arab, in usum Tabernac. fuerunt repetita,
Traj. ad Rhen. 1753, ch. ii.) are in favour of
tachash representing some kind of seal (Phoca
vitulina Lin.). Dr. Geddes (Crit. Rem. Ex.
xxv. 5) is of the same opinion, Gesenius under-
stands some ‘‘kind of seal or badger, or other
similar (!) creature.” Of modern writers Dr. Kitto
(Pict. Bibl. on Ex. xxv. 5) thinks that tachash
denotes some clean animal, as in all probability the
skin of an unclean animal would not have been used
for the sacred coverings. Col. H. Smith (Zncyc.
Bib. Lit. art. Badger), with much plausibility,
conjectures that tachash refers to some ruminant of
the Aigocerine or Damaline groups, as these animals
are known to the natives under the names of
pacasse, thacasse (varieties, he says, of the word
tachash), and have a deep grey, or slaty (hysginus) |-
coloured skin, Dr. Robinson on this subject (δὲ).
Res. i. 171) writes, ‘‘ The superior of the convent
at Sinai procured for me a pair of the sandals
usually worn by the Bedouin of the peninsula,
made of the thick skin of a fish which is caught in
the Red Sea. The Arabs round the convent called
it Turs, but could give no further account of it
than that it is a large fish, and is eaten. It is a
species of Halicore, named by Ehrenberg ὁ (Symb.
Phys. ii.) Halicora hemprechei. The skin is
clumsy and coarse, and might answer very well for
the external covering of a tabernacle which was
constructed at Sinai, but would seem hardly a
fitting material for the ornamental sandals belonging
to the costly attire of high-born dames in Palestine,
described by the prophet Ezekiel.”
It is difficult to understand why the ancient
versions have interpreted the word tachash to
a ΝΟ, “ faxus, sic dictus quia gaudet et superbit
τυ Ξ
in coloribus multis ” (Buxtorf, Lex. Rab. 5, v.).
Ὁ “The θώς of the Greeks is certainly the jackal”
(Canis Aureus),
e According to Ehrenberg, the Arabs on the coast call
this animal Naka and Lottwm. Arabian naturalists applied
the term ensan alma, “man of the sea,” to this creature.
d Rosenmiiller (Schol. in V. 7. on Ex. xxv.5) questions
Ae
the use of the Arabic words us S (duchash) and
BALM
mean a colour, an explanation which has, as Gese-
nius remarks, no ground either in the etymology
or in the cognate languages. Whatever is the sub-
stance indicated by tachash it is evident from [ὔχ.
xxxv. 23 that it was some material in frequent use
amongst the Israelites during the Exodus, and the
construction of the sentences where the name occurs
(for the word dréth, ‘ skins,” is always, with one
exception, repeated with tachash), seems to imply
that the skin of some animal and not a colour is de-
noted by it. The Arabic duchash or tuchash denotes
a dolphin, but in all probability is not restricted in
its application, but may refer to either a seal or a
cetacean.t The skin of the Halicore from its hard-
ness would be well suited for making soles for shoes,
and it is worthy of remark that the Arabs near
Cape Mussendum apply the skin of these animals
for a similar purpose (Col. H. Smith, /. c.). The
Halicore Tabernaculi is found in the Red Sea, and
Nostrils.
xxi
The Eye.
Halicere Tabernacult, with enlarged drawing of the head.
was observed by Rtippell (dus. Senck. i. 110,
t. 6), who gave the animal the above name, on the
coral banks of the Abyssinian coast. Or perhaps
tachash may denote a seal, the skin of which animal
would suit all the demands of the Scriptural allu-
sions. Pliny (H.W. ii. 55) says seal-skins were
used as coverings for tents ; but it is quite impos-
sible to come to any satisfactory conclusion in an
attempt to identify the animal denoted by the
Hebrew word.
BALM OTS, tz6rt: YS, tzért: ῥητίνη : re-
sina) occurs in Gen. xxxvii. 25 as one of the sub-
stances which the Ishmaelites were bringing from
Gilead to take into Egypt; in Gen, sliii. 11, as one
of the presents which Jacob sent to Joseph ; in Jer.
viii. 22, xlvi. 11, li. 8 where it appears that the
balm of Gilead had a medicinal value; in Ez.
xxvii, 17 (margin, “ rosin”) as an article of com-
merce imported by Judah into Tyre.
Many attempts have been made to identify the
τ
ee)
css (tuchash), as applying to the dolphin or the
seal promiscuously. The common Arabic name for the
dolphin is αλλ (dulfim). Perhaps, therefore, duchash
and tuchash had a wide signification, The Hebrew YF
is of obscure origin.
BALM
tzort by different writers, not one of which, however,
can be considered conclusive. The Syriac version
in Jer, viii. 22, and the Samaritan in Gen, xxxvii. 25,
suppose cera, ** wax,” to be meant; others, as the
Arabic version in the passages cited in Genesis,
conjecture theriaca, a medical compound of great
supposed virtue in serpent bites. Of the same opinion
is Castell (Lew. Hept.s. v. 8). Luther and the
Swedish version have “salve,” ‘‘ ointment,’’ in the
passages in Jeremiah ; but in Ez, xxvii, 17 they read
“mastick,” The Jewish Rabbis, Junius and Tremel-
lius, Deodatius, &c., have ‘* balm” or “ balsam,” as
the A. V. (Celsius, Hierob. ii. 180) identifies the tzori
with the mastick-tree (Pistacia lentiscus).
XXil
Rosenmiiller (Bibl. Bot, 169) believes that the
pressed juice of the fruit of the zuckwm-tree (Llae-
agnus angustifolius, Lin. [?]), or narrow-leaved
oleaster) is the substance denoted ;* but the same
author, in another place (Schol. in Gen. xxxvii. 25),
mentions the balsam of Mecca (Amyris opobalsamun,
Lin.), referred to by Strabo (xvi.-p. 778) and Dio-
dorus Siculus (ii. 132), as being probably the tzor?
(see Kitto, Phys. Hist. Pal. 273; Hasselquist,
Travels, p. 293). Dr, Royle (Kitto’s Cycl. Bib.
Lit.) is unable to identify the ¢tzori with any of the
numerous substances that have been referred to it,
Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, 87) mentions a current
opinion amongst the Jews, that the queen of Sheba
first introduced the balsam into Judaea, having made
Solomon a present of a root. If this be so—but
perhaps it was merely a tradition—the tzor? cannot
be restricted to represent the produce of this tree,
as the word occurs in Genesis, and the plant was
known to the patriarchs as growing in the hilly
district of Gilead.
Hasselquist has given a description of the true
balsam-tree of Mecca. He says that the exudation
from the plant “ is of a yellow colour, and pellucid.
It has a most fragrant smell, which is resinous,
balsamic, and very agreeable. It is very tenacious
or glutinous, sticking to the fingers, and may be
drawn into long threads, I have seen it at a Turkish
surgeon’s, who had it immediately from Mecca,
described it, and was informed of its virtues; which
are, first, that it is the best stomachic they know, if
taken to three grains, to strengthen a weak stomach ;
secondly, that it is a most excellent and capital:
remedy for curing wounds, for if a few drops are
applied to the fresh wound, it cures it in a very
short time” ( Travels, 293).
The trees which certainly appear to have the best
claim for representing the Scriptural tzori—sup-
posing, that is, that any one particular tree is
denoted by the term—are the Pistacia Jentiscus
(mastick), and the Amyris opobalsamum, Lin., the
Balsamodendron opobalsamum, or gileadense ot
modern botanists (Balm of Gilead). One argument
in favour of the first-named tree vests upon the fact
that its name in Arabic (dseri, dserw) is identical
with the Hebrew ; and the Arabian naturalists have
attributed great medicinal virtues to the resin
afforded by this tree (Dioscor. i. 90, 91; Plin.
xxiv. 7; Avicenna, edit. Arab. pp. 204 and 277, in
Celsius), The Pistucia lentiscus has been recorded
to occur at Joppa both by Ranwolf ahd Pococke
(Strand. Flor. Palaest. No. 561). The derivation
of the word fiom a root, “" to flow forth,” Ὁ is opposed
to the theory which identifies the pressed oil of the
* From Maundrell’s description of the zuckum Dr.
Hooker unhesitatingly identifies it with Balanites Acgup- |
tiaca, which he saw abundantly at Jericho.
1
BARLEY
zuckum (Balanites Aegyptiaca [?]) with the tzori,
although this oil is in very high esteem amongst
the Arabs, who even prefer it to the balm of Mecca,
as being more efficacious in wounds and bruises (see
Mariti, ii, 353, ed. Lond.), Maundrell (Journey
from Alep, to Jerus., p. 86), when near the Dead
Sea, saw the zuckwin-tyee. He says it is a thorny
bush with small leaves, and that “the fruit both in
shape and colour resembles a small unripe walnut.
The kernels of this fruit the Arabs bray in a mortar,
and then, putting the pulp into scalding water, they
skim off the oyl which rises to the top: this oyl
they take inwardly for bruises, and apply it out-
wardly to green wounds... . . I procured a bottle
of it, and have found it upon some small tryals a
very healing medicine.” “This,” says Dr. Robinson
(Bib, Res, it, 291), ‘is the modern balsam or oil
of Jericho.” Perhaps, after all, the tzori does not
refer to an exudation from any particular tree, but
was intended to denote any kind of resinous sub-
stance which had a medicinal value, The tzori,
then, may represent the gum of the Pistacia len-
tiscus, or that of the Balsamodendron opobalsamum.
[Spices; Mastick.] Compare Winer, Biblisch.
Realwért. s.v. for numerous references from ancient
and modern writers on the subject of the balm or
balsam-tree, and Hooker’s Kew Garden Misc, i.
p- 207.
BARLEY (τὰν, sedrah: κριθή : hordeum),
the well-known useful cereal, mention of which is
made in numerous passages of the Bible. Pliny
(1. N. xviii. 7) states that barley is one of the
most ancient articles of diet. It was grown by the
Egyptians (Ex. ix. 31; Herod. ii. 77 ; Diodor, i. 34;
Plin. xxii. 25); and by the Jews (Ley. xxvii. 16;
Deut. viii. 8; Ruth ii. 17, &c.), who used it for
baking into bread, chiefly amongst the poor (Judg.
vii. 13; 2 K. iv. 42; John vi. 9, 13); for making
into bread by mixing it with wheat, beans, lentiles,
millet, &c. (Ez. iv. 9); for making into cakes (Ez.
iv. 12); as fodder for horses (1 K. iv. 28). Com-
pare also Juvenal (viii. 154); and Pliny (H. W.
xviii. 14 5 xxviii. 21), who states that though barley
was extensively used by the ancients, it had in his
time fallen into disrepute, and was generally used
as fodder for cattle only. Sounini says that barley
is the common food for horses in the East. Oats
and rye were not cultivated by the Jews, and per-
haps not known to them, [RYE.] (See also Kitto,
Phys. H. of Pal. 214.) Barley is mentioned in the
Mishnah as the food of horses and asses.
The barley harvest is mentioned Ruth i. 22,
ii. 13; 2 Sam. xxi. 9,10. It takes place in Pa-
lestine in March and April, and in the hilly dis-
tricts as late as May; but the period of course
varies according to the localities where the corn
grows. Mariti (Zrav. 416) says that the barley
in the plain of Jericho begins to ripen in April.
Niebuhr (Besch. vori Arab. p. 160) found barley
ripe at the end of March in the fields about Jeru-
salem. Tite barley harvest always precedes the
wheat harvest, in some places by a week, in others
by fully three weeks (Robinson, Bib. Res. ii. 99, 278).
In Egypt the barley is about a month earlier than
the wheat; whence its total destruction by the
hail-storm (Ex. ix. 31), Barley was sown at any
time between November and March, according to
the season. Niebuhr states that he saw a crop near
Ὁ TTI, “ to flow as a wound from a cleft.” The cog
UE
nate Syriac and Arabic have a similar meaning.
BARLEY
Jerusalem ripe at the end of March, and a field
which had been just newly sown. Dr. Kitto adduces
the authority of the Jewish writers as an additional
proof of the above statement (Phys. H. Pal. 229).
This answers to the winter and spring-sown wheat
of our own country; and though the former is ge-
nerally ripe somewhat earlier than the latter, yet
the harvest-time of both is the same. Thus it was
with the Jews: the winter and spring-sown barley
were usually gathered into the garners about the
same time; though of course the very late spring-
sown crops must have been gathered in some time
after the others.
Major Skinner ( Adventures in an Overland J our-
ney to India, i. 330) observed near Damascus a field
newly sown with barley, which had been submitted
to submersion similar to what is done to rice-tields.
Dr. Royle (Kitto’s Cycl. Bib. Lit. art. ‘‘ Barley”)
with good reason supposes that this explains Is. xxxii.
20: ** Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters ;”
and demurs to the explanation which many writers
have given, viz. that allusion is madé to the mode
in which rice is cultivated. We cannot, however,
at all agree with this writer, that the passage in
Eccles. xi. 1 has any reference to irrigation of newly-
sown barley fields. Solomon in the context is en-
forcing obligations to liberality, of that especial
nature which looks not for a recompense: as Bishop
Hall says, “ Bestow thy beneficence on those from
whom there is no probability of a return of kind-
ness.” It is clear, that, if allusion is made to the
mode of culture referred to above, either in the case
of rice or barley, the force and moral worth of the
lesson is lost; for the motive of such ἃ sowing is
expectation of an abundant return. The meaning
of the passage is surely this: ‘“ Be liberal to those
who are as little likely to repay thee again, as bread
or corn cast into the pool or the river is likely to
return again unto thee.” Barley, as an article
of human food, was less esteemed than wheat.
[Breap.] Compare also Calpurnius (Zel. iii.
84), Pliny (H. WV. xviii. 7), and Livy (xxvii. 13),
who tells us that the Roman cohorts who lost their
standards were punished by having barley bread
given them instead of wheaten. The Jews, accord-
ing to Tract. Sanhedr. c. 9, §5, had the following
law: ‘‘ Si quis loris caesus reciderit jussu judicum
arcae inditus hordeo cibatur, donec venter ejus rum-
patur.” That barley bread is even to this day little
esteemed in Palestine, we have the authority of
raodern travellers to shew. Dr. Thomson (Zhe Land |
and the Book, p. 449) says ‘nothing is more com-
mon than for these people to complain that their
oppressors have left them nothing but barley bread |
to eat.”’ This fact is important, as serving to elu-
cidate some passages in Scripture. Why, for instance,
was barley meal, and not the ordinary meal-oftering |
of wheat flour, to be the jealousy-offering (Num.
v.15)? Because thereby is denoted the low reputa-
tion in which the implicated parties were held. The
homer and a half of barley, as part of the purchase-
money of the adulteress (Hos. iii. 2), has doubtless
a similar typical meaning. With this circumstance
in remembrance, how forcible is the expression in
Ezekiel (xiii. 19), ‘‘ Will ye pollute me among my
@ The Hebrew word j]7Y is derived from YY,
: : vie
LE :
horrere; so called from the long rough awns which are
attached to the husk. Similarly, hordewm is from horrere.
b From Soy =\be (ghatal), “the night was dark,”
and ὮΝ, “flying” : νυκτυρίς, from νύξ, “ night”: vesper-
BAT
people for handfuls of barley ?’’ And how does the
knowledge of the fact aid to point out the connexion
between Gideon and the barley-cake, in the dream
which the “‘ man told to his fellow” (Judg. vii. 13),
Gideon’s “family was poor in Manasseh—and he was
the least in his father’s house ;’”’ and doubtless the
Midianites knew it. Again, the Israelites had been
oppressed by Midian for the space of seven years.
Very appropriate, therefore, is the dream and the
interpretation thereof. The despised and humble
Israelitish deliverer was as a mere vile barley-cake
in the eyes of his enemies. On this passage Dr.
Thomson remarks, “ If the Midianites were accus-
tomed in their extemporaneous songs to call Gideon
and his band “‘ cakes of barley bread,” as their suc-
cessors the haughty Bedawin often do to ridicule
their enemies, the application would be all the more
natural.” That barley was cultivated abundantly
in Palestine is clear from Deut, viii. 8, 2 Chr. ii.
10, 15.
The cultivated barleys are usually divided into
““two-rowed” and “ six-rowed”’ kinds. Of the first
the Hordeum distichum, the common summer barley
of England, is an example; while the H. hexa-
stichum, or winter barley of farmers, will serve to
represent the latter kind. The kind usually grown
in Palestine is the H. distichum. It is too well
known to need further description.’
BAT cAbny, *hatalleph: νυκτερίς : vespertilio).
There is no doubt whatever that the A. V. is cor-
|rect in its rendering of this word: the derivation
| of the Hebrew name,» the authority of the old ver-
sions, which are all agreed upon the point,* and the
context of the passages where the Hebrew word
occurs, are conclusive as to the meaning. It is
true that in the A. V. of Lev. xi. 19, and Deut.
xiv. 18, the *hatalleph closes the lists of “ fowls
xxiii
Bat,
(Taphozous perforatus.)
that shall not be eaten;’ but it must be remem-
bered that the ancients considered the bat to par-
take of the nature of a bird, and the Hebrew 6ph,
“ fowls,” which literally means ‘“‘a wing,” might
be applied to any winged creature: indeed this
seems clear from Lev. xi. 20, where, immediately
after the ’hatalleph is mentioned, the following
words, which were doubtless suggested by this
name, occur: ‘ All fowls that creep, going upon
tilio, from “vesper,” the evening. at, perhaps, from
blatta, blacta (see Wedgwood, Dict. Engl. Etymol.).
σ ¥;
¢ With the exception of the Syriac, which has μμοὰ
| (δ vaso), “a peacock.”
1
BAY-TREE
all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” Be-
sides the passages cited above, mention of the bat
occurs in Is. ii, 20: ‘* In that day a man shall cast
his idols of silver and his idols of gold... . to the
moles and to the bats:’ and in Baruch vi. 22, in
the passage that so graphically sets forth the vanity
of the Babylonish idols: “ Their faces are blacked
through the smoke that cometh out of the temple ;
upon their bodies and heads sit bats, swallows, and
birds, and the cats also.”
Bats delight to take up their abode in caverns
and dark places. Several species of these animals
are found in Egypt, some of which occur doubtless
in Palestine. Molossus Ruppelii, Vespertilio pipis-
treilus var. Aegyptius, V. auritus var. Aeqypt.,
Taphozous perforatus, Nycteris Thebaica, Rhino-
poma microphyllum, Rhinolophus tridens, occur in
the tombs and pyramids of Egypt.
XYXIV
(Rhinolophus Tridens.)
Bat.
Many travellers have noticed the immense num- |
bers of bats that are found in caverns in the East,
and Layard says that on the occasion of a visit to a
cavern these noisome beasts compelled him to retreat
(Nineveh and Babylon, p.307). To this day these
animals find a congenial lurking abode ‘‘ amidst
the remains of idols and the sculptured representa-
tions of idolatrous practices ” (Script. Nat. H. p.8):
thus forcibly attesting the: meaning of the prophet
Isaiah’s words. Bats belong to the order Cheirop-
tera, class Mammalia.
BAY-TREE (ΠΝ, ezrdch: κέδρος τοῦ At
βάνου : cedrus Libani).’ It is difficult to see upon
what grounds the translators of the A. V. have
understood the Hebrew word of Ps. xxxvii. 35 to
signify a ‘ bay-tree”’: such a rendering is entirely
unsupported by any kind of evidence. Most of the
Jewish doctors understand by the term ezrdch ‘a
tree which grows in its own soil”—one that has
never been transplanted ; which is the interpretation
given in the margin of the A. V. Some versions,
as the Vulg. and the Arabic, follow the LXX., which
reads “ cedar of Lebanon,” mistaking the Hebrew
word for one of somewhat similar form.» Celsius
(Hierob. i. 194) agrees with the author of the
sixth Greek edition, which gives αὐτόχθων (indi-
gena, “one born in the land”) as the meaning
the Hebrew word:
with this. view Rabbi Solomon
® From Py}. ovtus est (Sol).
= =
of
BDELLIUM
and Hammond (Comment. on Ps. xxviii.) coimeide,
Dr. Royle (Kitto’s Cycl. Bib. Lit. art. ““ Ezrach’’)
suggests the Arabic Ashruk, which he says is de-
scribed in Arabic works on Materia Medica as a tree
having leaves like the ghar or “ bay-tree.” This
opinion must be rejected as unsupported by any
authority.
Perhaps no tree whatever is intended by the
word ezrdch, which occurs in several passages of
the Hebrew Bible, and signifies “a native,” in con-
tradistinction to “a stranger,” or ‘a foreigner.”
Comp. Lev. xvi. 29: “ Ye shall afflict your souls
. whether it be one of your own country
(ATEN, EEE) or a stranger 16 sojourneth
among you. The epithet “ green,” as Celsius has
observ ed, is by no means the only meaning of the
Hebrew w ord ; for the same word occurs in Dan.
iv. 4, where itanascataezeer uses it of himself:
“JT was flourishing in my palace.” In all other
passages where the word ezrdch occurs it evidently
is spoken of q man (Cels. Hierob.i. 196). In sup-
port of this view we may observe that the word
translated “in great power” © more literally sig-
nifies “to be formidable,’ or ‘*to cause terror,”
and that the word which the A. V. translates
“ spreading himself, >d more properly means to
“make bare.’” The passage then might be thus
paraphrased: “I have seen the wicked a terror to
others, and behaving with barefaced audacity, just
as some proud native of the land.” In the Levitical
Law the oppression of the stranger was strongly
forbidden, perhaps therefore some reference to such
acts of oppression is made in these words of the
psalmist.
BDELLIUM (nO"3, bedélach: ἄνθραξ, κρύ-
σταλλον : bdellium), a precious substance, the name
of which occurs in Gen. ii. 12, with “ cold” and
““onyx stone,” as one of the productions of the land
of Havilah, and in Num. xi. 7, where manna is in
colour compared to bdellium. There are few sub-
jects that have been more copiously discussed than
this one, which relates to the nature of the article
denoted by the Hebrew word bedélach ; and it must
be confessed that notwithstanding the labour be-
stowed upon it, we are still as much in the dark as
ever, for it is quite impossible to say whether beddlach
denotes a mineral, or an anirnal production, or a
vegetable exudation. Some writers have supposed
that the word should be written berdlach (beryl), in-
stead of bedélach, as Wahl (in Deser. Asia, p. 856)
and Hartmann (de Mulier. Hebraic. iii. 96), but
beryl, or aqua marine, which is only a pale variety
of emerald, is out of the question, for the bdellium
was white (Ex. xvi. 31, with Num. xi. 7), while the
beryl is yellow or red, or faint blue; for the same
reason the ἄνθραξ (“" carbuncle τὴ of the LXX. (in
Gen. /. ὁ. ) must be rejected ; while κρύσταλλον
(“ erystal”) of the same version, which interpreta-
tion is adopted by Reland (de Situ Paradisi, §12),
is mere conjecture. The Greek, Venetian, and the
Arabic versions, with some of the Jewish doctors,
understand ‘ pearls’’ to be intended by the Hebrew
word ; and this interpretation Bochart ( Hieroz. iii.
592) and Gesenius accept; on the other hand the
Gy. versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus,
Josephus ( Ant. iii. 1, §6), 5 Salmasius (|| yl. Tatri. p.
181), Celsius Cre ob. i. 324), Sprengel (Hist. Rei.
> TN: © yyy.
Ξ myn: See the Hebrew Lexicons, 5. vv.
BEANS
Herb. i. 18, and Comment, in Dioscor. i. $0), and
a few modern writers believe, with the A. V., that
bedélach =bdellium, 7. e. an odoriferous exudation
from a tree which is, according to Kaempfer ( Amoen.
Exot. p. 668) the Borassus flabelliformis, Lin. of
Avabia, Felix; compare Pliny (H. N. xii. 9, 519),
where a full description of the tree and the gum is
given. The aromatic gum, according to Dioscorides
(i. 80) was called μάδελκον or βόλχον; and ac-
cording to Pliny brochon, malacham, maldacon,
names ‘which seem to be allied to the Hebrew bedolach.
Plautus (Cure. i. 2, 7) uses the word bdedlium.
As regards the theory which explains beddlach
by “ pear rls, ” it must be allowed that the evidence
in its favour is very inconclusive ; in the first place
it assumes that Havilah is some spot on the Persian
Gulf where pearls are found, a point however which
is fairly open to question ; and secondly, it must be
remembered that there are other Hebrew words
for ‘ pearls,” viz. Dar,* and according to Bochart,
Peninim, though there is much doubt as to the
meaning of this latter word.
The fact that eben, ‘‘a stone,” is prefixed to
shdham, “onyx,” and not to bedélach, seems to
exclude the latter from being a mineral ; nor do we
think it a sufficient objection to say ‘‘that such a
production as bdellium is not valuable enough to be
classed with gold and precious stones,” for it would
be easy to prove that resinous exudations were held
in very high esteem by the ancients, both Jews
and Gentiles; and it is more probable that the
sacred historian should mention, as far as may
be in a few words, the varied productions,
vegetable as well as mineral, of the country of
which he was speaking, rather than confine his re-
marks to its mineral treasures; and since there is
a similarity of form between the Greek βδέλλιον,
or μάδελκον, and the Hebrew bedélach; and as
this ‘opinion is well supported by authority, the
balance of probabilities appears to us to be in favour
of the translation of the A. V., though the point
will probably always be left an open one.¢
BEANS Opa pol: κύαμος: faba), There
appears never to have been any doubt about the
correctness of the translation of the Hebrew word.
Beans are mentioned with various other things in
2 Sam. xvii. 28, as having been brought to David
at the time of his flight from Absalom, and again
in Ezek. iv. 9, beans are mentioned with “ barley,
lentiles, millet, and fitches,’ which the prophet
was ordered to put into one vessel to be made into
bread. Pliny (H. WN. xviii. 12) also states that
beans were used for a similar purpose. Beans are
cultivated in Palestine, which country grows many
of the leguminous order of plants, such as lentils,
kidney-beans, vetches, &. Beans are in blossom
in Palestine in January ; they have been noticed in
flower at Lydda on the 23rd, and at Sidon and
Acre even earlier (Kitto, Phys. H. Palest. 215) ;
they continue in flower till March. In Egypt
beans are sown in November and reaped in the
middle of February, but in Syria the harvest is later.
a sy, Heb.; Arab. ,., Arab.
> O93°35-
e The derivation of moa is doubtful; but Fiirst’s
etymology from 72, manare, fluere, “ to distil,’ from
root by or pa) (Greek, BdadA-evv), is in favour of the
bdellium.
| jectures an Arabic root =“ to be hairy,”
| Lat. bulla; Dutch, bol, “a bean.”
BEAR XXV
Dr. Kitto (ibid. 319) says that the “ stalks are
cut down with the scythe, and these are after-
wards cut and crushed to fit them for the food of
cattle; the beans when sent to market are often de-
prived of their skins by the action of two small
mill-stones (if the phrase may be allowed) of clay
dried in thesun.” Dr. Shaw ( Travels, i. 257, 8vo.
ed. 1808) says that in Northern Africa beans are
usually full podded at the beginning of March, and
continue during the whole spring; that they are
«oiled and stewed with oil and garlic, and are the
principal food of persons of all distinctions.’’
Herodotus (ii. 37) states that the Egyptian priests
abhor the sight of beans, and consider them impure,
and that the people do not sow this pulse at all,
nor indeed eat what grows in their country; but
a passage in Diodorus implies that the abstinence
from this article of food was not general. The
remark of Herodotus, therefore, requires limitation.
The dislike which Pythagoras is said to have main-
tained for beans has been by some traced to the
influence of the Egyptian priests with that philo-
sopher (see Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biog.
art. “* Pythagoras ”’).
Hiller (Mierophyt. ii. 130), quoting from the
Mishna, says that the high-priest of the Jews was
not allowed to eat either eggs, cheese, flesh, bruised
beans (fabas fresas), or lentils on the day befoie
the sabbath.
The bean ( Vicva fuba) is too well known to need
description ; it is cultivated over a large portion of
the old world from the north of Europe to the
south of India; it belongs to the natural order of
plants called leguminosae.
BEAR (23,5 Heb. and Ch., or 355, déb:
ἄρκτος, ἄρκος, λύκος in Prov. xxviii. 15; μέριμνα
Proy. xvii. 12, as if the word were ANT: ursus,
ursa). This is without doubt the Syrian bear
( Ursus Syriacus), which to this day is met with occa-
sionally in Palestine. Ehrenberg says that this bear
is seen only on one part of the summit of Lebanon,
called Mackmel, the other peak, Gebel Sanin, being
strangely enough free from these animals. The
Syrian bear is more of a trugiverous habit than the
brown bear ( Ursus arctos), but when pressed with
hunger it is known to attack men and animals; it
is very fond of a kind of chick-pea (Cicer arie-
tinus), fields of which are often laid waste by its
devastations. The excrement of tie Syrian bear,
which is termed in Arabic, Bar-ed-dub, is sold in
Hevpt and Syria as a remedy in opthalmia ; and the
skin is of considerable value. Most recent writers
are silent respecting any species of bear in Syria,
such as Shaw, Volney, Hasselquist, Burckhardt,
and Schulz. Seetzen, however, notices a report of
the existence of a bear in the province of Has-
beiya on Mount Hermon. Klaeder supposed this
bear must be the Ursus arctos, for which opinion,
however, he seems to have had no authority, and a
recent writer, Dr. Thomson (Zhe Land and the
Book, p. 573), says that the Syrian bear is still
The Arabic word
i .,3» Sill is identical. Gesen. Thes. s. v.
e 54, from 39%, lente imcedere; but Bochart con-
; Forskal (Desc.
| An. p. iv.) mentions the Ws: dubb, amongst the Arabian
a Dip, from DDB, “to roll,’ in allusion to its form. | fauna. Is this the Ursus "arctos ?
i
XXVi BEAST
BEE
found on the higher mountains of this country, and | word has a more limited sense than the preceding,
that the inhabitants of Hermon stand in great fear
of him. Hemprich and Ehrenberg (Symbolae Phys.
Pt. i.) inform us that during the summer months
these bears keep to the snowy parts of Lebanon,
but descend in winter to the villages and gardens ;
it is probable also that at this period in former days
they extended their visits to other parts of Palestine,
for though this species was in anciént times far
more numerous than it is now, yet the snowy sum-
mits of Lebanon were probably always the summer
home of these animals. Now we read in Scripture
of bears being found in a wood between Jericho and
Bethel (2 K. ii. 24); it is not improbable there-
fore that the destruction of the forty-two children
who mocked Elisha took place some time in the
winter, when these animals inhabited the low lands
of Palestine.
(Ursus Syriacus.)
Syrian Bear.
The ferocity of the bear when deprived of its
young is alluded to in 2 Sam. xvii. 8; Prov. xvii.
12; Hos. xiii. 8; its attacking flocks in 1 Sam.
xvii. 34, &c.; its craftiness in ambush in Lam. iii.
10, and ‘that it was a dangerous enemy to man we
learn from Am. y. 19. The passage in Is. lix. 11
would be better translated, “‘ we groan like bears,”
in allusion to the animal’s plaintive groaning noise
(see Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 135; and Hor. Lp. xvi.
51, “cireumgemit ursus ovile’”’). The bear is
mentioned also in Rev. xiii. 2; in Dan. vii. 5;
Wisd. xi. 17 ; Ecclus. xlvii. 3.
BEAST.
the following Hebrew words:
(δ Δ )71, Chald).
1. Behémah (M22 *: τὰ τετράποδα, TA κτήνη
The representative in the A. V. of
Mons, ὝΨΞ, ΠΠ'
τὰ θηρία: jumentum, bestia, animantia, pecus :
<¢ beast,” “ cattle,” A. V )s which is the general
name for “domestic cattle” of any kind, is used |
also to denote “ any large quadruped,” as opposed
to fowls and creeping things (Gen. vii. 2, vi. 7, 20;
Bax beyeesd.12): 1K. iv. 33; Prov. xxx. 30,
&e.) ; or fr “beasts τ burden,” horses, mules, &c.,
as in 1 Κι. xviii. 5, Neh. ii. 15, 14, &c.; or the word
may denote “ wild beasts,” as in pets Xxxii. 24,
Hab. ii. 17, 1 Sam. xvi. ‘44, [ BevEemory, note,
sie
Beir (VY: τὰ φορεῖα, τὰ κτήνη: jumen- |
tum: * beast,” “ cattle’ ”) is used either collectively |
of “all kinds of cattle,” like the Latin pecus (Ex. |
xxii. 4: Num. xx. 4, 8, 11; Ps. Ixxviii. 48), or spe-
dally of “ beasts of ‘burden ” (Cane xly. pr This
a From the τ root Dna, “to be dumb.’’
i
and is derived from a root, Twa, “ to pasture.”
3. Chayyah (FT: θηρίον, ζῶον, θήρ, τετρά-
πους, κτῆνος, ἑρπετόν, θηριάλωτος, βρωτός:
fera, animantia, animal: “beast,” “ wild beast.”
This word, which is the feminine of the adjective
ὙΠ, “living,” is used to denote any animal. It is,
however, very frequently used specially of “ wild
beast,” when the meaning is often more fully
expressed by the addition of the word nwa
(hassadeh), (wild beast) ‘‘ of the field” (Ex. xxiii.
11; Lev. xxvi. 22; Deut. vii. 22; Hos. ii. 14, xiii.
8; "Jer. roth, 1G) &e.) Similar is the use of the
Chaldee xv (cheyoah). iE
BEE (mia deborah: μέλισσα, μελισσών :
apis). Mention of this insect occurs in Deut. i.
44, «The Amorites which dwelt in that moun-
tain came out against you, and chased you as
| bees do ;” in Judg. xiv. 8, ‘‘ There was a swarm of
bees and honey in the carcase of the lion ;” in Ps,
exviil. 12, < They compassed me about like bees ;’
and in Is. vii. 18, ‘“‘It shall come to pass in that
day that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is in the
uttermost parts of the rivers of Egypt, and for the
bee that is in the land of Assyria.” That Palestine
abounded in bees is evident from the description of
that land by Moses, for it was a land “ flowing with
milk and honey ;” nor is there any reason for sup-
posing that this expression is to be understood other-
wise than in its literal sense. Modern travellers
occasionally allude to the bees of Palestine. Dr.
Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 299) speaks
of immense swarms of bees which made their home
in a gigantic cliff of Wady Kurn. “The people of
Malia, several years ago,” he says, “let a man
down the face of the rock by ropes. He was entirely
protected from the assaults of the bees, and ex-
tracted a large amount of honey; but he was so
terrified by the prodigious swarms of bees that he
could not be induced to repeat the éxploit.” This
forcibly illustrates Deut. xxxii. 13, and Ps. Ixxxi. 16,
as to “ honey out of the stony rock,” and the two
passages out of the Psalms and Judges quoted above,
as to the fearful nature of the attacks of these insects
when irritated,
Maundrell (Trav. p. 66) says that in passing
through Samaria he perceived a strong smell of
honey and of wax; and that when he was a mile
from the Dead Sea he saw the bees busy among the
fiowers of some kind of saline plant. Mariti (Trav.
111. 139) assures us that bees are found in great
multitudes amongst the hills of Palestine, and that
they collect their honey in the hollows of trees and
in clefts of rocks; (comp. The Land and the Book,
p. 566). That bees are reared with great success
in Palestine, we have the gory of Hasselquist
(Trav. 236) and Dr. Thomson (7). 253) to shew.
English naturalists, however, appear to know but
\little of the species of bees that are found in Pa-
lestine. Dr. Kitto says (Phys. H. Pal. 421) there
are two species of bees found in that country,
b The word Dyy is translated by the A. V. “ wild
beasts of the desert” in Is. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14; Jer. 1. 39.
The root is mys, “to be dry ;” whence "¥, “a desert ;”
eh = any τ ξιρίον in a dry or desert region,” jackals,
| hyenas, &c. Bochart is wrong in limiting the word to
mean “ wild cats’”’ (Hieroz. ii. 206).
8. From 124, ordine duxit; coégit (examen). Ges.
Thes. 8. V.
BEE
Apis longicornis, and Apis mellifica. A. longi-
cornis, however, which = Lucera longicor., is a
European species ; and though Klug and Ehrenberg,
in the Symbolae Physicae, enumerate many Syrian
species, and amongst them some species of the
genus Eucera, yet EZ. longicor. is not found in their
list. Mr. F. Smith, our best authority on the
Hymenoptera, is inclined to believe that the honey-
bee of Palestine is distinct from the honey-bee
(A. mellifica) of this country. And when it is
remembered that the last-named writer has de-
scribed as many as seventeen species of true honey-
bees (the genus Apis), it is very probable that the
species of our own country and of Palestine are
distinct. There can be no doubt that the attacks
of bees in Eastern countries are more to be dreaded
than they are in more temperate climates. Swarms
in the East are far larger than they are with us, and,
on account of the heat of the climate, one can readily
imagine that their stings must give rise to very
dangerous symptoms. It would be easy to quote
from Aristotle, Aelian, and Pliny, in proof of what
has been stated ; but let the reader consult Mungo
Park’s Travels (ii. 37, 38) as to the incident which
occurred at a spot he named “ Bees’ Creek” from
the circumstance. Compare also Oedman ( Vermisch.
Sammi. pt. vi. c. 20). We can well, therefore,
understand the full force of the Psalmist’s com-
plaint, «‘ They came about me like bees.”’ >
The passage about the swarm of bees and honey
in the lion’s carcase (Judg. xiv. 8) admits of easy
explanation. The lion which Samson slew had been
dead some little time before the bees had taken up
their abode in the carcase, for it is expressly stated
that “ after a time,” Samson returned and saw the
bees and honey in the lion’s carcase, so that “if,”
as Oedman has well observed, ‘‘ any one here repre-
sents to himself a corrupt and putrid carcase, the
occurrence ceases to have any true similitude, for
it is well known that in these countries at certain
seasons of the year, the heat will in the course of
twenty-four hours so completely dry up the mois-
ture of dead camels, and that without their under-
going decomposition, that their bodies long remain,
like mummies, unaltered and entirely free from
offensive odour.” To the foregoing quotation we
may add that very probably the ants would help
to consume the carcase, and leave perhaps in a
short time little else than a skeleton. Herodotus
(vy. 114) speaks of a certain Onesilus who had been
taken prisoner by*the Amathusians and beheaded,
and whose head haying been suspended over the
gates, had become occupied by a swarm of bees;
compare also AJdrovandus (De Insect. i.110). Dr.
Thomson (L. and B, p. 566) mentions this occur-
rence of a swarm of bees in a lion’s carcase as an
extraordinary thing, and makes an unhappy con-
jecture, that perhaps ‘ hornets,” debabir in Arabic,
are intended, “if it were known,” says he, “that they
manufactured honey enough to meet the demands
of the story,”—it is known, however, that hornets
do not make honey, nor do any of the family Ves-
BEHEMOTH
pidae, with the exception, as far as has been hitherto
observed, of the Brazilian Nectarina mellifica.
The passage in Is. vii. 18, “the Lord shall hiss for
the bee that is in the land of Assyria,’ has been
understood by some to refer to the practice of
“calling out the bees from their hives by a hissing
or whistling sound to their labour in the fields, and
summoning them again to return” in the evening
(Harris, Nat. H. of Bible, art. ‘‘ Bee”). Bochart
(Hieroz. iii. 358) quotes from Cyril, who thus ex-
plains this passage and the one in Is. y. 26. Colu-
mella, Pliny, Aelian, Virgil, are all cited by Bochart
in illustration of this practice ; see numerous quota-
tions in the Hierozoicon. Mr. Denham (in Kitto’s
Encyc. Bib. Lit. art. “ Bee”) makes the following
remarks on this subject—* No one has offered any
proof of the existence of such a custom, and the
idea will itself seem sufficiently strange to all who
are acquainted with the habits of bees.” That the
custom existed amongst the ancients of calling
swarms to their hives, must be familiar to every
reader of Virgil,
XXVii
“‘ Tinnitusque cie, et Martis quate cymbala circum,”
and it is curious to observe that this practice has
continued down to the present day ; many a cottager
believes the bees will more readily swarm if he
beats together pieces of tin or iron. As to the real.
use in the custom, this is quite another matter ;
but no careful entomologist would hastily adopt
any opinion concerning it.
In all probability, however, the expression in
Isaiah has reference, as Mr. Denham says, ‘‘ to the
custom of the people in the Hast of calling the atten-
tion of any one by a significant hiss, or rather hist.”
The LXX. has the following eulogium on the
bee in Proy. vi. 8: “" Go to the bee, and learn how
diligent she is, and what a noble work she produces,
whose labours kings and private men use for their
health ; she is desired and honoured by all, and
though weak in strength, yet since she values wis-
dom, she prevails.” This passage is not found in
any Hebrew copy of the Scriptures; it exists how-
ever in the Arabic, and it is quoted by Origen,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and other ancient
writers. As to the proper name, see DEBORAH.
The bee belongs to the family Apidae, of the
Hymenopterous order of insects.
BEETLE. See Cuarcon (939M), s.v. Locusr.
BEH'EMOTH (nina :* θηρία: behemoth).
This word has long been considered one of the
dubia vexata of critics and commentators, some
of whom, as Vatablus, Drusius, Grotius (Crit Sac.
Annot. ad Job. x\.), Pfeiffer (Dubia verata S. 8.,
p- 594, Dresd. 1679), Castell (Lex. Hept. p. 292),
A. Schultens (Comment. in Job. xl.), Michaelis >
(Suppl. ad Lex. Heb. No. 208), have understood
thereby the elephant; while others, as Bochart
(Hieroz. iii. 705), Ludolf (Hist. Aethiop. i. 11),
Shaw (Zrav. ii. 299, 8vo. Lond.), Scheuzer
(Phys. Sac. on Job xl.), Rosenmiiller (Not. ad
Ὁ It is very curious to observe that in the passage of
Deut. i. 44, the Syriac version, the Targum of Onkelos,
and an Arabic MS., read, “ Chased you as bees that are
smoked ;” showing how ancient the custom is of taking
bees’ nests by means of smoke. Constant allusion is made
to this practice in classical authors. Wasps’ nests were
taken in the same way. See Bochart (Wieroz. iii. 360).
ἃ Bochart, Gesenius, Ftirst, Jablonski, and others, are
disposed to assign to this word an Egyptian origin,
Pehemou, or Pehemout, i.e. bos marinus. Others, and
Rosenmiiller amongst the number, believe the word is
the plural majestatis of ΤῚ2 113. Rosenmiiller’s objec-
tion to the Coptic origin of the word is worthy of obser-
vation,—that, if this was the case, the LXX. interpreters
would not have given θηρία as its representative.
b Michaelis translates nipna by jumenta, and thinks
the name of the Elephant has dropped out. “ Mihi videtur
nomen elephantis forte 95) excidisse.”
XXvViil BEHEMOTH
Bochart. Hieroz. iii. 705, and Schol. ad Vet. Test.
in Job xl.), Taylor (Appendix to Calmet’s Dict.
Bibl. No. lxv.), Harmer (Observations, ii. p. 319),
Gesenius (7168. 5. v. ΓΊ2Π3), Fiirst (Concord.
Heb. s. y.), and English commentators generally,
believe the Hippopotamus to be denoted by the
original word. Other critics, amongst whom is
Lee (Comment. on Job xl., and Lex. Heb. s. v.
ΓῚ 2713), consider the Hebrew term as a plural
noun for “ cattle” in general; it being left to the
reader to apply to the Scriptural allusions the par-
ticular animal, which may be, according to Lee,
“either the horse or wild ass or wild bull” (!) ¢
compare also Reiske, Conjecturae in Job. p. 167.
Dr. Mason Good (Book of Job literally translated,
p. 473, Lond. 1712) has hazarded a conjecture that
the behemoth denotes some extinct pachyderm like
the mammoth, with a view to combine the charac-
teristics of the Hippopotamus and Elephant, and so
to fulfil all the Seriptural demands: compare with
this Michaelis (Sup. ad Lex. Heb. No. 208), and
Hasaeus (in Dissertat. Syllog. No. vii. §37, and $38,
p- 506), who rejects with some scorn the notion of
the identity of behemoth and mammoth. Dr. Kitto
(Pict. Bib. Job xl.) and Col. Hamilton Smith (Kitto’s
Cycl. Bib. Lit. art. Behemoth), from being unable
to make a// the Scriptural details correspond with any
one particular animal, are of opinion that Behemoth
is a plural term, and is to be taken “as a poetical
personification of the great pachydermata generally,
wherein the idea of Hippopotamus is predominant.”
The term behemoth would thus be the counterpart
of leviathan, the animal mentioned next in the
book of Job; which word, although its signification
in that passage is restricted to the crocodile, does yet
stand in Scripture for a python, or a whale, or some
other huge monster of the deep. [LEVIATHAN. |
We were at one time inclined to coincide with this
view, but a careful study of the whole passage (Job
xl. 15-24) has led us to the full conviction that the
hippopotamus alone is the animal denoted, and that
all the details descriptive of the behemoth accord
entirely with the ascertained habits of that animal.
Hippopotamus amphibius.
Gesenius and Rosenmiiller have remarked that,
since in the first part of Jehovah’s discourse (Job
xxxviii., xxix.) land animals and birds are men-
tioned, it suits the general purpose of that discourse
better to suppose that aquatic or amphibious crea-
tures are spoken of in the last half of it; and that
since the leviathan, by almost universal consent,
BEHEMOTH
denotes the crocodile, the behemoth seems clearly
to point to the hippopotamus, his associate in the
Nile. Harmer (Observ. ii. 319) says “ there is a
great deal of beauty in the ranging the descriptions
of the behemoth and the leviathan, for in the
Mosaic pavement the people of an Egyptian barque
are represented as darting spears or some such
weapons at one of the river-horses, as another of
them is pictured with two sticking near his shoulders.
....It was then a customary thing with the old
Egyptians thus to attack these animals (see also
Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. iii. 71); if so, how beau-
tiful is the arrangement: there is a most happy
gradation ; after a grand but just representation of
the terribleness of the river-horse, the Almighty is
represented as going on with his expostulations
something after this manner:—‘ But dreadful as
this animal is, barbed irons and spears have some-
times prevailed against him; but what wilt thou
do with the crocodile? Canst thou fill his skin
with barbed irons?’” &c. &c. Inthe Lithostrotum
Praenestinum, to which Mr. Harmer refers, there
are two crocodiles, associates of three river-horses,
which are represented without spears sticking in
them, though they seem to be within shot.
It has been said that some ‘parts of the descrip-
tion in Job cannot apply to the hippopotamus: the
20th verse for instance, where it is said, “the
mountains bring him forth food.” This passage,
many writers say, suits the elephant well, but
cannot be applied to the hippopotamus, which is
never seen on mountains. Again, the 24th verse—
“his nose pierceth through snares’—seems to be
spoken of the trunk of the elephant, “ with its
extraordinary delicacy of scent and touch, rather
than to the obtuse perceptions of the river-horse,”’
In answer to the first objection it has been stated,
with great reason, that the word harim (0°77) is
not necessarily to be restricted to what we under-
stand commonly by the expression “ mountains.”
In the Praenestine pavement alluded to above, there
are to be seen here and there, as Mr. Harmer has
observed, ‘‘hillocks rising above the water.” In
Kz. xliii. 15 (margin), the altar of God, only ten
cubits high and fourteen square, is called ‘‘ the moun-
tain of God.” ‘The eminences of Egypt, which
| appear as the inundation of the Nile decreases, may
undoubtedly be called mountains in the poetical lan-
| guage of Job.”
But we think there is no occasion
for so restricted an explanation. The hippopotamus,
as is well known, frequently leaves the water and
the river’s bank as night approaches, and makes
inland excursions for the sake of the pasturage,
when he commits sad work among the growing
crops (Hasselquist, Zrav. p. 188).
No doubt he
might be often observed on the hill-sides near the
spots frequented by him. Again, it must be re-
membered that the ‘‘ mountains”? are mentioned
by way of contrast to the natural habits of aquatic
animals generally, which never go far from the
water and the banks of the river: but the behe-
moth, though passing much of his time in the
water and in “the covert of the reed and fens,”
eateth grass like cattle, and feedeth on the hill-
sides in company with the beasts of the field.4
There is much beauty in the passages which con-
© Most disappointing are the arguments of the late
Professor Lee as to “ Behemoth” and “ Leviathan,” both
critically and zoologically.
4 A recent traveller in Egypt, the Rev. J. L. Errington,
writes to us—‘ The valley of the Nile in Upper Egypt
and Nubia is in parts so very narrow, that the mountains
approach within a few hundred yards, and even less, to
the river’s bank; the hippopotamus therefore might well
be said to get its food from the mountains, on the sides of
which it would grow ”
BEHEMOTH
trast the habits of the hippopotamus, an amphibious
animal, with those of herbivorous land-quadrupeds :
but if the elephant is to be understood, the whole
description is comparatively speaking tame.
With respect to the second objection, there is
little doubt that the marginal reading is nearer the
Hebrew than that of the text. ‘Will any take
him in his sight, or bore his nose with a gin?”
Perhaps this refers to leading him about alive with
a ring in his nose, as, says Rosenmiiller, ** the Arabs
are accustomed to lead camels,” and we may add
the English to lead bulls, “ with a ring passed
through the nostrils.” The expression in verse 17,
“he bendeth his tail like a cedar,” has given occa-
sion to much discussion; some of the advocates for
the elephant maintaining that the word zanab (321)
may denote either extremity, and that here the
elephant’s trunk is intended. The parallelism, how-
ever, clearly requires the posterior appendage to be
signified by the term. The expression seems to
allude to the stiff unbending nature of the animal’s
tail, which in this respect is compared to the trunk
of a strong cedar which the wind scarcely moves.
The description of the animal’s lying under “ the
shady trees,” amongst the ‘ reeds” and willows, is
peculiarly applicable to the hippopotamus.® [Ὁ has
been argued that such a description is equally ap-
plicable to the elephant; but this is hardly the
case, for though the elephant is fond of frequent
ablutions, and is frequently seen near water, yet
the constant habit of the hippopotamus, as implied
© « At every turn there occurred deep, still pools, and
occasional sandy islands densely clad with lofty reeds.
Above and beyond these reeds stood trees of immense age,
beneath which grew a rank kind of grass on which the
sea-cow delights to pasture” (G. Cumming, p. 297).
f Biel Bochart says, “near thee,” ¢.e. not far from
thy own country. Gesenius and Rosenmiiller translate
the word “ pariter atque te.” Cary (note on J. 6.) under-
stands it “at the same time as I made thee.”
5 ὙΠ, “ srass,” not “hay,” as the Vulg. has it, and
some commentators: it is from the Arabic yas « to
be green.”’ The Hebrew word occurs in Num. xi. 5, ina
limited sense to denote “ leeks.”
» DY seems to refer here to the bones of the legs
more particularly ; the marrow bones.
z Dna perhaps here denotes the rib-bones, as is pro-
bable from the singular number Sena Swon3 which
appears to be distributive and thereby emphatic. See
Rosenmiill. Schol. in (Ko
j “ With these apparently combined teeth the hippo-
potamus can cut the grass as neatly as if it were mown
with the scythe, aud is able to sever, as if with shears, a
tolerably stout and thick stem” (Wood’s Nat. Hist. i. 762).
iT perhaps the Greek ἅρπη. See Bochart (iii. 722),
who cites Nicander ( Theriac. 566) as comparing the tooth
of this animal to a scythe. The next verse explains the
putpose and use of the “scythe” with which God has
provided his creature; viz. in order that he may eat the
grass of the hills.
= DON yA : ὑπὸ παντοδαπὰ δένδρα : sub umbra.
A. Schultens, following the Arabic writers Saadias and
Abulwalid, was the first European commentator to pro-
pose “the lotus-tree”’ as the signification of the Hebrew
Syy. which occurs only in this and the following verse of
Job. He identifies the Hebrew word with the Arabic
S -
Se, which according to some authorities is anvther
BEHEMOTH
in verses 21 seems to be especially made the
subject to which the attention is directed. The
whole passage (Job xl, 15-24) may be thus literally
translated :—
ΧχΧΙΧ
99
by AIM
“Behold now Behemoth, whom I made with
thee; he eateth grass & like cattle,
** Behold now, his strength is in his loins, and his
power in the muscles of his belly.
“ He bendeth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of
his thighs interweave one with another.
‘* His bones» are as tubes of copper; his (solid)
bones each one? as a bar of forged iroa.
“δ is (one of) the chief of the works of God:
his Maker hath furnished him with his scythe
(tooth),3
“For the hills bring him forth abundant food,
and all the beasts of the field have their pastime
there.
“Beneath the shady trees * he lieth down, in the
covert of the reed, and fens.1
“The shady trees cover him with their shadow ;
the willows of the stream surround him.
“Lo! the river swelleth proudly against him,
yet he is not alarmed: he is securely confident
though a Jordan™ burst forth against his mouth.
“Ὁ Will any one capture him when in his sight ?®
will any one bore his nostril in the snare ?”
This description agrees in every particular with
the hippopotamus, which we fully believe to be the
representative of the behemoth of Scripture.
So
name for the dw (sid), the lotus of the ancient
“ lotophagi,” Zizyphus lotus. It would appear, however,
from Abu’lfadli, cited by Celsius (/iverob. ii. 191), that
the Dhdl is a species distinct from the Sidr, which latter
plant was also known by the names Salam and Nabk.
Sprengel identifies the Dhal with the Jujube-tree (Zi-
zyphus vulgaris). But even if it were proved that the
bey and the διῶ were identical, the explanation of
the διῶ by Freytag, “ Arbor quae remota ἃ fluminibus
nonnisi pluvié rigatur, aliis, lotus Kam, Dj.” does not
warrant us in associating the tree with the reeds and
willows of the Nile. Gesenius, strange to say, Supposes
the reeds, out of which numerous birds are flying in
the subjoined woodcut from Sir G. Wilkinson’s work,
and which are apparently intended to represent the
papyrus reeds, to be the lote lilies. His words are:
«At any rate, on a certain Egyptian monument which
represents the chase of the hippopotamus, I observe this
animal concealing himself in a wood of water-lotuses—
in loti aquaticae sylvé” (Wilkinson, Customs and
Manners, iii. 71). We prefer the rendering of the A.V.
“ shady trees ;” and so read the Vulg., Kimchi, and Aben
Esra, the Syriac and the Arabic, with Bochart. Rosen-
miiller takes ody, “more Aramaeo pro pidby,
ut DN1D") pro Dot? supra vii. 5, et Ps. lviii. 8” (Schol.
ad Job xl. v, 21). :
1 See woodcut. Compare also Bellonius, quoted by
Bochart : “ Vivit arundinibus et cannis sacchari et foliis
papyri herbae.’
δ: alah from 1), “to descend.” The name of Jor-
dan is used poetically for any river, as the Greek poets
use Ida for any mountain and Achelous for any water
(Rosenmiil. Schol.), or perhaps in its original meaning,
as simply a “rapid river.” (See Stanley S.& P. § 37.)
This verse seems to refer to the inundation of the Nile.
2 This seems to be the meaning implied. Compare in
the case of Leviathan, ch. xli. 2,5; but see also Cary’s
| rendering, “ He receiveth it (the river) up to his eyes.”
BEHEMOTH
According to the Talmud, Behemoth is some huge
Jand-animal which daily consumes the grass off a)
thousand hills; he is to have at some future period
a battle with Leviathan. On account of his grazing |
on the mountains, he is called ‘‘ the bull of the high
mountains.” (See Lewysohn, Zool. des Tulmuds,
p- 355.) “The ‘fathers,’ for the most part,” says
Cary (Job, p. 402) ‘surrounded the subject with
Xxx
ee ὁ ὃ
BERYL
an awe equally dreadful, .and in the Behemoth
here, and in the Leviathan of the next chapter, saw
nothing but mystical representations of the devil :
others again have here pictured to themselves some
hieroglyphic monster that has no real existence ;
but these wild imaginations are surpassed by that
of Bolducius, who in the Behemoth actually beholds
Christ !”
patie ΠΗ
ΩΣ,
( py
Mic ¢ Pave Se ὅτι
et reed kcc
iN MAAN WRK \
AR
The skin of the hippopotamus is cut into whips
by the Dutch colonists of S, Africa, and the monu-
ments of Egypt testify that a similar use was made
of the skin by the ancient Egyptians (Anc. Egypt.
iii. 73).
to be not unlike pork.
The hippopotamus belongs to the order Pachy-
dermata, class Mammalia.
BERYL (WA, tarshish: χρυσόλιθος, @ap-
σείς, ἄνθραξ, λίθος ἄνθρακος : chrysolithus, hy-
acinthus, mare) occurs in Ex, xxviii. 20, xxxix. 13;
Cant. v. 14; Ez. i. 16, x. 9, xxviii. 13; Dan. x. 6.
The tarshish was the first precious stone in the fourth
row of the high-priest’s breastplate; in Ezekiel’s
vision “the appearance of the wheels and their
work was like unto the colour of a tarshish ;” it
was one of the precious stones of the king of Tyre;
the body of the man whom Daniel saw in his vision
was like the tarshish.
It is impossible to say with any degree of cer-
tainty what precious stone is denoted by the Hebrew
word; Luther reads the ‘turquoise ;” the LXX.
supposes either the ‘chrysolite” or fhe ‘ car-
buncle”? (ἄνθραξ) ; Onkelos and the Jerusalem
Targum have kerum jama, by which the Jews
appear to have understood “a white stone like the
Us
nf
Chase of the Hippopotamus.
The inhabitants of S. Africa hold the |
flesh of the hippopotamus in high esteem ; it is said |
ON LS)
τοὺ) ΝΖ { (\ me “2 τ
δ AWS) ΕἰνΝ
( Wilkinson.)
froth of the sea,’ which Braun (de Vest. Sacer.
ii. c. 17) conjectures may be the “ opal.’ For
other opinions, which are, however, mere conjec-
tures, see the chapter of Braun just quoted.
It is generally supposed that the tarshish derives
its name from the place so called, respecting the
position of which see TARSHISH. Josephus (Ant.
iii. 7, §5) and Braun (/. c.) understand the chryso-
'lite to be meant, not, however, the chrysolite of
|modern mineralogists, but the topaz; for it cer-
tainly does appear that by a curious interchange of
| terms the ancient chrysolite is the modern topaz,
and the ancient topaz the modern chrysolite (see
|Plin. A. Ν. xxxvii. 8; Hill on Theophrastus, De
| Lapid.; King’s Antique Gems, p. 57), though Beller-
mann (Die Urimm und Thummim, p. 62, Berlin,
1824) has advanced many objections to this opinion,
and has maintained that the topaz and the chrysolite
of the ancients are identical with the gems now so
called. Braun, at all events, uses the term chry-
solithus to denote the topaz, and he speaks of its
brilliant golden colour. There is little or nothing
in the passages where the tarshish is mentioned to
lead us to anything like a satisfactory conclusion
,as to its identity, excepting in Cant. y. 14, where
| we do seem to catch a glimmer of the stone de-
noted: ‘*His hands are orbs of gold adorned with
eae tarshish stone.” This seems to be the correct
BIRDS
rendering of the Hebrew. The orbs or rings of
gold, as Cocceius has observed, refer not to rings
on the fingers, but to the fingers themselves, as they
gently press upon the thumb and thus form the
figure of an orb ora ring, The latter part of the
verse is the causal expletive of the former. It is
not only said in this passage that the hands are
called orbs of gold, but the reason why they are
thus called is immediately added—specially on ac-
count of the beautiful chrysolites with which the
hands were adorned (Braun, de V. S. ii. 18).
Pliny says of the chrysolithos, ‘it is a transparent
stone with a refulgence like that of gold.” Since
then the golden stone, as the name imports, is
admirably suited to the above passage in Canticles,
and would also apply, though in a less degree, to
the other Scriptural places cited—as it is supported
by Josephus, and conjectured by the LXX. and
Vulg.—the ancient chrysolite or the modern yellow
topaz appears to have a better claim than any
other gem to represent the tarshish of the Hebrew
Bible, certainly a better claim than the beryl of the
A, V.,a rendering which appears to be unsupported
by any kind of evidence.
BIRDS. ([Fow1s. ]
BITTER HERBS (0°00, merérim: πι-
κρίδες : lactucae agrestes). The Hebrew word
occurs in Ex, xii. 8; Num. ix. 11; and Lam. iii.
“15: in the latter passage it is said, “" He hath filled
me with bitterness, he hath made me drunken
with wormwood.” The two other passages reter
to the observance of the Passover: the Israelites
were commanded to eat the Paschal lamb “ with
unleavened bread and with bitter herbs.”
There can be little doubt that the term merérim
is general and includes the various edible kinds of
bitter plants, whether cultivated or wild, which
the Israelites could with facility obtain in sufficient
abundance to supply their numbers either in Egypt,
where the first passover was eaten, or in the deserts
of the Peninsula of Sinai, or in Palestine. The
Mishna (Pesachim. c. 2, §6) enumerates five kinds
of bitter herbs—chazereth, ‘ulshin, thamcah, char-
chabina, and maror, which it was lawful to eat
either green or dried. There is great difficulty in
identifying the plants which these words respec-
tively denote, but the reader may see the subject
discussed by Bochart (Hieroz. i. 691, ed. Rosen-
miiller) and by Carpzovius (Apparat. Hist. Crit.
p- 402). According to the testimony of Forskal,
in Niebuhr’s Preface to the Description de l Arabie
(p. xliv.), the modern Jews of Arabia and Egypt
eat lettuce, or, if this is not at hand, bugloss®
with the Paschal lamb. The Greek word πικρὶς
is identified by Sprengel (Hist. Ret Herb. i. 100)
with the Helminthia Echioides, Lin., Bristly Hel-
minthia (Ox-tongue), a plant belonging to the
a τὶ lissan etth6r), which Forskal (Flor.
5.) lad ( ) (
Agypt. p. xii.) identifies with Borago oficinalis.
b Our custom of eating salad mixtures is in all pro-
bability derived from the Jews. “ Why do we pour over
our lettuces a mixture of oil, vinegar, andmustard? The
practice began in Judaea, where, in order to render
palatable the bitter herbs eaten with the paschal lamb, it
was usual, says Moses Kotsinses, to sprinkle over them a
thick sauce called Karoseth, which was composed of the
oil drawn from dates or from pressed raisin-kernels, of
vinegar and mustard.” See ‘ Extract from the Portfolio
of a Man of Letters,’ Monthly Magazine, 1810, p. 148.
BITTERN
chicory group. The Picris of botanists is a genus
closely allied to the Helminthia.
Aben Esra in Celsius (Mierob. ii. 227) remarks
that, according to the observations of a certain
learned Spaniard, the ancient Egyptians always
used to place different kinds of herbs upon the
table, with mustard, and that they dipped morsels
of bread into this salad. That the Jews derived
this custom of eating herbs with their meat from
the Egyptians is extremely probable, for it is easy
to see how, on the one hand, the bitter-herb salad
should remind the Jews of the bitterness of their
bondage (Ex. i. 14), and, on the other hand, how
it should also bring to their remembrance their
merciful deliverance from it. It is curious to ob-
serve in connexion with the remarks of Aben Esra,
the custom, for such it appears to have been, of
dipping a morsel of bread into the dish (τὸ
τρυβλίον) which prevailed in our Lord’s time.
May not τὸ τρύβλιον be the salad dish of bitter
herbs, and τὸ ψώμιον, the morsel of bread of which
Aben Esra speaks ? ὃ
The merdérim may well be understood to denote
various sorts of bitter plants, such particularly as
belong to the cruciferae, as some of the bitter
cresses, or to the chicory group of the compositae,
the hawkweeds, and sow-thistles, and wild lettuces
which grow abundantly in the Peninsula of Sinai,
in Palestine, and in Egypt (Decaisne, Florula
Sinaica in Annal. des Scienc, Nat. 1834; Strand,
Flor. Palaest. No. 445, &c.).
BITTERN (TBP, hippod: ἐχῖνος, πελεκάν,
Aq.; κύκνος Theod. in Zeph. ii. 14; ericius).
The Hebrew word has been the subject of various
interpretations, the old versions generally sanction-
ing the “hedgehog” or “ poreupine;” in which
rendering they have been followed by Bochart
(Mieroz. ii. 454); Shaw (Trav. i. 321, 8vo. ed.);
Lowth (On Isaiah, xiv. 23), and some others; the
“tortoise,” the ‘‘ beaver,” the “otter,” the “ owl,”
have aiso all been conjectured, but without the
slightest show of reason. Philological arguments
appear to be rather in favour of the ““ hedgehog” or
“porcupine,” for the Hebrew word kippéd appears to
be identical with kunfud, the Arabic word ὁ for the
hedgehog ; but zoologically, the hedgehog or porcu-
pine is quite out of the question, The word occurs
in Is. xiv. 25, where of Babylon the Lord says, “I
will inake it a possession for the kippéd and pools of
water ;’—in Is, xxxiv. 11, of the land of Idumea it is
said ‘*the kaath and the kippéd shall possess it ;”
and again in Zeph. ii. 14, “1 will make Nineveh a
desolation and dry like a wilderness ; flocks shall lie
down in the midst of her, both the kdath and the
kippod shall lodge in the chapiters thereof, their
voice shall sing in the windows.’@ The former pas-
sage would seem to point to some solitude-loving
XXxi
Gs09 G-us
© RAS et Mais, erinaceus, echinus, Kam. Dj.
See Freytag.
a Dr. Harris (art. Bittern) objects to the words “ their
voices shall sing in the windows” being applied to the
hedgehog or porcupine. The expression is of course in-
applicable to these animals, but it is not certain that it
refers to them at all. The word their is not in the ori-
ginal; the phrase is elliptical, and implies ‘“‘ the voice of
birds.” - “Sed quum canendi verbum adhibuent vates,
haud dubie ay post 9}p est subaudiendum ” (Rosenmiill.
Schol. ad Zeph. ii. 14). See on this subject the excellent
remarks of Harmer ((bserv. iii. p. 100).
BITTERN
aquatic bird, which might well be represented by
the bittern, as the A. V. has it; but the passage in
Zephaniah which speaks of Nineveh being made
“‘dry like a wilderness,’ does not at first sight
appear to be so strictly suited to this rendering.
Gesenius, Lee, Parkhurst, Winer, Fiirst, all give
“hedgehog ”’ or *‘ porcupine” as the representative
of the Hebrew word; but neither of these two
animals ever lodges on the chapiters® of columns,
nor is it their nature to frequent pools of water.
Not less unhappy is the reading of the Arabic ver-
sion el-houbara, a species of bustard—the Houbara
undulata, see Ibis, i. 284—which is a dweller in
dry regions and quite incapable of roosting. We
are inclined to believe that the A. V. is correct, and
that the bittern is the bird denoted by the original
word; as to the objection alluded to above that
ΧΧΧΙΪ
Botaurus stellaris.
this bird 1s a lover of marshes and pools, and would
not therefore be found in a locality which is ‘ dry
like a wilderness,” a little reflection will convince
the reader that the difficulty is more apparent than
real. Nineveh might be made “ dry like a wilder-
ness,” but the bittern would find an abode in the
Tigris which flows through the plain of Mesopo-
tamia; as to the bittern perching on the chapiters
of ruined columns, it is quite probable that this bird
may occasionally do so; indeed Col. H. Smith
(Kitto’s Cyclop. art. Kippéd) says, “ though not
building like the stork on the tops of houses, it
resorts like the heron to ruined structures, and we
have been informed that it has been seen on the
summit of Tank Kisra at Ctesiphon.” Again, as
was noticed above, there seems to be a connexion
between the Hebrew kippéd and the Arabie kun-
fud, ‘hedgehog.’ Some lexicographers refer the
Hebrew word to a Syriac root which means “ to
e Such is no doubt the meaning of FIIAHS; but
Parkhurst (Lex. Heb. s. v. JDP) translates the word
** door-porches,” which, he says, we are at liberty to sup-
pose were thrown down.
ἔφ. Ὁ. See Simon. Lex. Heb. 5. v. 75)-
* Apparently from the root WR, “to be straight,’’
᾿
then to be “fortunate,” “beautiful.” So in the book
Jelammedinu it is said, “ Quare vocatur theasshur? quia
BOX-TREE
bristle,” and though this derivation 1s exactly
suited to the porcupine, it is not on the other hand
opposed to the bittern, which fiom its habit of
erecting and bristling out the feathers of the neck,
may have received the name of the porcupine bird
from the ancient Orientals. The bittern ( Botawrus
stellaris) belongs to the Ardeidae, the heron family
of birds; it has a wide range, being found in Russia
and Siberia as far north as the river Lena, in Hu-
rope generaliy, in Barbary, S. Africa, Trebizond,
and in the countries between the Black and Caspian
Seas, &c.
BOAR. [Swine.]
BOX-TREE (WNN,* teasshiir: θαασοὺρ,
κέδρος : buxus, pinus) occurs in Is. lx. 13, together
with “the fir-tree and the pine-tree,” as furnishing
wood from Lebanon for the temple that was to be
built at Jerusalem. In Is. xli. 19 the teasshiir is
mentioned in connexion with the cedar, “ the fir-
tree and the pine,” &c., which should one day be
planted in the wilderness. There is great uncer-
tainty as to the tree denoted by the teasshtir. The
Talmudical and Jewish writers generally are of
opinion that the box-tree is intended, and with
them agree Montanus, Deodatius, the A. V. and
other modern versions; Rosenmiiller (ib. Bot.
300), Celsius (Aerob. ii. 153), and Parkhurst
(Heb. Lex. s.v. WSK) are also in favour of the
box-tree. The Syriac and the Arabic version of
Saadias understand the teasshiur to denote a species
of cedar called sherbin,> which is distinguished by
the small size of the cones and the upright growth
of the branches. This interpretation is also sanc-
tioned by Gesenius and First (feb. Concord.
p. 134). Hiller (Hierophyt. i. 401) believes the»
Hebrew word may denote either the box or the
maple. With regard to that theory which identifies
‘the teasshir with the sherbin, there is not, beyond
| the authority of the Syriac and Arabic versions,
any satisfactory evidence to support it. It is un-
certain moreover what tree is meant by the sher-
bin: it is supposed to be some kind of cedar: but
although the Arabic version of Dioscorides gives
sherbin as the rendering of the Greek κέδρος,
the two trees which Dioscorides speaks of seem
rather to be referred to the genus juniperus than
to that of pinus. However Celsius (Hierob. i. 80)
and Sprengel (Hist. Rei Herb. i. 267) identify the
sherbin with the Pinus cedrus (Linn.), the cedar
of Lebanon. According to Niebuhr also the cedar
was called sherbin. The same word, however, both
in the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Arabic, is occa-
sionally used to express the berosh.¢ Although the
claim which the box-tree has to represent the teas-
shtr of Isaiah and Ezekiel is far from being satis-
factorily established, yet the evidence rests on a
better foundation than that which supports the
claims of the sherbin. The passage in Ez. xxvii. 6,4
although it is one of acknowledged difficulty, has
been taken by Bochart, Rosenmiiller, and others, to
uphold the claim of the box-tree to represent the
est felicissima et praestantissima inter omnes species
cedrorum ” (Buxt. 1. ¢.).
b = ς WAN.
on ee
4 oyna ND onwacna yey ἩΦῚΡ.
Bochart reads DWN in one word. Rosenmiiller
regards the expression “daughter of boxwood” as meta-
phorical, comparing Ps, xvii. 8, Lam. ii. 18, ili, 13.
BRAMBLE
teasshir. For a full account of the various readings
of that passage see Rosenmiiller’s Schol, in Kz.
xxvii. 6. The most satisfactory translation appears
to us to be that of Bochart (Geog. Sac. i. iii. ο. 5,
180) and Rosenmiiller: “* Thy benches have they
made of ivory, inlaid with boxwood from the isles
of Chittim.”
Chittim may refer to any of the islands or maritime
districts of the Mediterranean. Bochart. believes
Corsica is intended in this passage: the Vulg. has
“¢ de insulis Italiae.” Corsica was celebrated for its
‘box-trees (Plin. xvi. 16; Theophrast. H. P. iii. 15
$5), and it is well known that the ancients under-
stood the art of veneering wood, especially box-wood,
with ivory, tortoise-shell, &c. (Virg. Aen. x. 137).
This passage therefore does certainly seem to favour
the opinion that teasshdtr denotes the wood of the
box-tree (Buasus sempervirens), or perhaps that of
the only other known species, Buawus balearica ; but
the point must be left undetermined.
BRAMBLE. [Tuorns. ]
BRIER. [TuHorxs. |
BRIMSTONE (ΠΥ 83." gophrith: θεῖον : sul-
phur). There can be no question that the Hebrew
word which occurs several times in the Bible is
correctly rendered “ brimstone ;’> this meaning is
fully corroborated by the old versions. ‘The word
is very frequently associated with “fire: “The
Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone
and fire out of heaven” (Gen. xix. 24); see also
Ps. xi. 6; Ezek. xxxvili. 22. In Job xviii. 15 and
Is. xxx. 33, ‘‘ brimstone” occurs alone, but no
doubt in a sense similar to that in the foregoing
passages, viz., as a synonymous expression with
lightning, as has been observed by Le Clere (Dis-
sert. de Sodomae subversione, Commentario Pen-
tateuch, adjecta, § iv.), Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and
others.¢ There is a peculiar sulphurous odour
which is occasionally perceived to accompany a
thunder-storm ; the ancients draw particular atten-
tion to it: see Pliny (WV. H. xxxv. 15), “ Fulmina
ac fulgura quoque sulphuris odorem habent;” Se-
neca (Q. nat. ii. 53), and Persius (Sat. ii. 24, 25),
Hence the expression in the Sacred writings “ fire
and brimstone” to denote a storm of thunder and
lightning. The stream of brimstone in Is. xxx. 33
is, no doubt, as Lee (Heb. Lex. p. 123) has well
expressed it, ‘‘a rushing stream of lightning.”
From Deut. xxix. 23, “‘ the whole land thereof is
brimstone... . . like the overthrow of Sodom,”
it would appear that native sulphur itself is alluded
to (see also Is. xxxiv. 9). Sulphur is found at the
present time in different parts of Palestine, but in the
greatest abundance on the borders of the Dead Sea.
“We picked a pieces,” says Dr. Robinson (Bib.
Res. ji. 221), “as large as a walnut near the
northern shore, and the ‘Arabs said it was found in
the sea near ’Ain El-Feshkhah in lumps as large as
Now it is probable that the isles of
BUSH
a man’s fist: they find it in sufficient quantities
to make from it their own gunpowder.” See Irby
and Mangles ( 77ravels, p. 453), Burckhardt (Zra-
vels, p. 394), who observes that the Arabs use
sulphur in diseases of their camels, and Shaw
(Travels, ii. 159). There are hot sulphurous
springs on the eastern coast at the ancient Cal-
lirrhoé (Irby and Mangles, Trav. p. 467, and
Robinson, Bib. Res. ii. 222).
The pieces of sulphur, varying in size from a
nutmeg to a small hen’s ege, which travellers pick
up on the shore of the Dead Sea, have, in all pro-
bability, been disintegrated from the adjacent
limestone or volcanic rocks and washed up on the
shores. Sulphur was much used by the Greeks
and Romans in their religious purifications (Juv.
Hie aides ΕΠῚῚ χχαῦ- , hence the Greek word
θεῖον, lit. ‘*the divine thing,” was employed to
express this substance. Sulphur is found nearly
pure in different parts of the world, and generally
in voleanic districts; it exists in combination with
metals and in various sulphates; it is very com-
bustible, and is used in the manufacture of gun-
powder, matches, &c. Pliny (/.c.) says one kind of
sulphur was employed ‘ad ellychnia conficienda.”
BUSH (173D,* séneh: Batos: rubus). The
Hebrew word occurs only in those passages which
refer to Jehovah’s appearance to Moses “in the
flame of fire in the bush” (Ex, iii. 2, 3,4; Deut.
xxxiii, 16). The Greek word is βάτος both in the
LXX. and in the N. T. (Luke xx. 37; Acts vii.
35 ; see also Luke vi. 44, where it is correctly ren-
dered “bramble bush” by the A. V.). Βάτος is
used also to denote the seneh by Josephus, Philo,
Clemens, Eusebius, and others (see Celsius, Hierob.
ii. 58). Some versions adopt a more general inter-
pretation, and understand any kind of bush, as the
A.V. The Arabic in Acts vii. 35 has rhamnus.
Others retain the Hebrew word.
Celsius (Hierob. ii. 58) has argued in favour of
the Rubus vulgaris, i.e. Rk. fruticosus, the bramble
or blackberry bush, representing the seneh, and traces
the etymology of (Mt.) “ Sinai” to this name.» It
is almost certain that sench is definitely used for some
particular bush, for the Hebrew stach © expresses
bushes generally ; the βάτος and rubus of the LXX.
and Vulg. are used by Greek and Roman writers
to denote for the most part the different kinds of
brambles (Rubus), such as the raspberry and the
blackberry bush ; Celsius’ opinion, therefore, is cor-
roborated by the evidence of the oldest versions.
Pococke (Deser. of the East, i. p. 215), however,
objects to the bramble as not growing at all in the
neighbourhood of Mount Sinai and proposes the
hawthorn bush, Oz yacantha Arabica (Shaw). ¢
Etymologically® one would be inclined to refer the
seneh of the Hebrew scriptures to some species of
senna plant (cassia), though we have no direct
evidence of any cassia growing in the localities
Xxxiil
Probably allied to 14, a general name for such trees
as abound with resinous inflammable exudations ; hence
NES “sulphur,” as being very combustible. See the
Lexicons of Parkhurst and Gesenius, s.v. Cf. the Arabic
S 19)
‘ i kibrit.
= -
b From A. S., brennan, “to burn,” and stone.
© See the different explanation of Hengstenberg (Ps.
xi. 6), who maintains, contrary to all reason, that Sodom
and Gomorrah were destroyed by “a literal raining of
brimstone.”
APPENDIX.
-
4 Probably from ΓΤ (unused root) = ato
TT =
sharpen.”
b Prof. Stanley (S. 4: P. p. 17) thinks Sinai is derived
fromm Seneh, “an acacia,” as being ἃ thorny tree.
ς my.
ἃ Jt is uncertain what Dr. Shaw speaks of; Dr. Hooker
thinks he must mean the Crataegus Aronia which grows
on Mount Sinai.
-
e Compare the Arabic |i avy “Senna, seu folia sennae,”
Kam. (Freytag, Arab, Lez. s. V.).
D
CALAMUS
about Mount Sinai, neither Decaisne nor Bové
mentioning a senna bush amongst the plants of
this mountain. Sprengel identifies the seneh with
what he terms the Rubus sanctus,f and says it grows
abundantly near Sinai. The monks of St. Catherine,
it is well known, have planted a bramble bush near
their chapel, to mark the spot and perpetuate the
name of the supposed bush in which God appeared
to Moses. It is quite impossible to say what kind
of thornbush is intended by seneh, but Sinai is
almost beyond the range of the genus Rubus.
XXXIV
C
CALAMUS. [REED.]
CAMEL. Under this head we shall consider
the Hebrew words gamdal, bécher or bichrah, and
chircharéth. As to the achashteranim® in Esth.
viii. 10, erroneously translated “‘camels” by the
A.V., see MULE (note).
1. Gamal (03 : κάμηλος : camelus) is the
common Hebrew term to express the genus “ camel,”
irrespective of any difference of species, age, or
breed: it occurs in numerous passages of the O. T.,
and is in all probability derived from a root ἢ which
signifies “to carry.” The first mention of camels
occurs in Gen. xii. 16, as among the presents which
Pharaoh bestowed upon Abram when he was in
Egypt. It is clear from this passage that camels
were early known to the Egyptians (see also Ex,
ix. 3), though no representation of this animal has
yet been discovered in the paintings or hiero-
glyphics (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. i. 234, Lond.
1854). The camel has been from the earliest times
the most important beast of burden amongst Ori-
ental nations. The Ethiopians had “ camels in
abundance” (2 Chr. xiv. 15); the queen of Sheba
came to Jerusalem “ with camels that bare spices
and gold and precious stones” (1 K. x. 2); the
men of Kedar and of Hazor possessed camels (Jer.
xlix. 29, 32); David took away the camels from
the Geshurites and the Amalekites (1 Sam. xxvii. 9,
xxx. 17); forty camels’ burden of good things were
sent to Elisha by Benhadad king of Syria from
Damascus (2 K. viii. 9); the Ishmaelites trafficked
with Egypt in the precious gums of Gilead, carried
on the backs of camels (Gen, xxxvii. 25); the
Midianites and the Amalekites possessed camels “as
the sand by the sea-side for multitude” (Jud. vii.
12); Job had three thousand camels before his
affliction (Job i. 3), and six thousand afterwards
(alii. 12).
The camel was used for riding (Gen. xxiv. 64;
1 Sam. xxx. 17); as a beast of burden generally
CAMEL
(Gen. xxxvii. 25; 2K. viii. 9; 1 K. x. 2, &.),
for draught purposes (Is. xxi. 7: see also Suetonius,
Neron. ¢.11).© From 1 Sam. xxx. 17 we learn that
camels were used in war: compare also Pliny
(N. Μ΄. viii. 18), Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 1, 27), and
Herodotus (i. 80, vii. 86), and Livy, (xxxvii. 40).
It is to the mixed nature of the forces of the
Persian army that Isaiah is probably alluding in
his description of the fall of Babylon (Is. xxi. 7).
John the Baptist wore a garment made of camel’s
hair (Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6), and some have sup-
posed that Elijah ‘‘ was clad in a dress of the same
stuff” (Calmet’s Dict. Frag. No. eccxx.; Rosen-
miiller, Schol. ad Is. xx. 2), the Hebrew expression
“Jord of hair’? (2 K.i. 8) having reference not to -
his beard or head, but to his garment (compare
Zech. xiii. 4; 1 K. xix. 13, 19) [SackcLorH],
but see EL1sAH. Chardin (in Harmer’s Observ.
ii. 487) says the people in the East make vestments
of camel’s hair, which they pull off the animal at
the time it is changing its coat. Aelian (Nat. H.
xvii. 34) speaks of the excellent smooth quality of
the hair of camels, which the wealthy near the
Caspian Sea used to wear; but the garment of
camel’s hair which the Baptist wore was in all pro-
bability merely the prepared skin of the animal.
Camel’s milk was much esteemed by Orientals
(Aristot. Hist. Anim. vi. 25, §1, ed. Schneid. ;
Pliny, N. H. xi. 41, xxviii. 9); it was in all pro-
bability used by the Hebrews, but no distinct re-
ference to it is made in the Bible.4 Camel’s flesh,
although much esteemed by the Arabs (Prosp.
Alpinus, H. NV. Aeg. i. 226), was forbidden as food
to the Israelites (Lev. xi. 4; Deut. xiv. 7), because,
though the camel “ cheweth the cud, it divideth
not the hoof.” Many attempts have been made to
explain the reason why camel-flesh was forbidden
to the Jews, as by Bochart (Mieroz. i. 11), Rosen-
miiller (Not. ad Hieroz. 1. c.), Michaelis (Laws of
Moses, iii. 234, Smith’s translat.), none of which,
however, are satisfactory. It is sufficient to know
that the law of Moses allowed no quadruped to be
used as food except such as chewed the cud and
divided the hoof into two equal parts: as the camel
does not fully divide the hoof, the anterior parts
only being cleft, it was excluded by the very terms
of the definition.
Dr. Kitto (Phys. H. of Palest. p. 391) says “ the
Arabs adorn the necks of their camels with a band
of cloth or leather, upon ‘vhich are strung small
shells called cowries in the form of half-moons,”
this very aptly illustrates Judg. viii. 21, 26, with
reference to the moon-shaped ornaments © that were
on the necks of the camels which Gideon took from
Zebah and Zalmunna.* (Comp. Stat. Zhebaid. ix.
687.) [ORNAMENTS. ]
Ezekiel (xxv. 5) declares that Rabbah shall be a
t « This,” says Dr. Hooker, “is a variety of our
bramble, Rubus fruticosus.”
* DINU.
τῆς te, Panes
b D123 = Arab. Av portare, according to Gesenius,
Fiirst, and others. Bochart derives the word from δ} ᾽
“to revenge,” the camel being a vindictive animal. The
word has survived to this day in the languages of Western
Europe. See Gesenius, Thes. s. ν.
© «Commisit etiam camelorum quadrigas.”
ἃ Amongst the live stock which Jacob presented to
Esau were “thirty milch camels with their colts.”
Mip2"1D D213 is literally “camels giving suck.”
This passage has been quoted to prove that the Israelites
used the milk of the camel, which, however it cannot
fairly be said to do. ‘The milk which Jael offered Sisera
(Judg. iv. 19), according to Josephus (Ant. v. 5, §4), was
sour. Some of the Rabbis, Michaelis and Rosenmiiller
(Not. ad Hieroz. i. 10), say it was for the purpose of
intoxicating Sisera, sour camel’s milk, as they affirm,
having this effect. ‘The Arabs use sour camel’s milk ex-
tensively as a drink.
Ε pan’. Compare also Is. iii. 18: “ Round tires
like the moon,” A.V. Ὑπὸ LXX. has μηνίσκοι, Vulg.
lunalae.
f «* Niveo lunata monilia dente” on horses’ necks,
CAMEL
ἐς stable for camels, and the Ammonites a couching
place for flocks.” Buckingham (Trav. p. 329)
speaks of ruins in this country as “ places of resort
to the Bedouins where they pasture their camels
and their sheep.” See “ Illustrations of Scripture,”
in vol. ii. pt. ix. of ‘Good Words.’
From the temperate habits of the camel with
regard to its requirements of food and water, and
from its wonderful adaptation, both structurally
Bactrian or Two-humped Camels on Assyrian monuments.
CAMEL
and physiologically, to traverse the arid regions
which for miles afford but a scanty herbage, we
can readily give credence to the immense numbers
which Scripture speaks of as the property either of
tribes or individuals. The three thousand camels
of Job may be illustrated to the very letter by a
passage in Aristotle (H. A. ix. 57, $5): “ Now
some men in upper Asia possess as many as three
thousand camels.”
XXXKV
(Layard.)
2. Bécer, bierah (133, m33: LXX. κάμηλος | opposition to old ones” ( Verm. Sam.). The “tra-
in Is. lx. 6; ὀψὲ in Jer. ii. 23, as from Arab.
ΞῪΝ mane : 8 δρομεὺς in verss. of Aq., Theod.
and Sym.: dromedarius, cursor). The Hebrew
words occur only in the two passages above named,
where the A. V. reads ‘‘ dromedary.”
Isaiah, foretelling the conversion of the Gentiles,
says, “The caravans of camels shall cover thee,
the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah.” The Mi-
dianites had camels ‘‘as the sand of the sea”’
(Judg. vii. 12), In Jeremiah God expostulates with
Israel for her wickedness, and compares her to a
swift bichradh “traversing her ways.” Bochart
(Mieroz. i. 15, sq.) contends that the Hebrew word
is indicative only of a difference in age, and adduces
the authority of the Arabic becra in support of his
opinion that a young camel is signified by the term.
Gesenius follows Bochart, and (Comment. ad Jes.
lx. 6) answers the objections of Rosenmiiller, who
(Not. ad Bochart, Hieroz. 1. c.) argues in favour
of the ‘‘dromedary.” Gesenius’s remarks are com-
mented on again by Rosenmiiller in his Bib]. Na-
turgesch. ii, 21, Etymologically the Hebrew word
is more in favour of the “dromedary.”* So too
are the old versions, as is also the epithet “ swift,’
applied to the bicrah in Jeremiah; while on the
other hand the term is used in the Arabic: to de-
note ‘a young camel.” Oedmann, commenting on
the Hebrew word, makes the following just ob-
servation :—‘‘ 4 The multitude of cameds shall cover
thee, the dromedaries of Midian,’ &¢.—a weak dis-
tinction if bicrim means only young camels in
versing her ways” is well explained by Rosen-
miiller, “‘ mox hue mox illue cursitans quasi furore
venereo correptus, suique non compos. quemadmo-
dum facere solent cameli tempore aestus libidinosi.”
We are of opinion that the bécer or bicrdh cannot
be better represented than by the “‘dromedary ” of
the A. V.
3. As to the circhéréth (MID) of Is. Ixvi. 20,
which the LXX. interpret σκιάδια, the Vulg. car-
rucae, and the A. V. “ swift beasts,” there is some
difference of opinion. The explanation is not satis-
factory which is given by Bochart (Hieroz. i. 25),
following some of the Rabbis, and adopted by Rosen-
miiller, Gesenius, Lee, and others, that ‘* drome-
daries”’ are meant. According to those who sanc-
tion this rendering, the word (which occurs only in
Isaiah, ἰ. ¢.) is derived from the root 175, “to leap,”
“to gallop ;” but the idea involved is surely inap-
plicable to the jolting trot of a camel. The old
versions moreover are opposed to such an explana-
tion. We prefer, with Michaelis (Suppl. ad Lex.
Heb. No. 1210) and Parkhurst (s. v.), to under-
stand by chircharéth “ panniers” or “ baskets ”
carried on the backs of camels or mules, and to
refer the word to its unreduplicated form in Gen.
xxxi. 34. The shaded vehicles of the LXX. may
be illustrated by a quotation from Maillet (Descript.
de L’ Egypte, p. 230*), who says, ‘ other ladies are
carried sitting in chairs made like covered cages
hanging on both sides of a camel ;” or by a remark
of Dr. Russell (Wat. H. of Aleppo, i. p. 256), who
g See Schleusner ( Thes. in LXX. 8. v. owe.)
k From 122 i. ᾳ. apa “to be first.”
Soe
λα “a young camel,” of the same age as “ἃ
. young man” amongst men. But the idea of swift-
ness is involved even in the Arabic use of this
word for = ,=properare, festinare (vy. Gesenius,
Thes.) τ
k ἼΞ, i.e. “the camel's saddle,” with a kind of ca-
nopy over it. See Jahn (Arch. Bibl. p. 54, Upham’s
translation): “Sometimes they travel in a covered vehicle
which is secured on the back of a camel, and answers the
purpose of a small house.” Parkhurst says YD 45 “15
in the reduplicate form, because these baskets were in
pairs, and slung one on each side of the beast.” In this
Sis
sense the word may be referred to the Arabic Ὕ »
“sella camelina, aliis, cum apparatu suo” (Freytag, 8. v.).
See figures in Pococke, Descript. Orient. i. tab. 58.
D 2
CAMEL
states that some of the women about Aleppo are
commonly stowed, when on a journey, on each side
a mule in a sort of covered cradles.
The species of camel which was in common use
amongst the Jews and the heathen nations of Pales-
tine is the Arabian or one-humped camel (Camelus
Arabicus). The dromedary is a swifter animal
XXXVi
Arabian Camel.
than the baggage-camel, aud is used chiefly for
riding purposes, it is merely a finer breed than the
other: the Arabs call it the Heirie. The speed of
the dromedary has been greatly exaggerated, the
Arabs asserting that it is swifter than the horse ;
eight or nine miles an hour is the utmost it is able
to perform, this pace, however, it is able to keep up
for hours together. The Bactrian camel (Camelus
Bactrianus), the only other known species, has two
Bactrian Camel.
humps; it is not capable of such endurance as its
Arabian cousin: this species is found in China, Russia,
and throughout Central Asia, and is employed by
the Persians in war to carry one or two guns which
are fixed to the saddle. Col. H. Smith says this species
appears figured in the processions of the ancient
Persian satrapies among the bas-reliefs of Chehel
Minar. Though the Bactrian camel was probably
not used by the Jews, it was doubtless known to
them in a late period of their history, from their
relations with Persia and Chaldaea. Russell (1.
Hist. of Alep. ii. 170, 2nd ed.) says the two-
humped camel is now seldom seen at Aleppo.
m An expression derived from the Arabs. See the
quotation from the Arabian naturalist Damir, quoted by
Bochart, Hieroz. i. 13. :
|
CAMPHIRE
The camel, as may be readily conceived, is the
subject amongst Orientals of many proverbial ex-
pressions; see many cited by Bochart (Mieroz. i.
30), and comp. Matt. xxiii. 24, and xix. 24, where
there can be no doubt of the correctness of the
A, V., notwithstanding the attempts which are
made from time to time to explain away the ex-
pression; the very magnitude of the hyperbole is
evidence in its favour: with the Talmuds “an
elephant passing through a needle’s eye” was a
common figure to denote anything impossible.
We may notice in conclusion the wonderful
adaptation of the camel td the purposes for which
it is designed. With feet admirably formed for
journeying over dry and loose sandy soil ; with an
internal reservoir for a supply of water when the
ordinary sources of nature fail; with a hump of fat
ready on emergencies to supply it with carbon
when even the prickly thorns and mimosas of the
burning desert cease to afford food; with nostrils
which can close valve-like when the sandy storm
fills the air, this valuable animal does indeed well
deserve the significant title of the ‘* ship of the
desert.” ™ The camel belongs to the family Came-
lidae, order Ruminantia. .
CAMPHIRE (753,* cépher: κύπρος : cyprus,
Cyprus). There can be no doubt that “ camphire’’
is an incorrect rendering of the Hebrew term, which
occurs in the sense of some aromatic substance only
in Cant. i. 14, iv. 13: the margin in both passages
has “‘ cypress,” giving the form but not the sigui-
fication of the Greek word. Camphire, or, as it is
now generally written, camphor, is a product of a
tree largely cultivated in the island of Formosa, the
Camphora officinarum, of the Nat. order Lauraceae.
There is another tree, the Dryobalanops aromatica
of Sumatra, which also yields camphor; but it is
improbable that the substance secreted by either of
these trees was known to the ancients.
From the expression “cluster of cépher in the
vineyards of Engedi,” in Cant. i. 14, the Chaldee
version reads “‘ bunches of grapes.” > Several ver-
sions retain the Hebrew word. The substance really
denoted by cépher is the κύπρος of Dioscorides,
Theophrastus, &c., and the cypros of Pliny, 7. e.
the Lawsonia alba of botanists, the henna of Ayra-
bian naturalists. So R. Ben Melek (Cant. i. 14):
“The cluster of cdpher is that which the Arabs call
al-henna”’ (see Celsius, Hierob. i. 223). Although
there is some discrepancy in the descriptions given
by the Greek and Latin writers of the cypros-plant,
yet their accounts are on the whole sufficiently
exact to enable us to refer it to the henna-plant.
The Arabic authors Avicenna and Serapion also
identify their henna with the cypros of, Dioscorides
and Galen (Royle in Kitto’s Bibl. Cycl. art. Kopher).
“ The k«dmpos,” says Sprengel (Comment. on
Dioscor. i. 124), “ is the Lawsonia alba, Lam.,
@ From 13; oblevit: “Quia mulieres in oriente ungues
SU)
oblinunt” (Simon. Lex. s. v.). Cf. Arabic py , pix, and
5 -
the Syriac Ji-202, The Greek κύπρος is the same
word as the Hebrew.
b The Heb. 753 also denotes “redemption,” “ expia-
tion 3’ whence some of the Hebrew doctors, by dividing
SSW, have found out the mystery of the Messiah,
5D bs WS, “the man that propitiates ail things”
(Patrick’s Commentary).
CAMPHIRE
which includes the Z. ‘nermis and spinosa, Linn. ;
it is the Copher of the Hebrews and the Henna of
the Arabs, a plant of great note throughout the
Nast to this day, both on account of its fragrance
and of the dye which its leaves yield for the hair.”
Lawsonia alba.
In a note Sprengel adds that the inhabitants of
Nubia call the henna-plant Avhofreh ; he refers to
‘Delisle ( Flor. Aegyp. p. 12). Hasselquist (Trav.
246, Lond. 1766), speaking of this plant, says ‘ the
leaves are pulverised and made into a paste with
water; the Egyptians bind this paste on the nails of
their hands and feet, and keep it on all night: this
gives them a deep yellow [red? ], which is greatly
admired by Eastern nations. The colour lasts for
three or four weeks before there is occasion to
renew it. The custom is so ancient in Kgypt that
1 have seen the nails of the mummies dyed in this
manner.” Sonnini ( Voyage, i. p. 297) says the
women are fond of decorating themselves with the
flowers of the henna-plant; that they take them
in their hand and perfume their bosoms with
them. Compare with this Cant. i. 13; see also
Mariti (Zrav. i. p. 29), Prosper Alpinus (De Plant.
Aegypt.c. 13), Pliny (NV. H. xii. 24), who says
that a good kind grows near Ascalon, Oedman
(Verm, Sam. i. c. 7, and vi. p. 102), who satis-
factorily answers Michaelis’s conjecture (Supp. ad
Lex. Heb. ii. 1205) that “ palm-flowers” or “ dates”
are intended; see also Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot.
p. 133), and Wilkinson (Anc. Egypt. ii. 345).
Some have supposed that the expression rendered
by the A. V. “ pare her nails” ¢ (Deut. xxi. 12) has
reference to the custom of staining them with
henna-dye ; but it is very improbable that there is
any such allusion, for the *eaptive woman was
ordered to shave her head, a mark of mourning:
such a meaning therefore as the one proposed is
quite out of place (see Rosenmiiller, Schol. ad
Deut. xxi. 12). Not only the nails of the hands
and the feet, but the hair and beard were also dyed
with henna, and even sometimes the manes and
tails of horses and asses were similarly treated. |
CARBUNCLE
The Lawsonia alba when young is without
thorns, and when older is spinous, whence Linnaeus’s
names, L. inermis and L. spinosa ; he regarding his
specimens as two distinct species. The henna-plant
grows in Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and N. India. The
flowers are white and grow in clusters and are very
fragrant. The whole shrub is from four to six feet
high. The fullest description is that given by
Sonnini. The Lawsonia alba, the only known
species, belongs to the natural order Lythraceae,
CANE. [REEp.]
CANKERWORM. [Locusr.]
CARBUNCLE. The representative in the
A.V. of the Hebrew words ’ekda@ch and bar’ kath
or bare’heth.
1, “Ehdéch (MIPS: λίθος κρύσταλλου ; λίθος
γλυφῆς, Sym. Theod.; A. τρηπτανισμοῦ, Aq.:
lapides sculpti) occurs only in Is, liv, 12 in the
description of the beauties of the new Jerusalem :
“1 will make thy windows of agates and thy gates
of carbuncles” (comp. Tob. xiii. 16, 17, and Rey.
xxi. 18-21)—“ general images,’ as Lowth (Notes
on Is. 1. c.) has remarked, ‘to express beauty, ,
magnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agree-
ably to the ideas of the Eastern nations.” The
translators of the A. V., having in mind the ety-
mology of the Hebrew word,? render it ‘‘ carbuncle ;”
but as many precious stones have the quality ot
“shining like fire,’ it is obvious that such an in-
terpretation is very doubtful. Symmachus, re-
ferring the word to a Chaldee signification of the
root, viz. ““ to bore,” understands “ sculptured
stones,” whence the Vulg. lapides sculpti (see
Rosenmiiller, Schol. ad Jes. liv. 13). Perhaps the
term may be a general one to denote any bright
sparkling gem, but as it occurs only once, without
any collateral evidence to aid us, it is impossible to
determine the real meaning of the word.
2. Barehath, béreketh (NPR, NPID:” σμα-
ραγδος, κεραύνιος Sym.: smaragdus), the third
stone in the first row of the sacerdotal breastplate
(Ex. xxviii. 17, xxxix. 10), also one of the mineral
treasures of the king of Tyre (Ez. xxviii. 13).
Braun (De Vestit. Sacerd. Heb. p. 652, Amst. 1680)
supposes with much probability that the smaragdus
or emerald is the precious stone signified. This
view is supported by the LXX. (which always gives
σμάραγδος as the representative of the bar’kath),
the Vulgate, and Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, 85). Pliny
(xxxvii. 5) speaks in terms of the warmest ad-
miration of the smaragdus, and enumerates no fewer
than twelve kinds, but it is probable some of them
are malachites or glass. It is certain that the
smaragdus which, according to Theophrastus (/7r.
ii. 24, ed. Schneider), was sent as a present from
the king of Babylon into Egypt, and which, as
Egyptian chronicles relate, was four cubits long by
three wide, must have been made of some other
material than emerald; but σμάραγδος is used by
Theophrastus to denote the emerald. “* This gem,”
he says, “‘is very rare and of a small size... It_
has some peculiar properties, for it renders water
of the same colour with itself. . .. It soothes the
eyes, and people wear seals of this stone in order
XXxvil
q MISS ΠΥ ΝῊ ; lit. “and she shall do her
amish x, a Mica e Tcis
nails.” Onkelos and Saadias understand the expres-
sion to denote “letting her nails grow,” as a sign of
grief. The Hebrew “do her nails,” however, must surely
express more than “letting them alone.”
---
ξ “.
“extundere instituit ignem ex igniario” (Freytag, Lex,
Arab. 5. V.).
b From P 3: “to send forth lightning,” “to flash.”
rats
*From M77), “to burn.” Cf. the Arabic
.
CASSIA
that they may look at them.Ӣ Mr. King ( Antique
Gems, p. 30) is of opinion that the smaragdi of
Pliny may be confined to the green ruby and the
true emerald. Braun believes that the Greek oud-
parySos, μάραγδος is etymologically allied to the
Hebrew term, and Kalisch (Ex. xxviii. 17) is in-
clined to this opinion: see also Gesenius, Heb. et
Ch. Lex. s. v. NpPrD. Some, however, believe
the Greek word is a corruption of the Sanscrit
smarakata, and that both the gem and its name
were imported from Bactria into Europe, while
others hold that the Sanscrit term came. from the
West. See Mr. King’s valuable remarks on the
Smaragdus, * Antique Gems,’ p. 20-37.
CAS'SIA. The representative in the A. V. of
the Hebrew words hiddah and ketzioth.
1, Kiddah (ΠῚ :8. ἰρίς : casia, stacte) occurs in
Ex. xxx. 24, as one of the ingredients in the com-
position of the ‘oil of holy ointment ;” and in Ez.
xxvii. 19, where “ bright iron, cassia, and calamus”
are mentioned as articles of merchandise brought by
Dan and Javan to the market of Tyre. There can
be no doubt that the A. V. is correct in the trans-
lation of the Hebrew word, though there is con-
siderable variety of reading in the old versions.
The LXX. and Josephus (Ant. iii. 8, §3) have
iris, i. €. some species of flag, perhaps the Zris
florentina, which has an aromatic root-stock. Sym-
machus and the Vulg. (in Ez. ἰ. 6.) read stacte,
“liquid myrrh.” The Arabic versions of Saadias
and Erpenius conjecture costus, which Dr. Royle
(Kitto’s Cyc. art. ‘ Ketzioth”) identifies with Auck-
landia Costus, to which he refers not the kiddah,
but the hetziéth of the Hebrew Scriptures (see
below). The Chaldee and Syriac, with most of the
European versions, understand cassia by kidddh :
they are followed by Gesenius, Simon, Fitst, Lee,
and all the lexicographers. The accounts of cassia
as given by ancient authors are confused ; and the
investigation of the subject is a difficult one. It
is clear that the Latin writers by the term casia
understood both the Oriental product now under
consideration, as well as some low sweet herbaceous
plant, perhaps the Daphne gnidium, Linn. (see Fee,
Flore de Virgile, p. 32, and Du Molin, Flor. Poet.
Ancienne, 277): but the Greek word, which is
first used by Herodotus (ii. 86), who says (iii. 110)
the Arabians procured it from a shallow lake in
their country, is limited to the Eastern product.
Dioscorides mentions several kinds of cassia, and
says they are produced in Spicy Arabia (i. xii.).
One kind is known by the name of mosyletis, or,
according to Galen (De Theriac. ad Pis. p. 108),
of mosyllos, from the ancient city and promontory
Mosyllon, on the coast of Africa and the sea of
Babel Mandeb, not far from the modern Cape
Guardatui (Sprengel, Annot. ad Dioscor. i. xii.).
XXXViil
e The smaragdus of Cyprus, however, of which Theo-
phrastus speaks, is the copper emerald, Chrysocolla; which
he seems himself to have suspected.
cvs, “to cleave,
2? 66
a From TIP 5 Arab. 4, or to
tear lengthwise; so called from the splitting of the
bark. ᾿ ᾿
b The country of the Mosylli was in the Cinnamo-
‘ mophora regio, and not far from Aromata Emporium,
and the author of the Periplus particularises cassia |
amongst the exports of the same coast (Tennent, Ceylon
i 600 note), As to borer, see Bochart, Geog. Sac. p. i. ii.
21, and Rosenmiiller Schol. ad Ez. 1. c., who, however,
identify it with Sanaa, in Arabia.
CATS
Will not this throw some light on Ez. xxvii. 19,
| where it will be observed that, instead of the render-
| ing “ going to and fro” in the text of the A. V., the
/margin has Meuzal? *‘* Dan and Javan and Meuzal
| traded in thy markets with cassia, calamus,” &c.
| The cassia would be brought from India to Meuzal,
and from thence exported to Tyre and other countries
under the name of Meuzalitis, or Meuzal cassia.»
Dioscorides speaks of another kind of cassia called
Kitto, which has been supposed by some to be sub-
stantially the same as the Hebrew word Aiddah,
to which it certainly bears a strong resemblance.
ΠῚ the words are identical they must denote cassia
of different qualities, for the kitto of Dioscorides
| was very inferior, while we cannot doubt that the
cassia used in the composition of the holy ointment
would be of the best kind.
Cassia is not produced by any trees which are
now found growing in Arabia. It is probable there-
fore that the Greek authors were mistaken on this
subject, and that they occasionally have regarded
products imported into Arabia, and thence exported
northwards to other countries, as the natural pro-
ductions of that country. The cassia-bark of com-
merce is yielded by various kinds of Cinnamomum,
which grow in different parts of India, and is not
the product of only one species of tree. Cinna-
momum malabathricum of S. India supplies much
of the cassia-bark of commerce. Dr. Hooker says
that cassia is an inferior cinnamon in one sense,
though, as it never comes from the same species as
the true cinnamon, the statement is ambiguous.
2, Ketzidth (MY YP: κασία : casia), only in
Ps. xlv. 8, “‘ All thy garments smell of myrrh,
aloes, and cassia.’” This word is generally supposed
to be another term for cassia: the old versions are
in favour of this interpretation, as well as the ety-
mology of the Hebrew word. The Arabic reads
Salicha,4 which, from its description by Abul Fadli
and Avicenna (Celsius, Hierob. ii. 364-5), evidently
denotes some cassia-yielding tree. Dr. Royle sug-
gests (see above) that Aetzzdth is identical in mean-
ing and in form with the Arabic kooth, koost, or
hooshta,® whence is probably derived the costus of
the Greeks and Romans. Dioscorides (i. 15) enu-
merates three kinds of costus, an Arabian, Indian,
and Syrian sort: the first two are by Sprengel
referred to Costus arabicus, Linn. (Zingiberaceae).
The koost of India, called by Europeans Jndian
orris, is the root of what Royle has named Auck-
landia costus. There is no reason, however, why
we should abandon the explanation of the old ver-
sions, and depart from the satisfactory etymological
evidence afforded by the Hebrew term to the doubtful
question of identity between it and the Arabic hoost.
CATS (οἱ ἄιλουροι: cattae*) occurs only in
, “to lop off,”
¢ From the root YN; Arab.
a Τ'
“ to scrape,” “ to peel.™
S - “~--
4 x¥e\ from the root = , detraxit, quasi
cortex detractus.
“Ὁ 5
© bend» costus, i.e. radicis aromaticae Indicae et
Arabicae species, Kam. Dj. See Freytag. ἣ
a The word Catta occurs once only in classical Latin,
viz. in Martial, Zpig. xiii. 69; but that some bird is
intended is beyond a doubt. The ancient Greeks and
| Romans do not appear to have kept domestic cats. We
have sought in vain for the slightest allusion to Felis
| domesticus in classical authors,
|
CATERPILLER
Baruch vi. in the passage which sets forth the
vanity of the Babylonish idols : ‘* Upon their bodies
and heads sit bats, swallows, and birds, and the cats
also.”” The Greek αἴλουρος, as used by Aristotle,
has more particular reference to the wild cat (Lelis
catus, &c.). Herodotus, in the well-known passage
(ii. 66) which treats of the cats of Egypt, uses
αἴλουρος to denote the domestic animal; similarly
Cicero (Tusc. v. 27, 78) employs felis; but both
Greek and Latin words are used to denote other
animals, apparently some-kinds of marten (artes).
The context of the passage in Baruch appears to
point to the domesticated animal. Perhaps the
people of Babylon originally procured the cat from
Egypt.
The domestic cat of the ancient Egyptians is
supposed by some to be identical with the Felis
maniculata, Riippell, of Nubia, and with our own
domestic animal, but there is considerable doubt
on this matter. The Egyptians, it is well known,
929
ads,
Velis maniculata,
paid an absurd reverence to the cat; it accompanied
them in their fowling expeditions; it was deemed
a capital offence to kill one; when a cat died it was
embalmed and buried at Bubastis, the city sacred
to the moon of which divinity the cat was reckoned
a symbol (Herod. ii. 66; Wilkinson, Anc. Eyypt.
i, 246, Lond. 1854; Jablonski, Pant. Aegypt. ii.
66, &c.; Diod. Sic. i. 83). It is generally believed
that the cat was employed by the ancient Egyptians
as a retriever to bring them the game they killed
in their fowling expeditions ; we cannot credit any-
thing of the kind: that the cat, as a great favourite,
was allowed to accompany the fowler is beyond dis-
pute, but it was doubtless for the sake of a share in
the booty, and not for the benefit of the fowler.
Without laying much stress on the want of sufficient
sagacity for retrieving purposes, we cannot believe
that the cat could ever have been trained to go into
the water, to which it has a very strong aversion.»
See the woodcuts in Wilkinson, where the fowler is
in a boat accompanied by his cat. As to O%¥, which
Bochart takes to mean wild cats, see BEAST. - The
cat belongs to the family Felidae, order Carnivora.
CATERPILLER. The representative in the
A. Y. of the Hebrew words chasi/ and yelek.
1. Chasil (YOM: ἀκρίς, βροῦχος, ἐρυσίβη :
rubigo, bruchus, aerugo). The Hebrew word occurs
in 1 K. viii. 37; 2 Chr. vi. 28; Ps. Ixxviii. 46;
Ὁ Even to a proverb :—
*Catus amat pisces, sed non vult tingere plantam.”
“Letting, | dare not wait upon I would,
Like the poor cat i’ the adage.”’—Suaxsp. Macbeth, i. 7.
See Trench’s ‘Lessons in Proverbs,’ p. 149.
CEDAR
Is. xxxiii. 4; Joel i. 4; it is evident from the in-
consistency of the two most important old versions
in their renderings of this word, that nothing is to be
learnt from them. Bochart has endeavoured to show
that there are nine or ten Hebrew names to denote
different species of locusts; it has been shown
[Locust] that this cannot really be the case.
that the destructive kinds of locust which at
times visit the Bible lands must be limited to
two or three species, the most destructive being
the Acridium peregrinum and the Ocdipoda migra-
toria ; consequently some of these names must stand
either for different conditions in the life of the
locust, or they may be synonyms, or else they may
denote other insect devourers. The term now under
notice seems to be applied to a locust, perhaps in
its larva state. The indefinite rendering of the
A. V. may well, we think, be retained to express
the Chdsil, or the consumer. [See Locusr.]
2. Yelek.
CATTLE. [Butt.]
CEDAR [addition to the article on, i. 285).
There can, we think, be little doubt that the
Heb. word erez (}18), invariably rendered ‘ cedar”
by the A. V., does stand for that tree in most of
the passages where the word occurs. The erez, or
‘firmly rooted and strong tree,” from an Arabic
root which has this signification,* is particularly the
name of the cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus Libani) ;
but that the word is used in a wider sense to denote
other trees of the Coniferae, is clear from some
Scriptural passages where it occurs. For instance,
the ‘‘cedar wood” mentioned in Ley. xiv. 6 can
hardly be the wood of the Lebanon cedars, seeing
that the Cedrus Libani could never have grown in
the peninsula of Sinai, where the Israelites were at
the time the law for the cleansing of the leper was
given; nor in Egypt, whence they had departed.
“Cedars,” says Dr. Hooker, ‘are found on the
mountains of Algeria, on the whole range of Taurus,
and in the Kedisha valley of Lebanon: they have
also been observed by Ehrenberg in forests of oak
between Bsherre and Bshinnate.” There is another
passage (Ez, xxvii. 5) where the Tyrians are said to
have made use of ‘cedars of Lebanon” for masts
of ships, in which perhaps erez denotes some fir ;
in all probability, as Dr. Hooker conjectures, the
Pinus Halepensis, which grows in Lebanon, and is
better fitted for turnishing ship-masts than the wood
of the Cedrus Libani. With regard to the ob-
jection that has been made to the wood of the Cedrus
Libani—(see Dr. Lindley’s remark in the Gardener’s
Chron. i. p. 699, “the worthless though magnifi-
cent cedar of Mount Lebanon ”)—that its inferior
quality could never have allowed it to form the
‘cedar pillars,’ &c. of Solomon’s temple, it may be
observed that this inferiority applies only to Eng-
lish’ grown trees, and not to Lebanon specimens.
At the same time it must be admitted that, though
the wood is of close grain, it has no particular
quality to recommend it for building purposes; it
was probably, therefore, not very extensively used
in the construction of the Temple.
The Cedrus Libani, Pinus Halepensis, and Juni-
perus excelsa, were probably all included under the
term erez; though there can be no doubt that by
ΧΧΧΙ͂Σ
ΡΞ
4 From the unused root TIS, i. q. Arab. 3 yy) con-
traxit, collegit firmavitque se. Gesen. Thes, s. v.
CEDAR
this name is more especially denoted the cedar of
Lebanon, as being κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the firmest and
grandest of the conifers.
The Pinus sylvestris is by old writers often men-
tioned as one of the pines of Lebanon ; but Dr. Hooker
says he has little doubt that the P. Halepensis must
be the tree meant, for the P. sylvestris (“ Scotch
fir” is not found in Lebanon or Syria.
The claim of the Deodar to represent a Bible
Conifer may be dismissed at once: deodars are not
found nearer to the Lebanon than within a distance
of several hundred miles. As to the ‘ cedar wood”
used in purifications, it is probable that one of the
smaller Junipers is intended (J. sabina?), for it is
doubtful whether the Juniperus excelsa exists at all
in Arabia. [JUNIPER, App. A. ]
Dr. Hooker has favoured us with the following
valuable communication relative to the true cedars
of Lebanon :—‘* As far as is at present known, the
cedar of Lebanon is confined in Syria to one valley
of the Lebanon range, viz., that of the Kedisha river,
which flows from near the highest point of the range
westward to the Mediterranean, and enters the sea
at the port of Tripoli. The grove is at the very
upper part of the valley, about 15 miles from the sea,
6000 ft. above that level, and their position is more-
over above that of all other arboreous vegetation.
The valley here is very broad, open, and shallow, and
the grove forms a mere speck on its flat floor. The
mountains rise above them on the N.E. and 5.
in steep stony slopes, without precipices, gorges,
ravines, or any other picturesque features whatever.
Nothing can be more dreary than the whole sur-
rounding landscape. To the W. the scenery abruptly
changes, the valley suddenly contracts to a gorge,
and becomes a rocky ravine of the most picturesque
description, with villages, groves, and convents
perched on its flanks, base, and summits, recalling
Switzerland vividly and accurately. At the time
of my visit (October, 1860) the flanks of the valley
about the cedars were perfectly arid, and of a pale
yellow red; and the view of this great red area, per-
haps two or three miles across, with the minute patch
of cedar grove, seen from above and at a distance of
ten miles or so, was most singular. I can give you
no idea of what a speck the grove is in the yawning
hollow. Ihave said the floor of the valley is flat
and broad ; but, on nearer inspection, the cedars are
found to be confined to a small portion of a range
of low stony hills of rounded outlines, and perhaps
60 to 100 ft. above the plain, which sweep across
the valley. These hills are, I believe, old moraines,
deposited by glaciers that once debouched on to the
plain from the surrounding tops of Lebanon. I have
many reasons for believing this, as also for supposing
that their formation dates from the glacial epoch.
The restriction of the cedars to these moraines is
absolute, and not without analogy in regard to other
coniferous trees in Swiss and Himalayan valleys.”
Dr. Hooker draws attention to the unfortunate
disregard shewn with respect to the seedlings
annually produced from the old cedar-trees in Le-
banon. It is a remarkable but lamentable fact
that no trees are seen much less than 50 years old!
The browsing goats and the drought destroy all the
young seedlings ; and it is a sad pity that no means
xl
a See Dr. Hooker’s paper “On the Cedars of Lebanon,
Taurus, &c.” in The Nat. Hist. Review, No. v. p. 11.
Ὁ “Our caleedony being often opalescent—?. e., having
something of Pliny’s “Carbunculorum ignes” in it—got
confounded with the Carchedonius or Punic carbuncle of a
pale colour, and this again with his green Chalcedonius
CHAMOIS
are adopted to encourage their growth, which might
easily be done by fencing and watering.®
CHALCEDONY (χαλκηδών : calcedonius),
only in Rey. xxi. 19, where it is mentioned as being
the stone which garnished the third foundation of
the heavenly Jerusalem. ‘The name is applied in
modern mineralogy to one of the varieties of agate ; ”
specimens of this sub-species of quartz when of a
pearly or wax-like lustre, and of great transluceney—
are known by the name of chalcedony, sometimes
popularly called “ white carnelian.”> There is also
a stalactitic form found occasionally in cavities.
There can, however, be little doubt that the stone
to which Theophrastus (De Lapid. § 25) refers, as
being found in the island opposite Chalcedon and
used as a solder, must have been the green trans-
parent carbonate of copper, or our copper emerald.
It is by no means easy to determine the mineral in-
dicated by Pliny (V. H. xxxvii. 5); the white agate
is mentioned by him (NV. 17. xxxvii. 10) as one of
the numerous varieties of Achates (Agate), under
the names Cerachates and Leucachates. The Chal-
cedonius was so called from Chalcedon, and was ob-
tained from the copper-mines there, it was a small
stone and of no great value; it is described by Pliny
as resembling the green and blue tints which are
seen on a peacock’s tail, or on a pigeon’s neck. Mr.
King (Antique Gems, p. 8) says it was a kind of
inferior emerald, as Pliny understood it.
CHALK STONES. [Lime.]
CHAMELEON (N35, céach: χαμαιλέων :
chamaeleon). The Hebrew word which signifies
‘“‘strenoth ” occurs in the sense of some kind of
unclean animal in Lev. xi. 30; the A. V. follows
the LXX. and Vulg. Various other interpretations
of the word have been given, for which see Bochart
(Mieroz. ii, 495). It is not possible to come to
any satisfactory conclusion on the subject of the
identity of this word; Bochart accepts the Arabic
reading of elwarlo, i.e. the lizard, known by the
name of the “ Monitor of the Nile” (Monitor Nilo-
ticus, Grey), a large strong reptile common in
Egypt and other parts of Africa. Arabian writers
have recorded many wonderful things of this crea-
ture, and speak especially of its power in fighting
with snakes,and with the dab, a closely allied species
[Tortoise]. No doubt much they relate is fabulous,
and it seems that there is some confusion between
the dabb ¢ ( Uromastix spinipes) and the crocodile,
whose eggs the ‘‘ Nilotic Monitor” devours. For-
skal (Deser. Anim. p. 13) speaks of this last named
lizard under the Arabic name of Waran. See also
Hasselquist ( Zrav. p. 221). The Hebrew root of
Keach has reference to strength, and as the Arabic
verb, of almost similar form, means ‘‘ to conquer
any one in fighting,” Bochart has been led to iden-
tify the lizard named above with the Heb. Adach.
It is needless to add how far from conclusive is the
evidence which supports this interpretation.
CHAMOIS ΟἼΥ, zemer: καμηλοπάρδαλι: :
camelopardalus). In the list of animals allowed
for food (Deut. xiv. 5) mention is made of the
zemer; the LXX., Vuig., and some other versions,
give “camelopard” or “ giraffe” as the render-
Καρχηδόνιος and KaAdynddvios are continuaily inter-
changed in MS. Marbodus already understood it of our
Calcedony, as shewn by his “ Pallensque Chalcedonius
ignis habet effigiem.”—C. W. Kine. ,
ce See some interesting observations on the Dabb, by
Mr. Tristram, in Zool. Proc. for 1859.
CHESTNUT-TREE
ing of this term; it is improbable that this animal
is intended, for although it might have been known
to the ancient Jews from specimens brought into
Egypt as tributes to the Pharaohs from Ethiopia,
where the giraffe is found, it is in the highest
degree improbable that it should ever have been
named as an article of food in the Levitical law,
the animals mentioned therein being doubtless all
of them such as were well-known and readily pro-
cured. The “chamois” of the A, V. can hardly
be allowed to represent the zemer; for, although,
as Col. H. Smith asserts, this antelope is still found
in Central Asia, there is no evidence that it has ever
been seen in Palestine or the Lebanon. The etymo-
logy points to some “springing” or leaping”
animal, a definition which would suit any of the
Antelopeae or Capreae, ἕο. Col. H. Smith (in
Kitto’s Cyc. art. Zemer) suggests that. some moun-
tain sheep is intended, and figures the Kebsch (Am-
motragus Tragelaphus), a wild sheep not uncom-
mon, he says, in the Mokattam rocks near Cairo, and
found also in Sinai; it is not improbable that this
=.
“azk, ° eS
PES TaN
Aoudad Sheep.
. δι ὡς
.. ἐς =S
Ss
is the animal denoted, for the names of the other
ruminants mentioned in the catalogue of beasts
allowed for food, are, for the most part, identifiable
with other wild animals of the Bible lands, and
there can be no doubt that the Aebsch or Aoudad
was known to the Israelites ; again, Col. Smith’s sug-
gestion has partly the sanction of the Syriac version,
which reads as the equivalent of the Heb. word,
‘a mountain goat,” the Aoudad, although really a
sheep, being in general form more like a goat. This
animal occurs not unfrequently figured on the mo-
numents of Egypt, it is a native of N. Africa, and
an inhabitant of high and inaccessible places.
CHESTNUT-TREE (ji, ’armén: πλά-
τανος, ἐλάτη : platanus). Mention is made of the
2armon in Gen, xxx. 37, as one of the trees from
which Jacob took rods in which “he pilled white
strakes,”’ to set them before Laban’s flocks when
they came to drink (see on this subject SHEEP) ;
in Ezek. xxxi. 8, the ’armén is spoken of as one of
CINNAMON
the glories of Assyria. The balance of authority
is certainly in favour of the “ plane-tiee”’ being the
tree denoted by ’armén, for so read the LXX. (in
Gen. /. c.), the Vulg., the Chaldee, with the Syriac
and Arabic versions (Celsius, Hierob. i. 513). The
A. V. which follows the Rabbins is certainly to be
rejected, for the context of the passages where the
word occurs, indicates some tree which thrives best
in low and moist situations, whereas the chestnut-
tree is rather a tree which prefers dry and hilly
ground. Dr. Kitto (Cyc. art. Armon), in illustra-
tion of Ezek. (/. c.), says that ‘‘the planes of As-
syria are of extraordinary size and beauty, in both
respects exceeding even those of Palestine; it con-
sists with our own experience, that one may travel
far in Western Asia without meeting such trees,
and so many together, as occur in the Chenar
(plane) groves of Assyria and Media.” The plane-
trees of Persia are now, and have been long held
in the greatest veneration; with the Greeks also
these trees were great favourites; Herodotus
(vii. 51) tells a story ef how Xerxes on his way
to Sardis met with a plane-tree of exceeding
beauty, to which he made an ‘offering of golden
ornaments. A fine specimen of the plane-tvee was
growing afew years ago (1844) at Vostitza, on the
Gulf of Lepanto; it measured 46 ft. in circum-
ference, according to the Rey. S. Clark of Battersea,
who has given an interesting account of it in John’s
Forest Trees of Britain (ii. 206). The plane-trees
of Palestine in ancient days were probably more
numerous than they are now; though modern tra-
vellers occasionally refer to them. Belon (Obs. ii.
105) speaks of very high plane-trees near Antioch ;
De la Roque ( Voyag. de Syrie et du M. Liban, p.
197) mentions entire forests of planes which line
the margin of the Orentes ; and in another place (p.
76) he speaks of haying passed the night under planes
of great beauty in a valley near Lebanon.
In Ecclus. xxiv. 14, Wisdom is compared to “a
plane-tree by the water.”
CHRYSOLITE (χρυσόλιθος : chrysolithus),
one of the precious stones in the foundation of the
heavenly Jerusalem (Rey. xxi. 20). It has been
already stated [BeryL, Appen. A.] that the chry-
solite of the ancients is identical with the modem
Oriental topaz, the tarshish of the Hebrew Bible #—
there is much reason for believing that the topaz is
the stone indicated by the χρυσόλιθος of St. John’s
vision. [See BERYL. ]
CHRYSOPRASE (xpuadrpacos: chrysoprase)
occurs only in Rey. xxi. 20 as one of the precious
stones mentioned in St. John’s vision. The chryso-
prase of the ancients» is by some supposed to be
identical with the stone now so called, viz., the
apple or leek-green variety of agate, which owes its
colour to oxide of nickel; this stone at present is
found only in Silesia; but Mr. Sing (Antique Gems,
p. 59, note), says that the true chrysoprase is some-
times found in antique Egyptian jewellery set alter-
nately with bits of lapis-lazuli ; it is not improbable
therefore that this is the stone which was the tenth
in the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem.
CINNAMON [addition to the article on,
p- 330]. The reader is referred to Sir E. Tennent’s
xii
@ Epiphanius, in his ‘ Twelve Stones of the Rationae,’
has got ‘‘Chrysolite, by some called chrysophyllus, of a
‘golden colour, and found close to the walls of Babylon.”
Pliny makes several varieties of this name; his first is
doubtless the Oriental topaz.—_[C. W. Kine. ]
Ὁ That of Solinus (lv.) exactly agrees with our Indian
chrysolite: “ Chrysoprasos quoque ex auro et porraceo
mixtam lucem trahentes «que beryllorum generi adju-
dicaverunt.”
COAL
Ceylon (1. 599) for much interesting information
on the subject of the early history of the cinnamon
plant; this writer believes that ‘‘ the earliest know-
ledge of this substance possessed by the Western
nations was derived from China, and that it first
reached India and Phoenicia overland by way of
Persia; at a later period when the Arabs, ‘the
merchants of Sheba,’ competed for the trade of
Tyre, and carried to her ‘the chief of all spices’
(Ez, xxvii. 22), their supplies were drawn from
their African possessions, and the cassia of the
Troglodytic coast supplanted the cinnamon of the
far East, and to a great extent excluded it from
the market.”
With regard to the origin of the word, it is pro-
bable that it is derived from the Persian “ Cinn-
amon,” i.e, “ Chinese amomum” (see Tennent in
ἰ. ¢.). Dr. Royle, however, conjectures that it is
allied to the Cingalese Cacynnama, ‘‘sweet wood,”
or the Malagan Kaimanis. The brothers C. G. and
Th. F. L. Nees Von Esenbeck, have published a va-
luable essay, “* De Cinnamomo disputatio’’ (Amoe-
nitates botan. Bonnenses, Fasc. i. Bonnae, 1823,
4to.), to which the reader is referred for additional
information.
COAL [addition to the article on, pp. 238, 339).
There can, we think, be no doubt that the fuel
denoted by the Heb. words gacheleth cndn3) and
pecham (QM®) is charcoal, and not mineral ¢oal.
xii
There is no evidence to show that the ancient He-
brews were acquainted with the substance we now
denominate “coal ;’”” indeed it seems pretty clear
that the ancients generally used charcoal for their
fuel; and although there is a passage in Theo-
phrastus (Fr. ii. 61, ed. Schneider) from which we
learn that fossil coal was found in Liguria and
Klis, and used by “* the smiths,” yet its use must
have been very limited. The houses of the an-
cient Greeks and Romans were without chimneys
in our sense of the word (see this subject admirably
discussed by Beckmann, Hist. Invent. i. 295). As
the houses had merely an opening in the centre of
the roof, the burning of ““ coal” would have made
even their kitchens intolerable. Little as has been
done for the zoology and botany of Palestine, still
less has been done for its geology. ‘* Indications of
coal are exhibited,’ says Kitto (Phys. Hist. Pal.
p; 67), “in various parts of the Lebanon moun-
tains ; here and there a narrow seam of this mineral
protrudes through the superincumbent strata to the
surface; and we learn from Mr. Elliot (ii. 257)
that the enterprise of Mohammed Ali has not
suffered even this source of national wealth to
escape his notice.”” At Cornale, 8 miles trom Beirut,
and 2500 feet above the level ‘of the sea, where the
coal-seams are 3 feet in thickness, good coal is ob-
tained, whence it was transported on mules to the
coast. The following works contain all that is at
present known respecting the geology of Syria:—
Lynch’s United States Exploring Expedition to
the Dead Sea and the River Jordan; Rusegger’s
Geognostische Karte des Libanon und Antilibanon ;
Kitto’s Physical History of Palestine; Dr bow-
ring’s Report on the Commercial Statistics of
Syria.
COCK (ἀλέκτωρ : gallus). There appears to be
no mention of domestic poultry in the O. T., the
passages where the LXX. and Vulg. (as in Proy.
xxx. 31; Is. xxii. 17) read ἀλέκτωρ and gallus
having no reference to that bird. In the N. T. the
COCKLE
“cock ” is mentioned in reference to St. Peter’s
denial of our Lord, and indirectly in the word
ἀλεκτοροφωνία (Matt. xxvi. 34; Mark xiv. 30,
xiii. 35, &e.). The origin of the numerous varieties
of our domestic poultry is undoubtedly Asiatic, but
there is considerable doubt as to the precise breed
whence they were sprung, as well as to the locality
-where they were found. Temmink is of opinion
that we are chiefly indebted to the Malay Gallus
Giganteus and the Indian G@. Bankiva for our
domestic birds. We know that the domestic cock
and hen were early known to the ancient Greeks
and Romanus. Pisthetaerus (Aristoph. Aves, 483)
calls the cock the Persian bird {Περσικὸς ὄρνι5).
It is not at all improbable that the Greeks obtained
domestic birds from Persia. As no mention is made
in the O. T. of these birds, and as no figures of
them occur on the Egyptian monuments (Wilkin-
son, Ane. Egypt, i. 234, ed. 1854), we are inclined
to think that they came into Judaea with the Ro-
mans, who, as is weil known, prized these birds
both as articles of food and for cock-fighting. .The
Mischna (Baba Kama, vii. 7) says ‘‘they do not
rear cocks at Jerusalem on account of the holy
things ;” and this assertion has by some been quoted
as.an objection to the evangelical history. On this
subject a writer in Harris (Dict. of Nat. Hist. of
Bib. p. 72, ed. 1833), very properly remarks, ‘ If
there was any restraint in the use or domestication
of this bird it must have been an arbitrary practice
of the Jews, but could not have been binding on
foreigners, of whom many resided at Jerusalem as
officers or traders.”” Thomson (The Land and the
Book, p. 672) says the fowls are now common in
Jerusalem, “ that they swarm round every door,
share in the food of their possessors, are at home
among the children in every room, roost over head
at night, and with their cackle and crowing are the
town clock and the morning bell to call up sleepers
at early dawn.” As to the cock-crowing see
TIME.
COCKATRICKE. A not very happy rendering
by the A. V. of the Hebrew words tzip/’ dni CIVDS)
and tzepha’ (YBN). See Prov. xxiii. 32, margin ;
Is. xi. 8, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17. The cockatrice is a
fabulous animal concerning which absurd stories
are told. [ ADDER. ]
COCKLE (ΝΞ, boshah: βάτος : spina)
occurs only in Job xxxi. 40: “ Let. thistles grow
instead of wheat, and cockle instead of barley.”” The
plural form of a Heb. noun, viz. DWN (béushim),
is found in Is. v. 2, 4, A. V. “ wild grapes.” 10 is
uncertain whether these two words denote ‘* noxious
weeds”’ generally, or some particular plant. Celsius
has argued in favour of the aconite, the Aconitum
Napellus, which however is quite a mountain—never
a field—plant. He traces the Hebrew name to a
Persian word (Bésch) of somewhat similar form.
The beushim of Isaiah (7. c.), which the LXX. render
“thorns” (ἄκανθαι), the Vulg. labruscae, are by
some thought to be the fruit of the Vitis labrusca
of Linnaeus, a N. American plant! Hasselquist
thought he had discovered the bushim in the berries
of the hoary nightshade, which the Arabs call anib-ed-
dib, i. e. “ wolf’s grape.” He says (Trav. p. 290),
“the prophet could not have found a plant more op-
posite to the vine than this, for it grows much in
the vineyards, and is very pernicious to them.”
Some, as Parkhurst (Lex. Heb. s. v.), believe some
CONEY
“stinking weed’ is intended by boshah, in Job
t. c., from the root WN, ‘to smell as carrion.”
Ifthe word denotes a plant in so limited a sense
we would suggest the hound’s tongue (Cynoglos-
sum), which has literally a carrion smell. But we
are inclined to believe that the boshah and bushim
denote any bad weeds or fruit: the bushim of the
prophet’s vineyard may thus be understood to re-
present ‘‘sour or bad grapes;’ with which view
accord the σαπριαὶ of Aquila and the ἀτελῆ of
Symmachus (see also Hiller, Hierophyt. i. 293),
and the boshah of Job (/. 6.) may denote bad or
smutted barley, The bunt or stinking rust ( Uredo
foetida) which sometimes attacks the ears of wheat
and barley is characterised by its disgusting odour,
which property would suit the etymology of the
Hebrew name; or the word may probably denote
some of the useless grasses which have somewhat
the appearance of barley, such as Hordeum mu-
rinum, ὅζο.
CONEY [addition to the article on, p. 349].
The Hyrax Syriacus is now universally allowed
to be the Shaphan ot the Bible, and the point may
fairly be considered: satisfactorily settled. The
“coney ” or rabbit of the A. V., although it suits
the Scriptural allusions in every particular, except
in the matter of its ruminating, is to be rejected, as
the rabbit is nowhere found in the Bible lands;
there are several species or varieties of hare, Lut
the rabbit is not known to exist there ina wild
state. The Jerboa (Dipus Aegyptius) which Bo-
chart (Hieroz. ii. 409), Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Lev.
xi. 5), and others have sought to identify with the
Shaphan, must also be rejected, for it is the nature
of the Jerboas to inhabit sandy places and not stony
rocks. It is curious to find Bochart quoting Ara-
bian writers, in order to prove that the Wabr de-
notes the Jerboa, whereas the description of this
animal as given by Damir, Giauhari, and others,
exactly suits the Hyrax.
“The Wabr,” says Giauhari, “is an animal less
than a cat, of a brown colour, without a tail,” upon
which Damir correctly remarks, ‘ when he says it |
has no tail, he means that it has a very short one.”
Now this description entirely puts the Jerboa out
of the question, for all the species of Jerboa are
remarkable for their long tails.
With resard to the localities of the Hyrax, it
does not appear that it is now very common in Pa-
lestine, though it is occasionally seen in the hilly |
parts of that country. Schubert says “ of the Wober
(Hyrax Syriacus), we could discover no trace in
either Palestine or Syria;” upon this Dr. Wilson
(Lands of the Bible, ii. p. 28) remarks, “* We were
we believe the first European travellers who actually
noticed this animal within the proper bounds of the
Holy Land,” this was amongst the rocks at Mar
Saba. Bruce, however, noticed these animals plen-
tifully in Lebanon, and among the rocks at the
Pharan Promontorium or Cape Mahommed, near
the Gulf of Suez; and Shaw (Trav. ii. 160, 8vo.
ed.) also saw the Hyrax on Lebanon, and says “ it
is common in other places of this country.”’ Dr.
Hooker in his recent journey to the Lebanon and
“Palestine saw no Hyrax anywhere, and says he was
told it is confined to the sterile hills of the Jordan
CORAL xiii
and Dead Sea valleys only; Thomson (The Land
and the Book, p. 298) speaks only of one individual
among the ruins of the Castle of Kurein.
Hemprich (Symbolae Phys. p. i.) enumerates
three species of Hyrax, and gives the localities as
follows: H. Syriacus, Mount Sinai; H. habessinicus,
mountains on the coast of Abyssinia ;—this is the
Ashkoko of Bruce—and H. ruficeps, Dongala. The
Amharic name of Ashkoko is, according to Bruce,
derived from “the long herinaceous hairs which
like small thorns grow about his back, and which
in Amhara are called Ashok.” A tame Hyrax was
kept by Bruce, who from the action of the animal’s
jaws was led into the error of supposing that ‘* it
chewed the cud;” it is worthy of remark that the
poet Cowper made the same mistake with respect
to his tame hares. The flesh of the Hyrax is said
to resemble the rabbit in flavour; the Arabs of
Mount Sinai esteem it a delicacy ; the Christians of
Abyssinia do not eat its flesh, nor do the Maho-
metans; see Oedman (Vermisch. Samm. pt. v. ch.
ii.). Hemprich states that the urine of the Cape
Hyrax (H. capensis), as well as that of the Asiatic
species, is regarded as medicinal. See also Spar-
man (Trav. p. 324) and Thunberg (7 αν. i. 190).
This is confirmatory of the remarks of an Arabic
writer cited by Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 413). .
The Hyrax is zoologically a very interesting
animal, for although in some respects it resembles
the Rodentia, in which order this genus was ori-
ginally placed, its true affinities are with the Rhi-
noceros ; its molar teeth differ only in size from
those of that great Pachyderm, accordingly Dr.
Gray places the Hyrax in his sub-family A/inocerina,
family, Hlephantidae; it is about the size of a
rabbit, which in some of its habits it much resem-
bles; the animals are generally seen to congregate
in groups amongst the rocks, in the cavities of
which they hide themselves when alarmed; they
are herbivorous as to diet, feeding on grass and the
young shoots of shrubs. Some observers have re-
marked that an old male is set as a sentry in the
vicinity of their holes, and that he utters a sound
like a whistle to apprize his companions when
danger threatens; if this is a fact, it forcibly illus-
trates Prov. xxx. 24, 26, where the Shaphan is
named as one of the four things upon earth which
though little, ‘are exceeding wise.”
CORAL (DO, ramoth: μετέωρα ; Symm.
ὑψηλά: Ῥαμόθ : sericum, excelsa) occurs only, as
the somewhat doubtful rendering of the Hebrew
ramoth, in Job xxviii. 18, ‘No mention shall be
made of coral (ramoth, margin) or of pearls, for the
price of wisdom is above rubies ;” and in Ez. xxvii.
16, where coral is enumerated amongst the wares
which Syria brought to the markets of Tyre. The
old versions fail*to afford us any clue; the LXX.
gives merely the etymological meaning of the Heb.
term ‘ lofty things ;” the Vulg. in Ez. (/. 6.) reads
“ silk.” Some have conjectured “ rhinoceros skins,”
deriving the original word from reem (the unicorn
of the A. V.), which word, however, has nothing
to do with this animal. [UNicorN.] Schultens
(Comment. in Jobum, 1. c.) gives up the matter in
despair, and leaves the word untranslated. Many
of the Jewish rabbis understand “ red coral” by
ἃ Russell (Aleppo, ii. 159, 2nd ed.) mentions rabbits as
being occasionally bred in houses, ‘for the use of the
Franks ” at Aleppo ; and adds that the fur of the white
and black rabbit is much worn, and that the latter
kind is imported from Europe. Even if the ancient He-
brews had ever seen imported specimens of the rabbit,
there can be no doubt that it would have been included
under the Heb. term arneb, which is the Arabic name at
Aleppo both of this animal and the hare.
CORMOLRANT
ramoth. Gesenius ( Thes. s. v.) conjectures ‘ black
coral” (?), assigning the red kind to peninimn
(“ rubies,’ A. V.): see RuBy. Michaelis (Suppl.
Lex. Hebr. p. 2218) translates ramoth by Lapides
' gazellorun, i. e. L. bezoardici, as if from rim, an
Arabic name for some species of gazelle. The “apis
bezoardicus of Linnaeus denotes the calcareous con-
cretions sometimes found in the stomach of the [n-
dian gazelle, the Sasin (Antilope cervicapra, Pallas).
This stone, which possessed a strong aromatic odour,
was formerly held in high repute as a talisman.
The Arabian physicians attributed valuable medi-
cinal properties to these concretions. The opinion
of Michaelis, that ra@méth denotes these stones, is
little else than conjecture. On the whole, we see
no reason to be dissatisfied with the rendering of
the A.V. “Coral” has decidedly the best claim
of any other substances to represent the raméth.
The natural upward form of growth of the Corallinm
rubrum is well suited to the etymology of the word.
’ The word rendered “ price” in Job xxviii. 18, more
properly denotes “a drawing out;” and appears to
have reference to the manner in which coral and
pearls were obtained from the sea either by diving
or dredging. At present, Mediterranean corals,
which constitute an important article of commerce,
are broken off from the rocks to which they adhere
by long hooked poles, and thus “ drawn out.”
xliv
With regard to the estimation in which coral was |
held by the Jews and other Orientals, it must be
remembered that coral varies in price with us.
Fine compact specimens of the best tints may be
worth as much as 10/. per oz., while inferior ones |
are perhaps not worth much more than a shilling
per lb, Pliny says (V. 17. xxxii. 2) that the Indians
valued coral as the Romans valued pearls. It is
possible that the Syrian traders, who, as Jerome
remarks (Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Ez. xxvii. 16),
would in his day run all over the world “ lucri
cupiditate,” may have visited the Indian seas, and |
brought home thence rich coral treasures ; though
they would also readily procure coral either from
the Red Sea or the Mediterranean, where it is
abundantly found. Coral, Mr. King informs us,
often occurs in ancient Egyptian jewelry as beads
and cut into charms.
CORMORANT. The representative in the
A.V. ot the Hebrew words kdath (MNP) and
shalac (pw). As to the former, see PELICAN.
aes:
Shalac (καταράκτης : mergulus ; nycticorax ?)
occurs only as the name of an unclean bird in Ley.
xi. 17; Deut. xiv.17. The word has been variously
rendered (see Bochart, Hieroz. iii. 24), but some
sea bird is generally understood to be denoted by it.
There is some difficulty in identifying the κατα-
ράκτης of the LXX.; nor can we be quite satisfied,
with Oedmann ( Verm. Sammi. iii. c. vii. p. 68),
Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and others, that the Solan
goose, or gannet (Sula alba), is the bird mentioned
by Aristotle ( Hist. An. ii. 12,§15; ix. 13, $1) and
the author of the Zreutics (Oppian, ii. 2). Col. H.
Smith (Kitto’s Cyc. art. 4 Salach’) has noticed that
this bird (katappaxrns) is described as being of the
size of a hawk or one of the smaller gulls (ὡς of τῶν
Adpwy ἐλάσσονες), whereas the gannet is as large
as a goose, The account given in the Lveutics (/. ὁ.)
of this bird is the fullest we possess; and certaiily
CRANE »
the description, with the exception above noted, is
well suited to the gannet, whose habit of rising high
into the air, and partially closing its wings, and then
falling straight as an arrow on its prey, emerging
again in a few seconds, is graphically described in
the passage alluded to. It is probable that the
ancients sometimes confused this bird with some
species of tern; hence the difficulty as to size.
Col. H. Smith suggests the Caspian tern (Steria
Caspia) as the representative of the καταῤῥάκτης ;
which opinion is however inadmissible, for the terns
are known never to dive, whereas the diving habits
of the katapparrns are expressly mentioned (κατα-
᾿δύεται μέχρι ὀργυῖας ἢ καὶ πλέον). Modern
different species of skuas (/estris), birds of northern
regions, to which the description of the καταῤ-
ῥάκτης is wholly inapplicable. But though the
gannet may be the καταῤῥάκτης of Aristotle and
the Zxeutics, it is doubtful whether this bird is
found in the Bible-lands, although it has a wide
range, being seen northward in Newfoundland and
in the Hebrides, and southward at the Cape of Good
Hope. The etymology of the Hebrew word points
| to some plunging bird: the common cormorant
(Phalacrocorax carbo), which some writers have
| identified with the Shdlak, is unknown in the
| eastern Mediterranean; another species is found S.
of the Red Sea, but none on the W. coast of Pales-
tine.
CRANE (DAD or DD, s&s or sis: χελιδών:
pullus hirundinis, hirundo). There can be little
| doubt that the A. V. is incorrect in rendering sis
_ by “crane,” which bird is probably intended by
the Hebrew word ’dgir, translated ‘* swallow ” by
the A. V., [SwALLow.] Mention is made of the
_ sts in Hezekiah’s prayer (Is. xxxviii. 14), “ Like
| a sus or an ’dgér so did I twitter ;” and again in
| Jer. viii. 7 these two words occur in the same
_ order, “ the sts and the ’dgiér observe the time of
| their coming :” from which passage we learn that
both birds were migratory. According to the testi+
| mony of most of the ancient versions, szs denotes a
| swallow.” The passage in Jeremiah (1. c.), com-
| pared with the twittering notes of the sis in Heze-
kiah’s prayer, goes far to establish this translation ;
for the Hebrew verb* which is rendered “ chatter ”
| by the A. V. more properly signifies to “ chirp” or
| to twitter,” the term being evidently, as Bochart
| (Mieroz. ii. 605) has shown, onomatopoetic, indi-
| cative of the notes of the bird. The Italians about
Venice call a swallow zizilla, and its chirping they
express by zizillare (see Bochart, J. c.). The ex-
_ pression “ like a swallow did I twitter” may per-
haps appear to us not a very apt illustration of
| mourntul complaint, the notes of the various species
of the. Hirundinidae being expressive of happiness
rather than of grief; > but it must be remembered
that the ancients regarded the swallow as a mourn-
ful bird ; and it is worthy of remark that, according
to Dr. Kennicott, in thirteen Codices of Jeremiah
(1. c.) the word Jsis occurs instead of sis: it is
| probable therefore that the story of Procne, Tereus,
_ &e., of Grecian mythology had its source in ancient
| Egyptian fable, Isis, as the Egyptians say, having
| been changed into a swallow. The Hebrew word
| Derér (771) is noticed under the article SWALLOW.
* SEEN.
υ Unless perhaps the sé may have reference more
particularly to some species of swift (Cypselus), whose
loud squealing may appear to some te be indicative of
restless grief.
i
ornithologists apply the term cataractes to the —
CRYSTAL
CRYSTAL, the representative im the A. V. of
the Hebrew words zecicith (ΤῊ 327) and hkerach
(ΠῚ).
1. Zehkiihkith (ὕαλος : vitrum) occurs only in Job
xxviii. 17, where wisdom is declared to be more
valuable than “ gold and the crystal.” Notwith-
standing the dirlerent interpretations of “ rock
crystal,” “ glass,” ‘ adamant,” &c., that have been
assigned to this word, there can, we think, be very
little doubt that “glass” is intended, The old ver-
sions and paraphrases are in favour of this inter-
pretation. The Targum has zeyougitha, by which
the Talmudists understand “ glass.” The Syriac
has zagugitto; the Arabic zuwjaj, i.e. “ glass.”
Schultens (Comment. in Job. 1. c.) conjectures that
the words zdhab uizecicith (INDIDTA AN) are a
hendiadys to denote “a valuable glass or crystal
goblet,” or “a glass vessel gilt with gold,” such a
one perhaps as that which Nero is reported to have
broken to pieces in a fit of anger (Pliny, H. N.
xxxvii. 2). Cary (Job, 1. 6.) translates the words
* golden glass;” and very aptly compares a passage
in Wilkinson (Anc. Eyypt. ii. 61, ed. 1854), who,
speaking of the skill of the Egyptians in making
glass, says “ they had even the secret of introducing
gold between two surfaces of glass, and in their
bottles a gold band alternates within a set of blue,
green, and other colours.” It is very probable that
the zeciicith of Job (1. c.) may denote such a work
of art as is referred to in this quotation. [GLAss. ]
2. Kerach (κρύσταλλος : crystallum) occurs in
numerous passages in the O. T. to denote ice,”
“ frost,” &c.; but once only (Ez. i. 22), as is ge-
nerally understood, to signify “crystal: “ And
the likeness of the firmament..... was as the
colour of the magnificent crystal.” The ancients
supposed rock-crystal to be merely ice congealed by
intense cold ; whence the Greek word κρύσταλλος,
from κρύος, “cold” (see Pliny, NV. H. xxxvii. 2).
The similarity of appearance between ice and crystal
caused no doubt the identity of the terms to express
these substances. The A. V., following the Vulg.,
translates the epithet (87373) “terrible” in Ez.
(1. ¢.): the word would be better rendered
ἐς splendid.” It has the same meaning as the
Latin spectabilis. The Greek κρύσταλλος occurs
in Rev. iv. 6, xxii. 1. It may mean either “ice”
or “crystal.” Indeed there is no absolute necessity
to depart from the usual signification of the Hebrew
herach in Kz. (1. c.). The upper vault of heaven
may well be compared to “ the astonishing bright-
ness of ice” (see Harris, Dict. Nat. H. of Buble,
art. ‘¢ Crystal ’’).
CUCKOO (MW, shachaph: λάρος : larus).
There does not appear to be any authority for this
translation of the A. V.; the Heb. word occurs only
in Ley. xi. 16; Deut. xiv. 15, as the name of some
unclean bird. Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 1) has at-
tempted to show that Shachaph denotes the Cep-
phus. The (κέπφοΞς) of Aristotle (Anim. Hist. viii. 5,
δ. 7 ; ix. 23, 8.4), Nicander (Alexipharm., 165), and
other Greek writers, has been with sufficient reason
we think identified by Schneider with the storm-
petrel (Thalassidroma pelagica), the Procellaria
pelagica of Linnaeus, The Scholiast on Aristo-
phanes (Plutus) describes the Cepphus as a light
kind of gull. Suidas, under the word icém@os says,
“itis a bird like a gull, light of body, and sails over
the waves.” The notion held by the ancients that
CUCUMBERS
the Cepphus lived on the foam of the sea, may per-
haps be traced to the habit the petrels have of seek-
ing their food, &c., in the midst of an agitated and
frothy sea; the folly ascribed to the bird, whence
the Greek verb κεπφύομαι, “ to be easily deceived ”
(see LXX. in Prov. vii. 22) may have some founda-
tion in the fact that these birds when on the nest
will allow themselves to be taken by the hand.
The etymology of the Hebrew word points to some
“slender” bird. It is very improbable, however,
that this diminutive bird, which would be literally
but a mouthful, is signified by the Shachaph ; and
perhaps therefore, as Mr. Tristram suggests to us,
some of the larger petrels, such as the Puffinus
cinereus and P. anglorum (shearwater), which
abound in the east of the Mediterranean and which
are similar in their habits to the storm-petrel, may
be denoted by the Hebrew term.* Of the Laridz
the Larus fuscus and the L. argentatus are two
common species of Palestine.
CUCUMBERS (D°Nv)), Aishshuim: of σίκυοι:
cucumeres). This word occurs once only, in Num.
xi. 5, as one of the good things of Egypt for which
the Israelites longed. There is no doubt as to the
meaning of the Hebrew word, which is found with
a slight variation in the Arabic, Syriac, Aethiopic,
&c., to denote the plant now under consideration
(see Celsius, Hierob. ii. 247). Egypt produces ex-
cellent. cucumbers, melons, &c. [MELON], the Cu-
cumis chate being, according to Hasselquist (Trav.
p- 258), the best of its tribe yet known. This plant
grows in the fertile earth around Cairo after the
inundation of the Nile, and not elsewhere in Egypt.
The fruit, which is somewhat sweet and cool, is
eaten, says Hasselquist, by the grandees and Eu-
ropeans in Egypt as that from which they have
least to apprehend, Prosper Alpinus (Plant. Aeqypt.
xxxviii. p. 54) speaks of this cucumber as follows :—
«The Egyptians use a certain kind of cucumber
which they call chate. This plant does not differ
from the common kind, except in size, colour, and
tenderness; it has smaller, whiter, softer, and
rounder leaves, and the fruit is longer and greener
than ours, with a smooth soft rind, and more easy
of digestion.” The account which Forskal (Flor.
Aegypt. p. 168) gives of the Cucumis chate, which
he says is called by the Arabs Abdellavi or Adjir,
does not agree with what Hasselquist states with
regard to the locality where it is grown, this plant
being, according to the testimony of the first-named
writer, “the commonest fruit in Egypt, planted
over whole fields.” The C. chate is a variety only
of the common melon (C. melo); it was once cul-
xlv
_| tivated in England and called ‘the round-leaved
Egyptian melon τ’ but it is rather an insipid sort.
Besides the Cucumis chate, the common cucum-
ber (C. sativus), of which the Arabs distinguish a
number of varieties, is common in Egypt. This
grows with the water-melons ; the poor people boil
and eat it with vinegar; the richer people fill it
with flesh and aromatics, and make a kind of
puddings, which, says Hasselquist (p. 257), eat
very well. ‘Both Cucumis, chate and C. sativus,”
says Mr. Tristram, ‘‘are now grown in great quan-
tities in Palestine: on visiting the Arab school
in Jerusalem (1858) I observed that the dinner
which the children brought with them to school
consisted, without exception, of a piece of barley
4 P. cinereus and P. anglorum are both exposed for sale
as articles of food in the Arab markets on the coast.
CYPRESS
cake and a raw cucumber, which they eat rind
and all.’”’
- The prophet Isaiah (i. 8) foretells the desolation
that was to come upon Judah and Jerusalem in
these words :—‘‘ The daughter of Zion is left as a
cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of
cucumbers, as a besieged city.” The cottage or
lodge here spoken of is a rude temporary shelter,
erected in the open grounds where vines, cucumbers,
gourds, &c., are grown, in which some lonely man
or boy is set to watch, either to guard the plants
from robbers, or to scare away the foxes and jackals
_from the vines. Dr. Thomson (Zhe Land and the
Book, p. 361) well illustrates this passage of Scrip-
ture, and brings out its full force. The little wood-
cut which he gives of the lodge at Butaiha repre-
sents such a shelter as is alluded to above: by and
bye, when the crop is gathered and the lodge for-
saken, the “ poles will fall down or lean every way,
and the green boughs with which it is shaded will
be scattered by the winds, leaving only a ragged
sprawling wreck—a most affecting type of utter
desolation.”
It is curious to observe that the custom of keep-
ing off birds, &c., from fruit and corn by means of
a scarecrow is as old as the time of Baruch (vi.
70) :-—* As a scarecrow (προβασκάνιον) in a gar-
den of cucumbers keepeth nothing, so are their gods
of wood,” &c.
CYPRESS CAMA, tirzdh: ἀγριοβάλανος,
Alex., Aq., and Theod.: 1165). The Heb. word is
found only in Is. xliv. 14, ““ He heweth him down
cedars and taketh the tirzah and the oak.” We
are quite unable to assign any definite rendering to
this word. Besides the cypress, the “ beech,” the
‘*‘holm-oak,” and the “ fir” have been proposed ;
but there is nothing in the etymology of the Hebrew
name, or in the passage where it occurs, to guide
us to the tree intended. The word is derived from
a root which means “ to be hard,” a quality which
obviously suits many kinds of trees. Celsius
(Hierob. ii. 269) believes the “ilex” or “holm-
oak”? is meant; but there is no reliable evidence
tc show that this tree is now found in Palestine.
With respect to the claims of the cypress (Cu-
pressus sempervirens), which, at present at all
events, is found cultivated only in the lower levels
of Syria, it must be granted that they are unsup-
ported by any authority. Van de Velde’s cypress
is the Juniperus excelsa, which is also the cypress
of Pococke; but neither juniper nor cypress, as is
asserted by Pococke, grow anywhere near the top
of Lebanon. “ The juniper,’ says Dr. Hooker,
“615 found at the height of 7000 feet, on Lebanon,
the top of which is 10,500 feet or so.” The true
cypress is a native of the Taurus. The Hebrew
word points to some tree with a hard grain, and
this is all that can be positively said of it.
xlvi
D
DOVE’S DUNG (on, chiryontm 3 Keri,
D334, dibyénim: κόπρος περιστερῶν : stercus
columbarum). Various explanations have been given
of the passage in 2 K. vi. 25, which describes the
famine of Samaria to have been so excessive, that
“an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver,
and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung for five
DOVE’S DUNG
pieces of silver.’” The old versions and very many
ancient commentators are in favour of a literal inter-
pretation of the Heb. word. Bochart ( Hieroz. ii.
572) has laboured to shew that it denotes a species
of cicer, “ chick-pea,” which he says the Arabs call
Sy ae
usnan (( goss), and sometimes improperly “ dove’s
or sparrow’s dung.” Linnaeus suggested that the
chiryonim may signify the Ornithogalum umbel-
latum, ‘‘ Star of Bethlehem.” On this subject the
late Dr. Edward Smith remarks (2nglish Botany, iv.
p. 130, ed. 1814) : “ If Linnaeus is right, we obtain
a sort of clue to the derivation of ornithogalum
(virds’ milk), which has puzzled all the etymologists. Ὁ
May not this observation apply to the white fluid
which always accompanies the dung of birds, and
is their urine? One may almost perceive a similar
combination of colours in the green and white of
this flower, which accords precisely in this respect
with the description which Dioscorides gives of his
ornithogalum.” (See also Linnaeus, Praelectiones,
Ed. P. D. Giseke, p. 287.) Sprengel (Comment.
on Dioscorides, ii. 173) is inclined to adopt the
explanation of Linnaeus. Fuller (Miscell. Sacr.
vi. 2, p. 724) understood by the term the crops of
pigeons with their indigested contents. Josephus
(Antig. ix. 4) thought that dove’s dung might
have been used instead of salt. Harmer (Observat.
ili. 185) was of opinion, that as pigeon’s dung was
a valuable manure for the cultivation of melons,
it might have been needed during the siege of
Samaria for that purpose. Most of these interpre-
tations have little to recommend them, and have
been refuted by Bochart and others. With regard
to Bochart’s own opinion, Celsius (Hierob. ii. 30)
and Rosenmiiller (Not. ad Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 582)
have shewn that it is founded on an error, and that
he confuses the Arabic δ: the name of some
species of saltwort (Salsola) with (yage, cicer,
a ‘‘vetch,”’ or chick-pea. The explanation of Lin-
naeus appears to us to be far fetched ; and there is
no evidence whatever to shew that the Arabs ever
called this plant by a name equivalent to dove’s
dung. On the other hand, it is true that the Arabs
apply this or a kindred expression to some plants.
Thus it was sometimes used to denote a kind of moss
or lichen (Awuz-kendein, Arabicé) ; also some alkali-
yielding plant, perhaps of the genus Sa/sola (ashnan,
or usnan, Arab.). In favour of this explanation,
it is usual to compare the German TZeufelsdreck
(“devil’s dung’’) as expressive of the odour of
asafoetida (see Gesenius, Thes. p. 516). The ad-
vocates for the literal meaning of the expression,
viz. that dove’s dung was absolutely used as food
during the siege, appeal to the following reference
in Josephus (Bell. Jud. ν. 13. 7): “ Some persons
were driven to that terrible distress as to search the
common sewers and old dunghills of cattle, and to
eat the dung which they got there, and what they
of old could not endure so much as to look upon they
now used for food ;” see also Eusebius (Zccles. Hist.
ili. 6): “ Indeed necessity forced them to apply their
teeth to every thing; and gathering what was no
food even for the filthiest of irrational animals, they
devoured it.” Celsius, who is strongly in favour
of the literal meaning, quotes the following passage
from Bruson (Memorabil. ii. c. 41): ““ Cretenses,
obsidente Metello, ob penuriam vini aquarumque
jumentorum urina sitim sedasse ;” and one much
DROMEDARY
to the point from a Spanish writer, who states that
in the year 1316 so great a famine distressed the
English, that ‘* men ate their own children, dogs,
mice, and pigeon’s dung.’ Lady Calcott (Scrip.
Herb. p. 130) thinks that by the pigeon’s dung is
meant the Ornithogalum umbellatum. We cannot
allow this explanation ; because if the edible and
agreeable bulb of this plant was denoted, it is im-
possible it should haye been mentioned by the
Spanish chronicler along with dogs, mice, &c. As
an additional argument in favour of the literal
interpretation of the passage in question may be
adduced the language of Rabshakeh to the Jews in
the time of Hezekiah (2Κ- χυι 275) 15: xexxvais σὴ.
Still it must be cohfessed there is difliculty i in be-
lieving that so vile a substance should ever, even in
the extremities of a horrible famine, have been sold
at the rate of about one pint for six shillings and
fourpence. We adopt theretore the cautious language
of Keil (Comment. 1. c.): ‘* The above-stated facts
prove no doubt the possibility, even the probability,
of the literal meaning, but not its necessity ; for
which reason we refrain, with Gesenius, from
deciding.”
DROMEDARY. The representative in the
A.Y. of the Heb. words bécer or bicrah, recesh and
rammac.
CAMEL.
1. Recesh (WI):
ἱππεύειν, ἅρμα: jumenta,
veredarii) is variously inter py eted in our version by |
«« dromedaries” (1 K. iv. 28), “ mules’ (Esth. viii.
10, 14), ‘swift beasts’? (Mic.i.13). There seems
to te no doubt that recesh denotes ‘‘ a superior
kind of horse,” such as would be required when
prea ΕΣ was necessary. See Gesenius (768. s. v.).
. Rammac (191: : LXX. and Vulg. omit) occurs
ag in plur. form in Esth. viii. 10, in connexion
with bené, ‘‘sons;” the expression bené ram-
machim being an ‘epexegesis of the Heb. word
achashteranim, “ mules, the sons of mares.”
incorrectly “dromedary,” is evidently allied to the
ἘΞ... .
Arab. Χ oy “a brood-mare.”
E
EAGLE (wa, nesher: ἄετός : The
Hebrew word, which occurs fr equently in the O. T.,
may denote a particular species of the Falconidae,
as in Ley. xi. 13, Deut. xiv. 12, where the Nene
is distinguished from the ossifrage, osprey, and
other raptatorial birds; but the term is used also
to express the griffon vulture (Vultur fulvus) in
two or three passages.
At least four distinct kinds cf eagles have been
observed in Palestine, viz. the golden eagle (Aquila
Chrysaétos), the spotted eagle (A. naevic), the com-
monest species in the rocky districts (see Ibis, i.
23), the imperial eagle (Aguila Heliaca), and the
aquila).
As to the two former terms, see under |
The |
Heb. 9159, “a mare,’ which the A. V. renders |
HAGLE
very common Circaetos gallicus, which preys on Ὁ
the numerous reptilia of Palestine (for a figure ot
this bird see OSPREY). The Heb. nesher may stand
for any of these different species, though perhaps
more particular reference to the golden and im-
perial eagles and the griffon vulture may be in-
tended.*
xlvii
Aquila Heltaca.
The eagle’s swiftness of flight is the subject of
frequent allusion in Scripture (Deut. xxviii. 49 ;
2 Sam. i. 233 Jer.,iy. 13, xlix. 22; Lam. iv. 19,
&c.) ; its mounting high ‘into the air is referred to
(in Job xxxix. 27; Prov. xxiii. 5, xxx. 19; Is. xl.
1; Jer. xlix. 16); its strength and vigour (in Ps.
ciii. 5); its predaceous habits (Job ‘ix. 26; Prov.
xxx. 17); its setting its nest in high places (in Jer.
xlix. 16); the care in training its young to fly (in
Ex, xix. 4; Deut. xxxii. 11); its powers of vision
(in Job xxxix. 29).
The passage in Mic. i. 16, ““ Enlarge thy baldness
as the eagle,” has been understood by Bochart
( Hieroz. ii. 744) and others to refer to the eagle
at the time of its. moulting in the spring. Oedman
(Vermisch. Samm. i. 64) erroneously refers the
baldness spoken of by the prophet to point to the
Vultur barbatus (Gypaetus), the bearded vulture
or lammergyer, which he supposed was bald. It
| appears to us to be extremely improbable that there
is any reference in the passage under consideration
to eagles moulting. Allusion is here made to the
custom of shaying the head as a token of mourning ;
| but there would be little or no appropriateness in
the comparison of a shaved head with an eagle at
the time of moulting. But if the nesher is supposed
to denote the griffon vulture ( Vultur fulvus), the
simile is peculiarly appropriate ; it may be remarked
that the Hebrew verb kdrach (MP) signifies ‘“ to
make bald on the back part of the head ;’’ the
notion here conveyed is very applicable to the
8. The modern Arabic term for the Griffon Vulture, in-
cluding the V. awricularis and V. cinereus, is Nisr. This
word is never applied to the Neophron percnopterus or
«“Rachmah.”’ The Eagles are designated collectively by
égab with a specific adjective for various species. I am
inclined, therefore, to restrict the Heb. Nesher to the ma-
being more true of the Griffon Vulture than of any Eagle.
PHSB. Ti)
The reader will find the vernacular Arabic names of
different species of Vulturide and Falconidz in Loche’s
Catalogue des Oiseaux observ. en Algérie; and in Ibis,
vols. i. ii., Tristram’s papers on the Ornithology of North
jestic Vultur, every Scrip.ural characteristic of the Vesher | Africa.
sl vili EBONY
whole head and neck of this bird, which is destitute
of true feathers,
With reference to the texts referred to above,
which compare the watchful and sustaining care of
his people by the Almighty with that exhibited by
the eagle in training its young ones to fly, we may
quote a passage from Sir Humphry Davy, who says,
“Ὁ ΤΟ once saw a very interesting sight above one of ihe
crags of Ben Nevis, as I was going in the pursuit
of black game. Two parent “eagles were teaching
their offspring, two young birds, ‘the manceuvyes of
flight. ‘They ‘began by rising from the top of the
mountain, in the « eye of the sun. It was about mid-
day, and bright for this climate. They at first
made small circles, and the young birds imitated
them. ‘They paused on their wings, waiting till
they had made their first flizht, and then took a |
second and larger gyration; always rising towards
the sun, and enlarging their circle of flight so as to
make a gradually ascending spiral.
still and slowly follow ed, apparently flying better
as they mounted; and they continued this sublime |
till they became mere points |
exercise, always rising,
in the air, and the young ones were lost, and after-
wards their parents, to our aching sight.” The
expression in ix. and Deut. (//. cc.), “beareth them |
has been understood by Rabbinical |
writers and others to mean that the eagle does |
actually carry her young ones on her wings and |
on her wings,”
shoulders. This is putting on the words a construe-
tion which they by no means are intended to convey;
at the same time, it is not improbable that the |
parent bird assists the first efforts of her young by |
flying under them, thus sustaining them for a mo-
ment, and encouraging them in thar early lessons.
In Ps. ciii. 5 it is said, “Thy youth is renewed
like the eagle’s’’ (see also Is. x1. 31). Some Jewish
interpreters have illustrated this passage by a re-
ference to the old fables about the eagle being able
to renew his strength when very old (see Bochart,
Hieroz. ii. 747). Modern commentators for the
most pait are inclined to think that these words
refer to the eagle after the moulting season, when
the bird is more full of activity than before. We
much prefer Hengstenberg’s explanation on Ps, cili. 5,
«Thy youth is renewed, so that in point of strength
thou art like the eagle.”
The ἀετοί of Matt. xxiv. 28, Luke xvii. 37,
may include the Vultur fuleus and Neophron per-
cnopterus ; though, as eagles frequently prey upon
dead bodies, there is no necessity to restrict the
Greek word to the Vulturidae.* The figure of
an eagle is now and has been long a favourite
military ensign. The Persians so employed it ;
which fact illustrates the passage in Is. xlvi. 11,
where Cyrus 1s alluded to under the symbol of an
“eagle” (t9Y) or “ravenous bird” (comp. Xenop.
Cyrop. vii. 4). The same bird was similarly em-
ployed by the Assyrians and the Romans. Eagles
are frequently represented in Assy1ian sculptures
attending the soldiers in their battles; and some
have hence supposed that they were trained birds.
Considering, however, the wild and intractable
nature of eagles, it is very improbable that this
was the case. The representation of these birds was
doubtless intended to portray the common feature
in Eastern battle-field scenery, of birds of prey
awaiting to satisfy their hunger on the bodies of
the slain.
The young ones |
EBONY
EBONY (823, hobnim: καὶ τοῖς εἰσαγο-
μένοις :Ὁ ἐβένους, Symm.: (dentes) hebeninos)
oceurs only in Ez. xxvii. 15, as one of the valuable
commodities imported into Tyre by the men of
Dedan. [DeDaN. 1] It is mentioned together with
| “horns of ivory,’ and it may hence be reasonably
conjectured that ivory and ebony came from the
same country. The best kind of ebony is yielded
by the Diospyros ebenum, a tree which grows in
Ceylon and Southern India; but there are many
trees of the natural order Hbenacere which produce
this material. Ebony is also yielded by trees be-
Diospyros Ebenum.
longing to different natural families in other parts
of the world, as in Africa. The ancients held the
black heart-wood in high esteem. Herodotus (iii.
97) mentions ebony (φάλαγγας ἐβένου) as one of
the precious substances presented by the people of
Ethiopia to the king of Persia. Dioscorides (i. 130)
speaks of two kinds of ebony, an Indian and an
Ethiopian ; he gives the preference to the latter kind.
It is not known what tree yielded the Ethiopian
ebony. Royle says “πὸ Abyssinian ebony is at
present imported, This, however, is more likely to
be owing to the different routes which commerce
has taken, but which is again returning to its
ancient channels, than to the want of ebony in
ancient Ethiopia.’ There can be little doubt that
the tree which yielded Ethiopian ebony is distinct
from the Diospyros ebenum, and probably belongs
te another genus altogether. Virgil (Georg. ii. 116)
says that ‘* India alone produces the black ebony ;”
and Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. iv. 4, §6) asserts
that “ebony is peculiar to India.” The Greek
word ἔβενος, the Latin ebenus, our “ ebony,” have
all doubtless their origin in the Hebrew hobnim,
a term which denotes ** wood as hard as stone
(comp. the German Steinholz, “ fossil-wood ;” see
Gesenius, 7168. 5. v., and Fiirst, Heb. Concord.).
It is probable that the plural form of this noun is
used to express the billets into which the ebony
was cut previous to exportation, like our “ log-
wood.” There is every reason for believing that
the ebony afforded by the Diospyros ebenum was
imported from India or Ceylon by Phoenician
traders ; though it is equally probable that the
Tyrian merchants were supplied with ebony from
trees which grew in Ethiopia. See full discussions
® Tt is necessary to remember that no true eagle will
kill for himself if he can find dead flesh. [H. B. T.]
» For the Heb. word used by the ΤΙ ΧΧ, see Rosen-
miiller’s Schol. ad Ez, xxvii. 15.
FALLOW-DEER
on the ebony of the Ancients in Bochart, Hieroz.
ii. 714, and Salmasius, Phin. Hxercitat. p. 725 c.;
comp. also Royle, in Kitto’s Cycl., art. ‘‘ Hobnim.”
According to Sir E. Tennent (Ceylon, i. 116) the
following trees yield ebony :—Diospyros ebenum,
D, reticulata, 1). ebenaster, and D. hirsuta. The
wood of the first-named tree, which is abundant
throughout all the flat country to the west of
Trincomalee, “ excels all others in the evenness and
intensity of its colour. The centre of the trunk is
the only portion which furnishes the extremely
black part which is the ebony of commerce; but
the trees are of such magnitude that reduced logs
of 2 feet in diameter, and varying from 10 to 15
feet. in length, can readily be procured from the
forests at Trincomalee” (Ceylon, 1. c.).
FALLOW-DEER ()19M!,* yachmiér: Alex.
βούβαλος : bubalus). The Heb. word, which is men~
tioned only in Deut. xiv. 5, as the name of one of
the animals allowed by the Levitical law for food,
and in 1 K. iv. 23, as forming part of the provisions
for Solomon’s table, appears to point to the Antilope
bubalis, Pallas; the βούβαλος of the Greeks (see
Herod. iv. 192; Aristotle, Hist. Anim. iii. 6, ed.
Schneider, and De Part. Anim. iii. 2,11, ed. Bekker ;
Oppian, Cyn. ii. 300), is properly, we believe, iden-
tified with the afore-named antelope. From the
different descriptions of the yachmér, as given by
Avabian writers, and cited by Bochart (Hieroz. ii.
284, sqq.), it would seem that this is the animal
denoted ; though Damir’s remarks in some respects
are fabulous, and he represents the yachmi as
having deciduous horns, which will not apply to
any antelope. Still Cazuinus, according to Rosen-
miiller, identifies the yachmur> with the bekker-el-
wash (** wild cow’’), which is the modern name in
N. Africa for the Antilope bubalis. Kitto (Pict. Bibl.
Deut. 7. 6.) says, ‘The yachmfr of the Hebrews
is without doubt erroneously identified with the
fallow-deer, which does not exist in Asia,’ and
refers the name to the Ory leucoryz, citing Niebuhr
as authority for stating that this animal is known
among the Eastern Arabs by the name of yazmur.
The fallow-deer (Cervus dama) is undoubtedly a
native of Asia; indeed Persia seems to be its proper
country. Hasselquist (Zrav. p. 211) noticed this
deer in Mount Tabor. Oedmann ( Verm. Sammi. i.
178) believes that the yachmiir is best denoted by
the Cervus dama. The authority of the LXX.,
however, in a question of this kind, should decide
the matter: accordingly we have little doubt but
that the yachmur of the Heb. Scriptures denotes
the bekker-el-wash, or “ wild ox,” of Barbary and
N. Africa, (See Shaw’s Travels, p. 242, and Suppl.
Ῥ. 75, folio; Buffon, Hist. Natur. xii. p.294.) ‘The
Greek βούβαλος evidently points to some animal
having the general appearance of an ox. Pliny
(WN. A, viii. 15) tells us that the common people in
their ignorance sometimes gave the name of bubalus
to the Bison (Auroch) and the Urus. He adds, the
animal properly so called is produced in Africa, and
bears a resemblance to the calf and the stag. That
this antelope partakes in external form of the cha-
racters belonging both to the Cervine and Bovine
* From the root WOM, “το be red.”
Ὁ 50 -
b Ruber; animal ad genus pertinens cui est
’ ᾽ ἐπ
2 cama
apud Arabes nomen >a! ye (Freytag, Lex. Ar.),
{ APPENDIX. |
FIG-TREE
ruminants will be evident to any one who glances
at the woodcut.
i ἥ es
xlix
Alcelaphus bubalis.
The bekker-el-wash appears to be depicted in the
Egyptian monuments, where it is represented as
being hunted for the sake of its flesh, which Shaw
tells us (Suppl. p. 75) is very sweet and nourishing,
much preferable to that of the red deer. (See Wil-
kinson’s Anc. Egypt. i. p. 223, figs. 3, 4, and p. 225,
fig. 19.) This animal, which is about the size of a
stag, is common in N. Africa, and lives in herds.
We were at one time inclined to refer the Heb.
yachmir to the Oryx leucoryax (see art. OX) ; on
further investigation however we have decided for
the Alcelaphus. The J’ed or 76 may perhaps
therefore denote the former antelope,
FIG-TREE [addition to the article on, p. 619).
Few passages in the Gospels have given occasion to
so much perplexity as that of St. Mark xi. 13,
where the Evangelist relates the circumstance of
our Lord’s cursing the fig-tree near Bethany:
“ς And seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he
came, if haply he might find any thing thereon:
and when he came to it, he found nothing but
leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.” The ap-
parent unreasonableness of seeking fruit at a time
when none could naturally be expected, and the con-
sequent injustice of the sentence pronounced upon
the tree, is obvious to every reader.
The fig-tree (Hicus carica) in Palestine produces
fruit at two, or even three different periods of the
year: first, there is the biccérdh, or “early ripe fig,”
frequently mentioned in the O. T. (see Mic. vii. 1;
15. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 10), which ripens on an average
towards the end of June, though in favourable places
of soil or temperature the figs may ripen a little
earlier, while under less favourable circumstances
they may not be matured till the middle of July.
The bicctirah drops off the tree as soon as ripe; hence
the allusion in Nah. iii. 12, when shaken they ‘‘ even
fall into the mouth of the eater.’ Shaw (Trav. i.
264, 8vo ed.) aptly compares the Spanish name
breba for this early fruit, “quasi breve,” as conti-
nuing only for a short time. About the time of
the ripening of the bicctrim, the harmouse or
summer fig begins to be formed; these rarely ripen
before August, when another crop, a “ the
i FIG-TREE
winter fig,” appears. Shaw describes this kind as
being of a much longer shape and darker complexion
than the karmouse, hanging and ripening on the
tree even after the leaves are shed, and, provided
the winter proves mild and temperate, as gathered as
a delicious morsel in the spring. (Comp. also Pliny,
WN. H. xvi. 26, 27.)
The attempts to explain the above-quoted passage
in St. Mark are numerous, and for the most part
very unsatisfactory ; passing over, theretore, the in-
genious though objectionable reading proposed by
Dan. Heinsius (Zxercit. Sac. Ed. 1639, p. 116) of οὗ
γὰρ ἦν, καιρὸς obxwvy—* where he was, it was the
season for figs’—-and merely mentioning another
proposal to read that clause of the Evangelist’s re-
mark as a question, “for was it not the season of
figs?” and the no less unsatisfactory rendering of
Hammond (Annot. ad St. Mark), “it was not a
good season for figs,” we come to the interpretations
which, though not perhaps of recent origin, we find
in modern works.
The explanation which has found favour with
most writers is that which understands the words
καιρὸς σύκων to mean “ the fig-harvest ;” the γάρ
in this case is referred not to the clause immediate] y
preceding, ‘he found nothing but leaves,” but to the
more remote one, “ he came if haply he might find
any thing thereon ;” for a similar trajection it is
usual to refer to Mark xvi. 3,4; the sense of the whole
passage would then be as follows: “ And seeing a
fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came if perchance
he might find any fruit on it (and he ought to have
found some), for the time of gathering it had not
yet arrived, but when he came he found nothing
but leaves.”” (See the notes in the Greek Testa-
ments of Burton, Trollope, Bloomfield, Webster and
Wilkinson; Macknight, Harm. of the Gospels, ii. p.
591. note, 1809; Elsley’s Annot. ad 1. c., &e.) A
forcible objection to this explanation will be found
in the fact that at the time implied, viz., the end of
March or the beginning of April, no figs at all eat-
able would be found on the trees; the biccirim
seldom ripen in Palestine before the end of June,
and at the time of the Passover the fruit, to use.
Shaw’s expression, would be “hard and no bigger
than common plums,” corresponding in this state
to the paggim (0°35) of Cant. ii, 13, wholly unfit
for food in an unprepared state, and it is but rea-
sonable to infer that our Lord expected to find
something more palatable than these small sour
things upon a tree which by its show of foliage
bespoke, though falsely, a corresponding show of
good fruit, for it is important to remember that
the fruit comes before the leaves. Again, if καιρὸς
denotes the ‘ fig-harvest,” we must suppose, that
although the fruit might not have been ripe, the
season was not very far distant, and that the figs in
consequence must have been considerably more ma-
tured than these hard paggim; but is it probable
that St. Mark should have thought it necessary to
state that it was not yet the season for gathering
figs in March, when they could not have been fit to
gather before June at the earliest ?
There is another way of seeking to get over the
difficulty by supposing that the tree in question was
not of the ordinary kind. Celsius (Hierob. ii. 385)
says there is a peculiar fig-tree known to the Jews
by the name of Benoth-shuach (MWY M33), which
produces grossuli, ‘small unripe figs” (paggim)
every year, but only good fruit every third year ;
and that our Lord came to this tree at a time
FIG-TREE ᾿
when the ordinary annual grosswli only were pro-
duced! We are ignorant as to what tree the Benoth-
shuach may denote, but it is obvious that the
apparent wnreasonableness remains as it was.
As to the tree which Whitby (Comment. in Mark,
1. c.) identifies with the one in question, that it was
that kind which Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. iv. 2,
§4) calls ἀείφυλλον, “evergreen,” it is enough to
observe that this is no fig at all, but the Carob or
Locust tree (Ceratonia siliqua).
It appears to us, after a long and diligent study of
the whole question, that the difficulty is best met by
looking it full in the face, and by admitting that the
words of the Evangelist are to be taken in the natural
order in which they stand, neither having recourse
to trajection, nor to unavailable attempts to prove
that eatable figs could have been found on the trees
in March. It is true that occasionally the winter
figs remain on the tree in mild seasons, and_may
be gathered the following spring, but this is not to
be considered a usual circumstance ; and even these
figs, which ripen late in the year, do not, in the
natural order of things, continue on the tree at a
time when it is shooting forth its leaves.
But, after all, where is the wnreasonableness of
the whole transaction? It was stated above that
the fruit of the fig-tree appears before the leaves ;
consequently if the tree produced leaves it should
also have had some figsas well. As to what natural
causes had operated to effect so unusual a thing for
a fig-tree to have leaves in March, it is unim-
portant to inquire; but the stepping out of the way
with the possible chance (εἰ ἄρα, si forte, “ under
the circumstances ;” see Winer, Gram. of N. T.
Diction, p. 465, Masson’s Transl.) of finding eatable
fruit on a fig-tree in leaf at the end of March, would
probably be repeated by any observant modern tra-
veller in Palestine. The whole question turns on
the pretensions of the tree; had it not proclaimed
by its foliage its superiority over other fig-trees, and
thus proudly exhibited its precociovsness ; had our
ord at that season of the year visited any of the
other fig-trees upon which no leaves had as yet ap-
peared with the prospect of finding fiuit—then the
case would be altered, and the unreasonableness and
injustice real. The words of St. Mark, therefore, are
to be understood in the sense which the order of the
words naturally suggests. The Evangelist gives the
reason why no fruit was found on the tree, viz., ** be-
cause it was not the time for fruit ;” we are left to
infer the reason why it ought to have had fruit if it
were true to its pretensions ; and it must be remem-
bered that this miracle had a typical design, to show
how God would deal with the Jews, who, professing
like this precocious fig-tree “ to be first,” should be
“last” in His favour, seeing that no fruit was pro-
duced in their lives, but only, as Wordsworth well
expresses it, ‘the rustling leaves of a religious pro-
fession, the barren traditions of the Pharisees, the
ostentatious display of the law, and vain exuberance’
of words without the good fruit of works.”
Since the above was written we have referred to
Trench’s Notes on the Miracles (p. 438), and find
that this writer’s remarks are strongly corroborative
of the views expressed in this article. The following
observation is so pertinent that we cannot do better
than quote it :—* All the explanations which go to
prove that, according to the natural order of things
in a climate like that of Palestine, there might have
been even at this early time of the year figs on
that tree, either winter figs which had survived till
spring or the early figs of spring themselves: all
FIR
these. ingenious as they often are, yet seem to me
beside the matter. For, without entering further
into the question whether they prove their point or
not, they shatter upon that οὐ yap ἣν καιρὺς σύκων
of St. Mark; from which it is plain that no such
calculation of probabilities brought the Lord thither,
but those abnormal leaves which he had a right to
count would have been accompanied with abnormal
fruit.” See also Trench’s admirable reference to
Kez, xvii. 24.
FIR (WIA, bérdsh; DNR, bérdthim: ἄρ-
κευθος, κέδρος, πίτυς, κυπάρισσος, πεύκη: abies,
cupressus). The Hebrew term in all probability
denotes either the Pinus halepensis or the Juni-
perus excelsa, both of which trees grow im Lebanon,
and would supply excellent timber for the purposes
to which we learn in Scripture the berédsh was
applied; as, for instance, for boards or planks for
the Temple (1 K. vi. 15); for its two doors (ver.
54); for the ceiling of the greater house (2 Chr.
iii. 5); for ship-boards (Ez. xxvii. 5); for musical
instruments (2 Sam. vi. 5). The red heart-wood
of the tall fragrant juniper of Lebanon was no doubt
extensively used in the building of the Temple ; and
the identification of berdésh or beréth with this tree
receives additional confirmation from the LXX.
words ἄρκευθος and κέδρος, “a juniper.” The
deodar, the larch, and Scotch fir, which have been
by some writers identified with the berdésh, do not
exist in Syria or Palestine. [CEDAR. ]
FITCHES (7. e. Vercuss) ; the representative
in the A. V. of the two Heb. words cussemeth and
ketzach. As to the former see RYE.
Ketzach (MS): μελάνθιον : gith) denotes with-
out doubt the Nigella sativa, an herbaceous annual
plant belonging to the natural order Ranunculaceae,
and sub-order Helleboreae, which grows in the S,
of Europe and in the N. of Africa, It was formerly
Nigella satwa.
cultivated in Palestine for the sake of its seeds,
which are to this day used in Eastern countries as
a medicine and a condiment, This plant is men-
tioned only in Is. xxviii. 25, 27, where especial re-
ference is made to the mode of threshing it; not
with “a threshing instrument” (amin, ὙΠ), but
“with a staff” (OID), because the heavy-armed
cylinders of the former implement would have
crushed the aromatic seeds of the Nigella. The
μελάνθιον of Dioscorides (ii. 83, ed. Sprengel) is
FLAG li
unquestionably the Wigel/a; both these terms having
reference to its black seeds, which, according to the
above-named author and Pliny (WV. 7. xix. 8), were
sometimes mixed with bread. The word gith is of
uncertain origin. It 1s used by Pliny (V. H. xx. 17),
who says, “ Gith ex Graecis alii melanthion, alii
melaspermon vocant.”” Plautus also (Rud. v. 2, 39)
has the same word git: ‘Os calet tibi! num git
frigidefactas.” Comp. Celsius (Hierob. ii. 71).
Besides the WV. sativa, there is another species,
the N. arvensis, which may be included under the
term ketzach; but the seeds of this last-named
plant are less aromatic than the other.
FLAG; the representative in the A. V. of the
two Heb. words dchit and siph.
1. Achi QMS : ax, ἄχει, βούτομον : locus
palustris, carectum: A, V. “ meadow,” “ flag”’),
a word according to Jerome (Comment. in Is. xix.
7) of Egyptian origin, and denoting “any green
and coarse herbage, such as rushes and reeds, which
grows in marshy places.” “ Quum ab eruditis
quaererem,” says Jerome, “quod hic sermo signi-
ficaret, audivi ab Aegyptiis hoc nomine lingua eorum
omne quod in palude virens nascitur, appellari.”
In Job viii. 11 it is asked, “Can the dcht crow
without water?” It seems probable that some
specific plant is here denoted, as Celsius has en-
deavoured to prove (Hierob. i. 342), for the dchi
is mentioned with the gome, ‘‘the papyrus.” The
word occurs once again in Gen. xli. 2, 18, where it
is said that the seven well-favoured kine came up
out of the river and fed in an dich. Royle (Kitto’s
Cye. art. “ Achu”’) and Kitto (Pict. Bib. on Gen.
/. c.) are inclined to think that the dcht denotes the
Cyperus esculentus. The last-named writer iden-
tifies this sedge with the μαλιναθάλλη of Theo-
phrastus (Hist. Plant. iv. 8, §12), which plant was
much eaten by sheep and cattle. There is, how-
ever, much doubt as to what the malinathalla
denotes, as Schneider has shown. The LXX. render
*aroth by ἄχι in Is, xix. 7. [See REED.] Kalisch
(Comment. on Gen. ἰ. c.) says that the dchi “is
unquestionably either the Cyperus esculentus or the
Butomus umbellatus.” We are quite unable to
‘satisfy ourselves so easily on this point. There are
many marsh-plants besides the Cyperus esculentus
and the Δ, wmbellatus; at the same time, if the
Greek βούτομος denotes the latter plant, about
which, however, there is some doubt, it is possible
that the dché of Job viii. 11, may be represented by
the Butomus umbellatus, ox “ flowering rush,” which
grows in Palestine and the East. The adchi of Gen.
(J. 6.) may be used ina general sense to denote such
marshy vegetation as is seen on some parts of the Nile.
As to discussions on the origin of ITN, see Celsius,
Hierob. 1. c.; Jablonski, Opusc. i. 45, ii. 159, ed.
Te-Water ; Schultens, Comment. ad Job, 1. c., and
Gesenius, Thes. 5. v., &c.
2. Suph (AD: ἕλος : carectum, pelagus) occurs
frequently in the O. T. in connexion with yam,
“sea,” to denote the “Red Sea” (FAD"D). [Sea.]
The term here appears to be used in a very wide
sense to denote ‘‘ weeds of any kind.’ The yam-
stiph therefore is the ‘sea of weeds,” and perhaps,
as Stanley (S. ¢ P. p. 6, note) observes, stiph ** may
be applied to any aqueous vegetation,” which would
include the arborescent coral growths for which this
sea is celebrated, as well as the different algae
which grow at the bottom: see Pliny (N. H. xiii.
25) and Shaw (Trav. p. 387, fol. 1738), who
speaks of a ‘‘ variety of algae and fuci that grow
I E 2
FLY
within its channel, and at low water are left in
great quantities upon the sea-shore” (see also p. |
384). The word szph in Jon. ii. 5, translated
“weeds” by the A. V., has, there can be no doubt, |
reference to ‘‘sea-weed,” and more especially to the
long ribbon-like fronds of the Laminariac, or the
entangled masses of Fuci. In Ex. ii. 3, 5, however,
where we read that Moses was laid “in the suph
(‘ flags,’ A. V.) by the river’s brink,” it is probable
that ‘‘ reeds”? or “rushes,” &c., are denoted, as
Rab. Salomon explains it, “a place thick with reeds.”
(See Celsius, Hierob. ii. 66.) The yam-siiph in the
Coptic version (as in Ex. x. 19, xiii. 18, Ps. evi. 7,
9, 22) is rendered * the Sari-sea.”” The word Sari
is the old Egyptian for a ‘ reed” or a “rush” of
some kind. Jablonski (Opusc. i. 266) gives Juncus
as its rendering, and compares a passage in Theo-
phrastus (Hist. Plant. iv. 8, §2, 5) which thus
describes the sart:—“* The sari grows in water about
marshes and those watery places which the river
after its return to its bed leaves behind it; it has a
hard and closely-twisted root, from which spring the
saria (stalks) so called.” Pliny (NV. H. xiii. 23) thus
speaks of this plaut:—‘* The sari, which grows
about the Nile, is a shrubby: kind of plant (?), com-
monly being about two cubits high, and as thick as
a man’s thumb; it has the panicle (coma) of the
papyrus, and is similarly eaten; the root, on ac-
count of its hardness, is used in blacksmiths’ shops
instead of charcoal.” Sprengel (Rei. Herb. i. 78)
identifies the sari of Theophrastus with the Cyperus
fastigiatus, Linn. ; but the description is too vague
tu serve as a sufficient basis for identification. There
can be little doubt that siph is sometimes used in a
general sense like our English “weeds.” It cannot
be restricted to denote alga, as Celsius has en-
deayoured to show, because alga is not found in
the Nile. Lady Caleott (Script. Herb. p. 158)
thinks the Zostera marina (‘ grass-wrack”) may
be intended ; but there is nothing in favour of such
an opinion. The βὼρλ of Is. xix. 6, where it is
mentioned with the kaneh, appears to be used in a
more restricted sense to denote some species of
“<yeed”’ or “tall grass.” There are various kinds
of Cyperaceae and tall Graminaceae, such as
Arundo and Saccharum, in Egypt. [REED.]
FLOWERS. [PALestine, Botany oF. ]
FLY, FLIES. The two following Hebrew
‘terms denote flies of some kind.
1. Zébid (AAP: μυῖα: musca) occurs only in
Ece. x. 1, “ Dead zébuéibim cause the ointment of the
apothecary to send forth a stinking’ savour,” and
in Is. vii. 18, where it is said, “the Lord shall hiss
for the zéba) that is in the uttermost part of the
rivers of Egypt.” The Heb. name it is probable is
a generic one for any insect, but the etymology is a
matter of doubt (see Gesenius, Thes. p. 401; Heb.
and Chald. Lex. 5. v.; and Fiirst, Heb. Concord.
s. v.). In the first quoted passage allusion is made
to flies, chiefly of the family Muscidae, getting into
vessels of ointment or other substances; even in
this country we know what an intolerable nuisance
the house-flies are in a hot summer when they
abound, crawling everywhere and into everything ;
but in the East the nuisance is tenfold greater. The
zebub from the rivers of Egypt has by some writers,
as by Oedmann ( Vermisch. Samm. vi. 79), been
identified with the zimb of which Bruce (Trav.
v. 190) gives a description, and which is evidently
some species of Tabanus. Sir G. Wilkinson has
given some account ( Zransac. of the Entomol. Soc.
lii
FLY
ii. p. 183), of an injurious fly under the name of
Dthebab, a term almost identical with zébub. It
would not do to press too much upon this point
when it is considered that Egypt abounds with
noxious insects; but it must be allowed that there
is some reason for this identification; and though,
as was stated above, zébib is probably a generic
name for any flies, in this passage of Isaiah it may be
used to denote some very troublesome and injurious
fly, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. “The Dthebab is a long grey
fly. which comes out about the rise of the Nile, and
is like the Cleg of the north of England; it abounds
in calm hot weather, and is often met with in June
and July, both in the desert and on the Nile.” _
This insect is very injurious to camels, and causes
their death, if the disease which it generates is ne-
glected ; it attacks both man and beast.
2. ᾿Αγὸν (TY: κυνόμυια : omne genus mus-
carum, muscae diversi generis, musca gravissima :
“ἐς swarms of flies,’ “divers sorts of fhes,’ A. V.),
the name of the insect, or insects, which God sent to
punish Pharaoh; see Ex. viii. 21-31; Ps. Ixxviii.
45, ev. 31. The question as to what particular
insect is denoted by ’ar6b, or whether any one species
is to be understood by it, has long been a matter of
dispute. The Scriptural details are as follows :—
the ’drdb filled the houses of the Egyptians, they
covered the ground, they lighted on the people, the
land was laid waste on their account. From the
expression in ver. 31, ‘there remained not one,”
some writers have concluded that the Heb. word
| points to some definite species; we do not think,
however, that much stress ought to be laid upon
this argument; if the ‘ardb be taken to denote
“swarms,” as the A. V. renders it, the ““ not one
remaining,” may surely have for its antecedent an
individual fly understood in the collective “swarms.”
The LXX. explain ’aréb by κυνόμυια, 7. 6. “ dog-
fly ;” it is not very clear what insect is meant by
this Greek term, which is frequent in Homer, who
often uses it as an abusive epithet. It is not im-
probable that one of the Hippoboscidae, perhaps ἢ.
Equina, Linn., is the κυνόμυια of Aelian (NV. A. iv.
51), though Homer may have used the compound
term to denote extreme impudence, implied by the
shamelessness of the dog and the teazing imperti-
nence of the common fly (Musca). As the *dr6b
are said to have filled the houses of the Egyp-
tians it seems not improbable that common flies
(Muscidae) ave more especially intended, and that
the compound κυνόμυια denotes the grievous nature
of the placue, though we see no reason to restrict
the ’dr6b to any one family. “Οἵ insects,” says
Sonnini (Trav. iii. p. 199), “the most trouble-
some in Egypt are flies; both man and beast are
cruelly tormented with them. No idea can be
formed of their obstinate rapacity. It is in vain
to drive them away, they return again in the self-
same moment, and their perseverance wearies out
the most patient spirit.” The ’érdb may include
various species of Culcidae (gnats), such as the
musquitoe, if it is necessary to interpret the ‘de-
vouring” nature of the ’ardb (in Ps. Ixxvili. 45)
in a strictly literal sense; though the expression
used by the Psalmist is not inapplicable to the flies,
which even to this day in Egypt may be regarded
as a * plague,” and which are the great instrument
of spreading the well-known ophthalmia which is
conveyed from one individual to another by these
dreadful pests; or the literal meaning of the ’drdb
* devouring” the Egyptians, may be understood in
FOWL
its fullest sense of the Muscidae, if we suppose that
the people may have been punished by the larvae
gaining admittance into the bodies, as into the
stomach, frontal sinus, and intestines, and so occa-
sioning in a hot climate many instances of death ;*
see for cases of Myasis produced by Dipterous larvae,
Transactions of Entomol. Soc, ii. pp. 266-269.
The identification of the ’d6b with the cockroach
(Blatta Orientalis), which Oedmann ( Verm. Sam.
pt. ii. c. 7) suggests, and which Kirby (Bridgw.
Treat. ii. p. 357) adopts, has nothing at all to
recommend it, and is purely gratuitous, as Mr.
Hope proved in 1837 in a paper on this subject in
the Trans. Ent. Soc. ii. p. 179-183. The error
of calling the cockroach a beetle, and the confusion
which has been made between it and the Sacred
Beetle of Egypt (Ateuchus sacer), has recently been
repeated by M. Kalisch ( Hist. and Crit. Comment.
Ex. J. ¢.). The cockroach, as Mr. Hope remarks,
is a nocturnal insect, and prowls about for food at
night, “but what reason have we to believe that
the fly attacked the Egyptians by night and not by
day ?”? We see no reason to be dissatisfied with the
yeading in our own version.
FOWL, FOWLER. [Sparrow.]
FOX [addition to the article on, p. 633].
There can be no doubt that the Heb. word
shi’él (Oy%t%) denotes the “ jackal” (Canis aureus);
as well as “the fox.” The passage in Ps. Ixiii. 10,
“they shall be a portion for shu’dlim,” evidently
refers to ‘‘ jackals,’ which are ever ready to prey
on the dead bodies of the slain: indeed we are in-
clined to think that the “jackal” is the animal
more particularly signified in almost all the passages
in the O. T. where the Hebrew term occurs. The
partiality for grapes is nearly as strong in the jackal
as in the fox ;> and there can be no doubt that the
Hebrew shi’dl, the Persian shagal, the German
schakal, and the English jackal, are all connected
with each other.
The shi’dlim of Judg. xv. 4 are evidently
“jackals,” and not ‘ foxes,” for the former animal
is gregarious, whereas the latter is solitary in its
habits; and it is in the highest degree improbable
that Samson should ever have succeeded in catching
so many as 300 foxes, whereas he could readily have
“taken in snares,’’ as the Hebrew verb (732) pro-
th ν'
perly means, so many jackals, which go together for
the most part in large groups. The whole passage,
which describes the manner in which Samson avenged
himself on the Philistines by tying the tails of two
jackals together, with a firebrand between them,
and then sending them into the standing corn
and orchards of his enemies, has, it is well known,
been the subject of much dispute. Dr. Kennicott
(Remarks on Select Passages in the O. T., Oxtord,
1787, p. 100) proposed, on the authority of seven
Heb. MSS., to read shéiilim (DY2Yt), “sheaves” (Ὁ),
instead of shi’ alim ΩΣ leaving out the letter
ἡ: the meaning then being, simply, that Samson
took 300 sheaves of corn, and put end to end (‘tail
to tail’’), and then set a burning torch between
a There is, however, no occasion to appeal to the above
explanation, for the common flies in Egypt well merit the
epithet of “devouring.” Mr. Tristram assures us that he
has had his ankles and instep covered with blood from the
bite of the common fly, as he lay on the sand in the desert
with his boots off.
FOX
them. (See also what an anonymous French author
has written under the title of Renards de Sumson,
and his arguments refuted in a treatise, ‘ De Vul-
pibus Simsonaeis,’ by B. H. Gebhard, in Thes. Nov.
Theol. Phil. i. 555, sqq.) The proposed reading
of Kennicott has deservedly found little favour with
commentators. Not to mention the authority of the
important old versions which are opposed to this
view, it is pretty certain that shéa/im cannot mean
“«sheaves.”” The word, which occurs only three
times, denotes in Is. xl. 12 ‘‘ the hollow of the hand,”
and in 1 K. xx. 10, Ez. xiii. 19, ‘‘ handfuls.”
The difficulty of the whole passage consists in
understanding how two animals tied together by their
tails would run far in the same direction. Col. H.
Smith (in Kitto’s Cyc. art. ‘Shual’ observes, “ they
would assuredly pull counter to each other, and ulti-
mately fight most fiercely.” Probably they would ;
but it is only fair to remember, in reply to the
objections which critics have advanced to this tran-
saction of the Hebrew judge, that it has yet to be
demonstrated that two jackals united by their tails
would run counter, and thus defeat the intended
purpose; in so important a matter as the verifica-
tion of a Scripture narrative the proper course is
experimental where it can be resorted to. Again, we
know nothing as to the length of the cord which
attached the animals, a consideration which is ob-
viously of much importance in the question at issue,
for, as jackals are gregarious, the couples would
naturally run together if we allow a length of cord
of two or three yards, especially when we reflect
that the terrified animals would endeavour to escape
as far as possible out of the reach of their captor,
and make the best of their way out of his sight. Col.
H. Smith’s explanation, which has been adopted’
by Kitto (in the Pict. Bibl. in Judg. 1. c.), viz.,
that by “tail to tail” is to be understood the
end of the firebrand attached to the extremity of
the tail, is contradicted by the immediate context,
where it is said that Samson “put a firebrand ir.
the midst between two tails.” The translation of
the A. V. is unquestionably the correct rendering
of the Hebrew, and has the authority of the LXX.
and Vulg. in its favour. But if the above re-
marks are deemed inadequate to a satisfactory solu-
tion of Samson’s exploit, we are at liberty to suppose
that he had men to help him, both in the capture
of the jackals and in the use to which he put
them, and it is not necessary to conclude that the
animals were all caught at, and let loose from the
same place: some might have been taken in one
portion of the Philistines’ territory, and some in
another, and let loose in different parts of the country.
This view would obviate the alleged difficulty alluded
to above ; for there would be no necessity for the
jackals to run any greatf distance in order to insure
the greatest amount of damage to the crops: 150
different centres, so to speak, of conflagration
throughout the country of the Philistines must have
burnt up nearly all their corn ; and, from the whole
context, it is evident that the injury done was one
of almost unlimited extent.
With respect to the jackals-and foxes of Palestine,
there is no doubt that the common jackal of the
hii
b We remember some years ago testing this fondness
for grapes in the jackals, foxes, and wolves, in the
Regent’s Park Zoological Gardens. ‘The two first-named
animals ate the fruit with avidity, but the wolves would
not touch it.
liv FROG
country 1s the Cunis aureus, which may be heard
every night in the villages. Hemprich and Ehren-
berg (Symb, Phys. pt. i.) speak of a vulpine animal,
under the name of Canis Syriacus, as occurring in
(a τ.--
ee
Canis Syriacus,
Lebanon. Col. H. Smith has figured an animal to
which he gives the name of “ Syrian fox,” or Vulpes
Thaleb, or Taaleb; but we have been quite unable
to identify the animal with any known species.¢
The Egyptian Vulpes Niloticus, and doubtless the
Vulpes Niloticus.
common fox of our own country (V. vulgaris), are
Palestine species. Hasselquist ( Zrav. p. 184) says
foxes are common in the stony country about Beth-
lehefa, and near the Convent of St. John; where
about vintage time they destroy all the vines unless
they are strictly watched. That jackals and foxes
were formerly very common in some parts of Pales-
tine is evident from the names of places derived from
these animals, as Hazar-Shual (Josh. xv. 28), Shaal-
bim (Judg. i. 35).
the animal selected by God as an instrument for
humbling the pride of Pharaoh (Ex. viii. 2-14; Ps. |
Ixxviii. 45; ev. 30; Wisd. xix. 10); frogs came in
prodigious numbers from the canals, the rivers, and |
the marshes, they filled the houses, and even entered |
GALL
the ovens and kneading troughs ; when at the com-
mand of Moses the frogs died, the people gathered
them in heaps, and ‘‘the land stank”? from the
corruption of the bodies. There can be no doubt
that the whole transaction was miraculous ; frogs,
it is true, if allowed to increase, can easily be ima-
gined to occur in such multitudes as marked the
second plague of Egypt,—indeed similar plagues are
on record as having occurred in various places, as
at Poeonia and Dardania, where frogs suddenly ap-
peared in such numbers as to cause the inhabitants
to leave that region—(see Eustathius on Hom. //.
i., and other quotations cited by Bochart, Hieroz.
iii. 575)—but that the transaction was miraculous
appears from the following considerations.
1. The time of the occurrence was in spring,
when frogs would be in their tadpole state, or at
any rate not sufficiently developed to enable them
to go far from the water. 2, The frogs would not
naturally have died, in such prodigious numbers as
is recorded, in a single day.
It is stated (Ex. viii. 7) that the Egyptian “ magi-
cians brought up frogs.” Some writers have denied
that they could have had any such power, and think
that they must have practised some deceit. It is
worthy of remark, that though they may have been
permitted by God to increase the plagues, they were
quite unable to remove them. ,
Amongst the Evyptians the frog was considered
a symbol of an imperfect man, and was supposed to
be generated from the slime of the river—ék τῆς
τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἰλύος (see Horapollo, i.26). A frog
sitting upon a lotus (Velumbium) was also regarded
by the ancient Egyptians as symbolical of the return
of the Nile to its bed after the inundations. Hence
the Egyptian word Hhrur, which was used to denote
the Nile descending, was also, with the slight change
of the first letter into an aspirate, Chrw-, the name
of a frog (Jablonski, Panth. Aegypt. iv. 1, §9).
The only known species of frog which occurs at
present in Egypt is the Rana esculenta, of which
two varieties are described which differ from Spal-
lanzani’s species in some slight peculiarities (De-
script. de ! Egypte, Hist. Natur. tom. i. p. 181,
fol. ed.). The Rana esculenta, the well-known
edible frog of the Continent, which occurs also in
some localities in England, has a wide geographical
range, being found in many parts of Asia, Africa,
and Europe. How the 2. punctata (Pelodytes) came
to be described as an Egyptian species we cannot say,
but it is certain that this species is not found in
Egypt, and it is almost certain that none but the
10. esculenta does occur in that country. We are
able to state that Dr. A. Giinther of the British
| Museum confirms this statement. A species of tree+
| frog (Hyla) occurs in Egypt; but with this genus
we have nothing to do.
G
GALL, the representative in the A. V. of the
Hebrew words mérérah, or mérérah, and résh.
1. Mérérah or mérérah (AN or nv: χολή:
fel, amaritudo, viscera mea) denotes etymologically
“that which is bitter;” see Job xiii. 26, “thou
writest bitter things against me.”’ Hence the term
© The late Col. Hamilton Smith used to make drawings |
of animals from all sources, such as monuments, books, |
specimens, &c.; but, as he often forgot the sources, it is
difficult in several instances to understand what animal he
intended. Dr. Gray tells us that he was unable to identify
many of the horses in Jardine’s Natwralist’s Library.
ον
GALL
is applied to the “ bile” or ‘‘ gall” from its intense
bitterness (Job xvi. 13, xx. 25); it is also used of
the “poison” of serpents (Job xx. 14), which the
ancients erroneously believed was their gall; see
Pliny, WV. H. xi. 37, “ No one should be astonished
that it is the gall which constitutes the poison of
serpents.” :
2. Rosh (WN or WII: χολή, πικρία, ἄγρωστις:
fel, amaritudo, caput), generally translated “ gall”
by the A. V. is in Hos. x. 4, rendered ‘* hemlock :”
in Deut. xxxii. 33, and Job xx. 16, résh denotes the
“poison” or “ venom” of serpents. From Deut.
xxix. 18, “a root that beareth résh” (margin ‘‘a
poisonful herb”), and Lam. iii. 19, “ the worm-
wood and the rdsh,” compared with Hos. x. 4,
“ judgment springeth up as résh,” it is evident that
the Heb. term denotes some bitter, and perhaps
poisonous plant, though it may also be used, as in
Ps. lxix. 21, in the general sense of ‘ something
very bitter.’’ Celsius ( Hierob. ii. p. 46-52) thinks
** hemlock”’ (Conium maculatwm) is intended, and
quotes Jerome on Hosea in support of his opinion,
though it seems that this commentator had in view
the couch-grass (Triticum repens) rather than
““hemlock.’’ Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot. p. 118) is
inclined to think that the Lolium temulentwm best
agrees with the passage in Hosea, where the rdsh is
said to grow “ in the furrows of the field.”
Other writers have supposed, and with some
reason (from Deut. xxxii. 32, “their grapes are
grapes of résh”’), that some berry-bearing plant
must be intended. Gesenius (7165. p. 1251) under-
stands ‘* poppies ;’ Michaelis (Suppl. Lex. Heb. p.
2220) is of opinion that résh may be either the
Lolium temulentum, or the Solanum (<< night-
shade”). Oedmann (Vé#m. Sam. Pt. iv. c. 10)
argues in favour of the Colocynth. The most pro-
bable conjecture, for proof there is none, is that of
Gesenius: the capsules of the Papaveraceae may
well give the name of résh (“‘head”’), to the plant
in question, just as we speak of poppy heads. The
various species of this family spring up quickly in
corn-fields, and the juice is extremely bitter. A
steeped solution of poppy heads may be ‘‘ the water
of gall” of Jer. viii. 14, unless, as Gesenius thinks,
the YN YD may be the poisonous extract, opium ;
but nothing definite can be learnt.
The passages in the Gospels which relate the
circumstance of the Roman soldiers offering our
Lord, just before his crucifixion, “ vinegar mingled
with gall,’”’ according to St. Matthew (xxvii. 34),
and ‘wine mingled with myrrh,” according to
St. Mark’s account (xv. 23), require some consi-
devation. The first-named Evangelist uses χολή,
which is the LXX. rendering of the Heb. résh in the
Psalm (xix. 21)) which foretels the Lord’s sufferings.
St. Mark explains the bitter ingredient in the sour
vinous drink to be ‘‘ myrrh” (οἶνος ἐσμυρνισμένος".,
for we cannot regard the transactions as different.
* Matthew, in his usual way,” as Hengstenberg
(Comment. in Ps. |xix. 21) remarks, ‘‘ designates
the drink theologically : always keeping his eye on
the prophecies of the O. T., he speaks of gall and
vinegar for the purpose of rendering the fulfilment
of the Psalms more manifest. Mark again (xv. 23),
according to Ais way, looks rather at the outward
quality of the drink.” Bengel takes quite a different
view; he thinks both myrrh and gall were added to
the sour wine: “myrrha conditus ex more ; felle
adulteratus ex petulantia” (Gnom. Nov. Test. Matt.
l.c.). Hengstenberg’s view is far preferable ; nor
=e
GIER-EAGLE ly
is “gall” (χολή) to be understood in any other
sense than as expressing the bitter nature of the
draught. As to the intent of the proffered drink,
it is generally supposed that it was for the purpose
of deadening pain. It was customary to give cri-
minals just before their execution a cup of wine
with frankincense in it, to which reference is made,
it is believed, by the οἶνος κατανύξεως of Ps. lx. 3;
see also Proy. xxxi. 6. This the Talmud states was
given in order to alleviate the pain. See Buxtorf
(Lex. Talm. p. 2131), who thus quotes from the
Talmud (Sanhed. fol. 43, 1): “ Qui exit ut occi-
datur (ex sententia judicis) potant eum grano
thuris in poculo vini ut distrahatur mens ejus.”
Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot. p. 163) is of opinion that
the myrrh was given to our Lord, not for the pur-
pose of alleviating his sufferings, but in order that
he might be sustained until the punishment was
completed. He quotes from Apuleius (Metamorp.
viii.) Who relates that a certain priest ‘disfigured
himself with a multitude of blows, having pre-
viously ‘strengthened himself by taking myrrh.”
How tar the frankincense in the cup, as mentioned
in the Talmud, was supposed to possess soporific
properties, or in any way to induce an alleviation
of pain, it is difficult to determine. ‘The same must
be said of the οἶνος ἐσμυρνισμένος of St. Mark ; for
it is quite certain that neither of these two drugs
in question, both of which are the produce of the
same natural order of plants (Amyridaceae), is
ranked among the hypnopoietics by modern phy-
sicians. It is true that Dioscorides (i. 77) ascribes
a soporific property to myrrh, but it does not seem
to have been so regarded by any other author.
Notwithstanding, therefore, the almost concurrent
opinion of ancient and modern commentators that
the ‘wine mingled with myrrh” was offered to
our Lord as an anodyne, we cannot readily come to
the same conclusion. Had the soldiers intended a
mitigation of suffering, they would doubtless haye
offered a draught drugged with some substance
having narcotic properties. The drink in question
was probably a mere ordinary beverage of the
Romans, who were in the habit of seasoning their
various wines, which, as they contained little alcohol,
soon turned sour, with various spices, drugs, and
perfumes, such as myrrh, cassia, myrtle, pepper,
&e. &e. (Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antig. art. ‘Vinum’).
GIER-EAGLE (OM, rachdm ; MOM, rach-
amah: κύκνος, πορφυρίων : porphyrio), an un-
clean bird mentioned in Lev. xi. 18 and Deut. xiv. 17.
There is no reason to doubt that the rachdm of the
Heb. Scriptures is identical in reality as in name
Sie
with the racham (= -») of the Arabs, viz. the
Egyptian vulture (Meophron percnopterus); see
Gesner, De Avib. p. 176; Bochart, Hieroz. iii. p
56; Hasselquist, Zrav. p. 195, and Russell’s Natwral
Hist. of Aleppo, ii. p. 195, 2nd ed. The LXX.
in Lev. ἰ. 6. renders the Heb. term by “swan”
(κύκνος), while in Deut. /. ὁ. the “ purple water-
hen” (Porphyrio hyacinthinus) is given as its re-
presentative. There is too much discrepancy in the
LXX. translations of the various birds mentioned
in the: Levitical law to allow us to attach: much
weight to its authority. .The Hebrew term etymo-
logically signifies ‘¢ a bird which is very affectionate
to its young,” which is perfectly true of the Egyp-
tian vulture, but not more so than of other birds.
The Arabian writers relate many fables of the
lvi GOAT
Racham, some of which the reader may see in the
Hicrozoicon of Bochart (iii. p. 56). The Egyptian
vulture, according to Bruce, is called by the Eu-
ropeans in Egypt “ Pharaoh’s Hen.” It is generally
= τὺ
Egyptian vulture.
distributed throughout Egypt, and Mr. Tristram
says it is common in Palestine, and breeds in great
numbers in the valley of the Cedron (JZbis, i. 23).
Though a bird of decidedly unprepossessing appear-
ance and of disgusting habits, the Egyptians, like all
other Orientals, wisely protect so efficient a scavenger,
which rids them of putrefying carcases that would
otherwise breed a pestilence in their towns. Near
Cairo, says Shaw (Trav. p. 388, folio), there are
several flocks of the Ach Bobba, “ white father,’’—
a name given it by the Turks, partly out of the
reverence they have for it, partly from the colour of
its plumage—* which like the ravens about our
metropolis feed upon the carrion and nastiness that
is thrown without the city.” Young birds are of a
brown colour with a few white feathers ; adult speci-
mens are white, except the primary and a portion
of the secondary wing-feathers, which are black.
Naturalists have referred this vulture to the
περκνόπτεροΞ or ὀρειπέλαργος of Aristotle (Hist.
An, ix. 22, §2, ed Schneid.).
GOAT [addition to the article on, p. 705].
There appear to be two or three varieties of the
common goat ( Hircus aegagrus) at present bred in
Palestine and Syria, but whether they are identical
with those which were reared by the ancient Hebrews
it is not possible to say. The most marked varieties
are the Syrian goat (Capra Mambrica, Linn.), with
long thick pendent ears, which are often, says
Russell (Wat. Hist. of Aleppo, ii. 150, 2nd ed.),
a foot long, and the Angora goat (Capra Angorensis,
Linn.), with fine long hair. The Syrian goat is
mentioned by Aristotle ( Hist. An. ix, 27, §3), There
is also a variety that differs but little from British
specimens. Goats have from the earliest ages been
considered important animals in rural economy, both
on account of the milk they afford and the excellency
of the flesh of the young animals. The goat is figured
on the Egyptian monuments (see Wilkinson’s Anc.
Egypt. i. 223). Col. Ham. Smith (Griffiths’ An.
King. iv. 308) describes three Egyptian breeds:
one with long hair, depressed horns, ears small and
pendent; another with horns very spiral, and ears
« Comp. Theocritus, Jd. viii. 49, °Q tpaye, τἂν λευκᾶν
αἰγᾶν ἄνερ; and Virg. Hel. vii. 7, “ Vir gregis ipse
caper.”
GOAT
longer than the head ; and a third, which occurs in
Upper Egypt, without horns.
Goats were offered as sacrifices ( Lev. iii. 12, ix. 15;
Ex. xii. 5, &c.); their milk was used as food (Prov.
xxvii. 27); their flesh was eaten (Deut. xiv. 4; Gen.
xxvii. 9); their hair was used for the curtains of the
tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 7, xxxvi. 14), and for stuffing
bolsters (1 Sam. xix. 13); their skins were some-
times used as clothing (Heb. xi. 37).
The passage in Cant. iv. 1, which compares the
hair of the beloved to “a flock of goats that eat
of Mount Gilead,’ probably alludes to the fine
hair of the Angora breed. Some have very plau-
sibly supposed that the prophet Amos (iii. 12),
when he speaks of a shepherd “ taking out of the
mouth of the lion two legs or a piece of an ear,”
alludes to the long pendulous ears of the Syrian
breed (see Harmer’s Obser. iv. 162). In Prov. xxx.
31, a he-goat is mentioned as one of the “ four things
which are comely in going;” in allusion, probably,
to the stately march of the leader of the flock,
which was always associated in the minds of the
Hebrews with the notion of dignity. Hence the
metaphor in Is. xiv. 9, “all the chief ones (margin,
‘great goats’) of the earth.” So the Alexandrine
version of the LXX. understands the allusion, καὶ
Long-eared Syrian goat.
As to the ye’élim cory : τραγέλαφοι, ἔλαφοι:
ibices: ‘ wild goats,” A. V.), it is not at all im-
probable, as the Vulg. interprets the word, that
some species of ibex is denoted, perhaps the Capra
Sinaitica (Ehrenb.), the Beden or Jaela of Egypt
and Arabia. This ibex was noticed at Sinai by
Ehrenberg and Hemprich (Sym. Phys. t. 18), and
by Burckhardt (Zrav. p. 526), who (p. 405) thus
speaks of these animals: ‘ In all the valleys south
of the Modjeb, and particularly in those of Modieb
and ΕἸ Ahsa, large herds of mountain goats, called
by the Arabs Beden ( wee) are met with. This
is the steinbock> or bouquetin of the Swiss and Tyrol
b The Capra Sinaitica is not identical with the Swiss
ibex or steinbock (C. Ibex), though it is a closely allied
species.
GOURD
Alps. They pasture in flocks of forty and fifty
together. Great numbers of them are killed by the
people of Kerek and Tatyle, who hold their flesh in
high estimation. They sell the large knotty horns
to the Hebrew merchants, who carry them to Jeru-
salem, where they are worked into handles for knives
and daggers...... The Arabs told me that it is
ditficult to get a shot at them, and that the hunters
hide themselyes among the reeds on the banks of
streams where the animals resort in the evening to
drink. They also asserted that, when pursued, they
will throw themselves from a height of fifty feet and
more upon their heads without receiving any injury.”
Hasselquist (Zrav. p. 190) speaks of rock goats
(Capra cervicapra, Linn.) which he saw hunted
with falcons near Nazareth. But the C. cervicapra
of Linneus is an antelope (Antilope cervicapra,
Pall.).
T ue is considerable ditticulty attending the iden-
tification of the akké (IPN), which the LXX. ren-
der by tparyéAados, and the Vulg. tragelaphus.
The word, which occurs only in Deut. xiv. 5 as one
of the animals that might be eaten, is rendered
“wild goat”’ by the A.V. Some have referred the
akké to the ahu of the Persians, 7, ¢. the Capreolus
pugargus, or the “‘tailless roe” (Shaw, Zool. ii. 287),
οἵ Central Asia. If we could satisfactorily establish
the identity of the Persian word with the Hebrew,
the animal in question might represent the akko of
the Pentateuch, which might formerly have inha-
bited the Lebanon, though it is not found in Pa-
lestine now. Perhaps the paseng (Cap. aegagrus,
Cuy.), which some have taken to be the parent stock
of the common goat, and which at present inhabits
the mountains of Persia and Caucasus, may have in
Biblical times been found in Palestine, and may be
the akké of Scripture. But we allow this is mere
conjecture.
Goat of Mount Sinai.
GOURD [addition to the article on, p. 724].
There can, we think, be no reasonable doubt that the
kikayon which afforded shade to the prophet Jonah
before Nineveh is the Ricinus communis, or castor-
oil plant, which, formerly a native of Asia, is now.
naturalised in America, Africa, and the South of
Europe. This plant, which varies considerably in
size, being in India a tree, but in England seldom
attaining a greater height than three or four feet,
receives its generic name from the resemblance its
‘4 SN
ὼς Se
GOURD
fruit was anciently supposed to bear to the acarus
(“tick”) of that name. See Dioscorides (iv. 161, ed.
Sprengel) and Pliny (VV. H. xv. 7). The leaves are
large and palmate, with serrated lobes, and would
form an excellent shelter for the sun-stricken prophet.
The seeds contain the oil so well known under the
name of “ castor-oil,’ which has for ages been in
high repute as a medicine.
lvii
Castor-oil plant.
With regard to the “ wild gourds” (MPs,
pakkuéth) of 2 K. iv. 39, which one of “ the sons
of the prophets” gathered ignorantly, supposing
them to be good for food, there can be no doubt that
itis a species of the gourd tribe (Cucurbitaceae),
which contain some plants of a very bitter and dan-
gerous character. The leaves and tendrils of this
family of plants bear some resemblance to those of
the vine. Hence the expression, ‘‘ wild vine ;”* and
as several kinds of Cucurbitaceae, such as melons,
pumpkins, &c., are favourite articles of refieshing
food amongst the Orientals, we can easily understand
the cause of the mistake.
The plants which have been by different writers
identified with the pakkudth are the following:
the colocynth, or coloquintida ( Citrullus colocynthis) ;
the Cucumis prophetarum, or globe cucumber ; and
the Ecbalium (Momordica) elaterium ; all of which
have claims to denote the plant in question. The
etymology of the word from ype, “ to split or
burst open,” has been thought to favour the identi-
fication of the plant with the Ecbalium elaterium,»
or “squirting cucumber,” so called from the elas-
ticity with which the fruit, when ripe, opens and
scatters the seeds when touched. This is the -
ἄγριος Σίκυος of Dioscorides (iv. 152) and Theo-
phrastus (vii. 6, 84, &c.), and the Cucumis syl-
vestris of Pliny (N. H. xx. 2). Celsius (/ierob.
i. 393), Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot. p. 128), Winer
(Bib. Realw. i. 525), and Gesenius ( Thes. p. 1122),
are in favour of this explanation, and, it must be
4 «One went out into the field to gather potherbs
(TS), and found a wild vine” (ΠῚ Φ 33).
b From ἐκβάλλω.
GREYHOUND
confessed, not without some reason.
lyiil
sions, however, understand the colocynth, the fruit |
of which is about the size of an orange.
Coiocynth.
drastic medicine in such general use is a prepara-
tion from this plant. Michaelis (Suppl. Ler. Heb.
p- 344) and Oedmann ( Verm. Sammi. iv. 88) adopt
this explanation; and since, according to Kitto
(Pict. Bib. 1. c.), the dry gourds of the colocynth,
when crushed, burst with a crashing noise, there is
much reason for being satisfied with an explanation
which has authority, etymology, and general suit-
ableness in its favour. All the above-named plants
are found in the East.
GREYHOUND. The translation in the text
of the A. V. (Prov. xxx. 31) of the Hebrew words
ὉΠ WIM (zarzir mothnayim), i. e. ‘ one girt
about the loins.” See margin, where it is conjec-
tured that the “horse” is the animal denoted by
this expression. The Alexandrine version of the
LXX. has the following curious interpretation,
ἀλέκτωρ ἐμπεριπατῶν ἐν θηλείαις εὔψυχος, 1. e.
“a cock as it proudly struts amongst the hens.”
Somewhat similar is the Vulgate, “ gallus succintus
lumbos.” Various are the opinions as to what
animal “ comely in going” is here intended. Some
think “a leopard,” others “an eagle,” or “a man
girt with armour,’ or “a zebra,” &c. Gesenius
( Thes. p.435), Schultens (Comment. ad Prov. 1. c.),
Bochart ( Hieroz. ii. 684), Rosenmiiller (Schol. ad
Prov. 1. c., and Not. ad Boch. 1. c.), Fuller (J/is-
cell. Sac. 5, 12), are in favour of a “ war-horse
girt with trappings,” being the thing signified.
But, later, Maurer (Comment. Gram. in Vet. Test.
1. c.) decides unhesitatingly in favour of a “ wrestler,”
when girt about the loins for a contest.
zarzér is used in the Talmud to express “‘ a wrestler,’
and thus concludes: ‘* Sed ne opus quidem est hoc
loco quanquam minime contemnendo, quum accine-
tum esse in neminem magis cadat quam in luctatorem
ita ut haec significatio certa sit per se.”
certainly great probability that Maurer is correct.
The grace and activity of the practised athlete agrees
The
He refers
to Buxtorf (Lex. Chald. Talm. p. 692) to show that
There is
HARE
The old ver- well with the notion conveyed by the expression, |
“ comely in going;” and the suitableness of the
Hebrew words, zarzir mothnayim, is obvious to
every reader.
H
HARE (NINN, arnebeth: δασύπους : lepus)
occurs only in Ley. xi. 6 and Deut. xiv. 7, amongst
the animals disallowed as food by the Mosaic law.
There is no doubt at all that arnebeth denotes a
‘¢hare;”’ and in all probability the species Lepus
| Sinaiticus, which Ehrenberg and Hemprich (Symb.
| Phys.) mention as occurring in the valleys of Arabia
| Petraea and Mount Sinai, and Z. Syriacus, which the
same authors state is found in the Lebanon, are those
which were best known to’ the ancient Hebrews’;
though there are other kinds of Leporidae, as the
L. Aegyptius and the L. Aethiopicus, if a distinct
species from ZL. Sinaiticus, which are found in
the Bible lands. The hare is at this day called
arneb (3))) by the Arabs in Palestine and Syria
(see Russell’s Nat. Hist. of Aleppo, ii. 154, 2nd ed.).
Hare of Mount Sinai.
The δασύπους, ἵ. 6. “rough foot,” is identical with
λαγώς, and is the term which Aristotle generally
applies to the hare: indeed he only uses the latter
word once in his History of Animals (viii. 27,
§4). We are of opinion, as we have elsewhere
stated [Conny ], that the rabbit (Z. cuniculus) was
unknown to the ancient Hebrews, at any rate in its
wild state; nor does it appear to be at present
known in Syria or Palestine as a native. It is
doubtful whether Aristotle was acquainted with
the rabbit, as he never alludes to any burrowing
λαγώς or δασύπους: but, on the other hand, see
the passage in vi. 28, §3, where the young of the
δασύπους ure said to be “born blind,” which will
apply to the rabbit alone. Pliny (WV. H. viii. 55),
expressly notices rabbits (cuniculi), which occur in
such numbers in the Balearic Islands as to destroy
the harvests. He also notices the practice of terret-
ing these animals, and thus driving them out of
their burrows. In confirmation of Pliny’s remarks,
we may observe that there is a small island of the
Balearic group called Conejera, 7. 6. in Spanish a
ἐς yabbit-warren,” which at this day is abundantly
stocked with these animals. The hare was erro-
neously thought by the ancient Jews to have chewed
the cud, who were no doubt misled, as in the case of
HART
the shaphan (Hyrax), by the habit these animals
have of moving the jaw about.
"
“ Hares are so plentiful in the environs of Aleppo,”
says Dr. Russell (p. 158), ‘‘ that it was no uncommon
thing to see the gentlemen who went out a sporting
twice a-week return with four or five brace hung
in triumph at the girths of the servants’ horses.”
The Turks and the natives, he adds, do not eat the
hare ; but the Arabs, who have a peculiar mode of
dressing it, are fond of its flesh. Hares are hunted
in Syria with greyhound and falcon.
HART [addition to the article on, p. 759].
The Heb. mase. noun ayydl (2°), which is always
rendered ἔλαφος by the LXX., denotes, there can
be no doubt, some species of Cervidae (deer tribe),
either the Dama vulgaris, fallow-deer, or the Cervus
Barbarus, the Barbary deer, the southern repre-
sentative of the European stag (C. elaphus), which
occurs in Tunis and the coast of Barbary. We have,
however, no evidence to show that the Barbary deer
ever inhabited Palestine, though there is no reason
Barbary deer.
HAWK lix
why it may not have done so in primitive times.
Hasselquist (Trav. p. 211) observed the fallow-deer
on Mount Tabor. Sir G. Wilkinson says (Anc.
Egypt. p. 227, 8vo. ed.), “ The stag with branching
horns figured at Beni Hassan is also unknown in
the valley of the Nile; but it is still seen in the
vicinity of the Natron lakes, as about Tunis, though
not in the desert between the river and the Red
Sea.” This is doubtless the Cervus Barbarus.
Most of the deer tribe are careful to conceal their
calves after birth for a time. May there not be
some allusion to this circumstance in Job xxxix. 1,
*¢Canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?” &c.
Perhaps, as the LXX. uniformly renders ayydl by
ἔλαφος, we may incline to the belief that the
Cervus Barbarus is the deer denoted. The feminine
noun mx, ayyalah, occurs frequently in the O. T.
For the Scriptural allusions see under Hinb.
HAWK (Υ3, néts: ἱέραξ :
accipiter), the
| translation of the above-named Heb. term, which
Yu
LW:
"2
Ih
ψ
Fuico Sacer.
occurs in Lev. xi. 16 and Deut. xiv. 15 as one of
the unclean birds, and in Job xxxix. 26, where it is
asked, ‘“ Doth the néts fly by thy wisdom and
stretch her wings towards the south?” The word
is doubtless generic, as appears from the expression
in Deut. and Lev. “after his kind,’ and includes
various species of the Falconidae, with more especial
allusion perhaps to the small diurnal birds, such as
the kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), the hobby (Hy-
potriorchis subbuteo), the gregarious lesser kestrel
(Tinnunculus cenchris), common about the ruins
in the plain districts of Palestine, all of which were
probably known to the ancient Hebrews. With
respect to the passage in Job (/. c.), which appears
to allude to the migratory habits of hawks, it is
curious to observe that of the ten or twelve lesser
raptors of Palestine, nearly all are summer mi-
grants. The kestrel remains all the year, but 7.
cenchris, Micronisus gabar, Hyp. eleonorae, and
F. melanopterus, are all migrants from the south.
Besides the abovenamed smaller hawks, the two
magnificent species, F. Saker and δ΄, lanarius, ave
summer visitors to Palestine. On one occasion,”
HAY
says Mr. Tristram, to whom we are indebted for
much information on the subject of the birds of
Palestine, ‘‘ while’ riding with an Arab guide I ob-
served a falcon of large size rise close to us. The
guide, when I pointed it out to him, exclaimed,
ς Tuir Saq’r.’ Tair, the Arabic for ‘bird,’ is
universally throughout N. Africa and the East
applied to those falcons which are capable of being
trained for hunting, 7. 6. ¢ the bird,’ par excellence.”
These two species of falcons, and perhaps the
hobby and goshawk (Astur palumbarius) are em-
ployed by the Arabs in Syria and Palestine for the
purpose of taking partridges, sand-grouse, quails,
herons, gazelles, hares, &c. Dr. Russell (Nat. Hist.
of Aleppo, ii. p. 196, 2nd ed.) has given the Arabic
names of several falcons, but it is probable that some
at least of these names apply rather to the different
sexes than to distinct species. See a very graphic de-
scription of the sport of falconry, as pursued by the
Arabs of N. Africa, in the Jbis, i. p. 284; and
comp. Thomson, Zhe Land and the Book, p. 208.
Whether falconry was pursued by the ancient
Orientals or not, is a question we have been unable
to determine decisively. No representation of such
a sport occurs on the monuments of ancient Egypt
(see Wilkinson, An. Eg. i. p. 221), neither is there
any definite allusion to faleonry in the Bible. With
regard, however, to the negative evidence supplied
by the monuments of Egypt, we must be careful
ere we draw a conclusion ; for the camel is not repre-
sented, though we have Biblical evidence to show
that this animal was used by the Egyptians as early
as the time of Abraham; still, as instances of various
modes of capturing fish, game, and wild animals, are
not unfrequent on the monuments, it seems probable
the art was not known to the Egyptians. Nothing
definite can be learnt from the passage in 1 Sam.
xxvi. 20, which speaks of “‘a partridge hunted on
the mountains,” as this may allude to the method
of taking these birds by ““ throw-sticks,’ &c.
[ParTRIDGE.| The hind or hart “panting after
the water-brooks ” (Ps. xlii. 1) may appear at first
sight to refer to the mode at present adopted in
the Kast of taking gazelles, deer, and bustards,
with the united aid of falcon and greyhound;
but, as Hengstenberg (Comment. on Ps. 1. ο.)
has argued, it seems pretty clear that the exhaus-
tion spoken of is to be understood as arising not
from pursuit, but from some prevailing drought,
as in Ps, Ixiii. 1, “‘ My soul thirsteth for thee in a
dry land.” (See also Joel i. 20.) The poetical
version of Brady and Tate—
“ As pants the hart for cooling streams
When heated in the chase,”
has therefore somewhat prejudged the matter. For
the question as to whether falconry was known
to the ancient Greeks, see Beckmann, History of
Inventions (i. 198-205, Bohn’s ed.),
HAY (Sn, chatzir: ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ XAGpos,
χόρτος : prata, herba), the rendering of the A. V.
in Proy. xxvii. 25, and Is. xv. 6, of the above-named
Heb. term, which occurs frequently in the O. T., and
lx
a «The hay appeareth, and the tender grass sheweth
itself, and herbs of the mountains are gathered.”
S -
2 ὉΠ, allied to the Arabic Yai (cheshish),
which Freytag thus explains, ‘‘ Herba, pecul. siccior : scil.
Papulum siccum, foenum (ut (4b, viride et recens).
« “The Arabs of the desert always call the dry juice-
HEATH
denotes ‘‘ grass”’ of any kind, frem an unused root,
“to be green.” [GraAss.] In Num. xi. 5, this
word is properly translated “leeks.” [LEEK. ]
Harmer ( Observat. i. 425, ed. 1797), quoting from
a MS. paper of Sir J. Chardin, states that hay is
not made anywhere in the East, and that the
fenum of the Vulg. (aliis locis) and the ‘‘ hay” of
the A. V. are therefore errors of translation. It is
quite probable that the modern Orientals do not
make hay in our sense of the term; but it is certain
that the ancients did mow their grass, and probably
made use of the dry material. See Ps. xxxvii. 2,
“‘They shall soon be cut down 65,5»), and wither
as the green herb ;” Ps. Ixxii. 6, “ Like rain upon the
mown grass” (13). See also Am. vii. 1, “Ἅ The king’s
mowings” (42157 *f4); and Ps. cxxix. 7, where of
the “ grass upon the housetops” (Poa annua?) it
is said that “the mower (ἽΝ) filleth not his hand’”’
with it, “ nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom.”
We do not see, therefore, with the author of Frag-
ments in Continuation of Calmet (No. clxxviii.),
any gross impropriety in our version of Proy.
xxvii. 25, or in that of Is. xv. 6. ““ Certainly,”
says this writer, ‘‘if the tender grass* is but just
beginning to show itself, the hay, which is grass cut
and dried after it has arrived at maturity, ought by
no means to be associated with it, still less ought it
to be placed before it.” But where is the impro-
priety? The tender grass (NWT) may refer to the
77
springing after-grass, and the “hay” to the hay-
grass. However, in the two passages in question,
where alone the A. V. renders chdtzir by “hay,”
the word would certainly be better translated by
“ὁ grass.” We may remark that there is an express
Hebrew term for “dry grass” or ‘‘hay,” viz.
chashash,» which, apparently from an unused root
signifying “ to be dry,’ is rendered in the only two
places where the word occurs (Is. vy. 24, xxxiii.
11) “ chaff” in the Authorised Version. We do
not, however, mean to assert that the chashash of
the Orientals represents our modern English hay.
Doubtless the “dry grass” was not stacked, but
only cut in small quantities, and then consumed.
The grass of “ the latter growth” (Am. vii. 1)
(wind), perhaps like our after grass, denotes the
mown grass as it grows afresh after the harvest ;
like the Chordum foenum of Pliny (NV. H. viii. 28).
HEATH (ANY, ᾿ἄνδ᾽ ὅν, and WY, ᾿αγ᾽ ἂν 34
ἡ ἀγριομυρίκη, ὄνος ἄγριος : myrica), The pro-
phet Jeremiah compares the man ‘“* who maketh
flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the
Lord,” to the ’ar’dr in the desert (xvii. 6). Again,
in the judgment of Moab (xlviii. 6), to her inha-
bitants it is said, ‘ Flee, save your lives, and be like
the ’dréér in the wilderness,” where the margin has
“a naked tree.’ There seems no reason to doubt
Celsius’ conclusion (Hierob. ii. 195), that the
S-U-
’ar’ar is identical with the ’arar (y= y=) of Arabic
less herbage of the Sahara, which is ready made hay while
it is growing, cheshish, in contradistinction from the fresh
grass of better soils.” —[H. Β. ‘TristRam.]
ἃ From the root TY, “to be naked,” in allusion to the
bare nature of the rocks on which the Juniperus Sabina
often grows. Comp. Ps. cil. 17, Wy NDA, “ the
prayer of the destitute” (or ill clad).
HOLM-TREE
writers, which is some species of juniper. Robinson
(Bib. Res. ii. 125, 6) states that when he was in the
pass of Nemela he observed juniper trees (Arab.
’ar’ar) on the porphyry rocks above. The berries,
he adds, have the appearance and taste of the com-
mon juniper, except that there is more of the
aroma οὐ the pine. “ These trees were ten or fifteen
feet in height, and hung upon the rocks even to the
summits of the cliffs and needles.’ This appears to
be the Juniperus Sabina, or savin, with small scale-
like leaves, Which are pressed close to the stem, and
which is described as being a gloomy-looking bush
inhabiting the most sterile soil (see English Cycl. N.
Hist. iii. 311); a character which is obviously well
suited to the naked or destitute tree spoken of by
the prophet. Rosentmiiller’s explanation of the
Hebrew word, which is also adopted by Maurer,
“ qui destitutus versatur ” (Schol. ad Jer. xvii. 6),
is very unsatisfactory. Not to mention the tameness
of the comparison, it is evidently contradicted by
the antithesis in ver. 8: Cursed is he that trusteth
in man... he shall be like the juniper that grows
on the bare rocks of the desert: Blessed is the man
that trusteth in the Lord. , . he shall be as a tree
planted by the waters. The contrast between the
shrub of the arid desert and the tree growing by
the waters is very striking; but Rosenmiiller’s inter-
pretation appears to us to spoil the whole, Even
more unsatisfactory is Michaelis (Supp. Lea. Heb.
Ῥ. 1971), who thinks “ guinea hens” (Numida
meleagris) are intended! Gesenius ( Thes. p. 1073, 4)
understands these two Heb. terms to denote ‘‘ parie-
tinae, aedificia eversa” (ruins); but it is more in
accordance with the Scriptural passages to suppose
that some tree is intended, which explanation, more-
over, has the sanction of the LXX. and Vulgate, and
of the modern use of a kindred Arabic word.
HEMLOCK. [GALt.]
HOLM-TREE (πρῖνος : ilex) occurs only in
the apocryphal story of Susanna (ver. 58). The
passage contains a characteristic play on the names
of the two trees mentioned by the elders in their
evidence. That on the mastich (σχῖνον ... ἄγγελος
σκίσει ce) has been noticed under that head [vol. ii.
p- 2716]. That on the holm-tree (πρῖψον) is “ the
angel of God waiteth with the sword to cut
thee in two” (iva mpiom σε). For the histo-
rical significance of these puns see SUSANNA. The
πρῖνος of Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. iii. 7, §3, and
16, 51, and elsewhere) and Dioscorides (i. 144)
denotes, there can be no doubt, the Quercus coccifera,
the Q. pseudo-coccifera, which is perhaps not speci-
fically distinct from the first-mentioned oak. The
tlex of the Roman writers was applied both to the
holm-oak (Quercus tler) and to the Q. coccifera or
kermes oak. See Pliny (WV. H. xvi. 6).
For the oaks of Paiestine, see a paper by Dr.
Hooker in the Transactions of the Linnaean Society,
vol. xxiii. pt. ii. pp. 381-387. [Oak.]
HORSELEACH (Apiby, aiihdh: Βδέλλα:
sanguisuga) occurs once only, viz. Prov. xxx. 15,
«“ The _horseleach hath two daughters, crying,
Give, give.” There is little if any doubt that
’alukah denotes some species of leech, or rather is
the generic term for any bloodsucking annelid,
such as Hirudo (the medicinal leech), Haemopis
(the horseleech), Limnatis, Trochetia, and Aula-
stoma, if all these genera are found in the marshes
and pools of the Bible-lands. Schultens (Comment.
IVY Ιχὶ
in Prov. |. c.) and Bochart (Mieroz. iii. 785) have
endeavoured to show that ’daékah is to be under-
stood to signify “ fate,” or ‘impending misfortune
of any kind” (futwm unicuique impendens), they
refer the Hebrew term to the Arabic ’alik, res
appensa, affica homini. ‘The “ two daughters” are
explained by Bochart to signify Hades yw)
and the grave, which are never satisfied. This ex-
planation is certainly very ingenious, but where is
the necessity to appeal to it, when the important
old versions are opposed to any such interpreta-
tion? The bloodsucking leeches, such as Hirudo
and Haemopis, were without a doubt known to
the ancient Hebrews, and as the leech has been
for ages the emblem of rapacity and cruelty,
there is no reason to doubt that this annelid is
denoted by ’dlitah. The Arabs to this day deno-
minate the Limnatis Nilotica, ’alak. As to the
expression “ two daughters,’ which has been by
some writers absurdly explained to allude to “ the
double tongue” of a leech—this animal having no
tongue at all—there can be no doubt that it is figu-
rative, and is intended, in the language of Oriental
hyperbole, to denote its bloodthirsty propensity,
evidenced by the tenacity with which a leech keeps
its hold on the skin (if Hirudo), or mucous membrane
(if Haemopis). Comp. Horace, Hp. ad Pis. 476 ;
Cicero, Ep. ad Atticum, i. 16; Plautus, Epid. act
iv.sc. 4. The etymolocy of the Hebrew word, from
an unused root which signifies “ to adhere,” is
eminently suited to “a leech.” Gesenius (7168.
p. 1038) reminds us that the Arabic ’alik is ex-
plained in Camus by ghil, “a female monster like a
vampire which sucked human blood.” The passage
in question, however, has simply reference to a
“leech.” The valuable use of the leech (Hirudo)
in medicine, though undoubtedly known to Pliny
and the later Roman writers, was in all pro-
bability unknown to the ancient Orientals ; still
they were doubtless acquainted with the fact that
leeches of the above named genus would attach
themselves to the skin of persons going barefoot in
ponds; and they also probably were cognisant of
the propensity horseleeches (Haemopis) have of
entering the mouth and nostrils of cattle, as they
drink from the waters frequented by these pests,
which are common enough in Palestine and Syria.
I
IVY (κισσός : hedera), the common Hedera
helix, of which the ancient Greeks and Romans
describe two or three kinds, which appear to be
only varieties. Mention of this plant is made only
in 2 Mace. vi. 7, where it is said that the Jews
were compelled, when the feast. of Bacchus was
kept, to go in procession carrying ivy to this deity,
to whom it is well known this plant was sacred.
Ivy, however, though not mentioned by name, has
a peculiar interest to the Christian, as forming
the ““ corruptible crown” (1 Cor. ix. 25) for
which the competitors at the great Isthmian games
contended, and which St. Paul so beautifully con-
trasts with the “ incorruptible crown ” which shall
hereafter encircle the brows of those who run
worthily the race of this mortal life. In the
Isthmian contests the victor’s garland was either
my or pine.
[
APPENDIX B
ARTICLES
J
EO: NO bea
OMITTED.
[The articles m this Appendix are all written by William Aldis Wright, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, with
the exception of those which bear the initials of the names of their respective authors. Most of the additions
are in the letters A and B, since the scope and extent of the original work were eplarged after that portion had
been printed. }
AARONITES
AA'RONITES, THE (J1MN: 6 ᾿Ααρών:
stirps Aaron, Aaronitae). Descendants of Aaron,
and therefore priests, who, to the number of 3700
fighting men, with Jehoiada the father of Benaiah
at their head, joined David at Hebron (1 Chr. xii.
27). Later on in the history (1 Chr. xxvii. 17) we
find their chief was Zadok, who in the earlier nar-
rative is distinguished as “ἃ young man mighty of
valour.”” They must have been an important
family in the reign of David to be reckoned among
the tribes of Israel.
ABADIAS (ABadias: Abdias),
the son of Jehiel (1 Esdy. viii. 35).
AB'BA. [AB.]
AB'DI (AY: *ABat; Alex. ᾿Αβδί: Abdi).
1. A Merarite, and ancestor of Ethan the singer
(1 Chr. vi. 44).
2. ( ᾿Αβδί.) The father of Kish, a Merarite Le-
vite in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 12).
From a comparison of this passage with 1 Chr.
vi. 44 it would appear either that ancestral names
were repeated in Levitical families, or that they |
became themselves the names of families, and not of
individuals.
3. CABSia; FA. ’ABdela.) One of the Bene-
Elam in the time of Ezra, who had married a foreign
wife (Ezr. x. 26).
ABDI'AS (Abdias).
(2 Esdr. i. 39).
A'BEL-MA'IM. [AseEx 1.]
ABI'A. 5. (ΠΣ Ν : ᾿Αβιά: Abia.) ABITAH or
ABtsAM, the son of Rehoboam (1 Chr. iii. 10; Matt.
15}.
6. Descendant of Eleazar, and chief of the eighth
of the twenty-four courses of priests (Luke i. 5).
He is the same as ABIJAH 4.
ABGIEZ'RITE CYA YAN: πατὴρ τοῦ Ec dpi
in Judg. vi.; ’ABL Ἔσδρί in Judg. viii.; Alex,
πατὴρ ᾿Αβιεζρί, π. τοῦ ᾿τεζρί, π. ᾿Αβιεζρεί: puter
familiae Ezri, familia Ezri). A descendant of
Abiezer, or Jeezer, the son of Gilead (Judg. vi. 11,
24, viii. 32), and thence also called JeEezERITE
(Num. xxvi.'30). The Peshito-Syriac and Targum
OBADIAH,
The prophet Obadiah
ABIUD
both regard the first part of the word ‘ Abi” as
an appellative, “father of,” as also the LXX. and
Vulgate. .
AB'INER (9))38 : ᾿Αβεννήρ; Alex. ᾿Αβαινήρ:
Abner). This form of the name Abner is given in
the margin of 1 Sam. xiv. 50. It corresponds with
the Hebrew.
ABTRON (ABeipov: Abiron). ABIRAM
(Ecclus. xlv. 18).
ABISE'T (Abisei). ABIsSHUA, the son of
Phinehas (2 Esdr. i. 2).
ABISUM (ABicat; Atex.’ABioovat: Abisue).
ApIsHUA, the son of Phinehas (1 βάν, vill. 2).
Called also ABISEL.
ABRAHAM’S BOSOM. During the Roman
occupation of Judaea at least the practice of reclin-
ing on couches at meals was customary among the
Jews. As each guest leaned upon his left arm, his
neighbour next below him would naturally be de-
scribed as lying in his bosom; and such a position
with respect to the master of the house was one of
especial honour, and only occupied by his nearest
friends (John i. 18, xiii. 23). Τὸ lie in Abraham’s
bosom, then, was a metaphor in use among the Jews
to denote a condition after death of perfect happiness
and rest, and a position of friendship and nearness
to the great founder of their race, when they shall
lie down on his right hand at the banquet of Para-
dise, “4 with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the
kingdom of heaven” (Matt. viii. 11). That the
expression was in use among the Jews is shown by
Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in Luc. xvi. 22), who quotes
a passage from the Talmud ( Riddushin, fol. 72),
which, according to his interpretation, represents
Levi as saying in reference to the death of Rabbi
Judah, ““ to-day he dwelleth in Abraham’s bosom.”
The future blessedness of the just was represented
under the figure of a banquet, “the banquet of the
garden of Eden or Paradise.” See Schoettgen, Hor.
Heb. in Matt. viii. 11.
ABI'UD (Αβιούδ: Abinud). Descendant of
Zorobabel, in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt.
i. 13). Lord A. Hervey identifies him with Ho-
DAIAH (1 Chr. iii. 24) and Jupa (Luke iii. 26),
and supposes him to have been the grandson of
Zerubbabel through his daughter Shelomith.
ABNER
ABNER. 2. Father of Jaasiel, chief of the
Benjamites in David’s reign (1 Chr. xxvii. 21):
probably the same as ABNER 1,
AB'SALON (Αβεσσαλώμ: Abessalom). An
ambassador with John from the Jews to Lysias,
chief governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenice (2 Mace.
ΧΙ, 17}.
ABU'BUS (Αβούβος: <Abobus). Father
Ptolemeus, who was captain of the plain of Jericho,
and son-in-law to Simon Maccabaeus (1 Mace. xvi.
11, 15).
AC'ATAN (Akardav:
(1 ἔβαν, viii. 38).
A'CHAR (13): ᾿Αχάρ: Achar).
Eccetan). HAKKATAN
A variation
of the name of Achan, which seems to have arisen |
from the play upon it givenin 1 Chr. ii. 7, ‘¢ Achar,
the troubler ν᾿ écér) of Israel.”
A'CHAZ (Αχαζ: Achaz).
Judah (Matt. i. 9).
ACHIACH'ARUS (Axidyapos). Chief mi- |
nister, “* cupbearer ἘΔ ΤΩΝ ns τὰ sionet, and | Solomon’s servants who returned with Zorobabel
; ᾽ = ? |
| (1 Esdr. ν. 84); but the name does not occur in the
steward, and overseer of the accounts” at the
of
Anaz, king of
court of Sarchedonus or Esarhaddon, king of Nine- |
veh, in the Apocryphal story of Tobit (Tob. i. 21, !
| whose descendants, according to 1 Esdr., were un-
92, ii. 10, xiv. 10). He was nephew to Tobit,
being the son of his brother Anael, and supported
him in his blindness till he left Nineveh. From
the occurrence of the name of Aman in xiv. 10, it
has been conjectured that Achiacharus is but the
Jewish name for Mordecai, whose history suggested
some points which the author of the book of Tobit
worked up into his narrative; but there is no rea-
son to have recourse to such a supposition, as the
discrepancies are much more strongly marked than
the resemblances.
ACHI'AS (Achias).
ADINA χη]
who retmmmed with 242 of his brethren from
Babylon.
5. ( Αδαΐας ; Adaia.) One of the descendants
of Bani, who had married a foreign wife after the
return from Babylon (zr. x, 29). He is called
JEDEUS in 1 Esdr. ix. 30.
6. (Adaia; Alex.’Adaias; FA.’ Αδειάμ : Aduias.)
The descendant of another Bani, who had also taken
a foreign wife (Ezr. x. 39).
7. (Alex. ’Axata; PA. Δαλεά : Adaia.) A man
of Judah of the lirie of Pharez (Neh. xi. 5).
8. TY: ᾿Αδία; Alex. Adata: Adaias.) An-
cestor of Maaseiah, one of the captains who sup-
ported Jehoiada ( 2 Chr. xxiii. 8).
AD'DI. 2. (Αδδί: Addin.) This name occurs
in a very corrupt verse (1 Esdr. ix. 31), apparently
for ADNA (zr. x. 30),
AD'DO (Αδδώ: Addin). Ippo, the grand-
| father of the prophet Zechariah (1 Esdr. vi. 1),
AD'DUS (Αδδούς:
Addus are enumerated
Addus). 1. The sons of
among the children of
parallel lists of Ezra or Nehemiah,
2. (Ἰαδδού; Alex. ἸΙοδδούς : Addin.) Α priest,
able to establish their genealory in the time of
Ezra, and were removed from their priesthood
(1 Esdr. v. 38). He is said to have married Augia,
the daughter of Berzelus or Barzillai. In Ezra
and Nehemiah he is called by his adopted name
Barzillai, and it is not clear whether Addus re-
| presents his original name or is a mere corruption,
A'DER (17): “Edep; Alex. “OQSep: Heder).
| A Benjamite, son of Beriah, chief of the inhabitants
priest and progenitor of Esdras (2 Esdr. i. 2), but |
omitted both in the genealogies of Ezra and 1 Esdras. |
He is probably confounded with Ahijah, the son of
Ahitab and grandson of Eli.
ACH'ITOB (ΟΑχιτώβ : Achitod). Anitus,
the high priest (1 Esdr. viii. 2; 2 Esdr.i. 1), in
the genealogy of Esdras.
ACH'SA (ADIY: ᾿Ασχά; Alex.’Axod: Achsa).
Daughter of Caleb, or Chelubai, the son of Hezron
(1 Chr. ii. 49). [CALEB. |
A'CIPHA (AxiBa; Alex. ᾿Αχιφά:
Haxkupna (1 Esdr. y. 31).
AC'UA ( Ακούδ ; Accub), AkkuB (1 Esdr. v.
30) ; comp. Ezr. ii. 45.
ACUB (Akotp; Alex. ᾿Ακούμ: Accusy).
BAKBUK (1 παν, v. 313; comp. Ezr. ii. 51).
ADAVAH (AY: “Edeid; Alex. Ἰεδιδά :
Hadi). 1. The maternal grandfather of King
Josiah, and native of Boscath in the lowlands of |
Judah (2 K. xxii. 1
2. CASdat; Alex. ᾿Αδαΐα: Adaia.) A Levite, of |
the Gershonite branch, and ancestor of Asaph (1 Chr.
vi. 41). In ver. 21 he is called Ippo.
8. (Adata; Alex. ᾿Αλαΐα.) A Benjamite, son
of Shimhi (1 Chr. viii. 21), who is apparently the
same as Shema in ver. 13.
4. (Alex. Zadlas, "Adata; Adaias, Adaia.) A
priest, son of Jeroham (1 Chr. ix. 12; Neh. xi. 12),
Agista). |
lof Aijalon (1 Chr. viii. 15).
Son of Phinees; high |
| lon (Ezr. viii. 6).
The name is, more
correctly, EDER.
ADIEL (ONY: Ἰεδιήλ ; Alex. ESHA:
Adiel). 1. A prince of the tribe of Simeon, de-
scended from the prosperous family of Shimei
(1 Chr. iv. 36). He took part in the murderous
raid made by his tribe upon the peaceable Hamite
shepherds in the valley of Gedor, in the reign of
Hezekiah.
2. CAMA.) A priest, ancestor of Maasiai
(1 Chr. ix. 12).
8. (Ὀδιήλ ; Alex. ᾽Ωδιήλ.) Ancestor of Az-
maveth, David’s treasurer (1 Chr. xxvii. 25),
A'DIN (Pay: ᾿Αδδίν, ᾿Αδίν in Ezr., Ἦδίν in
Neh.: Adin, Adan in Ezr, viii. 6), Ancestor of a
family who returned with Zerubbabel to the num-
ber of 454 (Ezr. ii. 15), or 655, according to the
parallel list in Neh. vii. 20. Fifty-one more ac-
companied Ezra in the second caravan from Baby-
They joined with Nehemiah in
a covenant to separate themselves from the heathen
(Neh. x. 16).
AD'INA (SITY: ᾿Αδινά: Adina). The son
of Shiza, one of David’s captains beyond the Jordan,
and chief of the Reubenites (1 Chr. xi. 42). Ac-
cording to the A. V. and the Syriac, he had the
command of thirty men; but the passage should
be rendered ‘‘and over him were thirty,” that
lis, the thirty before enumerated were his supe-
riors, just as Benaiah was “above the thirty ”
(1 Chr. xxvii. 6).
Ixiv ADINUS
AD'INUS ( Ἰαδινός : Jaddimus). JAMIN the
Levite (1 Esdr. ix. 48 ; comp. Neh. viii. 7).
ADLAT (OY: ᾿Αδλί; Alex. ᾿Αδαΐ: Ad/i).
Ancestor of Shaphat, the overseer of David’s herds
that fed in the broad valleys (1 Chr. xxvii. 29).
AD'NA (NITY: Ἐδνέ: Edna). 1. One of the
family of Pahath-Moab who returned with Ezra,
and married a foreign wife (Ezr x, 30).
2. (Mavvds.) A priest, descendant of Harim,
in the days of Joiakim, the son of Jeshua (Neh.
xii, 15),
AD'NAH (7)7Y: Ἐδνά: Ednas).
Manassite, who deserted from Saul and joined the
fortunes of David on his road to Ziklag from the
camp of the Philistines (1 Chr. xii. 20).
2. (Edvas; Alex. Edvads.) The commander-
in-chief of 300,000 men of Judah, who were in Je-
hoshaphat’s army (2 Chr. xvii. 14).
ADO'NIKAM (DD IIN: ᾿Αδωνικάμ: Adoni-
cam). The sons of Adonikam, 666 in number,
were among those who returned from Babylon with
Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 13; Neh. vii. 18; 1 Esdr. v.
14). In the last two passages the number is 667.
The remainder of the family returned with Ezra
(Ezr. viii. 13; 1 Esdr. viii. 39). The name is
given as ADONIJAH in Neh. x. 16.
A’DUEL (AdounA). A Naphtalite, ancestor
of Tobit (Tob. 1. 1).
ADULILAMITE (‘253Y: ᾿Οδολλαμίτης ;
Alex. ᾿οδολλαμείτης : Odollamites). A native of
Adullam: applied to Hirah, the friend (or ‘‘ shep-
herd” as the Vulgate has it, reading ANY for
(MY) of Judah (Gen, xxxviii. 1, 12, 20).
A'GEE (838: “Aca; -Alex. ’Ayod: Age). A
Hararite, father of Shammah, one of David’s three
mightiest heroes (2 Sam. xxiii. 11). In the Pe-
shito-Syriac he is called “ Ago of the king’s moun-
tain.”
A'GUR (WAN: Congregans). The son of
Jakeh, an unknown Hebrew sage, who uttered or
collected the sayings of wisdom recorded in Prov.
xxx. Ewald attributes to him the authorship of
Prov. xxx. 1-xxxi. 9, in consequence of the simi-
larity of style exhibited in the three sections therein
contained ; and assigns as his date a period not
earlier than the end of the 7th or beginning of the
6th cent. B.c. The Rabbins, according to Rashi
and Jerome after them, interpreted the name sym-
bolically of Solomon, who “ collected understand-
ing” (from 138 agar, he gathered), and is else- |"
where called ‘* Koheleth.” Bunsen (Bibelwerk, i.
elxxviii.) contends that Agur was an inhabitant of
Massa, and probably a descendant of one of the 500
Simeonites, who, in the reign of Hezekiah, drove
out the Amalekites from Mount Seir. Hitzig goes
further, and makes him the son of the queen of
Massa and brother of Lemuel (Die Spriiche Sal.
p. 311, ed. 1858). In Castell’s Ler. Heptag. we
find the Syriac word \3
signifying “ one who applies himself to the studies of
wisdom.”
the Lexicon of Bar Bahlul, and it may have been
derived from some traditional interpretation of the
proper name Agur.
lec AZ!
J, agro, defined as |
There is no authority given for this but |
AHILUD
AH'ARAH (MMS: ’Aapa: Akhara). The
third son of Benjamin (1 Chr. viii. 1). See AHER,
AHIRAM.
AHAR'HEL (SMTNN: ἀδελφὸς Ῥηχάβ:
Aharehel). A name occurring in an obscure frag-
ment of the genealogies of Judah. ‘“ The families
of Aharhel ” apparently traced their descent through
Coz to Ashur, the posthumous son of Hezron. The
Targum of R. Joseph on Chronicles identifies him
with ‘‘ Hur the firstborn of Miriam” (1 Chr. iv.
8). The LXX. appear to have read 3M ‘MN,
“brother of Rechab,” or according to the Complu-
tensian edition bm ‘TIN, “ brother of Rachel.’
AHASA'T (HN: om. in LXX.: Ahazi), A
priest, ancestor of Maasiai or Amashai (Neh. xi.
13). He is called JAHZERAH in 1 Chr. iy. 12.
AHASBA'T (20MNN: 6 ’AcBirns; Alex.*6
Airové: Aasbai}. The father of Eliphelet, one of
David’s thirty-seven captains (2 Sam, xxiii. 34).
In the corrupt list in 1 Chr. xi. 35, Eliphelet ap-
pears as “Eliphal the son of Ur.” The LXX.
regarded the ‘name Ahasbai as denoting not the
father but the family of Eliphelet.
A'HAZ. 2. (Ahaz.) <A son of Micah, the
grandson of Jonathan through Meribbaal or Mefhi-
bosheth (1 Chr. viii. 35, 36, ix. 42).
AH'BAN (Alex. ’O¢@). Son of Abishur, by
his wife Abihail (1 Chr. ii. 29). He was of the
tribe of Judah.
A'HER. Ancestor of Hushim, or rather * the
Hushim,” as the plural form seems to indicate a
family rather than an individual. The name occurs
in an obscure passage in the genealogy of Benjamin
(1 Chr. vii. 12). Some translators consider it as
not a proper name at all, and render it literally
another,” because, as Rashi says, Ezra, who
compiled the genealogy, was uncertain whether the
families belonged to the tribe of Benjamin or not.
It is not improbable that Aher and Ahiram (Num.
xxvi. 38) are the same; unless the former belonged
to the tribe of Dan, whose genealogy is omitted in
1 Chr. vii.; Hushim being a Danite as well as a
Benjamite name.
ΑΉΙ. 1. A Gadite, chief of a family who lived
in Gilead in Bashan (1 Chr. v. 12), in the days of
Jotham, king of Judah. By the LXX. and Vul-
gate the word was not considered a proper name.
2. (Axi: Ahi.) A descendant of Shamer, of
the tribe of Asher (1 Chr. vii. 34). The name,
according to Gesenius, is a contraction of Ahijah.
AHT'JAH 9. (Ata: Echaia.) One of the
heads of the people who sealed the covenant with
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 26).
AHI’AN (Alex. ᾿Αείν). A Manassite of the
family of Shemidah (1 Chr. vii. 19).
AHTLUD (TI°MN: ᾿Αχιλούδ, ᾿Αχιλούθ᾽ in
2 Sam, xx. 24; Alex. ᾿Αχιμέλεχ 2 Sam. viii. 16,
᾿Αχιμά 1 K.iv. 3: Ahilud). 1. Father of Jehosha-
phat, the recorder or chronicler of the kingdom m
| the reigns of David and Solomon (2 Sam, viii. 16,
| xx. 24; 1 K. iv. 3; 1 Chr. xviii. 13).
2. ( Αχιλούθ; Alex. Ἐλούδ.) The father of
Baana, one of Solomon’s twelve commissariat ofti-
|cers (1 K. iv. 12). It is uncertain whether he is
| the same as the foregoing.
|
!
AHIMAN
AHIMAN. 2. (Διμάν ; Alex. Αἰμάν: Ahimam.)
One of the porters or gatekeepers, who had charge
of the king’s gate for the ‘camps ” of the sons of
Levi (1 Chr. ix. 17).
AHINO'AM (DY πὸ : “Axwodu; Alex.
"Axewodu: Achinowm). 1. Daughter of Ahimaaz
and wile of Saul (1 Sam. xiv. 50),
AHT'O. 2. (NN: ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ; Alex. of
ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ: Ahio.) A Benjamite, one of the
sons of Beriah, who drove out the inhabitants of
Gath (1 Chr. viii. 14). According to the Vat. MS.
the LXX. must have read }MN, according to the
Alex. MS. YON.
8: A Benjamite, sop of Jehiel, father or founder
of Gibeon (1 Chr. viii. 31, ix. 37). In the last
quoted passage the Vatican MS, has ἀδελφός and
the Alex. ἀδελφοί.
AHI'RAMITES, THE COVINA: 6 Ἴαχι-
pavt; Alex. 6 ᾿Αχιραΐ: Ahiraneitae). “One of the
branches of the tribe of Benjamin, descendants of
Ahiram (Num. xxvi. 38),
AHIS'AMACH. A Danite, father of Aholiab,
one of the architects of the tabernacle (Ex. xxxi. 6,
xxxv. 34, xxxviii. 23).
AHISH’AHAR. One of the sons of Bilhan, |
'which is intended to excite the representation of
the grandson of Benjamin (1 Chr, vii. 10).
AHLA'L (OMS: Aadal, ᾿Αχαϊά; Alex. ᾿Ααδαΐ,
"OAL: Oholai, Oholi). Daughter of Sheshan, whom
he gave in marviage to his Egyptian slave Jarha
(1 Chr. ii. 31, 35). In consequence of the failure
of male issue, Ahlai became the foundress of an
important branch of the family of the Jeralimeelites,
and from her were descended Zabad, one of David’s
mighty men (1 Chr.
the captains of hundreds in the reign of Joash
(2 Chr. xxiii. 1; comp. 1 Chr. ii. 38).
AHUMAT. Son of Jahath, a descendant of
Judah, and head of one of the families of the Zora-
thites (1 Chr. iv. 2). "
AHU'ZAM (OTIS: ᾽Ωχαία;
Oozam).
father or founder of Tekoa, by his wife Naarah
(1 Chr, iv. 6).
ΑἸ ΑΗ (TN: ᾿Αἴθ; Alex. Aid: Aia),
Zibeon, a descendant of Seir, and ancestor of one
the wives of Esau (1 Chr. i. 40), called in Gen.
ae 24 Asan. He probably died before his
tather, as the succession fell to his brother Anah.
2. CI@A, ‘Aia.) Father of Rizpah, the con-
cubine of Saul (2 Sam. iii. 7, xxi. 8, 10, 11),
AT'RUS (‘Iatpos: An). One of the “ servants of
the Temple,” or Nethinim, whose descendants re-
Alex. ’OyxaCdp:
turned with Zorobabel (1 Esdr. v. 51). Perhaps
the same as REALAH.
AK’KUB (J3pP: “ArovB; Alex. ᾿Ακκούβ:;
Aceub). 1. A descendant of Zer ubbabel, and one
of a seven sons of Elioenai d Chr. iii. 24).
2. CAKovp in 1 Chr.,ArovB ; Alex. ᾿Ακούβ in
1 Chr. ων ᾿Ακούμ in Ezr. and Neh.) One of: the
porters or doorkeepers at the east gate of the Temple.
His descendants succeeded to his office, and appear
among those who returned from Babylon (1 Chr. ix,
00 Eze. ii. 42; Neh. vii. 45, xi. 19, xii. 25). Also
called DACOBI (1 Esdr. v. 98),
(APPENDIX. ]
| sistent with itself, but requirin
| of admitting, a moral and spiritual interpretation
xi. 41), and Azariah, one of
; but things.
Properly AHUZZAM, son of Ashur, the |
ALLEGORY Ixy
3. (AxovB.) One of the Nethinim, whose family
returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 45), The name
is omitted in Neh. vii., but ocewrs in the form AcUB
in 1 Esdr. v. 31. ᾿
4. (om. in LXX.) A Levite who assisted Ezra
in expounding the Law to the people (Neh. viii. 7).
Called JACUBUS in 1 Esdr, ix. 48.
ALAM'ETH (Mi92¥: Ἐληεμέθ; Alex. Ἐλ-
peOéu:-Almath). Properly ALEMETH ; one of the
sons of Becher, the son of Benjamin (1 Chr. vii. 8).
ALEM'ETH (nid2y: Σαλειμάθ ; Alex. Γαλε-
pad: Alamath). A Benjamite, son of Jehoadah,
or Jarah, and descended from Jonathan the son of
Saul (1 Chr. viii. 36, ix, 42). The form of the
name in Hebrew is different from that of the town
Alemeth with which it has been compared.
ALEXAN'DRIANS, THE (οἱ ᾿Αλεξανδρείς).
1. The Greek inhabitants of Alexandria (3 Mace, ii.
30, iii, 21).
2. (Alecandrini.) The Jewish colonists of that
city, who were admitted to the privileges of citizen-
ship, and had a synagogue at Jerusalem (Acts yi. 9).
[ ALEXANDRIA, p. 46 b. ͵]
ALLEGORY, a figure of speech, which has
been defined by Bishop Marsh, in accordance with
its etymology, as “a representation of one thing
”
another thing;” the first representation being con-
g, or being capable
over and above its literal sense. An allegory has
been incorrectly considered by some as a lengthened
or sustained metaphor, or a continuation of meta-
| phors, as by Cicero, thus standing in the same rela-
tion to metaphor as parable to simile. But the two
figures are quite distinct; no sustained metaphor,
or succession of metaphors, can constitute an alle-
gory, and the interpretation of allegory differs from
that of metaphor, in having to do not with words
In every allegory there is a twofold
sense; the immediate or historic, which is under-
stood from the words, and the ultimate, which is
concerned with the things signified by the words.
The allegoricai interpretation is not of the words,
but of the things signified by them; and not only
may, but actually does, coexist with the literal in-
| terpretation in every allegory, whether the narrative
1. Son }
in which it is conveyed be of things possible or real.
An illustration of this may be seen in Gal. iv. 24,
where the apostle gives an allegorical interpretation
to the historical narrative of Hagar and Sarah; not
treating that narrative as an allegor y in itself, as
our A. V. would lead us to suppose, but drawing
from it a deeper sense than is conveyed by the im-
mediate representation.
In pure allegory no direct reference is made to
the principal object. Of this kind the eee of
| the prodigal son is an example (Luke xy, 11-32).
| In mixed allegory the allegorical narrative either
contains some hint of its application, as Ps. Ixxx.,
or the allecory and its interpretation are combined,
as in John xv. 1-8; but this last passage is strictly
speaking an example of a metaphor.
The distinction between the parable and the
allegory is laid down by Dean Trench (On the
Parables, chap. i.) as one of form rather than of
esence. ‘In the allegory,” he says, “there is an
interpretation of the thing signifying and the thing
signified, the qualities and properties of the first
Ε
Ixyvi ALLELUIA
being attributed to the last, and the-two thus
blended together, instead of being kept quite dis-
tinct and placed side by side, as is the case in the
parable.” According to this, there is no* such
thing as pure allegory as above defined.
ALLELU'IA (AdAnAodia: Alleluia), 50
written in Rey. xix. 7, foll., or more properly
HALLELUJAH co 155m), ‘praise ye Jehovah,” as
it is found in the margin of Ps. civ. 35, cv. 45, evi.
exi. 1, exii, 1, cxiii. 1 (comp. Ps. cxiii. 9, cxv. 18,
exvi. 19, cxvii. 2). The Psalms fiom exiii. to
xviii. were called by the Jews the Hallel, and were
sung on the first of the month, at the feast of De-
dication, and the feast of Tabernacles, the feast of
Weeks, and the feast of the Passover. [HOSANNA. |
On the last occasion Pss. exiii. and cxiv., according
to the school of Hillel (the former only according to
the school of Shammai), were sung before the feast,
and the remainder at its termination, after drinking
the last cup. The hymn (Matt. xxvi. 50), sung
by Christ and his disciples after the last supper,
is supposed to have been the great Hallel, which
seems to have varied according to the feast. The
literal meaning of ‘ Hallelujah” sufficiently indi-
cates the character of the Psalms in which it
occurs, as hymns of praise and thanksgiving. They
are all found in the last book of the collection, and
bear marks of being intended for use in the temple-
service; the words “praise ye Jehovah” being
taken up by the full chorus of Levites. In the
great hymn of triumph in heaven over the destruc-
tion of Babylon, the apostle in vision heard the
multitude in chorus like the voice of mighty thun-
derings burst forth, ‘‘ Alleluia, for the Lord God
omnipotent reigneth,’ responding to the voice which
came out of the throne saying “Praise our God,
all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small
and great” (Rev. xix, 1-6), In this, as in the
offermg of incense (Rev. viii.), there is evident allu-
sion to the service of the temple, as the apostle had
often witnessed it in its fading grandeur.
AL'LOM (Αλλώμ ; Alex. ᾿Αδλών : Malmon).
The same as AMI or AMON (1 Esdr. v. 34; comp.
Ezx. ii. 59; Neh. vii. 59).
AL'LON ()ON: ᾿Αλών ; Alex. AAAdy: Allon).
A Simeonite, ancestor of Zirza, a prince of his tribe
in the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr. iv. 37).
AL'NATHAN (AAvaédy; Alex. *EAvaédy :
Enaathan). KuNarHan 2 (1 Esdr. viii. 44;
comp. Ezr. viii. 16).
AMARIAH. 7. (Sauapia.) A descendant
of Pharez, the son of Judah (Neh. xi. 4). Pro-
bably the same as Imni in 1 Chr, ix. 4.
AMARIT'AS (Apaplas: Ameri, Amerias).
AMARIAH 1 (1 Esdr, viii. 2; 2 Esdr. 1, 2).
AMASA'T Cwny, in pause wy: ᾿Αμεσσί,
᾿Αμαθί ; Alex. ᾿Αμάς in 1 Chr. vi. 25: Amasai),
1. A Kohathite, father of Mahath and ancestor of
Samuel and Ethan the singer (1 Chr. vi. 25, 35).
2. ΟΑμασαί; FA.’Auaceé.) Chief of the captains
(LXX. * thirty”) of Judah and Benjamin, who de-
serted to David while an outlaw at Zikiag (1 Chr.
xii. 18). Whether he was the same as Amasa,
David’s nephew, is uncertain,
3. (Auacat; FA. ᾿Αμασέ.) One of the priests
who blew trumpets before the Ark, when David
AMEN
brought it from the house of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xv.
24).
4. (Auact.) Another Kohathite, father of an-
other Mahath, in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr.
xxix, 12), unless the name is that of a family.
AMASHA’'T ον: *Auacia; Alex. ᾽Αμε-
gat: Amassai). Son of Azareel, a priest in the
time of Nehemiah (Neh. xi. 13); apparently the
same as MAAsrar (1 Chr, ix. 12). The name is
properly ‘ Amashsai.”
AMASIT’AH (ΠΝ: ᾿Αμασίας ; Alex. Μα-
σαϊιΐας : Amasias). Son of Zichri, and captain of
200,000 warriors of Judah, in the reign of Jehosha-
phat (2 Chr. xvii. 16).
AL'PHA, the first letter of the Greek alphabet,
as Omega is the last. Its significance is plainly indi-
cated in the context, “ I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Rev.
xxii. 13; gcomp. i. 8, 11, xxi. 6), which may be
compared with Is, xli, 4, xliv. 6, “Iam the first
and 1 am the last, and beside me there is no God.”
So Prudentius (Cathemer. hymn. ix. 11) explains it :
« Alpha et O cognominatur : ipse fons et clausula
Omnium quae sunt, fuerunt, quaeque post futura sunt.”
The expression “Ὁ 1 am Alpha and Omega” is illus-
trated by the usage in Rabbinical writers of Aleph
and Tan, the first and last letters of the Hebrew
alphabet. Schoettgen (Hor, Hebr. i. 1086) quotes
from Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 17, 4, “ Adam transcressed
the whole law from δὲ to MN,” that is from the be-
ginning to theend. It is not necessary to enquire
whether in the latter usage the meaning is so full
as in the Revelation: that must be determined by
separate considerations. As an illustration merely,
the reference is valuable. Both Greeks and Hebrews
employed the letters of the alphabet as numerals.
In the early times of the Christian Church the letters
A and Q were combined with the cross or with the
monogram of Christ (Maitland, Church in the Cata-
cqmbs, pp. 166-8). One of the oldest monuments
on which this occurs is a marble tablet found in the
catacombs at Melos, which belongs, if not to the first
century, to the first half of the second. [Cross. ]
ALPHABET. [Wrirtrnc.]
ALTANE'US (AArtavaios; Alex. *AAray-
vaios: Carianeus). The same as ΜΙ ΑΥΤΕΈΝΑΙ (Ezr.
x, 33), one of the sons of Hashum (1 Esdr. ix, 33).
A'MAN (‘Apdy: Aman), Haman (Tob. xiv. 1Q;
Esth. x. 7, xii. 6, xiii, 5, 12, xiv. 17, xvi. 10, 17):
A'MEN ({j1)N), literally “ firm, true;” and,
used as a substantive, “that which is true,” “ truth”
(Is. Ixy. 16); a word used in strong asseverations,
fixing as it were the stamp of truth upon the as-
sertion which it accompanied, and making it binding
as an oath (comp. Num. vy. 22). In the LXX. of
1 Chr. xvi. 36, Neh. v. 18, viii. 6, the word appears
in the form ᾿Αμήν, which is used throughout the
N.T. In other passages the Heb. is rendered by
γένοιτο, except in Is. lxv. 16. The Vulgate adopts
the Hebrew word in all cases except in the Psalms,
where it is translated fiat. In Deut, xxvii. 15-26,
the people were to say “ Amen,” as the Levites pro-
nounced each of the curses upon Mount Ebal, signify-
ing by this their assent to the conditions under
which the curses would be inflicted. In accordance
with this usage we find that, among the Rabbins,
**Amen’’ involves the ideas of swearing, accept-
AMINADAB
ance, and truthfulness. The first two are illus-
trated by the passages already quoted; the last by
1 K.i. 36; John iii. 3,5, 11 (A. V., “ verily’’), in
which the assertions are made with the solemnity
of an oath, and then strengthened by the repetition
of “ Amen.” “ Amen” was the proper response of
the person to whom an oath was administered (Neh.
v. 13, viii. 6; 1 Chr. xvi. 36; Jer. xi. 5, marg.);
and the Deity, to whom appeal is made on such
oceasions, is called ‘* the God of Amen” (Is. Ixv. 16),
as being a witness to the sincerity of the implied
compact. With a similar significance Christ is
called “the Amen, the faithful and true witness”
(Rev. iii. 14; comp. John i. 14, xiv. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 20).
It is matter of tradition that in the Temple the
« Amen” was not uttered by the people, but that,
instead, at the conclusion of the priest’s prayers,
they responded, “ Blessed be the name of the glory
of his kingdom for ever and ever.’ Of this a trace
is supposed to remain in the concluding sentence of
the Lord’s Prayer (comp. Rom, xi. 36). But in
the synagogues and private houses it was customary
for the people or members of the family who were
present to say ““ Amen” to the prayers which were
offered by the minister or the master of the house,
and the custom remained in the early Christian
church (Matt. vi. 13; 1 Cor. xiv. 16), And not
only public prayers, but those offered in private,
and doxologies, were appropriately concluded with
“Amen” (Rom. ix. 5, xi. 36, xv. 33, xvi. 27;
2 Cor. xiii. 13, &c.).
AMIN’ADAB ΟΑμιναδάβ : Aminadab).
MINADAB 1 (Matt. 1. 4; Luke iii. 33).
AM-
AMMI (DY: λαός μου : populus meus), i.e., as
explained in the margin of the A. V., “« my people ;”
a figurative name applied to the kingdom of Israel
in token of God’s reconciliation with them, and
their position as “sons of the living God,” in con-
trast with the equally significant name Lo-ammi,
given by the prophet Hosea to his second son by
Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim (Hos. ii. 1). In
the same manner Ruhamah contrasts with Lo-
Ruhamah.
AM'MIEL yay: ᾿Αμιήλ: Ammiel), 1. The
spy selected by Moses from the tribe of Dan (Num.
xii. 12),
2. (Alex. ᾿Αμιήρ, Vulg. Ammihel in 2 Sam.
xvii, 27). ‘The father of Machir of Lodebar (2 Sam,
ix. 4, 5, xvii. 27).
3. The father of Bathshua, or Bathsheba, the
wife of David (1 Chr. iii, 5), called Entam in
2 Sam. xi. 3; the Hebrew letters, which are the
same in the two names, being transposed. He was
the son of Ahithophel, David’s prime minister,
4. The sixth son of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xxvi. 5),
and one of the doorkeepers of the Temple.
AM'MIHUD (TINY: Ἐμιούδ in Num,
᾿Αμιούδ in 1 Chr.; Amuniud). 1. An Ephraimite,
father of Elishama, the chief of the tribe at the
time of the Exodus (Num, i. 10, ii. 18, vii, 48, 53,
x. 22), and through him ancestor of Joshua (1 Chr.
vii. 26).
2. (Seuiovd; Alex. Ἐμιούδ.) A Simeonite,
father of Shemuel, chief of the tribe at the time of
the division of Canaan (Num, xxiv. 20).
3. (Ἰαμιούδ: Alex. ᾿Αμιούδ.) The father of
Pedahel, chief of the tribe of Naphtali at the same
time (Num. xxyiy. 28).
AMZI Ixvii
4. (ἸΌΝ, Keri ἼΩΝ : ᾿Εμιούδ.)
hud, or “ Ammichur,” as the written text has it,
was the father of lalmai, king of Geshur (2 Sam.
xili, 37). ;
5. (᾿Σαμιούδ ; Alex. ᾿Αμιούδ.) A descendant of,
Pharez, son of Judah (1 Chr, ix. 4).
AMMIN'ADIB (Cant. vi.
DAB 3. |
AMMISHADDA'T (AUDY: ᾿Αμισαδαΐ ;
Alex. ᾿Αμισαδαί, exc. Num. ii, 25, Σαμισαδαξ, and
Num. x. 25, Μισαδαί: Amisaddci, Ammisaddat).
The father of Ahiezer, chief of the tribe of Dan at
the time of ‘the Exodus (Num. i. 12, ii. 25, vii. 66,
71, x. 25). His name is one of the few which we
find at this period compounded with the ancient
name of God, Shaddai; Zurishaddai, and possibly
Shedeur, are the only other instances, and both
belong to this early time.
AMMI'ZABAD. The son of Benaiah, who
apparently acted as his father’s lieutenant, and com-
manded the third division of David’s army, which
was on duty for the third month (1 Chr. XxVil. 6).
AMMONI'TESS (9. Π : ἡ ᾽᾿Αμμωνῖτις in
1 Κι, ἡ ᾿Αμμανῖτις, 2 Chr. xii. 13, 6 ᾿Αμμανίτης,
2 Chr. xxiv. 26; Alex. ᾿Αμανῖτις in 1 K.: Am-
manitis). A woman of Ammonite race. Such were
Naamah, the mother of Rehoboam, one of Solomon’s
forein wives (1 K. xiv. 21,31; 2 Chr-/xii-613)5
and Shimeath, whose son Zabad or Jozachar was
one of the murderers of king Joash (2 Chr. xxiv.
26). For allusions to these mixed marriages see
1 K. xi. 1, and Neh, xiii. 25. In the Hebrew the
word has always the definite article, and therefore
in all cases should be yendered “ the Ammonitess.”
A'MOK ( ΡΝ: ᾿Αμέκ: Amoc). <A priest,
whose family returned with Zerubbabel, and were
represented by Eber in the days of Joiakim (Neh.
xii. 7, 20).
A'MON. 2. (jON, JON: Σεμήρ, ᾿Ἐμήρ; Alex.
᾿Αμμών, Seuuhp: Aman.) Prince or governor of
Samaria in the reign of Ahab (1 K, xxii. 26; 2 Chr.
xviii. 25). What was the precise nature of his
office is not known. Perhaps the prephet Micaiah
was intrusted to his care as captain of the citadel.
The Vat. MS. of the LXX. has τὸν βασιλέα τῆς
πόλεως in 1 K., but ἄρχοντα in 2 Chr. Josephus
(Ant. viii. 15 §4) calls him ᾿Αχάμων.
A'MOS. 2. (Αμώς : Amos.) Son of Naum, in
the genealozy of Jesus Christ (Luke iii. 25).
AM'RAM. 2. (ὙΠ: ’Epepav; Alex. ᾿Αμαδά:
Hamram.) Properly Hamran or Chamran; son
of Dishon and descendant of Levi (1 Chr, i. 41).
In Gen. xxxyi. 26 he is called HempAN, and this is
the reading in 1 Chr. in many of Kennicott’s MSS.
3. (DIDY: “Aupdu; Alex. ᾿Αμβράμ : Amram.)
one of the sons of Bani, in the time of Ezra, who
had married a foreign wife (Ezr. x. 34): called
OMAERUS in 1 Esdr, ix. 34.
AM'RAMITES, THE (NDMP: 6 ᾿Αμράμ,
6 *AuBpdu; Alex. ὁ ᾿Αμβραάμ, ὁ ᾿Αμραμί: Amra-
mitac). A branch of the great Kohathite family of
the tribe of Levi (Num. iii. 27; 1 Chr. xxvi. 23);
descended from Amram, the father of Moses,
AM'ZI (SON: ᾿Αμεσσία; Alex. Macocla:
: F 2
“a
Ammi-
12). ΓΑ͂ΜΜΙΝ -
ANAKL
Amasai). 1. A Levite of the family of Merari,
and ancestor of Ethan the minstrel (1 Chr. vi. 46).
2. (Apact: Amsi.) A priest, whose
scendant Adaiah with his brethren did the service
Ixvili
de-
for the Temple in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. xi.
~
12).
AN’AEL (Avaya). The brother of Tobit (Tob,
Wes
ANATAH (713 : Ania). 1. Pro-
bably a priest: one of those who stood on Ezra’s
right hand as he read the Law to the people (Neh.
viii. 4). He is called ANANTIAS in 1 ἔβαν, ix, 43.
2. (Avaia: ᾿
the people, who signed the covenant with Nehe-
miah (Neh, x, 22
A'NAN (j3¥: Ἠνάμ; Alex, Ἦνάν: Anan).
1. One of the “heads”? of the people who signed
the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh, x. 26.)
2. (Avav; Alex. ᾿Αννάν : Anani.) HANAN 4
(1 Esdr. v. 30; comp. Ezr. ii. 46).
ANA'NI ΟΝ: ᾿Ανάν ; Alex. ᾿Ανανί : Anani).
The seventh*son of Elioenai, descended throvgh
Zerubbabel from the line royal of Judah (1 Chr, iii,
24),
ANANTAE Π 33:):
Probably a priest ; ancestor of Azariah, who assisted
in rebuilding the city wall after the return from
Babylon (Neh. ili, 23).
ANANT'AS (Avvis; Alex. Avvias: Ananias).
1. The sons of Ananias to the number of 101
(Vulg. 130) enumerated in 1 Esdr. v. i6 as having
returned with Zorobabel. No such name exists in
the parallel lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.
2. C Ἀνανίας : om. in Vulg.) HANANI 8 (1
Esdy. ix. 21 ; comp. Ezr. x. 20).
8. (Amanias.) HANANIAH 9 “(1 ἔβαν.
comp. Hzr. x. 28).
4. (Ananias.) ANatAH 1 (1 Esdr. ix. 43;
comp. Neh. viii. 4).
5. HANAN 5 (1 Esdr, ix. 48 ;
ie
6. Father of Azarias, whose name was assumed
by the angel Raphael (Tob. ν. 12, 13). . In the
LXX. he appears to be the eldest brother of Tobit.
7. (Jamnor.) Ancestor of Judith (Jud. viii. 1),
The Cod. Sin, gives "Avavias though the Vat. MS.
omits the name.
8. ’Avavias : Ananias.) Shadrach (Song of ὃ Ch.
1 Mace. ii. 59) [HANANLAH 7.]
AN'ATHOTH (miny: ᾿Αναθώθ: Anathoth).
1. Son of Becher, a son of Benjamin (1 Chr. vii. 8),
probably the founder of the place of the same name.
2. One of the heads of the people, who signed ae
covenant in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 19)
unless, as is not unlikely, the name stands for ¢ the
men of Anathoth” enumerated in Neh. vii. 27.
ANETH OTHITE, THE Onnayn: 6 Avw-
θίτης ; Alex. 6 ᾿Αναθωθείτης : de Anathoth). An
inhabitant of Anathoth of the tribe of Benjamin
(2 Sam. xxiii. 27). Called also ANETOTHITE and
ANTOTHITE.
ANET’OTHITE, THE ΟΠ:
Αναθώθ: Anathothites).
thoth (1 Chr. xxvii. 12),
THITE and ANTOTHITE.
᾿Ανανίας :
᾿Ανανία: Ananias).
ἢ
comp. Neh, viii.
66;
ὁ ἐὲ
An alata of Ana-
Called also ANETHO-
Anata.) One of the “heads” of
ANTICHRIST
AN'TAM (DYN : ᾿Ανιάν; Alex. ᾿Ανιάμ :
Aniam). A Manassite, son of Shemidah (1 Chr.
vii. 19).
AN'NAS (Avdy; Alex. ’Avyvds: Nuas). A
corruption of HARIM (1 Esdr. ix. 32; comp. Ezr.
ΧΣ, iil)
ANNU'US (“Avvovos; Alex. “Avvouvos :
Amin). Probably a corruption of the Hebrew JAN
(A. V. “with him’) of Ezy. viii. 19.
lator may have read Ἰδὲ.
ANTICHRIST (6 ἀντίχριστος). The word
Antichrist is used by St. John in his first and
second Epistles, and by him alone. Elsewhere it
does not occur in+Scripture. * Nevertheless, by an
almost universal consent, the term has been applied
to the Man of Sin of whom St. Paul speaks in the
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, to the Little
Horn and to the fierce-countenanced King of whom
Daniel prophesies, and to the two Beasts of the
Apocalypse, as well as to the false Christs whose
appearance our Lord predicts in his prophetic dis-
course on the Mount of Olives. Before we can
arrive at any clear and intelligent view of what
Scripture teaches us on the subject of Antichrist,
we must decide whether this extension of the term
is properly made; whether the characteristics of
the Antichrist are those alone with which St. John
makes us acquainted in his Epistles, or whether it
is his portrait which is drawn, darker, fuller, and
larger, in some or all of the other passages to
which we have referred.
(A.) The following are the passages in Scripture
which ought to be carefully compared for the elu-
The trans-
cidation of our subject :—I. Matt. xxiv. 3-31. 1].
1 John ii. 18-23; iv. 1-3; 2 John 5,7. III. 2 Thess.
ii. 1-12; 1 Tim. iv. 1-3; 2 Tim-iii. 1-5. IV. Dan:
Vili. 8-255 xi. 36-39. v. Dan. vii. 7-27. VI. Rev.
xiii. 1-8; xvii. 1-18. VII. Rev. xiii. 11-18; xix.
11-21. The first contains the account of the false
Christs and false prophets predicted by our Lord ;
the second, of the Antichrist as depicted by St. John ;
the third, of the Adversary of God as portrayed by
St. Paul; the fourth and fifth, of the fierce-coun-
tenanced King and of the Little Horn foretold by
Daniel; the sixth and the seventh, of the Beast and
the False Prophet of the Revelation.
I. The False Christs and False Prophets of Matt.
xxiv.—The purpose of our Lord in his prophetic
discourse on the Mount of Olives was at once to
predict to his disciples the events which would take
place before the capture of Jerusalem, and those
which would precede the final destruction of the
world, of which the fall of Jerusalem was the type
and symbol, Accordingly, his teaching on the
point before us amounts to this, that (1) in the
latter days of Jerusalem there should be sore dis-
tress, and that in the midst of it there should arise
impostors who would claim to be the promised
Messiah, and would lead away many of their coun-
trymen after them; and that (2) in the last days
of the world there should be a great tribulation
and persecution of the saints, and that there should
arise at the same time false Christs and false pro-
phets, with an unparalleled power of leading
astray. In type, therefore, our Lord predicted
the rise of the several impostors who excited the
fanaticism of the Jews betore their fall. In anti-
type He predicted the future rise of impostors
in the last days, who should beguile all but the
elect. into the belief of their being God’s prophets, —
ANTICHRIST
or even his Christs. We find no direct reference
here to the Antichrist. Our Lord is not speaking
of any one individual (or polity), but rather of
those forerunners of the Antichrist who are his
servants and actuated by his spirit. They are
ψευδόχριστοι, and can deceive almost the elect,
but they are not 6 ἀντίχριστος ; they are pevdo-
προφῆται, and can show great signs and wonders,
but they are not 6 ψευδοπροφήτης (Rev. xvi. 14).
However valuable,
Mount Olivet is, as helping us to picture to our-
selves the events of the last days, it does not elu-
cidate for us the characteristics of the Antichrist,
and must not be allowed to mislead us as though
it gave information which it does not profess to
rive,
; Il. The Antichrist of St. John’s Epistles.—
The first teaching with regard to the Antichrist
and to the antagonist of God (whether these are
the same or different we leave as yet uncertain)
was oral, ‘“ Ye have heard that the Antichrist
cometh,” says St. John (1 Ep. ii. 18); and again,
“This is that spirit of Antichrist whereof ye
have heard that it should come” (1 Ep. iv. 3).
Similarly St. Paul, «‘ Remember ye not, that w hen
I was yet with you I told you these thing gs”
(2 Thess. ii. 5)? We must not therefore look for
a full statement of the “doctrine of the Anti-
christ” in the Apostolic Epistles, but rather for
allusions to something already known. The whole
of the teaching of St. John’s Epistle with regard
to the Antichrist himself seems to be confined
to the words twice repeated, ‘Ye have heard
that the Antichrist shall come.” The
ἔρχεται here employed has a special reference, as
used in Seripture, to the first and second advents
of our Lord. Those whom St. John was address-
ing had been taught that, as Christ was to come
(ἔρχεται), so the Antichrist was to come likewise.
The rest of the passage in St. John appears to be
rather a practical application of the doctrine of the
Antichrist than a formal statement of it. He
warns his readers that the spirit of the Antichrist
could exist even then, though the coming of the
Antichrist himself was future, and that all who
denied the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus were
Antichrists, as being types of the final Antichrist
who was to come. The teaching of St. John’s
Wpisties therefore amounts to this, that im type,
Cerinthus, Basilides, Simon Magus, and those
Gnostics who denied Christ’s Sonship, and all sub-
sequent heretics who should deny it, were Anti-
christs, as being wanting in that divine principle of
love which with him is the essence of Christianity ;
nud he points on te the final appearance of the
Antichrist that was “to come” in the last times,
according as they had been orally taught, who
would be the antitype of these his forerunners and
servants.
Ill. The Adversary of God of St. Paul’s Epistles.
—St. Paul does not employ the term Antichrist,
but there can be no hesitation in identifying his
Adversary (6 ἀντικείμενος) of God with the Anti-
christ who was “to come.” Like St. John, he
refers to his oral teaching on the subject, but as
the Thessalonians appeared to have forgotten it,
and to have been misled by some passages in his
previous Epistle to them, he recapitulates what he
had taught them. Like St. John, he tells them
that the spirit of Antichrist or Antichristianism,
called by him ‘‘the mystery of iniquity,” was
already working ; but Antichrist himself he cha-
therefore, the prophecy on,
verb |
ANTICHRIST
racterizes as ‘‘ the Man of Sin,’ “the Son of Per-
dition,’ ‘‘ the Adversary to all that is called God,”
«the one who lifts himself above all objects of
worship ;” and assures them that he should not be
revealed in person until some present obstacle to his
appearance should have been taken away, and until
the predicted ἀποστασία should have occurred.
From St. John and St. Paul together we learn
(1) that the Antichrist should come: (2) that he
should not come until a certain obstacle to his
coming was removed: (3) nor till the time of, or
rather till after the time of the ἀποστασία: (4)
that his characteristics would be (a) open oppo-
sition to God and religion; (8) a claim to the
incommunicable attributes of God; (γ) iniquity,
sin, and lawlessness; (δ) a power of working lying
miracles ; (€) marvellous capacity of beguiling
souls: (5) that he would be actuated by Satan :
(6) that his spirit was already at work manifest-
ing itself partially, incompletely, and typically, in
the teachers of infidelity and immorality already
abounding in the Church.
IV. The Jierce-countenanced King of Daniel.—
This passage is universally acknowledged to be
primarily applicable to Antiochus Epiphanes.
Antiochus Epiphanes is recognised as the chiet
prototype of the Antichrist. The prophecy may
therefore be regarded as descriptive of the Anti-
christ. The point is fairly argued by St. Jerome :-—
‘Down to this point (Dan. xi, 21) the historical
order is preserved, and there is no difference be-
tween Porphyry and our own interpreters. But
all that follows down to the end of the book he
applies personally to Antiochus Epiphanes, brother
of Seleucus, and son of Antiochus the Great ; for,
atter Seleucus, he reigned eleven years in Syria,
and possessed Judaea; and in his reign there oc-
curred the persecution about the Law of God, and
the wars of the Maccabees. But our people con-
sider all these things to be spoken of Antichrist, who
is to come in the last time. ...°. It is the custom
of Holy Scripture to anticipate in types the reality
of things to come. For in the same way our Lord
and Saviour is spoken of in the 72nd Psalm, which
is entitled a Psalm of Solomon, and yet all that is
there said cannot be applied to Solomon. But in
part, and as in a shadow and image of the truth,
these things are foretold of Solomon, to be more
perfectly fulfilled in our Lord and Saviour, As,
then, in Solomon and other saints the Saviour has
types of His coming, so Antichrist is rightly be-
lieved to have for-his type that wicked king
Antiochus, who persecuted the saints and defiled
the Temple.” (ὃ. Hieron. Op. tom. i. p. 523,
Col. Agr. 1616; tom. iit, p. 1127, Paris, 1704.)
V. The Little Horn of Daniel.—Hitherto we
have been dealing with a person, not a kingdom or
a polity. This is evident from St. John’s words,
and still more evident from the Epistie to the
Thessalonians. The words used by St. Paul
could not well have been more emphatic, had
he studiously made use of them in order to
exclude the idea of a polity. ‘*The Man of Sin,”
“the Son of Perdition,” “the one who opposeth
himself to God,” ‘the one who exalteth himself
above God,’ ‘the one who represents himself
as God,” “the wicked one who was to come
with Satanic power and lying wonders :” if words
have a meaning, these words designate an indi-
vidual. But when we come to Daniel’s pro-
phecy of the Little Horn this is all changed. We
there read of four beasts, which are explained
lxix
ANTICHRIST
as four kings, by which expression is meant four
kingdoms or empires. These kingdoms represented
by the four beasts are undoubtedly the Assyrian
empire, the Persian empire, the Grecian empire,
and the Roman empire, The Roman Empire is
described as breaking up into ten kingdoms,
amongst which there grows up another kingdom
which gets the mastery over nearly a third of
them (three out of ten), This kingdom, or polity,
is the little horn of the fourth beast, before which
three of the first ten. horns are plucked up.
the four “kings ” (vii. 17) represented by the four
beasts are really empires, if the ten ‘‘ kings”’ (vii.
24) are monarchies or nationalities, then the other
“king” who rises after them is, in like manner,
not an individual but a polity. It follows that the
‘¢ Little Horn ” of Daniel cannot be identified with
the Antichrist of St. John and St. Paul. The
former is a polity, the latter is an individual.
VI. The Apocalyptic Beast of St. John—A
further consequence follows. For the Beast of the
Apocalypse is clearly identical with the Little
Horn of Daniel. The Beast whose power is ab-
sorbed into the Little Horn has ten horns (Dan.
vii. 7) and rises from the sea (Dan. vii. 3): the
Apocalyptic Beast has ten horns (Rev. xiii. 1) and
rises from the sea (ibid.). The Little Horn has a
mouth speaking great things (Dan. vii. 8, 11, 20) :
the Apocalyptic Beast has a mouth speaking great
things (Rev. xiii. 5). The Little Horn makes war
with the saints, and prevails (Dan. vii. 21); the
Apocalyptic Beast makes war with the saints, and
overcomes them (Rev. xiii. 7). The Little Horn
speaks great words against the Most High (Dan.
+ vii. 25): the Apocalyptic Beast opens his mouth
in blasphemy against God (Rev. xiii. 6). The
Little Horn wears out the saints of the Most High
(Dan. vii. 25): the woman who rides on, 7. 6.
directs, the Apocalyptic Beast, is drunken with the
blood of saints (Rev, xvii. 6),
the Little Horn is’ to last a time and times and a
dividing of times, 7. 6. three and a half times
(Dan, vii. 25): power is given to the Apocalyptic
Beast for forty-two months, 7. 6. three and a half
times (Rev. xiii, 5). These and other parallelisms
cannot be accidental. Whatever was meant by
Daniel’s Little Horn-must be also meant by St.
John’s Beast. Therefore St. John’s Beast is not
the Antichrist. It is not an individual like the
Antichrist of St. John’s and St. Paul’s Epistles,
but a polity like the Little Horn of Daniel.
But, though not identical, it is quite evident,
and it has been always recognised, that the Anti-
christ of the Epistles and the Beast of the Apoca-
lypse have some relation to each other. What. is
this relation’ and in what relation to both does
the second Apocalyptic Beast or False Prophet
stand? To answer this question we must examine
the imagery of the Apocalypse. Shortly stated,
it is, so far as concerns our present purpose, as
follows. The Church is represented (Rev. xii.) as
a woman bringing forth children to Christ, perse-
cuted by Satan, and compelled to fly from him into
the wilderness, where she remains for 1260 days,
cr three and a half times. Satan, being unable to
destroy the woman, sets himself to make war with
her seed (xii. 17). At this time the Beast arises
from the sea, and Satan gives to him his power,
and his seat, and great authority.
time during which the Beast prevails is three and
Ixx
If
The persecution of
The length of
ANTICHRIST
tain part of this three and a half times the Beast
takes upon its back, as its guide and rider, a
harlot, by whom, as it is explained, is figured
“that great city which reigneth over the kings of
the earth” (Rev. xvii. 18) from her seven hills
(xvii. 9). After a time Babylon the harlot-rider
falls (ch. xviii.), but the Beast on whom she had
ridden still survives, and is finally destroyed at
the glorious coming of Christ (xix. 20).
Can we harmonize this picture with the predic-
tion of St. Paul, always recollecting that his Man
of Sin is an individual, and that the Apocalyptic
Beast is a polity ?
As we have here reached that which constitutes
the great difficulty in mastering the conception of
the Antichrist as revealed by the inspired writers,
we shall now turn from the text of Scripture to
the comments of annotators and essayists to see
what assistance we can derive from them. We
shall then resume the consideration of the Serip-
tural passages at the point at which we now leave
them. We shall classify the opinions which have
been held on the Antichrist according as he is
recarded as an individual, or as a polity, or as a
principle. The individualists, again, must be sub-
divided, according as they represent him as one to
come or as one already come. We have, therefore,
four classes of writers on the Antichrist:—(1)
those who regard him as an individual yet future ;
(2) those who regard him as a polity now present;
(3) those who regard him as an individual already
past away; (4) those who consider that nothing
is meant beyond antichristian and lawless principle,
not embodied either in an individual or in a special
polity.
‘1. The first opinion held in the Church was
that the Antichrist was a real person who would
appear in the world when the time of his ap-
pearance was come. ‘The only point on which
any question arose was, whether he should be a
man armed with Satanic powers or Satan himself.
That he would be a man armed with Satanic
powers is the opinion of Justin Martyr, A.D. 103
(Dial. 371, 20, 21, Thirlbii, 1722); of Irenaeus,
A.D. 140 (Op. v. 25, 437, Grabii, 1702); of Ter-
tullian, A.D. 150 (De Res. Carn. c. 24; Apol. c.
32); of Origen, A.D. 184 (Op. i 667, Delarue,
1733); of his contemporary, Hippolytus (De Anti-
christo, 57, Fabricii, Hamburgi, 1716); of Cyprian,
A.D. 250 (Ep. 58; Op. 120, Oxon. 1682); of
Victorinus, A.D. 270 (Bibl: Patr. Magna, iii. p.
136, Col. Agrip. 1618); of Lactantius, A.p. 300
(Div. Inst. vii. 17) ; of Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D.
315 (Catech. xv. 4); of Jerome, A.D. 330 (Op. iv.
pars i. 209, Parisiis, 1693) ; of Chrysostom, A.D.
347 (Comm. in II, Thess.) ; of Hilary of Poictiers,
A.D. 350 (Comm. in Matt.) ; of Augustine, A.D.
354 (De Civit. Dei, xx. 19); of Ambrose, A.D.
380 (Comm. in Luc.), The authors of the Sibylline
Oracles, A.D. 150, and of the Apostolical Constitu-
tions, Celsus (see Orig. ὁ. Cels. lib. vi.) Ephrem
Syrus, A.D. 370, Theodoret, A.D. 430, and a few
othe: writers seem to have regarded the Antichrist
as the devil himself rather than as his minister or
an emanation from him, But they may, perhaps,
have meant no more than to express the identity of
his character and his power with that of Satan.
Each of the writers to whom we have referred
gives his own judgment with respect to some par-
| ticulars which may be expected in the Antichrist,
a half times, the same period as that during which | whilst they all agree in representing him as a
the sufferings of the woman last.
\
During a cer- | person about to come shortly before the glorious
ANTICHRIST
and final appearance of Christ, and to be destroyed
by His presence. Justin Martyr speaks of him as
the man of the apostasy, and dwells chiefly on the
persecutions which he would cause. Irenaeus de-
scribes him as summing up the apostasy in him-
self; as having his seat at Jerusalem; as identical
with the Apocalyptic Beast (c. 28): as foreshadowed
by the unjust judge; as being the man who
“should come in his own name; and as belonging
to the tribe of Dan (ce. 80). Tertullian identifies
him with the Beast, and supposes him to be about
to arise on the fall of the Roman Empire (De Res.
Carn. c. 25). Origen describes him in Eastern phrase
as the child of the Devil and the counterpart of
Christ. Hippolytus understands the Roman em-
pire to be represented by the Apocalyptic Beast
and the Antichrist by the False Prophet who
would restore the wounded Beast by his craft and
by the wisdom of his laws. Cyprian sees him
typified in Antiochus Epiphanes (ΤΠ λον. ad Mart.
e. 11). Victorinus, with several others—mis-
understanding St. Paul’s expression that the mys-
tery of iniquity was in his day working—supposes
that the Antichrist will be a revivified hero; Lac-
tantius that he will be a king of Syria, born of an
evil spirit; Cyril that he will be a magician, who
by his arts will get the mastery of the Roman
empire.
Son of God; Chrysostom as ἀντίθεός τις sitting
in the Temple of God, that is, in all the churches,
not merely in the Temple at Jerusalem ; St. Au-
gustine as the adversary holding power for three
and a half years—the Beast, perhaps, representing
Satan’s empire. The primitive belief may be
summed up in the words of St. Jerome. In his
Commentary on Daniel he writes—‘“ Let us say
that which all ecclesiastical writers have handed
down, viz., that at the end of the world, when the
Roman empire is to be destroyed, there will be ten
kings who will divide the Roman world amongst
them ; and there will arise an eleventh little king,
who will subdue three of the ten kings, that is,
the king of Egypt, of Africa. and of Ethiopia, as
we shall hereatter show. And on these having
been slain, the seven other kings will also submit.
‘And behold, he says, ‘in the ram were the eyes
of aman.’ This is that we may not suppose him
to be a devil or a demon, as some have thought,
but a man in whom Satan will dwell utterly and
bodily. ‘Anda mouth speaking great things,’ for
he is ‘the man of sin, the son of perdition, who
sitteth in the temple of God, making himself as
God’” (Op. vol. iv. p. 511, Col. Agrip. 1616).
In his Comment. on Dan. xi., and in his reply to
Algasia’s eleventh question, he works out the same
view in greater detail. The same line of interpre-
tation continued. Andyeas of Caesarea, A.D. 550,
explains him to be a king actuated by Satan,
who will reunite the old Roman empire and reign
at Jerusalem (Zn Apoc. c. xiii.) ; Avetas, A.D. 650,
as a king of the Romans who will reign over the
Saracens in Bagdad (In Apoc. ec. xiii.); John
Damascene, A.D. 800, repeats the primitive belief
(Orth. Fid. 1. iv. ο. 26); Adso, A.D. 950, says
that a Frank king will reunite the Roman empire,
and that he will abdicate on Mount Olivet, and that,
on the dissolution of his kingdom, the Antichrist
will be revealed. The same writer supposes that
he will be born in Babylon, that he will be educated
at Bethsaida and Chorazin, and that he will pro-
claim himself the Son of God at Jerusalem ( Tract. |
Jerome describes him as the son of the |
Devil sitting in the Church as though he were the |
ANTICHRIST
in Antichr. apud August. Opera, tom. ix. p. 454,
Paris, 1637). Theophylact, a.p. 1070, speaks of
him as a man who will carry Satan about with
him. Albert the Great, Cardinal Hugo, and Alex--
ander de Hales, repeat the received tradition in the
thirteenth century. So also Thomas Aquinas, A.D.
1260, who recurs to the tradition with regard to
the birth of Antichrist at Babylon, saying that he
will be instructed in the Magian philosophy, and
that his doctrine and miracles will be a parody οἱ
those of the Lamb, The received opinion of thie
twelfth century is brought before us in a strjking
and dramatic manner at the interview between
King Richard I. and the Abbot Joachim at Mes-
sina, as the king was on his way to the Holy Land.
“1 thought,” said the king, “that Antichrist
would be born in Antioch or in Babylon, and of
the tribe of Dan; and would reign in the temple
of the Lord in Jerusalem; and would walk in that
land in which Christ walked; and would reign in
it for three years and a half; and would dispute
against Elijah and Enoch, and would kill them ;
and would afterwards die; and that after his death
God would give sixty days of repentance, in which
those might repent which should have erred from
the way of truth, and have been seduced by the
preaching of Antichrist and his false prophets.”’ This
seems to have been the view defended by the arch-
bishops of Rouen and Auxerre and by the bishgp of
Bayonne, who were present at the interview: bnt
it was not Joachim’s opinion. He maintained the
seven heads of the Beast to be Herod, Nero, Con-
stantius, Mahomet, Melsemut, who were past;
Saladin, who was then living; and Antichrist, who
was shortly to come, being already born in the city
of Rome, and about to be elevated to the Apostolic
See (Roger de Hoveden in fichard J., anno
1190). In his own work on the Apocalypse
Joachim speaks of the second Apocalyptic beast as
being governed by “‘some great prelate who will
be like Simon Magus, and as it were universal
pontiff throughout the world, and be that very
Antichrist of whom St. Paul speaks.” These are
very noticeable words. Gregory I. had long since
(A.D. 590) declared that any man who held even
the shadow of the power which the popes of Rome
soon after his time arrogated to themselves, would
be the precursor of Antichrist. Arnulphus bishop
xxi
| of Orleans (or perhaps Gerbert), in an invective
against John XV. at the Council of Rheims, A.D.
991, had declared that if the Roman pontiff was
destitute of charity and puffed up with knowledge,
he was Antichrist—if destitute both of charity and
of knowledge, that he was a lifeless stone (Mansi,
tom. ix, p. 132, Ven. 1774); but Joachim is the
first to suggest, not that such and such a pontiff
was Antichrist, but that the Antichrist would be a
Universalis Pontifex, and that he would oceupy
the Apostolic See. Still, however, we have no hint
of an order or succession of men being the Anti-
christ. It is an actual living inidvictual man that
Joachim contemplates.
The master had said that a Pope would be the
Antichrist ; his followers began to whisper that it
was the Pope. Amalric, professor of logic and
theology at Paris at the end of the 12th century,
appears to have been the first to have put forth the
idea. It was taken up by three different classes ;
“
a The Bollandists reject the story of this inferview as
an invention. It has also been suggested (see M. Stuart)
that Joachim’s works have been interpolated,
ANTICHRIST
by the moralists, who were scandalized at the laxity
of the Papal Court; by the Imperialists, in their
temporal struggle with the Papacy ; and, perhaps
independently, by the Waldenses and their followers
in their spiritual struggle. Of the first class we
may find examples in the Franciscan enthusiasts
Peter John of Olivi, Telesphorus, Ubertinus, and
John of Paris, who saw a mystic Antichrist at
Rome, and looked forward to a real Antichrist in
the future; and again in such men as Grostéte,
whom we find asking, as in despair, whether the
name of Antichrist has not been earned by the
Pope (Matt. Par. in An. 1253, p. 875, 1640).
Of the second class we may take Eberhard arch-
bishop of Salzburg as a specimen, who denounces
Hildebrand as “having, in the name of religion,
laid the foundation of the kingdom of Antichrist
170 years before his time.’ He can even name
the ten horns. They are the “Turks, Greeks,
Egyptians, Africans, Spaniards, French, English,
Germans, Sicilians, and Italians, who now occupy
the provinces of Rome; and a little horn has
grown up with eyes and mouth, speaking great
things, which is reducing three of these kingdoms—
i.e. Sicily, Italy, and Germany—to subserviency,
is persecuting the people of Christ and the saints
of God with intolerable opposition, is confound-
ing things human and divine, and attempting
things unutterable, execrable” (Aventinus, Annal.
Boiorum, p. 651, Lips. 1710). The Waldenses
eagerly grasped at the same notion, and from that
time it has neyer been lost sight of. Thus we
slide from the individualist view, which was held
unanimously in the Church for upwards of a thou-
sand years, to the notion of a polity, or a succession
of rulers of a polity, that polity being the Church
of Rome. The hitherto received opinion now
vanishes, and does not appear again until the ex-
cesses and extravagances of the new opinion pro-
duced a reaction against itself.
2. The Waldenses also at first regarded the
Antichrist as an individual. The ‘ Noble Lesson,’
written in the 12th century, teaches the expecta-
tion of a future and personal Antichrist ;» but the
Waldensian treatise of Antichrist in the 14th cen-
tury identifies Antichrist, Babylon, the Fourth
Beast, the Harlot, and the Man of Sin, with the
system of Popery. Wickliffites and Hussites held
the same language. Lord Cobham declared at his
trial that the Pope was Antichrist’s head (Bede’s
Works, p. 38, Camb. 1849). Walter Brute,
brought before the Bishop’s Court at Hereford at
the end of the 14th century, pronounced the Anti-
christ to be “the high Bishop of Rome calling him-
self God’s servant and Christ’s chief vicar in this
world” (Foxe, iii. p. 131, Lond. 1844), Thus we
reach the Reformation, Walter Brute (A.p, 1393),
Bullinger (1504), Chytraeus (1571), Aretius
(1573), Foxe (1586), Napier (1593), Mede (1632),
Jurieu (1685), Bp. Newton (1750), Cunninghame
(1813), Faber (1814), Woodhouse (1828), Ha-
bershon (1843), identify the False Prophet, or
Second Apocalyptic Beast, with Antichrist and with
the Papacy; Marlorat (A.D. 1574), King James I,
(1603), Daubuz (1720), Galloway (1802), the
Kirst Apocalyptic Beast: Brightman (4.D. 1600),
Pareus (1615), Vitringa (1705), Gill (1776),
3achmair (1778), Fraser (1795), Croly (1828),
Ixxii
ὃ κε FE esser mot avisa, cant venre 1’ Antexrist,
Que nos non crean, ni a son fait, ni a son dit :
Car, segont I’ escriptura, son ara faif moti Antexrist ;
Car Antexrist son tuit aquilh que contrastan a Xrist.”’
ANTICHRIST
Fysh (1837), Elliott (1844), both the Beasts.
That the Pope and his system are Antichrist, was
taught by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon,
Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, and by
almost all Protestant writers on the Continent.
Nor was there any hesitation on the part of English
theologians to seize the same weapon of offence.
Bp. Bale (A.D. 1491), like Luther, Bucer, and
Melancthon, pronounces the Pope in Europe and
Mahomet in Africa to be Antichrist. The Pope is
Antichrist, say Cranmer (Works, vol. ii. p. 46,
Camb, 1844), Latimer (Works, vol. i. p. 149,
Camb. 1844), Ridley ( Works, p. 53, Camb. 1841),
Hooper (Works, vol. ii. p. 44, Camb. 1852),
Hutchinson (Works, p. 304, Camb. 1842), Tyn-
dale ( Works, vol. i. p. 147, Camb. 1848), Sandys
(Works, p. 11, Camb. 1841), Philpot (Works, p.
152, Camb. 1842), Jewell ( Works, vol. 1. p. 109,
Camb, 1845), Rogers ( Works, p. 182, Camb. 1854),
Fulke ( Works, vol. ii. p. 269, Camb, 1848), Brad-
ford (Works, p. 435, Camb, 1848), Nor is {πὸ
opinion confined to these 16th century divines,
who may be supposed to have been specially
incensed against Popery. King James held it
(Apol. pro Juram. Fidel. Lond. 1609) as strongly
as Queen Elizabeth (see Jewell, Letter to Bulling.
May 22, 1559, Zurich Letters, First Series, p. 33,
Camb, 1842); and the theologians of the 17th
century did not repudiate it, though they less and
less dwelt upon it as their struggle came to be with
Puritanism in place of Popery. Bp. Andrewes main-
tains it as a probable conclusion trom the Epistle to
the Thessalonians (Resp. ad Bellarm. p. 304, Oxon,
1851); but he carefully explains that King James,
whom he was defending, had expressed his private
opinion, not the belief of the Church, on the subject
(ibid. p. 23), Bramhall introduces limitations and
distinctions (Works, iii. p. 520, Oxf, 1845); sig-
nificantly suggests that there are marks of Anti-
christ which apply to the General Assembly of the
Kirk of Scotland as much as to the Pope or to the
Turk (ib. iii. 287); and declines to make the
Church of England responsible for what individual
preachers or writers had said on the subject in
moments of exasperation (ib. ii, 582). From this
time forward the Papal-Antichrist theory is not
to be found in any theologians of name in the
English Church, nor indeed in the sixteenth cen-
tury.does it seem to have taken root in England.
Hard names were bandied about, and the hardest
of all being Antichrist, it was not neglected. But
the idea of the Pope being the Antichrist was not
the idea of the English Reformation, nor was it
ever applied to the Pope in his Patriarchal or
Archiepiscopal, but solely in his distinctively Papal
character. But the more that the sober and
learned divines of the seventeenth century gave up
this application of the teyyn, the more violently it
was insisted upon by men of little charity and con-
tracted views, A string of writers followed each
other in succession, who added nothing to the inter-
pretation of prophecy, but found each the ereation
of his own brain in the sacred book of the Reve-
lation, grouping history in any arbitrary manner
that they chose around the central figure of the
Papal Antichrist.
3. A reaction followed. Some returned to the
ancient idea of a future individual Antichrist, as
—La Nobla Leyczon, 1. 456. See Raynouard’s Choix des
Poésies Originales des Troubadours, ii. p. 100; App. iii.
to vol. ili. of Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticue, Lond. 1846 ;
Hallam’s Lit, Hurope, i. p. 28 (note), Lond. 1855.
ANTICHRIST .
Lacuuza or Benezra {A. Ὁ. 1810), Burgh, Samuel
Maitland, Newman (TZracts for the Times, No.
83), Charles Maitland (Prophetic Interpretation).
Others preferred looking upon him as long past,
and fixed upon one or another persecutor or here-
siarch as the man in whom the predictions as to
Antichrist found their fulfilment, There seems to
be no trace of this idea for more than 1600 years
in the Church, But it has been taken up by two
opposite classes of expounders, by Romanists who
were anxious to avert the application of the Apoca-
lyptic prophecies from the Papacy, and by others,
who were disposed, not indeed to deny the pro~
phetic import of the Apocalypse, but to confine
the seer’s ken within the closest and narrowest
limits that were possible. Alcasar, a Spanish Jesuit,
taking a hint from Victorinus, seems to have been
the first (A. D. 1604) to have suggested that the
Apocalyptic prophecies did not extend further than
to the oyerthrow of Paganisra by Constantine.
This view, with variations by Grotius, is taken up
and expounded by Bossuet, Calmet, De Sacy, Kich-
horn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Moses Stuart, David-
son. The general view of the school is that the
Apocalypse describes the triumph of Christianity
over Judaism in the first, and oyer Heathenism
in the third century, Mariana sees Antichrist in
Nero; Bossuet in Diocletian and in Julian; Gro-
tius in Caligula; Wetstein in Titus; Hammond in
Simon Magus (Works, vol. iii. p. 620, Lond.
1631); Whitby in the Jews (Comm. vol. ii. p.
431, Lond. 1760); Le Clere in Simon, son -of
Giora, a leader of the rebel Jews; Schéttgen in the
Pharisees ; Néssett and Krause in the Jewish zealots ;
Harduin in the High Priest Ananias; Εἰ, D. Maurice
in Vitellius (On the Apocalypse, Camb. 1860),
4. The same spirit that refuses to regard Satan
as an individual, naturally looks upon the Anti-
christ as an evil principle not embodied either in a
person or ina polity. Thus Koppe, Storr, Nitzsch,
Pelt. (See Altord, Gk. Test. iii. 69.)
We do not gain much bya review of the opinions
of the commentators. In the case of prophecy, par-
tially at least unfulfilled, little 1s to be expected.
Of the four opinions which we have exhibited, the
last is in accordance neither with St. Paul nor St.
John, for St. Paul describes the Adversary as being
distinctly a man; St. John speaks of the coming
of Antichrist in terms similar to those used for the
coming of Christ, and describes Antichristianism
as τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, thereby showing that Anti-
christianism is Antichvistianism because it is the
spirit ofthe concrete Antichrist. The third opi-
nion is plainly refuted by the fact that the persons
fixed upon as the Antichrist have severally passed
away, but Christ’s glorious presence, which is im-
mediately to succeed the Antichrist, has not yet
been vouchsafed. The majority of those who
maintain the second opinion are shown to be in
the wrong because they represent as a polity what
St. Paul distinctly describes as ἃ man, The ma-
jority of those who hold the first opinion are in like
manner shown to be in the wrong, because they
represent as an individual what the Apocalypse de-
monstrably pictures as a polity. We are unable
to follow any one interpreter or any one school of
interpreters, The opinions of the two last schools
we are able to see are wholly false: the two first
appear to contain the truth between them, but so
divided as to be untrue in the mouth of almost any
individual expositor who has entered into details.
We return to Scripture.
ANTICHRIST
St. Paul says that there are two things which are
to precede the Day of Christ, the ἀποστασία and
the revelation of the Adversary; but he does not
say that these two things are contemporary: on
the contrary, though he does not directly express
it, he implies that there was to be a succession of
events. First, it would seem, an unnamed and to
us unknown obstacle has to be removed: then was
to follow the “ Apostasy ;” after this, the Adversary
was to arise, and then was to come his destruction.
We need hardly say that the word *‘ apostasy,” as
ordinarily used, does not give the exact meaning of
ἢ ἀποστασία. The A. V. has most correctly ren-
dered the original by “ falling away,” having only
failed of entire exactness by omitting to give the
value of the article.© An open and unblushing
denial and rejection of all belief, which is implied in
our “ apostasy,” is not implied in ἀποστασία. It
means one of two things: (1) Political defection
(Gen. xiv. 4; 2 Chron. xiii. 6; Acts v. 37);
(2) Religious defection (Acts xxi. 21; 1 Tim. iv.
1; Heb. iii, 12). The first is the common classical
use of the word. The second is more usual in the
Ν, Τ Cyril of Jerusalem seems to understand the
word rightly when he says in reference to this
passage: Νῦν δὲ ἐστὶν ἣ ἀποστασία' ἀπέστησαν —
γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως. . . ἀπέστη-
σαν γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας... Αὕτη
τοίνυν ἐστὶν ἡ ἀποστασία" καὶ μέλλει προσδο-
κᾶσθαι 6 ἔχθρος (S. Cyril. Catech. xv. 9, Op. p.
228: Paris, 1720). And St. Ambrose, “ A vera
religione plerique lapsi errore desciscent ’’ (Com.
im Ic. xx. 20), This “ falling away ” implies
persons who fall away, the ἀποστασία consists of
ἀπόσταται. Supposing the existence of an organized
religious body, some of whom should fall away
from the true faith, the persons so falling away
would be ἀπόσταται, though still formally un-
severed from the religious body to which they be-
longed, and the religious body itself, while from
one side and in respect to its faithful members it
would retain its character and name as a religious
body, might yet from another side and in respect to
its other members be designated an ἀποστασία.
It is such a corrupted religious body as this that
St. Paul seems to mean by the ἀποστασία which
he foretells in the Epistle to the Thessalonians. In
the Epistles to Timothy he describes this religious
defection by some of its peculiar characteristics,
These are, seducing spirits, doctrines of demons,
hypocritical lying, a seared conscience, a forbidding
of marriage and of meats, a form of godliness with-
out the power thereof (1 Tim.iv. 1; 2 Tim. iii. &).
It has been usual, as we have seen, to identify the
Beast of the Apocalypse with St. Paul’s Man of
Sin. It is impossible, 2s we have said, to do so.
But it is possible, and more than possible, to identify
the Beast and the ἀποστασία. Can we find any
thing which will serve as the antitype of both?
In order to be the antitype of St. John’s Beast it
must be a polity, arising, not immediately, but
shortly, after the dissolution of the Roman Empire,
gaining great influence in the world, and getting
the mastery over a certain number of those nation-
alities which like itself grew out of that empire
(Dan, vii. 24). It must last three and a half times,
7. e. nearly twice as long as the empire of Assyria,
or Persia, or Grecia, to which only two times
seem to be allotted (Dan, vii. 12). It must blas-
Ixxiii
¢ For the force of the article, see Bp. Middleton in loc.
(Gk, Art, p. 382, Camb. 1833).
lxxiv ANTICHRIST
» ANTICHRIST
pbeme against God, i.e. it must arrogate to itself| with the individual Antichrist af the Episties or
or claim for creatures the honour due to God alone.
It must be an object of wonder and worship to the
world (Rev. xiii. 6). It must put forward un-
blushing claims in behalf of itself, and be full of its
own perfections (Rey. xiii, 5). Ata certain period
in its history it must put itself under the guidance
of Rome (Rey. xviii. 3), and remain ridden, by her
until the destruction of the latter (Rev. xviii. 2);
its own existence being still prolonged until the
coming of Christ in clory ( (Rev. xix, 20). To satisfy
the requirements of St. Paul's description, its es-
sential features must be a falling away from the
true faith (2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1), and it
must be further characterized by the specific quali-
ties already transcribed from the Epistles to
Timothy.
The antitype may be found in the corrupted
Church of Christ, in so far as it was corrupted.
The same body, in so far as it maintained the faith
and love, was the bride and the spouse, and, in so
far as it ‘* fell away”? from God, was the ἀποστασία,
just as Jerusalem of old was at once Sion the
beloved city, and Sodom the bloody city—the
Church of Godand the Synagogue of Satan, <Ac-
cording to this view, the three and ἃ half times of
the Beast’s continuance (Rey. xiii.5), and of the
Bride’s suffering in the wilderness (Rev. xii. 6),
would necessarily be conterminous, for the persecuted
and the persecutors would be the faithful and the
unfaithful members of the same body. These times
would have commenced when the Church lapsed
from her purity and from her first love into unfaith-
fulness to God, exhibited especially in idolatry and
creature-worship. It is of the nature of a religious
defection to grow up by degrees. We should not
therefore be able to lay the finger on any special
moment at which it commenced, St. Cyril of Je-
rusalem considered that it was already existing in
his time, “ Now,” he says, “is the ἀποστασία,
for men have fallen away (ἀπέστησαν) from the
right faith. This then is the ἀποστασία, and we
must begin to look out for the enemy ; already he
has begun to send his forerunners, that the prey
may be ready for him at his coming” (Catech. xv.
9). It was at the Second Council of Nice that the
Church formally committed itself for the first time
(A.D. 787) by the voice of a General Council to
false doctrine and idolatrous practice. The after
acquiescence in the Hildebrandine theoy of the
Papal Supremacy would be typified by the Beast
taking the woman who represents the seven-hilled
city on its back as its guide and director, From
the twelfth to the sixteenth century, and partially
to the present day. this Hildebrandine idea has
reigned over and has been the governing spirit of
the corrupted Church. The fall of Babylon, 7. ὁ. of
Rome, would be as yet future, as well as the still
subsequent destruction of the corrupted Church, on
the day of the coming of Christ. The period of
the three and a half times would continue down to the
final moment that this destruction takes place.
VI. The Apocalyptic False Prophet.—There
is a second Apocalyptic Beast: the Beast from
the Earth (Rev. xiii. 11), or the False Prophet
(Key. xix. 20). Can we identity this Be: ast either
4 The word “ blasphemy” has come το be: ar a second-
ary meaning, which it does not bear in Scripture.
Schleusner (in voc.) rightly explains it, Dicere et facere
quibus majestas Dei violatur. The Jews accused our
Lord of blasphemy because He claimed divine power
and the divine attributes (Matt. ix. 2; xxvi. 64; John x.
with the corrupt polity of the Apocalypse? We
were compelled to regard the First Beast as a polity
by its being identical with that which clearly is a
polity, the Little Horn of Daniel. There is no such
necessity here, and there is‘no reason for regarding
the Second Beast as a polity, beyond the fact of its
being described under a similar figure to that by
which a polity had been just previously described.
This presumption is more than counterbalanced by
the individualizing title of the False Prophet which
he bears (Rev. xvi. 13, xix. 20). His character-
istics are—(1) “doing great wonders, so that he
maketh fire to come down from heaven on the
earth in the sightof men” (Rev. xiii, 13). This
power of miracle-working, we should note, is not
attributed by St. John to the First Beast ; but it is
one of the chief signs of St. Paul’s Adversary,
“‘whose coming is with all power and signs and
lying wonders” (2 Thess. ii. 9). (2) “He de-
ceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means
of those miracles which he had power to do in the
sight of the Beast”’ (Rev. xiii. 14). ‘ He wrought
miracles with which he deceived them that received
the mark of the Beast and worshipped the image
of the Beast’ (Rev. xix. 20). In like manner, no
special power of beguiling is attributed to the First
Beast ; but the Adversary is possessed of ‘all de-
ceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish
because they received not the love of the truth that
they might be saved’ (2 Thess. ii. 10). (3) He
has horns like a lamb, 7.e. he bears an outward
resemblance to the Messiah (Rev. xiii. 11); and the
Adversary sits in the temple of God showing him-
self that he is God (2 Thess. ii. 4), (4) His title
is The False Prophet, 6 Ψευδοπροφήτης (Rev. xvi.
15, xix. 20); and our Lord, whom Antichrist
counterfeits, is emphatically 6 Προφήτης. The
Ψευδοπροφῆται of Matt. xxiv. 24 are the forerun-
ners of 6 Wevdorpophrns, as John the Baptist of the
True Prophet. On the whole, it would seem that
if the Antichrist appears at all in the Book of the
Revelation it is by this Second Beast or the False
Prophet that he is represented. If this be so, it fol-
lows that he is an individual person who will at some
future time arise, who will ally himself with the
Corrupted Church, represent himself as her minis-
ter and vindicator (Rey, xiii. 12), compel men by
violence to pay reverence to her (xiii, 14), breathe
a new life into her decaying frame by his use of the
secular arm in her behalf (xiii. 15), forbidding civil
rights to those who renounce her author ity and re-
ject her symbols (xiii. 17), and putting them to death
by the sword (xiii. 15), while personally he is an
atheistical blasphemer (1 John ii. 22), and sums up
in himself the evil spirit of unbelief which has been
working in the world from St. Paul’s days to his
(2 Thess. ii. 7). That it is possible for a professed
unbeliever and atheist to make himself the cham-
pion of a corrupt system of religion, and to become
on political grounds as violent a persecutor in its
behalf as the most fanatical bigot could be, has
been proved by events which have already oc-
curred, and which might again occur on a more
gigantic and terrible scale. The Antichrist would
thus combine the forces, generally and happily
33), There was nothing in our Lord’s words which the
most bitter malignity could have called blasphemous in
the later sense which the word has come to bear. It is
of course in the Scriptural, not in the modern, sense that
St. John attributes blasphemy to the Beast. (See Words-
worth, On the Apocalypse, p. 528.)
ANTICHRIST
antagonistic, of Infidelity and Superstition. In
-his would consist the special horror of the reign
of the Antichrist. Hence also the special sufler-
ings of the faithful believers until Christ him-
self once again appeared to vindicate the cause of
Truth and Liberty and Religion.
The sum of Scripture-teaching with regard to
the Antichrist, then, appears to be as follows. Al-
yeady in the times of the Apostles there was the
mystery of iniquity, the spirit of Antichrist, at |
work. It embodied itself in various shapes—in the
Gnostic heretics of St. John’s days, in the Jewish
impostors who preceded the fall of Jerusalem, in
all heresiarchs and unbelievers, especially those
whose heresies had a tendency to deny the Incar-
nation of Christ, and in the great persecutors who
trom time to time afllicted the Church. But this
Antichristian Spirit was then, and is still, diffused.
It had not, and it has not yet, gathered itself into
the one person in whom it Will be one day com-
pletely and fully manifested. There was something
which prevented the open manifestation of the
Antichrist in the Apostles’ days which they spoke
of by word of mouth, but were unwilling to name
in letters. What this obstacle was, or is, we can-
not now know. The general opinion of the early
secular law existing in the Roman Empire. The
Roman Empire fell, and upon its fall, and in con-
sequence of its fall, there arose a secularization and
_corruption of the Church, which would not have
been so secularized and corrupted had it been kept
in check by the jealousy of the imperial power.
The secularization and corruption increasing, the
Church, which from one point of view and in re-
spect to some of its members was considered as the
Church of Christ, from another peint of view and
in respect to others of its members came to be
regarded as no better than an ἀποστασία. Time
passing on, the corrupt element, getting still more
the mastery, took the Papacy on its back and gaye
itself up to be directed from Rome.
speak of the past. It would appear further that
there is to be evolved from the womb of the Cor-
rupt Church, whether after or before the fall of
Rome does not appear, an individual Antichrist,
who, being himself a scoffer and contemner of all
religion, will yet act as the Patron and Defender of
the Corrupt Church, and compel men to submit to
her sway by the force of the secular arm and by
means of bloody persecutions. He will unite the
old foes Superstition and Unbelief ina combined
attack on Liberty and Religion. He will have,
finally, a power of performing lying miracles and
beguiling souls, being the embodiment of Satanic
as distinct from brutal wickedness. How long his
power will last we are wholly ignorant, as the three
and a half times do not refer to his reign (as is
usually imagined), but to the continuance of the
ἀποστασία. We only know that his continuance
will be short. At last he will be destroyed to-
gether with the Corrupt Church, in so far as it is
corrupt, at the glorious appearance of Christ, which
will usher in the millennial triumph of the faithful
and hitherto persecuted members of the Church.
(B.) There are points which require further elu-
cidation :—
1. The meaning of the name Antichrist. Mr.
Greswell argues at some length that the only cor-
rect reading of the word is Counterfeit-Christ or
Pro-Christo, and denies that the idea of Adversary
to Christ is involved in the word. Mr. Greswell’s
So far we |
ANTICHRIST Ixxy
authority is great; but he has been in this case too
hasty in drawing his conclusion from the instances
which he has cited, It is true that ** ἀντί is not
synonymous with card,” but it is impossible to re-
sist the evidence which any Greek Lexicon supplies
that the word ἀντί, both in composition and by
itself, will bear the sense of ‘* opponent to.” It is
probable that both senses are combined in the word
Antichrist, as in the word Antipope, which is very
exact in its resembiance, but the primary notion
which it conveys would seem rather to be that of
antagonism than rivalry, See Greswell, Haposition
of the Parables, vol. i. p. 372, sq.; Wordsworth,
On the Apocalypse, p. 512.
2. The meaning of τὸ κατέχον. What is that
thing which withholdeth (2 Thess. ii. 6)? and
why is it apparently described in the following
verse as a person (6 κατέχων) } There is a re-
markable unanimity among the early Christian
writers on this point. They explain the obstacle,
known to the Thessajonians but unknown to us, to
be the Roman Empire. Thus Tertullian De Resw-.
Carn., ¢. 24, and Apol., c. 323 St. Chrysostom and
Theophylact on 2 Thess. ii.; Hippolytus, De Anti-
christo, ο. 49 ; St. Jerome on Dan. vii.; St. Augus-
| tine, De Civ. Dei, xx. 19; St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
writers and fathers is that it was the power of |
Catech. xv. 6 (see Dr. H. More’s Works, bk. ii. ec.
19, p. 690; Mede, bk. iii. ch. xiii. p, 656 ; Alford,
Gk, Test. iii. 57; Wordsworth,.On the Apocalypse,
p- 520). Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuestia
hold it to be the determination of God. Theo- |
doret’s view is embraced by Pelt ; the Patristie in-
terpretation is accepted by Wordsworth. Ellicott
and Alford so far modify the Patristic interpre-
tation as to explain the obstacle to be the restrain-
ing power of human law (τὸ κατέχον) wielded by
the Empire of Rome (6 κατέχων) when Tertullian
wrote, but now by the several governments of the
civilized world. ‘The explanation of Theodoret is
untenable on account of St. Paul’s further words,
“until he be taken out of the way,” which are
applied by him to the obstacle. The modification of
Ellicott and Alford is necessary if we suppose the
ἀποστασία to be an infidel apostasy still future ;
for the Roman Empire is gone, and this apostasy is
not come, nor is the Wicked One revealed. There
is much to be said for the Patristic interpretation
in its plainest acceptation. How should the idea
of the Roman Empire being the obstacle to the
revelation of Antichrist have oviginated? There
was nothing to lead the early Christian writers to
such a belief. They regarded the Roman Empire as
idolatrous and abominable, and would have been
more disposed to consider it as the precursor than as
the obstacle to the Wicked One. Whatever the ob-
stacle was, St. Paul says that he told the Thessalo-
nians what it was. Those to whom he had preached
knew, and every time that his Epistle was publicly
read (1 Thess. ν. 27), questions would have been
asked by those who did not know, and thus the
recollection must have been kept up. It is very
difficult to see whence the tradition could have
arisen except from St. Paul’s own teaching. It
may be asked, Why then did he not express it in
writing as well as by word of mouth? St.
Jerome’s answer is sufficient: “If he had openly
and unreservedly said, ‘ Antichrist will not come
unless the Roman Empire be first destroyed,’ the
infant Church would have been exposed in conse-
quence to persecution” (ad Alyas, Qu. xi. vol. iv.
p- 209, Paris, 1706). Remigius gives the same
reason, “ He spoke obscurely for fear a Roman
ANTICHRIST
should perhaps read the Epistle, and raise a perse-
cution against him and the other Christians, for
they held that they were to rule for ever in the
Ixxv1
world” (Bib. Patr. Max. viii. 1018; see Words-
worth, On the Apocalypse, p. 343). It would
appear then that the obstacle was probably the
Roman Empire, and on its being taken out of the
way there did occur the “falling away.” Zion
the beloved city became Sodom the bloody city
Zion. According to the view given above, this
would be the description of the Church in her
present estate, and this will continue to be our
estate, until the time, times and half time, during
which the evil element is allowed to remain within
her, shall have come to their end.
3. What is the Apocalyptic Babylon? There
is not a doubt that by Babylon is figured Rome.
The “seven mountains on which the woman sit-
teth” (Rev. xvii. 9), and the plain declaration,
“¢the woman which thou sawest is that great city
which reigneth”’ (7.e, in St. John’s days) ‘* over
the kings of the earth” (Rev. xvii, 18), are too
strong evidence to be gainsaid. There is no com-
mentator of note, ancient or modern, Romanist or
Protestant, who does not acknowledge so much.
But what Rome is it that is thus figured? There
are four chief opinions: (1) Rome Pagan ; (2)
tome Papal; (3) Rome having hereafter become
infidel ; (4) Rome as a type of the world. That
it is old Pagan Rome is the view ably contended
for by Bossuet and held in general by the praeterist
school of interpreters. That it is Rome Papal was
held by the Protestants of the sixteenth century,
and by these who preceded and have followed
them in their line of interpretation. That it is
Rome having lapsed into infidelity is the view of
many of the futurists. That it is Rome as the
type of the world is suggested or maintained by
Tichonius, Primasius, Areas, Albert the Great, and
in our own days by Dr. Arnold (On the Interpreta-
tion of Prophecy) and Dr. Newman ( Tracts for the
Times, No. 83). That the harlot-woman must be
an unfaithful Church is argued convincingly by
Wordsworth (On the Apocalypse, p. 376), and no
less decisively by Isaac Williams ( The Apocalypse,
p- 335). <A close consideration of the language
and import of St. John’s prophecy appears, as
Mr, Williams says, to leave no room for doubt
on this point. If this be so, the conclusion seems
almost necessarily to follow that the unfaithful
Church spoken of is, as Dr. Wordsworth argues,
the Church of Rome. And this appears to be the
case, The Babylon of the Apocalypse is probably
the Church of Rome which gradually raised and
seated herself on the back of the Corrupted Church
—the Harlot-rider on the Beast. A very notice-
able conclusion follows from hence, which has been
little marked by many who have been most anxious
to identify Babylon and Rome. It is, that it is im-
possible that the Pope or the Papal system can be
Antichrist, for the Harlot who rides on the Beast
and the Antichrist are wholly distinct.. After
Jabylon is fallen and destroyed (Rev. xviii.) the
Antichrist is still found (Rev. xix.). Indeed there
is hardly a feature in the Papal system which is
similar in its lineaments to the portrait of Anti-
christ as drawn by St. John, however closely it
may resemble babylon.
4, What are ue to understand by the two Wit-
nesses?. The usual interpretation given in the
early Church is that they ave Enoch and Elijah,
ANTICHRIST
who are to appear in the days of Antichrist, and
by him to be killed. Victorinus substitutes Jere-
miah for Enoch, Joachim would suggest Moses and
Elijah taken figuratively for some persons, or, per-
haps, orders, actuated by their spirit. Bullinger,
Bale, Chytraeus, Pareus, Mede, Vitringa understand
by them the line of Antipapal remonstrants. Foxe
takes them to be Huss and Jerome of Prague ;
Bossuet, the early Christian martyrs; Herder and
Eichhorn, the chief priest Ananus and Jesus slain
by the Zealots ; Moses Stuart, the sick and old who
did not fly from Jerusalem on its capture by the
Romans; Maurice, the priest Jeshua and the judge
Zerubbabel as representing Law and Sacrifice; Lee
understands by them the Law and the Gospel; Ti-
chonius and Bede, the two Testaments ; others the
two Sacraments. All that we are able to say is
this. The time of their witnessing is 1260 days,
or a time times and half a time. This is the
same period as that during which the ἀποστασία
and the power of the Beast continue. “They would
seem therefore to represent all those who in the
midst of the faithless ave found faithful throughout
this time. Their being described as “ candlesticks ”’
would lead us to regard them perhaps as Churches.
The place of their temporary death, “ the great
city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Eeypt,
where also our Lord was crucified,” would appear
to be Jerusalem, as typifying the corrupted Chui ch.
The Beast that kills them is not Antichrist, but the
faithless Ghurch.
5. The Number of the Beast, Nothing what-
ever is known about it. No conjecture that has
been made is worth mentioning on the ground of
its being likely in any the least degree to approxi-
mate to the truth. ‘The usual method of seeking
the solution of the difficulty is to select the name
of an individual and to count the numerical values
of its constituent letters. The extravagant con-
clusions which have been made to result from this
system have naturally brought it into aisrepute,
but it is certain that it was much more usual,
at the time that St. John wrote, to make caleu-
lations in this manner than most persons are now
aware, On this principle Mercury or Ilnuth was
invoked under the name of 1218, Jupiter under
that of 717, the Sun of 608 or XH. Mr. Elliott
quotes an enigma from the Sibylline verses in
some way expressing the name of God, strikingly
illustratzve of the challenge put forth by St. John,
and perhaps formed in part on its model:
Ἔννέα γράμματ᾽ ἔχω " τετρασύλλαβός εἰμι: νόει με.
Al τρεῖς αἱ πρῶται δύο γράμματ᾽ ἔχουσιν ἑκάστη,
Ἢ λοιπὴ δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ " καὶ εἰσὶν ἄφωνα τὰ πέντε.
Tod παντὸς δ᾽ ἀριθμοῦ ἑκατοντάδες εἰσὶ δὶς ὀκτώ
Καὶ τρεῖς τρισδεκάδες, σύν γ᾽ ἑπτά " γνοὺς δὲ τίς εἰμι,
Οὐκ ἀμύητος ἔσῃ θείης Tap’ ἐμοί γε σοφίης.
—Sibyll. Orac. p. 171, Paris, 1599,
supposed by Mr. Clarke to be Θεὸς σωτήρ. The
only conjecture with respect to the number of the
Beast, made on this principle, which is worthy of
mention is one which dates as early as the time of
Irenaeus, and has held its ground down to the time
of Dean Alford and Canon Wordsworth. Ivenaeus
suggests, though he does not adopt, the word
Aatetvos. Dr. Wordsworth (1860) thinks it
possible, and Dean Alford (1861) has ‘the strong-
est persuasion that no other can be found approach-
ing so near to a complete solution.’ Of other
names the chief favourites have been Τειταν
(Irenaeus), Αρνουμε (Hippolytus), Aap e-
ANTICHRIST
τις, Avrepwos (Tichonius), Tevonpikos
(Rupertus), Kakos ‘Odnyos, “AAnOns
BAaBepos, Παλαι Backavos, Auvos
αδικος (Arethas), Οὐλ πιὸ ς (Grotius), Ma-
ometis, ᾿Αποστατῆη", DIOCLES AUGUSTUS
(Bossuet) : Ewald constructs “ the Roman Caesar ”
in Hebrew, and Benary “ the Caesar Nero” in the
same language. Any one who wishes to know the
many attempts that have been made to solve the
difficulty—attempts seldom even relieved by in-
genuity—may consult Wolfius, Calmet, Clarke, .
Wrangham, Thorn. Probably the principle on
which the explanation goes is false. Men have
looked for Antichrist among their foes, and have
tortured the name of the person fixed upon into
being of the value of 666, Hence Latinus under
the Roman Emperors, Mahomet at the time of
the Saracenic successes, Luther at the Reformation,
Buonaparte at the French Revolution. The name
to be found is not that of Antichrist, but the name
of the Beast, which, as we have argued, is not
the same as Antichrist. It is probable that a
sounder method of interpretation is adopted by Mr.
Isaac Williams, Dr. Wordsworth, and Mr. Maurice.
There is clearly a symbolical meaning in the num-
bers used in the Apocalypse; and they would ex-
plain the three sixes as a threefold declension from
the holiness and perfection symbolised by the
number seven. We will add an ingenious sugges-
tion by an anonymous writer, and will leave the
subject in the same darkness in which it is pro-
bably destined to remain: ‘“ At his first appear-
ance,’ he writes, ‘he will be hailed with accla-
mations and hosannahs as the Redeemer of Israel,
another Judas Maccabaeus: and either from the
initials of his name, or from the initial letter of
some Scriptural motto adopted by him, an artificial
name will be formed, a cipher of his real name.
And that abbreviated name or cipher will be osten-
tatiously displayed as their badge, their watchword,
their shibboleth, their *‘ Maccabi,’ by all his adhe-
rents, This artificial name, this mark or symbol
‘of the real name, will be equal by Gematria to
666” (Jewish Missionary, p. 52, 1348).
(C.) Jewish and Mohammedan traditions respect-
ing Antichrist. The name given by the Jews to
Antichrist. is (Did 5:1) Armillus, There are se-
veral Rabbinical books in which a circumstantial
account is given of him, such as the “ Book of
Zerubbabel,” and others printed at Constantinople.
Buxtorf gives an abridgement of their contents in
his Lexicon, under the head “ Armillus,” and in
the fiftieth chapter of his Synagoga Judaica
(p. 717). The name is derived from Isaiah xi. 4,
where the Targum gives ‘“‘ By the word of his
mouth the wicked Armillus shall die,” for “ with
the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.”
There will, say the Jews, be twelve signs of the
coming of the Messiah:—1. The appearance of
three apostate kings who have fallen away from
the faith, but in the sight of men appear to be wor-
shippers of the true God. 2. A terrible heat of
the sun. 3. A dew of blood (Joel ii. 80). 4. A
healing dew for the pious. 5. A darkness will
be cast upon the sun (Joel ii. 31) for thirty days
(Is. xxiv. 22). 6. God will give universal power
to the Romans for nine months, during which time
the Roman chieftain will afflict the Israelites; at
the end of the nine months God will raise up the
Messiah Ben-Joseph, that is, the Messiah of the
tribe of Joseph, named Nehemiah, who will defeat
ANTICHRIST
the Roman chieftain and slay him. 7. Then there
will arise Armillus, whom the Gentiles or Chris-
tians call Antichrist. He will be born of a marble
statue in one of the churches in Rome. He will
go to the Romans and will profess himself to be
their Messiah and their God. At once the Romans
will believe in him and accept him for their king,
and will love him and cling to him. Having made
the whole world subject to him, he will say te the
Idumaeans (2. 6. Christians), “ Bring me the law
which | have given you.” They will bring it with
their book of prayers; and he will accept it as his
own, and will exhort them to perseveie in their
belief of him. Then he will send to Nehemiah, and
command the Jewish Law to be brought him, and
proof to be given from it that he is God. Nehe-
miah will go before him, guarded by 30,000 war-
riors of the tribe of Ephraim, and will read, “1 am
the Lord thy God: thou shalt have none other gods
but me.” Armillus will say that there are no such
words in the Law, and will command the Jews to
confess him to be God as the other nations had con--
fessed him. But Nehemiah will give orders to his
followers to seize and bind him. Then Armillus
in rage and fury will gather all his people in a deep
valley to fight with Israel, and in that battle the
Messiah Ben-Joseph will fall, and the angels will
bear away his body and carry him to the resting-
place of the Patriarchs. Then the Jews will be
cast out by all nations, and suffer afflictions such as
have not been from the beginning of the world,
and the residue of them will fly into fhe desert, and
will remain there forty and five days, during which
time all the Israelites who are not worthy to see
the Redemption shall die. 8, Then the great angel
Michael will rise and blow three mighty blasts of a
trumpet. At the first blast there shall appear the
true Messiah Ben-David and the prophet Elijah,
and they will manifest themselves to the Jews in
the desert, and all the Jews throughout the world
shall hear the sound of the trump, and those that
have been carried captive into Assyria shall be
gathered together; and with great gladness they
shall come to Jerusalem. Then Armillus will raise
a great army of Christians and lead them to Jeru-
salem to conquer the new king. But God shall say
to Messiah, “Sit thou on my right hand,” and to
the Israelites, “ Stand still and see what God will
work for you to-day.” Then God will pour down
sulphur and fire from heaven (Ezech. xxxviii. 22),
and the impious Armillus shall die, and the impious
Idumaeans (ἡ. e. Christians), who have destroyed the
house of our God and have led us away into cap-
tivity, shall perish in misery, and the Jews shall
avenge themselves upon them, as it is written:
“ς The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house
of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau (7. e. the
Christians) for stubble, and they shall kindle in
them and devour them : there shall not be any re-
maining of the house of Esau, for the Lord hath
spoken it’? (Obad. 18). 9. On the second blast of
the trumpet the tombs shall be opened, and Messiah
Ben-David shall raise Messiah Ben-Joseph from the
dead. 10. The ten tribes shall be led to Paradise,
and shall celebrate the wedding-feast of the Messiah.
And the Messiah shall choose a bride amongst the
fairest of the daughters of Israel, and children and
children’s children shall be born to him, and then
he shall die like other men, and his sons shall reign
over Israel after him, as it is written, “ He shall
prolong his days’ (Isai. liii. 10), which Rambam
explains to mean ‘‘ He shall live long, but he too
Ixxvii
ANTICHRIST
shall die nm great glory, and his son shall reign in
his stead, and his sons’ sons in succession ’’ (Bux-
torfii Synagoga Judaica, p. 717, Basil. 1661).
The Mohammedan traditions are an adaptation of
Christian prophecy and Jewish legend without any
originality or any beauty of their own. They too
have their signs which are to precede the final con-
summation. They are divided into the greater and
lesser sions. Of the greater signs the first is the
rising of the sun from the West (cf. Matt. xxiv. 29).
The next is the appearance of a Beast from the
earth, sixty cubits high, bearing the staff of Moses
and the seal of Solomon, with which he will inscribe
the worl “ Believer” on the face of the faithful,
and. ““ Unbeliever”’ on all who have not accepted
Islamism (comp. Rey. xiii.). The third sign is the
capture of Constantinople, while the spoil of which is
being divided, news will come of the appearance of
Antichrist (A/ Dajjal), and every man will return
to his own home, Antichrist will be blind of one
eye and deaf of one ear, and will have the name of
Unbeliever written on his forehead (Rev. xiii.). It
is he that the Jews call Messiah Ben-David, and say
that he will come in the last times and reign over
sea and land, and restore to them the kingdom.
He wiil continue forty days, one of these days being
equal to a year, another to a month, another to a
week, the rest being days of ordinary length. He
will devastate all other places, but will not be
allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, which will be
guarded by angels. Lastly, he will be killed by
Jesus at the gate of Lud. For when news is re-
ceived of the appearance of Antichrist, Jesus will
come down to earth, alighting on the white tower
at the east of Damascus, and will slay him: Jesus
will then embrace the Mahometan religion, marry a
wife, and leave children after him, having reigned
in perfect peace and security, after the death of
Antichrist, for forty years. (See Pococke, Porta
Mosis, p. 258, Oxon. 1655; and Sale, Koran,
Preliminary Discourse.)
Literature.—On the subject of the Antichrist and
of the Apocalyptic visions the following is a con-
densed list of the writers most deserving of atten-
tion :—S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. xv. p. 220,
Paris, 1720. S. Jerome, Hxplan. in Daniel. v. 617,
Veron. 1734. These two writers are expounders
of the Patristie view. Andreas, Comm. in Apoc.
Bibl. Patr. Max. v. 590. Aretas, Comm. in Apoc.
Bibl. Patr. Max. ix. 741. Abbas Joachim (founder
of the Antipapal school), Zap. Apoc. Venet. 1519.
Ribeiva (founder of the later school of Futurists),
Comm. in Apoc. Salam. 1591. Alcasar (founder
of the Praeterist school), Vestigatio Arcani Sensis
im Apoc. Antv. 1614. Pareus, Comm. in Apoc.
Heidelb. 1618. Cornelius a Lapide, Comm. in
Apoc. Antv. 1627. Mede, Clavis Apocalypt.
Cantab. 1632. Bossuet, L’ Apocalypse, avec une
Explication, Huvres, vol. xxiii. Vitringa, Ana-
crisis Apocalyps. Amst. 1719. Daubuz, Comm.
on Rev. Lond. 1720. Hug, Linleitung in die
Schriften des Neuen Test. Stuttg. 1821. Bengel,
Erklirte Offenbarung Johannis, Stuttg. 1834.
Herder, Johannis Offenbarung, Werke, xii. Stutte.
1827. Eichhorn, Comm. in Apoc, Gotting. 1791.
Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. Lips. 1828. Liicke,
Vollstindige Linleitung in die Offenbarung und
die Apocalypt. Literatur, Comm. iv., Bonn, 1834,
Tracts for the Times, vy. No, 83, Lond. 1839.
Greswell, Exposition of the Parables, vol. i. Oxf.
1834. Moses Stuart, Comm. on the Apoc. Edinb.
1847, Wordsworth, On the Apocalypse, Lond.
Ixxvill
APPAIM
1849; and Gk. Test. Lond. 1860. Elliott, Horae
Apocalypticae, Lond. 1851. Clissold, Apoca-
lyptical Interpretation (Swedenborgian), Lond,
1845. CC. Maitland, Prophetic Interpretation,
Lond. 1849. Williams, Zhe Apocalypse, Lond.
1852. Alford, Gk, Test. (Proleg. in Thess. et in
Apoc.), Lond. 1856 and 1861. Ellicott, Comm.
in Thess. Lond. 1858. [F. Μ.]
ANTIOCHT'A (Avtidxera; Alex. ᾿Αντιοχία
exc, in 2 Mace. iv. 33: Antiochia). ANTIOCH 1
(1 Mace. iv. 35, vi. 63; 2 Mace. iv. 33, v. 21).
ANTIO'CHIANS (Avtioxets : Antiocheni).
Partisans of Antiochus Epiphanes, ingluding Jason
and the Hellenizing faction (2 Macc. iv. 9,19). In
the latter passages the Vulgate has viros peccatores.
ANTIOCHIS (Avtioxis: Antiochis). The
concubine of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mace. iv. 30.)
ANTIOCHUS (Avtioxos; Alex. ᾿Αντίμαχος
in 1 Mace. xii. 16: Antiochus). Father of Nu-
menius, one of the ambassadors from Jonathan to
the Romans (1 Mace. xii. 16, xiv. 22),
AN'TIPAS (Avrimas: Antipas). A martyr
at Pergamos, and, according to tradition, bishop of
that place (Rev. ii. 13). He is said to have suf-
fered martyrdom in the reign of Domitian by being
cast into a burning brazen bull (Menol. Gr. iii. 51).
His day in the Greek calendar is April 11.
ANTOTHIJAH (ONY: ᾿Αναθὼθ καὶ
"Iabiv; Alex. ᾿Αναθωθία: Anathothia). A Ben-
jamite, one of the sons of Shashak (1 Chr. viii. 24).
AN'TOTHITE, THE (NNWYA: δ᾽ Αναθωθί:
Anathothites, Anathotites), A native of Anathoth
(1 Chr. xi. 28, xii. 3).
A'NUB (33) : Ἔνώβ ; Alex. ᾿Εγνώβ : Anob).
Son of Coz, and descendant of Judah, through
Ashur the father of Tekoa (1 Chr, iv. 8).
APOLL'YON (Απολλύων : Apollyon), or, as
it is literally in the margin of the A.V. of Rev.
ix. 11, “a destroyer,’ is the rendering of the
Hebrew word ABADDON, “the angel of the bottom-
less pit.” The Vulgate adds, ‘Latine habens
nomen Exterminans.” The Hebrew term is really
abstract, and signifies “ destruction,” in . which
sense it occurs in Job xxvi. 6, xxviii, 22; Prov.
xv. 11; and other passages. The angel Apollyon
is further described as the king of the locusts which
rose from the smoke of the bottomless pit at the
sounding of the fifth trumpet. From the occurrence
of the word in Ps, Ixxxviii. 11, the Rabbins have
made Abaddon the nethermost of the two regions
into which they divided the under world. But
that in Rev. ix. 11 Abaddon is the angel, and not
the abyss, is perfectly evident in the Greek. There
is no authority for connecting it with the destroyer
alluded to in 1 Chr, x. 10; and the explanation,
quoted by Bengel, that the name is given in Hebrew
and Greek, to show that the locusts would be de-
structive alike to Jew and Gentile, is farfetched and
unnecessary, The etymology of Asmodeus, the king
of the demons in Jewish mythology, seems to point
to a connexion with Apollyon, in his character as
“the destroyer,’ or the destroying angel. See also
Wisd. xviii, 22, 25. [ASMODEUS. ]
APPA'IM (DYBN : ’Ampaiv; Alex. Apopaty :
Apphaim), Son of Nadab, and descended from
ARA
Jevahmeel, the founder of an important family of the
tribe of Judah (1 Chr, ii, 30, 31). The succession
fell to him, as his elder brother died without issue.
A'RA (NON: ᾿Αρά : Ara). One of the sons of
Jether, the head of a family of Asherites (1 Chr.
vii, 38),
ARA'BIAN, THE ΟΣ ΜΠ, Neh. ii. 10. vis τη:
.6ApaBl: Avabs: "3 }), Is. xiii, 20; Jer. iii. 2:
“ApaBes : Arabes); AKABIANS, THE (D'S,
2 Chr. xvii, 11; Δ), 2 Chr. xxi. 16, xxii, 1,
xxvi, 7 (Keri); Neh, iv. 7): of “ApaBes: Arabes),
The nomadic tribes inhabiting the country to the
east. and south of Palestine, who in the early times
of Hebrew history were known as Ishmaelites and
descendants of Keturah, heir roving pastoral life
in the desert is alluded to in Is, xiii. 20; Jer. ii, 2;
2 Mace, xii, 11; their country is associated with
the country of the Dedanim, the travelling mer-
chants (Is. xxi, 13), with Dedan, Tema, and Buz
(Jer, xxv. 24), and with Dedan and Kedar (Ez.
xxvii, 21), all of which are supposed to have oc-
cupied the northern part of the peninsula later |
known as Arabia. During the prosperous reign of |
Jehoshaphat, the Arabians, in conjunction with the
Philistines, were tributary to Judah (2 Chr, xvii.
11), but in the reign of his successor they revolted,
ravaged the country, plundered the royal palace,
slew all the king’s sons with the exception of the
youngest, and carried off the royal harem (2 Chr.
xxi. 16, xxii. 1). The Arabians of Gur-baal were
agait subdued by Uzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 7). During
the Captivity they appear to have spread over the
country of Palestine, for on the return from Babylon
they were among the foremost in hindering Nehe-
miah in his work of restoration, and plotted with
the Ammonites and others for that end (Neh. iv. 7).
Geshem, or Gashmu, one of the leaders of the
‘opposition, was of this race (Neh. ii. 19, vii. 1). In
later times the Arabians served under Timotheus in
his struggle with Judas Maccabaeus, but were de-
feated (1 Mace. v. 39; 2 Mace. xii. 10). The
Zabadaeans, an Arab tribe, were routed by Jonathan,
the brother and successor of Judas (1 Mace. xii. 31).
The chieftain or king of the Arabians bore the name
of Aretas as far back as the time of Antiochus Epi-
‘phanes and Jason the high-priest (2 Macc. v. ὃ ;
comp. 2 Cor. xi, 32), Zabdiel, the assassin of
Alexander Balas (1 Mace. xi, 17), and Simalcue,
who brought up Antiochus, the young son of Alex-
ander (1 Mace. xi, 39), afterwards Antiochus VI.,
were both Arabians. In the time of the N. T, the
term appears to have been used in the same manner
(Acts ii, 11). [ARABIA.]
A'RAD (ΤῊΝ: Op7d: Alex. ᾿Αρώδ : Arod).
A Benjamite, son of Beriah, who drove out the
inhabitants of Gath (1 Chr. viii. 15).
A'RAH (MIN: Apa: Ara). 1. An Asherite,
of the sons of Ulla (1 Chr. vii. 38),
2. (Ἄρες, “Hpae, Ἢρά: Area.) The sons of
Arah returned with Zerubbabel, in number 775,
according to Ezr. ii. 5, but 652 according to Neh,
vii. 10. One of his descendants, Shechaniah, was
the father-in-law of Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh.
yi. 18), The name is written ἡ ΒῈΒ in 1 Esdr. v. 10.
A'RAM-NAHARA'IM (D3 DIN: ἡ
Μεσοποταμία Suplas: Mesopotamia Syriac). (Ps.
lx, title.). [ARAM 1.]
ARIETL
A‘RAM-ZO'BAH (M3)¥ DIN: ἡ Συρία
SoBad: Sobal), (Ps. ix, title.) [ARAM Nay
A'RAM. 8. (Apdu: Aram.) An Asherite,
one of the sons of Shamer (1 Chr. vii. 34).
4. The son of Esrom, or Hezron; elsewhere
called RAM (Matt. i. 3, 4; Luke iii. 33),
AR’ARATH (Apapaé; Alex.’Apapdr). ARA-
RAT (Tob. i. 21; comp. 2 K. xix. 37).
AR’BAH (Y3DN: τὸ πεδίον : Arbee). ‘The
city of Arbah”’ is always rendered elsewhere Hebron,
or Kirjath-Arba (Gen. xxxv. 27). The LXX, ap-
pear to have read nay *ardbah.
AROTU'RUS. The Hebrew words WY, ’Ash,
and WY, ’ Aish, rendered “ Arcturus” in the A. V.
of Job ix. 9, xxxviii, 32, in conformity with the
Vulg. of the former passage, are now generally be-
lieved to be identical, and to represent the con-
stellation Ursa Major, known commonly as the
Great Bear, or Charles’s Wain, Niebuhr (Desc. de
? Arab, p. 101) relates that he met with a Jew at
Sani, who identified the Hebrew "Ash with the
constellation known to the Arabs by the name Om
en-nash, or Nash simply, as a Jew of Bagdad in-
formed him, ‘The four stars in the body of the
Bear are named Hnnash in the tables of Ulugh
Beigh, those in the tail being called e/ Bendt, “ the
daughters” (comp. Job xxxviii. 32). The ancient
versions differ greatly in their renderings. The
LXX, render Ash by the “Pleiades” in Job ix. 9
(unless the text which they had before them had
the words in a different order), and *Aish by
“ Hesperus,” the evening star, in Job xxxvili, 32.
In the former they are followed or supported by the
Chaldee, in the latter by the Vulgate. R. David
Kimchi and the Talmudists understood by ’As/ the
tail of the Ram or the head of the Bull, by which
they are supposed to indicate the bright star Alde-
baran in the Bull’s eye. But the greatest difficulty
is found in the rendering of the Syriac translators,
who give as the equivalent of both ’Ash and ’ Aish
the word ’Zyutho, which is interpreted to signify
the bright star Capella in the constellation Auriga,
and is so rendered in the Arabic translation of Job,
On this point, however, great difference of opinion
is found. Bar Ali conjectured that ’yutho was either
Capella or the constellation Orion ; while Bar Bahlul
hesitated between Capella, Aldebaran, and a cluster
of three stars in the face of Orion. Following the
rendering of the Arabic, Hyde was induced to con-
sider "Ash and ’ Aish distinct ; the former being the
Great Bear, and the latter the bright star Capella,
or a of the constellation Auriga,
ARD'ITES, THE. [Arp.]
AREOP'AGITE (᾿Αρεοπαγίτης : Areopagita).
A member of the Court of Areopagus (Acts xvii. 34).
A'RES (᾿Αρές: Ares), ARaAu 2 (1 ἔβαν, v, 10).
AR’GOB, perhaps a Gileadite officer, who was
governor of Argob. According to some interpreters,
an accomplice of Pekah in the murder of Pekahiah.
But Sebastian Schmid explained that both Argob
and Arieh were two princes of Pekahiah, whose
influence Pekah feared, and whom he therefore slew
with the king. Rashi understands by Argob the
royal palace, near which was the castle in which
the murder took place (2 Κα. xv. 25).
ARIEH “ΠΥ ΝΠ : ᾿Αρία; Alex. ᾿Αρίε : Arie).
Ι!
T
IXXiX
ARIOCH
«The Lion,” so called probably from his daring as
a warrior: either one of the accomplices of Pekah in
his conspiracy against Pekahiah, king of Israel, or,
as Sebastian Schmid understands the passage, one of
the princes of Pekahiah, who was put to death with
him (2 K. xv. 25). Rashi explains it literally of
a golden lion which stood in the castle.
AR'IOCH. 8. (Eipidx; Alex.’Apidx: Erioch.)
Properly ‘‘ Eirioch” or ‘‘ Evioch,” mentioned in
Jud. i. 6 as king of the Elymaeans. Junius and
Tremellius identify him with Deioces, king of part
of Media.
AR'NAN. In the received Hebrew text “ the
sons of Arnan”’ are mentioned in the genealogy of
Zerubbabel (1 Chr. iii. 21). But according to the
reading of the LXX., Vulgate, and Syriac versions,
which Houbigant adopts, Arnan was the son of
Rephaiah.
AR'ODI ΟΝ : ᾿Αροηδείς ; Alex. ᾿Αροηδίς :
Arodi). ARoD the son of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16).
A'RODITES, THE CT IN: 6 ᾿Αροαδί :
Aroditae). Descendants of Avod the son of Gad
(Num. xxvi. 17).
A'ROM (Δρόμ: Asonus). The “sons of
Arom,” to the number of 32, are enumerated in
1 Esdr. ν, 16 among those who returned with
Zorobabel. Unless it is a mistake for Asom, and
represents Hashum in Ezr. xi. 19, it has no parallel
in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.
AR'VADITE, THE OTN: 6 ᾿Αράδιος :
Aradius). One of the families of Canaan (Gen. x.
18; 1 Chr.i. 16). [ARvap.] Probably the in-
habitants of the little island Aradus, or Ruad, oppo-
site Antaradus on the N. coast of Phoenicia.
ABZA (SYN: Qed: Alex. "Apod: Arsa).
Prefect of the palace at Tirzah to Elah king of
Isyael, who was assassinated at a banquet in his
house by Zimri (1 K. xvi. 9). In the Targum of
Jonathan the word is taken as the name of an idol,
and in the Arabic version in the London Polyglot
the last clause is rendered “ which belongs to the
idol of Beth-Arza.”
A'SA. 2. (Οσσά: Alex. Aca.) Ancestor of
Berechiah, a Levite who resided in one of the
villages of the Netophathites after the return from
Babylon (1 Chr. ix. 16).
ASA'DIAS (Aoadias : Alex. Sadalas: Sedeus),
Son of Chelcias, or Hilkiah, and one of the ancestors
of Baruch (Bar. i. 2). The name is probably the
same as that elsewhere represented by Hasadiah
(1 Chr. iii. 21).
AS’AHEL. 2. (Ασιήλ : ΑἸοχ. Ἰασιήλ.) One
of the Levites in the reign of Jehoshaphat, who
went throughout the cities of Judah to instruct the
people in the knowledge of the Law, at the time of
the revival of the true worship (2 Chr. xvii. 8).
3. A Levite in the reign of Hezekiah, who had
charge of the tithes and dedicated things in the
Temple under Cononiah and Shimei (2 Chr. xxxi.
13).
4. (Azahel.) A priest, father of Jonathan in
the time of Ezra (Bzr. x. 15). He is called AzArL
in 1 Esdr. ix. 14,
ASAI'AH (MWY: ᾿Ασαΐα: Asaia), 1. A
Samet at
piince of one of the families of the Simeonites in
Ixxx
ASHDOTHITES
the reign of Hezekiah, who droye out the Hamite
shepherds from Gedor (1 Chr. iv. 36).
2. (Ασαΐας ; Alex.’Acaia in 1 Chr. vi., ’Acata;
Alex. ᾿Ασαΐας in 1 Chr. xv.) A Levite in the
reign of David, chief of the tamily of Merari (1 Chr.
vi. 30). With 120 of his brethren he took part in
the solemn service of, bringing the ark from the
house of Obed-edom to the city of David (1 Chr.
xv. 6, 11),
3. (Acaia; Alex. ’Acd.) The firstborn of
“the Shilonite,” according to 1 Chr. ix. 5, who
with his family dwelt in Jerusalem after the return
from Babylon. In Neh. xi. 5 he is called MAASEIAH,
and his descent is there traced trom Shiloni, which
is explained by the Targum of R. Joseph on 1 Chr.
as a patronymic from Shelah the son of Judah, by
others as ‘¢ the native or inhabitant of Shiloh.”
4. (Asaas.) 2 Chr. xxxiv. 20. [ASAHIAH.]
A'SAPH. 2. (Sadr in 2 K., ᾿Ασάφ in Is.;
Alex. "Acad in 2 ix. xviii. 37.) The father or
ancestor of Joah, who was recorder or chronicler
to the kingdom of Judah in the reign of Hezekiah
(21K. xviii. 18: 97: Is. xxxvi. 3, 22). Itas non
improbable that this Asaph is the same as the
preceding, and that Joah was one of his numerous
descendants known as the Bene-Asaph. :
3. (Ασάφ.) The keeper of the royal forest or
“paradise”? of Artaxerxes (Neh. ii, 8). His name
would seem to indicate that he was a Jew, who,
like Nehemiah, was in high office at the court of
Persia.
4. (᾿Ασάφ.) Ancestor of Mattaniah, the »con-
ductor of the temple-choir after the return from
Babylon (1 Chr. ix. 15; Neh, xi. 17). Most pro-
bably the same as 1 and 2.
ASA'REEL Os Ws τ Ἐσερήλ : Alex. Ἐσε-
ραήλ: Asraél). A son of Jehaleleel, whose name is
abruptly introduced into the genealogies of Judah,
(1 Chr. iv, 16).
ASARE'LAH (Alex. Ἰεσιήλ). One of the
sons of Asaph, set apart by David to ‘ prophesy
with harps and with psalteries and with cymbals”
(1 Chr, xxv. 2); called JesHARELAH in ver. 14,
ASHBE’A (YAWN: Ἐσοβά : Juramentum).
A proper name, but whether of a person or place is
uncertain (1 Chr. iv. 21). Houbigant would under-
stand it of the latter, and would render ‘‘ the house
of Ashbea” by Beth-ashbea. The whole clause is
obscure. The Targum of R. Joseph (ed. Wilkins)
paraphrases it, “ and the family of the house of
manufacture of the fine linen for the garments of
the kings and priests, which was handed down to
the house of Eshba.”
ASH'BELITES, THE (O2UNT: 6 *Aav-
Bnpt: Asbelitae). The descendants of Ashbel the
son of Benjamin (Num. xxvi. 38),
ASH'CHENAZ TIDWN : Aoxavag, of "Axa-
vatéor; Alex. ᾿Ασχενέζ, of Ασχαναζέοι: Ascenez).
ASHKENAZ (1 Chr. i. 6; Jer. li. 27).
ASH'DODITES, THE (O° NIN: om. in
Ixx.: Azoti?). The inhabitants of Ashdod, or
Azotus (Neh. iv. 7); called ASHDOTHITES in
Josh, xiii. 8.
ASH'DOTHITES, THE ΟΠ ΝΗ: ὁ Αζώ-
tios: Azotii). The inhabitants of Ashdod, or
Azotus (Josh. xiii. 3),
ASHER
ASH’ER COUN : Alex.’Aanp: Aser). A place
which formed one boundary of the tribe of Manasseh
on the south (Josh. xvii. 7). It is placed by Euse-
bius on the road from Shechem to Bethshan or
Seythopolis, about 15 miles from the former. Three
quarters of an hour from Tuas, the ancient Thebez,
is the hamlet of Teyasir, which Mr, Porter sug-
gests may be the Asher of Manasseh ( Handb. p. 948).
In the Vat. MS. the LXX. of this passage is en-
tirely corrupt. at
ASH'ERITES, THE (UNI : ὁ ᾿Ασήρ;
Alex. ᾿Ασήρ: Vulg. om.). The descendants of
Asher and members of his tribe (Judg. i, 82).
ASH'RIEL OX WN: Ἐσριήλ- Esricl). Pro-
perly ASRIEL, the son of Manasseh (1 Chr. vii. 14).
ASHTE'RATHITE (NIAWYT : ὁ ᾽Αστα-
ῥωθί: Astarothites), A native or inhabitant of
Ashtaroth (1 Chi. xi. 44) beyond Jordan. Uzzia
the Ashterathite was one of David’s guard.
ASH'VATH (MiWy: ᾿Ασίθ: Alex. ᾿Ασείθ :
Asoth). One of the sons of Japhlet, of the tribe of
Asher (1 Chr, vii. 33).
ASIBI'AS (AceBias: Alex. ᾿Ασιβίος : Jam-
mebias). One of the sons of Phoros, or Parosh, in
1 Esdr. ix. 26, whose name occupies the place of
MALCHIJAH in Ezr, x. 25.
ASTEL (Oyty: ᾿Ασιήλ : Asicl). 1. A
Simeonite whose descendant Jehu lived in the reign
of Hezekiah (1 Chr. iv. 35).
2. One of the five swift writers whom Esdras
was commanded to take to write the law and the
history of the world (2 Esdr, xiv, 24).
AS'NAH (M3DN: ᾿Ασενά: Asena). The
children of Asnah were among the Nethinim who
returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 50). In the
parallel list of Neb. vii. 52 the name is omitted, and
in 1 Esdr. ν. 31 it is written ASANA.
AS'RIEL ΝΥΝ τ Ἐσριήλ, Ἰεζήλ ; Alex.
Ἐριήλ in Josh.: Asriel, Lsriel). The son of
Gilead, and great-grandson of Manasseh (Num.
xxvi. 31; Josh. xvii. 2). He was the founder of
the family of the ASRIELITES. ‘The name is er-
roneously written ASHRIEL in the A. V. of 1 Chr.
vii. 14. According to the rendering of the latter
passage by the LXX., Asriel was the son of Manasseh
by his Syrian concubine.
AS'RIELITES, THE (OS7WNT: 6 Ἔσ-
ριηλί: Asrielitac). Num. xxvi. 31. [ASRIEL. ]
ASSH'URIM (OWN: ᾿Ασσουριείμ; Alex.
᾿Ασουρίμ: Assurim). A tribe descended from
Dedan, the grandson of Abraham (Gen. xxv. 3).
They have not been identified with any degree of
certainty. Knobel considers them the same with
the Asshur of Ez. xxvii. 23, and connected with
southern Arabia. :
ASSYR'IANS (HAWN : ᾿Ασσύριοι, ᾿Ασσούρ,
viol ᾿Ασσούρ: Assur, Assyrii, filii Assyriorum).
The inhabitants of Assyria. The name in Hebrew
is simply Asshur, the same as that of the country,
and there appears to be uo reason in most cases for
translating it as a gentilic (Is. x. 5, 24, xiv. 25,
xxxi, 8; Lam. v. 6; ΕΖ, xvi. 28; Jud, xii. 13, &.)
ASUP'PIM, and HOUSE OF (OXBDNT, and
DEON MD: οἴκος ᾿Εσεφίμ, ὁ Ἐσεφίμ: in qua
[ APPENDIX. ]
AUGIA Ixxxi
parte domus erat seniorum concilium, wi erat con-
cilium). 1 Chr. xxvi. 15, 17, literally ‘house of
the gatherings.” Some understand it as a proper
name of chambers on the south side of the Temple.
Gesenius and Bertheau explain it of certain store-
rooms, and Fiirst, following the Vulgate, of the
council-chambers in the outer court of the Temple
in which the elders held their deliberation:. The
same word in A. V. of Neh. xii. 25, is rendered
“thresholds,” and is translated “lintels,” in the
Targum of R, Joseph.
A'TER (TON: ᾿Ατήρ; Alex. ᾿Αττήρ in Ezr,:
Ater). 1. The children of Ater were among the
porters or gate-keepers of the Temple who returned
with Zerubbabel (Ezr, ii.42; Neh. vii. 45). They
are called in 1 Esdr. v. 28, “ the sons of JATAL.”
2. The children of Ater of Hezekiah, to the
number of ninety-eight, returned with Zerubbabel
(Ezr. ii. 16; Neh. vii, 21), and were among the
heads of the people who signed the covenant with
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 17). The name appears in
1 Esdr. v. 15 as ATEREZIAS.
ATEREZI AS (Arhp ‘E¢eriov: Aderectis).
A corruption of “ Ater of Hezekiah” (1 Esdr, v. 15;
comp. Ezr, ii. 16).
A'THACH (ΠΝ: Νομβέ; Alex. ᾿Αθάγ:
Athach\. One of the places in the tribe of Judah,
which David and his men frequented during the
time of his residence at Ziklag (1 Sam. xxx. 30).
As the name does not occur elsewhere, it has been
suggested that it is an error of the transcriber for
Ether, a town in the low country of Judah (Josh.
xv. 42).
ATHAT'AH (ANY: *A@ata; Alex. ᾿Αθαΐαι:
Athaias).
Judah, who dwelt at Jerusalem after the return
from Babylon (Neh. xi. 4), called Urmat in 1 Chr.
ix. 4.
ATHALI’AH. 2. (Γοθολία ; Alex. Γοθολίας :
Otholia.) A Benjamite, one of the sons of Jeroham
who dwelt at Jerusalem (1 Chr. viii. 26).
3. CA@eAla; Alex. ᾿Αθλία : Athalia.) One of
the Bene-Elam, whose son Jeshaiah with seventy
males returned with Ezra in the second caravan from
Babylon (Ezr, viii. 7).
ATHE'NIANS (᾿Αθηναῖοι: Athenienses). Na-
tives of Athens (Acts xvii. 21).
ATH'LAI oSny : Θαλί; Alex."OOaAl: Athalat).
One of the sons of Bebai, who put away his foreign
wife at the exhortation of Ezra (Ezr.x. 28). He is
called AMATHEIS in 1 ἔβαν. ix, 29.
AT'TAI ΟἿ): ἜἘθί; Alex. ᾿Ἰεθθί, ᾿Ιεθθεί;
Ethei). 1. Grandson of Sheshan the Jerahmeelite
through his daughter Ahlai, whom he gave in mar-
riage to Jarha, his Egyptian slave (1 Chr. ii. 35, 36).
His grandson Zabad was one of David’s mighty men
(1 Chr. xi. 41). ;
2. (Ἰεθί; Alex. ᾿Ἐθθεί : Ethi.) One of the lion-
faced warriors of Gad, captains of the host, who
forded the Jordan at the time of its overflow, and
joined David in the wilderness (1 Chr. xii. 11).
8. Cler@i; Alex. 1e00{: Lthai.) Second son of
King Rehoboam by Maachah the daughter of Ab-
salom (2 Chr. xi. 20).
AU'GIA (Adyia: om. in Vulg.). The daughter
of Berzelus, or Bayrzillai, according to 1 ἔβαν, v. 38.
Her descendants by Addus were among the priests
whose genealogy could not be substantiated after
G
τ :
A descendant of Pharez, the son of
AXE
the return from Babylon. The name does not
occur either in Ezra or Nehemiah.
AXE. Seven Hebrew words are rendered “ax”
in the A. V.
1. 112, Garzen, from a root signifying “ to cut
Ixxxii
or sever,” as “ hatchet,” from ‘‘ hack,” corresponds
to the Lat. securis. It consisted of a head of iron
(comp. Is. x. 34), fastened, with thongs or otherwise,
upon a handle of wood, and so liable to slip off
(Deut. six. 5; 2 K. vi. ὅ). It was used for felling
trees (Deut. xx. 19), and also for shaping the wood
when felled, perhaps like the modern adze (1 K.
vi. 7).
2. 379N, Chereb, which is usually translated
“ sword,” is used of other cutting instruments, as a
“ knife” (Josh. v. 2) or razor (Ez. v. 1), or a
tool for hewing or dressing stones (Ex. xx. 25), and
is once rendered ‘axe’? (Ez. xxvi. 9), evidently
denoting a weapon for destroying buildings, a pick-
axe.
2 Orin, Casshil, occurs but once (Ps. Ixxiv. 6),
and is evidently a later word, denoting a large axe.
It is also found in the Targum of Jer. xlvi. 22.
4. ΤΠ, Magzérah (2 Sam. xii. 31), and 5
MIND: Megérah (1 Chr. xx. 3) are found in the
description of the punishments inflicted by David
upon the Ammonites of Rabbah. The latter word
is properly “a saw,” and is apparently an error of
the transcriber for the former.
6. ΝΜ, Mo'dtsad, rendered “ax” in the
margin of Is. xliv. 12, and Jer. x. 3, was an instru-
ment employed both by the iron-smith and the car-
penter, and is supposed to be a curved knife or bill,
smaller than
7. OVP, Kardom, a large axe used for felling
trees (Judg. ix. 48; 1 Sam. xiii. 20, 21; Ps. Ixxiv. 5;
Jer, xlvi. 22), The words 1, 5, and 7 have an
etymological affinity with each other, the idea of
cutting being that which is expressed by their roots.
The “ battle-ax,” YB, mappéts (Jer. li. 20) was
probably, as its root indicates, a heavy mace or maul,
like that which gave his surname to Charles Martel.
AZALIAH (MOYN: Ἐφελίας, Ἑσελία;
Alex. Σελία in 2 Chr.: Aslia, Eselias). The
father of Shaphan the scribe in the reign of Josiah
(2 K. xxii. 3; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 8).
AZANT AH (TMIIN: "ACavla: Azanias). The
father or immediate ancestor of Jeshua the Levite
in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 9).
AZA'REEL (ON MY: Ὀ(ριήλ ; Alex. "EAHA:
Azarecl). 1. A Korhite who joined David in his
retreat at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 6),
ο. (Ασριήλ:; Alex.’E(pifa.) A Levite musician
of the family of Heman in the time of David, 1 Chr.
xxv. 18: called ὈΖΖΙΕΙῚ, in xxy. 4.
3. CACapimaA; Alex. ᾿Εζριήλ: Ezrihel.) Son
of Jeroham, and prince of the tribe of Dan when
5. (Ἐσδριήλ: Azreel.) Father, or ancestor, of
Maasiai, or Amashai, a priest who dwelt in Jeru-
salem after the return from Babylon (Neb. xi. 13;
comp. 1 Chr, ix. 12),
AZGAD
AZART'AH. 14. (7, VND. in 2) K.
xv.6: ᾿Αζαρίας: Azarias.) Tenth king of Judah,
more frequently called Uzziau (2 K. xiv. 21, xv.
Ε δ, ΘΕ ΩΡ Ὶ Chr. ili. 12).
15. (A 7.) Son of Jehoshaphat, and brother
to AZARIAH 9 (2 Chr. xxi. 2).
16. (AMTY.) Son of Jeroham, and one of the
captains of Judah in the time of Athaliah (2 Chr.
ΧΧΠΤ Τὴν
17. (Aapia; Alex. ᾿Αζαρέα.) One of the
leaders of the children of the province who went
up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 7).
Elsewhere called SERATAH (Ezr. ii. 2) and ZACHA-
RIAS (1 Esdr. v. 8).
18. (A apias.) JEZANIAH (Jer, xliii. 2.)
AZARI'AS (A(apias: Azarias). 1. (1 Esdr,
ix. 21) = Uzzian, lizr. x. 21.
2. (1 Esdr. ix. 43) = Urtsan, Neh, viii. 4.
3. (Alex. ᾿Α(ζαρείας : 1 Esdr. ix. 48) = AZARIAH,
Neh. viii. 7.
4. (Azareus.) Priest
(2 βάν. i. 1), elsewhere AZARIAH and EZERIAS.
5. (Azarias.) Name assumed by the angel
Raphael (Tob. v. 12, vi. 6, 13, vii. 8, ix. 2).
6. A captain in the army of Judas Maccabeus
(1 Mace. v. 18, 56, 60).
A'ZAZ (MY: ᾿Αζούζ; Alex. "O€ov¢: Azaz).
A Reubenite, father of Bela (1 Chr. ν. 8).
AZAZIVAH (ANY: "O¢ias; Ozaziu). 1. A
Levite-musician in the reign of David, appointed to
play the harp in the service which attended the
procession by which the ark was brought up from
the house of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xy. 21).
2. The father of Hosea, prince of the tribe of
Ephraim when David numbered the people (1 Chr.
xxvii. 20).
3. (Alex. O¢a¢as: Azarias.) One of the Levites
in the reign of Hezekiah, who had charge of the
tithes and dedicated things in the Temple under
Cononiah and Shimei (2 Chr, xxxi. 13).
AZ'BUK (piaty: ᾿Αζαβούχ ; Alex. ᾿Αζβούχ :
Azboc). Father or ancestor of Nehemiah the prince
of part of Bethzur (Neh. iii. 16).
AZEPHU'RITH, or more properly ARsr-
PHURITH, a name which in the LXX. of 1 Esdr.
y. 16 occupies the place of Jorah in Ezr. ii. 18, and
of Hariph in Neh. vii. 24. [Ὁ is altogether omitted
in the Vulgate. Burrington conjectures that it may
haye originated in a combination of these two names
corrupted by the mistakes of transcribers. The
second syllable in this case probably arose from a
confusion of the uncial 3 with E.
AZE'TAS (Αζηνάν; Alex. ᾿Αζητάς : Zelas).
The uname of a family which returned with Zoro-
babel according to 1 Esdr. v, 15, but not mentioned
in the catalogues of Ezra and Nehemiah.
AZ'GAD (τοῖν: ᾿Ασγάδ ; Alex. ᾿Αβγάξδ,
᾿Αζγάδ, ᾿Αγετάδ: Azgad). The children of Azgad,
to the number of 1222 (2322 according to Neh.
vii. 17) were among the laymen who returned with
Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 12). A second detachment of
110, with Johanan at their head, accompanied Ezra
in the second caravan (Ezr. viii. 12). With the
other heads of the people they joined in the covenant
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 15). The name appears
as SADAS in 1 πάν, v. 13, and the number of the
in the line of Esdras _
eae Oy
AZIZA
3222. In 1 Esdr. viii. 38, it
family is there given
is written ASTATH,
AZIZA (NID: Ὀ((ά: Aziza). A layman
of the family of Zattu, who had married a foreign
wife after the return from Babylon (Ezr. x, 27):
called SARDEUS in 1 Esdr. ix, 28.
AZMA'VETH (ΠΥ: ᾿Ασμώθ, ᾿Αζβών;
Alex. ᾿Αζμώθ in 1 Chr.: Azmaveth, Azmoth).
1. One of David’s mighty men, a native of Bahurim
(2 Sam. xxiii. 31; 1 Chr. xi. 33), and therefore
probably a Benjamite.
2. (Ασμώθ, Γαζμώθ: Alex. ’ACuwd: Azmoth.)
A descendant of Mephibosheth, or Merib-baal (1 Chr,
vili. 36, ix. 42).
3. CAoud@; Alex. ᾿Αζμώθ.) The father of
Jeziel and Pelet, two of the skilled Benjamite
slingers and archers who joined David at Ziklag
(1 Chr, xii. 3), perhaps icentical with 1. It has
been suggested that in this passage “ sons of Azma-
veth’”? may denote natives of the place of that
name,
4. Overseer of the royal treasures in the reign of
David (1 Chr. xxvii. 25).
AZO'TUS, MOUNT (Αζώτου ὄρος, or ᾿Αζώ-
tus bpos: mons Azoti). In the fatal battle in
which Judas Maccabeus fell, he broke the right
wing of Bacchides’ army, and pursued them to
Mount Azotus (1 Mace. ix. 15). Josephus calls it
Aza, or Azata, according to many MSS., which
Ewald finds in a mountain west of Birzeit, under
the form Atara, the Philistine Ashdod being out of
the question.
AZ'RIEL (2N RY: om. in Vat. MS.; Alex.
᾿Ἰεζριήλ: Ezriel), 1. The head of a house of the
half-tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan, a man of
renown (1 Chr. v. 24).
2. (Ο(ήλ: Ozriel.) A Naphtalite, ancestor of
Jevimoth the head of the tribe at the time of David’s
census (1 Chr, xxvii. 19); called Uzzren in two
Heb. MSS., and apparently in the LXX,
8. (Ἐσριήλ;; Alex. *Eo(piqd: Ezricl.) The
father of Seraiah, an officer of Jehoiakim (Jer.
Xxxvi. 26),
AZ'RIKAM (Py : Ἐφρικάμ; Alex. Ἔσρι-
Kau; Ezricam). 1. A descendant of Zerubbabel,
and son of Neariah of the royal line of Judah (1 Chr,
li, 23),
ὌΝ ΤᾺΝ ἜἘφρικάμ.) Eldest son οἵ Azel, and
descendant of Saul (1 Chr, viii, 38, ix. 44),
3. (In Neh. *Eapixdp ; Alex.’E(pi: Azaricam.)
A Levite, ancestor of Shemaiah who lived in the
time of Nehemiah (1 Chr, ix. 14; Neh. xi. 15).
4. CE(pixdy.) Governor of the house, or pre-
fect of the palace to king Ahaz, who was slain by
Zichri, an Ephraimite hero, in the successful in-
vasion of the southern kingdom by Pekah, king of
Israel (2 Chr. xxviii. 7).
AZ'UBAH (TIAN: Γαζουβά; Alex. *ACouvBa:
Azuba). 1, Wife of Caleb, son of Hezron (1 Chr.
ii. 18, 19).
2. CACovBa.) Mother of king Jehoshaphat
(1 K. xxii. 42; 2 Chr, xx. 31).
A'ZUR, properly AZ'ZUR (Wi: ᾿Αζώρ:
Azur). 1. A Benjamite of Gibeon, and father of
Hananiah the false prophet (Jer. xxviii. 1). Hitzig
suggests that he may have been a priest, as Gibeon
was one of the priestly cities.
{
BABYLON
2. (WY: ”E¢ep; Alex. Ἰάζερ.) Father of Jaaza-
niah, one of the princes of the people against whom
Ezekiel was commanded to prophesy (Ez. xi. 1).
AZU'RAN (ACapot ; Alex. ᾿Αζουρού: Azoroc),
The sons of Azuran ave enumerated in 1 Esdi. v. 15
among those who returned trom Babylon with
Zovobabel, but there is no corresponding name in
Ixxxiil
; the catalogues of Ezra and Nehemiah, Azuran may
perhaps be identical with Azzur in Neh. x. 17.
AZ'ZAH (IY: Tan, Γάζα: Gaza). The
more accurate rendering of the name of the well-
known Philistine city, Gaza (Deut. ii. 23; 1 K.
iv. 24; Jer. xxv. 20). [Gaza.]
AZ'ZAN (j¥: ’O¢ad: Ozan). The father of
Paltiel, prince of the tribe of Issachar, who repre-
sented his tribe in the division of the promised land
(Num. xxxiv. 26),
AZ'ZUR (WY: ’ACotp: Azur). One of the
heads of the people who signed the covenant with
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 17). The name is probably
that of a family, and in Hebrew is the same as is
elsewhere represented by AZUR.
B
BA'AL (Sy: “Ifa; Alex. Βάαλ : Baal).
1. A Reubenite, whose son or descendant Beerah
was carried off by the invading army of Assyria
under Tiglath-Pileser (1 Chr. v. 5).
2. (Βάαλ.) The son of Jehiel, father or founder
of Gibeon, by his wife Maachah ; brother of Kish,
and grandfather of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 30, ix. 36).
BAANTAS (Βαναίας ; Alex. Βανναίας : Ban-
nas). BENAIAH, of the sons of Pharosh (1 Esdr.
ix. 26; comp. Ezr. x. 25).
BABYLON (Βαβυλών : Babylon). The occur-
rence of this name in 1 Pet. v.15 has given rise
to a variety of conjectures, which may be briefly
enumerated.
1. That Babylon tropically denotes Rome. In
support of this opinion is brought forward a tra-
dition recorded by Eusebius (H. 2. ii. 15), on the
authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria, to
the effect that 1 Peter was composed at Rome.
Oecumenius and Jerome both assert that Rome
was figuratively denoted by Babylon. Although
this opinion is held by Grotius, Lardner, Cave,
Whitby, Macknight, Hales, and others, it may be
rejected as improbable. There is nothing to indi-
cate that the name is used figuratively, and the
subscription to an epistle is the last place we should
expect to find a mystical appellation.
2. Cappellus and others take Babylon, with as
little reason, to mean Jerusalem.
3. Bar-Hebraeus understands by it the house in
Jerusalem where the Apostles were assembled on
the Day of Pentecost.
4, Others place it on the Tigris, and identify it
with Seleucia or Ctesiphon, but for this there is
no evidence. The two theories which remain are
worthy of more consideration.
5. That by Babylon is intended the small fort of
that name which formed the boundary between
Upper and Lower Egypt. Its site is marked by
the modern Babouwl in the- Delta, a little north of
Fostat, or old Cairo. According to Strabo it de-
rived its name fiom some Babylonian deserters who
G2
Ἰχχχῖν BABYLON
had settled there. In his time it was the head-
quarters of one of the three legions which garri-
soned Egypt. Josephus (Ant. ii. 15 §1) says it
was built on the site of Letopolis, when Canpbyses
subdued Egypt. That this is the Babylon of 1 Pet.
is the tradition of the Coptic Church, and is maiu-
tained by Le Clerc, Mill, Pearson, and others.
There is, however, no proof that the Apostle Peter
was ever in Egypt, and a very slight degree of pro-
bability is created by the tradition that his com-
panion Mark was bishop of Alexandria.
6. The most natural supposition of all is that by
Babylon is intended the old Babylon of Assyria,
which was largely inhabited by Jews at the time
in question (Jos. Ant. xv. 3, §1; Philo, De Vit.
p. 10235, ed. Franc. 1691). The only argument
against this view is the negative evidence from the
silence of historians as to St. Peter’s having visited
the Assyrian Babylon, but this cannot be allowed to
have much weight. Lightfoot’s remarks are very
suggestive. In a sermon preached at St. Mary’s
Cambridge (Works, ii. 1144, Eng. folio ed.), he
maintained that Babylon of Assyria is intended,
because “it was oue of the greatest knots of Jews
in the world,’ and St. Peter was the minister of
the circumcision, Again, he adds, ‘‘ Bosor (2 Pet.
ii. 15) speaks Peter in Babylon,’ it being the Chaldee
or Syriac pronunciation of Pethor in Num. xxii. 5.
This last argument has not, perhaps, much weight,
as the same pronunciation may have characterized
the dialect of Judea. Bentley gave his suffrage in
favour of the ancient Babylon, quoting Jos. ὁ. Ap.
i. 7 (Crit. Sacr. p. 81, ed. Ellis).
BAB'YLON, in the Apocalypse, is the sym-
bolical name by which Rome is denoted (Rev. xiv.
8, xvii., xviil.). The power of Rome was regarded
by the later Jews as that of Babylon by their fore-
fathers (comp. Jer. li. 7 with Rev. xiv. 8), and
hence, whatever the people of Israel be understood
to symbolize, Babylon represents the antagonistic
principle. [RrVELATION. |
BABYLO'NIANS (89033, 9337123: Βαβυ-
λώνιοι: Babylonii, filii Babylonis). The inhabitants
of Babylon, a race of Shemitic origin, who were
among the colonists planted in the cities of Samaria
by the conquering Assyrians (Ezr. iv. 9), Ata
later period, when the warlike Chaldaeans acquired
the predominance in the 7th cent. B.c., the names
Chaldaean and Babylonian became almost synony-
mous (Hz. xxiii. 14, 153 comp. Is. xlviii. 14, 20).
BABYLO'NISH GARMENT, _ literally
oy ΓΝ, ψιλὴ ποικίλῃ : pallium coccineum)
*‘yobe of Shinar” (Josh. vii. 21). An ample
robe, probably made of the skin or fur of an animal
(comp, Gen, xxv. 25), and ornamented with em-
broidery, or perhaps a variegated garment with
figures inwoven in the fashion for which the Baby-
lonians were celebrated. Josephus (Ant. v. 1, §10)
describes it as “a royal mantle (χλαμύδα βασί-
Aevov), all woven with gold.” ‘Tertullian (De
habitu muliebri, c, i.) tells us that while the Syrians
were celebrated dor dyeing, and the Phrygians for
patchwork, the Babylonians inwove their colours.
For this kind of tapestry work they had a great re-
putation (Pliny, viii. 74: Colores diversos picturae
intexere Babylon maxime celebravit, et nomen im-
posuit). Compare also Martial (Zp. viii. 28):
Non ego praetulerim Babylonica picta superbe
Texta, Semiramia quae variantur acu;
a ΄΄΄Π΄ΠἷΠἷΠἷΠἷΠἷἝἷΠἷΠἷΠἷἽἷΠ΄ἷ΄Γἷ“΄΄“΄ἷ“ἷὔἝἽ͵Γ“Ὑ΄ἿἝἽἝἽἿἽἝ͵.΄΄΄΄΄΄΄ΠΠΠΤἷἝἷἝἿἽἝὟἼἝΓἝἽἝὙἽἝἧἿἝἿἝΎΊ ͵ὋὮἝἵΠἝἷἝἕὟἷ α΄ ΄ ΄΄΄ΠπτἃἷἝὟὝὮἷἝΎἝςἧΌἷῖὮὮ΄Ἵ΄Ἕ΄ - ΄ῆ-ῇ-ὭἭτοτττυπτποε͵οιΊτο σῸΘπο ρὲὺγοπτ π....τ’“ ΟυητἨἝοήτ;σττοὸῈἕοὄσς
BALANCE
and the Babylonia peristromata of Plautus (Stich.
ii. 2, 54; see also Jos. B. J. vii. 5, §5; Plut.
11. Cato, iv. 5). Perhaps some of the trade in
these rich stuffs between Babylon and the Phoe-
nicians (Ez, xxvii, 24) passed through Jericho, as
well as the gold brought by the caravans ot
Sheba, which they may have left in exchange for
the products of its fertile soil (Josh. vii. 21).
[JeRricHo.| Rashi has a story that the king of
Babylon had a palace at Jericho, probably founded
on the fact that the robe of the king of Nineveh
(Jon. iii. 6) is called NIN, addereth. In the
Bereshith Rabba. (§85, fol. 75, 2, quoted by Gill)
it is said that the robe was of Babylonian purple. _
Another story in the same passage is that the king
ot Babylon had a deputy at Jericho who sent him
dates, and the king in return sent him gifts, among
which was a garment of Shinar,
vii. 21) quotes the opinions of ἢ. Chanina bar
R. Isaac that the Babylonish garment was of Baby-
lonian purple, of Rab that it was a robe of fine
wool, and of Shemuel that it was a cloak washed
with alum, which we learn from Pliny (xxxv, 52)
was used in dyeing wool.
BAG is the rendering of several words in the
Old and New Testaments. 1. (D071: θύλακος :
saccus.) Charitim, the “bags” in which Naaman
bound up the two talents of silver for Gehazi (2 K.
v. 23), probably so called, according to Gesenius,
from their long, cone-like shape. The word only
oceurs besides in Is. iii, 22 (A. V. “ crisping-pins”’),
and there denotes the reticules carried by the He-
brew ladies. 2, (D'S: μάρσιππος, μαρσύπιον :
sacculus, saccellus.) Cts, a bag for carrying weights
(Deut. xxv. 13; Prov. xvi. 11; Mic. vi. 11), also
used as a purse (Prov. i. 14; Is. xlvi. 6). (3.
3: κάδιον ; pera) Céli, translated “bag” in
1 Sam. xvii. 40, 49, is a word of most general
meaning, and is generally rendered “vessel” or
“instrument.” In Gen, xlii. 25 it is the “sack”
in which Jacob’s sons carried the corn which they
brought from Egypt, and in 1 Sam. ix. 7, xxi. 5, it
denotes a bag or wallet, for carrying food (A. V.
“vessel”? ; comp. Jud, x. 5, xiii, 10, 15). The
shepherd’s ‘* bag” which David had seems to have
been worn by him as necessary to his calling, and
was probably, from a comparison of Zech, xi, 15,
16 (where A. V. “instruments” is the same word),
for the purpose of carrying the lambs which were
unable to walk or were lost, and contained mate-
rials for healing such as were sick and binding up
those that were broken (comp. Ez. xxxiv. 4, 16).
4. (any : ἔνδεσμος, δεσμός : sacculus.) Tséror,
properly a “ bundle” (Gen, xii. 55; 1 Sam. xxv.
29), appears to have been used by travellers for
carrying money during a long journey (Prov. vii.
20; Hag. i. 6; comp. Luke xii. 33; Tob, ix. 5).
In such ‘* bundles ” the priests bound up the money
which was contributed for the restoration of the
Temple under Jehoiada (2 K. xii. 10, A.V. “ put
up in bags” ). The “bag” (γλωσσόκομον : lo-
cult) which Judas carried was probably a small box
or chest (John xii. 6, xiii. 29). The Greek word
is the same as that used in the LXX, for “ chest ”
in 2 Chr, xxiv. 8, 10, 11, and originally signified a
box used by musicians for carrying the mouth-
pieces of their instruments.
BALANCE. Two Hebrew words are thus
translated in the A.V.
Kimchi (on Josh. ~
BALANCE
7 DIN moz®naim (LXX. (uydv, Vulg. sta-
tera), the ‘dual form of which points to the double
scales, like Lat. δία. The balance in this form
was known at avery early period. It is found on
the Egyptian monuments as early as the time of
Joseph, and we find allusions to its use in the story
of the purchase of the cave of Machpelah (Gen. xxiii.
16) by Abraham, Before coinage was introduced
it was of necessity employed in all transactions in
which the valuable metals were the mediums of
exchange (Gen, xliii, 21; Ex. xxii, 17; 1 K. xx.
39; Esth. iii. 9; Is. xlvi. 6; Jer. xxxii. 10, &c.).
The weights which were used were at first probably
stones, and from this the word ‘ stone” continued
to denote any weight whatever, though its material
was in later times lead ( (Lev. xix. 36; Deut. xxv.
a}, τον: πὶ ilh bog, NOL Wah Zech. v. 8).
These weights were carried in a bag (Deut. xxv.
13; Prov, xvi. 11) suspended from the girdle
(Chardin, Voy. iii. 422), and were very early made
the vehicles of fraud. The habit of carrying two
sets of weights is denounced in Deut. xxv. 13 and
Prov. xx, 10, and the necessity of observing strict
honesty in the matter is insisted upon in ‘several
precepts of the Law (Lev. xix. 36 ; Deut. xxv. 13).
But the custom lived on, and fae in full force
to the days of Micah (vi, 11), and even to those of
Zechariah, who, appears (ch. v.) to pronounce a
judgment against fraud of a similar kind. The
earliest weight to which reference is made is the
now, hésitah (Gen. xxxiii. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32 ;
Job xlii. 11), which in the margin of our version is
in two passages rendered “ἢ lempe? while in the
text it is “ piece of money.’” It may have derived
its name from being in the shape of a lamb. We
know that weights in the form of bulls, lions, and
antelopes were in use among the ancient Egyptians
and Assyrians. [ΜΌΝΕΥ, vol. ii. p. 406.] By
means of the balance the Hebrews appear to have
been able to weigh with considerable delicacy, and for
this purpose they had weights of extreme minuteness,
which are called metaphorically “the small dust
of the balance” (Is. xl. 15). The “little grain”
(ῥοπή) of the balance in Wisd, xi. 22 is the small
weight which causes the scale to turn. In this
passage, as in 2 Macc. ix. 8, the Greek word
πλάστιγξ, rendered “ balance,’ was originally ap-
plied to the scale-pan alone.
2. AIP, Adneh (Cvyév: statera) rendered “ ba-
lance”’ in) Is. xlvi. 6, is the word generally used
for a measuring-rod, like the Greek κανῶν, and
like it too denotes the tongue or beam of a balance.
pda, peles, rendered “weight” (Prov. xvi. 11,
LXX. ῥοπή) and “scales” (Is. xl. 12, LXX.
σταθμός) is said by Kimchi (on Is. xxvi. 7) to be
properly the beam of the balance. In his Lexicon
he says it is the part in which the tongue moves,
and which the weigher holds in his hand. Gesenius
( Thes. s. v.) supposed it was a steelyard, but there
is no evidence that this instrument was known to
the Hebrews. Of the material of which the balance
was made we have no information.
Sir ας, Wilkinson describes the Egyptian balance
as follows: —‘* ‘The beam passed through a ring
suspended from a horizontal rod, immediately above
and parallel to it ; and when equally balanced, the
ring, which was large enough to allow the beam to
play freely, showed when the scales were equally
poised, and had the additional effect of preventing
the beam tilting when the goods were taken out of
BAPTISM Ixxxv
one, and the weights suffered to remain in the
other. To the lower part of this ring a small
plummet was fixed, and this being touched by the
hand, and found to hang freely, indicated, without
the necessity of looking at the beam, ‘that the
weight was Just’ * (Anc. Ey. ii. p. 240).
The expression in Dan. v. 27, “ thou art weighed
in the balances, and art found wanting,” has been
supposed to be illustrated by the custom of weigh-
ing the Great Mogul on his birthday in the presence
ot his chief grandees. The ceremony is described
ina passage from Sir Thomas Roe’s Voyage in
India, quoted in Yaylor’s Calmet, Frag. 186:
** The scales in which he was thus weighed, were
plated with gold, and so the beam on which they
hung by great chains, made likewise of that most
precious metal. The king, sitting in one of them,
was weighed first against silver coin, which imme-
diately after was distributed among the poor; then
was he weighed against gold; atter that against
jewels (as they say); but I observed (being there
present with my lord ambassador) that he was
weighed against three several things, laid in silken
bags, on the contrary scale... . . By his weight
(of which his physicians yearly keep an exact ac-
count) they presume to guess of the ‘present state
of his body ; of which they speak flatteringly, how-
ever they think it to be.” It appears, however,
from a consideration of the other metaphorical ex-
pressions in the same passage of Daniel that the
weighing in balances is simply a figure, and may or
may not have reference to such a custom as that
above described. Many examples of the use of the
same figure of speech among Orientals are given in
Roberts’ Oriental [llustrations, p. 502.
BA'MOTH (nina : Baud: Bamoth). A
halting-place of the Israelites in the Amorite country
on their march to Canaan (Num. xxi. 18, 19). It
was between Nahaliel and Pisgah, north of the
Arnon. Eusebius (Onomast.) calls it ““ Baboth,
a city of the Amorite beyond Jordan on the Arnon,
which the children of Israel took.” Jerome adds
that it was in the territory of the Reubenites.
Knobel identifies it with ‘* the high places of Baal”’
(Num, xxii. 41), or Bamoth Baal, and places it on
the modern Jebel Attarfis, the site being marked
by stone heaps which were observed both by Seetzen
Gi. 342) and Burckhardt (Syria, 370).
BAPTISM (βάπτισμα). 1. It is well known
that ablution or bathing was common in most
ancient nations as a preparation for prayers and
sacrifice or as expiatory of sin. The Egyptian
priests, in order to be fit for their sacred offices,
bathed twice in the day and twice in the night
(Herod. ii. 37). The Greeks and Romans used
to bathe before sacrifice (Ho lavatum, ut sacri-
ficem, Plaut. Auldar. iii. 6. 43) and_betore
prayer—
“ Haec sancté ut poscas, Tiberino in gurgite mergis
Mane caput bis terque, et noctem flumine purgas.”
Pers. Sat. ii. 15.
At the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries,
on the second day of the greater mysteries, the
mystae went in solemn procession to the sea-coast
where they were purified by bathing (see Dict.
of Gr. and Rom. Antiq. p. 453). But, above all,
when pollution of any kind had been contracted,
as by the being stained with blood in battle, puri-
fication by water was thought needful before acts
of devotion could be performed or any sacred thing
BAPTISM
be taken in hand (see Soph. Ajar, 665; Virg. |
Aen. ii. 719, &c.). Even the crime of homicide is
said to have been expiated by such means.
Ixxxvi
|
“Omne nefas omnemque mali purgamina causam
Credebant nostri tollere posse senes.
* * * * * *
Ah! nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina caedis
Fluminea tolli posse putetis aqua.”
Ovin, Fasti, ii, 35, 36, 45, 46.
There is a natural connexion in the mind be-
tween the thought of physical and that of spiritual
pollution. In warm countries this connexion is
probably even closer than in colder climates; and
hence the frequency of ablution in the religious
rites throughout the East.
If. The history of Israel and the Law of Moses
abound with such lustrations. When Jacob was
returning with his wives and children to Bethel, he
enjoined his household to “put away all their
strange gods, and to be clean, and change their |
garments”” (Gen. xxxv. 2). When the Almichty |
was about to deliver the Ten Commandments to
Moses in the sight of the people of Israel, he
commanded Moses to ‘ sanctify them to-day and
to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes” (Ex.
xix. 10). After the giving of that Law all kinds
of ceremonial pollutions required purification by
water. He that ate that which died of itself was
to wash his clothes and to bathe his flesh (Lev.
xvii. 15); he that touched man or woman who
was separated for any legal uncleanness, or who
touched even their garments or their bed, was to |
wash his clothes and bathe himself in water (see |
Ley. xv.; comp. Deut. xxiii. 10); he that touched |
a dead body was to be unclean till even, and wash
his flesh with water (Lev. xxii. 4, 6); he that
let go the scapegoat or that burned the skin of the
bullock sacrificed for a sin-offering, was to wash |
his clothes and bathe his flesh in water (Lev. xvi. |
26, 28); he that gathered the ashes of the red |
heifer was to wash his clothes and be unclean till |
the evening (Num. xix. 10). Before great reli-
gious observances such purifications were especially
solemn (see John xi. 55). And in the later times
of the Jewish history there appear to have been
public baths and buildings set apart for this pur-
pose, one of which was probably the pool of Be-
thesda with its five porches mentioned in John vy. 2
(see Spencer, De Legg. Heb. p. 692).
It was natural that, of all people, the priests
most especially should be required to purify them-
selves in this manner. At their consecration Aaron
and his sons were brought to the door of the
tabernacle and washed with water (Ex. xxix. 4);
and whenever they went into the sanctuary they
were enjoined to wash their hands and their feet
in the laver, which was between the altar and the
tabernacle, ‘ that they died not” (Ex. xxx. 20).
In Solomon’s temple there were ten lavers to wash
the things offered for the burnt-offering, and a molten
sea for the ablution of priests (2 Chr. iy. 2, 6).
The consecration of the high-priest deserves espe-
cial notice. It was first by baptism, then by
unction, and lastly by sacrifice (Ex. xxix. 4, xl.
12-15; Ley. viii.).
The spiritual significance of all these ceremonial
“raspy advan nda.
» Full information on this subject will be found in
Lightfoot, on Matt. iii. 6, Works, xi. 53; Hammond on
St. Matt. iii. 6; Schoetigen, Μ᾿. H.; Wetstein on Matt.
ili. 6; Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. et Rabbin. 5, v. δ. Godwyn,
iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.”
-me and 1 shall be whiter than snow ” (Ps. li. 2,
BAPTISM
washings was well known to the devout Israelite.
“1 will wash my hands in innocency,’ says the
Psalmist, “‘and so will I compass thine altar ”
(Ps. xxvi. 6). ‘* Wash me throughly from mine
« Wash
7; comp. Ixxiii. 13). The prophets constantly
speak of pardon and conversion from sin under the
same figure. ‘Wash you, make you clean” (Is.
i. 16). ‘* When the Lord shall have washed away
the filth of the daughter of Zion” (iv. 4). “0
Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness”
(Jer. iv. 14). ‘‘In that day there shall be a
fountain opened to the house of David and to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for unclean-
ness’’ (Zech. xiii. 1). The significant manner in
which Pilate washed his hands, declaring himself
innocent of the blood of Jesus, was an expressive
picturing to the people in forms rendered tamiliar
to their minds from the customs of their law.
From the Gospel history we iearn that at that
time ceremonial washings had been greatly multi-
plied by traditions of the doctors and elders (see
Mark vii. 3, 4), “and the testimony of the Evan-
gelist is fully borne out by that of the later
writings of the Jews. The most important and
probably one of the earliest of these traditional
customs was the baptizing of proselytes. There is
an universal agreement among later Jewish writers
| that all the Israelites were brought into covenant
_with God by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice,
and that the same ceremonies were necessary in
admitting proselytes. Thus Maimonides (Jssure
Biah, cap. 13), “ Israel was admitted into cove-
nant by three things, viz., by circumcision, bap-
tism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt,
as it is said, ‘ None uncircumcised shall eat of the
passover.’ Baptism was in the wilderness before
the giving of the Law, as it is said, ‘ Thou shalt
sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them
wash their garments.’ And he adds, “ So, when-
ever a Gentile desires to enter into the covenant of
Israel, and place himself under the wings of the
Divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the Law
upon him, he must be circumcised, and baptized,
and bring a sacrifice; or if it be a woman, she
must be baptized and bring a sacrifice.” © The
same is abundantly testified by earlier writers, as
by the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, although
no reference to this custom can be found in Philo,
Josephus, or the Targum of Onkelos. Its earliest
mention appears to be in the Targum of Jonathan
on Ex. xii. 44: “Thou shalt circumcise him and
baptize him.” > It should be added, that men,
women, and children, were all baptized, and either
two or three witnesses were required to be present.©
Some modern writers—Lardner, Ernesti, De Wette,
Meyer, Paulus, and others—have doubted or denied
that this baptism of proselytes had been in use
among the Jews from times so early as those of
the Gospel; but it is highly improbable that,
after the rise of Christianity, the Jews should have
adopted a rite so distinctively Christian as baptism »
had then become. The frequent use of religious
ablution, as enjoined by the Law, had certainly
become much more frequent by the tradition of
Moses and Aaron, bk. i. ο. 8 ; Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent.
ii. 25; Wall, Hist. of Inf. Baptism, Introduct.; Kuinoel
on Matt. iti. 6.
© See Lighttoot, as above,
ee μα γον σνσνον,
BAPTISM
the elders. The motive which may have led to
the addition of baptism to the first commanded
cirenmcision is obvious,—circumcision applied only
to males, baptism could be used for the admission
of female proselytes also. Moreover, many nations
bordering upon Canaan, and amongst whom the
Jews were afterwards dispersed, such as the Ish-
maelites and the Egyptians, were already cireum-
cised; and therefore converts from among them
could not be admitted to Judaism by cireumcision.
There seems, indeed, no good reason to doubt that
the custom which may so naturally have grown
out of others like it, and which we find prevailing
not long after the Christian era, had really pre-
vailed from the period of the Captivity, if not, as
many think, from times of still more remote
antiquity (see Be.gel, Veber das Alter der Jiid. Pros-
elytentaufe, Tubing., 1814, quoted by Kuinoel on
Matt. iii. 6).
Il. The Baptism of John.—These usages of the
Jews will account for the readiness with which all
men flocked to the baptism of John the Baptist.
The teaching of the prophets by outward signs was
familiar to the minds of the Israelites. There can
be no question but that there was at this period a
general expectation of the Messiah’s kingdom, an
expectation which extended beyond Judaea and
prevailed throughout all the east (‘ Oriente toto,”
Sueton. Vespas. ὁ. iv.). Conquest had made
Judaea a province of Rome, and the hope of de-
liverance vested on the promises of the Redeemer.
The last words of Malachi had foretold the coming
of the Angel of the Covenant, the rising of the
Sun of Righteousness, to be preceded by the pro-
phet Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to
the children and of the children to the fathers
(Mal. iti. 1, iv. 2,5). The Scribes therefore taught
that ‘Elias must first come” (Matt. xvii. 10:
for this expectation of Elias among the Rabbins,
see Lightfoot, Hurmony on John i, 21, vol. iv.
p. 402 ; Wetstein on Matt. xi. 13). And so, when
John preached and baptized, the people, feeling the
call to repentance, came to him as to one who
was at the same time reproving them for their
sins and giving hope of freedom from the afflictions
which their sins had brought upon them. He
proclaimed the near approach of the kingdom: of
heaven—a phrase taken from Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14,
in use also among the Jews in later times (see
Wetstein and Lightfoot, H. H. on Matt. iii, 2)—
and preached a baptism of repentance ‘ for the
remission of sins” (Mark i. 4). They readily
coupled in their own minds the necessity of re-
pentance and the expectation of the Messiah, ac-
cording to a very prevalent belief that the sins of
Israel delayed the coming of Christ and that their
repentance would hasten it. John’s baptism, cor-
responding with the custom of cleansing by water
from legal impurity and with the baptism. of pros-
elytes from heathenism to Judaism, seemed to
call upon them to come out from the unbelieving
and sinful habits of their age, and to enlist them-
selves into the company of those who were pre-
paring for the manifestation of the deliverance of
Israel.
Naturally connected with all this was an ex-
pectation and “ musing” whether John himself
“were the Christ or not” (Luke iii. 15); and
when he denied that he was so, the next question
which arose was whether he were Elias (John i.
21). But when he refused to be called either
Christ or Elias, they asked, ‘‘ Why, then, baptizest
BAPTISM Ixxxvil
thou?” (John i, 25). It was to them as a pre-
paration for a new state of things that John’s
baptism seemed intelligible and reasonable. If he
were not bringing them into such a state or making
them ready for it, his action was out of place and
unaccountable,
There has been some uncertainty and debate as
to the nature of John’s baptism and its spiritual
significance. It appears to have been a kind of
transition from the Jewish baptism to the Chris-
tian. All ceremonial ablutions under the Law
pictured to the eye that inward cleansing of the
heart which can come only from the grace of God
and which accompanies forgiveness of sins. So
John’s baptism was a ‘‘ baptism of repentance for
remission of sins” (βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφε-
σιν ἁμαρτιῶν, Mark i. 4); it was accompanied
with confession (Matt. iii. 6); it was a call to
repentance; it conveyed a promise of pardon; and
the whole was knit up with faith in Him that
should come after, even Christ Jesus (Acts xix.
4). It was such that Jesus himself deigned to be
baptized with it, and perhaps some of his disciples
received no other baptism but John’s until they
received the special baptism of the Holy Ghost on
the great day of Pentecost. Yet John himself
speaks of it as a mere baptism with water unto
repentance, pointing forward to Him who should
baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matt.
iil, 11). And the distinction between John’s bap-
tism and Christian baptism appears in the case of
Apollos who, though “ instructed in the way of
the Lord,” the faith of Jesus Christ, and fervent
in spirit, speaking and teaching diligently -the
things of the Lord, yet knew only the baptism of
John; “whom when Aquila and Priscilla had
heard, they took him unto them, and expounded
unto him the way of God more perfectly ” (Acts
xviii, 26, 27). Even more observable is the case
of the disciples at Ephesus, mentioned Acts xix.
1-6. They were evidently numbered among Chris-
tians, or they would not have been called disciples,
μαθηταί. But when they were asked if they had
received the Holy Ghost since they had believed,
they said that they: had not even heard if there
was a Holy Ghost, an answer which may have
signified either that they knew not as yet the
Christian doctrine of the personality of the Spirit
of God, not having been baptized in the name of
the Trinity, or that they had heard nothing of the
visible coming of the Spirit in the miraculous gifts
of tongues and prophecy, At all events their
answer at once suggested to St. Paul that there
must have been some defect in their baptism; and
when he discovers that they had been baptized
only unto John’s baptism, he tells them that John
baptized only with a baptism of repentance,
“saying unto the people that they should believe
on Him which should come after him, that is on
Jesus Christ. When they heard this they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when
Paul had Jaid his hands upon them the Holy
Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues
and prophesied.” A full discussion of this history
would lead, perhaps, too far from the ground of
biblical exegesis and land us in the region of dog-
matic theolory. Yet we cannot but draw from it
the inference that there was a deeper spiritual sig-
nificance in Christian baptism than in John’s bap-
tism, that in all. probability for the latter there
was only required a confession of sins, a profession
of faith in the Messiah, and of a desire for re-
BAPTISM
pentance and conversion of heart (μετάνοια), but
that for the former there was also a confession of
faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
(comp. Matt. xxviii. 19); that after Christian bap-
tism there was the laying on of the apostles’ hands
and the consequent effusion of the Holy Ghost
manifested by miraculous gifts (comp. Acts viii.
17); that though Christian baptism was never
repeated, yet baptism in the name of Christ was
administered to those who had received John’s
baptism, with probably the exception of such as
atter John’s baptism had been baptized at Pente-
cost with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
On the whole it may appear obvious to conclude
that, as John was a greater prophet than any
that before him had been born of woman, and yet
the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater
than he, so his baptism surpassed in spiritual
import all Jewish ceremony, but fell equally short
of the sacrament ordained by Christ.
IV. The Baptism of Jesus.—Plainly the most
important action of John as a Baptist was his bap-
tizing of Jesus. John may probably not have
known at first that Jesus was the Christ (see John
i. 3L). He knew Him doubtless as his kinsman in
the flesh, and as one of eminently holy life; but
the privacy of the youth of Jesus, and the humility
oi His carriage, may have concealed, even from
those nearest to Him, the dignity of His person.
Yet, when He came fo be baptized, John would
have prevented Him, saying, “1 have need to be
baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?” He
knew that his own mission was from God, and that
it was to call sinners to repentance, warning them
to flee from the wrath to come, and to prepare for
the kingdom of God; but he was so conscious of
the superior holiness of the Lord Jesus, that he
thought it unfit that Jesus should submit to bap-
tism from him. The answer of Jesus, ‘ Suffer it
to be so now, for so it becometh us to fulfl all
righteousness,” may probably have meant that our
Lord, who had taken on Him the form of a ser-
vant, and was born under the Law, was desirous of
submitting to every ordinance a God (πᾶσαν
δικαιοσύνην = πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ Θεοῦ).
He had been circumcised in His infancy; He had
been subject to His mother and Joseph, He would
now go through the transitional dispensation, being
baptized by John in pr eparation for the kingdom.
No doubt it was His will in the first place, by
so submitting to baptism, to set to His seal to the
teaching and. the ministry of John. Again, as He
was to be the Head of His Church and the Captain
of our salvation, He was pleased to undergo that
vite which He afterwards enjoined on all His fol-
lowers. And, once more, His baptism consecrated
the baptism of Christians for ever; even as after-
wards His own partaking of the Eucharist gave
still farther sanction to His injunction that His
disciples ever atter should continually partake of it.
But, beyond all this, His baptism was His formal
setting apart for His ministry, and was a most
important portion of His consecration to be the
High Priest of God. He was just entering on the
age of thirty (Luke iii. 23), the age at which the
Letites began their ministry and the rabbis their
teaching. It has already been mentioned that the
consecration of Aaron to the high-priesthood was
by baptism, unction, and sacrifice (see Lev. viii. 1).
All these were undergone by Jesus. First He was
baptized by John. Then, just as the high-priest
Was anointed immediately after his baptism, so
Ixxxvili
BAPTISM.
when Jesus had gone up out of the water, the
heavens were opened unto Him, and the Spirit of
God descended upon Him (Matt. iii. 16); and thus,
as St. Peter tells us, ‘* God anointed Jesus of Naza-
reth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts
x. 38). The sacrifice indeed was not till the end
of His earthly ministry, when He offered up the
sacrifice of Himself; and then at His resurrection
and ascension He fully took upon Him the office of
priesthood, entering into the presence οἵ God for us,
pleading the efficacy of His sacrifice, and blessing
those tor whom that sacrifice was offered. . Bap-
tism, therefore, was the beginning of consecration ;
unction was the immediate consequent upon the ~
baptism ; and sacrifice was the completion of the
initiation, so that He was thenceforth perfected, or
fully consecrated as ἃ Priest for evermore (εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα τετελειωμένος, Heb. vii. 28 ; see Jackson —
on the Creed, book ix. sect. i, ch. i.).
In this sense, therefore, Christ ‘* came by water”
(1 John y. 6); for at baptism He came to His
offices of a Priest and an Evangelist; He came
forth, too, from the privacy of His youth to mani-
fest Himself to the world, But He came “ not by
water only,” as the Cerinthians, and before them
the Nicolaitans, had said (Iren. iii. 11), but by
blood also. He had come into the world by birth
ot the Virgin Mary; He came forth to the world
by the baptism of John. Both at His birth and at.
His baptism the Spirit announced Him to be the Son
of God. Thus came He not by baptism only, but
by baptism and birth. His birth, His baptism, and
the Holy Spirit at both of them, were the three
witnesses testifying to the one truth (εἰς τὸ ἕν,
v. 8), viz. that Jesus was the Son of God (y. 5).
V. Baptism of the Disciples of Christ—W hether
our Lord ever baptized has been doubted. The only
passage which may distinctly bear on the question
is John iv. 1, 2, where it is said “ that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John, though
Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples.”
We necessarily infer from it, that, as soon as our
Lord began His ministry, and gathered to Him a
company of disciples, He, like John the Baptist,
admitted into that company by the administration
of baptism. Normally, however, to say the least
of it, the administration of baptism was by the
hands of His disciples. Some suppose that the first-
called disciples had all received baptism at the hands
ot John the Baptist, as must have pretty certainly
been the case with Andrew (see John i. 35, 37, 40);
and that they were not again baptized with water
after they joined the company of Christ. Others
believe that Christ Himself baptized some few of
His earlier disciples, who were afterwards authorised
to baptize the rest. But in any case the words
above cited seem to show that the making disciples
and the baptizing them went together; and that
baptism was, even during our Lord’s earthly
ministry, the formal mode of accepting His service
and becoming attached to His company.
After the resurrection, when the Church was to
be spread and the Gospel preached, our Lord’s own
commission conjoins the making of disciples with
their baptism. The command, ‘ Make disciples of
all nations by baptizing them” (Matt. xxviii. 19),
ds merely the extension of His own practice,
nS mabe made disciples and baptized them ” (John
. 1). 4 The conduct of the Apostles is the plainest
a MaSyrevcare πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτούς
(Matt. xxviii. 19), compared with μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ
βαπτίζει (John iv. 1).
BAPTISM
comment on both; for so soon as ever men, con-
vinced by their preaching, asked for guidance and
direction, their first exhortation was to repentance
and baptism, that thus the convert should be at
once publicly received into the fold of Christ (see
Acts ii. 38, viii. 12, 36, ix. 18, x. 47, xvi. 15,
33, &c.).
Baptism then was the initiatory rite of the
Christian Church, as circumcision was the ini-
tiatory rite of Judaism. The contrast between
them is plain: the one was a painful and dan-
gerous, the other is a simple and salutary rite.
Circumcision seemed a suitable entrance upon a re-
ligion which was a yoke of bondage; baptism is a
natural introduction to a law of liberty ; and as it
was light and easy, like the yoke of Christ, so was
it comprehensive and expansive. The command
was unlimited, ‘‘ Make disciples of all nations by
baptizing them.” The arms of mercy were ex-
tended to receive the world. The “ Desire of all
nations” called all nations to accept His service.
Baptism therefore was a witness to Christ’s re-
ception of all men—to God’s love for all His
creatures. But again, as circumcision admitted to
the Jewish covenant—to the privileges and the re-
sponsibility attaching to that covenant, so bap-
tism, which succeeded it, was the mode of admis-
sion to the Christian covenant, to its graces and
privileges, te its duties and service. It was to be
the formal taking up of the yoke of Christ, the
accepting of the promises of Christ. The baptized
convert became a Christian as the circumcised con-
vert had become a Jew; and as the circumcised
convert had contracted an obligation to obey all the
ordinances of Moses, but therewith a share in all
the promises to the seed of Abraham, so the bap-
tized convert, while contracting all the responsi-
bility of Christ’s service, had a share too in all the
promises of God in Christ.
It is obviously difficult to draw out the teaching
of the New Testament on the rite of baptism and
its significance, without approaching too near to
the regions of controversy. We shall endeavour
therefore merely to classity the passages which refer
to it, and to exhibit them in their simplest form,
and to let them speak their own language.
VI. The Types of Baptism.—1, St. Peter (1 Pet.
iii. 21) compares the deliverance of Noah in the
Deluge to the deliverance of Christians in baptism.
The passage is not without considerable difficulty,
though its general sense is pretty readily apparent.
The Apostle had been speaking of those who had
perished “in the days of Noah when the ark was
a-preparing, in which few, that is eight souls, were
saved by water.’ According to the A. V., he goes
on, ‘ The like figure whereunto baptism doth now
save us.” The Greek, in the best MSS., is Ὃ καὶ
ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα... . ..
Grotius well expounds ἀντίτυπον by ἀντίστοιχον,
“ accurately corresponding.” The difficulty is in
the relative 6. There is no antecedent to which it
can refer except ὕδατος, ““ water;” and it seems
as if βάπτισμα must be put in apposition with ὃ,
and as in explanation of it. Noah and his company
were saved by water, “ which water also, that is
the water of baptism, correspondingly saves us.”
e The Fathers consider the baptism of the sea and the
cloud to be so a type of baptism, that the sea represented the
water, and the cloud represented the Spirit. (Greg. Naz.
Orat. Xxxix. p. 634: ἐβάπτισε Mwiions, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὕδατι,
καὶ πρὸ τούτου ἐν νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν θαλάσσῃ. τυπικὼς Sé |
BAPTISM
Even if the reading were @, it would most naturally
refer to the preceding ὕδατος. Certainly it could
not refer to κιβωτοῦ, which is feminine. We must
then probably interpret, that, though water was
the instrument for destroying the disobedient, it
was yet the instrument ordained of God for floating
the ark, and so for saving Noah and his family ;
and it is in correspondence with this that water
also, viz. the water of baptism, saves Christians.
Augustine, commenting on these words, writes that
“the events in the days of Noah were a figure of
things to come, so that they who believe not the
Gospel, when the Church is building, may be con-
sidered as like those who believed not when the ark
was preparing ; whilst those who have believed and
are baptized (7.¢. are saved by baptism) may be
compared to those who were formerly saved in the
ark by water’ (Hpist. 164, tom. ii. p. 579).
“The building of the ark,” he says again, “ was a
kind of preaching.” ‘¢ The waters of the Deluge
presignified baptism to those who believed—punish-
ment to the unbelieving” (Z0.).
It would be impossible to give any definite ex-
planation of the words, “ baptism doth save us,”
without either expressing a theological opinion or
exhibiting in detail different sentiments. The
Apostle, however, gives a caution which no doubt
itself may have need of an interpreter, when he
adds, ‘‘ not the putting away the filth of the flesh,
but the answer (ἐπερώτημα) of a good conscience
towards God.”” And probably all will agree that
he intended here to warn us against resting on the
outward administration of a sacrament, with no
corresponding preparation of the conscience and the
soul. The connexion in this passage between bap-
tism and “ the resurrection of Jesus Christ’? may
be compared with Col. ii. 12.
2. In 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, the passage of the Red Sea
and the shadowing of the miraculous cloud are
treated as types of baptism. In all the early part
of this chapter the wanderings of Israel in the
wilderness are put in comparison with the life of
the Christian. The being under the cloud and the
passing through the sea resemble baptism; eating
manna and drinking of the rock are as the spiritual
food which feeds the Church; and the different
temptations, sins, and punishments of the Israelites
on their journey to Canaan are held up as a warnings
to the Corinthian Church. It appears that the
Rabbins themselves speak of a baptism in the cloud
(see Wetstein in A. /., who quotes Pirke R. Eliezer,
44; see also Schoettgen in h./.). The passage from
the condition of bondmen in Egypt was through the
Red Sea, and with the protection of the luminous
cloud. When the sea was passed, the people were
no longer subjects of Pharaoh; but were, under the
guidance of Moses, forming into a new common-
wealth, and on their way to the promised land. It
is sufficiently apparent how this may resemble the
enlisting of a new convert into the body of the
Christian Church, his being placed in a new rela-
tion, under a new condition, in a spiritual common-
wealth, with a way before him to a better country,
though surrounded with dangers, subject to tempta-
tions, and with enemies on all sides to encounter in
his progress.®
|xxxix
τοῦτο ἣν, ws Kal ἸΤαύλῳ δοκεῖ: ἡ θάλασσα τοῦ ὕδατος,
ἡ νεφέλη τοῦ Πνεύματος. See Suicer, 8. v. βάπτισμα.)
Εἰς τὸν Μωσῆν is, according to some, by the ministry of
Moses ; or, according to others, under the guidance of Moses
(as Chrysost., Theophylact, and others, in h. l.). Most
BAPTISM
3. Another type of, or rather a rite analogous to,
baptism was circumeision. St. Paul (Col. ii. 11)
speaks of the Colossian Christians as having been
circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, when they were buried with Christ in bap-
tism, in which they were also raised again with
Him (ἐν & περιετμήθητε.. .. - - συνταφέντες
αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι. “The aorist parti-
ciple, as so often, is contemporary with the pre-
ceding past verb.”—Alford in ἡ. 1.). The obvious
reason for the comparison of the two rites is, that
circumcision was the entrance to the Jewish Church
and the ancient covenant, baptism to the Christian
Church and to the new covena#t; and perhaps also,
that the spiritual significance of circumcision had a
resemblance to the spiritual import of baptism, viz.
“the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,”
and the purification of the heart by the grace of
God. St. Paul therefore calls baptism the circum-
cision made without hands, and speaks of the
putting off of the sins of the flesh by Christian
circumcision (ἐν TH περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ), 2. 6.
by baptism.
4. Before leaving this part of the subject we
ought perhaps to observe that in more than one
instance death is called a baptism. In Matt. xx.
22, Mark x. 29, our Lord speaks of the cup which
He had to drink, and the baptism that He was to
be baptized with; and again in Luke xii. 50, “1
have a baptism to be baptized with.” It is gene-
rally thought that baptism here means an inunda-
tion of sorrows; that, as the baptized went down
into the waters, and water was to be poured over
him, so our Lord meant to indicate that He Him-
self had to pass throngh “ the deep waters of
affliction” (see Kuinoel on Matt. xx. 22; Schleusner,
s.v. βαπτίζω). ‘To baptize” was used as synony-
mous with “to overwhelm ;” and accordingly in
after times martyrdom was called a baptism of
blood. But the metaphor in this latter case is
evidently different; and in the above words of our
Lord baptism is used without any qualification,
whereas in passages adduced from profane authors
we always tind some words explanatory of the
mode of the immersion.£ Is it not then probable
that some deeper significance attaches to the com-
parison of death, especially of our Lord’s death, to
baptism, when we consider too that the connexion
of baptism with the death and resurrection of
Christ is so much insisted on by St. Paul? (See
below.)
VIL. Names of Baptism.—From the types of
baptism referred to in the New Testament, we may
perhaps pass to the various names by which bap-
tism seems to be there designated.
1. “ Baptism” (βάπτισμα: the word βαπτισ-
μός occurs only three times, viz., Mark vii. 8 ; Heb.
vi. 2, ix. 10). The verb βαπτίζειν (from βάπ-
τειν, to dip) is the rendering of Sap by the LXX,.
in 2 Κα v. 14; and accordingly the Rabbins used
avay for βάπτισμα. The Latin Fathers render
βαπτίζειν by tingere (e.g. Tertull. adv. Prav. c.
26, “* Novissimé mandavit ut tingerent in Patrem
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum”); by mergere (as
Ambros. De Sucramentis, lib. ii. ὁ. 7, ““ Interro-
ΧΟ
plainly, however, and in the opinion of the most weighty
commentators, both ancient and modern, it means“ into
the religion and law of Moses,” who was the mediator of
the old Covenant. “ Baptized into Moses,” therefore, is
antithetical to the expression, “ Baptized into Christ,”
Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii 27.
BAPTISM
gatus es, Credis in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem ?
Dixisti Credo; et mersisti, hoc est sepultus es”) ;
by mergitare (as Tertullian, De Corona Militis, c.
3, ‘*Dehine ter mergitamur”’); see Suicer, s. Ὁ.
avadtw. By the Greek Fathers, the word βαπτί-
ζειν is often used frequently figuratively, for to
immerse or overwhelm with sleep, sorrow, sin, &e.
Thus ὕπὸ μέθης βαπτιζόμενος eis ὕπνον, buried
in sleep through drunkenness. So μυρίαις βαπτι-
(Suevos φρόντισιν, absorbed in thought (Chry-
sost.). Ταῖς βαρυτάταις ἁμαρτίαις βεβαπτισ-
μένοι, overwhelmed with sin (Justin M.). See
Suicer, 5.0. βαπτίζω. Hence βάπτισμα properly
and literally means ammersion.& :
2. « The Water” (τὸ ὕδωρ) is a name of bap-
tism which occurs in Acts x. 47. After St. Peter’s
discourse, the Holy Spirit came visibly on Cornelius
and his company; and the Apostle asked, “ Can
any man forbid the water, that these should not be
baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost Ciemmaloe
ordinary cases the water had been first adminis-
tered, after that the Apostles laid on their hands,
and then the Spirit was given. But here the Spirit
had come down manifestly, before the administra-
tion of baptism; and St. Peter argued, that no one
could then reasonably withhold baptism (calling it
“the water”) from those who had visibly re-
ceived that of which baptism was the sign and
seal. With this phrase, τὸ ὕδωρ, “ the water,”
used of baptism, compare ‘ the breaking of bread ”.
as a title of the Eucharist, Acts ii. 42.
3. “The Washing of Water” (τὸ λουτρὸν τοῦ
ὕδατος, “the bath. of the water’’), is another
Seriptural term, by which baptism is signified.
It occurs Eph. v. 26. The whole passage runs,
“Husbands love your own wives, as Christ also
loved the Church and gave Himself for it, that He
might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of
water with the word” (ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθα-
ρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ Tod ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, “ that He
might sanctify it, having purified it by the [well-
known] laver of the water in the word,” Ellicott).
There appears clearly in these words a reference to
the bridal bath; but the allusion to baptism 15
clearer still, baptism of which the bridal hath was
an emblem, a type or mystery, signifying to us the
spiritual union betwixt Christ and His Church.
And as the bride was wont to bathe before being
presented to the bridegroom, so washing in the
water is that initiatory rite by which the Christian
Church is betrothed to the Bridezroom, Christ.
There is some difficulty in the construction and
interpretation of the qualifying words, ἐν ῥήματι,
“by the word.” According to the more ancient
interpretation they would indicate, that the out-
ward rite of washing and bathing is insufficient and
unavailing, without the added potency of the Word
of God (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 21, ‘‘ Not the putting
away the filth of the flesh,” &.) ; and as the λουτρὸν
τοῦ ὕδατος had reference to the bridal bath, so
there might be an allusion to the words of be-
trothal. The bridal bath and the words of be-
trothal typified the water and the words of baptism.
On the doctrine so expressed the language of Au-
custine is famous: ‘ Detrahe verbum, et quid est
f As, “ His mersere malis.”—VirG. Aen. vi. 512.
Ty συμφορᾷ βεβαπτισμένον.---ΠΕΙΠΟΡΟΕ. Aethiop. ii. 3.
& It is unquestionable, however, that in Mark vii. 4
βαπτίζεσθαι is used, where immersion of the whole body
is not intended. See Lightfoot, i loc.
BAPTISM
aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, et
fit sacramentum” (Zract. 80 in Johan.). Yet the
. general use of ῥῆμα in the New Testament and
the grammatical constructiofi of the passage seem
to favour the opinion, that the Word of God preached
to the Church, rather than the words made use of
in baptism, is that accompaniment of the laver,
without which it would be imperfect (see Ellicott,
ad h. l.).
4. “The washing of regeneration” (λουτρὸν
παλιγγενεσίας, ‘the bath of regeneration”’) is a
phrase naturally connected with the foregoing. It
oceurs Tit. iii. 5. All ancient and most modern
commentators have interpreted it of baptism. Con-
troversy has made some persons unwilling to admit
this interpretation ; but the question probably should
be, not as to the significance of the phrase, but as
to the degree of importance attached in the words
of the Apostle to that which the phrase indicates.
Thus Calvin held that the “bath” meant bap-
tism ; but he explained its occurrence in this context
by saying, that ““ Baptism is to us the seal of sal-
vation which Christ hath obtained for us.” The
current of the Apostle’s reasoning is this. He tells
Titus to exhort the Christians of Crete to be sub-
missive to authority, showing all meekness to all
men: “for we ourselves were once foolish, erring,
serving our own lusts; but when the kindness of
God our Saviour and His love toward man appeared,
not by works of righteousness which we performed,
but according to His own mercy He saved us, by
(through the instrumentality of) the bath of rege-
neration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost (διὰ
AovTpov παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως Πνεύ-
ματος ἁγίου), which He shed on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that, being justi-
fied by His grace, we mizht be made heirs of eter-
nal lite through hope (or according to hope, κατ᾽
ἐλπίδα). The argument is, that Christians should
be kind to all men, remembering that they them-
selves had been formerly disobedient, but that by
God’s free mercy in Christ they had been trans-
planted into a better state, even a state of salvation
(ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς) ; and that by means of the bath of
regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.
If, according to the more ancient and common in-
terpretation, the laver means baptism, the whole
will seem pertinent. Christians are placed in a new
condition, made members of the Church of Christ,
by baptism, and they are renewed in the spirit of
their minds by the Holy Ghost. One question na-
turally arises in this passage. Does ἀνακαινώσεως
depend on λουτροῦ, or on 614? If we adopt the
opinion of those who make it, with παλιγγενεσίας,
dependent on λουτροῦ, which is the rendering of
the Vulgate, we must understand that the renewal
of the Holy Ghost, is a grace corresponding with,
and closely allied to, that of regeneration, and so
immediately coupled with it. But it seems the
more natural construction to refer ἀνακαινώσεως
TI. ‘A. to διά, if it were only that the relative,
which connects with the verse following, belongs of
necessity to Πνεύματος. Dear Alford, adopting
the latter construction, refers the “6 washing” to
the laver of baptism, and the “renewing” to the
actual effect, that inward and spiritual grace of
which the fee is but the outward and visible
sign. Yet it is to be considered, whether it be not
novel and unknown in Scripture or theology, to
speak of renewal as the spiritual grace, or thing
signified, in baptism. There is confessedly a con-
nexion between baptism and regeneration, whatever
”
' BAPTISM
ΧΟΙ
that connexion may be. But ‘the renewal of the
Holy Ghost” has been mostly in the language of
theologians (is it not also in the language of Scrip-
ture ὃν treated as a farther, perhaps a more gradual
process in the work of grace, than the first reath-
ing into the soul of spiritual life, called regenera-
tion or new birth.
There is so much resemblance, both in the
phraseolory and in the argument, between this
passage in Titus and 1 Cor. vi. 11, that the latter
ought by all means to be compared with the former.
St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that in their heathen
state they had been stained with heathen vices;
“but,” he adds, ‘‘ ye were washed ” (lit. ye washed
or bathed yourselves, ἀπελούσασθε), “ but ye were
sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God.”
It is generally believed that here is an allusion to
the being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ; though some connect ‘‘ sanctified” and
“ justified,” as well as ‘‘ washed,” with the words
“in the name,” ‘&c. (see Stanley, i loc.). But,
however this may be, the reference to baptism
seems unquestionable.
Another passage containing very similar thoughts,
clothed in almost the ‘same words, i is Acts xxii. i6,
where Ananias says to Saul of Tarsus, “ Arise, and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon
the name of the Lord” (ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ
amddovoat, τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου. ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ). See by all means Calvin’s Com-
mentary on this passage.
5. “Tlumination” (φωτισμός). It has been
much questioned whether φωτίζεσθαι “ enlight-
ened,’ in Heb. vi. 4, x. 32, be used of baptism or
not. Justin M., Clement of Alexandria, and almost
all the Greek Fathers, use φωτισμός as a synonym
for baptism. The Syriac version, the most ancient
in existence, gives this sense to the word in both the
passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and other Greek
commentators so interpret it; and they are followed
by Ernesti, Michaelis, and many modern inter-
preters of the highest authority (Wetstein cites
from Orac. Sibyll. i. ὕδατι φωτίζεσθαι). On the
other hand, it is now very commonly alleged, that
the use is entirely ecclesiastical, not Scriptural, and
that it arose from the undue esteem for baptism in
the primitive Church. It is impossible’ to enter
into all the merits of the question here. If the
usage be Scriptural, it is to be found only in the
two passages in Hebrews above mentioned; but it
may perhaps correspond with other figures and ex-
pressions in the New Testament. The patristic use
of the word may be seen by referring to Suicer,
5. Ὁ. φωτισμός, and to Bingham, #. A. Bk. xi. ch.
i. § 4. The rationale of the name according to
Justin Martyr is, that the catechumens before ad-
mission to baptism were instructed in all the prin-
cipal doctrines of the Christian faith, and hence
“this laver is called illumination, because those
who learn these things are illuminated in their
understanding” (Apol. ii. p. 94). But, if this
word be used in the sense of baptism in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, as we have no mention of any
training of catechumens in the New Testament, we
must probabiy seek for a different explanation of
its origin. It will be remembered that φωτα-
ywyla was a term for admission into the ancient
mysteries. Baptism was without question the ini-
tiator y rite in reference to the Christian faith (ef.
Tpla βαπτίσματα μιᾶς μυήσεως. Can. Apost. i.).
xcii BAPTISM
Now, that Christian faith is more than once called by
St. Paul the Christian “ mystery.’’ The “ mystery
of God’s will” (Eph. i. 9), “the mystery of
Christ ” (Col. iv. 3; Eph. iii. 4), “ the mystery of
the Gospel” (Eph. vi. 19), and other like phrases
are common in his epistles. A Greek could hardly
fail to be reminded by such language of the reli-
gious mysteries of his own former heathenism.
But, moreover, seeing that “in Him are hid all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” it seems
highly probable, that in three memorable passages
St. Paul speaks, not merely of the Gospel or the
faith, but of Christ Himself, as the great Mystery
of God or of godliness. (1) In Col. i. 27 we read,
“the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in
you,” τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου, bs ἐστιν Χριστὸς
ἐν ὑμῖν. (2) In Col. ii. 2, Lachmann, Tregelles,
and Ellicott, as we think on good grounds, adopt
the reading τοῦ μυστηρίου Tod Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ,
rightly compared by Bp. Ellicott with the pre-
ceding passage occurring only four verses before it,
and interpreted by him, “the mystery of God,
even Christ.” (8) And it deserves to be carefully
considered, whether the above usage in Colossians
does not suggest a clear exposition of 1 Tim. iii. 16,
τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ὃς ἐφανερώθη K.T.A.
For, if Christ be the “‘ Mystery of God,” He may
well be called also the “ Mystery of godliness ;”
and the masculine relative is then easily intelli-
gible, as being referred to Χριστός understood and
implied in μυστήριον : for, in the words of Hilary
* Deus Christus est Sacramentum.”
But, if all this be true; as baptism is the
initiatory Christian rite, admitting us to the service
of God and to the knowledge of Christ, it may not
improbably haye been called φωτισμός, and after-
wards φωταγωγία, as having reference, and as ad-
mitting to the mystery of the Gospel, and to Christ
Himself, who is the Mystery of God.
VIII.—From the names of baptism we must now
pass to a few of the more prominent passages, not
already considered, in which baptism is referred to.
1. The passage in John iil. 5—‘ Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God’’—has been a well-
established battle-field from the time of Calvin.
Hooker’s statement, that for the first fifteen cen-
turies no one had ever doubted its application to
baptism, is well known (see Ecc/. Pol. v. lix.).
Zuinglius was probably the first who interpreted it
otherwise. Calvin understood the words “ of water
and of the Spirit” as a ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, “ the washing
or cleansing of the Spirit” (or rather perhaps “ by
the Spirit”), ‘* who cleanses as water,’”’ referring to
Matt. iii. 11 (“* He shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire”) as a parallel usage.
Stier (Words of the Lord Jesus, in h. 1.) observes
that Liicke has rightly said that we may regard
this interpretation by means of a ἕν διὰ δυοῖν,
which erroneously appealed to Matt. iii. 11, as now
generally abandoned, Stier, moreover, quotes with
entire approbation the words of Meyer (on John
iii. 5):—** Jesus speaks here concerning a spiritual
baptism, as in chap. vi. concerning a spiritual feed-
ing; in both places, however, with reference to
their visible auxiliary means.’ That our Lord
probably adopted expressions familiar to the Jews
in this discourse with Nicodemus may be seen by
reference to Lightfoot, HZ. H. in loc.
2. The prophecy of John the Baptist just referred
to, viz. that our blessed Lord should baptize with
the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matt. iii. 11), may
BAPTISM
more properly be interpreted by a ἕν διὰ δυοῖν.
Benge! well paraphrases it :—‘‘ Spiritus Sanctus,
quo Christus baptizat, igneam vim habet; atque .
ea vis ignea etiam corf$picua fuit oculis hominum ”
(Acts ii. 3). The Fathers, indeed, spoke of a three-
fold baptism with fire: first, of the Holy Ghost in
the shape of fiery tongues at Pentecost ; secondly,
of the fiery trial of aftliction and temptation (1 Pet.
i. 7); thirdly, of the fire which at the last day is
to try every man’s works (1 Cor. iii. 13). It is,
however, very improbable that there is any allusion
to either of the last two in Matt. iii. 11. There is
an antithesis in John the Baptist’s language between
his own lower mission and the Divine authority of
the Saviour. John baptized with a mere earthly
element, teaching men to repent, and pointing them
to Christ; but He that should come atter, 6 ἐρχύ-
Hevos, was empowered to baptize with the Holy
Ghost and with fire. The water of John’s baptism
could but wash the body; the Holy Ghost, with
which Christ was to baptize, should purify the soul
as with fire.
3. Gal. iii. 27: “For as many as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” In the
whole of this very important and difficult chapter
St. Paul is reasoning on the inheritance by the
Church of Christ of the promises made to Abraham.
Christ —i. e. Christ comprehending His whole body
mystical—is the true seed of Abraham, to whom
the promises belong (ver. 16). The Law, which
came after, could not disannul the promises thus
made. The Law was fit to restrain (or perhaps
rather to manifest) transgression (ver. 23). The
Law acted as a pedagogue, keeping us for, and
leading us on to, Christ, that He might bestow on
us freedom and justification by faith in Him (ver.
24). But after the coming of faith we are no
longer, like young children, under a pedagogue, but
we are free, as heirs in our Father’s house (ver. 25;
comp. ch. iv. 1-5). “For ye all are God’s sons
(filii emancipati, not παῖδες, but υἱοί, Bengel and
Ellicott) through the faith in Christ Jesus. For
as many as have been baptized into Christ, have
put on (clothed yourselves in) Christ (see Schoett-
gen on Rom. xiii. 14). In Him is neither Jew nor
Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor
female; for all ye are one in Christ Jesus” (ver.
26-28). The argument is plain. All Christians
are God’s sons through union with the Only-
begotten. Before the faith in Him came into the
world, men were held under the tutelage of the
Law, like children, kept as in a state of bondage
under a pedagocue. But after the preaching of
the faith, all who are baptized into Christ clothe
themselves in Him; so they are esteemed as adult
sons of His Father, and by faith in Him they may
be justified from their sins, from which the Law
could not justify them (Acts xiii. 57). The con-
trast is between the Christian and the Jewish
church: one bond, the other free; one infant, the
other adult. And the transition-point is naturally
that when by baptism the service of Christ is
undertaken and the promises of the Gospel are
claimed. This is represented as putting on Christ
and in Him assuming the position of full-grown
men. In this more privileged condition there is
the power of obtaining justification by faith, a
justification which the Law had not to offer.
4. 1 Cor. xii. 13: ‘“ For by one Spirit (or in one
spirit, ev ἑνὶ πνεύματι) we were all baptized into
one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond
or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
BAPTISM
The resemblance of this passage to the last is very
clear. In the old dispensation there was a marked
division between Jew and Gentile: under the Gospel
there is one body in Christ. As in Gal. iii. 16,
Christ is the seed (τὸ σπέρμα), so here He is the
body (τὸ σῶμα); into which all Christians become
incorporated. All distinctions of Jew aftd Gentile,
bond and free, are abolished. By the grace of the
same Spirit (or perhaps “ in one spirit ” of Christian
love and fellowship (comp. Eph. ii. 18), without
division or separate interests) all are joined in
baptism to the one body of Christ, His universal
church. Possibly there is an allusion to both
sacraments. ‘* We were baptized into one body,
we were made to drink of one Spirit”? (ἕν Πνεῦμα
ἐποτίσθημεν : Lachm, and Tisch. omit es). Both
our baptism and our partaking of the cup in the
communion are tokens and pledges of Christian
unity. They mark our union with the one body
of Christ, and they are means of grace, in which
we may look for one Spirit to be present with bless-
ing (comp. t Cor. x. 3, 17; see Waterland on the
Eucharist, ch. x., and Stanley on 1 Cor. xii. 13).
-5. Rom. vi. 4 and Col. ii. 12 are so closely
parallel that we may notice them together. As
the Apostle in the two last-considered passages
views baptism as a joining to the mystical body
of Christ, so in these two passages he goes on to
speak of Christians in their baptism as buried with
Christ in His death, and raised again with Him in
His resurrection.» As the natural body of Christ
was laid in the ground and then raised up again,
so His mystical body, the Church, descends in
baptism into the waters, in which also (ἐν @,
se. βαπτίσματι, Col. 11, 12) it is raised up again
with Christ, through ‘‘ faith in the mighty working
of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Probably,
as in the former passages St. Paul had brought for-
ward baptism as the symbol of Christian unity, so
in those now before us he refers to it as the token
and pledge of the spiritual death to sin and resur-
rection to righteousness ; and moreover of the final
victory over death in the last day, through the
power of the resurrection of Christ. It is said that
it was partly in reference to this passage in Colos-
sians that the early Christians so generally used
trine immersion, as signifying thereby the three
days in which Christ lay im the grave (see Suicer,
s. 0. avadvw 11. a).
IX. Recipients of Baptism.—The command to
baptize was coextensive with the command to preach
the Gospel. All nations were to be evangelized ;
and they were to be made disciples, admitted into
the fellowship of Christ’s religion, by baptism
(Matt. xxviii. 19). Whosoever believed the preach-
ing of the Evangelists was to be baptized, his faith
and baptism placing him in a state of salvation
(Mark xvi. 16). On this command the Apostles
acted; for the first converts after the ascension
were enjoined to repent and be baptized (Acts ii.
47). The Samaritans who believed the preaching
of Philip were baptized, men and women (Acts
viii. 12), The Ethiopian eunuch, as soon as he
professed his faith in Jesus Christ, was baptized
(Acts viii. 37, 33). Lydia listened to the things
spoken by Paul, and was baptized, she and her
house (Acts xvi. 15). The jailor at Philippi, the
very night on which he was convinced by the
earthquake in the prison, was baptized, he and all
his, straightway (Acts xvi. 33).
h « Mersio in baptismate, vel certé aqua supertfusa,
sepulturam refert’’ (Bengel).
BAPTISM
All this appears to correspond with the general
character of the Gospel, that it should embrace the
world, and should be freely offered to all men.
«Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast
out” (John vi. 57). Like the Saviour Himself,
Baptism was sent into the world ‘ not to condemn
the world, but that the world might be saved”
(John iii. 17). Every one who was convinced by
the teaching of the first preachers of the Gospel,
and was willing to enrol himself in the company
of the disciples, appears to have been admitted to
baptism on a confession of his faith, There is no
distinct evidence in the New Testament that there
was in those early days a body of catechumens
gradually preparing for baptism, such as existed in
the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles, and
such as every missionary church has found it
necessary to institute. The Apostles, indeed, fre-
quently insist on the privileges of being admitted
to the fellowship of Christ’s Church in the initiatory
sacrament, and on the consequent responsibilities
of Christians; and these are the grounds on which
subsequent ages have been so careful in preparing
adults for baptism. But perhaps the circumstances
of the Apostles’ age were so peculiar as to acccunt
for this apparent difference of principle. Conviction
at that time was likely to be sudden and strong;
the church was rapidly forming; the Apostles had
the gift of discerning spirits. All this led to the
admission to baptism with but little formal pre-
paration for it. At all events it is evident that
the spirit of our Lord’s ordinance was compre-
hensive, not exclusive; that all were invited to
come, and that all who were willing to come were
graciously received.
The great question has been, whether the invita-
tion extended, not to adults only, but to infants
also. The universality of the invitation, Christ’s
declaration concerning the blessedness of infants
and their fitness for His kingdom (Mark x. 14),
the admission of infants to circumcision and to the
baptism of Jewish proselytes, the mention of whole
households, and the subsequent practice of the
Chureh, have been principally relied on by the
advocates of infant baptism. The silence of the
New Testament concerning the baptism of infants,
the constant mention of faith as a pre-requisite or
condition of baptism, the great spiritual blessings
which seem attached to a right reception of it, and
the responsibility entailed on those who have taken
its obligations on themselves, seem the chief objec-
tions urged against paedo-baptism. But here, once
more, we must leave ground which has been so
extensively occupied by controversialists.
X. The Mode of Baptism.—The language of the
New Testament and of the primitive fathers suffi-
ciently points to immersion as the common mode
of baptism. John the Baptist baptized in the
river Jordan (Matt. iii.). Jesus is represented as
“coming up out of the water” (ἀναβαίνων ἀπὸ
τοῦ ὕδατος) after His baptism (Mark i. 10).
Again, John is said to have baptized in Aenon
because there was much water there (John iii. 23 ;
see also Acts viii. 36). The comparison of baptism
to burying and rising up again (hom, vi. ; Col. ii.)
has been already referred to as probably derived
from the custom of immersion (see Suicer, s. v.
ἀναδύω ; Schoettgen, in Rom. vi.; Vossius, De
Baptismo, Diss. i. thes. vi.). On the other hand,
it has been noticed that the family of the jailor at
Philippi were all baptized in the prison on the
night of their conversion (Acts xvi. 33), and that
xciii
BAPTISM
the three thousand converted at Pentecost (Aets ii.)
appear to have been baptized at once: it being
hardly likely that in either of these cases immersion
should have been possible. Moreover the ancient
church, which mostly adopted immersion, was
satisfied with affusion in case of clinical haptism—
the baptism of the sick and dying,
xciv
Questions and Answers.—In the earliest times of
the Christian Church we find the catechumens
required to renounce the Devil (see Suicer, s. Ὁ.
ἀποτάσσομαι) and to profess their faith in the
Holy Trinity aid in the principal articles of the
Creed (see ‘Suicer, i. p. 653). It is generally
supposed that St. Peter (1 Pet. iii. 21), where he
speaks of the ‘‘ answer (or questioning, ἐπερώ-
thua) of a good conscience toward God” as an
important constituent of baptism, refers to a cus-
tom of this kind as existing from the first (see,
however, a very different interpretation in Bengelii
Gnomon). The ‘form of sound words” (2 Tim.
i, 15) and the ‘‘good profession professed before
many witnesses” (1 Tim. vi. 12) may very pro-
bably have similar significance.
ΧΙ. The For mola of Baptism.—It should seem
from our Lord’s own direction (Matt. xxviii. 19)
that the words made use of in the administration
of baptism should be those which the Church has
generally retained, “I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:” yet, wherever baptism is mentioned in the
Acts of the Apostles, it is only mentioned as in
“the name of the Lord Jesus,’ or “in the name
of the Lord” (Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48, xix. 5).
The custom οἵ the primitive church, as far as we
can learn from the primitive Fathers, was always
to baptize in the names of the three Persons of the
Trinity (see Suicer, 8. Ὁ, βαπτίζω) ; and there is
little doubt that the expressions in the Book of
Acts mean only that those who were baptized with
Christian baptism were baptized into the faith of
Christ, into the death of Christ, not that the form
of words was different from that enjoined by our |
Lord in St. Matthew.
Sponsors.—There is no mention of sponsors in
the N. T., though there is mention of the ‘‘ ques-
tioning” (ἐπερώτημα). In very early ages of
the Church sponsors (called ἀνάδοχοι, sponsores,
susceptores) were in use both for children and
adults. The mention of them first occm's in Ter-
tullian—for infants in the De Baptismo (c. 18),
for adults, as is supposed, in the De Corona Militis
(c. 3: “Inde suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam
praegustamus.” See Suicer, s. v. ἀναδέχομαι).
In the Jewish baptism of proselytes two or three
sponsors or witnesses were required to be present
(see above, Lightfoot on Matt. iii. 6). It is so
improbable that the Jews should have borrowed
such a custom from the Christians, that the coin-
cidence can hardly have arisen but from the Chris-
tians continuing the usages of the Jews.
XU. Baptism for the Dead.—1 Cor. xv. 29.
ΚΕ Ise what shall they do who are baptized for the
dead (ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν), if the dead rise not at
all? Why are they then baptized for the dead ” (or,
wba them?” Lachmann and Tisch. read αὐτῶν),
. Tertullian tells us of a custom of vicarious
ehh (vicarium baptisma) as existing among the
Marcionites (De Resur. Carnis, ο. 48; Adv. Mar-
cion. lib. v. c. 10); and-St. Chrysostom relates of
the same heretics, that, when one of their catechu-
mens died without baptism, they used to put a
living person under the dead man’s bed, and asked
BAPTISM
whether he desired to be baptized; the living man
answering that he did, they then baptized him in
place of the departed (Chrys. Hom. x1. in 1 Cor.
xv.). Epiphanius relates a similar custom among
the Cerinthians (Haeres. xxviii.), which, he said,
prevailed from fear that in the resurrection those
should swfler punishment who had not been bap-
tized. ‘The Cerinthians were a very early sect ; ac-
cording to Irenaeus (iii. 11), some of their errors had
been anticipated by the Nicolaitans, and St. John
is said to have written the early part of his Gospel
against those errors; but the Marcionites did not
come into existence till the middle of the 2nd cen-
tury. The question naturally occurs, Did St. Paul
in 1 Cor. xv. 29 allude to a custom of this kind,
which even in his days had begun to prevail among
heretics and ignorant persons? If so, he no doubt
adduced it, as an argumentum ad hominem. “If
the dead rise not at all, what benefit do they ex-
pect who baptizé vicariously for the dead?” The
very heretics, who, from their belief that matter _
was incorrigibly evil, denied the possibility of a
glorious resurrection, yet showed by their supersti-
tious practices that the resurrection was to be ex-
pected; for, if there be no resurrection, their
baptism for the dead would lose all its significance.
It is truly said, that such accommodations to the
opinions of others are not uncommon in the writings
of St. Paul (comp. Gal. iv, 21-31; and see Stanley,
adh. 1.). St. Ambrose (in 1 ad Cor. xv.) seems to
have acquiesced in this interpretation, His words
are, “The Apostle adduces the example of those
who were so secure of the future resurrection that
they even baptized for the dead, when by accident
death had come unexpectedly, fearing that the
unbaptized might either not vise or rise to evil.”
Perhaps it may be said, that the greater number
of modern commentators have adopted this, as the
simplest and most rational sense of the Apostle’s
words, And—which undoubtedly adds much to the
probability that vicarious baptism should have
been very ancient—we learn from Lightfoot (on
| 1 Cor, xv.) that a custom prevailed among the
Jews of vicarious ablution for such as died under
| any legal uncleanness,
It is, however, equally conceivable, that the
passage in St. Paul gave rise to the subsequent
practice among the Marcionites and Cerinthians.
Misinterpretation of Scriptural passages has un-
| doubtedly been a fertile source of superstitious ce-
remony, which has afterwards been looked on as
having resulted from early tradition. It is certain,
that the Greek Fathers, who record the custom in
question, wholly reject the notion that St. Paul
alluded to it.
2. Chrysostom believes the Apostle to refer to
the profession of faith in baptism, part of which
was ry believe in the resurrection of the dead,”
πιστεύω εἰς νεκρῶ; ἀνάστασιν. “In this faith,”
he says, “‘we are baptized. After confessing ne
among other articles of faith, we go down into the
water. And reminding the Corinthians of this,
St. Paul says, If there be no resurrection, why art
thou then baptized for the dead, 7. e. for the dead
bodies (τί καὶ βαπτίζῃ ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν ; τουτ-
έστι, τῶν σωμάτων) ? For in this faith thou art
baptized, believing in the resurrection of the dead ”
(Hom. xl, in 1 Cor. xv.3 cf. Hom. xiii. in Epist.
ad Corinth.). St. Chrysostom is followed, ‘as usual,
by Theodoret, Theophylact, and other Greek com-
mentators. Indeed, he had been anticipated by
Tertullian among the Latins (Adv. Marcion. lib. v.
BAPTISM
ὁ. 10), and probably by Epiphanius among the
Greeks (Haer, xxviii.).
The fermer of the two interpretations above
mentioned commends itself to us by its simplicity ;
the latter by its antiquity, having almost the ge-
neral consent of the primitive Christians in its
favour (see Suicer, i. p. 642); though it is some-
what difficult, even with St. Chrysostom’s com-
ment, to reconcile it wholly with the natural and
grammatical coustruction »f the words. In addi-
tion to the above, which seem the most probable,
the variety of explanations is almost endless.
Among them the following appear to deserve consi-
deration.
3. “ What shall they do, who are baptized when
death is clese at hand?” Epiphan. Haeres. xxviii.
6, where, according to Bengel, ὑπέρ will have the
i of near, close upon.
4. “ Over the graves of the martyrs.” That such
a mode of baptism existed in after ages, see Euseb.
H. iv. 15; August. De Civ. Dei, xx. 9. Vossius
adopted this interpretation ;
that the custom should have prevailed in the days
of St. Paul.
5. “On account of a dead Saviour ;” where an
enallage of number in the word νεκρῶν must be
understood. See Rosenmiiller, in loc.
6. “ What shall they gain, who are baptized for
the sake of the dead in Christ?” 7. e. that so the
πλήρωμα of believers may be filled up (comp. Rom.
xi. 12, 25; Heb. xi. 40), that ““ God may complete
the number of His elect, and hasten His kingdom.”
See Olshausen, in Joc.
7. “What shall they do, who are baptized in
the place of the dead?” 7. ὁ. who, as the ranks of
the faithful are thinned by death, come forward to
be baptized, that they may fill up the company of
believers. See also Olshausen as above, who ap-
pears te hesitate between these last two interpre-
tations.
On the subject of Baptism, of the practice of the
Jews, and of the customs and opinions of the early
Christians with reference to it, much information
is to be found in Vossius, De Baptismo; Suicer,
8. ve. ἀναδύω, βαπτίζω, ἀναδέχομαι, κλινικός,
ἄς. ; Wetstein, as referred to above; Bingham,
Leel. Ant. bk. xi.; Vicecomes, Dissertationes, lib.
i.; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.; and Schoettzen, Hor.
Hebr., as referred to above. [H. H. B.]
SUPPLEMENT TO BAPTISM.
The ““ Laying on of Hands” was considered in
the ancient church as the “Supplement of Bap-
tism.”
I. Imposition of hands is a natural form by
which benediction has been expressed in all ages
and among all people. It is the act of one su-
perior either by age or spiritual position towards
an inferior, and by its very form it appears to
bestow some gift, or to manifest a desire that some
sift should be bestowed. It may be an evi] thing
that is symbolically bestowed, as when euiltiness
was thus transferred by the high-priest to the
scapegoat from the congregation (Lev. xvi. 21);
but, in general, the gift is of something good which
God is supposed to bestow by the channel of the
laying on of hands. Thus, in the Old Testament,
Jacob accompanies his blessing to Ephraim and
Manasseh with imposition of hands (Gen. xlviii.
14); Joshua is ordained in the room of Moses by
imposition of hands (Num. xxvii. 18; Deut. xxxiv.
33
9); cures seem to have been wrought by the pro-
but it is very unlikely !
BAPTISM
phets by imposition of hands (2 K, ν. 11); and
the high-priest, in giving his solemn benediction,
stretched out his hands over the people (Lev. ix.
22).
The same form was used by our Lord in
blessing, and occasionally in healing, and it was
plainly regarded by the Jews as customary or
befitting (Matt. xix. 13; Mark viii. 23, x. 16).
One of the promises at the end of St. Mark’s Gospel
to Christ’s followers is that they should cure the
sick by laying on of hands (Mark xvi. 18); and
accordingly we find that Saul received his sight
(Acts ix. 17) and Pwhlius’s father was healed of his
fever (Acts xxviii. 8) by imposition of hands,
In the Acts of the Apostles the nature of the
gift or blessing bestowed by the Apostolic impo-
sition of hands is made clearer. It is called the
gift of the Holy Ghost (viii. 17, xix. 6). This gift
of the Holy Ghost is described as the fulfilment of
Joel’s prediction“ I will pour out my Spirit upon
all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams ; and on my
servants and on my handmaidens | will pour out in
those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy ”’
Gi. 17, 18, and 38). Accordingly visible super-
natural powers were the result of this gilt—powers
which a Simon Magus could see, the capacity of
bestowing which he could covet and propose to
purchase (viii. 18). In the case of the Ephesian
disciples these powers are stated to be, Speaking
with tongues and Prophesying (xix. 6). Sometimes
they were granted without the ceremony of impo-
sition of hands, in answer to Apostolic prayer (iv.
31), or in confirmation of Apostolic preaching (x.
44). But the last of these cases is described as
extraordinary (xi. 17), and as having occurred in
an extraordinary manner for the special purpose of
impressing a hardly-learned lesson on the Jewish
Christians by its very strangeness.
By the time that the Epistle to the Hebrews
was written we find that there existed a practice
and doctrine of imposition of hands, which is pro-
nounced by the writer of the Epistle to be one of
the first principles and fundamentals of Christianity,
me he enumerates in the following order :—
The doctrine of Repentance; 2. of Faith ; 3. of
Beene, 4. of Laying on of Hands; 5. of the
Resurrection; 6. of Eternal Judgment (Heb. vi.
1, 2). Laying on of Hands in this passage can
mean only one of three things—Ordination, Ab-
solution, or that which we have already seen in
the Acts to have been practised by the Apostles,
imposition of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
on the baptized. The meaning of Ordination is
excluded by the contest. We “have no proof of
the existence of the habitual practice of Abso-
lution at this period, nor of its being accompa-
nied by the laying on of hands. Everything
points to that laying on ot hands which, as we have
seen, immediately sueceeded Baptism in the Apostolic
age, and continued to do so in the ages immediately
succeeding the Apostles.
The Christian dispensation is specially the dis-
pensation of the Spirit. _He, if any, is the Vicar
whom Christ deputed to fill His place when He
| departed (John xvi. 7). The Spirit exhibits him-
self not only by His gifts, but also, and still more,
by His graces. His gifts are such as those enumer-
ated in the Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘‘ the gift
of healing, of miracles, of prophecy, of discerning
of spirits, of divers kinds of tongues, of interpreta-
ΧΟΥ͂
xevi BAPTISM
tion of tongues” (1 Cor. xii. 10). His graces are,
“Jove, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, good-
ness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. v. 22, 23):
the former are classed as the extraordinary, the lat-
ter as the ordinary gifts of the Spirit.
It was the will of the Spirit to bestow His
gifts in different ways at different times, as well as
in different ways and on different persons at the
same time (1 Cor. xii. 6). His extraordinary gifts
were poured out in great abundance at the time
when the Christian Church was being instituted.
At no definite moment, but gradually and slowly,
these extraordinary gifts were withheld and with-
drawn. When the Church was now contemplated
as no longer in course of formation, but as having
been now brought into being, His miracles of power
ceased to be wrought (see Trench, On the Miracles,
Introduction, and Jeremy Taylor, On Confirmation).
But He continued His miracles of grace. His ordin-
ary gifts never ceased being dispensed through the
Church, although after a time the extraordinary
gifts were found no longer.
With the Apostolic age, and with the age suc-
ceeding the Apostles, we may suppose that the con-
sequences of the imposition of hands which mani-
fested themselves in visible works of power (Acts
viil., xix.) ceased. Nevertheless the practice of the
imposition of hands continued. Why? Because,
in addition to the visible manifestation of the Spirit,
His invisible working was believed to be thereby
increased, and His divine strength therein imparted.
That this was the belief in the Apostolic days them-
selves may be thus seen. The ceremony of impo-
sition of hands was even then habitual and ordinary.
This may be concluded from the passage already
quoted fiom Heb. vi. 2, where Imposition is classed
with Baptisms as a fundamental: it may pos-
sibly also be deduced (as we shall show to have
been believed) from 2 Cor. i. 21, 22, compared
with Eph. i. 13, iv. 30; 1-John ii. 20; and it
may be certainly inferred from subsequent univer-
sal practice. But although all the baptized im-
mediately after their baptism received the imposi-
tion of hands, yet the extraordinary gifts were not
given to all. ‘ Are all workers of miracles? have
all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues ?
do all interpret ?” (1 Cor. xii. 29). The men thus
endowed were, and must always have been, few
among many. Why then and with what results
was imposition of hands made a general custom?
Because, though the visible gifts of the Spirit were
bestowed only on those on whom He willed to
bestow them, yet there were diversities of gifts
and operations (ib. 11). Those who did not receive
the visible gifts might still receive, in some cases,
a strengthening and enlightenment of their natural
faculties, ‘To one is given by the Spirit the word
of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by
the same Spirit” (ib. 8): while all in respect to
whom no obstacle existed might receive that grace
which St. Paul contrasts with and prefers to the
“best gifts,” as “ more excellent” than miracles,
healing, tongues, knowledge and prophesying (ib.
31), greater too than “ faith and hope” (xiii. 15).
This is the grace of “ charity,” which is another
name for the ordinary working of the Holy Spirit in
the heart of man. ‘This was doubtless the belief
on which the rite of Imposition of Hands became
universal in the Apostolic age, and continued to be
universally observed in the succeeding ages of the
Church, There are numberless references or allu-
sicns to it in the early Fathers. There is a possible
BAPTISM
allusion to it in Theophilus Antiochenus, A.D, 170
(Ad Autol. 1. i. ο. 12, al. 17). It is spoken of by
Tertullian, a.p. 200 (De Bapt. c. viii.; De Resurr.
Carn. c. viii.) ; by Clement of Alexandria, A.D, 200
(apud Euseb. 1. iii. c. 17); by Origen, A.D. 210
(Hom. vii. in Ezek.); by Cyprian, A.D. 250 (Ep.
70, 73); by Firmilian, A.D. 250 (apud Cypr. Ep.
75, §8); by Cornelius, A.D. 260 (apud Euseb. 1. vi.
ce. 43); and by almost all of the chief writers of the
4th and 5th centuries, Cyprian (loc. cit.) derives
the practice fiom the example of the Apostles re-
corded in Acts viii. Firmilian, Jerome, and Au-
gustine refer in like manner to Acts xix. ‘‘ The
Fathers,” says Hooker, ‘‘ everywhere impute unto
it that gift or grace of the Holy Ghost, not which
maketh us first Christian men, but, when we are -
made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us
against temptation and sin. ... The Fathers there-
fore, being thus persuaded, held ‘confirmation as an
ordinance Apostolic, always profitable in God’s
Church, although not always accompanied with
equal largeness of those external effects which gave
it countenance at the first” (Eccl. Pol. v. 66, 4).
Il. Time of Confirmation.—Originally Impo-
sition of Hands followed immediately upon Bap-
tism, so closely as to appear as part of the Bap-
tismal ceremony or a supplement to it. This
is clearly stated by Tertullian (De Bapt. vii.
viii.), Cyril (Catech. Myst. iii. 1), the author
of the Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 43), and all
early Christian writers; and hence it is that the
names σφραγίς, χρίσμα, sigillum, signaculum, are
applied to Baptism as well as to Imposition of
Hands. (See Euseb. H. ΕἸ. iii. 23; Greg. Naz., Or.
40; Herm. Past. iii. 9,16; Tertull. De Spectac.
xxiv.) Whether it were an infant or an adult that
was baptized Confirmation and admission to the
Eucharist immediately ensued. This continued to
be the general rule of the Church down to the ninth
century, and is the rule of the Eastern Churches to
the present time. The way in which the difference
in practice between East and West grew up was the
following. It was at first usual for many persons
to be baptized together at the great Festivals of
Easter, Pentecost, and Epiphany in the presence of
the bishop. The bishop then confirmed the newly-
baptized by prayer and imposition of hands. But
by degrees it became customary for presbyters and
deacons to baptize in other places than the cathe-
drals and at other times than at the great festi-
vals. Consequently, it was necessary either to
give to presbyters the right of confirming, or to defer
confirmation to a later time when it might be in the
power of the bishop to perform it. The Eastern
Churches gave the right to the presbyter, reserving
only to the bishop the composition of the chrism
with which the ceremony is performed. ‘The West-
ern Churches retained it in the hands of the bi-
shop. (See Cone. Carthag. iii. can. 56 and iv.
can. 36; Conc. Tolet. i. can. 20; Conc. Anti-
siodor. can. 6; Conc. Bracar. i. can. 36 and 1].
can. 4; Conc. Eliber, can, 38 and 77.) Tertullian
says that it was usual for the bishop to make ex-
peditions (excurrat) from the city in which he
resided to the villages and remote spots in order to
lay his hands on those who had been baptized by
presbyters and deacons, and to pray for the gift ot
the Holy Spirit upon them (Cont. Lucif.iv.). The
result was that, in the West, men’s minds became
accustomed to the severance of the two ceremonies
which were once so closely joined—the more, as it
was their practice to receive those who had been
BAPTISM
heretically or schismatically baptized, not by re-
baptism, but’ only by imposition of hands and
prayer. By degrees the severance became so com-
plete as to be sanctioned and required by authority.
After a time this appendix or supplement to the
sacrament of baptism became itself’ erected into a
separate sacrament by the Latin Church.
ΠῚ. Names of Confirmation.—The title of “ Con-
firmatio’’ is modern. It is not found in the early
Latin Christian writers, nor is there any Greek
equivalent for it: for τελείωσις answers rather to
“ consecratio” or ‘ perfectio,” and refers rather to
baptism than confirmation. The ordinary Greek
word is χρῖσμα, which, like the Latin ‘ unctio,”
expresses the gift of the Holy Spirit’s grace. In
this general sense it is used in 1 John ii. 20, ‘* Ye
have an wnction from the Holy One,” and in 2 Cor.
i. 21, “He which hath anointed us is God, who
hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the
Spirit in our hearts.’ So early a writer as Ter-
tullian not only mentions the act of anointing as
being in use at the same time with the !mposition
of hands (De Bapt. vii. and viii.), but he speaks
of it as being ‘‘ de pristina disciplina,’ even in his
day. It is certain therefore that it must have been
introduced very early, and it has been thought by
some that the two Scriptural passages above quoted
imply its existence from the very beginning. (See
Chrysostom, Hilary, Theodoret, Comm, in loc. and
Cyril in Catech. 3.)
Another Greek name is σφραγίς. It was so
called as being the consummation and seal of the
grace given in Baptism. In the passage quoted
from the Epistle to the Colossians ‘* sealing” by
the Spirit is joined with being ‘* anointed by God.”
A similar expression is made use of in Eph. i. 13,
“In whom also after that ye believed ye were
sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise ;” and again,
“the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are scaled
unto the day of redemption ” (Eph. iv. 30). The
Latin equivalents are sigillum, signaculum, and (the
most commonly used Latin term) consignatio. Au-
gustine (De Trin. xv. 26) sees a reterence in these
passages to the rite of confirmation.
IV. Definitions of Confirmation.—The Greek
Church does not refer to Acts viii. xix. and Heb.
vi. for the origin of confirmation so much as to
1 John ii. and 2 Cor.i. Regarding it as the con-
summation of Paptism she condemns the separation
which has been effected in the West. The Russian
Church defines it as “a mystery in which the
baptized believer, being anointed with holy chrism
in the name of the Holy Ghost, receives the gifts
of the Holy Ghost for growth and strength in the
spiritual life” (Longer Catechism). The Latin
Church defines it as ‘‘ unction by chrism (accompa-
nied by a set form of words), applied by the Bishop
to the forehead of one baptized, by means of which
he receives increase of grace and strength by the
institution of -Christ”’? (Liguori after Bellarmine).
The English Church (by implication) as “a rite by
means of which the regenerate are strengthened by
the manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost the Comforter,
on the occasion of their ratifying the Baptismal vow ”
( Confirmation Service). Were we to criticize these
definitions, or to describe the ceremonies belonging
to the rite in different ages of the Church, we should
be passing from our legitimate sphere into that of
a Theological Dictionary.
Literature. — Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity,
bk. v. 866, Oxf. 1863; Bellarmine, De Suera-
mento Confirmationis, in libro De Controversiis,
[ApPenDIx. ]
BEDAN xevil
tom, iii. Col. Agr. 1629 ; Daillé, De Confirmatione
et Eatremad Unctione, Genev. 1659; Hammond,
De Confirmatione, Oxon. 1661; Hall, On Impo-
sition of Hands, Works, ii. p. 876, Lond. 1661;
Pearson, Lectio V. in Acta Apostolorum, Minor
Works, i, p. 362, Oxf. 1844; Taylor, A Discourse
of Confirmation, Works, v. p. 619, Lond. 1854;
Wheatly, Zdlustration of Book of Common Prayer,
c. ix. Oxf. 1846 ; Bingham, Ecclesiastical Antiqui-
ties, bk. xii. Lond. 1856; Liguori, Theologia
Moralis, iii. p. 468, Paris, 1845 ; Hey, Lectures on
Divinity, Camb. 1841 : Mill, Praelection on Heb.
VI. 2, Camb. 1843; Palmer, Origines Liturgicue :
On Confirmation, Lond. 1845; Bates, College
Lectures on Christian Antiquities, Lond. 1845;
Bp. Wordsworth, Catechesis, Lond. 1857; Dr.
Wordsworth, Notes in Greek Test. on Acts VIII.
XIX. and Heb. V/. Lond. 1860, and On Con-
firmation, Lond. 1861; Wall, On Confirmation,
Lond. 1862. [F. M.]
BA’RUCH 2. The son of Zabbai, who assisted
Nehemiah in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem
(Neh. iii. 20).
3. A priest, or family of priests, who signed the
covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 6).
4. The son of Col-hozeh, a descendant of Perez,
or Pharez, the son of Judah (Neh. xi. 5),
BARZELAT. 1 Esdr. v. 38, marg.
BASTARD. Among those who were excluded
from entering the congregation, that is, from inter-
marrying with pure Hebrews (Selden, Table Talk,
s. v. ** Bastard’’), even to the tenth generation, was
the mamzér (22, A. V. “ bastard Ἢ» who was
classed in this respect with the Ammonite and
Moabite (Deut. xxiii. 2). The term is not, how-
ever, applied to any illegitimate offspring, born out
of wedlock, but is restricted by the Rabbins to the
issue of any connexion within the degrees prohibited
by the Law. <A mamzér, according to the Mishna
( Yebamoth, iv. 13), is one, says ἢ. Akiba, who
is born of relations between whom marriage is
forbidden. Simeon the Temanite says, it is every
one whose parents are liable to the punishment of
“cutting off” by the hands of Heaven; R. Joshua,
every one whose parents are liable to death by the
house of judgment, as, for instance, the offspring of
adultery. The ancient versions (LXX., Vulg.,
Syr.), add another class, the childyen of a harlot,
and in this sense the term manzer or manser sur-
vived in Pontifical law (Selden, De Suce. in Bon,
Defunet., ¢. iii.) :
“ Manzeribus scortum, sed moecha nothis dedit ortum.”
The child of a got, or non-Israelite, and a mamzér
was also reckoned by the Talmudists a mamzér, as
was the issue of a slave and a mamzér, and of a
mamzér and female proselyte. The term also occurs
in Zech. ix. 6, “ἃ bastard shall dwell in Ashdod,”
where it seems to dencte a foreign race of mixed
and spurious birth. Dr. Geiger infers from this
passage that mamzér specially signifies the issue
of such marriages between the Jews and the wo-
men of Ashdod as are alluded to in Neh. xiii.
23, 24, and applies it exclusively to the Philistine
bastard.
BATTLE-AX. [Mavt.]
BAZ'LUTH (mibya: Βασαλώθ: Besiutn),
Bazuiru (Ezr. ii. 52).
BE'DAN. 2. (Baddu; Alex. Βαδάν.) Son of
Ulam, the son of Gilead (1 Chr. vii. 17).
xevill BEEROTHITE
BEER'OTHITE.
BETH'ELITE, THE
[ BETHEL, |
BETH'LEHEMITE, THE (nda m2:
Βηθλεεμίτης, 6 Βαιθλεεμίτης; Alex. Βηθλεεμίτης:
Bethlehemites). A native ‘or inhabitant of Beth-
lehem. Jesse (1 Sam, xvi. 1, 18, xvii. 58) and
Elhanan (2 Sam. xxi. 19) were Bethlehemites.
Another Elhanan, son of Dodo of Bethlehem, was
one of David’s guard (2 Sam. xsiii. 24). [ EL-
HANAN. |
BETHO’RON (Βαιθωρών : Alex. Βεθωρώ : om.
in Vulg.). Brru-HoRON (Jud. iv. 4).
BETH'-SHEMITE, THE (wDwn-n’a :
ὃ Βαιθσαμυσίτης ; Alex. 6 Βαιθθαμυσίτης : Beth-
samita, Bethsamitis). Properly ‘‘ the Beth-shim-
shite,’ an inhabitant of Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. vii.
14, 18). The LXX. in the former passage refer
the words to the field and not to Joshua (τὸν ἐν
Βαιθσαμύ:).
BIK'ATH-A'VEN. Am.i. 5, marg. [AVEN 1.]
BITUMEN. [811μΜ8.]
BLACK. [Cotoors.]
BOIL. [ΜΈΡΙΟΙΧΕ, ii. pp. 501-904 α.]
BOLSTER. The Hebrew word (MUN,
méradshoth) so rendered,, denotes, like the English,
simply a place for the head. Hardy travellers, like
Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 11, 18) and Elijah (1 K. xix.
6), sleeping on the bare ground, would make use of
a stone for this purpose; and soldiers on the march
had probably no softer resting place (1 Sam, xxvi.
7, 11, 12, 16). Possibly both Saul and Elijah
may have used the water-bottle which they carried
as a bolster, and if this were the case, David’s mid-
night adventure becomes more conspicuously daring.
The “ pillow ” of goat's hair which Michal’s cunning
put in the place of the bolster in her husband’s
bed (1 Sam. xix. 13, 16) was probably, as Ewald
suggests, a net or curtain of guat’s hair, to protect
the sleeper from the mosquitoes ((esch. iii. p. 101,
note), like the “ canopy” of Holofernes.
BONNET. [See Heap-press.| In old Eng-
lish, as in Scotch to this day, the word “ bonnet”
was applied to the head-dress of men. Thus in
Hall’s Rich. ITT., fol. 9a: * And after ἃ lytle season
puttyng of hys boneth he sayde: O Lorde God cre-
ator of all thynges, howe muche is this realme of
Englande and the people of the same bounden to
thy goodnes.” And in Shakspere (Hamil. v. 2):
«Your bonnet to his right use: ’tis for the head.”
BOTCH. [MEpIcrne. |
BRIGANDINE. The Hebrew word thus ren-
dered in Jer. xlvi. 4, 11, 3 (JID, siryén:
θώραξ: lorica) is closely connected with that
(iw, shiryén) which is elsewhere translated
“coat of mail” (1 Sam, xvii. 5, 38), and “ haber-
geon”’ (2 Chr. xxvi. 145 Neh. iv. 16 [10]).
{ Arms, p. 1115.] Mr. Wedgwood (Dict. of Eng.
Etym. s. ¥.) says it “was a kind of scale armour,
also called Briganders, from being worn by the
light troops called Brigands.” The following ex-
amples will illustrate the usage of the word in Old
English: ‘*The rest of the armor for his body, he
had put it on before in his tent, which was a Si-
cilian cassocke, and vpon that a brigandine made οἵ
[BeEROTH. ]"
(Cea xvi. 34).
CARMANIANS
many foldes of cannas with oylet-holes, which was
gotten among the spoiles at the battell of Issus ”
(North’s Plutarch, Alex. p. 735, ed. 1595).
« Hymselfe with the Duke of Buckingham stode
harnessed in olde euil-fauoured /yiganders” (Hall,
Edw. V., fol. 156, ed. 1550). The forms brigan-
taille and brigantine also occur.
BROOK. Four Hebrew words are thus ren-
dered in the O. T.
1. PDN aphik (Ps. xi. 1 [2]), which pro-
perly denotes a violent torrent, sweeping through a
mountain gorge. It occurs only in the poeticai
books, and is derived from a root aphak, signifying
“to be strong.” Elsewhere it is rendered “ stream,’’ ~
“« channel,” ‘ river.”
9. AN), yéor (Is. xix. 6, 7, 8, xxiii. 3, 10), an
Egyptian word, generally applied to the Nile, or to
the canals by which Egypt was watered. The only
exceptions to this usage are found in Dan, xii. 5,
ἴδ U-
Sie Son, mical (2 Sam. xvii. 20), which
occurs but once, and then, according to the most
probable conjecture, signifies a “ rivulet,” or small
stream of water. The etymology of the word
is obscure. The Targum erroneously renders it
“¢ Jordan.”
4. ὉΠ), nachal, a term applied both to the
dry torrent-bed (Num. xxi. 12; Judg. xvi. 4) and
to the torrent itself (1 Καὶ, xvii. 3). It corresponds
with the Arabic wady, the Greek χειμάῤῥους, the
Italian fimmara, and the Indian nuliah. For fur-
ther information, see RIVER.
BU'ZITE (3 : βουζίτης : Buzites). A de-
scendant of Buz. . The term is applied to Elihu,
who was of the kindred of Ram or Aram (Job
XXxli. 2, 6).
CALEB. “The south of Caleb” is that por-
tion of the Negeb (333) or “south country” of
Palestine, occupied by Caleb and his descendants
(1 Sam. xxx. 14). In the division of Canaan
Joshua assigned the city and suburbs of Hebron
to the priests, but the ‘field ” of the city, that is
the pasture and corn lands, together with the vil-
lages, were given to Caleb. The south, or Negeb,
of Caleb, is probably to be identified with the ex-
tensive basin or plain which lies between Hebron
and Kurmul, the ancient Carmel of Judah, where
Caleb’s descendant Naba! had his possessions.
CA'NAAN, LANGUAGE OF. See p. 743.
CAPH'THORIM (0°7hD3: Vat. omits ; Alex.
Χαφοριείμ: Caphtorim). 1 Chr. i. 12. [CAPHTOR. ]
CAPH'TORIMS (DADS: of Καππάδοκες :
Cappadoces). Deut. ii, 23. [CAPHTOR. ]
CARMA'NIANS (Carmonii). The inhabit-
ants of Carmania, a province of Asia on the north
side of the Persian Gulf (2 Esd. xv. 30). They are
described by Strabo (xv. p. 727) as a warlike race,
worshipping Ares alone of all the gous, te whom
they sacrifice an ass. None of them married till
he had cut off the head of an enemy and presented
it to the king, who placed it on his palace, having
first cut out the tongue, which was chopped up into
small pieces and mixed with meal, and in this con-
dition, after being tasted by the king, was given to
CARMELITE
the warrior who brought it and to his family to
eat. Nearchus says that most of the customs of
the Carmanians, and their language, were Persian
and Median. Arrian gives the same testimony (776,
38), adding that they used the same order of battle
as the Persians.
CAR'MELITE cba : Καρμήλιος, Xapuadat
in 1 Chr. xi. 37; Alex. ᾿'Καρμηλείτης in 2 Sam
ii. 2, Καρμηλί in 1 Chr. xi. 37: Curmeli, de aes
melo, Carmelites). A native of Carmel in the
mountains of Judah. The term is applied to Nabal
(1 Sam, xxx. 5; 2 Sam. ii. 2, iii. 3) and to Hezrai,
or Hezvo, one of David's guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 35 ;
1 Chr. xi. 37). In 2 Sam. iii. 3 the LXX. must
have read moana, <¢ Carmelitess.””
CAR'MELITESS (mb173: Καρμήλιος, Kap-
μήλια: Curmeli, Carmelitis). A woman of Carmel
in Jadah: used only of Abigail, the favourite wife
of David (1 Sam. xxvii. 3; 1 Chr. iii. 1). In the
former passage both LXX. and Vulg. appear to
have read ΘΙ Ἴ5, « Carmelite.”’
CAR'MITES, THE (197571:
6 Xapuet: Charmitae).
Reuben, descended from CARMI 2 (Num. xxvi. 6).
CASEMENT. [Lartice.]
ὃ Xaput; Alex.
CAULS (D'D'3Y: ἐμπλόκια : torques). The
margin of the A. V. gives “networks.” The Old
Knelish word “ caul” denoted a netted cap worn by
women. Compare Chaucer ( Wyf of Buthes Tale,
Cay 65 99):
“Let se, which is the prondest of hem alle,
That werith on a coverchief or a caile.”
The Hebrew word shébisim thus rendered in Is. iii.
18, is, like many others which occur in the same
passage, the subject of much dispute. It occurs
but once, and its root is not elsewhere found in
Hebrew. The Rabbinical commentators connect it
with yaw, shibbéts, rendered “ embroider” in Ex.
xxviii. 39, but properly “‘to work in squares,
make checker-work.” So Kimchi (Lez. s.v.) ex-
plains shébisim as “the name of garments wrought
in checker-work.” Rashi says they are “ἃ kind of
network to adorn the head.” Abarbanel is more
full: he describes them as “headdresses, made of
sill or gold thread, with which the women bound
their heads about, and they were of checker-work.”
The word occurs again in the Mishna ( Celim, xxviii.
10), but nothing can possibly be infe:ved fiom the
passage itself, and the explanations of the commen-
tators do not throw much light upon it. It there
appears to be used as part of a network worn as a
headdress by women. Bartenora says it was “ἃ
figure which they made upon the network for orna-
ment, standing in front of it and going round from
one ear to the other.” Beyond the fact that the
shébisim were headdresses or ornaments of the head-
dress of Hebrew ladies, nothing can be said to be
known about them.
Schroeder (De Vest, Mul., cap. ii.) conjectured
that they were medallions worn on the perkins
Oe
and identified shébisim with the Arab. Xamagasy
συο-
shomaiseh, the diminutive of ues, shams, the
sun, which is applied to denote the sun-shaped
ornaments worn by Arab women about their necks. -
A branch of the tribe of
CHAMBERLAIN
But to this Gesenius very properly objects (Jes. 1.
p- 209), as peel as to the explanation of Jahn
(Archaol. i. 2, 159), who renders the word “ gauze
veils.”
The Versions give but little assistance. The
LXX, render ἐμπλόκια “ plaited work,’ to which
κοσύμβους, ““ triuges,” appears to have been added
originally as a gloss, and afterwards to have crept
into the text. Aquila has τελαμῶνας, “ belts.”
The Targum merely adopts the Hebrew word with-
out translating it, and the Syriac and Arabic
vaguely render it “‘ their ornaments.”
CHAMBERLAIN (οἰκονόμος: arcarius).
Erastus, ‘the chamberlain” of the city of Corinth,
was one of those whose salutations to the Roun
Christians are given at the end of the Ep. ad-
dressed to them (Rom, xvi. 23). The office which
he held was apparently that of public treasurer, or
arcarius, as the Vulgate renders his title. These
arcarti were inferior magistrates, who had the
charge of the public chest (area publica}, and were
under the authority of the senate. They kept the
accounts of the public reventes. In the Glossary
of Philoxenus the word οἰκονόμος is explained 6 ἐπὶ
τῆς δημοσίας τραπέζης, and ἴῃ the Pandects the
term arcarius is applied to any one who attends to
public or private money. It is, as Grotius remarks,
one of those words which have been transferred from
the house to the state. In old giosses quoted by
Suicer (Thesaur.) we find arcarius explained by
ὑποδεκτὴς χρυσοῦ, and in accordance with this
the translators of the Geneva Version have placed
“receiver”? in the margin. Erasmus interpreted
the word quaestor aerarii. St. Ambrose thought
that the office of the oeconomus principally con-
sisted in regulating the prices of the markets, and
hence Pancirollus was erroneously led to interpret
the term of the aedile. Theophvlact rendered it
ὁ διοικητὴς, 6 προνοητὴς τῆς πόλεως Κορίνθου,
and is tollowed by Beza, who gives procurator.
In an inscription in the Marm. Oxon. (p. 85, ed.
1732) we find Νείλῳ οἰκονόμῳ ᾿Ασίας ; and in
another, mention is made of Miletus, who was
oeconomus of Smyrna (Ins. xxx. p. 26; see Pri-
deaux’s note, p. 477). Another in Gruter (p. mxci.
7, ed. Scaliger, 1616) contains the name of ‘Se-
cundus Arkarius Reipublicae Amerinorum :᾿ but
the one which bears most upon our point is given
by Orellius (No. 2821),.and mentions the “ arca-
rius provinciae Achaiae.””
For further information see Reinesius, Syntagm.
Inscr. p. 431, La Cerda, Advers. Sacr. cap. 56,
Elsner, Obs. Sacr. ii. p. 68, and a note by Reinesius
to the Marmora Oxoniensia, p. 515, ed. 1732.
Our translators had good reason for rendering
οἰκονόμος by “ “es In Stow’s Survey
of London (Ὁ. v. ed. Strype) it is said of
the Chamberlain of ine atl of London: “ His office
may be termed a publick treasury, collecting the
customs, monies, and yearly revenues, and all other
payments belonging to the corporation of the city.”
The office held by Blastus, “ the king’s chamber-
lain (τὸν ἐπὶ Tod κοιτῶνος τοῦ BuctAéws),”” was
entirely different from that above mentioned (Acts
xii. 20). It was a post of honour which involved
great intimacy and influence with the king. The
margin of our version gives ‘that was over the
king’s bedchamber,” the office thus corresponding to
that of the pracfectus cubiculo (Suet. Dom. 16).
For CHAMBERLAIN as used in the O. T., see
Evunucu, p. 590 ὁ.
xcix
Η 2
CHELCIAS
CHELCI'AS (Χελκίας : Helcias). 1. Ancestor
of Baruch (Bar. i. 1).
ο. Hilkiah the high priest in the time of Isaiah
(Bar. i. 7).
CHEM'ARIMS, THE (0°22i7: οἱ Xw-
paplu; Alex. of Xouapelu: aruspices, aeditut).
This word only occurs in the text of the A. Y. in
_Zeph.i. 4. In 2 K. xxiii. 5 it is yendered ‘* idola-
trous priests,” and in Hos. x. 5 “ priests,” and in
both cases “chemarim” is given in the margin.
So far as regards the Hebrew usage of the word it
is exclusively applied to the priests of the false
worship, and was inall probability a term of foreign
origin. In Syriac the word Jr0a.9, cumro, is
c
found without the same restriction of meaning,
being used in Judg. xvii. 5, 12, of the priest of Micah,
while in Is. Ixi. 6 it denotes the priests of the true
God, and in Heb. ii. 17 is applied to Christ himself.
The root in Syriac signifies “to be sad,’ and hence
cimré is supposed to denote a mournful, ascetic
person, and hence a priest or monk (compare Arab.
Δαν, abil, and Syr. pas}, abilé, in the same
sense). Kimchi derived it from a root signifying “ to
be black,” because the idolatrous priests wore black
garments ; but this is without foundation. [1DOL-
ATRY, p. 858.] [ἢ the Peshito-Syriac of Acts xix.
25 the feminine form of the word is used to render |
the Greek νεωκόρον, “a temple keeper.” Compare
the Vulg. aeditwi, which is the translation of Chem-
arim in two passages.
CHET'TIIM (Xerreefu; Alex. Χεττιείμ:
Cethim), 1 Macc. 1. 1. [Currrm. ]
CHIN'NEROTH (ni733, M733: Κενερώϑ,
XevepéO; Alex. Χενερεθθί, XevvepéO: Cencroth),
Josh. xi. 2, xii. 3. [CHINNERETH. ]
CHRISTIAN (Χριστιανός : Christianus). The
disciples, we are told (Acts xi. 26), were first called
Christians at Antioch on the Orontes, somewhere
about A.D. 43. The name, and the place where it
was conferred, are both significant. It is clear that
the appellation “ Christian ” was one which, though
eagerly adopted and gloried in by the early followers
of Christ, could not have. been imposed by them-
selves. They were known to each other as brethren
of one family, as disciples of the same Master, as
believers in the same faith, and as distinguished by |
the same endeavours after holiness and consecration
of life; and so were called brethren (Acts xv. i
23; 1 Cor. vii. 12), disciples (Acts ix. 26, xi. 29),
believers (Acts v. 14), saints (Rom, vill. 27, xv. 25).
But the outer world could know nothing of the
true force and significance of these terms, which
were in a manner esoteric; it was necessary there-
have some distinctive title. ‘To the contemptuous
Jew they were Nazarenes and Galilaeans, names
which carried with them the infamy and turbulence
of the places whence they sprung, and from whence
nothing good and no prophet might come. ‘The
Jews could add nothing to the scorn which these
names expressed, and had {πον endeavoured to do
so they would not have defiled the glory of their
Messiah by applying his title to those whom they
could not but regard as the followers of a pretender.
The name ‘‘ Christian,” then, which, in the only
CHURCH
other cases where it appears in the N.T. (Acts
xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16: comp. Tac. Ann, xv.
44), is used contemptuously, could not have been
applied by the early disciples to themselves, nor
could it have come to them from their own nation
the Jews; it must, therefore, have been imposed
upon them by the Gentile world, and no place could
have so appropriately given rise to it as Antioch,
where the first Church was planted among the hea-
then. It was manifest by the preaching of the
new teachers that they were distinct from the Jews,
so distinct as to be remarked by the heathen them-
selves; and as no name was so frequently in their
mouths as that of Christ,¢ the Messiah, the An-
ointed, the people of Antioch, ever on the alert. for
a gibe or mocking taunt, and taking Christ to be a
proper name and not a title of honour, called his
followers Χριστιανοί, Christians, the partisans of
Christ, just as in the early struggles for the Empire
we meet with the Caesariani, Pompeiani, and Oc-
taviani. The Latin form of the name is what
would be expected, for Antioch had long been a
Roman city. Its inhabitants were celebrated for
their wit and a propensity for conferring nicknames
(Procop. Pers. ii. 8, p. 105). The Emperor Julian
himself was not secure from their jests (Amm.
Mare. xxii. 14). Apollonius of Tyana was driven
from the city by the insults of the inhabitants
(Philostr. Vit. Apoll. iii. 16). Their wit, how-
ever, was often harmless enough (Lucian, De Saltat.
76), and there is no reason to suppose that the
name ‘‘ Christian” of itself was intended as a term
of scwrrility or abuse, though it would naturally be
used with contempt.
Suidas (5. υ. Χριστιανοί) says the name was
given in the reign of Claudius, when Peter ap-
pointed Evodius bishop of Antioch, and they who
were formerly called Nazarenes and Galilaeans had
their name changed to Christians. According to
Malalas (Chronog. x.) it was changed by Evodius
| himself, and William of Tyre (iv.9) has a story
| that a synod was held at Antioch for the purpose.
Ignatius, or the author of the Epistle to the Mag-
nesians (6. x.), regards the prophecy of Isaiah
(Ixii. 2, 12) as first fulfilled in Syria, when Peter
and Paul founded the Church at Antioch, But
reasons have already been given why the name did
not originate within the Church.
Another form of the name is Χρηστιανοΐ, arising
‘from a false etymology (Lact. iv. 7; Tertullian,
Apol. c. 3; Suet. Claud. 25), by which it was
derived from χρηστός.
CHURCH (‘Ex«Anota).—(I.) The derivation
of the word Church is uncertain. It is found in the
Teutonic and Slavonian languages (Anglo-Saxon,
Circ, Circe, Cyric, Cyricea ; English, Church ;
Scottish, Kirk; German, Kirche; Swedish, Kyrka ;
Danish, Kyrke; Dutch, Karke; Swiss, Kilche ;
Frisian, Zzierk; Bohemian, Cyrkew ; Polish,
fore that the followers of the new religion should ᾿ Cerkiew ; Russian, Zerkow), and answers to the de-
rivatives of ἐκκλησία, which are naturally found ix
the Romance languages (French, Eglise ; Italian,
Chiesa; old Vaudois, Gleisa; Spanish, Iglesia),
‘and by foreign importation elsewhere (Gothic,
Aik-hlésjé; Gaelic, Eaglais; Welsh, Eghwys ;
Cornish, Eglos). The word is generally said to be
derived from the Greek κυριακόν (Walafrid Strabo,
De Rebus Ecclesiast. c. 7; Suicer, 8. Ὁ. κυριακόν;
Glossarium, s.v. “ Dominicum ;” Casaubon, Ezercit.
ἃ « Christ,” and not “Jesus,” is the term most commonly
applied to our Lord in the Epistles.
CHURCH
N
Baron. xiii. § xviii.; Hooker, Becl. Pol. v. xiii, 1;
Pearson, On the Creed, Art. ix.; Beveridge, On the
Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. xix.; Wordsworth,
Theophilus Anglicanus, c. 13, Gieseler, Eccles.
History, c. 1; Trench, Study of Words, p. 78).
But the derivation has been too hastily assumed.
The arguments in its favour are the following: (1.)
asimilarity of sound; (2.) the statement of Walafrid
Strabo; (3.) the fact that the word κυριακόν was
undoubtedly used by Greek ecclesiastics in the sense
of “a Church,” as proved by a reference to the
Canons of the Council of Ancyra (Can. xiv.), of
Neocaesarea (Can. v., xiii.), of Laodicea (Can.
xxviii.), and of the Council in Trullo (Can. lxxiv.),
to Maximin’s Edict (in Euseb. H. 2. ix. 10), to
Eusebius’ Oration in praise of Constantine (6.
xvili.), to the Apostolical Constitutions (ii. 59), to
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. xviii.), and to a similar
use of “ Dominicum”’ by Cyprian, Jerome, Ruffi-
nus, ἕο. (4.) The possibility of its having passed
as a theological term from the Greek into the Teu-
tonic and Slavonian languages. (5.) The analogous
meaning and derivation of the Ethiopic word for
Church, which signifies “the house of Christ.”
On the other hand it requires little acquaintance
with philology to know that (1.) similarity of
sound proves nothing, and is capable of raising
only the barest presumption.
writer’s guess at an etymology is probably founded
wholly on similarity of sound, and is as worth-
less as the derivations with which St. Augus- |
tine’s works are disfigured (Moroni derives Chiesa
from κυριακόν in his Dizionario Storico ecclesi-
astico, and Walafrid Strabo derives the words
vater, mutter, from the Greek through the Latin,
herr from heros, moner and monath from μήνη,
in the same breath as hirche from κυριακόν).
(3.) Although κυριακόν is found, signifying ‘a
church,” it is no more the common term used by
Greeks, than Dominicum is the common term used
by Latins. It is therefore very unlikely that it
should have been adopted by the Greek missionaries
and teachers, and adopted by them so decidedly as
to be thrust into 4 foreign language. (4.) Nor is
there any probable way pointed out by which the
importation was effected. Walatrid Strabo, indeed
(loc. cit.), attributes it, not obscurely, so far as
the Teutonic tongues are concerned, to Ulfilas; ard
following him, Trench says (loc. cit.), ‘ These
Goths, the first converted to the Christian faith, the
first therefore that had a Christian vocabulavy, |
lent the word in their turn to the other German
' tribes, among others to our Anglo-Saxon forefathers.”
“Had it been so introduced, Ulfilas’ “ peaceful and |
populous colony of shepherds and herdsmen on the
pastures below Mount Haemus ” (Milman, i. 272)
could never have affected the language of the whole
Teutonic race in all its dialects. But in matter of
fact we find that the word employed by Ulfilas in
his version of the Scriptures is not any derivative
of κυριακόν ; but, as we should have expected,
attklésjo (Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor, xvi. 19 et passim).
This theory therefore falls to the ground, and with
it any attempt at showing the way in which the
word passed across into the Teutonic languages. No
special hypothesis has been brought forward to ac-
count for its admission into the Slavonic tongues, and
it is enough to say that, unless we have evidence to
the contrary, we are justified in assuming that the
Greek missionaries in the 9th century did not adopt
a term in their intercourse with strangers, which |
they hardly, if at all, used in ordinary conversation
(2.) A mediaeval |
CHURCH ci
amongst themselves. (5.) Further, there is no
reason why the word should haye passed into these
two languages rather than into Latin. The Roman
Church was in its origin a Greek community, and
it introduced the Greek word for Church into the
Latin tongue; but this word was not cyriacum ;
it was ecclesia; and the same influence would no
doubt have introduced the same word into the
noi'thern languages, had it introduced any word at all.
(6.) Finally, it is hard to find examples of a Greek
word being adopted into the Teutonic dialects,
except through the medium of Latin. On the whole,
this etymology must be abandoned. It is strange
that Strabo should have imposed it on the world so
long. It is difficult to say what is to be substi-
tuted. There was probably some word which, in
the language from which the Teutonic and Slavonic
are descended, designated the old heathen places of
religious assembly, and this word, having taken
different forms in different dialects, was adopted by the
Christian missionaries. It was probably connected
| with the Latin circus, ctrculus, and with the Greek
κύκλος, possibly also with the Welsh cylch, cyl,
| cynchle, or caer. Lipsius, who was the first to
| reject the received tradition, was probably right
| in his suggestion, ‘‘ Credo et a circo Kirck nostrum
esse, quia veterum templa instar Circi rotunda”
(Lpist. ad Belgas, Cent. iii. Ep. 44).
II. The word ἐκκλησία is no doubt derived from
ἐκκαλεῖν, and in accordance with its derivation it
originally meant an assembly called out by the ma-
| gistrate, or by legitimate authority. ‘his is the or-
| dinary classical sense of the word. But it throws no
| light on the nature of the institution so designated in
| the New Testament. For to the writers of the N. T.
| the word had now lost its primary signification, and
[was either used generally for any meeting (Acts
xix. 32), or more particularly, it denoted (1) the
| religious assemblies of the Jews (Deut. iy. 10, xviii.
| 16, ap. LXX.); (2) the whole assembly or congre-
| gation of the Israelitish people (Acts vii. 38 ; Heb.
ii, 12; Ps. xxii. 22; Deut. xxxi, 30; ap. LXX.):
| It was in this last sense, in which it answered to
Danis bmp, that the word was adopted and applied
_by the writers of the N. T. to the Christian congre-
| gation. The word ἐκκλησία, therefore, does not
| carry us back further than the Jewish Church. It
implies a resemblance and correspondence between
the old Jewish Church and the recently established
Christian Church, but nothing more. Its etymo-
| logical sense having been already lost when adopted
by and for Christians, is only misleading if pressed
too far. The chief difference between the words
‘ecclesia’ and “ church,” would probably consist
in this, that “ecclesia” primarily signified the
Christian body, and secondarily the place of as-
sembly, while the first signification of “church”
was the place of assembly, which imparted its
name to the body of worshippers.
Il. The Church as described in the Gospels.—
The word occurs only twice. Each time in St.
Matthew (Matt. xvi. 18, “On this rock will J
build my Church ;” xviii. 17, ‘Tell it unto the
Church”). In every other case it is spoken of as the
kingdom of heayen by St. Matthew, and as the
kingdom of God by St. Mark and St. Luke. St.
Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, never use the expres-
sion kingdom of heaven, St. John once uses the
phrase kingdom of God (iii. 3), St. Matthew occa-
sionally speaks of the kingdom of God (vi. 33, xxi.
31, 43), and sometimes simply of the kingdom (iv.
cli CHURCH
23, xiii. 19, xxiv. 14). In xiii. 41 and xvi. 28, it is
the Son of Man’s kingdom. In xx. 21, thy kingdom,
t.e. Christ’s. In the one Gospel of St. Matthew the
Church is spoken of no less than thirty-six times as
the Kingdom, Other descriptions or titles are hardly |
found in the Evangelists. It is Christ’s household
(Matt. x. 25), the salt and light of the world (v. 16,
15), Christ’s flock (Matt. xxvi. 31; John x. 1), its
members ave the branches gvowing on Christ the Vine
(John xv.): but the general description of it, not
metaphorically but directly, is, that it is a kingdom.
In Matt. xvi. 19, the kingdom of heaven is formally,
as elsewhere virtually, identified with ἐκκλησία.
From the Gospel then, we learn that Christ was
about to establish His heavenly kingdom on earth,
which was to be the substitute tor the Jewish
Church and kingdom, now doomed to destruction
(Matt. xxi. 43). Some of the qualities of this king-
dom are illustrated by the parables of the tares, the
mustard seed, the leaven, the hid treasure, the pearl, |
the draw-net: the spiritual Jaws and yrinciples by
which it is to be governed, by the parables of the
talents. the husbandmen, the wedding feast, and
the ten virgins. It is not of this world though in
it (John xviii. 36). It is to embrace all the na-
tions of the earth (Matt. xxviii. 19). The means
of entrance into it is Baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19).
The conditions of belonging to it are faith (Mark
xvi. 16) and obedience (Matt. xxviii. 20). Paitici-
pation in the Holy Supper is its perpetual token of
membership, and the means of supporting the life |
of its members (Matt. xxvi. 26; John vi. 515)
1 Cor. xi. 26). Its members are given to Christ
by the Father out of the world, and sent by Christ |
into the world; they are sanctified by the truth |
(John xvii. 19) ; and they are to live in love and |
unity, cognizable by the external world (John xiii.
34, xvii. 23). It is to be established on the Rock
of Christ’s Divinity, as confessed by Peter, the re-
presentative (for the moment) of the Apostles (Matt.
xvi. 18). It is to have authority in spiritual cases
(Matt. xviii. 17). It is to be never deprived of
Christ’s presence and protection (xxviii. 20), and to be |
᾿ Ρ
never overthrown by the power of hell (xviii. 19).
IV. Lhe Church as described in the Acts and in
the Epistles —its Origin, Nature, Constitution, and
Grouth.—From the Gospels we learn little in the
way of detail as to the kingdom which was to be
established. It was in the great torty days which
intervened between the Resurrection and the Ascen-
sion that our Lord explained specifically to His
Apostles “the things pertaining to the kingdom of
God” (Acts i. 3), that is, his future Church.
Its Origin.—The removal of Christ from the earth
had left his followers a shattered company with no
bond of external or internal cohesion, except the
memory of the Master whom they had lost,and the re-
collection of hisinjunctions to unity and love, together
with the occasional glimpses of His presence which |
were vouchsafed them. They continued together,
meeting for prayer and supplication, and waiting for
Christ’s promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
They numbered in all some 140 persons, namely,
the eleven, the faithful women, the Lord’s mother,
his brethren, and 120 disciples. ‘They had. faith to
believe that there was a work before them which
they were about to be called to perform ; and that
they might be ready to do it, they filled up the
number of the Twelve by the appointment of
Matthias *‘to be a true witness’’ with the eleven
“fof the Resurrection.”” The Day of Pentecost is
the birth-day of the Christian Church. The Spirit,
CHURCH
| who was then sent by the Son from the Father,
and rested on each of the Disciples, combined them
once more into a whole—combined them as they
never had before been combined, by an internal and
spiritual bond of cohesion, Before they had been
individual followers of Jesus, now they became his
mystical body, animated by His Spirit. The nu-
cleus was formed. Agglomeration and development
would do the rest.
Its Nature.—st. Luke explains its nature by
describing in narrative form the characteristics of
the society formed by the union of the original 140 ©
Disciples with the 3009 souls who were converted
on the Day of Pentecost. ‘Then they that gladly
received his word were baptized....and they con-
tinued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fel-
lowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers”
(Acts ii. 41). Here we have indirectly exhibited
the essential conditions of Church Communien.
They are (1) Baptism, Baptism implying on the
part of the recipient repentance and faith ; (2) Apos-
| tolic Doctrine; (3) Fellowship with the Apostles ;
| (4) the Lord’s Supper ; (5) Public Worship. Every
requisite for church-membership is here enumerated
not only for the Apostolic days, but for future
ages. ‘The conditions are exclusive as well as inclu-
sive, negative as well as positive. St. Luke’s deti-
nition of the Church, then, would be the congrega-
tion of the baptized, in which the faith of the
Apostles is maintained, connexion with the Apostles
is preserved, the Sacraments are duly administered,
and public worship is kept up. The earliest defi-
nition (virtually) given of the Church is likewise
the best. ‘To this body St. Luke applies the name
of «The Church” (the first time that the word is
used as denoting an existing thing) and to it, consti-
tuted as it was, he states that there were daily
added of σωζύμενοι (ii. 47). By this expression
he probably means those who were *‘ saving them-
selves from their untoward generation” (ii. 40),
“added,” however, “ to the Church” ποῦ by their
own mere volition, but “by the Lord,” and: so
_ become the elect. people of God, sanctified by His
| Spirit, and described by St. Paul as “delivered
from the power of darkness and translated into
the kingdom of His dear Son” (Col. i. 13). St.
| Luke’s treatise being historical, not dogmatical, he
| does not directly enter further into the essential
| nature of the Church. The community of goods,
which he describes as being universal amongst the
members of the infant society (ii. 44, iv. 32), is
specially declared to be a voluntary practice (v. 4),
not a necessary duty of Christians as such (comp.
Acts ix. 36, 39, xi. 29). Ρ
From the illustrations adopted by St. Paul in his
Epistles, we have additional light thrown upon the
nature of the Church. Thus (Rom. xi. 17), the
Christian Church is described as being a branch
grafted on the already existing olive-tree, showing
that it was no new creation, but a development
of that spiritual life which had flourished in the
Patriarchal and in the Jewish Church. It is de-
scribed (Rom. xii. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 12) as one body
made up of many members with different offices, to
exhibit. the close cohesion which ought to exist
| between Christian and Christian; still more it is
| described as the body, of which Christ is the Head
| (Eph. i, 22), so that members of His Church are
members of Christ’s body, of His flesh, of His bones
(Eph. v. 25, 30; Col. i. 18, ii, 19), to show the
close union between Christ and His people. Again,
as the temple of God built upon the foundation-
CHURCH
stone of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. iii. 11), and, by a
slight change of metaphor, as the temple in which
God dwells by His Spirit, the Apostles and pro-
phets forming the foundation, and Jesus Christ the
chief corner-stone, ὃ. 68. probably the foundation
corner-stone (Eph. ii. 22). It is also the city of
the saints and the household of God (Eph. ii. 19).
But the passage which is most illustrative of our
subject in the Epistles is Eph. iv. 3, 6. ‘* Endea>
vouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond
of peace. There is one body and one Spirit even
as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and Father
of all, who is above all, and through all, and
in you all?’ Here we see what it is that con-
stitutes the unity of the Church in the mind of the
Apostle: (1) unity of Headship, “one Lord;” (2)
unity of belief, ‘ one faith τ᾽ (3) unity of Sacra-
ments, “* one baptism ;”’ (4) unity of hope of eter-
nal Gey “one hope of your calling” (comp. Tit. i.
Hye (5) unity of love, ‘‘ unity of the Spirit in the
noe of peace ;” (6) unity of organisation, “ one
body.” ‘The Church, then, at this period was a
body of baptized men and women who believed in
Jesus as the Christ, and in the revelation made by
Him, who were united by having the same faith,
hope, and animating Spirit of love, the same Sacra-
ments, and the same spiritual invisible Head.
What was the Constitution of this body? —
On the evening of the Day of Pentecost, the 5140
members of which it consisted were (1) Apostles,
(2) previous Disciples, (3) converts. We never
afterwards find any distinction drawn between the
previous disciples and the later converts; but the
* Apostles throughout stand apart. Here, then, we
find two elasses, Apostles and converts—Teachers
and taught. At this time the Church was not
only morally but actually one congregation. Soon,
however, its numbers grew so considerably that
it was a physical impossibility that all its mem-
bers should come together in one spot. It
became, therefore, an aggregate of congregations.
But its essential unity was not affected by the acci-
dental necessity of meeting in separate rooms for
public worship ; the bond of cohesion was still the
same. The Apostles, who had been closest to the
Lord Jesus in his life on earth would doubtless have
formed the centres of the several congregations of
listening believers, and besides attending at the
Temple for the national Jewish prayer (Acts iii, 1),
and for the purpose of preaching Christ (ii. 42),
they would have gone round to “ every Hae
where their converts assembled ‘teaching and
preaching,” and “ breaking bread,” and “ distribut-
ing’ the common goods “as each had need ” (ii.
46, iv. 35, v.42). Thus the Church continued tor
apparently some seven years, but at the end of that
time ‘the number of disciples was”’ so greatly
“multiplied ” (Acts vi. 1) that the Twelve Apos-
tles found themselves to be too few to carry out
these works unaided. They thereupon for the first
time exercised the powers of mission intrusted to
them (John xx. 21), and by laying their hands on
the Seven who were recommended to them by the
general body of Christians, they appointed them to
tulfil the secular task of distributing the common
stock, which they had themselves hitherto per-
formed, retaining the functions of praying, and
preaching, and administering the sacraments in their
own hands. It is a question which cannot be cer-
tainly answered whether the office of these Seven is
to be identified with that of the διάκονοι elsewhere
CHURCH ctl
found, They are not called deacons in Seripture, and
it has been supposed by some that they were extra-
ordinary officers appointed for the occasion to see
that the Hellenistic widows had their fir share of
the goods distributed amongst the poor believers,
and that they had no successors in their office. If this
be so, we have no account given us of the institu-
tion of the Diaconate: the Deacons, like the Pres-
byters, are found existing, but the circumstances
under which they were brought into existence are
not related. We incline, however, to the other
hypothesis which makes the Seven the originals of
the Deacons. Being found apt to teach, they were
likewise invested, almost immediately after their
appointment, with the power of preaching to the
unconverted (vi. 10) and of baptizing (viii. 38).
From this time therefore, or from about this time,
there existed in the Church—(1) the Apostles ; (2)
the Deacons and Evangelists; (3) tne multitude of
the faithful. We hear of no other Church-oflicer
till the year 44, seven years after the appointment
of the deacons. We find that there were then in
the Church of Jerusalem officers named Presbyters
(xi. 30) who were the assistants of James, the chief
administrator of that Church (xii. 17). The cir-
cumstances of their first appointment are not re-
counted, No doubt they were similar to those under
which the Deacons were appointed. As in the year
37 the Apostles found that the whole work of the
ministry was too great for them, and they therefore
placed a portion of it, viz. distributing alms to the
brethren and preaching Christ to the heathen, on the
‘deacons, so a few years later they would have found
that what they still retained was yet growing too
burdensome, and consequently they devolved another
portion of their ministerial authority on another
order of men. ‘The name of Presbyter or Elder
implies that the men selected were of mature age.
We gather incidentally that they were ordained by
Apostolic or other authority (xiv. 23, Tit. i. δ).
We find them associated with the Apostles as dis-
tinguished from the main body of the Church
(Acts xv. 2, 4), and again as standing between the
Apostles and the brethren (xv. 23). Their office
was to pasture the Church of God (xx. 28), to rule
(1 Tim. v. 17) the flocks over which the Holy Ghost
had made them overseers or bishops (Acts xx, 28;
Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii, 1,2; Tit.i. 7), and to pray
with and for the members of their congregations
(Jam. v. 14). Thus the Apostles would seem to
have invested these Presbyters with the full powers
which they themselves exercised, excepting only in
respect to those functions which they discharged
in relation to the general regimen of the whole
Church as distinct from the several congregations
which formed the whole body. These functions
they still reserved to themselves, By the year 44,
therefore, there were in the Church of Jerusa-
lem—(1) the Apostles holding the government of
the whole body in their own hands; (2) Presbyters
invested by the Apostles with authority for con-
ducting public worship in each congregation ; (3)
Deacons or Ev angelists similarly invested with the
lesser power of preaching and of baptizing unbe-
lievers, and of distributing the common goods amorg
the brethren. The same order was established in the
Gentile Churches founded by St. Paul, the only dif-
ference being that those who were called Presbyters
in Jerusalem bore indifferently the name of Bishops
(Phileyi. 1.5: ‘Ls Tims dite dys 25% Tit. in 7) ones
Presbyters (1 Tim. v. 17; Tit. i. 5) elsewhere.
It was in the Church of Jerusalem that another
CHURCH
order of the ministry found its exemplar. The
Apostles, we find, remained in Jerusalem (Acts viii.
1) or in the neighbourhood (viii. 14) till the perse-
cution of Herod Agrippa in the year 44. The
death of James the son of Zebedee, and the impri-
sonment and flight of Peter, were the signal for the
dispersion of the Apostles. One remained behind—
James the brother of the Lord, whom we identify
with the Apostle, James the son of Alphaeus
[James]. He had not the same cause of dread as
the rest. His Judaical asceticism and general cha-
vacter would have made him an object of popu-
larity with his countrymen, and even with the
Pharisaical Herod. He remained unmolested, and
from this time he is the acknowledged head of the
Church of Jerusalem. A consideration of Acts xii.
17 ; xv. 13,19; Gal. ii. 2, 9,125; Acts xxi. 18, will
yemove all doubt on this head. Indeed, four years
before Herod’s persecution he had stood, it would
seem, on a level with Peter (Gal. i. 18, 19; Acts
ix. 27), and it has been thought that he received
special instructions for the functions which he had
to fulfil from the Lord Himself (1 Cor, xv. 7;
Acts i. 3). Whatever his pre-eminence was, he
appears to have borne no special title indicating it.
The example of the Mother Church of Jerusalem
was again followed by the Pauline Churches, — Ti-
mothy and Titus had probably no distinctive title,
but it is impossible to read the Epistles addressed
to them without seeing that they had an authority
superior to that of the ordinary bishops or priests
with regard to whose conduct and ordination St.
Paul gives them instruction (1 Tim. iii.; v. 17,
19; Tit.i.5). Thus, then, we see that where the
Apostles were themselves able to superintend the
Churches that they had founded, the Church-officers
consisted of—(1) Apostles; (2) Bishops or Priests ;
(3) Deacons and Evangelists. When the Apostles
were unable to give personal superintendence, they
delegated that power which they had in common to
one of themselves, as in Jerusalem, or to one in
whom they had confidence, as at Ephesus and in
Crete. As the Apostles died off, these Apostolic
Delegates necessarily multiplied. By the end of
the first century, when St. John was the only
Apostle that now survived, they would have been
established in every country, as Crete, and in every
large town where there were several bishops or
priests, such as the seven towns of Asia mentioned
in the Book of Revelation. These superintendents
appear to be addressed by St. John under the name
of Angels, With St. John’s death the Apostolic
College was extinguished, and the Apostolic Dele-
gates or Angels were left to fill their places in the
government of the Church, not with the full unre-
stricted power of the Apostles, but with authority
only to be exercised in limited districts. In the
next century we find that these officers bore the
name of Bishops, while those who in the first cen-
tury were called indifferently Presbyters or Bishops
had now only the title of Presbyters. We con-
clude, therefore, that the title bishop was gradually
dropped by the second order of the ministry, and
applied specifically to those who represented what
James, Timothy, and Titus had been in the Apostolic
age. Theodoret says expressly, ‘‘ The same persons
were anciently called promiscuously both bishops
and presbyters, whilst those who are now called
bishops were called apostles, but shortly after, the
name of apostle was appropriated to such as were
apostles indeed, and then the name bishop was given to
these before called apostles” (Com. in I. Tim. iii. 1).
οἷν
CHURCH
There are other names found in the Acts and
in the Epistles which the light thrown backward
by early ecclesiastical history shows us to have been
the titles of those who exercised functions which
were not destined to continue in the Church, but
only belonging to it while it was being brought
into being by help of miraculous agency. Such
are prophets (Acts xiii. 1; Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii.
28; Eph. iv. 11), whose function was to proclaim
and expound the Christian revelation, and to inter-
pret God’s will, especially as veiled in the Old Tes-
tament; teachers (Acts xiii. 1; Rom. xii. 7; 1
Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11) and pastors (Eph, iv. 11)
whose special work was to instruct those already
admitted into the fold, as contrasted with the
evangelists (ibid.) who had primarily to instruct
the heathen. Prophecy is one of the extraordinary
χαρίσματα which were vouchsafed, and is to be
classed with the gifts of healing, of speaking ecsta-
tically with tongues, of interpretation of tongues,
i. ὁ. explanation of those ecstatic utterances, and dis-
cernment of spirits, 7.e. a power of distinguishing
between the real and supposed possessors of spiritual
gifts (1 Cor. xii.). Teaching (χάρισμα διδασκαλίας,
Rom, xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 28) is one of the ordinary
gifts, and is to be classed with the word of wisdom
and the word of knowledge (1 Cor. xii. 8), perhaps
with ‘‘ faith ” (ib. 9), with the gift of government
(χάρισμα κυβερνήσεως, ib. 28), and with the
gift of ministration (χάρισμα διακονίας or ἄντι-
λήψεως, Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 28). These
χαρίσματα, whether extraordinary or ordinary,
were “divided to every man as the Spirit willed,”
according to the individual character of each, and
not officially. Those to whom the gifts of pro-
phecy, teaching, and government were vouchsafed
were doubtless selected for the office of Presbyter,
those who had the gift of ministration for the
office of Deacon. In the Apostles they all alike
resided.
Its external Growth.—The 3000 souls that were
added to the Apostles and to the 120 brethren on
the day of Pentecost were increased daily by new
converts (Acts ii. 47, v. 14). These converts were
without exception Jews residing in Jerusalem,
whether speaking Greek or Hebrew (vi. 1). After
seven or eight years a step was made outwards.
The persecution which followed the martyrdom of
Stephen drove away the adherents of the new
doctrines, with the exception of the Apostles, and
« they that were scattered abroad went everywhere
preaching the word” to the Jews of the Dispersion.
Philip, in his capacity of Evangelist, preached
Christ to the Samaritans, and admitted them into
the Church by baptism. In Philistia he made the
first Gentile convert, but this act did not raise the
question of the admission of the Gentiles, because
the Ethiopian eunuch was already a proselyte (viii.
27), and probably a proselyte of Righteousness.
Cornelius was a proselyte of the Gate (x. 2). The
first purely Gentile convert that we hear of by
name is Sergius Paulus (xiii. 7), but we are told
that Cornelius’ companions were Gentiles, and by
their baptism the admission of the Gentiles was de-
cided by the agency of St. Peter, approved by the
Apostles and Jewish Church (xi. 18), not, as might
have been expected, by the agency of St. Paul. This
great event took place after the peace caused by
Caligula’s persecution of the Jews, which occurred
A.D, 40 (ix. 51), and more than a year before the
famine, in the time of Claudius, A.D. 44 (xi. 26,
29). Galilee had already been evangelized as well
CHURCH
as Judaea and Samaria, though the special agent in
the work is not declared (ix. 31).
The history of the growth of the Gentile Church,
so far as we know it, is identical with the history
of St. Paul. In his three journeys he carried
Christianity through the chief cities of Asia Minor
and Greece. His method appears almost invari-
ably to have been this: he presented himself on the
Sabbath at the Jewish synagogue, and having first
preached the doctrine of a suffering Messiah, he
next identified Jesus with the Messiah (xvii. 3).
His arguments on the first head were listened to
with patience by all, those on the second point
wrought conviction in some (xvii, 4), but roused
the rest to persecute him (xvii. 5). On finding his
words rejected by the Jews he turned from them to
the Gentiles (xviii. 6, xxviii. 28). His captivity in
Rome, A.D. 63-65, had the elfect of forming a Church
out of the Jewish and Greek residents in the impe-
vial city, who seem to have been joined by a few
Italians. His last journey may have spread the
“Gospel westward as far as Spain (Rom. xv, 28 ;
Clemens, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom). ‘The death
of James at Jerusalem and of Peter and Paul at
Rome, A. D. 67, leaves one only of the Apostles
presented distinctly to our view. In the year 70
Jerusalem was captured, and before St. John fell
asleep, in 98, the Petrine and Pauline converts, the
Churches of the circumcision and of the uncircum-
cision, had melted into one harmonious and accord-
ant body, spreading in scattered congregations at
the least from Babylon to Spain, and from Macedonia
to Africa. How far Christian doctrine may have
penetrated beyond these limits we do not know.
Its further Growth.—As this is not an ecclesias-
tical history, we can but glance at it. There were
three great impulses which enlarged the borders of
the Church. The first is that which began on
the day of Pentecost, and continued down to the
conversion of Constantine. By this the Roman
Empire was converted to Christ, and the Church
was, speaking roughly, made conterminous with
the civilized world, ‘The second impulse gathered
within her borders the hitherto barbarous nations
formed by the Teutonic and Celtic tribes, thus win-
ning, or in spite of the overthrow of the Empire,
retaining the countries of France, Scotland, Ireland,
England, Lombardy, Germany, Denmark, Sweden,
Norway. ‘The third impulse gathered in the Sla-
vonian nations. ὙΠῸ first of these impulses lasted
to the fourth century—the second to the ninth
century—the third (beginning before the second
had ceased) to the tenth and eleventh centuries,
We do not reckon the Nestorian missionary efforts
in the seventh century in Syria, Persia, India, and
China, nor the post-Keformation exertions of the
Jesuits in the East and West Indies, for these
attempts have produced no permanent results. Nor
again do we speak of the efforts now being made
in Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, because
it has not yet been proved, except perhaps in the
case of New Zealand, whether they will be suc-
cessful in bringing these countries within the fold
of Christ.
V. Alterations in its Constitution—We have
said that ecclesiastical authority resided (1) in
the Apostles; (2) in the Apostles and the Deacons ;.
(3) in the Apostles, the Presbyters, and the
CHURCH cy
Deacons; (4) in the Apostolic Delegates, the Pres-
byters, and the Deacons; (5) in those who suc-
ceeded the Apostolic Delegates, the Presbyters, and
the Deacons, And to these successors of the Apos-
tolic Delegates came to be appropriated the title of
Bishop, which was originally applied to Presbyters.
At the commencement of the second century and
thenceforwards Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are
the officers of the Church wherever the Church
existed. Ignatius’ Epistles (in their unadulterated
form) and the other records which are preserved to
us are on this point decisive. (See Pearson’s Vindiciae
Ignatianae, part ii. ο. xiii. p. 534, ed. Churton.)
Bishops were looked on as Christ’s Vicegerents
(Cyprian, Zp. 55 (or 59) with Rigaltius’ notes),
and as having succeeded to the Aposties (Id. Lp.
69 (or 66) and 42 (or 45) Firmilian, Jerome),
every bishop’s see being entitled a ‘“ sedes aposto-
lica.”” They retained in their own hands authority
over presbyters and the function of ordination, but
with respect to each other they were equals whether
their see was “ at Rome or at Eugubium.”
Within this equal college of bishops there soon
arose difference of rank though not of order. Below
the city-bishops there sprang up a class of country-
bishops (chorepiscopi) answering to the archdeacons
of the English Church, except that they had re-
ceived episcopal consecration (Hammond, Beveridge,
Cave, Bingham), and were enabled to perform some
episcopal acts with the sanction of the city-bishops.
Their position was ambiguous, and in the fifth cen-
tury they began to decay and giadually died out.*
Above the city-bishops there were, in the second
century apparently, Metropolitans, and in the third,
Patriarchs or Exarchs. The metropolitan was the
chief bishop in the civil division of the empire
which was called a province (ἐπαρχία). His see
was at the metropolis of the province, and he pre-
sided over his suffvagans with authority similar
to, but greater than, that which is exercised in
their respective provinces by the two archbishops
in England. The authority of the patriarch or
exarch extended over the still larger division of the
civil empire which was called a dioecese. The eccle-
siastical was framed in accordance with the exi-
gencies and after the model of the civil polity.
When Constantine, therefore, divided the empire
into 13 dioeceses, ‘‘ each of which equalled the just
measure of a powerful kingdom ”’ (Gibbon, ¢. xviii.),
the Church came to be distributed into 13 (includ-
ing the city and neighbomhood of Rome, 14) dioe-
cesan, or, as we should say, national churches.
There was no external bond of government to hold
these churches together. They were independent
selfruled wholes, combined together into one greater
whole by having one invisible Head and one ani-
mating Spirit, by maintaining each the same faith
and exercising each the same discipline. The only
authority which they recognised as capable of
controlling their separate action, was that of an
Oecumenical Council composed of delegates from
each ; and these Councils passed canon after canon
forbidding the interference of the bishop of any one
divecese, that is, district, or country, with the bishop
of any other dioecese. ‘* Bishops outside a " dioe-
cese” are not to invade the Churches across the
borders, nor bring confusion into the Churches,”
says the second canon of the Council of Constan-
2 An attempt was made to resuscitate this class in
England, under tbe title of suffragan bishops, by the still
unrepealed 26th Henry VIII. ο. 14, by which twenty-six
towns were named as the seats of bishops, who were to
act under the bishops of the diocese in which they were
situated.
CHURCH
tinople, ‘lest,’ says the eighth canon of the
Council of Ephesus, “the pride of worldly power
be introduced under cover of the priestly function,
and by little and little we be deprived of the liberty
which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men,
has given us by his own blood.” But there was
a stronger power at work than any which could be
controlled by canons. Rome and Constantinople
were each the seats of imperial power, and symp-
toms soon began to appear that the patriarchs of
the imperial cities were rival claimants of imperial
power in the Church. Rome was in a better po-
sition for the struggle than Constantinople, for,
besides having the prestige of being Old Rome, she
was also of Apostolic foundation. Constantinople
could not boast an Apostle as her founder, and she
was but New Rome. Still the imperial power was
strong in the East when it had fallen in the West,
and furthermore the Council of Chalcedon had so
far dispensed with the canons and with precedent
in respect to Constantinople as to grant the patri-
arch jurisdiction over three dioeceses, to establish a
right of appeal toe Constantinople from any part of
the Church, and to confirm the decree of the second
Council, which elevated the see of Constantinople
above that of Alexandria and of Antioch. It was
by the Pope of Constantinople that the first overt
attempt at erecting a Papal Monarchy was made;
and by the Pope of Rome, in consequence, it was
fiercely and indignantly denounced. John of Con-
stantinople, said Gregory the Great, was destroying
the patriarchal system of government (lib. v. 43 ;
ix. 68); by assuming the profane appellation of
Universal Bishop he was anticipating Antichrist
(lib. vii. 27, 33), invading the rights of Christ,
and imitating the devil (lib. v. 18). John of
Constantinople failed. The successors of Gregory
adopted as their own the claims which John had
not been able to assert, and on the basis of the
False Decretals of Isidore, and of Gvatian’s Decre-
tum, Nicholas I., Gregory VII., and Innocent. III.
reared the structure of the Roman in place of the
Constantinopolitan Papal Monarchy. From this
time the federal character of the constitution of the
Church was overthrown. In the West it became
wholly despotic, and in the East, though the theory
of aristocratical government was and is maintained,
the still-cherished title of Oecumenical Patriarch in-
dicates that it is weakness which has prevented Con-
stantinople from erecting at least an Eastern if she
could not an Universal Monarchy. In the sixteenth
century a further change of constitution occurred.
A great part of Europe revolted from the Western
despotism. The Churches of England and Sweden
returned to, or rather retained, the episcopal form
of government after the model of the first centuries.
In parts of Germany, of France, of Switzerland, and
of Great Britain a Presbyterian, or still less defined,
form was adopted, while Rome tightened her hold
on her yet remaining subjects, and by destroying all
peculiarities of national liturgy and custom, and,
by depressing the order of bishops except as inter-
preters of her decrees, converted that part of the
Church over which she had sway into a jealous
centralized absolutism.
VI. Lhe existing Church.—Its members fall into
three broadly-marked groups, the Greek Churches,
the Latin Churches, the Teutonic Churches. The
orthodox Greek Church consists of the Patriarchate
ΟΥ̓
Ὁ See Canons ν., vi. of Nicaea; ii., iii., vi. of Constan-
Uinople; i., viii, of Ephesus; ix., xvii., xxvii, xxx., of
Chalcedon.
CHURCH
of Constantinople with 135 sees, of. Alexandria with
4 sees, of Antioch with 16 sees, of Jerusalem with
13 sees, of the Russian Church with 65 sees ; besides
which, there are in Cyprus 4 sees, in Austria 11
sees, in Mourt Sinai 1 see, in Montenegro 1 see, in
Greece 24 sees. To these must be added—(1.) the
Nestorian or Chaldaean Church, once spread from
China to the Tigris, and from Lake Baikal to Cape
Comorin, and ruled by twenty-five Metropolitans and
a Patriarch possessing a plenitude of power equal
to that of Innocent III. (Neale, Hastern Church, i.
143), but now shrunk to 16 sees. (2.) The Chris-
tians of St. Thomas under the Bishop of Malabar.
(3.) The Syrian Jacobites under the Patriarch of
Antioch resident at Caramit or Diarbekir. (4.) The ~
Maronites with 9 sees. (5.) The Copts with 13
sees. (6.) The savage, but yet Christian Abyssi-
nians, and (7.) the Armenians, the most intelligent
and active minded, but at the same time the most
distracted body of Eastern believers. ;
The Latin Churches are those of Italy with 262
sees, of Spain with 54, of France with 81, of Por-
tugal with 17, of Belgium and Holland with 11, of
Austria with 64, of Germany with 24, of Switzerland
with 5. Besides these, the authority of the Roman
See is acknowledged by 63 Asiatic bishops, 10
African, 136 American, 43 British, and 56 Pre-
lates scattered through the countries where the
Church of Greece is predominant.
The Teutonic Churches consist of the Anglican
communion with 48 sees in Europe, 51 in Canada,
America, and the West Indies, 8 in Asia, 8 in Africa,
and 15 in Australia and Oceanica; of the Church
of Norway and Sweden, with 17 sees; of the Churches
of Denmark, Prussia, Holland, Scotland, and scat-
tered congregations elsewhere. The members of the
Greek Churches are supposed to number 80,000,000,
of the Teutonic and Protestant Churches 90,000,000,
of the Latin Churches 170,000,000, making a total
of 25 per cent. of the population of the globe.
VII. Definitions of the Church—The Greek
Church gives the following: “The Church is a
divinely instituted community of men, united by
the orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy,
and the Sacraments” (Full Catechism of the Ortho-
dox, Catholic, Eastern Church, Moscow, 1839).
The Latin Church defines it ‘‘ the company of
Christians knit together by the profession of the
same faith and the communion of the same sacra-
ments, under the government of lawful pastors, and
especially of the Roman bishop as the only Vicar of
Christ upon earth” (Bellarm. De Heel. Mil. iti. 2;
see also Devoti Znst. Canon. 1, ὃν. Romae, 1818).
The Church of England, “ a congregation of faithful
men in which the pure word of God is preached, and
the Sacraments be duly ministered according to
Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity
are requisite to the same” (Art. xix.). The Lutheran
Church, “a congregation of saints in which the
Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly
administered ἡ (Confessio Augustana, 1631, Art.
vii.). The Confessio Helvetica, ‘‘ a congregation of
faithful men called, or collected out of the world,
the communion of all saints” (Art: xvii.). The
Confessio Saxonica, ‘*a congregation of men em-
bracing the Gospel of Christ, and rightly using the
Sacraments’’ (Art. xii.). The Confessio Belgica,
“a true congregation, or assembly of all faithful
Christians who look for the whole of their salvation
from Jesus Christ alone, as being washed by His
blood, and sanctified and sealed by His Spirit ”
(Art. xxvii.).
CHURCH
These definitions show the difficulty in which the
different sections of the divided Church find them-
selves in framing a definition which will at once
accord with the statements of Holy Scripture, and
be applicable to the present state of the Christian
world. We have seen that according to the Scrip-
tural view the Church is a holy kingdom, esta-
blished by God on earth, of which Christ is the
invisible King—it is a divinely organized body, the
members of which are knit together amongst them-
selves, and joined to Christ their Head, by the Holy
Spirit, who dwells in and animates it; it is a spi-
ritual but visible society of men united by constant
succession to those who were personally united to
the Apostles, holding the same faith that the Apostles
held, administering the same sacraments, and like
them forming separate, but only locally separate,
assemblies, for the public worship of God. This is
the Church according to the Divine intention. But
as God permits men to mar the perfection of His
designs in their behalf, and as men have both cor-
rupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the
Church, we must not expect to. see the Church of
Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on
earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in
the collected ‘fragments of Christendom, or still less
in any one of these fragments ; though it is possible
that one of those fragments more than another may
approach the Scriptural and Apostolic ideal which
existed only until sin, heresy, and schism, had time
sufficientiy to develop themselves to do their work.
It has been questioned by some whether Hooker,
in his anxious desire after charity and liberality, has
not founded his definition of the Church upon too
wide a basis; but it is certain that he has pointed
out the true principle on which the definition must
be framed (Weel. Pol. v. 68,6). As in defining a
man, he says, we pass by those qualities wherein
one man excels another, and take only those essen-
tial properties whereby a man differs from creatures
of other kinds, so in defining the Church, which is
a technical name for the professors of the Christian
religion, we must fix our attention solely on that
which makes the Christian religion differ from the
religions which are not Christian. This difference
is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus
Christ, his revelation, and his precepts for the object
of its contemplations and the motive of its actions.
The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknow-
ledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Saviour of |
mankind, who give credit to His Gospel, and who
hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in
honour. To go further, would be not to define the
Church by that which makes it to be what it is,
i. e. to declare the being of the Ckurch, but to
define it by accidents, which may conduce to its
well being, but do not touch its innermost nature.
From this view of the Church the important conse-
quence follows, that all the baptized belong to the
visible Church, whatever be their divisions, crimes,
misbeliefs, provided only they are not plain apostates,
and directly deny aud utterly reject the Christian
faith, as far as the same is professedly different from
infidelity. ‘* Heretics as touching those points of doc-
trine in which they fail; schismatics as touching the
quarrels for which or the duties in which they divide
themselves from their brethren; loose, licentious,
and wicked persons, as touching their several offences
or crimes, have all forsaken the true Church of
God—the Church which is sound and sincere in the
doctrine which they corrupt, the Church that
keepeth the bond of unity which they violate, the
CHURCH
Church that walketh in the laws of righteousness
which they transgress, this very true Church of
Christ they have left—howbeit, not altogether left
nor forsaken simply the Church, upon the founda-
tion of which they continue built notwithstanding
these breaches whereby they are rent at the top
asunder’ (v. 68, 7).
VII. Lhe Faith, Attributes, and Notes of the
Church.—The Nicene Creed is the especial and
authoritative exponent of the Church’s faith, having
been adopted as such by the Oecumenical Councils
of Nicaea and Constantinople, and ever afterwards
regarded as the sacred summary of Christian doc-
trine. We have the Western form of the same Creed
in that which is called the Creed of the Apostles—
a name probably derived from its having been the
local Creed of Rome, which was the chief Apostolic
see of the West. An expansion of the same Creed,
made in order to meet the Arian errors, is found in
the Creed of St. Athanasius. The Confessions of
Faith of the Synod of Bethlehem (a.D. 1672), of
the Council of Trent (commonly known as Pope
Pius’ Creed, A.D. 1564), of the Synod of London’
(A.D. 1562), of Augsburg, Switzerland, Saxony, &c.,
stand on a lower level, as binding on the members
of certain portions of the Church, but not being the
Church’s Creeds. The attributes of the Church are
drawn from the expressions of the Creeds. The
Church is described as One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.
Its Unity consists in having one object of worship
(Eph. iv. 6), one Head (Eph. iv. 15), one body
(Rom. xii. 5), one Spirit (Eph. iv. 4), one faith
(ib. 13), hope (ib. 12), love (1 Cor. xiii. 13), the same
sacraments (ib. x. 17), discipline and worship (Acts
ii. 42). Its Holiness depends on its Head and Spirit,
the means of grace which it offers, and the holiness
that it demands of its members (Eph. iv. 24). Its
Catholicity consists in its being composed of many
national Churches, not confined as the Jewish Church
to one country (Mark xvi. 15); in its enduring to the
end of time (Matt. xxviii. 20); in its teaching the
whole truth, and having at its disposal all the means
of grace vouchsafed to man. Its Apostolicity in
being built on the foundation of the Apostles (Eph.
ii. 20), and continuing in their doctrine and fellow-
ship (Acts ii. 42). The notes of the Church are
given by Bellarmine and theologians of his school,
as being the title “ Catholic,” antiquity, succession,
extent, papal succession, primitive doctrine, unity,
sanctity, efficacy of doctrine, holiness of its authors,
miracles, prophecy, confession of foes, unhappy end
of opponents, temporal good-fortune (Bellarm.
Contr. tom. ii. lib. iv. p. 1293, Ingoldst. 1580) :
by Dean Field as (1) the complete profession of the
Christian faith; (2) the use of certain appointed
ceremonies aud sacraments; (3) the union of men
in their profession and in the use of these sacraments
under lawful pastors (Of the Church, bk. ii. ὁ. ii.
p- 65). It is evident that the notes by which the
Church is supposed to be distinguished must differ
according to the definition of the Church accepted
by the theologian who assigns them, because the true
notes of a thing must necessarily be the essential
properties of that thing. But each theologian is
likely to assume those particulars in Which he
believes his own branch or part of the Church to
excel others as the notes of the Church Universal.
IX. Distinctions.—* For lack of diligent obsery-
ing the differences first between the Church of God
mystical and visible, then between the visible
sound and corrupted, sometimes more sometimes
less, the oversights are neither tew nor licht that
evil
CHURCH
have been committed’ (Hooker, Zeel. Pol. iii. 1, 9).
The word Church is employed to designate (1) the
place in which Christians assemble to worship (pos-
sibly 1 Cor. xiv. 19); (2) a household of Christians
(Col. iv. 15); (3) a congregation of Christians as-
sembling from time to time for worship, but gene-
rally living apart from each other (Rom. xvi. 1);
(4) a body of Christians living in one city as-
sembling for worship in different congregations and
at different times (1 Cor. i. 1); (5) a body of
Christians residing in a district or country (1 Cor.
xiii.); (6) the whole visible Church, including
sound and unsound members, that is, all the bap-
tised professors of Christianity, orthodox, heretical,
and schismatical, moral or immoral ; (7) the visible
Church exclusive of the manifestly unsound mem-
bers, that is, consisting of those who appear to be
orthodox and pious; (8) the mystical or invisible
Church, that is, the body of the elect known to
God alone who are in very deed justified and sancti-
fied, and never to be plucked out of their Saviour’s
hands, composed of the Church Triumphant and of
some members of the Church Militant (John x. 28;
Heb. xii. 22); (9) the Church Militant, that is, the
Church in its warfare on earth—identical therefore
with the Church visible; (10) the Church Tri-
umphant, consisting of those who have passed from
this world, expectant of glory now in Paradise, and
to be glorified hereafter in heaven. The word may
be fairly used in any of these senses, but it is plain
that if it is employed by controversialists without a
clear understanding in which sense it is used, inex-
tricable confusion must arise. And such in fact has
been the case.
X. Literature.—On the Nature of the Church
the following books may be consulted :—Cyprian,
De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op. p. 75, Amst. 1700.
Vincentius Lirinensis, Commonitorium, Vien. 1809 ;
in English, Oxf. 1841. Cranmer, Works, i. 376,
i. 11, Cambr. 1843. Ridley, Conference with
Latimer, p. i122, Cambr. 1843. Hooper, Works, ii.
41, Cambr. 1852. Becon, Works, i. 293, ii. 41,
Cambr. 1843. Hooker, Zccles. Polity, iii. 1, v. 68,
§6 and 78, Oxf. 1863. Bellarmine, De Conciliis
et Ecclesia Disputat. i. 1084, Ingolds. 1580.
Andrewes, Works, viii. Oxf. 1854. Field, Of the
Church, Cambr. 1847, Laud, Conference with
Fisher, Oxf. 1849. Jeremy Taylor, Works, v.
Lond. 1849. Bramhall, Works, i. ii. iii. Oxf.
1842. Thorndike, Works, i.-vi. Oxf. 1844. Be-
veridge, On Art. XIX., Works, vii. 357, and De
Metropolitanis, xii. 38, Oxf. 1848. Hammond,
Works, ii. Oxf. 1849. Pearson, Exposition of the
Creed, Art. IX. Oxf. 1833. Bingham, Antiqui-
ties of the Christian Church, Lond. 1856; and in
Latin, Halae, 1751. De Marea, De Concordia
Sucerdotu et Imperii, Paris, 1663. Thomassini,
Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, Lucae, 1728.
Palmer, Yreatise on the Church, Lond. 1842.
Gladstone, Zhe State in its relations with the
Church, Lond. 1839 ; Church Principles considered
in their results, Lond. 1840. Wordsworth, Theo-
philus Anglicanus, Lond, 1857, and in French,
1861. Harold Browne, Haxposition of the ΧΑ ΣΤᾺ.
Articles, On Art. XIX. Lond. 1862. — Bates,
Lectures on Christian Antiquities, Lond. 1845.
Hook, Chureh Dictionary, Lond. 1852. Coxe,
Calendar of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, New York, 1863.
On the History of the Catholic Church. Euse-
bius, Historia Leclesiastica, Oxon. 1838, and (to-
gether with his continuators, Socrates, Sozomen,
eviil
COLLEGE
Theodoret, Evagrius, Philostorgius, and Theodorus
Lector) Cantab. 1720. Mansi, Conciliorum Col-
lectio, Florence, 1759; Centuriae Magdeburgenses,
Basil, 1559. Baronius, Annales Lcclesiastici,
Lueae, 1738. Gibbon, Roman Lmpire, ec. xv.
Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, Brux. 1713. Tille-
mont, Mémoires pour servir aU histoire ecclésiastique
des six premiers siecles, Paris, 1701. Mosheim,
Inst. Histor. Ecclesiast. Helmst. 1755, and in re-
vised translation by Stubbs, Lond. 1863, Neander,
Aligem. Geschichte der Christl. Relig. u. Kirche,
Hamb. 1825; and in T. T. Clark’s translation,
Edinb. 1854. Dollinger, Geschichte der Christl.
Kirche, 1833, and in Cox’s translation, Lond. 1840.
Gieseler, Compendium of Ecclesiastical History ;
Kurtz, History of the Christian Church; Baum-
garten, Apostolic History, all in T. T. Clark’s
series, Edinb, 1854-1860. Cave, Lives of the
Fathers, Oxf. 1840; and Scriptorum Ecclesiasti-
corum Historia Literaria, Oxf. 1740; D’ Aubigné,
History of the Reformation, London, 1838. Bates,
Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, Lond. 1852.
Blunt, Church in the Three first Centuries, Lond.
1856. Hardwick, History of the Christian Church,
Cambr. 1853-1856. Robertson, History of the
Christian Church, Lond. 1854. Bright, History of
the Church, Oxf. 1860. De Pressensé, Histoire
Ecclesiastique, Paris, 1858.
On the History of the Eastern Church.—Le
Quien, Oriens Christicnus, Paris, 1732. Assemani,
Bibliotheca Orientalis, Rome, 1765. Renaudot,
Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, Pavis, 1720.
Mouravieff, Church of Russia, Oxf. 1842. Neaie,
Holy Eastern Church, Lond. 1847, and 1850.
Badger, The Nestorians and their Ritual, Lond.
1852. Palmer, Dissertations on the Orthodox
Communion, Lond. 1853. Stanley, Lectwres on
the Eastern Church, Lond. 1862.
On the History of the Latin Church.—Milman,
Latin Christianity, Lond. 1854. Greenwood,
Cathedra Petri, Lond. 1858. Ranke, History of
the Popes, translated by Sarah Austin, Lond. 1851.
On the History of the Church of England.—Bede,’
Histor, Ecclesiast. Gentis Anglorum, Oxf, 1846.
Ussher, Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates,
Works, v. vi. Collier, Ecclesiastical History of
Great Britain, Lond. 1845. Burnet, History of
the Reformation of the Church of England, Oxt.
1829. Southey, Book of the Church, Lond. 1837.
Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Biography, Lond.
1839. Short, Sketch of the History of the Church
of England, Lond. 1840. Churton, Harly Eng-
lish Church, Lond. 1841. Massingberd, History
of the English Reformation, Lond. 18423; and in
French, 1861. Stubbs, Registrum Sacrum Angli-
canum, Oxf, 1858. Hook, Lives of the Arch-
bishops of Canterbury, Lond. 1860. Debary, His-
tory of the Church of England, from 1635 to 1717,
Lond. 1860. Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britan-
niae (a new edition is in preparation by the Ox-
ford University Press). Skinner, cclesiastical His-
tory of Scotland, Lond. 1788. Russell, History of
the Church in Scotland, Lond. 1834. Mant, His-
tory of the Church of Ireland, Lond. 1841. King,
Church History of Ireland, Dublin, 1845, Ander-
son, History of the Colonial Church, Lond. 1845.
Wilberforce, History of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in America, Lond. 1844. [F. M.]
COLLEGE, THE (F200: 7 μασενά:
Secunda). In 2 K. xxii. 14 it is said in the A. V.
that Huldah the prophetess “ dwelt in Jerusalem
CYPRIANS
in the college,’ or, as the margin has it, “ in the
second part.” The same part of the city is un-
doubtedly alluded to in Zeph. i. 10 (A. V. “the
second”). Our translators derived their rendering
“ the college” from the Targum of Jonathan, which
has “ house of instruction,’’ a schoolhouse supposed
to have been in the neighbourhood of the Temple.
This translation must have been based upon the
meaning of the Hebrew mishneh, “ repetition,”
which has been adopted by the Peshito-Syriac, and
the word was thus taken to denote a place for the
repetition of the law, or perhaps a place where
copies of the law were made (comp, Deut. xvii, 18 ;
Josh. viii. 32). Rashi, after quoting the render-
ing of the Targum, says, ‘“ there is a gate in the
[Temple] court, the name of which is the gate of
Huldah in the treatise Middoth [i. 3], and some
translate nwa without the wall, between the
two walls, which was a second part (mishneh) to
the city.” The latter is substantially the opinion
of the author of Quaest. in Libr. Reg. attributed
to Jerome. Keil’s explanation (Comm. in loc.) is
probably the true one, that the Mishneh was the
“lower city,” called by Josephus 7 ἄλλη πόλις
(Ant. xv. 11, §5), and built on the hill Akra.
Ewald (on Zeph. i. 10) renders it Neustadt, that
is, Bezetha, or New Town.
Others have explained the word as denoting the
quarter of the city allotted to the Levites, who
were a second or inferior order as compared with
the priests, or to the priests who were second in
yank as compared with the high-priest. . Junius
and Tremellius render “ in parte secunda ab eo,”
that is, from the king, the position of Huldah’s
house, next the king’s palace, accounting for the
fact that she was first appealed to. Of conjectures
like these there is no end.
CYP’RIANS (Κυπρίοι: Cyprii). Inhabitants
of the island of Cyprus (2 Mace. iv. 29). -At the
time alluded to (that is during the reign of Antio-
chus Epiphanes), they were under the dominion of
Egypt, and were governed by a viceroy who was
possessed of ample powers, and is called in the in-
scriptions στρατηγὺς καὶ ναύαρχος καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς
6 κατὰ τὴν νῆσον (comp. Boeckh, Corp. Insc, No.
2624). Crates, one of these viceroys, was left by
Sostratus in command of the castle, or acropolis,
of Jerusalem while he was summoned before the
king.
D
DAN ΑἹ: om. in LXX.: Dan). Appar-
ently the name of a city, associated with Jason, as
one of the places in Southern Arabia from which
the Phoenicians obtained wrought iron, cassia, and
calamus (Ez. xxvii. 19). Ewald conjectures that
it is the same as the Keturahite Dedan in Gen. xxv.
3, but his conjecture is without support, though it
is adopted by Fiirst (Handw.}. Others refer it to
the tribe of Dan, for the Danites were skilful work-
men, and both Aholiab (Ex. xxxv. 34) and Huram
(2 Chr. ii. 13) belonged to this tribe. But for this
view also there appears to be as little foundation, if
we consider the connexion in which the name occurs.
DAN'ITES, THE O27 : ὃ Aavi, Aay,
6 Δάν, of Δανιταί; Alex. 6 Δάν, οἱ Aavitat:
Dan). The descendants of Dan, and members of
his tribe (Judg. xiii. 2, xviii, 1,11; 1 Chr. xii, 35).
EGYPTIAN
DARI'US. 4. (Aapetos; Alex. Aapios:
Arius). Ayeus, king of the Lacedaemonians (1
Mace. xii. 7). [ARgus.]
DED'ANIM (O°74: Aaddv: Dedanim).
Is. xxi. 15. [DEDAN. ]
DEPUTY. The uniform rendering in the A. V.
of ἀνθύπατος, “ proconsul” (Acts xiii. 7, 8, 12,
xix. 38). The English word is curious in itself,
and to a certain extent appropriate, having been
applied formerly to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Thus Shaks. Hen. VIII. iii. 2:
“ Plague of your policy,
You sent me deputy for Ireland.”
DORA (Awpa: Dora). 1 Macc. xv. 11, 13,
25. [Dor.]
DOSITH'EUS (Δωσίθεος : Dositheus, Dosi-
thaeus), 1. One of the captains of Judas Macca-
beus in the battle against Timotheus (2 Mace. xii.
19, 24).
2. A horse-soldier of Bacenor’s company, a man
of prodigious strength, who, in attempting to cap-
ture Gorgias, was cut down by a Thracian (2 Macc.
xii. 35):
3. The son of Drimylus, a Jew, who had re-
nounced the law of his fathers, and was in the
camp of Ptolemy Philopater at Raphia (3 Mace. i.
3). He appears to have frustrated the attempt of
Theodotus to assassinate the king. According to
the Syriac Version he put in the king’s tent a man
of low rank (ἄσημόν τινα), who was slain instead
of his master. Polybius (v. 81) tells us it was
the king’s physician who thus perished. Dositheus
was perhaps a chamberlain,
KE
F'BAL (Say: Γαιβήλ, Ταιβήλ ; Alex.
Γαοβήλ in 1 Chr.: Zbal). 1. One of the sons ot
Shobal the son of Seir (Gen. xxxvi. 23; 1 Chr. i. 40).
2. (om. in Vat. MS.; Alex. Teuidy: Hebal).
cix
OpaL the son of Joktan (1 Chr. i. 22; comp.,Gen.
x, 28). Eleven of Kennicott’s MSS. read Say
in 1 Chr. as in Gen.
E'BER (729: ’9875: Heber). 1. Son of
Elpaal and descendant of Shaharaim of the tribe
of Benjamin (1 Chr. viii. 12). He was one of the
founders of Ono and Lod with their surrounding
villages.
2. (ABéd5). A priest, who represented the
family of Amok, in the days of Joiakim the son
ot Jeshua (Neh. mi. 20).
E'DEN $ (JIY: “Iwaddu; Alex. Ἰωαδάν :
Eden). 1. A Gershonite Leyite, son of Joah, in
the days of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 12). He was
one of the two representatives of his family who
took part in the purification of the Temple.
2 (Οδόμ). Also a Levite, contemporary and
probably identical with the preceding, who under
iXore the son of Imnah was over the freewill offer-
ings of God (2 Chr. xxxi. 15).
EGYPTIAN (ἽΝ, masc.; MSD, fem.:
Αἰγύπτιος, Αἰγυπτία, Aegyptius), EGYPTIANS
(ΒΝ, mase.; AVIS, fem; DMV: Αὐγύ-
πτιοι, γυναῖκες Αἰγύπτου : Aeguyptii, Aeqyptiae
muliercs). Natives of Egypt. The word most
EKRONITES
commonly rendered Egyptians (Mitsraim) is the
name of the country, and might be appropriately so
translated in many cases.
EK'RONITES, THE ( OWpYA, DY pPYA :
ὁ ᾿Ακκαρωνίτης, ot ᾿Ασκαλωνῖται: "Accaronitae).
ὯΝ inhabitants of Ekron (Josh. xiii, 3; 1 Sam.
. 10). In the latter passage the LXX. read “ Esh-
Kalonites.”
EL-PA'RAN (S88 Oye: ἡ τερεβίνθος τῆς
Φαράν; Alex. ἣ τερεμίνθος 7. Φ- campestria
Pharan). Literally “ the terebinth of Paran”
(Gen. xiv. 6). [PARAN. |
E'NOS (WAIN : *Evés: Enos). The son of
Seth ; properly called Enosh, as in 1 Chr. 1. 1
(Gen. iv. 26, v. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 ; Luke iii. 38).
E'NOSH. The same as the preceding (1 Chr.
- 1).
EPH'RAIMITE CGNIBS : ᾿Εφραθίτης ; Alex.
ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Εφραΐμ: Ephrathaeus). Of the tribe of
Ephraim; elsewhere called “ Ephrathite” (Judg.
mi. 5). ΓΕΡΗΒΑΙΝ, p. 566, note ©. |
ERAS'TUS (Epacros: Erastus). 1. One of
the attendants or deacons of St. Paul at Ephesus,
who with Timothy was sent forward into Mace-
donia while the Apostle himself remained in Asia
(Acts xix. 22). He is probably the same with
Erastus who is again mentioned in the salutations
to Timothy (2 Tim. iii. 20), though not, as Meyer
maintains, the same with Erastus the chamberlain
of Corinth (Rom, xvi. 2
2. Erastus the chamberlain, or rather the public
treasurer (οἰκονόμος, arcarius) of Corinth, who was
one of the early converts to Christianity (Rom. xvi.
According to the traditions of the Greek
Church (enol. Graecum, i. p. 179), he was first
oeconomus to the Church at Jerusalem, and after-
wards Bishop of Paneas. He is probably not the
same with Erastus who was with St. Paul at
Ephesus, for in this case we should be compelled to
assume that he is mentioned in the Ep. to the
Romans by the title of an office which he had once
held and afterwards resigned.
E'RI (WY: ᾿Αηδείς, ᾿Αδδί; Alex. ᾿Αηδίς in
Gen.: Heri, Her). Son of Gad (Gen. 16;
Num. xxvi. 16).
E’RITES, THE (WI: 6 ᾿Αδδί, Heritac).
A branch of the tribe of Gad, ee from Eri
(Num. xxvi. 16).
ETHIOPIAN ΟΞ: αἰθίοψ.: Aethiops).
Properly “ Cushite” (Jer. xiii. 23); ased of Zerah
(2 Chr. xiv. 9[8]), and Ebedmelech (Jer. xxxviii.
7, 10, 12, xxxix. 16).
ETHIOPIAN WOMAN (Π 8:
πίσσα: Aethiopissa). Zipporah, the wife of
Moses, is so described in Num, xii. 1. She is else-
where said to have been the daughter of a Midianite,
and in consequence of this Ewald and others have
supposed that the allusion is to another wife whom
Moses married after the death of Zipporah.
ETHIO'PIANS (W5, Is. xx. 4, Jer. xlvi. 9,
WIAD: Αἰθίοπες : Acthiopia, Aethiopes). Properly
“Cush” or “ Ethiopia”
Jer. xlvi. 9). Elsewhere
of Ethiopia (2 Chr.
[12], xvi. 8, xxi. 16; Dan.
Zeph. ii. 12). [Erniopra. |
eX
2
Pais
xvi.
Αἰθιο-
in two passages (Is, xx. 4;
“* Cushites,” or eae
xii. a bay 12 [11],
. 43; Am. ix.
?
EXCOMMUNICATION
EXCOMMUNICATION (Agopiopés: Εα-
communicatio). Kxcommunication is a power
founded upon a right inherent in all religious so-
cieties, and is analogous to the powers of capital
punishment, banishment, and exclusion from mem-
bership, which are exercised by political and munici-
pal bodies. If Christianity is merely a philosophical
idea thrown into the world to do battle with other
theories, and to be valued according as it maintains
its ground or not in the conflict of opinions, ex-
communication, and ecclesiastical punishments, and
penitential discipline are unreasonable. If a society
has been instituted for maintaining any body of
doctrine, and any code of morals, they are necessary
to the existence of that society. That the Christian
Church is an organized polity, a spiritual ‘‘ King-
dom of God” on earth, is the declaration of the
Bible [CHURCH]; and that the Jewish Church was
at once a spiritual and a temporal organization is
clear.
I. Jewish Excommunication.—The Jewish sys-
tem of excommunication was threefold. For a first
offence a delinquent was subjected to the penalty of
3 (Viddui). Rambam (quoted by Lightfoot,
Horae Hebraicae, on 1 Cor. ν. 5), Morinus (De
Poenitentia, iv. 27), and Buxtorf (Lexicon, s. v.
5512} enumerate the twenty-four offences for which
it was inflicted. They ave various, and yange in
heinousness from the offence of keeping a fierce dog
to that of taking God’s name in vain. Elsewhere
(Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16, 1) the causes of its inflic-
tion are reduced to two, termed money and epicurism,
by which is meant debt and wanton insolence. The
offender was first cited to appear in court, and if he
refused to appear or to make amends, his sentence
was pronounced—* Let M., or N., be under excom-
munication.” The excommunicated person was
prohibited the use cf the bath, or of the vazor, or
of the. convivial table; and all who had to do
with him were commanded to keep him at four
cubits’ distance. He was allowed to go to the
Temple, but not to make the circuit in the or-
dinary manner. The term of this punishment was
thirty days; and it was extended to a second, and
to a third thirty days when necessary. If at the end
of that time the offender was still contumacious, he
was subjected to the second excommunication termed
pn (cherem), a word meaning something devoted
to God (Lev. χα. 21, 28. ΕἸΣ. ΥΣΙ δ) [ΒΓΕ
Num. xviii. 14). Severer penalties were now attached.
The offender was not allowed to teach or to be
taught in company with others, to hire or to be
hired, nor to perform any commercial transactions
beyond purchasing the necessaries of life. The
sentence was delivered by a court of ten, and was
accompanied by a solemn malediction. for which
authority was supposed to be found in the “ Curse ye
Meroz” of Judg. v. 23. Lastly followed sn
(Shammdtha), which was an entire cutting off ‘from
the congregation. It has been supposed by some
that these two latter forms of excommunication
were undistinguishable from each other.
The punishment of excommunication is not ap-
pointed by the Law of Moses. It is founded on the
natural right of self-protection which all societies
enjoy. The case of Kovah, Dathan, and Abiram
(Num. xvi.), the curse denounced on Meroz (Judg.
v. 23), the commission aud proclamation of Ezra
(vii. 26, x. 8), and the reformation of Nehemiah
(xiii, 25), are appealed to by the Talmudists as
EXCOMMUNICATION
precedents by which thew proceedings are regul-
ated. In respect to the principle involved, the “ cut-
ting off from the people”? commanded for certain
sins (Ex, xxx. 33, 38, xxxi. 14; Lev. xvii. 4), and the
exclusion from the camp denounced on the leprous
(Lev. xiii. 46; Num. xii. 14) are more apposite.
In the New Testament, Jewish excommunication
is brought prominently before us in the case of the
man that was born blind and restored to sight (John
ix.). “The Jews had agreed already that if any
man did confess that He was Christ, he should be
put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his pa-
rents, He is of age, ask him” (22, 23). ‘“ And
they cast him out. Jesus heard that they had cast
him out”’ (34, 35). The expressions here used,
ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται---ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω, re-
fer, no doubt, to the first form of excommunication
or Niddwi. Our Lord warns his disciples that
they will have to suffer excommunication at the
hands of their countrymen (John xvi. 2); and the
fear of it is described as sutlicient to prevent persons
in a respectable position from acknowledging their
belief in Christ (John xii. 42), In Luke vi. 22, it
has been thought that our Lord referred specifically
to the three forms of Jewish excommunication—
“Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and
when they shall separate you from their company
[ἀφορίσωσιν ],and shall reproach you [ὀνειδίσωσιν],
and cast out your name as evil [éxBdaAwour|,
for the Son of Man’s sake.” The three words
very accurately express the simple separation, the
additional malediction, and the final exclusion of
niddui, cherem, and shammditha. This verse makes
it probable that the three stages were already formally
distinguished from each other, though, no doubt, the
words appropriate to each are occasionally used in-
accurately.
Il. Christian Excommynication—Excommuni-
cation, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not
merely founded on the natural right possessed by all
societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish
Church and nation. It was instituted by our
Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), and it was practised by
and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor.
v. 11; Tit. iii. 10).
Its Institution —The passage in St. Matthew
has led to much controversy, into which we do not
enter. It runs as follows :—“ If thy brother shall
trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault
between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not
hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that
in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. And if he shall neglect to
hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he
neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as
a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto
you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Our Lord here
recognizes and appoints a way in which a member
of his Church is to become to his brethren as a
heathen man and a publican—7. 6. be reduced to a
state analogous to that of the Jew suffering the
penalty of the third form of excommunication. It
is to follow on his contempt of the censure of the
Church passed on him for a trespass which he has
committed. The final excision is to be preceded, as
in the case of the Jew, by two warnings.
Apostolic Example.—!n the Epistles we find St.
Paul frequently claiming the right to exercise dis-
cipline over his converts (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xiii. 10).
EXCOMMUNICATION cxi
In two cases we find him exercising this authority to
the extent of cutting off offenders from the Church.
One of these is the case of the incestuous Corin-
thian:—‘‘ Ye are pufled up, aud have not rather
mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be
taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent
in body, but present in spirit, have judged already,
as though I were present, concerning him that hath
so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit,
with the power of om Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver
such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the
Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. y. 2-5). ‘The other case is that
of Hymenaeus and Alexander :—‘‘ Holding faith,
and a good conscience; which some having put away
concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is
Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom | have delivered
unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme”’
(1 Tim. i. 19, 20). It seems certain that these
persons were excommunicated, the first for immo-
vality, the others for heresy. What is the full
meaning of the expression, “ deliver unto Satan,”
is doubtful, ΑἸ] agree that excommunication is
contained in it, but whether it implies any further
punishment, inflicted by the extraordinary powers
committed specially to the Apostles, has been ques-
tioned. The strongest argument for the phrase
meaning no more than excommunication may be
dvawn trom a comparison of Col. 1,19, Addressing
himself to the “saints and faithful brethren in
Christ which are at Colosse,” St. Paul exhorts them
to ‘give thanks unto the Father which hath made
us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the
saints in light: who hath delivered us from the
power of darkness, and hath translated us into the
kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have re-
demption through his blood, even the forgiveness
of sins.” The conception of the Apostle here is of
men lying in the realm of darkness, and transported
from thence into the kingdom of the Son of God,
which is the inheritance of the saints in light, by
admission into the Church. What he means by the
power of darkness is abundantly clear from many
other passages in his writings, of which it will be
sufficient to quote Eph. vi. 12 :-- Put on the
whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand
against the wiles of the devil; for we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkuess
otf this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places.” Introduction into the Church is therefore,
in St. Paul’s mind, a translation from the kingdom
and power of Satan to the kingdom and government
of Christ. This being so, he could hardly more
naturally describe the effect of excluding a man
from the Church than by the words, “deliver him
unto Satan,’”’ the idea being, that the man ceasing
to be a subject of Christ’s kingdom of light, was at
once transported back to the kingdom of darkness,
and delivered therefore into the power of its ruler
Satan. This interpretation is strongly confirmed by
the terms in which St. Paul describes the commis-
sion which he received from the Lord Jesus Christ,
when he was sent to the Gentiles :—* To open their
eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and
from the -power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among
them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me”
(Acts xxvi. 18). Here again the act of being placed
in Christ's kingdom, the Church, is pronounced to
be a translation from darkness to light, from the
EXCOMMUNICATION
power of Satan unto God. Conversely, to be cast
out of the Church would be to be removed from
light to darkness, to be withdrawn fiom God's
government, and delivered into the power of Satan
(so Balsamon and Yonaras, in Basil. Can. 7;
Estius, in I, Cor. v.; Beveridge, in Can. Apost. x.).
It, however, the expression means more than ex-
communication, it would imply the additional exer-
cise of a special Apostolical power, similar to that
exerted on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts y. 1), Simon
Magus (viiis 20), and Elymas (xiii. 10). - (So Chry-
sostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Hammond, Grotius,
Lighttoot.)
Apostolic Precept.—In addition to the claim to
exercise discipline, and its actual exercise in the form
of excommunication, by the Apostles, we find Apos-
tolic precepts directing that discipline should be
exercised by the rulers of the Church, and that in
some cases excommunication should be resorted to:
— If any man obey not our word by this epistle,
note that man, and have no company with him,
that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not
as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,’
writes St. Paul to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 1ii.
14). To the Romans: “ Mark them which cause
divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which
ye have heard, and avoid them” (Rom. xvi. 17).
To the Galatians: “1 would they were even cut
off that trouble you” (Gal. v.12). To Timothy:
“If amy man teach otherwise, ... . from such
withdraw thyself” (1 Tim. vi. 3). To Titus he
uses a still stronger expression: ‘* A man that is
an heretic, after the first and second admonition, re-
ject” (Tit. iii. 10). St. John instructs the lady to
whom he addresses his Second Epistle, not to receive
into her house, nor bid God speed to any who did
not believe in Christ (2 John 10) ; and we read that
in the case of Cerinthus he acted himself on the
precept that he had given (Euseb. H. Z. iii. 28).
{n his Third Epistle he describes Diotrephes, appa-
rently a Judaizing presbyter, ‘‘who loved to have
the pre-eminence,” as ‘ casting out of the Church,”
i.e. refusing Church communion to the stranger
brethren who were travelling about preaching to
the Gentiles (3 John 10). In the addresses to
the Seven Churches the angels or rulers of the
Church of Pergamos and of Thyatira are rebuked
for ‘* sutlering’’ the Nicolaitans and Balaamites “ to
teach and to seduce my servants to commit forni-
cation, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols”
(Rev. ii. 20). There are two passages still more
important to our subject. In the Epistle to the
Galatians, St. Paul denounces, “ἢ Though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto
you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed [ἀνάθεμα ἔστω]. As I said
before, so say I now again, If any man preach any
other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let hirg be accursed” (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, Gal. i. 8, 9).
And in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: * If
any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him
be Anathema Maran-atha”’ (1 Cor. xvi. 22). It has
been supposed that these two expressions, “ let him
be Anathema,” ‘let him be Anathema Maran-
atha,” reter respectively to the two later stages
of Jewish excommunication—the cherem and the
shammathd, This requires consideration.
The words ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα have evidently
the same derivation, and originally they bore the
Same meaning. ‘They express a person or thing set
apart, laid up, or devoted. But whereas a thing
may be set apart by way of honour or for destruc-
exii
EXCOMMUNICATION
tion, the words, like the Latin ‘‘sacer’’ and the
English “ devoted,” came to have opposite senses—
τὸ ἀπηλλοτῤῥιωμένον Θεοῦ, and τὸ ἀφωρισμένον
Θεῷ. The LXX. and several ecclesiastical writers
use the two words almost indiscriminately, but in
general the form ἀνάθημα is applied to the votive
offering (see 2 Mace. ix. 16; Luke xxi. 5; and Chrys.
Hom. xvi. in Ep. ad Rom.), and the form ἀνάθεμα,
to that which is devoted to evil (see Deut. vii.
26; Josh. vi. 17, vii. 13). Thus St. Paul declares
that he could wish himself an ἀνάθεμα from Christ,
if he could thereby save the Jews (Rom, ix. 3).
His meaning is that he would be willing to be set
apart as a vile thing, to be cast aside and destroyea,
if only it could bring about the salvation of his
brethren. Hence we see the force of ἀνάθεμα
ἔστω in Gal. i. 8. ‘ Have nothing to do with
him,” would be the Apostle’s injunction, “ but let
him be set apart as an evil thing, for God to deal
with him as he thinks fit.” Hammond (in loc.)
paraphrases it as follows :— You are to disclaim
and renounce all communion with him, to look on
him as on an excommunicated person, under the
second degree of excommunication, that none is to
have any commerce with in sacred things.” Hence
it is that ἀνάθεμα ἔστω came to be the common
expression employed by Councils at the termination
of each Canon which they enacted, meaning that
whoever was disobedient to the Canon was to be
separated trom the communion of the Church and
its privileges, and from the favour of God, until he
repented (see Bingham, Ant. xvi. 2, 16).
The expression ᾿Ανάθεμα μαραναθά, as it stands
by itself without explanation in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, is
so peculiar, that it has tempted a number of inge-
nious expositions. Parkhurst hesitatingly derives
it from TAS Dantd, “Cursed be thou.’ But
this derivation is not tenable. Buxtorf, Morinus,
Hammond, Bingham, and others identify it with
the Jewish shammdtha. They do so by translating
shammatha, “The Lord comes.” But shammdtha
cannot be made to mean ‘* The Lord comes” (See
Lightfoot, in loc.). Several fanciful derivations are
given by Rabbinical writers, as ‘‘ There is death,”
“There is desolation ;’ but there is no mention by
them of such a signification as ‘* The Lord comes,”
Lightfoot derives it from ΠΡ), and it probably
means a thing excluded or shut out. Maranatha,
however peculiar its use in the text may seem to us,
is a Syro-Chaldaic expression, signitying “ The Lord
is come” (Chrysostom, Jerome, Estius, Lightfoot), or
“ The Lord cometh.” If we take the former mean-
ing, we may regard it as giving the reason why the
offender was to be anathematized; if the latter, it
would either imply that the separation was to be
in perpetuity, ‘‘donec Dominus redeat” (Augus-
tine), or, more properly, it would be a form of
solemn appeal to the day on which the judgment
should be ratified by the Lord (comp. Jude, 14), In
any case, it is a strengthened form of the simple
ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. And thus it may be regarded as
holding towards it a similar relation to that which
existed between the shammathad and the cherem,
but not on any supposed ground of etymological
identity between the two words shammatha and
maran-atha, Perhaps we ought to interpunctuate
more strongly between ἀνάθεμα and μαραναθά, and
read ἤτω ἀνάθεμα: μαραναθά, i.e. ““ Let him be
anathema. The Lord will come.” The anathema
and the cherem answer very exactly to each othet
(see Ley. xxvii. 28; Num. xxi. 3; Is. xliii, 28).
EXCOMMUNICATION
Restoration to Communion.—Two cases of ex-
communication are related in Holy Scripture ; and
in one of them the restitution of the offender is
specially recounted. The incestuous Corinthian
had been excommunicated by the authority of
St. Paul, who had issued his sentence from a dis-
tance without any consultation with the Corin-
thians. He had required them publicly to promul-
gate it and to act upon it. They had done so. The
offender had been brought to repentance, and was
overwhelmed with grief. Hereupon St. Paul, still
absent as before, forbids the further infliction of the
punishment, pronounces the forgiveness of the
penitent, and exhorts the Corinthians to receive him
back to communion, and to confirm their love
towards him.
The Nature of Excommunication is made more
evident by these acts of St. Paul than by any inves-
tigation of Jewish practice or of the etymology of
words. We thus find, (1) that it is a spiritual
penalty, involving no temporal punishment, except
accidentally ; (2) that it consists in separation
from the communion of the Church; (3) that its
object is the good of the sufferer (1 Cor. v. 5), and
the protection of the sound members of the Church
(2 Tim. iii. 17); (4) that its subjects are those
who are guilty of heresy (1 Tim. i. 20), or gross
immorality (1 Cor. vy. 1); (5) that it is inflicted by
the authority of the Church at large (Matt. xviii.
18), wielded by the highest ecclesiastical officer
(1 Cor. v. 3; Tit. iii. 10); (6) that this officer’s
sentence is promulgated by the congregation to
which the offender belongs (1 Cor. v. 4), in defer-
ence to his superior judgment and command (2 Cor,
ii. 9), and in spite of any opposition on the part of
aminority (7b.6); (7) that the exclusion may be
of indefinite duration, or for a period; (8) that its
duration may be abridged at the discretion and by
the indulgence of the person who has imposed the
penalty (7b. 8); (9) that penitence is the con-
dition on which restoration to communion is granted
(7b. 7); (10) that the sentence is to be publicly
reversed as it was publicly promulgated (70. 10).
Practice of Excommunication in the Post-
Apostolic Church.—The first step was an admo-
nition to the offender, repeated once, or even more
than once, in accordance with St. Paul’s precept
(Tit. iii, 10). (See 5. Ambr. De Offic. ii. 27;
Prosper, De Vit. Contempl. ii. 7; Synesius, Ep.
lviii.) If this did not reclaim him, it was suc-
ceeded by the Lesser Excommunication (ἀφορισμός),
by which he was excluded from the participation of
the Eucharist, and was shut out from the Commu-
nion-service, although admitted to what was called
the Service of the Catechumens (see Theodoret, Ep.
Ixxvii. ad Hulal.). Thirdly followed the Greater
Excommunication or Anathema (παντελὴς ἀφο-
ρισμός, ἀνάθεμα), by which the offender was
debarred, not only from the Eucharist, but from
taking part in all religious acts in any assembly of
the Church, and from the company of the faithful
in the ordinary concerns of life. In case of sub-
mission, offenders were received back to commu-
nion by going through the four stages of public
penance, in which they were termed, (1) προσ-
κλαίοντες, flentes, or weepers; (2) ἀκροώμενοι,
audientes, or hearers; (3) ὑποπίπτοντες, sub-
strati, or kneelers; (4) συνεστῶτες, consistentes,
or co-standers ; after which they were restored to
communion by absolution, accompanied by impo-
sition of hands. To trace out this branch of the
‘subject more minutely would carry us beyond our
[ APPENDIX. |
Antiquities of the Christian Church.
GAD
legitimate sphere. Reference may be made to
Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, s. vv. πρόσκλαυ-
σις, ἀκρόασις, ὑπόπτωσις, σύστασις“.
References.—Tertullian, De Poenitentia, Op.1.
139, Lutet. 1634; S. Ambrose, De Poenitentia.
Paris, 1686; Morinus, De Poenitentia, Anty.,
1682; Hammond, Power of the Keys. Works I.
406. Lond. 1684; Selden, De jure Naturali et
Gentium juxta Disciplinam Hebraecorum. Lips.
1695; Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae. On 7. Cor.
v. 5. Works I., 746. Lond. 1634; Bingham,
Books xvi.,
xviii, Lond. 1862; Marshall, Penitential Dis-
cipline of the Primitive Church. Oxf. 1844;
Thorndike, The Church’s Power of Excommunica-
tion, as found in Scripture. Works, vi. 21 (see
also i. 55, ii. 157). Oxf. 1856; Waterland, No
Communion with Impugners of Fundamentals.
Works, iii. 456! Oxf. 1843; Hey, Lectures in
Divinity. On Art. xxxiii. Camb. 1822; Palmer,
Treatise on the Church, ii. 224. Lond. 1842 ;
Browne, Exposition of the Articles. On Art. xxxiii.
Lond. 1863. [F. M.]
EZ'RA. 3. (NY: Ἔσρί; Ezra). A name
which occurs in the obscure genealogy of 1 Chr. iv.
17. According to the author of the Quaestiones in
Paral. Ezra is the same as Amram, and his sons
Jether and Mered are Aaron and Moses.
F
FLUTE (%n : xopds: tibia). 1 K. i, 4,
marg. [PIPE.]
exiil
G
GAD (44: δαιμόνιον ; Cod. Sin, δαίμων :
Fortuna). Properly “ the Gad,’ with the article.
In the A. V. of Is. lxv. 11 the clause “that pre-
pare a table for that troop” has in the margin in-
stead of the last word the proper name “ Gad,”
which evidently denotes some idol worshipped by
the Jews in Babylon, though it is impossible posi-
tively to identify it. Huetius would understand
by it Fortune as symbolized by the Moon, but
Vitringa, on the contrary, considers it to be the
Sun. Millius (Diss. de Gud et Meni) regards
both Gad and Meni as names of the Moon. That
Gad was the deity Fortune, under whatever out-
ward form it was worshipped, is supported by the
etymology, and by the common assent of com-
mentators, It is evidently connected with the
Syriac Jr σᾶσό, “fortune, luck,’’ and with the
Arabic X=, jad, ‘good fortune,” and Gesenius
is probably right in his conjecture that Gad was
the planet Jupiter, which was regarded by the
astrologers of the East (Pococke, Spec. Hist. Ar.
p- 130) as the star of greater good fortune. Movers
(Phoen. i. 650) is in favour of the planet Venus,
Some have supposed that a trace of the Syrian
worship of Gad is to be found in the exclamation
TID, bagad, or as the Keri has it 1] 82, “Gad, or
TT 7
good fortune cometh.’? The Targum of Pseudo-
Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum both give “a
lucky planet cometh,” but it is most probable that
I
GADITES
this is an interpretation which grew out of the
astrological beliefs of a later time; and we can
infer nothing from it with respect to the idolatry
of the inhabitants of Padan Aram in the age of
Jacob. That this later belief in a deity Fortune
existed, there are many things to prove. Buxtorf
(Lex. Talm,.s.v.) says that anciently it was a
custom for each man to have in his house a
splendid couch, which was not used, but was set
apart for “the prince of the house,” that is, for
the star, or constellation Fortune, to render it more
propitious. This couch was called the couch of
Gada, or good-luck (Talm. Babl. Sanhed. f. 20a,
Nedarim, t. 56a). Again in Bereshith Rabba, sect.
65, the words IN Dip, in Gen. xxvii. 31 are
explained as an invocation to Gada or Fortune.
Rabbi Moses the Priest, quoted by Aben Ezra (on
Gen. xxx. 11) says “ that 35 (Is. Ixy. 11) sig-
nifies the star of luck, which points to everything
that is good; for thus is the language of Kedar
(Arabic): but he says that 71 NI (Gen. xxx.
11) is not used in the same sense.”
Illustrations of the ancient custom of placing a
banqueting table in honour of idols will be found
in the table spread for the sun among the Ethi-
opians (Her. iii. 17, 18), and in the feast’ made by
the Babylonians for their god Bel, which is de-
scribed in the Apocryphal history of Bel and the
Dragon (comp. also Her. i. 181, &c.). The table
in the temple of Belus is described by Diodorus
Siculus (ii. 9) as being of beaten gold, 40 feet long,
15 wide, and weighing 500 talents. On it were
placed two drinking cups (καρχήσια) weighing
30 talents, two censers of 300 talents each, and
three golden goblets, that of Jupiter or Bel weigh-
ing 1200 Babylonian talents. The couch and table
of the god in the temple of Zeus Triphylius at
Patara in the island of Panchaea are mentioned
by Diodorus (vy. 46), Compare also Virg. Aen.
Mf Gar
cxiv
“ Huc undique Troia gaza
Incensis erepta adytis, mensaeque deorum
Crateresque auro solidi, captivaque vestis
Congeritur.”
In addition to the opinions which have been referred
to above may be quoted that of Stephen Le Moyne
( Var. Sacr, p. 363) who says that Gad is the goat
of Mendes, worshipped by the Egyptians as an
emblem of the sun; and of Le Clere (Comm, in Is.)
and Lakemacher (Obs. Phil, iv. 18, &c.) who
identity Gad with Hecate. Macrobius (Sat. i. 19)
. fells us that in the later Egyptian mythology Τύχη
was worshipped as one of the four deities who pre-
sided over birth, and was represented by the Moon.
This will perhaps throw some light upon the ren-
dering of the LXX. as given by Jerome. [ΜΕΝ],
note a. |
Traces of the worship of Gad remain in the
proper names Baal Gad and Giddeneme (Plaut. Poen.
v. 3), the latter of which Gesenius (Mon. Phoen.
Ρ- 407) renders FDP) 2, ‘ favouring fortune.”
GAD'ITES, THE (an: 6 Τάδ, 6 Ταδδί,
οἱ υἱοὶ Tad: Gad, Gaditae, Gaddi). The de-
scendants of Gad and members of his tribe. Their
character is described under Gab, p. 6486. In 2
Sam. xxiii, 36 for “the Gadite’’ the LXX. have
Γαλααδδί, and the Vulg. de Gadi.
GENNE'SARET, LAND OF (ἡ γῆ Γεννη-
caper: terra Genesar, terra Genesareth). After
the miracle of feeding the five thousand, our Lord
GENNESARET, LAND OF
and His disciples crossed the Lake of Gennesaret and
came to the other side, at a place which is called
“the land of Gennesaret ” (Matt. xiv. 34; Mark
vi. 54). It is generally believed that this term
was applied to the fertile crescent-shaped plain on
the western shore of the lake, extending from Khan
Minyeh on the north to the steep hill behind Mejdel
on the south, and called by the Arabs el-Ghuweir,
“the little Ghor.” The description given by Jo-
sephus (B. J. iii. 10, §8) would apply admirably
to this plain. He says that along the lake of Gen-
nesaret there extends a region of the same name,
of marvellous nature and beauty. The soil was so
rich that every plant flourished, and the air so
temperate that trees of the most opposite natures
grew side by side. The hardy walnut, which de-
lighted in cold, grew there luxuriantly ; there were
the palm-trees that were nourished by heat, and
fig-trees and olives beside them, that required a
more temperate climate. Grapes and figs were
found during ten months of the year. The plain
was watered by a most excellent spring called by
the natives Capharnaum, which was thought by
some to be a vein of the Nile, because a fish was
found there closely resembling the coracinus of the
lake of Alexandria. The length of the plain along
the shore of the lake was thirty stadia, and its
breadth twenty. Making every allowance for the
colouring given by the historian to his description,
and for the neglected condition of el-Ghuweir at
the present day, there are still left sufficient points
of resemblance between the two to justify their
being identified. The dimensions given by Josephus
are sufficiently correct, though, as Dr. Thomson
remarks (Zhe Land and the Book, p. 348), the
plain “is a little longer than thirty, and not quite
twenty furlongs in breadth.” Mr. Porter (Handb.
p- 429) gives the length as three miles, and the
greatest breadth as about one mile. It appears that
Professor Stanley either assigns to “the land of
Gennesaret” a wider signification, or his description
of its extent must be inaccurate, for, after calling
attention to the tropical vegetation and climate of
the western shores of the lake, he says: “" This
fertility ... reaches its highest pitch in the one
spot on the western shore where the mountains,
suddenly receding inland, leave a level plain of five
miles wide, and six or seven miles long. This plain
is ‘the land of Gennesareth’” (8. ᾧ P. p. 374).
Still his description goes far to confirm in other
respects the almost exaggerated language in which
Josephus depicts the prodigality of nature in this
region. ‘‘ No less than four springs pour forth
their almost full-grown rivers through the plain ;
the richness of the soil displays itself in magnificent
corn-fields; whilst along the shore rises ἃ thick
jungle of thorn and oleander, abounding in birds
of brilliant colours and various forms.” Burck-
hardt tells us that even now the pastures of Khan
Minyeh are proverbial for their richness (Syria,
Ῥ- 919).
In the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology
(1. 290-308) Mr. Thrupp has endeavoured to show
that the land of Gennesaret was not el-Ghuweir,
but the fertile plain el-Batihah on the north-eastern
side of the lake. The dimensions of this plain and
the character of its soil and productions correspond
so far with the description given by Josephus of
the land of Gennesaret as to aflord reasonable ground
for such an identification. But it appears from an
examination of the narrative in the Gospels, that,
for other reasons, the plain el-Batihah is not the
GEZRITES, THE
land of Gennesaret, but more probably the scene
of the miracle of feeding the five thousand. After
delivering the parable of the Sower, our Lord and
His disciples lett Capernaum, near which was the
scene of the parable, and went to Nazareth (Matt.
xiii. 54; Mark vi. 1). It was while He was here,
apparently, that the news was brought Him by the
Apostles of the death of John the Baptist (Matt.
xiv. 13; Mark vi. 30). He was still, at any rate,
on the western side of the lake of Tiberias. On
hearing the intelligence “‘ He departed thence by
ship into a desert place apart”’ (Matt. xiv. 13;
Mark vi. 32), the ‘desert place” being the scene
of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, and
“belonging to the city called Bethsaida” (Luke ix.
10). St. John (vi. 1) begins his account of the
miracle by saying that “ Jesus went over the sea
of Galilee: an expression which he could not have
used had the scene of the miracle lain on the
western shore of the lake, as Mr. Thrupp supposes,
at el-Ghuweir. It seems much more probable that
it was on the eastern or north-eastern side. After
the miracle Jesus sent His disciples in the boat to
the other side (Matt. xiv. 22) towards Bethsaida
(Mark vi. 45), in order to go to Capernaum (John
vi. 17), where He is found next day by the multi-
tudes whom He had fed (John vi. 24, 25). The
boat came to shore in the land of Gennesaret. It
seems therefore perfectly clear, whatever be the
actual positions of Capernaum and the scene of the
miracle, that they were on opposite sides of the lake,
and that Capernaum and the land of Gennesaret
were close together on the same side.
Additional interest is given to the land of Gen-
nesaret, or el-Ghuweir, by the probability that its
scenery suggested the parable of the Sower. [Ὁ is
admirably described by Professor Stanley. “ There
was the undulating corn-field descending to the
water's edge. There was the trodden pathway
running through the midst of it, with no fence or
hedge to prevent the seed from falling here and
there on either side of it, or upon it; itself hard
with the constant tramp of horse and mule and
human feet. There was the ‘ good’ rich soil, which
distinguishes the whole of that plain and its neigh-
bourhood from the bare hills elsewhere descending
into the lake, and which, where there is no inter-
ruption, produces one vast mass of corn. There
was the rocky ground of the hillside protruding
here and there through the corn-fields, as elsewhere
through the grassy slopes. There were the large
bushes of thorn—the ‘ Nabk,’ that kind of which
tradition says that the Crown of Thorns was woven
—springing up, like the fruit-trees of the more
inland parts, in the very midst of the waving
wheat” (S. δ᾽ P. p. 426).
GEZ'RITES, THE (ran, Keri yan: ὁ
Teoepi; Alex. ὁ Γεζραῖος: Gerzi). 1 Sam. xxvii. 8.
[GERZITES. |
GIL'EADITES, THE (Y2} Judg. xii
4, 5, "SIN: Γαλαάδ, Iudg. ape his
Ταλααδί, Num. xxvi. 29, 6 Γαλαάδ, Judg. x. 3,
6 Γαλααδίτης; Alex. 6 Γαλααδίτις, 6 Tadaa-
δείτης : Galaaditae, Galaadites, viri Galaad), A
branch of the tribe of Manasseh, descended from
Gilead. There appears to have been an old stand-
ing feud between them and the Ephraimites, who
taunted them with being deserters. See Judg. xii.
4, which may be rendered, “And the men of
xii.
HEZRONITES, THE
Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Runagates
of κα phraim | are ye (Gilead is between Ephraim and
Manasseh) ;” the last clause being added parentheti-
CXV
eally. In 2 K. xv. 25 for “ of the Gileadites” the
LXX. have ἀπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων.
HALLELU'JAH. [Appendix, Ὁ. lxvi.]
HAR'EL (with the def, art. Sena: τὸ
ἀριήλ : Ariel). In the margin of Ez. xliii. 15 the
word rendered “altar” in the text is given ‘* Harel,
ὃ. 6. the mountain of God.” The LXX., Vulg.,
and Arab. evidently regarded it as the same with
“ Ariel” in the same verse, Our translators fol-
lowed the Targum of Jonathan in translating it
“altar.” Junius explains it of the ἐσχάρα or
hearth of the altar of burnt offering, covered by
the network on which the sacrifices were placed
over the burning wood. This explanation Gesenius
adopts, and brings forward as a parallel the Arab,
δ, ireh, “a hearth or fireplace,” akin to the Heb.
IN, a, “light, flame.” Fiirst (Handw.
derives it a an unused root Sala) hara, “ to
glow, burn,’ with the ter mination | -el; but the
only authority for the root is its presumed existence
in the word Harel. Ewald (Die Propheten des A. B.
ii. 373) identifies Harel and Ariel, and refers them
both to a root TN, arah, akin to WN, ur
HAT. [Hrappress, p. 767 a.]
So Val)
HAZ'AZON-TA’MAR. 2Chr.xx.2. [Ha-
ZHZON TAMaR. |
HE'BERITES, THE (MIAMI: ὁ Χοβερί:
Heberitae). Descendants of Heber, a branch of the
tribe of Asher (Num, xxvi. 45).
HE'BREWESS (TPIAY: Ἑβραία: Hebraea),
A Hebrew woman (Jer. xxxiv, 9).
HEB'RONITES, THE Qa: : 6 Χεβρών,
ὃ XeBpavi: Hebronitae, Hebroni). 5 A family οἵ
Kohathite Levites, descendants of Hebron the son
of Kohath (Num. iii. 27, xxvi. 58; 1 Chr. xxvi. 23).
In the reign of David the chief of the family west
of the Jor dan was Hashabiah ; while on the east in
the land of Gilead were Jerijah and his brethren,
“men of valour,” over the Reubenites, the Gadites,
and the half-+tribe of Manasseh (1 Chr. xxvi. 30,
play)
HER'MONITES, THE (ὩΣ ὉΠ: \°Ep-
μωνιείμ: Hermoniim).” Properly “ the Hermons,”
with reference to the three summits of Mount
Hermon (Ps. slii. 6 [7]). [HERMon, p. 790. ]
HES'RON (Fyn: Alex. ᾿Ασρώμ:
Hesron). HEzRON, the son of Reuben (Num.
xxyi. 6). Our translators followed the Vulg. in
᾿Ασρών:;
-adopting this form of the name.
HES'RONITES, THE (*2/9 87: δ᾽ Ασρωνί;
Alex. 6 ᾿Ασρωνεί: Hesronitae). Descendants of
ἘΠῚ ες or Hezron, the son of Reuben (Num,
xxvi. 6).
HEZ’RONITES, THE anne : ὁ Acpavi:
Hesronitae). A branch of the tribe of Judah, de-
scendants of Hezron, the son of Pharez (Num.
xxvi. 21).
|
eXvVi HUPHAMITES, THE
HU'PHAMITES, THE (‘51Ni): om. in
LXX.: Huphamitae). Descendants of Hupham of
the tribe of Benjamin (Num. xxvi. 39).
I, J
ISH’MAELITE. [IsHMAkt, p. 893 6.]
ISRAELITE (Oy: Ἰεζραηλίτης ; Alex.
Ἰσμαηλείτης : de Jesraeli). In 2 Sam. xvii. 25,
Ithra, the father of Amasa, is called “ an Israelite,”
or more correctly “the Israelite,” while in 1 Chr.
latter is undoubtedly the true reading, for unless
Ithra had been a foreigner there would have been
no need to express his nationality. The LXX. and
Vulg. appear to have read Sey, “ Jezreelite.”’ |
IZ'EHARITES, THE CIs : ὃ Ἰσσαάρ;
Alex. 6 Ξαάρ : Jesaaritae), A family of Kohathite
Levites, descended from Izhar the son of Kohath
(Num. iii. 27) : called also in the A, V. ‘ Izharites.”
IZHARITES, THE (10859: ὁ
ἦ Ισααρί δ
wT 5
Ἰσσαάρ, 6 ᾿Ισσααρί: Alex. 6 Ἰσσααρί, ᾿Ισσαρί, δ΄ : ! :
| the appellation was universally given to those who
Ἰκααρί : Isaari, Isaaritae). The same as the pre-
ceding. In the reign of David Shelomith was the
chief of the family (1 Chr. xxiv. 22), and with his |
brethren had charge of the treasure dedicated for
the Temple (1 Chr. xxvi. 23, 30).
JAH (7: Κύριος : Dominus), The abbre-
viated form of “ Jehovah,” used only in poetry.
It occurs frequently in the Hebrew, but with a single
exception (Ps. Ixviii. 4) is rendered “ Lord” in
the A. V. The identity of Jah and Jehovah is
strongly marked in two passages of Isaiah (xii. 2, |
xxvi. 4), the force of which is greatly weakened by
the English rendering ‘‘ the Lord.”
these should be translated “for my strength and
song is JAH JEHOVAH” (comp. Ex. xv, 2); and
the latter, ““ trust ye in Jehovah for ever, for in
JAH JEHOVAH is the rock of ages.” “ Praise ye
the Lord,’ or Hallelujah, should be in all cases
“praise ye Jah.” In Ps. Ixxxix. 8 [9] Jah stands
in parallelism with “ Jehovah the God of hosts”
in a passage which is wrongly translated in our
version. It should be “Ὁ Jehovah, God of hosts,
who like thee is strong, O Jah!”
JAH'LEELITES, THE (OxSmen: δ᾽ Αλ-
Anat: Jalelitae). A branch of the tribe of Zebulon,
descendants of Jahleel (Num. xxvi. 26),
JAH'ZEELITES, THE (oxyn'n: 6
᾿Ασιηλί : Jesielitae). A branch of the Naph-
talites, descended from Jahzeel (Num. xxvi, 48).
JES'UITES, THE (WA: 6 Ἱεσουΐ: Jes-
suitae). A tamily of the tribe of Asher (Num.
xxvi. 44).
JES’URUN. [Jesuurun. ]
in Ezr.and Dan.). Originally ‘man, or men of
Judah.”
just before the Captivity of the ten tribes, and
The former ot |
The term first makes its appearance |
JOSEDECH
then is used to denote the men of Judah who
held Elath, and were driven out by Rezin king
of Syria (2 K, xvi, 6). Elath had been taken by
Azariah or Uzziah, and made a colony of Judah
(2 Κ. xiv. 22), The men of Judah in prison with
Jeremiah (Jer, xxxii. 12) are called “ Jews ” in
our A, V., as are those who deserted to the Chal-
deans (Jer. xxxviii. 19), and the fragments of the
'tribe which were dispersed in Moab, Edom, and
among the Ammonites (Jer. xl. 11). Of these
latter were the confederates of Ishmael the son of
Nethaniah, who were of the blood-royal of Judah
(Jer, xli, 3), The fugitives in Egypt (Jer. xliv. 1)
ii, 17 he appears as “ Jether the Ishmeelite.” The | belonged to the two tribes, and were distinguished
by the name of the more important; and the same
general term is applied to those who were carried
captive by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. lii, 28, 30) as
well as to the remnant which was left in the land
2K. xxv. 25; Neh. i. 2, 11. 16, &.). That the
term Yéhidi or “ Jew” was in the latter history
used of the members of the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin without distinction is evident from
the case of Mordecai, who, though of the tribe of
Benjamin, is called a Jew (Esth, ii. 5, &e.), while
the people of the Captivity are called “ the people
of Mordecai” (Esth, iii. 6). After the Captivity
returned from Babylon.
JEWS’ LANGUAGE, IN THE (n‘717%).
Literally “ Jewishly :” for the Hebrew must be
| taken adverbially, as in the LXX. (Ἰουδαϊστί) and
Vulgate (Judaicé). The term is only used of the
language of the two southern tribes after the Cap-
tivity of the northern kingdom (2 K. xviii. 26,
}28; 2 Chr. xxxii. 18; Is, xxxvi. 11, 13), and of
that spoken by the captives who returned (Neh,
xiii. 24). Jt therefore denotes as well the pure
Hebrew as the dialect acquired during the Cap-
tivity, which was characterized by Aramaic forms
and idioms. Elsewhere (Is. xix. 18) in the poetical
language of Isaiah it is called ‘¢ the lip of Canaan,”
JEZ'ERITES, THR (ΝΠ: 6 Ἰεσερί ;
Alex. 6 Ἰεσρί;; Jeseritae). A family of the tribe
of Naphtali, descendants of Jezer (Num. xxvi. 49).
JEZ'REEL, 3. ΟΝ": Ἰεζραέλ : Jez
rahel). The eldest son of “the prophet Hosea
(Hos. i. 4), significantly so called because Jehovah
said to the prophet, “ Yet a little while and I will
avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of
Jehu,’ and “I will break the bow of Israel in the
valley of Jezreel.”
JEZ'REELITE (ONY: Ἰεζραηλίτης :
Alex. Ἰσραηλίτης, once 2 K. ix. 21 Ἰζραηλίτης:
Jezrahelita). An inhabitant of Jezreel (1 Κα, xxi.
1, 4, 6, 7, 15,16; 2K. ix. 21, 25).
JEZREELI'TESS (ΠΡ ΝΜ): Ἰεζραηλῖτις ;
Alex. Εἰζραηλεῖτις, Ἰζ(ραηλῖτις, Ἰσραηλῖτις :
Jezrahelitis, Jezrdelites, Jezraclitis), A woman
‘| of Jezreel (1 Sam. xxvii. 3, xxx. 55 2 Samvin ὧν
JEW (79), JEWS (OIF), Ch. PRA
1.2... deChranigy):
JO'SEDECH (pP1iit: "Iwoedéx : Josedec).
JEHOZADAK the son of Seraiah (Hagg. i. 12, 14,
ii. 2,43; Zech. vi. 11).
END OF APPENDIX.
LONDON ; PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, AND CHARING CROSS.
A
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
COMPRISING ITS
ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.
EDITED
Brow ΕΑ Ss MIT H, Lisp
EDITOR OF THE DICTIONARIES OF “GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES,” “ BIOGRAPHY AND MYTHOLOGY,”
AND ‘‘ GEOGRAPHY.”
Jerusalem,
IN THREE VOLUMES.—Voz. I.
AARON—JUTTAH.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET;
WALTON AND MABERLY, UPPER GOWER STREET.
1863.
The right of Translation is reserved.
DIRECTIONS TO BINDER.
he Map of Jerusalem, Plate I., to be placed between pages 1018 and 1019.
37) ” 3) likes ΕΣ] 4} 2} 1028 25 1029.
, 3 een 0 es a os 33. 1038225, 109:
LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AND CHARING CROSS.
Po Rees OE:
‘HE present Work is designed to render the same service in the
study of the Bible as the Dictionaries of Greek and Roman Anti-
quities, Biography, and Geography have done in the study of the
classical writers of antiquity. Within the last few years Biblical
studies have received a fresh impulse; and the researches of modern
scholars, as well as the discoveries of modern travellers, have thrown
new and unexpected light upon the history and geography of the
Kast. It has, therefore, been thought that a new Dictionary of the
Bible, founded on a fresh examination of the original documents, and
embodying the results of the most recent researches and discoveries,
would prove a valuable addition to the literature of the country. It
has been the aim of the Editor and Contributors to present the infor-
mation in such a form as to meet the wants not only of theological
students, but also of that larger class of persons who. without pursuing
theology as a profession, are anxious to study the Bible with the aid
of the latest investigations of the best scholars. Accordingly, while
the requirements of the learned have always been kept in view,
quotations from the ancient languages have been sparingly intro-
duced, and generally in parentheses, so as not to imterrupt the
continuous perusal of the Work. It is confidently believed that
the articles will be found both intelligible and interesting even to
those who have no knowledge of the learned languages; and that
such persons will experience no difficulty in reading the book
through from beginning to end.
The scope and object of the Work may be briefly defined. It is a
Dictionary of the Bible and not of Theology. It is intended to eluci-
date the antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history of the
Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha; but not to explain
systems of theology, or discuss points of controyersial divinity. It
vill PREFACE,
has seemed, however, necessary in a “ Dictionary of the Bible” to give
a full account of the Book, both as a whole and in its separate parts.
Accordingly, articles are inserted not only upon the general subject,
such as “ Bible,” “Apocrypha,” and “Canon,” and upon the chief
ancient versions, as “Septuagint” and “ Vulgate ;” but also upon
each of the separate books. These articles are naturally some of the
most important in the Work, and occupy considerable space, as will
be seen by referring to “Genesis,” “ Isaiah,” and “ Job.”
The Editor believes that the Work will be found, upon examina-
tion, to be far more complete in the subjects which it professes to treat
than any of its predecessors. No other Dictionary has yet attempted
to give a complete list of the proper names occurring in the Old and
New Testaments, to say nothing of those in the Apocrypha. The
present Work is intended to contain every name, and, in the case of
minor names, references to every passage in the Bible in which each
occurs. It is true that many of the names are those of com-
paratively obscure persons and places ; but this is no reason for their
omission. On the contrary, it is precisely for such articles that a
Dictionary is most needed. An account of the more important
persons and places occupies a prominent position in historical and
geographical works; but of the less conspicuous names no infor-
mation can be obtained in ordinary books of reference. Accordingly
many names, which have been either entirely omitted or cursorily
treated in other Dictionaries, have had considerable space devoted
to them; the result being that much curious and sometimes impor-
tant knowledge has been elicited respecting subjects, of which little
or nothing was previously known. Instances may be seen by re-
ferring to the articles “Ishmael, son of Nethaniah,” “ Jareb,”
“ Jedidiah,” “ Jehosheba.”
In the alphabetical arrangement the orthography of the Authorized
Version has been invariably followed. Indeed the Work might be
described as a Dictionary of the Bible, according to the Authorized
Version. But at the commencement of each article devoted to a
proper name, the corresponding forms in the Hebrew, Greek, and
Vulgate are given, together with the variations in the two great
manuscripts of the Septuagint, which are often curious and well
worthy of notice. All inaccuracies in the Authorized Version are
likewise carefully noted.
In the composition and distribution of the articles three points
PREFACE. 1X
have been especially kept in view—the insertion of copious references
to the ancient writers and to the best modern authorities, as much
brevity as was consistent with the proper elucidation of the subjects,
and facility of reference. ‘To attain the latter object an explanation
is given, even at the risk of some repetition, under every word to
which a reader is likely to refer, smce it is one of the great drawbacks
in the use of a Dictionary to be referred constantly from one heading
to another, and frequently not to find at last the information that is
wanted.
Many names in the Bible occur also in the classical writers, and
are therefore included in the Classical Dictionaries already published.
But they have in all cases been written anew for this work, and from
a Biblical point of view. No one would expect in a Dictionary of the
Bible a complete history of Alexandria or a detailed life of Alexander
the Great, simply because they are mentioned in a few passages of
the Sacred Writers. Such subjects properly belong to Dictionaries
of Classical Geography and Biography, and are only introduced here
so far as they throw light upon Jewish history, and the Jewish cha-
racter and faith. The same remark applies to all similar articles,
which, far from being a repetition of those contained in the preceding
Dictionaries, are supplementary to them, affording the Biblical inform-
ation which they did not profess to give. In like manner it would
obviously be out of place to present such an account of the plants
and animals mentioned in the Scriptures, as would be appropriate in
systematic treatises on Botany or Zoology. Al! that can be reason-
ably required, or indeed is of any real service, is to identify the plants
and animals with known species or varieties, to discuss the difficulties
which occur in each subject, and to explain all allusions to it by the
aid of modern science.
In a Work written by various persons, each responsible for his
own contributions, differences of opinion must naturally occur. Such
differences, however, are both fewer and of less importance than
might have been expected from the nature of the subject; and in
some difficult questions—such, for instance, as that of the “ Brethren
of our Lord”—the Editor, instead of endeavouring to obtain uni-
formity, has considered it an advantage to the reader to have the
arguments stated from different points of view.
An attempt has been made to ensure, as far as practicable,
uniformity of reference to the most important books. In the case
6
x PREFACE,
of two works of constant occurrence in the geographical articles, it
may be convenient to mention that all references to Dr. Robinson’s
“‘ Biblical Researches” and to Professor Stanley’s “Sinai and Pales-
tine,” have been uniformly made to the second edition of the former
work (London, 1856, 3 vols.), and to the fourth edition of the latter
(London, 1857).
The Editor cannot conclude this brief explanation without
expressing his obligations to the Writers of the various articles.
Their names are a sufficient guarantee for the value of their
contributions; but the warm interest they have taken in the book,
and the unwearied pains they have bestowed upon their separate
departments, demand from the Editor his grateful thanks. There
is, however, one Writer to whom he owes a more special acknow-
ledgment. Mr. George Grove of Sydenham, besides contributing
the articles to which his initial is attached, has rendered the Editor
important assistance in writing the majority of the articles on the
more obscure names in the First Volume, in the correction of the
proofs, and in the revision of the whole book. The Editor has also
to express his obligations to Mr. William Aldis Wright, Librarian of
Trinity College, Cambridge, and to the Rey. Charles P. Phinn of
Chichester, for their valuable assistance in the correction of the
proofs, as well as to Mr. EH. Stanley Poole for the revision of the
Arabic words. Mr. Aldis Wright has likewise written in the Second
and Third Volumes the more obscure names to which no initials are
attached.
It is intended to publish shortly an Atlas of Biblical Geography,
which, it is believed, will form a valuable supplement to the
Dictionary.
WILLIAM SMITH.
Lonpon, November, 1863.
INITIALS.
ἘΠΕ Α΄
He:
HB.
JAD eee
ie WV. Ὁ.
HEH. B.
WW B.
LIST OF WRITERS.
DDS OOOO
NAMES.
Very Rev. Hunry Atrorp, D.D.,
Dean of Canterbury.
Rev. Henry Battey, B.D.,
Warden of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury ; late Fellow
of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Rev. Horatius Bonar, D.D.,
Kelso, N. B.; Author of ‘The Land of Promise.’
[The geographical articles, signed H. B., are written by Dr. Bonar: those on other subjects,
signed H. B., are written by Mr. Bailey. ]
Rev. Aurrep Barry, B.D.,
Principal of Cheltenham College; late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
Rey. παν Latuam Bevan, M.A.,
Vicar of Hay, Brecknockshire.
Rev. JosepH WituiAms Buaxkestey, B.D.,
Canon of Canterbury ; Vicar of Ware; late Fellow and Tutor
of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Rev. Tuomas Epwarp Browy, M.A.,
Vice-Principal of King William’s College, Isle of Man ; late
Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.
Ven. Ropert ΝΥ ΠΙᾺ Browne, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Bath; Canon of Wells; Rector of Weston-
super-Mare ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Bath
and Wells, Chaplain to Her Majesty’s Forces.
Rev. Epwarp Harotp Browne, B.D.,
Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Exeter.
Rev. Wiirt1AmM THomas Butiocr, M.A.,
Assistant Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Rev. Samvuet Cuarg, M.A.,
Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury, Herefordshire.
Rev. F. Ὁ. Coon, M.A.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen; one of Her Majesty’s
Inspectors of Schools; Preacher to the Hon. Society of
Lincoln’s Inn; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of
Lincoln.
G. E. L. C. Right Rev. Gzorcr Epwarp Lyncn Corton, D.D.,
Tel el BE
Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India.
Rev. Joun Lizwetyn Davis, M.A.,
Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone ; late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge,
—_—
iv
INITIALS.
HD:
Eady 10s
H. P. E.
Ch diag os
LS Vad te
BAG.
ἘΠῚ
2 Nes OR Εἰς
J.-A. ἘΠ
oJ.) 0); ΕΠ:
LIST OF WRITERS.
NAMES.
Emanvet Devurson, M.R.A.S.,
British Museum.
Rev. G. EH. Day, D.D.,
Lane Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Rev. Wiii1am Drage, M.A.,
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; Hon. Canon of Worcester ;
Rural Dean ; Vicar of Holy Trinity, Coventry
Rev. Epwarp Parorsstun Epprup, M.A.,
Prebendary of Salisbury; Principal of the Theological
College, Salisbury.
Right Rev. Cuartes James Exxicorr, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
Rev. FreperickK δια Farrar, M.A.,
Assistant Master of Harrow School ; late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
James Frrcusson, F'.R.S., F.R.A.S.,
Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Epwarp 8. Frovuixss, M.A.,.
late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford
Right Rev. Winuiam Frrzczraup, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Killaloe.
Rev. Francis Garprn, M.A.,
Subdean of Her Majesty’s Chapels evel
Rev. γα Gorcn, LL.D.,
late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London.
GEORGE GROVE,
Crystal Palace, Sydenham.
Rev. H, B. Hacserr, D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Literature, Newton, Massachusetts.
Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B.D.,
Prebendary of St. Paul’s; Secretary of the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Rev. Henry Hayman, B.D.,
Head Master of the Grammar School, Cheltenham; late
Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford.
Ven. Lord Artuur C. Hervey, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Sudbury, and Rector of Ickworth.
Rev. James Avaustus Hussey, D.C.L.,
Head Master of Merchant Taylors’ School; Preacher to the
Hon. Society of Gray’s Inn; Prebendary of St. Paul’s ;
Bampton Lecturer for 1860.
JosrpH D. Hooker, M.D., F.R.S.,
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
INITIALS,
ded. Ht.
Wo.
‘ete ais i
i.
Wie Bod).
Aw H..L;
Sam ae
J. B.-L:
D. W. M.
F. M.
Oppert.
ER. O.
ed. Ὁ.
Jeo. P.
es τὸ
Be 1:
LECH ee
LIST OF WRITERS, Vv
NAMES.
Rev. James Jonn Horney, M.A.,
Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford ; Principal of Bishop
Cosin’s Hall; Tutor in the University of Durham.
Rev. Witt1am Hoveurton, M.A., F.L.S.,
Rector of Preston on the Weald Moors, Salop.
Rev. Jonn Saunt Howson, D.D.,
Principal of the Collegiate Institution, Liverpool ; Hulsean
Lecturer for 1863.
Rev. Epgar Huxraste, M.A.,
Subdean of Wells.
Rev. πα Basin Jones, M.A.,
Prebendary of York and of St. David’s; late Fellow and
Tutor of University College, Oxford; Hxamining
Chaplain to the Archbishop of York.
Austen Henry Layarp, D.C.L., M.P.
Rev. Stantey Leatues, M.A., M.R.S.L.,
Hebrew Lecturer in King’s College, London.
Rev. Josrru Barser Licutroot, M.A.,
Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge; Fellow οἵ
Trinity College, Cambridge; Examining Chaplain to
the Bishop of London.
Rev. ἢ W. Mars,
Professor of Hebrew in University College, London.
Rev. Freperick Meyrick, M.A.,
One of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools; late Fellow
and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford.
Professor Opprrt, of Paris.
Rev. Epwarp Rrepman Oreer, M.A.,
Fellow and Tutor of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury.
Ven. Tuomas Jonnson Ormerod, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Suffolk; late Fellow of Brasenose College,
Oxford.
Rev. Jonn James Stewart Prerowne, B.D.,
Vice-Principal of St. David’s College, Lampeter ; Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich.
Rev. Tuomas 'T'nomason PErowne, B.D.,
Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge ;
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich.
Rev. Henry Wricut Puinxiort, M.A.,
Rector of Staunton-on-Wye, Herefordshire; Rural Dean;
late Student of Christ Church, Oxford.
Rev. Epwarp Hayzs Piumerre, M.A.,
Professor of Divinity in King’s College, London ; Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
Epwarp Srantry Poorr, M.R.A.S.,
South Kensington Museum.
vi
INITIALS.
ἘΠ 5. Ἐ:
ἍΠ Ἴρι, Ἰτς
(ὃς
Gake
ἘΠῚ R.
W's:
AIPA:
Cons:
Cow.
WA, Wi
LIST OF WRITERS.
NAMES.
REGINALD Stuart Poot,
British Museum.
Rev. J. L. Porter, M.A.,
Author of ‘ Handbook of Syria and Palestine,’ and ‘ Five
Years in Damascus.’
Rev. Caries Privcuarp, M.A., F.R.S.,
Hon. Secretary of the ey al “ΠῚ Society ; late
Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Rev. Gzorce Rawson, M.A.,
Camden Professor of Ancient History, Oxford; Bampton
Lecturer for 1859.
Rev. Henry Joun Ross, B.D.,
Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire.
Rev. Witt1am Setwyn, D.D.,
Chaplain in Ordinary i the Queen; Lady Margaret’s Pro-
fessor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Ely.
Rev. Artuur Prenruyn Stantey, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Weolesastical History, and Canon of
Christ Church, Oxford; Deputy Clerk of the Closet ;
Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales;
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London.
Rev. Carvin E. Stowe, D.D.,
Professor of Sacred Ria TEE, Andover, Massachusetts.
Rev. J. P. THompson, D.D.,
New York.
Most Rev. ήσαν THomson, D.D.,
Lord Archbishop of York.
5. P. ΠΕ ΝΘ ΕΗ, BLD.,
Author of ‘An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek
New Testament.’
Rev. H. B. Tristram, M.A., F.L.S.,
Master of Greatham Hospital.
Rev. Joseph Francis Turupp, M.A.,
Vicar of Barrington ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Camb.
Hon. Epwarp T. B. Twisteton, M.A.,
Late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
Rev. Epmunp Venasies, M.A.,
Bonchurch, Isle of Wight.
Rev. Brooxse Foss Wustcort, M.A.,
Assistant Master of Harrow School; late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
Rev. CuristopHer Worpswortn, D.D.,
Canon of Westminster.
γα Anpis Wrieut, M.A.,
Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge ; Hebrew Examiner
in the University of London.
‘MR. MURRAY’S excellent and uniform series,—HNoatish CHURCHMAN,
Each volume price 7s. 6d., bound in cloth, with red edges.
MR. MURRAY’S
STUDENT'S MANUALS,
EDITED FOR THE
MOST PART
By WILLIAM SMITH, LLD,,
EDITOR OF THE BIBLICAL, CLASSICAL, AND LATIN DICTIONARIES,
COMPRISING
I.—HISTORY.
. THE STUDENT’S HUME
THE STUDENT'S ROME
Oo Fe WO he
THE STUDENT’S FRANCE...
. THE STUDENT'S GREECE...
THE STUDENT'S GIBBON ..
This Historica Serres when finished will comprise an Universa. Hisrory,
Ancient and Moprern, SacrepD and SEcuLAR, in a small number of volumes,
each complete in itself, and illustrated by numerous Woodcuis.
For other Historical Manuals in preparation see p. 7.
Il.— GEOGRAPHY.
1. THE STUDENT’S MANUAL OF ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY.. 8
2. THE STUDENT’S MANUAL OF MODERN
GEOGRAPHY 8
IIT.— LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.
. THE STUDENT’S MANUAL or rots ENGLISH LANGUAGE 9
1
2. THE STUDENT’S MANUAL OF ENGLISH LITERATURE 9
go CES LU DENT Se PIN CAM MAT rr. ete ce ws ee 10
ἘΠ ΕΓ ΠΝ. GRMN K GhAMMAR soca τ΄ +. 210
5
“This series of ‘ STUDENT’s MANUALS’ pos- |
sesses several distinctive features which render
them singularly valuable as educational works.
While each volume is, for ordinary purposes, a
complete history of the country to which it |
refers, it also contains a guide to such further |
and more detailed information as the advanced
}
student may desire on particular events or |
. THE STUDENT'S ENGLISH GRAMMAR eee! τὶ ΜΕ,
periods. At the end of each book, sometimes
of each chapter, there are given copious lists of
standard works which constitute the ‘ Autho-
rities’ for a particular period or reign. This
most useful feature seems to us to complete the
great value of the works, giving to them the
character of historical cyclopzdias, as well as
of impartial histories.”— The Museum.
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
2 MR. MURRAY’S STUDENT’S MANUALS.
ie
THE STUDENTS HUME:
A HISTORY OF ENGLAND FROM THE INVASION OF JULIUS CASAR.
BASED ON HUME'S HISTORY.
CORRECTING ITS ERRORS, SUPPLYING ITS OMISSIONS, INCORPORATING THE
RESEARCHES OF RECENT WRITERS, AND CONTINUED
TO THE PRESENT TIME.
With Woodcuts. Post 8vo., 7s. 6d.
This work is designed to supply a long-acknowledged want in our School Literature—a
History oF ENGLAND in a volume of moderate size, for the UppER AND MippLE Forms.
While Hume’s language has been retained, as far as was practicable, his errors have been
corrected, and his deficiencies supplied. The Roman and Saxon periods have been almost
entirely re-written. In the remaining portion of the work very many important correc-
tions and additions have been made from recent historians.
Medal of James, Duke of York.
“The Student's Hume is certainly well done. The additional matter in the form of
Notes and Ilustrations is, in a literary sense, the most remarkable feature. Many im-
portant subjects, constitutional, legal, or social, are thus treated; and, a very useful
plan, the whole authorities of the period are mentioned at its close.” —Spectator.
FOR JUNIOR CLASSES.
DR. WM. SMITH’S SMALLER HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
With Woodeuts. 1l6mo. 3s. 6d.
MR. MURRAY’S STUDENT’S MANUALS. 3
2:
THE STUDENTS FRANCE:
A HISTORY OF FRANCE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SECOND EMPIRE IN 1852.
EDITED BY WM. SMITH, LL.D.
With Woodcuts.
‘“«This History of France is the digested
work of a thorough French scholar, who,
having entered into the spirit of the nation
and its history, knows how to generalize and
knit into one pertinent whole the sequence
of events. Considering the number and
beauty of the illustrations, the price of the
book is really marvellous; for the text in
its seven hundred pages of clear and abun-
|
|
Post 8vo., 7s. 6d.
dant print upon fine paper contains matter
enough to fill in the usual way two hand-
some octayos. Only the enormous demand
for text books of this quality, which sell by
the twenty thousand, makes the cheapness
possible. This Student’s Manual of the His-
tory of France is byas much the daintiest and
cheapest as it is the best work of its kind ac-
cessible to readers of all classes.” —Laaminer.
Barricades at the Porte Saint Antoine, August 27th, 1648, the commencement of the Civil War of the Fronde.
(From an engraving of the time.)
“ Taking ‘ The Student’s France’ and ‘ The Student’s
Hume,’ to which it forms a more immediate com-
panion, we observe, first, that they incorporate, with
judicious comments, the researches of the most recent
historical investigators, not only into the more mo-
dern, but into the most remote periods of the history
of the countries to which they refer. The latest lights
which comparative philology has cast upon the migra-
tions and interminglings of races, are reflected in the
histories of England and France. We know no better
or more trustworthy summary, even for the general
reader, of the early history of Britain and Gaul than
is contained in the first book of these volumes respec-
tively. ‘The ‘Notes and Illustrations’ afford an op-
portunity for discussing illustrative points connected
with the language, the literature, the constitution, or
other peculiarities of each country, which could not
properly be taken up in the narrative of the text.
. Thus, in the ‘Hume,’ we have notes on ‘ Anglo-Saxon
Language and Literature ;’ on ‘Trial by Jury; on
*The Court of Star Chamber;’ the ‘Icon Basiliké,’
&c.: and in the ‘ France,’ on ‘The Feudal System;’
on ‘The Formation of the French Language; on
‘The States-General ;’ and many other recondite and
important subjects. ‘The style of the ‘ France’ is per-
spicuous and dignified, though not wanting in viva-
city. It is not a history of France written from an
English view-point, and designed to flatter the pride
of Englishmen. It is quite catholic in spirit, and
thoroughly sympathetic in tone.
utter absence of flippancy in these books, there is also
thought in every page, which cannot fail to excite
thought in those who study them. What, for ex-
ample, can be truer or more suggestive than the
closing words of ‘The Student’s France ;’—‘ The
French expect, and require, to be governed ; it is the
legitimate boast and pride of Englishmen that they
govern themselves.’ —The Museum.
While there is an,
4 MR. MURRAY’S STUDENT’S MANUALS.
THE STUDENTS GREECE:
A HISTORY OF GREECE FROM
THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE
ROMAN CONQUEST.
WITH CHAPTERS ON THE HISTORY OF LITERATURE AND ART.
BY WM. SMITH, LL.D.
With Woodcuts.
Dr. Wm. Suitu’s GREECE.—‘“ We are
very glad to receive with the welcome
which it deserves, a History of Greece by
Dr. William Smith, a man eminently fit
for the task he has undertaken. This is
to give, in the compass of a small octavo
|
Post 8vo., 7s. 6d.
volume, a readable, interesting, and au-
thentic History of Greece, of sufficient
literary merit to attract the sympathies
of youthful students. We think he has
accomplished this.”—Guardian.
Vale of ‘Tempe.
“We have much satisfaction in bearing
testimony to the excellence of the plan on
which Dr. Wm. Smith has proceeded, and
the careful, scholarlike manner in which
he has carried it out. The great dis-
tinctive feature, however, is the chapters
on Literature and Art. This gives it a
decided advantage over all previous works
of the kind.’—Athenxum.
“Dr. Smith shows himself to be not
only thoroughly acquainted with his sub-
ject, but, what is a much rarer merit,
possessed of that practical skill which is
indispensable to the production of a good
school-book. The logical skill manifested
in the arrangement of this book is only
equalled by the happy tact with which the
attention is kept altve—now by an apt and
striking quotation from some ancient or
modern poet ; now by a characteristic anec-
dote, or by a just and appropriate reflec-
tion, in which the sound judgment and the
enlightened views of the author are une-
quivocally displayed.” —Journal of English
Educution.
FOR JUNIOR CLASSES.
DR. WM. SMITH’S SMALLER HISTORY OF GREECE.
With Woodcuts.
l6mo. 3s. 6d.
THE STUDENTS ROME:
A HISTORY OF ROME FROM THE EARLIEST
TIMES TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMPIRE.
WITH CHAPTERS ON THE HISTORY OF LITERATURE AND ART.
BY DEAN LIDDELL.
With Woodcuts.
«¢This History is adapted to the purpose
of readers who desire a knowledge of the
‘altered aspect which Roman history has
assumed,’ By means of a skilfully arranged
structure, not only the different periods of
the history, but their various subdivisions,
are presented as distinct parts, yet each
Post 8vo., 7s. 6d.
having a relation to a larger whole. The
general treatment is also judicious. The
alleged events, for instance, of the early
period are rapidly touched, while the
social, political, and constitutional arrange-
ments are fully expounded.”—Spectator.
View of the Campagna,
*« Dean Liddell’s Rome 1s a pre-eminently
useful book. To the youthful student, to
the man who cannot read many volumes,
we should commend it as the one history
which will convey the latest views and
most extensive information. The style is
simple, clear, and explanatory. . . . .
Our opinion is, that there is no other work
at present existing which so ably supplies
a History of Rome suited to the wants of
general readers of the present day,’’—
Blackwood.
FOR JUNIOR CLASSES.
DR. WM. SMITH’S SMALLER HISTORY OF ROME.
With Woodcuts.
l6mo. 3s. 6d.
6 MR. MURRAY’S STUDENT’S MANUALS.
THE STUDENTS GIBBON:
A HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
AN EPITOME OF GIBBON’S HISTORY.
INCORPORATING THE RESEARCHES OF RECENT HISTORIANS.
BY Wii. SMITH, LL.D.
With Woodcuts. Post 8vo., 7s. 6d. Black cloth, red edges.
| “ Gibbon’s work centains nearly a complete history of the world for a period of more
than twelve centuries, from the time of the Antonines to the capture of Constantinople
by the Turks in 1453. Since the history of all ancient nations ends in that of Rome,
and the history of the modern states of Europe springs out of the Roman Empire, the
youthful historical student, after making himself acquainted with the leading facts in the
histories of Greece, Rome, and England, cannot employ his time more profitably than
in mastering the history of the vast period comprehended in Gibbon’s Work.’—PREFACE.
Caravansary at Prusa (Boursa), the capital of the Ottoman Turks in Asia.
“* The Student's Gibbon is a single volume, with one hundred well-chosen engravings,
the chief alterations being the omission of offensive antichristian sneers, and the in-
corporation of important notes in the body of the text. But Dr. Smith has preserved
the main features of the great historian’s work.’—Guardian.
MR. MURRAY’S
HISTORICAL MANUALS,
FORMING
AN UNIVERSAL. HISTORY,
FROM THE CREATION TO THE PRESENT TIME.
I.—ANCIENT AND MEDIAVAL HISTORY.
In Preparation.
1. THE STUDENT’S SCRIPTURE HISTORY, from the Creation
of the World to the Destruction of Jerusalem, a.p. 70. By PHinip Surra, B.A.
[In the Press.
2. THE STUDENT’S ANCIENT HISTORY, comprising the His-
tory of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Phcenicia, Media, and Persia.
3. THE STUDENT’S ROMAN EMPIRE, from the Establishment
of the Empire to the Accession of Commodus, A.D. 180, connecting Liddell’s
Rome and the Student’s Gibbon.
The above three Works, together with Smith’s Greece, Liddell’s Rome, and the
Student’s Gibbon, will contain the Ancient and Medieval portions of the Series.
Though each Work is complete in itself, the Six Volumes will present a continuous
UniversaL Hisrory, Sacred and Secular, from the Creation to the Capture of
Constantinople by the Turks, a.p. 1435.
II.— MODERN HISTORY.
In preparation,
THE STUDENTS HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE, and
other separate Histories shortly to be announced, forming, with ‘ The Student’s
Hume’ and ‘The Student’s France, a complete Modern History in Six
Volumes. Thus the Entire History of the World will be completed in
Twelve Volumes, each containing as much matter as is given in two ordinary
octavo volumes.
8 MR. MURRAY’S STUDENT’S MANUALS.
THE STUDENT’S MANUAL
ANCIENT GHOGRAPHY.
By Rev. W. L. BEVAN, M.A.
Epvitep sy WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D.
A New and Cheaper Edition, with 250 Woodcuts, Post 8vo., 7s. 6d.
Ruins of Palmyra,
This Manual, which has been introduced into Eton and other public schools, presents in a
systematic form and in a moderate compass the most important results embodied in the ‘ Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Geography.’ The original work contains a great mass of information derived
from the researches of modern travellers and scholars, which have not yet been made available for
the purposes of instruction in our colleges and schools.
Besides adapting the larger work for a different class of readers, many valuable additions have
been made, of which the most important are :—
1. A history of Geography in Antiquity, containing an account of the views of the Hebrews, as
well as of the Greeks and Romans, illustrated by maps of the world as known to the poets,
historians, and geographers.
2. A full account of Scriptural Geography.
3. Numerous quotations from the Greek and Roman poets, which either illustrate or are
illustrated by the statements in the text.
Great pains have been taken to make the book as interesting as the nature of the subject would
allow, The tedium naturally produced by an enumeration of political boundaries and topo-
graphical notices is relieved by historical and ethnographical discussions, while the numerous maps,
plans, and other illustrations, give life and reality to the descriptions, The Retreat of the Ten
Thousand Greeks, the Expedition of Alexander the Great, and similar subjects, are discussed and
explained, It has been an especial object to supply information on all points required by the
upper classes in the public schools, and by students in the universities.
In Preparation.
THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF MODERN GEOGRAPHY.
By Rev. W. L. BEVAN, M.A.
παν By WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D.
MR. sine aca 5 ἘΠ ΕΤΜΧΕΙΝ TS ἘΠ ΓΕΕΙΡῚ 9
THE STUDENT'S MANUAL
OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
By GEORGE
P. MARSH.
Epirep, with ADDITIONS AND Notes, By Wu. SMITH, LL.D.
Post 8vo.,
7s. 6d.
¢The work which Dr. Smith has edited
is one of real and acknowledged merit,
and likely to meet with a wider reception
from his hands than in its original form.
He has substituted for Mr. Marsh’s two |
introductory chapters, two of his own,
containing a compact yet distinct sum- |
mary of what is to be found in the best |
writers, on the origin, affinities, and ele-
ments of the English language. Through-
out the rest of the work, he has simply
performed the duties of editor, It appears |
he had projected and commenced a work
on the history of the English language |
in conjunction with the late Dr. Donald-
son, so that he was the better prepared |
for the task he has now executed. Much
curious and useful information is given
at the end of different lectures, including
interesting philological remarks culled
from various sources, portions of Anglo- |
Saxon grammar, and explanations of
prefixes and affixes, besides illustrative
passages from old writers, which are foot-
notes in Mr. Marsh’s work. Dr. Smith
has produced a manual of great utility.’
—Athenceum.
wo
‘ Another new volume to Mr. Murray’s
series of Students’ Manuals. The basis
of the work is a series of lectures delivered
in the autumn of 1858, at Columbia Col-
lege, New York, and it forms a course
| of what the author calls post-graduate
lectures, which were intended to excite
more general interest among educated
men and women in the history and cha-
racter of their native tongue. Just such
a work had been devised by Dr. Smith,
in conjunction with the late Dr. Donald-
son; but on the death of the latter, Dr.
Smith’s portion was laid aside till he saw
Mr. Marsh’s lectures. To these he has
now substituted two new first chapters
| on the origin, affinities, and constituent
elements of the English language, in order
to adapt the work more to the wants of
students for the India Civil Service, and
for the Universities. ‘The other altera-
tions which the editor has made in Mr.
Marsh’s lectures are but few, and those
only such as are likely to adapt the work
to the English, rather than to the Saxon
descendants of the world.’ — Hnglish
Journal of Education.
THE STUDENT 5. MANUAL
ENGLISH LITERATURE.
By THe tate THOMAS
SHAW, M.A.
A New Edition, entirely re-written by the Author.
EpITED, WITH ADDITIONS AND Nortrs, sy Wu. SMITH, LL.D.
Post 8vo., 7s. 6d.
10 MR. MURRAY’S STUDENT’S MANUALS.
ie
THE STUDENT'S GREEK GRAMMAR, .
GREEK AND LATIN GRAMMARS,
FOR THE UPPER FORMS IN SCHOOLS.
BY DR. GEORGE CURTIUS,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIC.
TRANSLATED UNDER THE SANCTION AND REVISION OF THE AUTHOR.
EDITED BY DR. WM. SMITH.
Post 8vo.
“ All that refers to the accidence and ety- |
mology is of the highest excellence, and there |
is no Greek Grammar in existence which in so |
small a compass contains so much valuable and |
suggestive information. The English transla- |
tion is a most accurate rendering of the fifth |
7s. θα.
German edition, and we hope that in this country
it may ere long be adopted as the standard
Greek Grammar, a position which it has already
acquired in most of the schools of continental
Europe. — The Museum.
2).
THE STUDENT'S LATIN GRAMMAR,
FOR THE UPPER FORMS IN SCHOOLS.
BY WM. SMITH, LL.D.,
CLASSICAL EXAMINER IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
Post 8vo.
‘This grammar is intended and well calen-
lated to occupy an intermediate position between
the large treatises of Zumpt and Madvig, and
the numerous elementary school grammars pre- |
valent amongst us. There are very few students
who will require more information than is here
supplied; and yet, by a skilful arrangement of |
the materials and typography, the volume is
reduced to a very convenient size and form for
practical use. The editor’s good sense is visible
throughout. When he cannot consult the
ΟῚ
a.
7s. 6d.
| requirements of strictly scientific method, or
| introduce modern improvements of nomencla-
| ture without doing such violence to established
usage as to cause serious practical inconvenience,
he refrains. At the same time he is not so
wedded to existing customs as to retain any-
thing positively erroneous, which the student
| must afterwards unlearn. Some useful remarks
| are added on the characteristic styles of the chief
| prose writers, and the appendix on the alphabet
| is full of suggestive information,”’— Atheneum.
In Preparation.
THE STUDENT’S ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
----ἰςος---
FOR JUNIOR CLASSES,
Unirorm witH Dr. WinitaAmM Smrry’s ΡΕΙΝΟΙΡΙΑ LATINA.
1
CURTIUS’S SMALLER GREEK GRAMMAR.
Abridged from the above Work,
)
SMITH’S SMALLER
9
Oe
12mo, ~ 3s. 6d.
‘LATIN GRAMMAR.
Abridged from the above Work,
12mo. 3s. 6d.
In Preparation.
i
A SMALLER ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
DR. WILLIAM SMITH’S DICTIONARIES. 11
“Dr. Wm. Smith’s Dictionaries form an important element in our modern English
scholarship. Probably no modern books have done so much to extend a knowledge
of the researches and conclusions of the learned men of our time in the field of
antiquity.
If the Dictionaries to come are as well executed as their predecessors,
the longer Dr. Smith continues to publish the better ordinary scholars will be
pleased.” —Guardian.
DR. WILLIAM SMITH’S
DELO EPONA RIES.
COMPRISING :—
PAGE
ΠῚ ΠΡ CG An YEO TE BIBER oy) Ys oa ee 12
2. DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES 13
3. DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN BIOGRAPHY
AND MYTHOLOGY
19
4. DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ΘΕΟΘΝΑΡΗΥ.. 18
5. A CLASSICAL DICTIONARY ror toe HIGHER FORMS.. 14
6: a> SMATMER CLASSICAL DICTIONARY τς «14
7. A SMALLER DICTIONARY OF ANTIQUITIES.. .. .. 14
8. A LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY Sy ASSES 02 ΕΘΗ ΟΣ ἘΝ 5
9. A SMALLER LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY .. .. .. 15
10 A NcENGDISH-DATINGDIOTTIONARY: “sites oe 10
From the Quarterly Review.
.
«‘The British Classical Public has long
ago delivered a unanimous verdict in favour
of Dr. Wm, Smith’s Dictionaries, and it
would be superfluous to commend in detail
a series of works to which every scholar
pays the tribute of habitual and constant
reference. They are as complete and cri-
tical a digest of the whole range of sub-
jects which they treat as could reasonably
be expected from even the strong phalanx
of able contributors which the learned
and accomplished editor has united for
his undertaking, and will long remain
the best and completest works on the
important body of subjects which they
embrace.”
12 DR. WILLIAM SMITH’S DICTIONARIES.
A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
COMPRISING
ITS ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND
NATURAL HISTORY.
BY VARIOUS WRITERS.
EDITED BY WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D.
With Illustrations, 3 vols. medium 8vo., £5 ds.
The object of this Work is to elucidate the Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and
Natural History of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha; and not to
explain systems of theology, or discuss points of controversial divinity. It has seemed,
however, necessary in a ‘Dictionary of the Bible’ to give a full account of the Book,
both as a whole and in its separate parts.
Accordingly, articles are inserted, not only
upon the general subject, such as ‘ Bible,’ ‘ Apocrypha,’ and ‘Canon,’ and upon the
chief ancient versions, as ‘Septuagint,’ and ‘ Vulgate,’ but also upon each of the
separate books.
“The work reflects the highest character upon its
promoters, and imperatively demands a place upon
the study-table of every clergyman and of every
thoughtful and intelligent student of the Bible. It
must always remain in itself a most serviceable
library of reference, and a standing monument of the
learning, piety, and ability of our Anglican theolo-
gians.”—Church of England Monthly Review.
“ By such a work as this, a knowledge of the Bible
is brought within easy reach of all commonly well
educated persons, and every man of intelligence may
become his own commentator. We are confident
that the study of the Bible will gain thereby in
fullness and exactitude, in interest and effectiveness.
An eminent service is rendered to Christianity itself
when such a mass of Christian learning is thus popu-
larized—when, to use the language of a thoughtful
contemporary, such a store of gold is drawn out of
distant and inaccessible mines and converted into
current coin for the use of the Christian world.”—
Times.
“The work indicates a wide range of investigation,
a thorough acquaintance with the subjects treated,
as well as an appreciation of what the student of the
Bible needs. It is more thorough and complete than
any previous dictionary of the kind, and will add
greatly to the interest and profit in studying the
Bible, both for the student of theology and for all
others who may wish to avail themselves of the best
facilities for that study.” —American Bibliotheca Sacra.
In Preparation.
AN HISTORICAL ATLAS OF BIBLICAL GEOGRAPHY.
DR. WILLIAM SMITH’S DICTIONARIES. 13
A COMPLETE
ENCYCLOPAIDIA OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY.
EDITED BY DR. WM. SMITH.
FOR SCHOLARS.
1. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
Second Edition, revised and enlarged, illustrated by 500 Engravings on Wood.
One Volume, Medium 8vo. 21. 2s. cloth lettered.
2. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology. Illustrated by 564 Engravings on Wood. Three Volumes, Medium
8vo. δί. 15s. 6d. cloth lettered.
3. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.
Illustrated by 4 Maps and 534 Enegravings on Wood. Two Volumes, Medium
8vo. 4. cloth lettered.
Ruins of the Olympieium at Athens.
; In Preparation. :
AN ATLAS OF ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY.
Forming a Companion Work to the ‘ Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.’
By WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D.
4to.
14 DR. WILLIAM SMITH’S DICTIONARIES.
ead
FOR THE HIGHER FORMS.
DR. WM. SMITH’S CLASSICAL DICTIONARIES. |
A CLASSICAL DICTIONARY OF MYTHOLOGY,
BIOGRAPHY, AND GEOGRAPHY. |
ABRIDGED FROM THE LARGER WORKS.
With 750 Illustrations. [832 pp.] 8vo. 18s.
“The great progress which classical studies have made in Europe, and more especially in Germany, during
the present century, has superseded most of the works usually employed in the elucidation of the Greek and
Roman writers. It had long been felt by our best scholars and teachers that something better was required
than we yet possessed in the English language for illustrating the Antiquities, Literature, Mythology, and
Geography of the Ancient Writers, and for enabling a diligent student to read them in the most profitable
manner. It is invidious for an author to speak of the defects of his predecessors; but it may safely be said \ a
that Lempriere’s work, which originally contained the most serious mistakes, has long since become obsolete ;
and that, since the time it was compiled, we have attained to more correct knowledge on a vast number of |
subjects comprised in that work. The present Dictionary is designed chiefly to elucidate the Greek and |
Roman writers usually read in schools; but at the same time it has not been considered expedient to omit any ᾿
proper names connected with classical antiquity, of which it is expected that some knowledge ought to be
possessed by every person who aspires to a liberal education.’”—PREFACE.
FOR THE LOWER FORMS.
A SMALLER CLASSICAL DICTIONARY,
ABRIDGED FROM THE ABOVE WORK.
With 200. Woodcuts. Crown 8vo., 75. 6d.
A SMALLER DICTIONARY OF ANTIQUITIES.
With 200 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d.
Hercules and Bull. ; Greek Soldier.
---
a gh te θεῖ ΠΕΣ
Classical Dictionary. Dictionary of Antiquities.
DR. WM. SMITH’S LATIN DICTIONARIES. 15
DR. WM. SMITH’S LATIN DICTIONARIES.
A LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY,
BASED UPON THE WORKS OF FORCELLINI AND FREUND.
One Volume [1210 pp.], Medium 8vo., 21s.
‘Passing from the etymological department, in word in question, the editor traces out all the derived
which Dr. Smith’s Dictionary stands quite alone, we meanings in the natural order of their development,
find its superiority in other points equally decided, giving, under each, instances of their occurrence in
though this may not be so striking to a casual Latin authors... ..
observer. The interpretation of words is conducted ‘Dr. Smith’s Dictionary is a worthy companion to
with the same editorial ability as the investigation of the works he has edited; and we have no doubt it
their etymology, combining accuracy of definition will be even more extensively used than they, because
with excellence of arrangement, and completeness in | its bulk and price are such as to render it more acces-
the exhibition and illustration of the various shades sible. In point of cheapness, as well as more essential
of meaning, with a freedom from needless distinction | qualities, it has the advantage of all other Latin
and redundancy of detail. After stating in clear and Dictionaries.’—Atheneum.
precise language the radical notion attached to the
DB
A SMALLER LATIN-ENGLISH
DICTIONARY.
ABRIDGED FROM THE ABOVE WORK.
One Volume [650 pp.], square 12mo., 7s. 6d.
‘Dr. Smith’s “Smaller Latin-English Dictionary” | authorities; and the manner in which the pupil’s
is designed for the use of the younger classes in attention is directed to the use of etymology. In
schools. Its two great features are the order of | form it is like the common Entick’s; in system,
exhibiting the meaning of words, which shows first completeness, and all the comprehensiveness and
the primitive and then the figurative sense, suffi- | refinements of modern scholarship, it far surpasses
ciently illustrated by comment and quotation of that very useful book.’—Spectator. Ἶ
5
ΠῚ
A LATIN-ENGLISH VOCABULARY
FOR BEGINNERS.
COMPREHENDING
I. A LATIN-ENGLISH VOCABULARY ARRANGED ACCORDING TO SUBJECTS.
Il. A Larry-ENGLIsH VOCABULARY ARRANGED ACCORDING TO ETYMOLOGY.
Ill. A First Larry-ENGLIisH DICTIONARY TO PH&DRUS, CORNELIUS NEPOS, AND
CSAR’S GALLIC WAR.
12mo. 3s. 6d.
This Work is designed to assist boys in acquiring a copious vocabulary of the Latin language, and in
learning the derivation and formation of Latin words.
In Preparation.
UNIFORM WITH THE LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARIES. Μ
AN ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY.
By Wix1aM Suita, LL.D., and THeopumus D. Harr, M.A.
8vo. and 12mo,
16 _ DR. WM. SMITH’S LATIN COURSE.
DR. WM. SMITH’S LATIN COURSE. -
The following Series, undertaken with the view of facilitating the study of the Latin
language, is the result of many years’ practical teaching, and seeks to combine the
advantages of the older and more modern methods of instruction.
PRINCIPIA LATINA, Pare I.
A FIRST LATIN COURSE.
CONTAINING
A GRAMMAR, DELECTUS, EXERCISE-BOOK, AND VOCABULARIES.
12mo. 3s. 6d.
‘The main object of this work is to enable a | gradually a stock of useful words. It contains
Beginner to fix the Declensions and Conjugations Grammar, Delectus, and Exercise-book, with Voca-
thoroughly in his memory, to learn their usage by bularies, and consequently presents in one book all
constructing simple sentences as soon as he com- that the pupil will require for some time in his study
mences the study of the language, and to accumulate of the language.
(A Key to the above may be had, by Teachers only, on application to the Author or Publisher.)
PRINCIPIA LATINA, Parr IL.
A READING-BOOK.
CONTAINING
FABLES, ANECDOTES, MYTHOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, ROMAN ANTIQUITIES, AND HISTORY.
With Notes and a Dictionary. 12mo. 3s. 6d.
The object of this work is to furnish a Latin | It is recommended that this work should be used
Reading-book suitable for Beginners, sufficient in | tn conjunction with the First Part of the ‘ Principia
quantity while interesting and instructive in matter, | Latina,’ and not be postponed till the pupil has
so as to prepare them to read Cesar or any other finished the latter. As soon as he has learnt tho-
classical author with advantage and profit. It is | roughly the Declensions and Conjugations, and can
believed that it will not only prove interesting translate the simplest sentences, it is important to
and intelligible to young people, but will serve diversify the somewhat dry and tedious work of the
as an introduction to a knowledge of Ancient Delectus and Exercise-book, by giving him connected
Mythology and Geography, of Roman History and passages containing interesting and instructive
Antiquities. matter.
PRINCIPIA LATINA, Par IIL
LATIN POETRY-BOOK.
CONTAINING
1. EASY HEXAMETERS AND PENTAMETERS. 2. ECLOGA OVIDIAN®.
3. PROSODY AND METRE. 4. FIRST LATIN VERSE-BOOK.
12mo, 3s. 6d.
This Work contains. a Poetical Reading-book suit- | works; and there can be little doubt that a pupil who
able for Beginners, the chief laws of Latin Prosody, has mastered the book will have been well grounded
with an explanation of the structure of the Hexameter | in Latin verse, and will thus be able to enter upon
and Pentameter Verse, and a first Latin Verse-book. | the study of Virgil and Ovid with greater advan-
It thus presents, in a single volume of moderate size, | tage than if he had attempted to read those authors
subjects usually distributed over two or more separate | without a similar preparatory training.
(A Key to the Verse-book may be obtained, gratis, by Teachers only, on application to the Author or Publisher.)
PRINCIPIA LATINA, Parr IV.
LATIN PROSE COMPOSITION.
° CONTAINING
THE RULES OF SYNTAX, WITH COPIOUS EXAMPLES, EXPLANATIONS OF SYNONYMS,
AND A SYSTEMATIC COURSE OF EXERCISES ON THE SYNTAX.
12mo. 3s. 6d.
(A Key to the Latin Exercises may be obtained, gratis, by Teachers only, on application to the Author or Publisher.)
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
LONDON: PRINTED BY W, CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, AND CHAKING CROSS,
Pf wre
Κῶ
UNIVERSITY OF TORON
LIBRARY
SET
10/1
Do not
remove
)
τὸ
$
ΓΕΡῸ eS
from this \\_
Pocket.
song
‘smith, Mirtian Le
Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. ‘‘ Ref. Index File.”’
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
“3 j
ε
? és
. Author
σύν ©
‘ae &
Title -.....
pes ἢ
dred
te ΠΣ ἘΝ
ΠΕ ΜΠ i) bh
F i 3 ay; iy! Hyde, !
ΤΥ
κυ
ΤΗΣ
ΉΣΜ
ΠΝ}
apy ay ea
ΜῊ ΝΕ Υ̓
πῇ σπρο, Ῥ
os iN SST at 7 ν
κὰν δ Beirne ‘ae
ὦ " \ RR.
ii het
t
tpt
op ἡ
nate!
Ere
‘oe See Se \
Ssh Seas
Sat aa
; 1 ἢ
ὌΝ.
.-. Sr ne .
ae Se, Se Se
Ἂς τὰν
ohn tee τον τὶς το te
ὅν ἡ
SS
=r.
=
hy fone
Rona “a,
ny
“ace "tony, tan ten Sone ἐς awe
er Tony,
nee sow ως
Nex Oe
a noe
tent
Ὡπ
ὩΣ
a
on, tee
soto
τον
bop tone
=
Ἄν τὰς
fos
mr
or
as ton,
=
=
ne
Rafe
τ org De
a
Ἔξ ας ys wWiersiai
“rat
5 on am Tao ἢ
ts Poe
~ νὰ
S39
τ ? Hye, ς, = 5 atone
_
τος στ στ ea ME ἐατέον ig τῆς πλαις
τὸ “οὶ --
ἐν
er,
Ὡς
ie
hens ἴω
=
7
eee,
Noy
in
=
A
Le
bey
lee Treg Youy, fomy tow Ὧν
~ bow
ΩΣ
Ἂς
ον
μας
—
<
tes
ων
Ὡς
Ὡς Ὡς
=
—
Σ
Ὡς
— a
PEER
ieee et
-Ἔ σὶ — --
ἢ ἢ}
ἢ ἢ yal re ii
3 ν᾽ I, “I
ΗΝ
Sti Trp sty! sy! M1!
Hy sy Hyd) ris tty! 4
ἥ Ae
—
Ὡς
μων
~
oe =
; Y, ee ws
rae
ie
ih HSU ΜΗ
ἢ ΠΝ
f Siti prey γε
eerie (itr
τ
[Ὁ
Γέ
δ
τ
Ὥς
Tem, te
τοὶ
~
Ὡν
he,
=
=
=
how
—
ἊΣ
=
uw
᾿ λον =
= Ὡς Ὡς ως i ἃς
Ὧν αν πη ony ting, yeep tony ing heme Ae τον τς Ἵ,
Ἂν ἸΘῪ phony, Sng Bay oy, oy σι τς. P Sag! π
δι τύ τ τς.
— rey tow, her
— =
op Sr eee - πῆ τσ πο 8 GASES Eee eS
+ a int, oh;
1 Saale
ne Ἢ Tome fps
ἐφ asia ee
a ny --
.
Law
—— τἰς hs
ἘΞ ἘΞ τ
—
ὩΣ
Ὡς
—
hen
an ee
ln
=
hey, Saw
ey Sy bss
oe hey.
ae om
cts
ik ΠῚ
ben Hoss en ten dees Bon ne ROE
~
eo
Cot Sens
istry tae ἢ
! ΠΗ ἢ
ΠΥ ay
τὰς
---
5 yp malay Ξ ἘΠ ΡΗ ΠΝ ἊΝ
Aan 3 ἢ ase ἢ
ΕἸ!
Re
Ϊ i diss. ἢ HA fe
Pri ag, Cn τὸ Ring hl
SSS
f γ΄
᾿
ΠΝ ΠΝ a
t if i a oa
ht ΠΝ
TALS
Ὁ
3
no
aE
a
ΤῸΝ
cA
=
ies
ΓΑΙ
ΠΩΣ
png ty
hag
pn ae ee Se ee "Ὁ
τ reece tyre ΜῊ
Viydyby bed Od 4y if poppies
Lay Ae nt ty ale
ATH TAT TA TH te eal fee eae
pee Ct ke AES + g ‘
Taare |
fen ee ee ee ee ee ee
ree yg PD
' ῃ a gy’
! }
; Hoole. {
AAAI ATA ἜΠΗ ΠΣ ΤΉΝ a
ΠΗ ee
Raasitnas τ
ee eet ae eS νὰ -α- ὦ “Ὁ πον
Dede t Deli
rt
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11